[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 87 (Thursday, June 10, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4789-S4836]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL OF EPA RULE--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, during the Memorial Day recess, we 
received two pieces of alarming news that should inform the work of 
every Member in this Chamber. First, we learned the national debt has 
surpassed $13 trillion in total, and then shortly after that, we 
learned that nearly all the jobs that were added in May came from 
temporary census positions. The private sector created just 41,000 jobs 
last month--many fewer than expected and certainly a far cry from the 
pace that will allow us to dig out from under this economic recession.
  I think we all recognize there is no question that our recovery is 
still fragile--very much in doubt. It is also quite clear it will take 
some time for millions of unemployed Americans to find their jobs and 
get back on their feet again. These tough facts should encourage us to 
focus on these policies that create jobs, that reduce our debt, and at 
the same time should encourage us to guard against policies that fail 
in either or both of those areas.
  Madam President, we are here today to debate a policy that works 
against both of those goals--the Environmental Protection Agency's 
effort to impose economy-wide climate regulations under the Clean Air 
Act. The sweeping powers being pursued by the EPA are the worst 
possible option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and there is 
broad bipartisan agreement that this approach would forgo all of the 
benefits, all of the protections that are possible through legislation. 
It would reduce emissions at an unreasonably high cost and through an 
unnecessarily bureaucratic process. It would amount to an unprecedented 
power grab, ceding Congress's responsibilities to unelected 
bureaucrats, and move a very important debate, a critical debate, from 
our open halls to behind an agency's closed doors.
  This approach should have been, could have been taken off the table 
long ago. Yet because the EPA is determined to move forward 
aggressively and because neither Congress nor the administration has 
acted to stop them, it is now in the process of becoming our Nation's 
de facto energy and climate policy.
  Because this is our worst option to reduce emissions and Congress 
needs time to develop a more appropriate solution, I have introduced a 
resolution of disapproval--I introduced this back in January--to halt 
the EPA's regulations. My resolution does not affect the science behind 
the endangerment finding, but it will prevent the finding from being 
enforced through economy-wide regulations.
  Forty other Senators here in this body have joined me and are 
cosponsors of this effort. Our resolution has garnered significant 
support among the American people, and from the day it was introduced, 
we have had individuals and we have had groups and organizations from 
all across the country that have expressed their support and their 
appreciation. It really is a tremendous coalition, a significant 
coalition from farmers and manufacturers, to small business owners, to 
fish processors. There are more than 530 stakeholder groups that have 
endorsed our resolution's passage, and I will tell you, when you look 
at some of those groups, you would not put them in a category where you 
would say: Well, this is an entity that is standing up to fight, to 
push back against the EPA. But I will suggest to you that the broad 
range of stakeholders is really quite impressive.
  Despite that support, I will still be the first to admit that we face 
an uphill battle. We oppose the EPA's regulations because of their 
costs, most definitely. But, unfortunately, that seems to be precisely 
why some Senators have gone out front to support them, hoping these 
economic costs will be so onerous that it will force us here in the 
Congress, here in the Senate, to adopt legislation we otherwise 
wouldn't move to do.
  This has been an interesting, sometimes difficult and contentious 
several months as we have moved forward with this resolution of 
disapproval. Personal attacks have been directed at supporters of this 
resolution in an effort, I think, to intimidate others from adding 
their names.
  The EPA Administrator has, somewhat incredibly, suggested our 
resolution was somehow related to the oilspill that is ongoing in the 
gulf. Some have even claimed the resolution is a bailout for the oil 
companies and are trying to make sure we don't let another crisis go to 
waste--in other individuals' terms--in their efforts to pass sweeping 
cap-and-trade measures. I would suggest that the only similarity I see 
between the spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the EPA's regulations is 
that both of these are unmitigated disasters. One is happening now; the 
other one is waiting in the wings if Congress fails to adopt this 
resolution.
  This decision--where we are today here in the Senate debating this 
resolution of disapproval--ultimately boils down to four substantive 
factors. The first one is the inappropriateness of the Clean Air Act 
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The second is the likelihood 
that the courts will strike down the tailoring rule. Then we also have 
the lack of economic analysis from the EPA, which is stunning--that we 
do not have a better sense in terms of what the economic impact of 
these regulations will be. Then finally and certainly above all else is 
the undisputed fact that climate policy should be written here in 
Congress. It is not just Lisa Murkowski who says that, and it is not 
just the other 40 Senators who have signed on as cosponsors to this 
resolution of disapproval; it is everyone from the President, to the 
Administrator of the EPA, to colleagues on the House side who have said 
time and time again that it should be the Congress, it should be those 
of us who are elected Members of this body who set the policy of this 
country and not the unelected bureaucrats within an agency.
  I would like to speak to each of these four factors in a little 
greater detail, so I will start by examining why the Clean Air Act is 
such an awful choice for reducing these emissions. I have explained 
this many times before, so I will reiterate two main points here--first 
is the way these regulations are carried out.
  You have command-and-control directives that are issued by the 
government that affect every aspect of our lives, rather than market-
based decisions made by consumers and businesses. I wish to reinforce 
that, the fact that these are directives that will impact every aspect 
of our lives.
  When we were debating health care reform here on this floor not too 
many months ago, it was repeated time and time again that it was so 
important we get this right because health care reform will impact one-
sixth of our economy. Well, I would suggest to you that when we are 
talking about climate policy, that is something which is going to 
impact every aspect--100 percent--of our economy.
  The system imposed by the EPA will entail millions of permit 
decisions--millions of permit decisions--by midlevel EPA employees, 
without effective recourse, and it will leave regulated entities with 
very little flexibility to comply.
  Another reason the Clean Air Act is extremely complicated for 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions: the Clean Air Act's explicit 
regulatory thresholds. They absolutely put an exclamation mark on why 
this law is such a poor choice for addressing climate change.
  Under the Clean Air Act, if you emit more than 100 or 250 tons of a 
pollutant each year, you must acquire a Federal air permit. These 
relatively low limits

[[Page S4790]]

make sense for conventional air pollutants that are emitted in small 
quantities, but they become wildly problematic when dealing with a 
substance emitted in huge volumes through nearly every form of 
commerce, such as carbon dioxide is.
  So the question needs to be asked, then, how big is this new 
regulatory act we are talking about? The EPA recently projected that 
some 6.1 million sources could be required to obtain new title V 
operating permits. Under the current regulations, the EPA is dealing 
with about 15,000. So the EPA would now be charged with moving up 
dramatically from regulating and issuing about 15,000 title V operating 
permits to some 6.1 million permits. Whom does this include? It would 
include millions of residential buildings, small businesses, schools, 
hospitals, and restaurants found in every town in America.
  Over time, the EPA's approach would increase their regulation by an 
order of magnitude, and the consequences would be just as enormous. And 
no one is more aware of this very uncomfortable fact than the EPA 
itself. They know they can't go from the 15,000 permits they currently 
deal with on an annual basis up to 6.1 million permits. That is why the 
Agency has attempted to very dramatically increase the threshold for 
greenhouse gases in its tailoring rule. They are unhappy with the plain 
language, the very direct language of the Clean Air Act. The Agency 
plans to lift its limits up to 1,000 times higher than Congress has 
directed.
  So what you have is a situation where the EPA has simply not accepted 
that the Clean Air Act is not structured for this task, and instead 
they have attempted to make it so by ignoring the plain language--the 
plain language that says you have to regulate at 100 or 250 tons per 
year. They are effectively unilaterally amending the Clean Air Act.
  Equally astounding is that by temporarily relieving part of a 
permitting burden, the EPA is claiming that consumers and businesses--
the people who purchase and the people who use the energy--will face no 
economic impact, which is incredible to believe.
  I ask my colleagues to think about the logic behind the tailoring 
rule. The EPA is asking us to accept that while greenhouse gases are 
not in the Clean Air Act, the Congress clearly intended them to be 
regulated under it. At the same time, we are expected to believe that 
while explicit regulatory thresholds are in the act, Congress meant for 
the EPA to ignore them. Well, Madam President, I would suggest to you 
that is a pretty thin read, and it becomes even thinner when you 
consider the changes that are made between the tailoring rule that was 
proposed just last year and then the final rulemaking that was issued 
just last month.
  In last year's draft, what you saw was the EPA planning to ratchet 
down to the Clean Air Act's actual threshold levels--to get down to the 
250 tons per year--and to put that into effect over the course of the 
next 5 years. Now the EPA is suggesting that it may exempt entire 
sectors and never even reach the statutory limits. Think about it. What 
happens then? That is when the lawsuits pop up. This is not going to 
provide the level of certainty I think those in business are seeking. 
What you will see is lawsuits as some sectors and some sources are 
regulated while others are not. And I would suggest that difference 
between the tailoring proposal from last year and where we are now is 
driven not by the law but by fear of the political backlash out there--
the outrage from people all over the country in terms of the negative 
economic impact to them and their families and their communities.
  That is why it is tough to find an impartial legal expert who 
believes this tailoring rule will actually hold up in court. Consider a 
speech given last year by Judge David Tatel of the DC Circuit Court of 
Appeals. This was a speech on how the EPA can avoid being sued over its 
rulemakings. Judge Tatel said:

       . . . whether or not agencies value neutral principles of 
     administrative law, courts do, and they will strike down 
     agency action that violates those principles--whatever the 
     President's party, however popular the administration, and no 
     matter how advisable the initiative.

  Those were the comments from a DC Circuit judge specifically on this 
issue as to how the EPA avoids lawsuits.
  Let me move to the third area of concern I have with EPA moving to 
regulate in the area of greenhouse gas emissions--the economic 
consequences of EPA regulation. We have to ask the question: What 
exactly are those consequences? Believe it or not, at this point in 
time we still do not know because the EPA has refused to provide 
projections of the economic impacts. In the various rulemakings out 
there, the Agency has engaged in something of a shell game. They are 
either hiding or they are simply not considering the economic cost.
  The EPA has also ignored requests from Members of Congress. I have 
asked them, and other Members of Congress have asked, to conduct this 
very important analysis, but to this day the Agency still has not 
provided anything close to a full projection of the economic impact its 
economy-wide climate regulations will have.
  I guess there were a couple of reasons. The EPA either has no cost 
estimates or they know they are too astronomical to calculate, and they 
do not want them released. My staff has had numerous briefings with EPA 
officials, and they have been told essentially that we will not know 
how much these regulations cost until the best available control 
technologies are imposed on the regulated entities; that is, until the 
EPA figures out how to deal with what it signed itself up for.
  The problem is, the best available control technologies remain 
completely undefined at this point. It could mean efficiency 
improvements, expensive add-on technologies, or even fuel-switching 
requirements. Over time, the EPA would have very little choice but to 
impose all of those requirements and more, regardless of the 
consequences.
  Again, it is not hard to find this quite amazing and alarming. We 
need to be growing our economy not paralyzing it. Everything we do 
right now within this body should be focused on how we grow our 
economy, how we grow the jobs from Maine to Alaska and points in 
between. We know the national unemployment rate remains at almost 10 
percent. Private sector job growth is anemic. Yet as millions of 
Americans are doing everything they can just to find work, bureaucrats 
in Washington, DC, are contemplating regulations that would destroy 
these opportunities.
  Worse still, the people of our States have no voice in this 
bureaucratic process. They are on the verge of being subjected to 
rules, subjected to regulations that will directly impact their lives, 
their livelihoods, their economic opportunities, without ever having an 
opportunity to express their concerns through their Representatives in 
Congress.
  That brings me to my final point. Politically accountable Members of 
the House and the Senate, not unelected bureaucrats, must develop our 
Nation's energy and climate policies. It is as direct as that. Those 
policies must be able to pass on their own merits instead of serving as 
a defense against ill-considered regulations.
  I have said this before, but it bears repeating: Congress will not 
pass--should not pass--bad legislation in order to stave off bad 
regulations. We are neither incapable nor unwilling to legislate on 
energy and environmental policy. We have demonstrated this in the past. 
We did this with landmark environmental legislation such as the Clean 
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We can, 
we should, and we will deal with these environmental challenges that 
face us. But forgoing legislation in favor of regulation would 
sacrifice the priorities and protections that are sought by just about 
every Member of the Senate.
  The things that are being considered when we talk about climate 
legislation are worker training, funding for clean technologies, energy 
security enhancements, border adjustments, manufacturing concessions--
these would all go by the wayside if climate policy is directed through 
regulation as opposed to legislation. There will be no agricultural 
offsets, no free allowances, no banking, and no borrowing under the 
Clean Air Act. There will be no funding for climate research or 
adaptation, no protection for consumers, and no assistance for 
businesses or workers.
  I do understand some Members say they will only support climate 
legislation that puts a price on emissions.

[[Page S4791]]

They are frustrated that we in the Senate have not done that--have not 
agreed to do that yet. But I do not believe that mandating higher 
energy costs and imposing regulations on consumers and businesses is 
the only way to solve this challenge.
  Some have likened the EPA regulation as the gun to the head of 
Congress that will force us somehow to act more quickly on climate 
legislation than we otherwise would. I think, sadly, a few Members of 
the Senate have actually bought into this coercive strategy. Throughout 
the yearlong debate on this issue--and it has been just about a year. 
It was last September that I attempted to introduce legislation that 
would put the EPA in a 1-year timeout. I was not allowed to bring that 
measure to the Senate floor. But throughout this yearlong debate on the 
issue, opponents have refused to discuss the actual impacts of EPA 
regulation. So I want my colleagues to listen today, listen to the 
debate. See if any opponents actually defend such regulation as being 
good for America.
  Instead, we are going to hear red herrings about science, about fuel 
standards, about the oilspill. But as much as some would want it to be, 
this debate is not about the science of climate change. It is not a 
referendum on any other legislation that is pending in the Senate, nor 
is it about fuel efficiency. The Department of Transportation is and 
has been in charge for 35 years now, and we do not need another agency 
and another standard thrown into the mix to do the same job.
  We updated our Nation's CAFE standards less than 3 years ago to at 
least 35 miles per gallon, and we left DOT in charge of their 
administration. We also outlined a very rational process for standards 
for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Every target set by this 
administration can be met with existing authorities. As the Department 
of Transportation has admitted, our resolution does not directly impact 
their ability to regulate the efficiency and thus the greenhouse gas 
emissions of motor vehicles.
  There is one very small potential exception and that is air-
conditioning, but I have very little doubt that we would gladly provide 
EPA with the specific authority to regulate those systems instead of 
broad powers over our entire economy.
  The EPA does not need to take over this process, and it should not be 
allowed to do so under a law that was never intended to regulate fuel 
economy. I understand concerns about a patchwork of standards and how 
difficult it would be for the industry to comply. But while we had one 
national standard at the start of 2009, we now have two national 
standards set by two Federal agencies driven by California's standards. 
I have a letter from the National Automobile Dealers Association dated 
just yesterday that spells this out quite clearly. They indicate that 
it in no way helps us to have, again, two national standards set by two 
Federal agencies. The best way to avoid a messy patchwork would be to 
pass our disapproval resolution, revoke California's waiver, and allow 
one Federal agency to set one standard that works for all 50 States.
  Bringing climate science, the oilspill, and fuel economy into this 
debate are attempts at misdirection. They are red herrings that are 
intended to convince Members to oppose the resolution of disapproval. 
But this debate has nothing to do with those topics. It is about 
finding the best approach to reduce emissions and defending against 
policies that fail to strike an adequate balance between the 
environment and our economy. It is about maintaining the separation of 
powers between the legislative and the executive branches as our 
Founding Fathers intended and rejecting an unprecedented overreach by 
the EPA into the affairs of Congress. At its core, this is a debate 
about jobs, about whether we should seek conditions that will lead to 
their creation or enable policies that will destroy them.
  This is our chance to make sure that Federal bureaucrats do not place 
a new burden on millions of hard-working Americans at a time that they 
cannot afford it and in a way they cannot reject. The time has come to 
take the worst option for regulating greenhouse gases off the table 
once and for all.
  Under the procedures of the Congressional Review Act, I accordingly 
move to proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 26. I encourage 
Members of this Chamber to support debate on this measure and to vote 
in favor of both the motion to proceed and final passage.
  I know under the unanimous consent agreement, this morning and 
throughout the day it is 30 minutes per side. I am not certain how much 
time I have consumed this morning, if the chair can instruct me?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I know Senator Lincoln was hoping to come over this 
morning. What I will do at this point in time, if I may reserve those 2 
minutes, seeing that Senator Lincoln is not yet here, we can move to 
the Democratic side of the aisle, if Senator Boxer is ready to proceed.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The motion having been made, under the previous order there will now 
be up to 5\1/2\ hours of debate on the motion to proceed with the time 
divided and controlled, in alternating 30-minute blocks, by the Senator 
from California and Senator from Alaska.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, this is a very important debate. The 
Murkowski resolution we are considering today would overturn the 
endangerment finding developed by scientists and health experts in both 
the Bush and Obama administrations that too much carbon pollution in 
the air is dangerous--dangerous for our families, dangerous for our 
environment. Imagine, 100 Senators--not scientists, not health 
experts--deciding what pollutant is dangerous and what pollutant is 
not. Personally, I believe it is ridiculous for politicians, elected 
Senators, to make this scientific decision. It is not our expertise; it 
is not our purview.
  The Murkowski resolution threatens jobs, jobs that we need, that are 
made in America for America.
  Our hearts break every day that we look at what is happening in the 
Gulf. It seems to me more than ironic that Senator Murkowski is 
advocating repealing the scientific finding that too much carbon 
pollution in the air is dangerous, at the same time every American sees 
graphic evidence on television every single day of the deadly carbon 
pollution in the Gulf of Mexico.
  We see here in the saddest pictures what too much carbon-based 
pollution does in water, what it does to our shorelines, what it does 
to our beaches, what it does to our wetlands. I will show a couple of 
other photographs. They are almost too painful.
  But what we do here has consequences. And for someone to come to this 
floor and say too much carbon is not dangerous, then I am sorry, we are 
going to have to look at these pictures even though we do not want to. 
We know the devastation this causes. Our eyes do not deceive us.
  This horrific spill in the gulf has disrupted the lives of hundreds 
of thousands of people employed by fishing industries, tourism 
industries, recreation industries along the gulf coast. So, yes, this 
resolution, this Murkowski resolution, is about jobs.
  Yesterday, Madam President, in your committee on which you serve--and 
I am so proud to have you as a member of the committee, the Environment 
and Public Works Committee--we heard from Captain Michael Frenette. He 
owns the Redfish Lodge in Venice, LA. He shared with us the terrible 
pain, both personal and economic, that the people of the gulf region 
are living through.
  This is what he said:

       The possibility truly exists for many livelihoods to cease; 
     livelihoods that have existed for generations and now are on 
     the brink of financial disaster because of poor decisions by 
     a supercorporate entity that has created the worst oilspill 
     in history off the coast of Louisiana.

  This spill is threatening the $18 billion in economic activity 
generated by fishing, tourism, and recreation on the gulf coast. The 
economic damage in the gulf could last for years to come, although we 
will, of course, do everything in our power to mitigate that damage.
  I want to show you the pictures of the unspoiled California coastline 
and talk a moment about our coastal economy. Ever since I have been 
elected to public life--I was a county official, then a House Member, 
and then the

[[Page S4792]]

greatest privilege of all, to serve in this body--I have fought to 
protect our coasts. I have fought to protect our coasts because I 
believe they are a gift from God. I believe it is our responsibility to 
protect that gift and to leave that gift for future generations. I have 
fought to protect that coast and I have fought to protect those 
businesses, the businesses that depend on it.
  There are so many other beautiful areas such as this along our 
Pacific coastline--spectacular rocky islands, sandy beaches, estuaries. 
We must preserve these treasures.
  Now $23 billion is the economic activity that supports 388,000 jobs 
off the coast in California. In my home State, our 19 coastal counties 
account for 86 percent of the State's annual activity, for more than $1 
trillion. We must move to clean energy, to protect our environment, to 
protect our jobs. We have to move away from the old ways.
  No one can tell the American people that carbon is not a danger, 
because they have seen it every day of this spill. To say there is no 
danger, and that is what we would be saying today, is absolutely 
contrary to everything people are seeing every day, and do it for big 
oil. That is what this is about. Big oil backs the Murkowski 
resolution.
  So whose side are we on? Are we on the side of the people? Are we on 
the side of clean energy jobs? Are we on the side of the lobbyists and 
special interests that are behind this resolution?
  How does the Murkowski resolution threaten clean energy jobs? We know 
that to move forward with smart regulation of this pollutant, you have 
to have the endangerment finding. It is the predicate for moving 
forward. Therefore, it is the predicate for the incentives that will 
come for clean energy technology.
  We must transition away from those old polluting sources of energy. 
We must look toward the future with optimism. And, again, all you have 
to do is look at the gulf. That is the irony of the timing of this 
Murkowski resolution.
  I think when the timing was set, it was before the gulf spill. But 
the gulf spill tells us why the Murkowski resolution is so wrong. To 
repeal an endangerment finding, straightforward, made by health experts 
in the Bush administration, scientists in the Bush administration, 
health experts in the Obama administration, scientists in the Obama 
administration, for 100 elected people, with no expertise to say, we 
know more than the scientists in the Bush and Obama administrations, we 
know more than the health experts in the Bush and Obama administrations 
is the height of hubris. It is wrong. I know we all feel that we have 
powerful positions here. We have no right to do this. What is next? 
What are we going to do next, repeal the laws of gravity? If we start 
down this path, there is no end in sight. Any Senator can decide that 
she or he knows more than the scientists. Maybe we will say the Earth 
is flat and come down here and argue that one too.
  Everyone knows we are not going to move away from the old energies 
overnight. We need to work together to make sure we do it right. But we 
need to move, move toward a clean energy economy, and the good jobs 
that come with it. This will set us back on purpose. On purpose. 
Because the very people who are bringing you this have not come forward 
with any bill to move us away from these old energies. They are 
stopping us from doing it. They admit it.
  Let's hear what John Doerr, who is one of the leading venture 
capitalists in this country and in the world--he helped launch Google, 
he helped launch Amazon. He tells me that more private capital moves 
through the economy in a day than all of the governments of the world 
in a year. This is where we are going to get the stimulus money to grow 
jobs.
  He told us that clean energy legislation is the spark we need to 
restore America's leadership. He predicted that the investments that 
flow into clean energy would dwarf the amount invested in high-tech and 
biotech combined.
  Mr. Doerr said:

       Going green may be the largest economic opportunity of the 
     21st century. It is the mother of all markets.

  We can either believe the oil lobbyists or we can believe the people 
on the ground who have shown that they know where the economic 
opportunities are. If we go this route, and we repeal this endangerment 
finding, you are moving away from clean energy. You are moving away 
from these opportunities. You are moving away from these technologies 
that will be made in America for America and, frankly, the technologies 
the whole world wants.
  A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trust found that 125,000 jobs 
were generated during the period of 1998 to 2007 in my home State. 
Those jobs, those clean energy jobs, were generated 15 percent faster 
than the economy as a whole, and 10,000 new clean energy businesses 
were launched in that period. So when we look back at California, what 
do we see? We see the greatest area of job growth and new businesses is 
clean energy. What a tragedy. If we pass this today, and it were to 
become law--which I doubt, but it could, and that is its purpose--we 
would completely walk away from America's leadership in clean 
technology, turning our backs on the leading venture capitalists in our 
Nation who are telling us, do not do this.
  Nationwide, Pew found that jobs in the clean energy economy grew much 
faster than traditional jobs. Clean energy jobs grew at a national rate 
of 9.1 percent, compared to 3.7 percent for traditional jobs between 
1998 and 2007. So if you do not want to believe John Doerr--but I 
suggest you do, because he founded Amazon and Google, he funded them--
let's listen to Thomas Friedman. His book is, ``Hot, Flat and 
Crowded.'' Here is what the central theme is:

       The ability to develop clean power and energy efficient 
     technology is going to become the defining measure of a 
     country's economic standing, environmental health, energy 
     security, and national security over the next 50 years.

  As I said, the EPA finding that too much carbon pollution is 
dangerous for our people and our environment is the key incentive to 
moving forward toward our clean energy economy. It is the basis upon 
which we move forward. It is the basis upon which we see their 
incentives then in place for clean energy technologies.
  If this finding were eliminated under the Murkowski resolution, not 
only would it be, I believe, a worldwide embarrassment that the Senate 
is now taking to repealing health findings and scientific findings, but 
it would stop in its tracks the economic opportunities that come from 
clean energy technology.
  We cannot ignore the basic finding that is made in this endangerment 
finding that carbon pollution in the air presents a very serious 
danger, threatening the health of our families, our quality of life, 
and our natural resources. I guess if we pass the Murkowski resolution, 
there would not be any danger anymore because we said so. I mean, you 
know, we can pass a resolution that says there should not be any more 
rain, and I guess then there would not be any more rain. We cannot 
ignore the basic scientific conclusion in that endangerment finding. If 
we were to do this, it would be extraordinary and unprecedented.
  In 2007, the Supreme Court was clear when it ruled that carbon 
pollution and other greenhouse gas emissions are air pollutants, and 
they directed the EPA to determine whether this pollution endangers our 
health. So EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency--and I want to say 
to my colleagues, it is not the Environmental Pollution Agency. If you 
want to create an Environmental Pollution Agency, let's have a vote on 
that. It is the Environmental Protection Agency.
  They are not supposed to be influenced by the politics of the day, as 
you know. They are charged with protecting the health of the kids, of 
our families, of our senior citizens, whether they are in Alaska, 
California, New York, or anyplace else in America. They are not the 
Environmental Pollution Agency. As much as big oil would like to 
dictate to them, they are not going to be dictated to by big oil.
  By the way, the EPA was set up by Richard Nixon. Let's be clear here. 
Some of the officials from these States, Republicans, have weighed in 
against the Murkowski resolution and we will show that in a bit here.
  EPA did what they were directed to do by the court. They had to do 
what the scientists and the health experts

[[Page S4793]]

told them to do. Again, the Murkowski resolution would overturn these 
findings. Leading scientists, physicians, and many others agree with 
the finding and have told us how much damage carbon pollution in the 
atmosphere can do. That is why they have stated their strong opposition 
to the Murkowski resolution.
  Less than a month ago, the National Research Council, which is an arm 
of the National Academy of Sciences comprised of America's leading 
scientists, concluded that climate change is occurring. It is caused 
largely by human activities, and it poses significant risks for and is 
already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems. The 
National Research Council further concluded that changes in climate 
pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems, 
including freshwater resources, the coastal environment, ecosystems, 
agriculture, fisheries, human health, and national security.
  EPA Administrators under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan oppose 
the Murkowski resolution. Let's be clear. This should not be a partisan 
issue. It may wind up being that, but it should not.
  Russell Train, EPA Administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, 
writes: I urge the Senate to reject this and any other legislation that 
would weaken the Clean Air Act or curtail the authority of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to implements its provisions.
  William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under Presidents Nixon and 
Reagan, said: Thanks to the 2007 Supreme Court decision on global 
warming, EPA clearly has the right to regulate carbon. Anyone who would 
take away that power--it is a terrible idea.
  William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under Nixon and Reagan, said 
the Murkowski resolution is a terrible idea because this is the way we 
are going to address the problem of climate change.
  Eighteen hundred scientists wrote to us opposing efforts to overturn 
this endangerment finding. In a letter to us, these scientists wrote: 
We the undersigned urge you to oppose an imminent attack on the Clean 
Air Act which would undermine public health and prevent action on 
global warming.
  They go on to say: EPA's finding is based on solid science. This 
amendment represents a rejection of that science.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter 
signed by 1800 scientists.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Protect the Clean Air Act

               (A letter signed by 1,806 U.S. Scientists)

       Dear Congress: We the undersigned urge you to oppose an 
     imminent attack on the Clean Air Act (CAA) that would 
     undermine public health and prevent action on global warming. 
     This attack comes in the form of House and Senate binding 
     resolutions that would reverse the Environmental Protection 
     Agency's (EPA) finding that global warming endangers public 
     health and welfare. Because the EPA's finding is based on 
     solid science, this legislation also represents a rejection 
     of that science.
       The EPA's ``endangerment finding'' is based on an 
     exhaustive review of the massive body of scientific research 
     showing a clear threat from climate change. The 2007 Fourth 
     Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
     Change found that global warming will cause water shortages, 
     loss of species, hazards to coasts from sea level rise, and 
     an increase in the severity of extreme weather events. The 
     most recent science includes findings that sea level rise may 
     be more pronounced than the IPCC report predicted and that 
     oceans will absorb less of our future emissions. Recently, 18 
     American scientific societies sent a letter to the U.S. 
     Senate confirming the consensus view on climate science and 
     calling for action to reduce greenhouse gases ``if we are to 
     avoid the most severe impacts of climate change.'' The U.S. 
     National Academy of Sciences and 10 international scientific 
     academies have also released such statements. Unfortunately, 
     the Murkowski amendment would force the EPA to ignore these 
     scientific findings and statements.
       The CAA is a law with a nearly 40-year track record of 
     protecting public health and the environment and spurring 
     innovation by cutting dangerous pollution. This effective 
     policy can help address the threat of climate change--but 
     only if the EPA retains its ability to respond to scientific 
     findings. Instead of standing in the way of climate action, 
     the Senate should move quickly to enact climate and energy 
     legislation that will curb global warming, save consumers 
     money, and create jobs. In the meantime, I urge you to 
     respect the scientific integrity of the EPA's endangerment 
     finding by opposing Senator Murkowski's attack on the Clean 
     Air Act.

  Mrs. BOXER. I also wish to display the public health organizations 
that oppose the Murkowski resolution.
  We have to decide whom we want to listen to. Do we want to listen to 
big oil or politicians or do we want to listen to public health 
organizations that oppose the Murkowski resolution? I ask the American 
people to determine which side they are on--the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, the Children's Environmental Health Network, the American 
Nurses Association, the American Lung Association, the American Public 
Health Association, the National Association of County and City Health 
Officials, Trust for America's Health, Physicians for Social 
Responsibility, National Environmental Health Association, American 
College of Preventative Medicine, American Thoracic Society, the 
Association of Public Health Laboratories, the Association of Schools 
of Public Health, the Hepatitis Foundation International, the Union of 
Concerned Scientists. Again, we have included for the record the 
scientists, 1,800 of whom signed a letter to us opposing this.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed 
by these entities as well as a separate letter from the American Lung 
Association.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                February 23, 2010.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The undersigned national organizations, with 
     a strong commitment to environmental public health issues, 
     write in opposition to a potential amendment or ``Resolution 
     of Disapproval'' by Senator Lisa Murkowski that would 
     overturn or temporarily block the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) endangerment finding for six 
     greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.
       On December 7, 2009, EPA issued final findings that the 
     greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change constitute 
     a danger to public health and welfare. Some of the publc 
     health effects of climate change cited in EPA's announcement 
     include: increased likelihood of more frequent and intense 
     heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more 
     flooding, increased drought, more intense storms, harm to 
     water resources and harm to agriculture. Given the serious 
     public health implications of increasing greeenhouse gas 
     concentrations, we believe overturning EPA's endangerment 
     finding is bad public health policy.
       We strongly urge you to oppose any amendmenmt or Resolution 
     of Disapproval to overturn or restrict EPAs greenhouse gas 
     endangerment finding.
           Sincerely,
         American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of 
           Preventive Medicine; American Public Health 
           Association; American Thoracic Society; Association of 
           Public Health Laboratories; Association of Schools of 
           Public Health; Children's Environmental Health Network; 
           Hepatitis Foundation International; National 
           Association of County and City Health Officials; 
           National Environmental Health Association; Physicians 
           for Social Responsibility; Trust for America's Health.
                                  ____



                                    American Lung Association,

                                                 January 26, 2010.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the American Lung Association, I 
     write in support of the Clean Air Act and the implementation 
     of the law by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The 
     American Lung Association urges the Senate to reject Senator 
     Lisa Murkowski's Resolution of Disapproval (S.J. Res 26).
       The resolution would block the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency's Supreme Court-directed endangerment 
     finding that is required under Clean Air Act. EPA made this 
     endangerment finding after a careful review of science and an 
     extensive public comment process.
       Specifically EPA concluded: ``Pursuant to CAA section 
     202(a), the Administrator finds that greenhouse gases in the 
     atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger 
     public health and to endanger public welfare.'' (emphasis 
     added)
       The Senate must not vote to ignore the scientific evidence 
     and reject its clear conclusions. The Clean Air Act mandates 
     that the Environmental Protection Agency follow the science 
     and then implement the law accordingly. The Resolution of 
     Disapproval is a cynical attempt to disregard the science and 
     block the enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
       Since its passage in 1970, the Clean Air Act has been the 
     nation's premier public health and environmental protection 
     statute. The Clean Air Act is predicated on the protection of 
     public health. Its implementation is grounded in sound 
     science. The American Lung Association is a staunch supporter 
     of this public health statute because of the enormous impact 
     that air pollution has on

[[Page S4794]]

     public health and the tremendous improvements in the nation's 
     air quality that have resulted from this law.
       The protection of public health is critically important. 
     EPA has found that climate change will make attainment and 
     maintenance of national ambient air quality standards more 
     difficult as well as more frequent and more intense heat 
     waves and other events that adversely impact respiratory 
     health. The American Lung Association urges the Senate to 
     support the Clean Air Act and reject S.J. Res 26.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles D. Connor,
                                                  President & CEO.

  Mrs. BOXER. These are the experts. These are the people we rely on 
when our children get sick. They don't take them, with all due respect, 
to Senator Boxer for a checkup or Senator Murkowski for a checkup. They 
go to the pediatrician. The pediatricians oppose the Murkowski 
resolution. They are afraid of it because they know who is behind it. 
They know it is the special polluting interests, the big polluters who 
give big money to politicians. They know that. They are smart.
  Let's be clear. We have on our side the people who are responsible 
for taking care of our kids, taking care of families, looking out for 
their health. They don't have any political skin in this game. They 
don't have any special interest in this game. They have one concern--
the health of our families.
  Overturning a scientific finding that states that carbon pollution is 
a threat to the health and well-being of the American public is a 
dangerous step. It would lead us down a perilous road that sets a 
precedent for appealing other scientific findings. I talked a little 
bit about that.
  I want to talk specifically about two other findings that maybe one 
day any Senator, on either side of the aisle, could seek to repeal. 
Imagine if we had done this on lead, lead and children.
  In 1973, EPA did what it had to do and issued an endangerment finding 
for lead in gasoline. At the time, the lead endangerment decision was 
controversial. This was the EPA under Richard Nixon. They said there 
was too much lead in gasoline. They said it was a danger to our kids. 
They said it would cause harm to the brains of our children. So the 
Administrator under Richard Nixon, William Ruckelshaus--who opposes the 
Murkowski resolution today--reached the conclusion that lead presented 
a significant risk of harm to the health of our population, 
particularly our children. What if a Member of Congress came down and 
said: We are going to overturn that. We don't like that rule. We don't 
like that finding. We disagree. We don't think it causes a problem. Can 
my colleagues imagine what would have happened? We would have seen the 
phase down of lead in gasoline delayed for a decade or more, leaving 
another generation of Americans exposed to serious health threats. We 
would have seen hundreds of thousands more children with impaired 
mental function. That is a fact. It may be a fact the other side 
doesn't want to hear, but it is a fact. That is why we have former 
members of the Nixon administration opposing the Murkowski resolution.
  Let's look at the science behind the dangers of smoking. What would 
have happened if people didn't agree with Surgeon General Everett 
Koop--another Republican administration--and they came down and said: 
Well, we are going to speak for the tobacco companies here. Let's 
repeal that. Nicotine isn't a problem, not a problem at all. Let's just 
overturn that health finding.
  Again, I ask my colleagues do they want to stand with the health 
experts, the lung association, the pediatricians, the nurses, or do 
they want to stand with the powerful special interests? It is a simple 
question. Every Member has to answer that.
  We have to stop this attack on science and health. We have to stop 
this attack on the safety of our citizens. Our families come first.
  I think it is important to note that overturning this endangerment 
finding--supporting the Murkowski resolution--is opposed by the auto 
industry and the autoworkers. This is what they tell us. We are 
spending $1 billion a day importing foreign oil. Do Members like that? 
Then vote for the Murkowski resolution. It is going to set us back. We 
won't get off foreign oil if we go down this path.
  This is why we have the automakers opposing Murkowski: On behalf of 
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and its 11 member companies, I 
am writing to express concern over the proposed resolutions of 
disapproval. If these resolutions are enacted, the historic agreement 
creating the one national program for regulating vehicle fuel economy 
and greenhouse gas emissions would collapse.
  The autoworkers are asking us not to do this. Let's see what they 
say: The UAW is deeply concerned that overturning EPA's endangerment 
finding would unravel the historic agreement on one national standard 
for fuel economy. And they go on.
  Clearly, we are at a point where we are finally seeing the auto 
industry come back to life. Let's not pass the Murkowski resolution and 
get them off track. After all the debate and all the arguments, I know 
the Senators from Michigan care deeply about what is happening to their 
autoworkers and their auto companies. We are very clear here what side 
they are on.
  In summary, the Murkowski resolution would upend a historic agreement 
between auto companies, autoworkers, environmental groups, leading 
States such as California that formed the foundation of the recent EPA 
and DOT standards.
  I am going to include for the Record a host of quotes from our 
national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to 
climate change will be, over the next 20 years, the leading cause of 
conflict putting our troops in harm's way. That is why we have so many 
returning veterans who want us to move forward and address this issue 
so we can create the new technologies that get us off this foreign oil. 
Every time we import oil, we hurt ourselves. We have to get off these 
old energy sources. It is a transition. It is not going to happen 
overnight. But if we do things such as the Murkowski resolution, we 
will create chaos. We are going to see jobs lost. We are going to see 
us continue in an economic situation that has no new paradigm for 
economic growth, as we have learned from our venture capitalists, as we 
have learned from analysts, such as Thomas Friedman, who are so clear 
on this point.
  The question before us is this: Will we protect the people we 
represent from dangerous pollution or will we choose to reject science? 
Will we choose to ignore the findings of the scientific community, the 
public health officials, and national security experts?
  If we care about jobs--I know the Presiding Officer does--if we care 
about moving to a clean energy economy, if Members care about health, 
if they care about our environment and our natural resources, then they 
should vote no on proceeding to this resolution.
  I hope we will carry the day. I know it will be close. But I have to 
tell my colleagues, this is a significant moment for the Senate because 
if we move down this path, ``Katy, bar the door.'' Any resolution, any 
health finding, any scientific finding is subject to politics. I would 
have thought that in the Senate, we might disagree with how to deal 
with the scientific finding--in other words, what kinds of rules and 
regulations should come out of it--but not to repeal the scientific 
finding itself. That would be unprecedented in the worst of ways.
  I have used my time, the first half hour; am I correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 10 seconds 
remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have a number of fantastic speakers we 
will hear from in the next ensuing time.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, at this time on the Republican side, 
I ask unanimous consent that for this next half hour, the order be 
Senator Lincoln for 7 minutes, followed by Senator Inhofe at 13 
minutes, Senator Voinovich for 7, and Senator Graham for 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 
26, Senator Murkowski's resolution of disapproval.
  First, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Senator 
Murkowski, for her leadership to prevent

[[Page S4795]]

this heavy-handed EPA regulation of carbon emissions. I am proud to be 
part of a bipartisan group of Senators cosponsoring the resolution 
because I do believe EPA's regulatory approach is the wrong way to 
promote renewable energy and clean energy jobs in Arkansas and the rest 
of the country.
  Allowing the courts and EPA to use the Clean Air Act to regulate 
greenhouse gases is truly misguided. It would threaten valuable jobs 
during an economic downturn, and it has the potential of actually 
discouraging the use of clean, renewable energy that is already helping 
to keep people working today.
  But, first, let me say a few words on the energy challenges facing 
our Nation. We have committed to ambitious renewable fuel goals, and I 
have supported efforts to set a national renewable energy standard.
  Just last June we passed a bipartisan energy bill out of the Senate 
Energy Committee, and I was very proud of that bill and hoped we would 
move forward on it.
  In order to meet these goals and prosper in the 21st century, we must 
develop clean domestic energy supplies. This means developing all 
sources of energy--everything from wind, to natural gas, to, of course, 
biofuels.
  My home State of Arkansas is already leading in this effort. Wind 
turbines and blades are manufactured in my home State of Arkansas, 
providing hundreds of green jobs to Arkansans. These include Nordex, LM 
Wind Power, Polymarin Composites, and Mitsubishi.
  Arkansas is also home to the Fayetteville Shale, where clean burning 
natural gas has provided an enormous boost to the economy of central 
and north central Arkansas, producing jobs in a huge part of what has 
been positive for our economy.
  Arkansas companies such as Future Fuel in Batesville, AR, are 
producing huge amounts of biodiesel, helping our Nation to meet the 
renewable fuel targets set forth in the 2007 Energy bill, not to 
mention their advanced battery technologies that they are researching 
and building upon.
  Our wood and paper industry produces about two-thirds of the energy 
it needs from renewable forest biomass, providing and sustaining tens 
of thousands of jobs in the process. Facilities that range from small 
sawmills such as Bean Lumber in Glenwood and huge paper mills such as 
Domtar in Ashdown have taken steps to increase their use of renewable 
energy in recent years, saving thousands of critical jobs in the 
process.
  These efforts in Arkansas, and similar efforts all around our 
country, are leading the way toward a clean energy future--one that 
reduces our emissions, reduces our dependency on foreign oil, and 
provides economic opportunity and jobs to so many of our citizens.
  Unfortunately, EPA regulation of greenhouse gases does not move us 
any closer to a clean energy future or to reducing our dependency on 
foreign oil. Furthermore, it is simply the wrong tool for addressing 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  Congress, the elected representatives of the people of this Nation--
not unelected bureaucrats--should be making the complicated, 
multifaceted decisions on energy and climate policy. Furthermore, it is 
a widely shared view that the Clean Air Act, with its command-and-
control approach to regulating air emissions, is the wrong fit for 
addressing greenhouse gas emissions.
  One example of the way the EPA's approach to regulating carbon 
emissions does wrong is the way the proposed tailoring rule treats 
emissions from biomass energy. The tailoring rule equates carbon 
emissions from renewable energy with fossil fuel emissions. This is not 
consistent with years of internationally accepted policy, and it could 
penalize important industries and cost thousands of jobs, including 
some 10,000 direct and thousands of additional indirect jobs in our 
State of Arkansas.
  As chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 
I am also concerned about the effects EPA's regulation of greenhouse 
gases will have on production agriculture and domestic food security.
  The hard-working farm families of this great Nation produce the 
safest, most abundant, affordable supply of food and fiber in the 
world, and they do it with greater respect to the environment than any 
other growers across the globe. For every one American mouth we feed, 
we feed 20 mouths globally, and it is critical we make sure we maintain 
the ability to do that.
  According to a recent University of Tennessee economic analysis, EPA 
regulation will result in billions of dollars in losses in net returns 
for agriculture from 2010 to 2015, with the largest declines occurring 
in crops grown in our State of Arkansas, such as soybeans, cotton, and 
rice. These figures are frightening for agriculture in our State, 
particularly during a time of recession.
  Furthermore, over 100 agricultural groups have expressed their 
concerns with EPA regulation of carbon and expressed their support of 
the Murkowski resolution. These groups include national associations 
for wheat, dairy, corn, cotton, rice, poultry, beef, pork, and eggs. 
These groups also include many specialty crop growers as well.
  I also want to speak for a moment about what this resolution does not 
do. Some think this resolution weakens the Clean Air Act. It would not 
amend or otherwise affect the plain language of the Clean Air Act. It 
would not change or in any other way alter the words within the 
existing statute.
  My colleagues and I are concerned about what will follow EPA's 
decision to release the endangerment finding--a unilaterally imposed 
all-sticks-no-carrot policy that actually discourages renewable energy 
use and penalizes those industries that have acted early to adopt clean 
energy technologies.
  That is not the direction in which we want to go. We know, 
desperately, that we want to lower our carbon emissions, lessen our 
dependence on foreign oil, and create good, green jobs. This attempt, 
overreach, and this action by unelected bureaucrats at EPA is not going 
to help us achieve those goals.
  Lastly, let me address a criticism heard in recent days: that a vote 
for the Murkowski resolution is a bailout or somehow a boon for big oil 
in the wake of the tragic oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. Nothing could 
be further from the truth.
  These critics would like the public to believe that opposing EPA 
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is somehow related to the 
oilspill. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all know the 
British Petroleum spill in the Gulf of Mexico needs to be addressed 
through legislation that ensures the safety, effectiveness, and 
sustainability of oil and other resource extractions--as we will very 
soon. We are all concerned about what has happened in the gulf.
  I certainly know, as a neighbor to the north of Louisiana, and one 
whose economic livelihood depends on the Port of New Orleans--not to 
mention the wonderful natural resources that we partner with the State 
of Louisiana in trying to preserve--this is a horrific circumstance 
that exists there, and we are all going to do everything we can not 
only to provide the cleanup but to ensure this kind of catastrophe 
never happens again.
  But this issue is separate from the EPA regulation of greenhouse 
gases. I do not know, in my recent election if people had listened to 
what was on the TV, they would have thought I single-handedly was 
responsible for what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not where 
we solve that problem. We have much to do there and we should do it and 
I am all about getting about that business.
  What would EPA regulations affect? I think that is the question we 
have before us. In Arkansas, it would affect manufacturers and their 
employees.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. In Arkansas, it would affect manufacturers and their 
employees: facilities such as Great Lakes Chemicals in El Dorado, Green 
Bay Packing in Morrilton, Nucor Steel in Blytheville, Georgia Pacific 
in Crossett, FutureFuel Chemical Company in Batesville, and Riceland 
Foods in Stuttgart.
  These Arkansas facilities, employing several thousand people, 
supporting families with good-paying jobs, would

[[Page S4796]]

be threatened by EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. That is why I 
encourage my Senate colleagues, with similar consequences facing their 
States, to vote for this resolution.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding I have 13 
minutes. I would like to have the Acting President pro tempore tell me 
when I have 1 minute left.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Of course.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is kind of interesting because I have probably 
talked on this subject over the last 7 years for 200 or 300 hours, and 
I never had any trouble before getting time. It lets you know there is 
an awakening in the people who are looking at this particular vote that 
we are going to have today. Many of them believe in their hearts that 
anthropogenic gases cause global warming. I do not believe that. And 
there is everyone in between. The point is not that. It is, do we 
really want to have this bureaucracy?
  Let me just comment. I was here when my good friend, Senator Boxer, 
was making her comments. That was very interesting because she spent 
three-fourths of her time talking about the oilspill. Let me say, there 
is no relationship between this and the oilspill. There is no reason to 
talk about them in the same speech.
  When they talk about big oil--as she said, ``big oil has all this 
control''--well, big oil is BP. The last I checked, BP is very much 
involved with the majority, with the White House. In fact, I went and 
checked. I found out in my last Senate race, I was given $2,000 by BP. 
And I checked, in the last Senate race, which was the first Senate race 
by then-Senator Obama, he got three times as much money as I did. Now 
we find out that during the Kerry-Lieberman bill that has been talked 
about quite a bit, BP has been behind closed doors with them. Everybody 
knows this.
  Now, it is not big oil behind this bill. Behind this bill you have 
the American Association of Housing Services for the Aging, Family 
Dairies USA, the Farm Bureau, the National Federation of Independent 
Business, the Brick Industry Association--all of these organizations, 
wholesome American organizations that are behind this issue because 
they do not want us to give up all the freedoms we would have to give 
up.
  When Senator Lincoln was talking about the tailoring rule, I know 
there has been a problem with those who are pushing for the 
endangerment finding, trying to make everybody believe that somehow it 
was not going to happen to anyone except some of the big industries, 
the refiners, the big manufacturers. No, the tailoring rule they are 
talking about is something that unilaterally they thought they would be 
able to get by with without anyone even noticing it, when, in fact, the 
Clean Air Act very simply says the emission of 250 tons in a period of 
a year.
  Now, 250 tons, that is every farm in my State of Oklahoma. That is 
every church. So it covers everyone. But let me go back in this brief 
period of time and try to put this in perspective. Eleven years ago we 
had the Kyoto Treaty. This is the big treaty then-Vice President Gore 
wanted the American people to have to ratify. They wanted to bring it 
to the Senate for ratification. They did sign that treaty, but it never 
came up for ratification.
  Do you want to know why? It did not come up because at that time it 
was so objectionable that we had a resolution that passed on the floor 
of this Senate 95 to 0--not one dissenting vote--saying: We do not want 
to be part of any movement or bill or treaty that treats developing 
nations differently than developed nations. That is exactly what it 
did. That resolution also said we do not want to ratify any treaty or 
pass anything that is going to be an economic hardship for the United 
States of America. Obviously, this was the case.
  So we set the stage 11 years ago. Now we are facing this same thing 
again. I have to say that when Republicans were a majority, I chaired 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, which had the jurisdiction 
over most of this stuff we are talking about today. I have to also say, 
back then I honestly, in my heart, believed the anthropogenic gases, 
the CO2, the methane, caused global warming because everyone 
said it did--catastrophic global warming. Now they do not call it that 
anymore since we are in the eighth year of a cooling period. They say 
``climate change.'' That sounds a little bit more palatable.
  But I can remember when I did believe that, until we started looking 
at the various bills that came up. We have voted in this Chamber five 
times on cap-and-trade bills, starting right about 2002 and up to the 
present day, and there is one pending today. During that period of 
time, we started looking at it and realizing what it would cost. The 
first analysis of what cap and trade would cost--and the same thing 
goes for the EPA under their regulations--would have been somewhere 
between $300 billion and $400 billion.
  When we calculate that, in my State of Oklahoma--I always do the 
math--if we take the number of families who file tax returns, that 
would have been $3,100--not once but every year. So with that type of 
thing, looking at it, I thought: Well, as chairman of this committee, 
maybe we ought to look and be sure the science is accurate, the science 
is there. So we started looking at it and finding out this whole thing 
started--let's keep in mind, it started with the United Nations, the 
IPCC. That is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They then 
were joined by all these Hollywood elites--moveon.org, George Soros, 
Michael Moore, and all these groups--until we realized they were 
pushing this, but the science was flawed.
  I first made my statement on the Senate floor in 2002 that created 
some doubt in a lot of people's minds as to the accuracy of the science 
that the IPCC was putting together. There had been inquiries by many 
quality scientists who had said they rejected our input. We don't have 
any kind of an input in this issue, unless you agree with the United 
Nations and the IPCC, that categorically it is causing catastrophic 
global warming. Then they didn't let the scientists have their input.
  So we started gathering all of this information. People were coming 
to me saying: This is a fraud. I gathered enough material that 7 years 
ago this month, I made a speech and I said the notion that 
anthropogenic gases, that CO2 causes catastrophic global 
warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. 
Then the scientists started coming in with their stuff. I would suggest 
that a lot of people don't agree with what I just said, so they ought 
to look at my Web site.
  Five years ago I made a speech and I talked about all the scientists 
who were coming forward. As it turned out, when climategate came, 
essentially it was the same thing I said 5 years ago. The scare tactics 
we hear from Senator Boxer that this is all about the gulf, the 
oilspill, and all of that stuff, this is what they have been using. If 
we take Al Gore's science fiction movie and the IPCC and look at all of 
the assertions they made in this movie and the IPCC has made, every one 
has been refuted.
  I can't find one assertion that has now not been refuted: melt 
Himalayan glaciers by 2035, not true; endanger 40 percent of the Amazon 
rain forests, not true; melt mountain ice in the Alps, Andes, and 
Africa, not true; deplete water resources for 4.5 billion people by 
2085, totally refuted; slash crop production by 50 percent in North 
Africa by 2020; 55 percent of the Netherlands lies below sea level.
  I can remember when Vice President Gore--no, it was after he was Vice 
President--we had a hearing in our committee, and we had several of the 
parents of young kids coming to us and saying: You know, my young 
child, my elementary age child is forced to watch this movie once a 
month, and they have been having nightmares and all of this stuff. So a 
lot of damage was done at that time.
  But when we get back to what we are faced with today, we are faced 
with something they tried to pass. This administration has tried ever 
since they came in to pass cap-and-trade. A cap-and-trade, logically, 
you would say: Well, if you want to cut down on greenhouse gases, why 
not put a tax on CO2?
  The reason they don't do that is because then people would know what 
it is costing them. So there were all of these cap-and-trade bills that 
came up, and they were not able to pass them.

[[Page S4797]]

So this administration said, I am sure--I wasn't in the meeting; I am 
not invited to those meetings of the President--but they said: We can't 
get it passed in Congress. We can't get it passed in the House or the 
Senate, so let's go ahead and do it. We will just run over them with 
the administration. So they said: We are going to have an endangerment 
finding.
  This is kind of interesting because right before going to 
Copenhagen--and for those of you who don't know this, once a year the 
U.N. throws a great big party and everybody goes to some exotic place 
and they try to sell the idea that we need to have this international 
treaty and, of course, it hasn't happened. Before Copenhagen--that was 
in December of this past year I can remember that we had--I suspected 
they would have an endangerment finding right while we were in 
Copenhagen to make it sound as though we were going to do something in 
the United States. In fact, I went over as a one-man truth squad and 
had a pretty good time.
  Anyway, on the endangerment finding, Lisa Jackson, who is the 
Administrator of the EPA, an appointee of Obama, testified. I said to 
her: You know, Madam Administrator, this is live on TV. I suspect what 
is going to happen is that you are going to have an endangerment 
finding and try to take this over and do all of these punitive things 
to America under the Clean Air Act. If there is an endangerment 
finding, it has to be based on science. What science would you use if 
you are going to have an endangerment finding?
  The answer was, It is going to be the IPCC, primarily, and that is 
the very science that climategate used when it came along, and it has 
been pretty much debunked. In fact, it was characterized in Great 
Britain as the greatest political scandal in the history of our 
country.
  So, anyway, the endangerment finding was all based on that, and that 
is where we find ourselves today. So I would say this: I only talk 
about the science. I don't like to talk about the science because I 
know people don't understand it. But I did it because if you are one of 
those--and I say this to the Chair; I say this to anyone who might be 
listening at this time--if you believe that anthropogenic gas causes 
catastrophic global warming and climate change, then what would this do 
to remedy that? Well, the answer is nothing because the same Lisa 
Jackson who testified before our committee when I asked her this 
question--
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Madam President.
  I said: If we were to pass this, any of these cap-and-trade bills, or 
if we were to do this through the Clean Air Act through the 
Environmental Protection Agency, how much would that reduce the 
worldwide CO2 emissions?
  Her answer was, Well, it wouldn't reduce it because this would only 
apply to the United States.
  What I am saying is, if you want to invoke all of this money spent, 
all of this cost on the American people, on every farmer in America, 
even if you believe the concept is there, it still wouldn't reduce the 
emissions. You could argue it could increase the emissions because our 
manufacturing base would have to go to places such as China, India, 
Mexico, places that didn't have the standards we have, and it would 
have the effect of increasing--actually increasing--CO2.
  So I just hope those individuals will realize if they think the 
problem is real, this isn't going to solve it.
  I yield back.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the 
bipartisan resolution to disapprove EPA's endangerment finding, S.J. 
Res. 26.
  First of all, I am not here as a climate skeptic. I believe we should 
reduce emissions, but the steps we take must balance our Nation's 
energy and economic needs.
  Climate change is a global environmental issue that cannot be solved 
by America acting alone. EPA's own data shows us that unless the 
rapidly expanding economies of China and India reduce emissions, U.S. 
action will have no impact on global temperatures.
  It is widely acknowledged that regulations that flow from EPA's 
endangerment finding will jeopardize job creation, our economic 
recovery, and American competitiveness. That has been made very clear 
by those who have spoken before me. This was openly acknowledged by the 
Obama administration last year when the White House Office of 
Management and Budget cautioned:

       Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the 
     [Clean Air Act] for the first time is likely to have serious 
     economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the 
     U.S. economy, including small businesses and small 
     communities.

  This is far from incidental. The endangerment finding is the 
centerpiece of a coercive strategy designed to force Congress into 
passing cap-and-trade legislation. This was confirmed by a senior White 
House economic official late last year who was quoted as saying:

       If you don't pass this legislation, then . . . [EPA] is 
     going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, 
     which will probably generate even more uncertainty.

  Time magazine likened this approach to ``putting a gun to Congress' 
head.''
  But this is a false dichotomy. Senators have before them a number of 
policy options to address climate change, including the power to remove 
the threat of EPA regulation. That the Senate has not yet embraced a 
bill speaks more to the flaws contained in those policies than to this 
body's willingness to act. In fact, economic analysis of every major 
piece of climate change legislation shows they would result in net job 
losses and retard economic growth with little or no impact on global 
temperatures. Why would the Senate choose to enact economically 
damaging legislation in order to stave off economically damaging 
regulations? This Senator certainly will not.
  In their efforts to gain leverage over the legislative branch, 
administrative officials claim the resolution to disapprove EPA's 
endangerment findings would prevent fuel efficiency in vehicles through 
new EPA regulations. More recently, claims have been made that the 
resolution is a way to protect big oil in the wake of the gulf 
disaster. These claims are disingenuous on their face.
  First, EPA's endangerment finding does nothing to clean up the Gulf 
of Mexico or prevent future spills. To suggest otherwise is an 
opportunistic bait and switch and an insult to the people of the gulf, 
the intelligence of the American people, and the Senate.
  Second, EPA's endangerment finding has nothing to do with fuel 
savings. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has had 
authority to increase corporate average fuel economy--CAFE--standards 
for over 30 years. Indeed, NHTSA was required by law to raise light-
duty vehicle standards to at least 35 miles per gallon when Congress 
passed the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007.
  In a February 19 letter, NHTSA's general counsel stated:

       The Murkowski resolution does not directly impact NHTSA's 
     statutory authority to set fuel economy standards.

  Indeed, in its own rule, EPA confirms that ``the CAFE standards 
address most, but not all, of the real world CO2 emissions'' 
from automobiles.
  In reality, EPA's rules are the ``camel's nose'' under the regulatory 
tent.
  In spite of the Supreme Court's ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, only 
the most tortured--tortured--reading of the act allows one to conclude 
that the Clean Air Act was intended to address global climate change. 
The act contains no express authorization to regulate, and there are no 
provisions recognizing the international dimension of the issue. I know 
this for a fact. I have been on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee for almost 12 years, and during those 12 years attempts have 
been made every 2 years to amend the Clean Air Act to include 
CO2. In every instance, it has been turned down.
  As a matter of fact, this issue has been dealt with over and over by 
the Senate. In fact, starting back in 1997, the Senate spoke directly 
to this issue where, by a vote of 95 to 0, it passed the Byrd-Hagel 
resolution. The resolution specifically stated that the United States 
should not commit itself to limits or reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
unless developing countries embrace specific commitments to reduce 
greenhouse gases. The overarching concern

[[Page S4798]]

was the serious harm that would be inflicted on the U.S. economy by 
unilateral action.
  In other words, for us to go ahead and let the EPA regulate this and 
do it on our own, in effect what we are doing is we are unilaterally 
disarming the U.S. economy for absolutely no environmental gain.
  Copenhagen showed us that the developing world will continue to 
resist binding reduction targets, and while China continues to build 
two coal-powered plants a week--in other words, while China puts up two 
coal-fired plants a week, the Sierra Club and other environmental 
groups in this country are shutting down any opportunity for us to use 
coal in terms of generating energy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 more minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Despite the fragile state of the economy and the 
futility of the effort in environmental terms, this administration 
presses forward.
  In the final analysis, the Clean Air Act does not recognize the 
international nature of climate change and is not suited to regulate 
greenhouse gas emissions. The administration's attempt to use it to 
force Congress to adopt economically damaging climate policy is a 
reckless stunt, especially when one considers the very real challenges 
America faces today.
  I am hoping that the Senate supports S.J. Res. 26, removes the gun 
from its head and gets on with the business of debating a sound energy 
policy. I suggest that the best way we can start to do this is by 
looking at the bipartisan bill--the Bingaman bill--which came out of 
the Energy Committee. That is where we should start if we want to be 
constructive in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. How much time remains on the Republican side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Five minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I appreciate what Senator Murkowski is 
trying to do. Maybe this is a balance-of-power issue. The court ruled, 
I think in 2007, that greenhouse gases could be regulated under the 
Clean Air Act. Senator Voinovich is right. Congress has never made that 
decision. There have been efforts in the past to get carbon pollution 
regulation by the Clean Air Act, but it was never passed legislatively. 
The courts have spoken.
  The tool being used today is a legislative tool available to the 
Congress to basically put regulatory powers in check, and what we are 
doing by passing this amendment is basically stopping the EPA from 
regulating carbon. And here is the real rub: If we stop them, are we 
going to do anything?
  My view is that we need to do several things to replace the EPA. The 
EPA regulation of carbon cannot provide transition assistance to 
businesses. They don't have the flexibility or the tools necessary to 
create rational energy policy. That would create an economic burden at 
a time we need to create economic opportunity. So I think the 
regulatory system of dealing with carbon pollution is the wrong way to 
go, but to do nothing would be equally bad. To do nothing means China 
is going to develop the green energy technology that is coming in the 
21st century.
  What I propose is that the Congress, once we stop the EPA, create a 
rational way forward on energy policy that includes clean air and 
regulation of carbon.
  No. 1, the trust fund that is used to build roads and bridges is 
tremendously underfunded. Senator Inhofe and others have challenged the 
Congress time and time again to do something about shortfalls in the 
highway trust fund.
  To the transportation community, if you are listening out there, you 
have a chance, as a broader package, to be part of a broader deal to 
get money for the highway trust fund. But you will never do it standing 
alone. We are not going to raise taxes to put money in the 
transportation trust fund and that is all we do.
  I think the transportation sector needs to be looked at anew. How can 
we lower emissions on the transportation side, reduce our dependency on 
foreign oil, and replenish the trust fund? I would argue that Congress 
could come up with policies that would dramatically reduce 
CO2 emissions coming from cars and trucks without a cap on 
carbon; that we could have incentives on the transportation side to 
develop alternative vehicles--battery-powered cars, hydrogen-powered 
cars, hybrid cars in different fashions that would break our dependency 
on foreign oil.
  If you take this debate and separate it from our dependency on 
foreign oil, you have made a huge mistake. Madam President, $439 
billion was sent overseas by the United States last year to buy oil 
from countries that don't like us very much. When you talk about 
controlling carbon, you ought to be talking about energy independence.
  I suggest that Congress look at the transportation sector with a 
comprehensive approach that will reduce our dependency on foreign oil, 
that will create vehicles that are more energy efficient and produce 
less carbon to clean up the air, and you can do all that without a cap 
and put money into the trust fund to rebuild bridges and roads that are 
falling apart as America grows. These are jobs that will never go to 
China. We need to have a vision on transportation that needs to be part 
of our broader vision.
  When it comes to breaking our dependency on foreign oil, we need to 
use less oil in general. The President is right. A low-carbon economy 
is a safer America, a cleaner environment and I think a more prosperous 
America. But we have natural fossil fuel assets in this country. We 
have oil and gas.
  The gulf oilspill is a tremendously catastrophic environmental 
disaster, but if we overreact and say we are going to stop exploring 
for domestic oil and gas--9 million barrels a day comes from domestic 
exploration, and we use 21 million barrels a day--the people in the 
Mideast would cheer that policy. The biggest winner in stopping 
domestic exploration for oil and gas would be OPEC nations. So it is 
not in our national security interest, not in our economic interest to 
make a rash decision on oil and gas exploration.
  I encourage the Congress to slow down, find ways to safely explore 
for oil and gas, and make it part of an overall energy vision that will 
allow us to break our dependency on foreign oil.
  When it comes to job creation, wind, solar, battery, and nuclear 
power--all of the energy efficiency green technology that will come in 
this century is going to come from China if we don't get our act 
together. We need a rational energy policy that would incentivize 
alternative energy to be developed in America before the world takes 
over this emerging market. That means incentives for wind, solar, and, 
yes, nuclear power. Twenty percent of our power comes from the nuclear 
industry, and 82 percent of the French economy's power comes from the 
nuclear industry. Surely we can be as bold as the French. If you had a 
renaissance of nuclear power in this country, you could create millions 
of jobs. We could come up with ways to treat the waste.
  President Obama has been very good on nuclear power. His 
administration, with Secretary Chu, has been excellent in trying to 
develop incentives to expand nuclear power in a safe fashion.
  Carbon is bad. Let's do something about it in a commonsense way. You 
don't have to believe in global warming to want clean air. This idea 
about what to do with carbon--you don't have to believe the planet is 
going to melt tomorrow, but this idea that what comes out of cars and 
trucks and coal-fired plants is good for us makes no sense to me. If we 
can clean up the air in America, we would be doing the next generation 
and the world a great service. The key is, can you clean up the air and 
make it good business? I believe you can. Let's pursue both things: 
good business and clean air.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that whatever 
extra time was given to the other side be added to our time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S4799]]

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, at this point, we are going to hear 
arguments against the Murkowski resolution from Senator Durbin for 6 
minutes, followed by Senator Reed of Rhode Island for 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Murkowski resolution gives the 
Senate a choice between real science and political science. That is 
what it comes down to.
  The EPA went to the scientists across America and asked them the 
basic question: Do greenhouse gas emissions endanger life and the 
planet on which we live? After months and thousands of comments and 
380,000 scientific comments, they concluded that it does. They said 
that we have a responsibility under the Clean Air Act to protect the 
people in the United States and the people on Earth. We are going to 
move forward with a gradual, systematic way of reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions because we know they are causing damage.
  Twenty-one years ago, I went to Alaska, to Prince William Sound, 
after the Exxon Valdez ran aground. I saw the thousands of barrels of 
black, sludgy oil covering that pristine and beautiful part of America 
in Alaska.
  I have spoken to the Senator who is the sponsor of this resolution. 
Twenty-one years later, we still know that ecology, that environment 
has not recovered from that spill. But that was very obvious. You could 
see it. It was filthy. There are changes in the environment that are 
hurting Alaska today that are hard to see.

  We know greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution are changing 
Alaska, with the loss of sea ice; the melting permafrost; coastal 
erosion in villages, such as Shismaref, that have been falling into the 
ocean; ocean acidification. The Arctic icecap, which is a key 
ecological component of Alaska's ecology, has a record-low amount of 
Arctic sea ice.
  Are we to ignore this? You will ignore it if you vote yes for the 
Murkowski resolution. You will choose political science over the real 
science that tells us that unless we come to grips with the air 
pollution that threatens us, it will not only endanger our lungs and 
our lives, it will endanger the planet on which we live.
  In 1970, we created the EPA, under President Richard Nixon. In those 
days, 40 years ago, the environmental issues were bipartisan issues. 
People came together and said: We can address the challenges facing us 
in the United States and around the world on a bipartisan basis.
  Well, bipartisanship is still alive when it comes to important 
environmental issues. There is bipartisan opposition to the Murkowski 
resolution. It turns out those who headed the EPA under Presidents 
Nixon, Ford, and Reagan all oppose the Murkowski resolution. They 
believe, as scientists do, that we have a once-in-a-lifetime 
opportunity to seize this moment and find a way to save this planet we 
live on and make it healthier for all of us and for our children.
  We have had great success with the Clean Air Act. We have reduced 
pollution. We are moving forward. But the Murkowski resolution says 
stop--stop taking those actions that have been proposed by the EPA to 
reduce pollution; ignore the scientific findings and accept the 
political science.
  What do I mean by that? There are political forces strongly in 
support of the Murkowski resolution. Big oil is one of them. Energy 
companies agree we should stop this EPA regulation. Of course, they 
have a vested interest. They have money on the table. How credible is 
big oil today on the floor of the Senate when we have witnessed the 
disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? Are we going to criticize them in the 
morning in speeches and then reward them by passing this resolution in 
the afternoon? I hope not.
  I hope we will take an honest look at the environment we live in and 
understand that to give away basic scientific findings, walk away from 
them, and embrace political science is something we will never be able 
to explain to future generations.
  The United States should join in leading the world to clean up the 
planet on which we live. Passage of the Murkowski resolution is a step 
backward. It will say to the world that the United States is in 
complete denial; that the Senate is rejecting the findings of 
scientists all across the world; and that we don't need to address 
climate change and the impact of air pollution on our lives.
  This is a singular historic moment. I sincerely hope my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle--and I hope it is bipartisan again--will join 
in standing up for science, for clean air, for an approach to the 
environment that says our kids will have a fighting chance to live on a 
planet that can sustain life and do it in a healthy way.
  I reserve the remainder of my time on this side and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Today, in the midst of the biggest oil spill in our 
Nation's history, we are debating a joint resolution, supported by the 
oil industry, among others, that effectively says that the Senate, with 
its extensive expertise, believes the Environmental Protection Agency 
was wrong to conclude that greenhouse gases are pollutants despite the 
preponderance of the evidence, scientific evidence, that shows this to 
be an accurate and correct assessment. The Senate can pass a resolution 
saying practically anything, but it does not change reality. The fact 
is, the best science tells us that climate change is real and that 
greenhouse gas emissions contribute significantly to it.
  It is also true that our continuing reliance on fossil fuel 
undermines not only our environmental quality but our national and 
economic security. We have seen the environmental effects played out 
dramatically and catastrophically in the Gulf of Mexico with the BP 
disaster. But if we do nothing, we will continue to see our economy 
held hostage by our need for fossil fuels and the billions of dollars a 
year we send overseas to buy oil. We will see our national security 
imperiled by our over-reliance on these fossil fuels and our continuing 
inability to take effective, measured action based on science to 
control these greenhouse gases.
  This resolution is more than just our opinion; it would effectively 
and permanently block the EPA from taking concrete steps today to deal 
with this problem. For example, it would prevent the EPA from 
collaborating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
on new vehicle efficiency and emission standards. These are 
commonsense, doable achievements, and, in fact, we are seeing even the 
automobile industry support this. It is estimated that if the EPA and 
the highway traffic safety administration move forward, they could save 
consumers more than $3,000 in fuel costs over the lifetime of their 
vehicles. Think of that. If we were talking about a $3,000 tax rebate 
to Americans, everybody would be jumping up and down saying that is 
great.
  By improving the efficiency of automobiles and doing it in a 
thoughtful way, we can provide consumers, families, over the lifetime 
of a vehicle--several years--$3,000 in benefits rather than shipping 
that $3,000 overseas to buy petroleum. That is a pretty good deal. This 
resolution would effectively prevent that.
  The proponents of the resolution say: Congress has to act on this. 
That is true, but I would be more encouraged with that line of argument 
if it were matched by effective action to deal with the serious 
problems that face this country today. Indeed, we have spent months and 
weeks laboring over the extension of unemployment benefits. Every 
significant bill that has come to this floor has been filibustered time 
and time again. To suggest disingenuously that we will pass this 
resolution and get on to a climate change bill, pass it within several 
weeks or months is, I think, not borne out by the evidence of what we 
have seen in this Chamber over the last several months.
  We have to move forward. As I said, this is not only an economic 
issue. It is a national security issue. The Quadrennial Defense Review 
in February 2010 noted--this is the review that is done periodically to 
assess the strategic position of the United States:

       Assessments conducted by the intelligence community 
     indicate climate change could have significant geopolitical 
     impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, 
     environmental degradation, and the further weakening of 
     fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food 
     and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and 
     may spur or exacerbate mass migration.


[[Page S4800]]


  In effect, what this review suggested is that it is very likely 
climate change will be an accelerant of instability. At this moment in 
time, the last thing we need is to accelerate instability in the world.
  One of the challenges we face is that this is not the Cold War where 
we are facing a monolithic Soviet Union and its allies in a strategic 
conflict that can be managed through deterrence. This is a situation 
where our greatest danger today is in unstable parts of the world, and 
that instability is going to be accelerated if we do not take steps. 
This is not just an issue of the economy, environmental rules, whether 
Congress should act or the agencies act. This is whether we are going 
to deal with the forces that are causing turmoil and instability in the 
world.
  For these reasons and many others, I urge rejection of this 
resolution.
  I reserve the remainder of our time, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, my esteemed colleague from New York, I 
first thank our Chair, the Senator from California, who does a great 
job on all of these issues. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for 
his, as usual, excellent and prescient words.
  I join my colleagues in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 26. This is a 
joint resolution disapproving of the rules submitted by EPA which finds 
that greenhouse gases threaten the public health and our environment. 
This resolution, if enacted, would turn back the clock on years of 
scientific research that tells us greenhouse gases are damaging to our 
environment and our public health.
  This resolution could not be coming at a more meaningful moment in 
our Nation's history. As we speak, thousands and thousands of barrels 
of oil continue to pour into the gulf, disrupting lives, posing 
enormous risk to our shorelines, and costing our economy billions of 
dollars. Now is certainly not the time to tie the Federal Government's 
hands when it comes to weaning our Nation off unclean fuels. Now would 
be the last time to allow business as usual for the oil companies who 
always, as the BP incident shows, prioritize profits over clean energy 
production and safety and pollution reduction.
  The most enthusiastic supporters of this resolution we are debating 
today are BP, its fellow oil companies, and their lobbyists in 
Washington. Why should we let BP and their lobbyists take the driver's 
seat? Why should we allow them to tell us how to achieve energy 
independence, how to keep American people safe from greenhouse gases? 
They are certainly not good about telling us how to keep safe from 
oilspills.
  We are witnessing firsthand what happens when industry is allowed to 
do what is best for industry. There are 37 million reasons why we 
cannot let this resolution pass today: 37 million barrels today have 
bled into the gulf on the industry's watch.
  I urge my colleagues to put aside their ideological positions on 
government regulation and instead work together to rewrite energy 
policy in this country. We need to focus all of our efforts on a 
comprehensive solution to a complicated problem and pass legislation to 
jump-start clean energy, cap greenhouse gases, and improve our energy 
security. It is critical that we join together in a national commitment 
to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
  We have come too far to reverse the tide on investment in American 
technology to reduce pollution and to produce cleaner energy. And we 
still have miles to go.
  Even my colleagues who argue about the science of global warming 
agree that energy independence is also a national security issue. We 
send $1 billion a day overseas to buy foreign oil in large part from 
unstable and dangerous companies such as Iran, and unfriendly countries 
such as Venezuela. Our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and 
Afghanistan suffer significant casualties during the transportation of 
fuel and fuel-related supplies which are prime targets for our enemies.
  Because we have failed to break this dangerous cycle of dependence, 
we are more reliant on foreign oil today than in the days after 9/11. 
We certainly can do better. This resolution is a step back.
  We also all agree that America should have the cleanest air and the 
cleanest water of any place on Earth. We all know a cleaner America is 
a stronger America. Placing a cap on carbon emissions is the simplest 
way to achieve this collective goal while creating more U.S. jobs and 
reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And, it works.
  Two decades ago, President Bush implemented an air pollution cap as a 
way to address the problem of airborne sulfur dioxide, known as acid 
rain, greatly affecting my State. The Bush plan worked. Today it is 
considered one of the most effective environmental initiatives in U.S. 
history. Lakes in upstate New York, in the Adirondacks and elsewhere, 
that once were dead are now coming alive.
  We are at a crossroads right now, and the decisions we make will have 
great impacts on our economy, our air quality, and our Nation's energy 
security. We can choose to deny the science and continue to pollute the 
air, fall behind in the energy race, and let big oil run roughshod over 
our economy and environment or we can say no.
  Or we can learn the lessons from our past, carefully weigh the facts 
and forge a new clean energy future to put America back on the road to 
prosperity.
  We need to put ideology aside and pass comprehensive energy reform 
this year. Majority Leader Reid has indicated that we will make an 
energy bill a top priority this summer. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to do just that.
  Once again, I want to voice my opposition to S.J. Res. 26 and urge my 
colleagues to vote against this attempt to undermine America's nearly 
40-year effort to cut dangerous pollution, protect our air quality, and 
spur innovation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, our speakers at this time will be 
Senator Shaheen for 5 minutes, Senator Sanders for 5 minutes, and 
Senator Cantwell for 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to be here to join my 
colleagues and Senator Boxer--and I thank her for her leadership in 
this effort--to keep from turning back the clock on our air quality. We 
desperately need to reform our country's energy policies.
  Our reliance on fossil fuels means polluting our air, it results in 
an enormous transfer of wealth to other countries--$1 billion a day--
and it compromises our national security. We are currently sending $150 
billion a year to countries that the State Department deems dangerous 
and unsafe.
  There are tremendous costs domestically associated with this reliance 
on fossil fuels. We saw it in 1989 with the Exxon Valdez spill in 
Prince William Sound, and we are seeing it now as the largest 
environmental disaster in our country's history plays out before our 
very eyes in the gulf--the loss of life and the tragedy to the 
environment. The way of life that so many people in the gulf have 
enjoyed for generations is unfortunately, we think, going to be gone. 
We pay a very heavy price for our dependence on fossil fuels. Now is 
the time to work together to get America running on clean energy.
  Reforming our Nation's energy policies will help us take control of 
our future in America, a future that will be built on clean energy and 
American power.
  To those who say we should not be reducing carbon pollution, I simply 
disagree. We have heard the same tired stories from big oil and big 
polluters again and again. They tell us reducing carbon pollution will 
kill jobs and wreck our economy. Time and time again, we have heard 
these same arguments, and we know they are not true.
  Since we passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, we have dramatically 
reduced emissions of dozens of pollutants, we have improved air 
quality, and we have improved public health. The EPA estimates that 
this year, the Clean Air Act prevented an estimated 20,000 deaths, more 
than 23,000 cases of chronic bronchitis and asthma, and 59,000 
hospitalizations.

[[Page S4801]]

  Yet during this same period, despite the current recession that has 
set us back, with the Clean Air Act, we have been able to grow our 
economy. Our gross domestic product has more than tripled, and average 
household income grew more than 45 percent.
  We know we can protect the public health, save our environment, and 
grow our economy.
  The resolution we are debating today will unravel the only ability we 
have right now to address carbon pollution. For those who say Congress 
should make a decision about how to address carbon, they are absolutely 
right. But instead of debating efforts to protect big polluters, we 
should be using this time to debate how to position our country to lead 
in the global clean energy economy.
  I have no doubt that the American people have the ingenuity and the 
competitive spirit to solve our energy challenges. What they need is 
some leadership from us in Washington. Now is the time to get America 
running on clean energy.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution and for all of us to 
work together to craft energy policies that will help us transition to 
a clean energy economy that will stop carbon pollution and our reliance 
on fossil fuels.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Murkowski resolution which, sadly, is sponsored by virtually the entire 
Republican caucus, which would overturn EPA's endangerment finding 
under the Clean Air Act that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to 
the public health and welfare.
  This resolution is not about whether EPA or Congress should regulate 
greenhouse gas emissions. What this resolution is about is whether we 
go forward in public policy based on science or based on politics. That 
is what this resolution is about.
  I have a very hard time understanding where all of this antiscience 
sentiment is coming from. If an American gets sick and goes to a 
doctor, she does not worry about whether that doctor is a Republican or 
a Democrat, whether the doctor is conservative or progressive. The 
concern is that the physician is well trained by a certified academic 
institution and has the scientific knowledge needed to treat the 
ailment. That is what Americans go to doctors for. It is not a 
political issue. It is a matter of science and biology, of the best 
medical treatment available.
  But somehow when we talk about global warming, we do not have to 
worry about the science, we do not have to worry about what the leading 
experts and scientific institutions all over the world are telling us. 
For whatever reason, this discussion about global warming is now 
political, not scientific.
  This is absurd. It should be no more political than the best cancer 
treatment available or how we deal with a broken leg. Let's look at the 
science. Let's look at the leading scientists all over the world.
  Scientists at the following world-renowned American institutions have 
all found that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are causing global 
warming. Here they are: NASA, National Science Foundation, Departments 
of Defense, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, Transportation, Health and 
Human Services, State, Commerce, the Smithsonian Institute, the 
National Academies of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the 
American Association for the Advancement of Science. The CIA believes 
global warming presents one of the major security risks facing our 
country. If all of these scientific institutions are wrong, why do we 
continue funding them?

  But this is not an issue just for the American scientific community 
or governmental agencies. This is the consensus that exists in 
virtually every country in the world.
  It is ironic this resolution against the science of global warming 
comes from the Republican Senator from Alaska, a State clearly 
experiencing the impacts of global warming. The Alaska State government 
Web site says:

       Global warming is currently impacting Alaska and will 
     continue to impact it in a number of ways. These impacts 
     include melting polar ice, the retreat of glaciers, 
     increasing storm intensity, wildfires, coastal flooding, 
     droughts, crop failures, loss of habitat and threatened plant 
     and animal species.

  Three Alaskan villages have begun relocation plans, and the U.S. Army 
of Corps of Engineers says over 160 more rural communities are 
threatened by erosion from global warming impacts. This is going on in 
Alaska.
  The evidence of global warming is overwhelming. NASA has reported 
that the previous decade was the warmest on record--90 percent of 
observed glaciers are shrinking. Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers 
in 1910 and now has just 30. Arctic sea ice is covering smaller areas 
every summer. Sea levels have risen as much as 9 inches in some areas, 
causing the island nation of Maldives to divert revenues to purchase a 
new homeland for its people. Harmful insects are migrating for higher 
altitudes and causing forest destruction, including 70,000 square miles 
of American and Canadian forests since 2000.
  So with all of this evidence, who is arguing against global warming? 
Who is saying it is not real? Well, the well-known climate expert Glen 
Beck has suggested climate scientists should commit suicide and 
compared Al Gore to Adolf Hitler. There you go. Rush Limbaugh, another 
scientist of outstanding repute, says global warming is ``bogus'' and 
is the work of ``pseudoscientists.''
  Well, from where are these rightwing media commentators getting their 
talking points? In many cases from precisely those corporations that 
want us to remain dependent on fossil fuel, that want us to continue 
importing hundreds of billions of dollars a year of foreign oil, that 
want to continue making record-breaking billions and billions of 
dollars in profit as they charge us $3 per gallon of gas.
  During the 1990s, big oil companies such as Exxon and BP funded an 
industry front group called the Global Climate Coalition.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. These oil companies used tobacco industry lobbyists and 
tactics to cast doubt on global warming science.
  What this is about is, if our Nation is to prosper, if we are to 
create the millions of jobs we desperately need, we have to have 
science-based public policy and not politically based. I would hope 
that we will reject, very strongly, the Murkowski resolution.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank Senator Boxer for her 
passionate leadership in defense of the Clean Air Act and the pollution 
protections this bedrock law provides every American. I appreciate her 
yielding me time to speak in opposition to the Resolution of 
Disapproval introduced by Senator Murkowski.
  Madam President, I don't think any of my colleagues would disagree 
that the Clean Air Act has been one of the most effective environmental 
laws ever passed in our Nation. It has literally saved the lives of 
thousands of children who would otherwise have suffered terribly from 
the effects of air pollution.
  The economic benefits of the Clean Air Act are immense, and it has 
been credited with turning around a dire acid rain problem that was 
threatening the natural heritage of all of New England. The critically 
important 1970 amendments to the Act were a bipartisan bill. Those 
improvements--really called the Muskie Act, in honor of the key role 
played by the former Senator from Maine, Ed Muskie--were, of course, 
signed into law by a Republican President, Richard Nixon.
  The next major revisions came 20 years later, in 1990, and those 
improvements cracked down on acid rain and lead in our gasoline supply.
  But today we are talking about a Resolution that would undermine the 
Clean Air Act, rather than strengthen it. We are actually debating 
whether to overturn the science-based determination that greenhouse 
gases pose a threat to the public health and welfare to the current and 
future generations of Americans.
  Madam President, the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse 
gases are pollutants and are covered by the

[[Page S4802]]

Clean Air Act. Consequently, the court held that the Environmental 
Protection Agency must make a determination, based on the available 
science, about whether greenhouse gases pose a threat to the public. 
EPA engaged in a thorough public process, assessed the available 
scientific evidence, and ultimately determined that greenhouse gases do 
pose a threat to public health and welfare.
  The reason I recount all this history, Madam President, is to show 
that these findings are not the casual or capricious action of a small 
group of bureaucrats. Rather, they are the result of a long and 
transparent process prescribed by statute and the highest court in the 
land.
  In announcing her resolution last January, my colleague, Senator 
Murkowski, said:

       We should continue our work to pass meaningful energy and 
     climate legislation, but in the meantime, we cannot turn a 
     blind eye to the EPA's efforts to impose back-door climate 
     regulations.

  While I fully agree with my colleague on the first point--we do need 
to work together on meaningful energy and climate legislation--I have 
to say I disagree on the second point, about the back-door regulations. 
Though Congress may not have specifically anticipated greenhouse gas 
emissions when the Clean Air Act was originally passed, the same can be 
said of many pollutants. Indeed, when the 1970 law passed, only five 
pollutants were initially listed. Since then, dozens of additional 
pollutants have been listed and the air we breathe is better for it. 
This is not an example of an agency overreaching, it is the way the 
Clean Air Act was designed to work.
  The drafters of the Clean Air Act never claimed they could predict 
all of the pollutants that might someday fall under its jurisdiction. 
That is why they established a framework and a public process that 
could be used to regulate any pollutant that science--science--
ultimately identified as a threat to public health and welfare.
  Today, 40 years later, we have come to the point where thousands of 
scientists, working throughout the Federal Government and around the 
world over the course of decades, have identified a serious risk 
associated with the emissions of greenhouse gases. Given these 
scientific findings, the legal mandate from the United States Supreme 
Court, and the statutory requirements spelled out in the Clean Air Act, 
the EPA has a responsibility to act.
  For Congress now to undermine this process would be----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 15 seconds.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. For Congress now to undermine that process would be to 
undermine the Clean Air Act itself and the sanctity of science-based 
policymaking. It would be a very bad precedent, and it would be a 
threat to our children and to the environment in which we want them to 
grow up.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, for this next 30 minutes, we will be 
allocating the block in a 20-minute segment that will be under the 
control of Senator Barrasso to engage in a colloquy with several of our 
Republican colleagues, and following that 20 minutes there will be 10 
minutes under the control of Senator Nelson of Nebraska.
  We have a lot of Members who wish to speak in support of this 
resolution, so we are trying to accommodate as many as possible. With 
that, I yield to my friend, the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I thank my colleague for allowing me 
to conduct this colloquy with other colleagues who are here as part of 
the Senate Western Caucus. We are here to speak in favor of the 
Murkowski resolution in opposing what the Environmental Protection 
Agency is trying to do in terms of its efforts to regulate climate 
change because we know that is a job killer for all Americans.
  I see my colleague, Senator Hatch from Utah, and I understand he has 
some new information he would like to share with the people of America 
and the Senate.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my colleague, and I appreciate 
being here with my two colleagues from Wyoming and also Idaho. Let me 
start by applauding Senator Murkowski for her strong leadership on this 
issue, and I stand squarely behind her effort.
  To summarize what has already been laid out, the EPA has released 
findings that, No. 1, human carbon emissions contribute in a 
significant way to global warming, and, No. 2, global warming, which 
has been going on for about 10,000 years now, is an endangerment to 
humans.
  The EPA's foundation for its proposal relies on the assumption that 
both of these findings are the truth.
  Madam President, I was sorely disappointed but not too surprised when 
I learned the EPA based its ``findings'' almost entirely on the work 
done by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--
or the IPCC. I have no problem with much of the science produced by the 
IPCC scientists, but I have a real problem with the way that science is 
summarized by the political leaders at the IPCC and by the conclusions 
drawn by those same political leaders in the IPCC's Summary for 
Policymakers, which is not a science document.
  It becomes immediately evident that the EPA relies heavily on these 
political summaries and conclusions rather than actual science produced 
by the IPCC because we now have abundant proof that a wide gulf exists 
between what the science indicates and what the political leaders of 
the IPCC pretend that it indicates.
  But I am not asking anyone to take my word for this. Instead, let's 
listen to what the IPCC scientists are saying about the conclusions 
that politicians at the IPCC have been selling to policymakers. Here is 
what Dr. John T. Everett has to say. He was an IPCC lead author and 
expert reviewer and a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration senior manager. He says:

       It is time for a reality check. Warming is not a big deal 
     and is not a bad thing. The oceans and coastal zones have 
     been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present 
     scenarios of climate change.

  Well, there is one of the IPCC's top scientists saying that the 
warming we are experiencing is not an endangerment.
  Let's hear another scientist, Dr. Richard Tol. He was the author of 
three full U.N. IPCC working groups and the Director of the Center for 
Marine and Atmospheric Science. He says:

       There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would 
     force us to act injudiciously.

  As an illustration, he explains:

       Warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be 
     about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-
     related illnesses like the flu.

  What is that, Madam President? Here we have another top scientist at 
the IPCC telling us that warming will actually save lives, not endanger 
them?
  Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, a contributing author to the U.N. IPCC 
Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, sends those of us who are 
policymakers a serious warning. He says:

       Only after we identify these factors and determine how they 
     affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. 
     And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy.

  I hope my colleagues in the Senate are listening today because these 
U.N. IPCC scientists are speaking directly to us. I wonder at what cost 
to our economy and our competitiveness will we as policymakers continue 
to ignore the actual scientists at the IPCC? There is nowhere near a 
scientific consensus on either one of the EPA's ``findings'' that 
humans are causing warming or that warming is necessarily bad for the 
environment or for humankind.
  MIT climate scientist, Dr. Richard Lindzen, another IPCC lead author 
and expert reviewer, dispels the notion there is a scientific consensus 
in favor of drastic climate policy. He explains:

       One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed 
     on is those things will have virtually no impact on climate 
     no matter what the models say. So the question is do you 
     spend trillions of dollars to have no impact? And that seems 
     like a nobrainer.

  Another top IPCC scientist and lead author was Dr. John Christy. He 
explained that the U.N. IPCC process had become corrupted by politics. 
He says:

       I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having 
     lunch. And they were

[[Page S4803]]

     talking about their role as lead authors. And they were 
     talking about how they were trying to make the report so 
     dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that 
     Kyoto Protocol.

  The politicization at the U.N. was so egregious that Dr. Christopher 
W. Landsea, U.N. IPCC author and reviewer and expert scientist with 
NOAA's National Hurricane Center, pronounced:

       I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to 
     a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-
     conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.

  Now, Madam President, there are many more U.N. and government 
scientists who have publicly expressed their professional opinions that 
the IPCC political projections are overblown and not supported by the 
science. I have put together a sampling of their quotations in a report 
called the ``UN Climate Scientists Speak Out on Global Warming.'' It is 
available for download on my Climate 101 link on my Web page. I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two documents relating 
to climate change.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would like to address an issue that has 
been very carefully ignored by the EPA; that is, the--get this word--
``benefit'' Americans can expect from the EPA's actions.
  As Senators, not many of us are scientists, but each of us is a 
policymaker. As policymakers, we are expected to fully analyze the 
costs and benefits of any proposal that comes before us.
  The endangerment the EPA points to is the warming we are supposedly 
causing. If warming is the endangerment, then the benefit is the amount 
of warming the regulations would avoid. Thanks to the IPCC, we have all 
the numbers and assumptions we need to be able to determine just how 
much warming we could avoid for the amount of carbon emissions the EPA 
can stop.
  Let's go on the assumption that the EPA will successfully reduce 
human CO2 emissions in this country by 83 percent over the 
next century. According to the alarmist and some would say overblown 
assumptions at the U.N. IPCC, Americans can expect a cooling benefit of 
somewhere between 0.07 and 0.2 degrees Celsius after a full 100 years 
of effort. That is right, we are being asked to give up trillions of 
dollars in economic activity, send all manufacturing activity overseas, 
give up millions of jobs, and put basic human activities under the 
control of the EPA, all for a benefit that cannot be measured on a 
household thermometer after 100 years of sacrifice and pain.
  The EPA tells us our human carbon emissions are leading to a general 
catastrophe, but then we find out that if we do what they say, it will 
make no real difference. So I ask the EPA Administrator this question: 
Have you done a real risk-benefit analysis of these proposed carbon 
emission regulations? I don't want to hear all the scary scenarios 
about general global warming; I want to know the actual risk associated 
with an 0.07 to 0.2 degree decrease in temperature over 100 years 
because that is what we are talking about here. That is the analysis I 
want to see because when you stack up the astounding costs on the scale 
against such a tiny benefit, you have the most lopsided and obvious 
failure of a cost-benefit analysis I have ever seen.
  I notice my other two colleagues are here. I have gone on a little 
longer than I wanted to.

                               Exhibit 1

             [From National Geographic News, July 31, 2009]

             Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

                            (By James Owen)

       Desertification, drought, and despair--that's what global 
     warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear.
       Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, 
     one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of 
     Africans in the driest parts of the continent.
       Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert 
     and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing 
     rainfall.
       If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged 
     regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.
       This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, 
     which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara 
     into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.


                              green shoots

       The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite 
     images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone 
     bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 
     miles (3,860 kilometers).
       Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive 
     regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in 
     the journal Biogeosciences.
       The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas 
     including central Chad and western Sudan.
       The transition may be occurring because hotter air has more 
     capacity to hold moisture, which in turn creates more rain, 
     said Martin Claussen of the Max Planck Institute for 
     Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, who was not involved in the 
     new study.
       ``The water-holding capacity of the air is the main driving 
     force,'' Claussen said.


                         not a single scorpion

       While satellite images can't distinguish temporary plants 
     like grasses that come and go with the rains, ground surveys 
     suggest recent vegetation change is firmly rooted.
       In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and 
     northern Sudan, new trees--such as acacias--are flourishing, 
     according to Stefan Kropelin, a climate scientist at the 
     University of Cologne's Africa Research Unit in Germany.
       Shrubs are coming up and growing into big shrubs. This is 
     completely different from having a bit more tiny grass,'' 
     said Kropelin, who has studied the region for two decades.
       In 2008 Kropelin--not involved in the new satellite 
     research--visited Western Sahara, a disputed territory 
     controlled by Morocco.
       ``The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall 
     as in the past few years,'' Kropelin said. ``They have never 
     seen so much grazing land.''
       ``Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single 
     blade of grass,'' he said.
       ``Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which 
     may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of 
     years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even 
     sorts of amphibians coming back,'' he said.
       ``The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is 
     indisputable.''


                            uncertain future

       An explosion in plant growth has been predicted by some 
     climate models.
       For instance, in 2005 a team led by Reindert Haarsma of the 
     Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, the 
     Netherlands, forecast significantly more future rainfall in 
     the Sahel.
       The study in Geophysical Research Letters predicated that 
     rainfall in the July to September wet season would rise by up 
     to two millimeters a day by 2080.
       Satellite data shows ``that indeed during the last decade, 
     the Sahel is becoming more green,'' Haarsma said.
       Even so, climate scientists don't agree on how future 
     climate change will affect the Sahel: Some studies simulate a 
     decrease in rainfall.
       ``This issue is still rather uncertain,'' Haarsma said.
       Max Planck's Claussen said North Africa is the area of 
     greatest disagreement among climate change modelers.
       Forecasting how global warming will affect the region is 
     complicated by its vast size and the unpredictable influence 
     of high-altitude winds that disperse monsoon rains, Claussen 
     added.
       ``Half the models follow a wetter trend, and half a 
     drier.''
                                  ____


Sample of Scientific Studies ShowingReal-World Benefits of Warming for 
                          Species and Habitat


  IPCC Global Warming-Induced Extinction Hypothesis Based on Computer 
                                 Models

       1. Woodwell (1989) wrote that ``the climatic changes 
     expected are rapid enough to exceed the capacity of forests 
     to migrate or otherwise adapt.''
       [Woodwell, G.M. 1989. The warming of the industrialized 
     middle latitudes 1985-2050: Causes and consequences. Climatic 
     Change 15: 31-50.]
       2. Davis (1989) said that ``trees may not be able to 
     disperse rapidly enough to track climate.''
       [Davis, M.B. 1989. Lags in vegetation response to 
     greenhouse warming. Climatic Change 15: 75-89. Gear, A.J. and 
     Huntley, B. 1991. Rapid changes in the range limits of Scots 
     pine 4000 years ago. Science 251: 544-547. Root, T.L. and 
     Schneider, S.H. 1993. Can large-scale climatic models be 
     linked with multi scale ecological studies? Conservation 
     Biology 7: 256-270.]
       3. Malcolm and Markham (2000) agreed that ``rapid rates of 
     extinction [since] many species may be unable to shift their 
     ranges fast enough to keep up with global warming.''
       [Malcolm, J.R. and Markham, A. 2000. Global Warming and 
     Terrestrial Biodiversity Decline. World Wide Fund for Nature, 
     Gland, Switzerland.]
       4. Thomas et al. (2004) developed computer models 
     predicting future habitat distributions. These models were 
     used by the IPCC to make estimates of species extinction.
       [Malcolm, J.R., Liu, C., Miller, L.B., Allnutt, T. and 
     Hansen, L. 2002. Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species 
     Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. World 
     Wide Fund for Nature. Gland, Switzerland.]

[[Page S4804]]

            Scientific Rebuttals to Thomas' Computer Models

       1. Stockwell (2000) observes that the Thomas models, due to 
     lack of any observed extinction data, are not `tried and 
     true,' and their doctrine of `massive extinction' is actually 
     a case of `massive extinction bias.'
       [Stockwell, D.R.B. 2004. Biased Toward Extinction, Guest 
     Editorial, CO2 Science 7 (19): http://www.co2science.org/
articles/V7/N19/EDIT.php]
       2. Dormann (2007) concludes that shortcomings associated 
     with climate alarmist analyses ``are so numerous and 
     fundamental that common ecological sense should caution us 
     against putting much faith in relying on their findings for 
     further extrapolations.''
       [Dormann, C.F. 2007. Promising the future? Global change 
     projections of species distributions. Basic and Applied 
     Ecology 8: 387-397.]


        Plants' Ability to Avoid Extinction with the Help of CO2

       1. Idso and Idso (1994) found that high levels of CO2 have 
     many positive effects on plants.
       [Idso, K.E. and Idso, S.B. 1994. Plant responses to 
     atmospheric CO2 enrichment in the face of environmental 
     constraints: A review of the past 10 years' research. 
     Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 69: 153: 203.]
       2. Idso and Idso (1994) also showed that the positive 
     effects of CO2 on plants were amplified as temperatures 
     increase.
       [Idso, K.E. and Idso, S.B. 1994. Plabt responses to 
     atmospheric CO2 enrichment in the face of environmental 
     constraints: A review of the past 10 years' research. 
     Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 69: 153: 203.]
       3. Wittwer (1988) asserts that even the most extreme global 
     warming envisioned by the IPCC would probably not affect the 
     majority of Earth's plants, because 95% of all plants can 
     naturally adapt to high levels of CO2 while remaining in 
     their current habitat.
       [Wittwer, S.H. 1988. The greenhouse effect. Carolina 
     Biological Supply, Burlington, NC.]
       4. Drake (1992) shows that increases in atmospheric C02 can 
     actually raise the optimum growth temperature of plants.
       [Drake, B.G. 1992. Global warming: The positive impact of 
     rising carbon dioxide levels. Eco-Logic 1(3): 20-22.]


        Real-World Examples of Plants Adapting to Climate Change

       1. Allen et al. (1999) discovered that the vegetation 
     naturally responds to rapid changes in climate. Warmer was 
     always better in terms of vegetation production.
       [Allen, J.R.M., Brandt, U., Brauer, A., Hubberten, H.-W., 
     Huntley, B., Nowacyk, N.R., OBerhansli, H., Watts, W.A., 
     Wulf, S. and Zolitschka, B. 1999. Rapid environmental changes 
     in southern Europe during the last glacial period. Nature 
     400: 740-743.]
       2. Kullman (2002), in a long-term study of the Swiss Alps, 
     similarly shows that the Earth's vegetation can rapidly 
     respond to climate warming. Warming does not result in 
     species extinction, but actually leads to a greater number of 
     species.
       [Kullman, L. 2002. Rapid recent range-margin rise of tree 
     and shrub species in the Swedish Scandes. Journal of Ecology 
     90: 68-77.]


                 Plants Do Not Need to Migrate to Adapt

       1. An international team of 33 researchers found that, with 
     warming, ``when species were rare in a local area, they had a 
     higher survival rate than when they were common, resulting in 
     enrichment for rare species and increasing diversity with age 
     and size class in these complex ecosystems.''
       [Wills, C., Harms, K.E., Condit, R., King, D., Thompson, 
     J., He, F., Muller-Landau, H.C., P., Losos, E., Cmita, L., 
     Hubbell, S., LaFrankie, J., Bunyavejchewin, S., Dattaraja, 
     H.S., Davies, S., Esufali, S., Foster, R., Gunatilleke, N., 
     Gunatilleke, S., Hall, P., Itoh, A., John, R., Kiratiprayoon, 
     S., de Lao, S.L., Massa, M., Nath, C., Noor, M.N.S., Kassim, 
     A.R., Sukumar, R., Suresch, H.S., Sun, I.-F., Tan, S., 
     Yamakura, T. and Zimmerman, J. 2006. Nonrandom processes 
     maintain diversity in tropical forests. Science 311: 527-
     531.]


              Evolutionary Responses to Climatic Stresses

       1. Franks et al., 2007 showed that disease incidence was 
     lower in environments with elevated CO2 levels.
       [Franks, S.J., and Weis, A.E. 2008. A change in climate 
     causes rapid evolution of multiple life-history traits and 
     their interactions in an annual plant. Journal of 
     Evolutionary Biology 21: 1321-1334.]
       2. Sage and Coleman (2001) concluded that species are 
     continually evolving and have high capacity for further 
     evolving as CO2 content continues to rise.
       [Sage, R.F. and Coleman, J.R. 2001. Effects of low 
     atmospheric CO2 on plants: more than a thing of the past. 
     TRENDS in Plant Science 6: 18-24.]


                   Animals Avoiding Extinction--Birds

       1. Thomas and Lennon (1999) showed that both British birds 
     and European butterflies have expanded their ranges in the 
     face of global warming. This is a positive response that 
     decreases the likelihood of extinction to a lower possibility 
     than it was before the warming.
       [Thomas, C.D. and Lennon, J.J. 1999. Birds extend their 
     ranges northwards. Nature 399: 213.]
       2. In a similar study (1999) Brown et al. showed that the 
     warming trend leads to an earlier abundance of food for the 
     Mexican jay. This, in turn, leads to the jay laying eggs 
     earlier in the season, and thus increasing the chances of 
     survival for young jays.
       [Brown, J.L, Shou-Hsien, L. And Bhagabati, N. 1999. Long-
     term trend toward earlier breeding in an American bird: A 
     response to global warming? Proceedings of the National 
     Academy of Science, U.S.A. 96: 5565-5569.]
       3. Brommer (2004) demonstrates that the range of birds in a 
     warming world will likely increase in size, which decreases 
     the likelihood of extinction.
       [Brommer, J.E. 2004. The range margins of northern birds 
     shift polewards. Annales Zoologici Fennici 41: 391-397.]
       4. Lemoine et al. concludes that ``increase in temperature 
     appear to have allowed increases in abundance of species 
     whose range centers were located in southern Europe and that 
     may have been limited by low winter or spring temperature.'' 
     In addition they found that, ``the impact of climate change 
     on bird populations increased in importance between 1990 and 
     2000 and is now more significant than any other tested 
     factor,'' because warming has tremendously benefitted 
     European birds and helped buffer them against extinction.
       [Lemoine, N., Bauer, H.-G., Peintinger, M. And Bohning-
     Gaese, K. 2007. Effects of climate and land-use change on 
     species abundance in a central European bird community. 
     Conservation Biology 21: 495-503.]
       5. Hapulka and Barowiec (2008) observed that increasing 
     temperatures over a 36-year period led to an increase in the 
     length of the egg-laying period. For several reasons, these 
     temperature increases resulted in birds having significantly 
     more offspring.
       [Halpuka, L., Dyrcz, A. And Borowiec, M. 2008. Climate 
     change affects breeding of reed warblers Acrocephalus 
     scirpaceus. Journal of Avian Biology 39: 95-100.]
       6. UN Modeler Jensen et al (2008) stated, ``global climate 
     change is expected to shift species ranges polewards, with a 
     risk of range contractions and population declines of 
     especially high-Arctic species.''
       [Jensen, R.A., Madsen, J., O'Connell, M., Wisz, M.S., 
     Tommervick, H. And Mehlum, F. 2008. Prediction of the 
     distribution of Arctic-nesting pink-footed geese under a 
     warmer climate scenario.]
       7. When this theory was actually tested, the same 
     researchers, Jensen et al (2008) discovered that global 
     warming ``will have a positive effect on the suitability of 
     Svalbard for nesting geese in terms of range expansion into 
     the northern and eastern parts of Svalbard which are curently 
     unsuitable.''
       [Jensen, R.A., Madsen, J., O'Connell, M., Wisz, M.S., 
     Tommervick, H. And Mehlum, F. 2008. Prediction of the 
     distribution of Arctic-nesting pink-footed geese under a 
     warmer climate scenario. Global Change Biology 14: 1-10.]


             Other Climate Warming Bird Population Studies

       1. UN modelers Seoane and Carrascal (2008) wrote that ``it 
     has been hypothesized that species preferring low 
     environmental temperatures which inhabit cooler habitats or 
     areas, would be negatively affected by temperature during the 
     last two decades.'' After an intense study of 57 species 
     between 1996 and 2004, they discovered that, ``one-half of 
     the study species showed significant increasing [italics 
     added] recent trends despite the public concern that bird 
     populations are generally decreasing,'' while ``only one-
     tenth showed a significant decrease.''
       [Seoane, J. And Carrascal, L.M. 2008. Interspecific 
     differences in population trends of Spanish birds are related 
     to habitat and climactic preferences. Global Ecology and 
     Biogeography 17: 111-121.]

  Mr. BARRASSO. I think the Senator from Utah has made a clear point. 
The costs are real. The costs of doing this are very real. The 
benefits, however, are theoretical.
  I see my colleague and friend from Idaho here. I ask him, who elected 
the Environmental Protection Agency? Because we sure know the American 
people are against these increased costs for energy and these job-
killing regulations.
  Mr. RISCH. I thank my colleague, Senator Barrasso. You were cheating, 
looking at my notes over my shoulder. A well made point.
  I come at this whole proposition from a little different way than 
perhaps a lot of my colleagues do. All of this debate has been about 
global warming and about whether we should regulate carbon and how we 
should do that and what have you. But that is not really the issue on 
this resolution. This resolution is about the separation of powers. The 
Constitution of this great land that we all took an oath to uphold is 
very specific in separating the powers of the executive branch, the 
legislative branch, and the judicial branch. The Founding Fathers 
wisely separated the different branches so that none could overpower 
the other. What are we doing here? The movement by the administration 
and by the Environmental Protection Agency is to take from the 
legislative branch the power that belongs to the legislative branch.
  It is obvious in the debate that is going on here that we have deep 
differences, which we should have, because this is a major policy 
decision

[[Page S4805]]

that will affect every single American. It has profound effects on the 
economy. It has profound effects on the movement of jobs overseas. 
These are things that should be debated and are things that should be 
decided by elected persons--not by the people at the EPA, who are not 
elected and who are not answerable to the electorate.
  When this happens, what you get is a deterioration of the 
Constitution of this great country. Each of the branches is constantly 
tugging at the other, attempting to pull power away from the other and 
attempting to consolidate power within itself. This movement by the EPA 
to effect policy is one of those power struggles. Every single Member 
of this body should be concerned about the shift of power from the 
legislative branch to the administrative branch.
  What has happened here, as everyone can see, is this has become 
polarized. Again, it has become a partisan argument that we should 
allow the EPA to do this because we can't seem to get it through the 
legislative branch as quickly or as efficiently or leaning to the left 
as we want. That is wrong. It is just plain wrong. It should be decided 
right here. Those policy decisions should be debated here. Those policy 
decisions should be made on the floor of this body and on the floor of 
the House of Representatives. This is not a job for nonelected persons. 
It is a job for the people who have been elected and who have to go 
home again and face reelection and listen to the voters say: You did a 
great job controlling global warming or, you doofus, what are you 
doing? You can't possibly do it the way you want to do it.
  That is a debate which should be held here. Why has this become so 
partisan? At the end of the day, we all know how this is going to come 
out. There are going to be 55 votes, give or take a couple, to defeat 
Senator Murkowski's resolution. It is going to be generally on a party-
line basis. At the end, the administration will claim a great and 
glorious victory again. But it will not be a great and glorious victory 
for the American people; it will be a defeat for the American people. 
And more important, it will be a defeat and another erosion of the 
Constitution of this great country and movement of power from the 
legislative branch where it belongs to the administrative branch, to 
the bureaucrats, to the people who are not elected. That is a wrong way 
to do this. It should stay right here in the legislative body.
  I yield the floor back to my good friend, Senator Barrasso.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I think my colleague makes a key point. My colleague 
from Idaho has been discussing what has been described as the worst 
disaster in American history, and it is what is happening right today 
in the Gulf of Mexico. Should the Environmental Protection Agency maybe 
be focusing its efforts there, where we know there is a real problem, a 
real job to be done, real concerns, and the American people are looking 
or should the Environmental Protection Agency spend its time and spend 
our resources driving up the cost of energy and doing it with the idea 
that perhaps 100 years from now it might make a difference? The efforts 
ought to be placed today where the efforts are needed most. The 
Environmental Protection Agency ought to be focused on the gulf, not on 
something that theoretically may make a difference 100 years from now.
  At a time when emissions are going up in China and going up in India 
and going up in Russia, going up all around the world, the 
Environmental Protection Agency says: I want to handcuff the American 
economy, handcuff the small businesses of this country. At a time with 
9.7 percent unemployment, let's make it tougher on Americans--that is 
what the Environmental Protection Agency wants to do. If this Senate 
goes ahead and defeats the Murkowski amendment, they will be saying 
exactly the same thing. We are going to make it tougher on small 
businesses.
  For the small businesses in the western part of the country, we have 
our small refiners, we have our agricultural folks, tourism folks--all 
of the different people as part of the Western Caucus. What is this 
impact going to do to you? What is your position? We contacted 
agricultural groups all around the West. Look at this map of the United 
States. More than half of the square miles of the United States 
included in here support the Murkowski resolution because they know it 
is key to their economy. It is key to those parts of the country. It is 
key to agriculture. It is key to energy production. And it is key to 
families who are trying to balance their budgets, live within their 
means. They do not want to see an increase in taxes, which is what this 
is--an increase in energy costs at a time of 9.7 percent unemployment.
  I tell you, I am here to support the Murkowski resolution of 
disapproval. The EPA's endangerment finding starts the process of 
taxing everything Americans do: driving cars, heating homes, powering 
small businesses. This will cost millions of Americans their jobs.
  It is fascinating. The Small Business Administration wrote to the EPA 
a couple of times reminding the Environmental Protection Agency to stop 
the endangerment finding and look at its impact on small businesses, on 
small communities. The SBA basically said: Comply with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, the law meant to protect small businesses from 
excessive regulation from Washington.
  I will tell you, when you talk about excessive regulations from 
Washington, we have seen them in the last year and a half. This bedrock 
law was meant to protect the ranchers, the small refiners around the 
States, restaurant owners in Utah, dairy farmers--you name it. But with 
unemployment hovering at about 9.7 percent, it is unacceptable that the 
Environmental Protection Agency has failed to evaluate the impact of 
greenhouse gas regulations on the small businesses and the communities 
across America. Who grows jobs in America? Small businesses. In the 
last 15 years, small business owners have been responsible for 64 
percent of all job creation in America. But additional regulations, 
additional rules, additional taxes make it that much harder.
  Is it going to actually have an impact on the global environment? No, 
not at all, not when you take a look at what is happening in China, 
where their emissions are going to go up every year all the way through 
2050. India's emissions are going up; more and more energy is being 
used. If you want to use energy well, the United States does the best 
job in using it efficiently.
  It just seems that when I go home on weekends to Wyoming--and I will 
be there again tomorrow--and I talk to people in various parts of the 
State, they say: What are they thinking back in Washington? Why are 
they going to make it harder for us to compete? Why are they going to 
make it harder for us economically?
  The food producers in our Nation compete globally to sell food 
products, and they do it in a way where we need to use energy. 
Agriculture is a hugely energy-intense operation, and anything that 
increases the costs of producing that food is going to get passed on to 
consumers in this country and consumers in other nations as we go ahead 
and try to compete and sell our products overseas.
  It does seem that this EPA endangerment rule will ruin the small 
business engine that drives the economy on jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, today I rise to speak in 
support of the bipartisan resolution of disapproval offered by my 
colleague and friend, Senator Murkowski from Alaska, and out of concern 
as well about a serious, harmful impact on Nebraska's economy that 
could result if the Environmental Protection Agency moves ahead with 
its plans to regulate carbon emissions in our country.
  While I will outline some of that impact in a moment, I wish to first 
explain why I am supporting the resolution. I am supporting it to 
protect the Nebraska economy and our Nation's economy from EPA 
overreach. It is that simple. I want to send a clear message: 
Nebraska's farmers, ranchers, business owners, cities, towns, and 
hundreds of thousands of electricity consumers should not have their 
economic fortunes determined by unelected bureaucrats in Washington, 
DC.

[[Page S4806]]

  Finding a national consensus on how to control the levels of carbon 
emissions is the job of elected Members of Congress. Reducing carbon 
emissions will have a substantial economic impact on our country but in 
different ways for different States. Congress should take the lead in 
determining the rules that will apply.
  American people may not support. It does not change the Clean Air 
Act. It says Congress should write the new rules curbing carbon 
emissions.
  The reason this is important can be found in what I have heard from 
many Nebraskans about the impact of the EPA's proposed carbon emissions 
regulations.
  For nearly 2 years, since the EPA's initial Proposed Rulemaking for 
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act in July 
2008, I have heard from Nebraskans.
  Many agricultural, industrial and energy-related businesses and 
organizations in my State have warned that the EPA regulations will 
impose substantial new costs on farmers, ranchers, small businesses, 
communities and users of electricity. EPA regulations would impose a 
top-down government-directed regime that would raise the price of 
energy in Nebraska, add greatly to administrative costs, and create new 
layers of bureaucracy.
  While no one can say how much, because even the EPA does not know yet 
what requirements will be imposed on power suppliers, the cost in 
Nebraska will be significant.
  Regulated entities such as Nebraska's two Public Power companies, 
which provide electricity directly to 1.34 million Nebraskans in a 
State of 1.7 million residents, would be subject to an inflexible 
regulatory process. It would require new permits to be acquired before 
facilities are built or modified, and before Best Available Control 
Technology is purchased, installed, and operated.
  The application process for a single EPA permit for a new or modified 
source could cost the applicant hundreds of thousands of dollars and 
require more than 300 person-hours for a regulatory agency.
  In Nebraska today, coal serves as our primary fuel source to produce 
electricity. We also have a great potential to move to renewable energy 
resources such as wind. But the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gas 
emissions would force a move to other fuel alternatives at rates that 
would substantially increase the cost of electricity for consumers in 
our State. This is incontrovertible.
  Soaring electricity rates would have a detrimental impact on many 
businesses and manufacturers. One of them is Nucor Steel in Norfolk, 
one of the largest users of electricity in Nebraska.
  If you couple the electricity rate increase with new regulations and 
review processes for companies like Nucor to make major modifications 
to an existing facility or build a new facility, you have a recipe for 
trouble. EPA regulation of greenhouse gases would have chilling effects 
on new investment in our Nation's manufacturing sector that we are just 
beginning to see come around from the economic downturn.

  Further, these new regulatory costs are not limited to our utility 
consumers and manufacturers. They could devastate Nebraska's No. 1 
industry: Agriculture.
  According the Nebraska Farm Bureau, were the EPA's tailoring rule not 
to work, an estimated 37,000 farms nationwide would emit more 
greenhouse gas emissions than the Clean Air Act threshold levels allow. 
Permits generally cost more than $23,000, so the regulations could add 
$886 million in costs to our farmers.
  Not only will our farms bear additional bureaucratic costs, but they 
will be put at a disadvantage in the global marketplace.
  The Nebraska Soybean Association notes that every other row of our 
State's soybean crop is exported. The EPA's new regulations will put 
commodities such as Nebraska-produced soybeans at a disadvantage to our 
foreign competitors who are not subject to similar burdensome 
regulations.
  Earlier this year, in his State of the Union Address, the President 
called for doubling our exports over the next 5 years to create more 
jobs in America. That goal is at cross purposes with allowing new 
regulations to go forward that will hamstring our producers as they try 
to compete in the global marketplace.
  Additionally, the Nebraska Corn Growers point out that the increase 
in the bureaucratic costs to farms will boost agriculture input costs. 
With that, our Nation's farms will not even be competitive with foreign 
producers here at home. That, then, in turn will lead to more foreign 
dependence and less security for the U.S. food and fuels supply.
  This strikes me as possibly the biggest negative consequence of the 
EPA getting out ahead of Congress. As I pointed out time and time again 
during debate on the 2008 farm bill:

       If you love that we are dependent on other nations for our 
     energy needs, you'll love even more relying on other nations 
     for our food.

  I am aware that some have argued that support of this resolution is 
an attack on the Clean Air Act. Some say that if the resolution passes 
it would lead to an even greater reliance on oil leading to more 
situations like the spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
  I am not going to go for a smokescreen argument against the Murkowski 
resolution.
  The resolution would only prevent an unwarranted and ill-advised 
expansion of the Clean Air Act's implementation. Every current standard 
and control for air pollution would be preserved exactly intact, as 
written and authorized by Congress.
  Now, I have no doubt that carbon emissions should be reduced in the 
U.S. But not through excessively costly EPA regulations or a 
complicated cap and trade proposal that could spur speculation that 
enriches Wall Street, while not cleaning the air above Main Street.
  In my view greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced through a 
comprehensive energy bill. One that promotes efficiency, innovation, 
new technology, and renewable energy such as wind and biofuels that can 
be produced in Nebraska's fields. An energy bill should help, not harm, 
Nebraska and the American economy as it cleans up the air.
  By pursuing that kind of a sound energy policy we will take important 
steps toward ending our reliance on energy from areas that can be 
unstable such as the Middle East, South America and Africa. Instead, we 
can create our own American energy from the Sun, the wind and the 
biofuels available throughout the Midwest, and across our great land.
  I believe there is bipartisan support for this type of comprehensive 
energy bill. I hope we can turn our attention to it soon.
  We should work together on legislation that enables our agricultural 
and manufacturing industries to grow, rather than wilt under layers of 
unilateral and bureaucratic EPA directives.
  When Congress takes the lead in that manner, Nebraska families, 
farmers and businesses will prosper, and so will America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, at this time I yield 10 minutes to 
Senator Feinstein, followed by 10 minutes to Senator Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I just learned, by looking at one of 
the boards out here, that we have something called a Western Caucus, 
and the largest State in the Union that is bigger than all of the 
States in population in the caucus has not been invited to join the 
Western Caucus. Well, so be it. We will have to suffer along.
  This measure, I believe, sets a dangerous precedent by invalidating 
the endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution. I strongly oppose 
it. I wish to make the public health argument.
  What is an ``endangerment finding''? Simply put, it is a scientific 
determination made by the EPA that an air pollutant endangers the 
health and welfare of the American people and, therefore, it must be 
regulated under the Clean Air Act.
  This came about because of a 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA. What 
the Supreme Court said was that the EPA has an obligation to study the 
impact of global warming. Specifically, the majority opinion found that 
``greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean

[[Page S4807]]

Air Act's definition of an air pollutant.'' It ordered the EPA to 
comply with the Clean Air Act and make a determination about whether 
greenhouse gases could ``reasonably endanger public health or 
welfare.''
  In December 2009, the EPA issued the required final endangerment 
finding, and that final finding said:

       The emission of six greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide, 
     methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, 
     and sulfur hexafluoride, threaten the public health and 
     welfare of current and future generations.

  Accordingly, the Administrator has initiated action to curb these 
emissions in order to protect the health and safety. Many argue, and I 
happen to concur, that a national cap-and-trade system on these gases 
might be more efficient and less costly than having to regulate them 
under the Clean Air Act. Yet, the Senate has failed time and again to 
approve climate change legislation. We have dithered while the Earth 
heats.
  That means right now, EPA is the only Federal agency with the 
statutory authority to protect the American public's health and safety 
from greenhouse gas pollution.
  The Murkowski resolution, however, would throw out this endangerment 
finding. It would stop EPA dead in its tracks. This would have some 
real and very serious consequences. First, it would put the Senate on 
record rejecting scientific analysis of EPA experts. Second, it would 
block the implementation of a new Federal fuel economy program. Third, 
it would put the Senate at odds with a coalition of 115 nations that 
signed the Copenhagen summit agreement. The President has threatened to 
veto this resolution if it passes, and I would support that veto.
  Now, health effects. The EPA's endangerment finding says that global 
warming will have four significant detrimental human health effects. 
One, more heat waves will mean more heat-related deaths, which is 
already the leading cause of weather-related deaths in our country. 
Two, increased extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, put human 
lives at risk. Katrina demonstrated that in tragic fashion. And, three, 
a warmer climate will likely result in an increase in the spread of 
several food and waterborne pathogens, including tropical diseases.
  Finally, and most important to the Chair's State and my State, EPA's 
endangerment finding states:

       Climate change is expected to increase regional ozone 
     pollution with associated risks in respiratory illnesses and 
     premature death.

  California has two of the worst nonattainment regions in the country: 
the South Coast Basin, including Los Angeles, and the San Joaquin 
Valley. Experts tells us combined ozone and particulate matter 
contribute to up to 14,000 deaths and $71 billion in health care costs 
every year.
  Roughly 2.5 million Californians--that is bigger than most of these 
States in the Western Caucus--2.5 million Californians suffer from 
asthma, and it is increasing, and other air-pollution-related 
illnesses.
  This is a matter of saving lives. It is a matter of major health 
concern and welfare, and it should be looked at that way. If 
temperatures rise as projected, these two regions of our country could 
see 75 to 85 percent more days with warming-related smog and ozone 
pollution. Fact. This means more asthma, more lung-related disease, 
more premature deaths from air pollution. These scientific observations 
are not political statements. They are fact established by scientific 
study after study. Yet the resolution offered today would reject this 
evidence.
  The EPA is legally charged with protecting the public's health and 
welfare from air pollution. Not to do so, in my opinion, is 
malfeasance.
  Additionally, the Murkowski resolution would invalidate the Federal 
fuel economy program. On April 1, the administration finalized joint 
standards issued by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, more fondly known as NHTSA, in coordination with the 
State of California to require automakers to increase fleetwide fuel 
efficiency from the 2008 average of 27 miles per gallon to the 
equivalent of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016. This is important. It is 
based on the enacted Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act which I authored with 
Senator Olympia Snowe and others. That law requires automakers to 
increase fleetwide fuel economy to the maximum feasible rate beginning 
with 2011 vehicle models. I have been proud and encouraged to see the 
administration aggressively implement this program. Yet if EPA's 
endangerment finding is invalidated by Congress and thrown out, it 
would mean that the Federal fuel economy program would collapse.
  If that happens, California and 14 other States are required to 
enforce their respective State law, regulating tailpipe greenhouse gas 
emission standards. According to the auto industry, this would reimpose 
the very patchwork of regulation they have argued against for many 
years. This would be a major setback. EPA Administrator Jackson has 
written that Senator Murkowski's resolution:

     would undo the historic agreement among states, automakers, 
     the federal government, and other stakeholders . . . leaving 
     the automobile industry without explicit nationwide 
     uniformity that it has described as important to its 
     business.

  State environment commissioners from nine States have written to 
Congress to explain that they prefer a national approach, but they will 
enforce their State statutes as long as the Federal Government refuses 
to act. So the effect of the Murkowski resolution will be to encourage 
a State-by-State variation of regulation. Not good. The EPA is the 
agency we have charged to protect our children and our environment from 
harmful air pollution. EPA is moving forward slowly and carefully to 
address this issue. Its proposed rules would apply only to the very 
largest sources until 2016, 6 years from now. If we in the Senate don't 
like EPA's proposal, we should pass a climate change bill. But the one 
thing we should absolutely not do is deny the existence of a problem 
that science says is severely dangerous to our planet.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. I wish to begin by saying some nice words about the 
Senator from Alaska. When she ran for the Senate the first time, she 
ran against one of my dearest friends, former Governor Tony Knowles, 
whom I tried very hard to elect to the Senate. When he lost, I said: 
You are here. I want to work with you. I want to be your partner on a 
whole lot of things.
  This is one we cannot be partners and colleagues on. I want her to 
know, though, there will be other opportunities, and I look forward to 
those opportunities. Today I am compelled to oppose what she is 
attempting to do.
  As my colleagues are aware, I go back and forth on the train every 
day and night. Usually before I catch the 7:15 train in Wilmington, I 
go to the YMCA and work out. Sometimes people talk to me and say: Hi, 
how are you? Sometimes they try to raise issues. This week a fellow 
came up to me and said: What is this all about? ``This'' being today's 
debate on the proposal of the Senator from Alaska. I didn't have time 
to explore it in detail in order to make my train, but I want to answer 
his question today.
  This is about are we going to be guided by decades of science from 
thousands of respected scientists or not. This is about are we going to 
seize the opportunity that is inherent in the adversity we face at home 
and around the world or not. This is about are we going to get serious 
about ending our addiction to oil, a lot of which in our country is in 
places like the Gulf of Mexico, some thousands of feet below the 
surface of the water or not. This is about are we going to stop sending 
literally maybe hundreds of billions of dollars every year to places 
around the world that are unstable, nondemocratic, propping up tyrants 
who lead countries such as Iran and Venezuela or not. This is about are 
we going to continue sending troops to places such as Iraq or other 
places where they happen to have a lot of oil and we want to make sure 
there is access to the oil or not. This is about whether we are going 
to jump-start our economy at a time in our history when millions of 
young people are graduating from colleges, universities, and high 
schools wondering if they will have the kind of opportunity to find a 
job and provide for themselves and their families some day, to provide 
a good life, better than the one they have inherited from their 
parents. That is what this is about.
  We have heard--and I know my colleagues have heard--from thousands of

[[Page S4808]]

scientists from all over the country who give us their advice. What are 
they telling us? Among the things they are telling us is that the Earth 
is growing warmer. They are telling us that we are part of the cause. 
They are telling us to do something about it. They are saying to us if 
we won't do something about it, at least let EPA do the job they have 
been told by the Supreme Court they have to do under the Clean Air Act. 
Among the things they have had to do under the Clean Air Act is to 
provide for ratcheting up the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks, and vans 
up to about 34 miles per gallon by 2016. The effect of doing that will 
take something like 50 million cars, trucks, and vans off the road by 
2030. That is the kind of thing EPA needs to do, if we will let them.
  Who are the scientists we are hearing from? I don't know them all. We 
have heard from a couple thousand. I know a couple of them well. Their 
names are Lonnie and Ellen Thompson, professors at Ohio State 
University, my undergraduate alma mater. They spent a lot of the last 
20, 25 years running the polar research center at Ohio State. They have 
also spent a lot of the last 25 years going around the world climbing 
up some of the tallest mountains, a lot of them along the equator, 
where the snow caps give them the opportunity to take ice core samples. 
Those snow caps over time have actually begun to largely disappear. The 
ice core samples they still have frozen on the campus at Ohio State 
give us an opportunity to go back in time and, as we go back in time, 
to look back as much as a million years. What do we see then? We see 
over that million years different levels of carbon in the air. 
Sometimes it is high, sometimes it is low. They have correlated--the 
Drs. Thompson; I call them the Thompson twins--the increases in carbon 
with increases in temperature over time and the decreases in carbon 
with the decreases in temperature. They are correlated. They are 
positively correlated. Drs. Thompson say we ought to do something about 
it. We ought to act on that science.
  I believe they are absolutely right. We have also heard from 
scientists that the 10 hottest years in all the years we have been 
around as a country keeping records are the last 20 years. In an effort 
to compel the government to take action, all kinds of campaigns have 
been launched. I heard one from Senator Feinstein talking about 
drought, fertile farmland turning into desert. Polar bears don't have 
ice to float on. We see endangered species disappear. Movies are made 
about extreme weather that is going to flow out of climate change. I am 
going to leave it to others to pursue those particular agendas or 
examples. I want to focus on a couple I am more familiar with. One is 
Delaware, where I live. The other is Florida, where my parents lived 
for the last 30 years of their lives.
  This is Delaware, outlined here in black. If the melting that is 
going on in Greenland and the west Antarctic ice sheets continues, if 
it continues over the next 100 years or more, this will no longer be 
Delaware. The green area right here will be Delaware. People won't go 
to Rehoboth Beach anymore or Bethany or Dewey Beach. They will be 
looking for a beach up here in Dover. They won't be going go to NASCAR 
races in Dover. They will be going to a sailboat regatta in Dover. 
Ocean View, which doesn't have an ocean view, will be under the ocean.
  Let's take a look at Florida with about a 1-meter rise in sea level. 
My parents lived in Clearwater just around here in St. Petersburg and 
Tampa. The place where they used to live will be largely under water. 
They lived about a half mile from the gulf. It will be pretty much 
under water. Look at south Florida, go to South Beach. When we have 1 
meter of sea rise, we won't find it. It will be under water. What 
happens with 6 meters of sea rise? The red part is the parts of Florida 
that are basically under water. Most of the people who live in Florida 
live in the parts in red. Where are they going to live? I guess they 
can come inland a little bit, but they won't be living in the area that 
turns red because they would otherwise be under water.
  There is a saying that all politics is local. That has been true for 
a long time, and it is still true. The highest point of land in 
Delaware is a bridge. When we get a couple feet of sea level rise, the 
outline of our State changes dramatically. The quality of life in a 
State that is under water changes dramatically as well. The same is 
true of Florida and a bunch of other coastal States.
  What do we need to do? We need to unleash market forces, put millions 
of people to work building new nuclear powerplants, finding ways to 
take carbon dioxide coming out of coal-fired plants, turning it into a 
concrete aggregate to build roads, bridges, finding ways to take the 
CO2 coming off coal-fired plants and turning it into 
biofuels. We need to deploy off of our shores windmill farms. We need 
to deploy windmill farms from North Carolina all the way up to Maine. 
We need to take that electricity we are generating from the wind and 
use that to power vehicles such as the Chevrolet Volt that will be 
launched this fall or the Fisker Karma cars of Project Nina that are 
going to be launched in a year or so, built in Delaware. They get 100 
miles per gallon. We need to make sure that the cars, trucks, and vans 
that GM and Chrysler are prepared to build, 44 miles per gallon, that 
when they build them, somebody will be there to buy them.
  Let me conclude with the words of a friend of Senator Boxer, an 
eminent climatologist named Stephen Stills. He wrote a great song that 
says: ``Something's happening here; what it is ain't exactly clear.''
  It is clear to me. Our planet is getting warmer. It is clear to me 
the great challenges that poses for all of us. But inherent in those 
challenges are great opportunities. The thing we have to do is seize 
those opportunities, to seize the day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Menendez, followed by 5 
minutes to Senator Cardin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding. I come to the floor in strong opposition to the Murkowski 
resolution because it means we will needlessly use more oil. That is 
why the oil industry supports this resolution, because this resolution 
would increase demand for their products. In turn that is why so many 
of my Republican friends support this resolution, because whenever big 
oil wants something, it seems they line up to support it. When the 
Republicans were in charge of MMS, they stripped the government's 
ability to regulate oil drilling. Anyone who has turned on the news in 
the last 52 days can see exactly what the policy of allowing industry 
to police itself has gotten us. Now they want to go further and strip 
the government's ability to reduce our oil consumption and regulate 
pollution. This is simply a wrongheaded approach at the wrong time.

  This is not the time to increase oil consumption by more than 450 
million barrels, which this resolution would ultimately do. This is not 
the time to prop up big oil, make ourselves less energy secure, and put 
our coastlines in further peril.
  The events unfolding in the gulf have vividly shown us we should not 
be doubling down on 19th-century dirty fuels but, instead, moving to 
clean technologies of the 21st century that will reinvigorate our 
economy, allow our businesses to compete internationally, improve our 
energy security, and preserve the environment.
  The resolution is regressive on its face. For my home State of New 
Jersey, it would increase dependence on oil by more than 14 million 
barrels in 2016 and cost New Jerseyans an additional $39 million at the 
gas pump in 2016.
  The Federal Government gives big oil tax breaks. It gives big oil 
subsidies. The government even gives big oil, so far, a cap on damages 
stemming from oilspills. The resolution is just one more windfall for 
big oil at the expense of American taxpayers.
  So the choice is clear: We can keep protecting big oil from 
regulation or we can do what reason, common sense, and good governance 
dictate. In light of the facts--in light of the need to reduce 
pollution; in light of the need to move toward new, smarter, greener 
energy for the future; in light of what we are seeing happen every day 
in the gulf--over the last 52 days--in light of the fact that this 
resolution would cost

[[Page S4809]]

consumers as much as $47 billion in additional fuels costs, I hope the 
Senate soundly defeats the Murkowski resolution.
  This is a choice between polluting our environment--and stopping the 
government from ensuring we do not pollute our environment--and moving 
toward a cleaner, greener future. This is a choice between a quality of 
life that ultimately reduces respiratory ailments and cancer versus one 
that continues to perpetuate it. The choice could not be clearer. I 
certainly hope my colleagues will ultimately vote for a choice that is 
greener, that has a future of promise and hope and opportunity, not one 
that continues to help big oil at the expense of the American taxpayer.
  With that, I yield back any time I may have to the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, as the world is looking at the worst 
oilspill in America's history--it may yet become the worst oilspill 
ever--everyone is saying: Well, what are we going to do about this? 
What is our response? Our response needs to be, first, to stop the oil 
from spilling into the Gulf of Mexico; second, to make sure we clean up 
this mess and hold BP and its related companies fully responsible for 
all damages, whether to the businesses that have been put out of 
business, literally, by what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico or the 
property owners or the taxpayers. BP has to be held fully accountable.
  They are looking forward to us making sure that future drilling in 
this country is done in a safe way; that we have a regulatory system in 
place that protects the public, that is independent, and that will 
protect environmentally sensitive areas where there is currently no 
drilling, such as the Mid-Atlantic, from any drilling. But they are 
also looking for us to have an energy policy--an energy policy that 
makes sense for America; that we invest in alternative and renewable 
energy sources; that we conserve energy; and that, yes, we manage our 
mineral resources as best we can and use less oil.
  Well, the Murkowski resolution does just the opposite. It is very 
strange, the timing of this resolution, that we are taking up what 
would prevent the EPA regulations and would require us to use more oil 
rather than less oil. That makes no sense at all. It stops dead in its 
tracks efforts to cut the oil consumption of cars and trucks sold in 
America. You may ask why this resolution is being considered. Well, it 
is clearly supported by big oil. But whose side are we on? Are we on 
the side of the American consumers or on the side of big oil?
  On April 1, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of 
Transportation completed standards to decrease the oil consumption in 
model years 2012 through 2016 cars and light trucks sold in the United 
States. Those standards will result in vehicles that will use almost 2 
billion barrels less than current models. That is what we should be 
doing: using less oil. That needs to be part of our future.
  On May 21, President Obama directed EPA and DOT to follow up over the 
next 2 years with standards for trucks and buses starting with model 
year 2014 and for cars and light trucks starting with model year 2017. 
Those follow-on standards will further reduce U.S. oil consumption by 
billions of barrels.
  But the Murkowski resolution would compel EPA to rescind its portion 
of the completed standard and prevent the Agency from taking part in 
the follow-on ones--in other words, stopping us from improving the 
efficiency of our fleets, causing us to use more oil.
  Not surprisingly, big oil is trying to disguise their resolution as 
something other than what it is. They claim it is necessary to prevent 
EPA from regulating the greenhouse gas emissions of small businesses 
and even homes and farms. Nothing could be further from the truth. As 
every Senator knows, EPA has already issued a final rule to shield 
small businesses, to shield homes, to shield farms, and to shield all 
other small sources from regulation for at least the next 6 years. Six 
years is more than enough time to pass a law making the exemption for 
small sources permanent.
  The resolution of disapproval has just one certain outcome: that 
America's dangerous dependence on oil will continue. We cannot allow 
this resolution to be approved. It would eliminate the legal foundation 
of the EPA oil-savings standards that are essential to breaking our 
addiction to oil.
  It is time to decide whose side you are on. I choose the side of the 
American consumer, and I ask my colleagues to stand with me and reject 
the Murkowski resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask that the time in this block be 
allocated as follows: Senator Bond, 6 minutes; Senator Collins, 7 
minutes; Senator Enzi, 6 minutes; Senator Chambliss, 6 minutes; Senator 
Brownback, 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Do we have 2 unused minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would ask if we could carry that time to the next 
segment, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise in support of the Murkowski EPA 
disapproval resolution. We must prevent the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency from imposing a backdoor energy tax on suffering 
families and workers. This is our chance to stand with American 
families and workers and stand against unelected bureaucrats at EPA 
trying to expand government's reach.
  Missouri families and workers do not want the higher energy costs and 
lost jobs that would come from allowing EPA's big government carbon 
regulations to go forward. Missouri manufacturing workers, like those 
in States across the Midwest, are dependent on affordable energy. 
Missouri workers would suffer terribly when EPA's carbon regulations 
drive up the cost of their energy and raw materials. Allowing the 
regulations to go forward would allow India, China, and other counties 
to take those energy-intensive jobs away from American workers. 
Missouri families, like those in States across the Midwest, are 
struggling to pay their power, heating, and cooling bills. Missouri 
families would suffer even more when EPA carbon regulations drive up 
the cost of their electricity, gas, and gasoline bills. Allowing EPA 
carbon regulations to go forward would punish Missouri families with 
higher energy prices.

  Like all families and workers in the Midwest, Missourians wonder why 
we would allow EPA to impose this punishing pain for no environmental 
benefits. Let me make it clear: For those who want to talk about what 
this vote means for the science of global emissions, EPA itself admits 
that unilateral U.S. actions, without China and India, which have 
clearly indicated they will not take action, will have no measurable 
impact on world temperatures. So if you actually believe the climate 
science and want world temperatures to stop rising, these EPA 
regulations will do nothing to address your concerns. You are basically 
telling us you want to impose trillions of dollars in costs, hundreds 
of billions of dollars in new taxes, and hundreds of billions of 
dollars in new government spending for no environmental gain.
  Some also try to hide behind the auto deal between EPA, the State of 
California, and automakers. We should not punish Midwestern families 
and workers with a new energy tax in order to uphold some backroom deal 
between EPA, the automakers, and the State of California.
  Even so, these EPA regulations are totally unnecessary for those who 
care about reducing carbon emissions from vehicles. Let me be clear: 
Congress has already authorized the Department of Transportation to 
impose new, stricter auto emissions standards, and the Obama 
administration announced recently they were going to do so.
  So, again, opponents want to punish American families and workers 
with job-killing energy taxes for no net environmental gain.
  Some also say this issue is linked to the gulf oilspill and we should 
respond by allowing EPA's new backdoor energy taxes. For the life of 
me, I do not

[[Page S4810]]

see how imposing a new national energy tax is the right response to the 
gulf oilspill. It will not stop the oil from flowing, it will not 
mitigate the environmental damage, and it will not compensate the 
workers and others for lost wages and revenue. We should be punishing 
British Petroleum, not the American people with new taxes. And do not 
be misled about the empty rhetoric against big oil. Big oil just passes 
along the cost of these taxes to us in higher prices for the gas and 
oil we must buy and we must use.
  But some, as they say, never want to let a crisis go to waste. 
Unfortunately, many of my Democratic colleagues seek any opportunity to 
expand the reach of government and impose new taxes. They admit it, 
too, although they use fancy ways to say it. This week, President Obama 
repeated his call for ``putting a price'' on carbon. These are code 
words for imposing a carbon tax.
  We also need to stop and think about what the majority leader has 
said. He and others have said that if EPA is allowed to move forward 
with their carbon regulations, it will cut oil usage. The reason is 
because this new energy tax will punish American consumers with so much 
pain at the pump, they will use less gasoline because they cannot 
afford it. It is like saying we need another recession because in a 
recession people drive less. We want recessions? That is hardly the way 
to make the economy thrive and make the progress we need.
  We must stop this policy of pain. We must stop EPA from moving 
forward with job-killing, energy cost-raising regulation. The choice is 
stark: Stand with EPA bureaucrats imposing a backdoor tax or stand with 
American families and workers. I urge my colleagues to stand with 
American families and workers and support the Murkowski amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the 
resolution offered by the Senator from Alaska disapproving a rule 
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency concerning the 
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
  Our country must develop reasonable policies to spur the creation of 
green energy jobs, lessen our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We face an international race to lead 
the world in alternative energy technologies, and we can win that race 
if Congress enacts legislation to put a price on carbon and thus 
encourage investment here in the United States.
  I have, however, serious concerns about unelected government 
officials at the EPA taking on this complicated issue instead of 
Congress. It is Congress that should establish the framework for 
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. And it surely is significant 
that the House-passed climate bill, as well as the Kerry-Lieberman 
bill, recognized that fact by preempting some of the EPA's rules in 
this area.
  The Agency's early rules on this topic give me cause for concern. 
They could affect some 34 businesses in my State that employ nearly 
8,800 people. Incredibly, the EPA proposes to ignore the carbon 
neutrality of biomass and would place onerous permitting requirements 
on businesses, such as Maine's biomass plants and paper mills, which 
use biomass to provide energy for their operations. This reverses years 
of EPA considering biomass as carbon-neutral.
  EPA's decisions could well result in the loss of jobs, leading to 
mill and plant closures and discouraging employers from investing. We 
simply cannot afford that result, particularly not in this tough 
economic climate. The EPA's apparent stunning reversal in its view of 
biomass potentially would affect 14 biomass facilities in Maine in 
small rural towns such as Ashland, Fort Fairfield, and Livermore Falls.

  A better way forward is for Congress to finally tackle this issue and 
pass comprehensive clean energy legislation. In December, I joined with 
my colleague, Senator Maria Cantwell, in introducing the bipartisan 
Carbon Limits and Energy for American Renewal Act, what we call the 
CLEAR Act. Our legislation would set up a mechanism for selling 
``carbon shares'' to the few thousand fossil fuel producers and 
importers through monthly auctions. Under our bill, 75 percent of the 
auction's revenues would be returned directly to every citizen of the 
United States through rebate checks. The average family of four in 
Maine would stand to gain almost $400 each year. Our bill represents 
the right approach, a much more thoughtful approach than EPA's, and it 
would spur the development of green energy and the creation of green 
energy jobs.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance the practical 
concepts that are embodied in the CLEAR Act.
  Let me be clear because there are diverse views on this issue in this 
Chamber. I believe global climate change and the development of 
alternatives to fossil fuels are significant and urgent priorities for 
our country. We must meet these economic and environmental challenges. 
The scientific evidence demonstrates the human contribution to climate 
change, and we must act to mitigate that impact. But we must proceed 
with care, and we should not allow the Federal EPA to charge ahead on a 
problem that affects every aspect of our already fragile economy. The 
preliminary steps the EPA has taken, including its decision to revisit 
the carbon neutrality of biomass, undermine my confidence in having the 
EPA proceed. It is Congress's job, not the EPA's, to decide how best to 
regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
  So for this reason, I will vote for the Murkowski resolution.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Murkowski's 
resolution that would ensure this Congress keeps its responsibility to 
establish our Nation's environmental regulations. The Environmental 
Protection Agency's move to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air 
Act is an economic and bureaucratic nightmare in the making that is 
going to have a devastating effect on our economy and put a regulatory 
stranglehold on businesses and individuals across the country.
  The Congressional Review Act was passed in 1996 to make sure Congress 
could step in when Federal agencies got off track. It was a bipartisan 
bill because Senators and Representatives recognized we should not hand 
off our responsibility for setting Federal policy to Federal agencies. 
So when Federal agencies get off track, we have a way to bring them 
back to reality. We need to bring the EPA back to reality on the 
catastrophe that regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act 
would create because if we don't, it will be consumers and businesses--
both small business and big business in every sector of our economy--
that will end up paying more than they can afford for these 
regulations.
  The consequences of allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide under 
the Clean Air Act are tremendous. The EPA's rule that will go into 
effect if Senator Murkowski's resolution is not adopted would not just 
apply to big powerplants or industrial factories. More than 6 million 
businesses and residences will come under these new regulations at a 
cost of billions of dollars to our economy. The EPA is going to 
regulate small business and family farms, and those who can't afford to 
comply will go out of business. They will regulate office buildings and 
warehouses, and if you rent space in an office building or store your 
inventory in a warehouse, your costs will rise. Grocery stores, 
restaurants, hotels, residential buildings, and even individual homes 
will face complicated and expensive regulations.
  It is not just Members on my side of the aisle who believe the EPA is 
taking a disastrous approach. The White House and members of the 
President's party have said EPA's move to impose ``command and 
control'' regulation on greenhouse gases would be a step in the wrong 
direction.
  Where would the regulations stop? No one knows for sure. Cattle 
produce a lot of carbon dioxide and methane, so it is hard to imagine 
how the agricultural industry would not be impacted. What about people? 
In a big city, people are breathing out carbon dioxide all day long. 
Could that be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act? Could 
breathing become a fineable violation or would there be a new tax as 
breathing isn't an option?

[[Page S4811]]

  There will be many unintended consequences if the EPA is allowed to 
move forward, and we have a chance to stop that from happening today by 
supporting Senator Murkowski's resolution disapproving the EPA's 
action.
  Our economy has lost 8 million jobs over the past 2 years, and 
unemployment is still almost 10 percent. Businesses that had to lay 
people off are still hurting. The last thing our economy needs and the 
last thing businesses can afford is an EPA choke hold. According to the 
EPA, the average cost of compliance for stationary sources that would 
be regulated is more than $125,000. That is an average cost. Some will 
be less, but many will be more than $125,000. It is just an average. 
That is $125,000 that could be used to hire new employees. It is 
$125,000 that will not be spent on business expansion. Right now, with 
our economy struggling, we need to be working to encourage businesses 
to hire more employees and to grow, but unless we stop the EPA's 
overreach, businesses across this country will be facing the harshest 
and most expensive regulations they have ever seen.
  Some people have suggested that EPA's decision to move forward with 
greenhouse gas regulation will pressure Congress into implementing a 
cap-and-tax proposal. They say: We don't want EPA to regulate, but we 
have to keep pressure on Congress or Congress would not act. I don't 
buy that argument because, as the old saying goes, ``two wrongs don't 
make a right.''
  Senators are faced with a choice. If it is wrong for the EPA to 
regulate, they should stop it from happening, and supporting Senator 
Murkowski's resolution is the clearest way to do it. My colleagues who 
oppose this resolution are voting in favor of EPA action. They are 
voting to allow the EPA to set up complex regulations that will 
strangle our economy, kill economic recovery, and further squeeze 
consumers and businesses across the country. It is the start of a 
slippery slope. How much control will the EPA reach for after this if 
it isn't stopped now?
  The Clean Air Act is not the EPA's regulatory Swiss Army knife.
  Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said that the Clean Air Act 
was not written to apply to greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas is not one 
of the six categories of pollutants that the Clean Air Act covers and 
the list of 188 specific pollutants that are regulated under the Clean 
Air Act does not include carbon dioxide or methane. Even if Congress 
did decide that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be 
regulated, the Clean Air Act would be the wrong tool for the job. 
Greenhouse gases come from large and small sources, from major 
manufacturers and industrial plants and from community hospitals and 
small-town businesses. And yes, they come from animals, and yes, from 
people breathing in and out. Applying the Clean Air Act across the 
board to sources that emit a small amount of carbon dioxide--as the law 
requires--would be clumsy and harmful, and ultimately do tremendous 
economic harm to America's businesses and consumers.
  The Congressional Review Act was passed so that Congress could step 
in and prevent federal agencies like the EPA from implementing rules or 
regulations that don't make sense. I hope my colleagues will recognize 
the tremendous harm that allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases 
under the Clean Air Act would do to our economy. While there are many 
disagreements about climate change legislation, we should all be able 
to recognize that the course the EPA is on now is the worst of all 
worlds. Their approach would stymie our chances of recovering from the 
recession and stifle economic development for businesses and consumers 
who are already struggling to make ends meet.
  Is there no end to the administration's approach of believing that 
any situation can be saved with more redtape, more regulations, and 
more fines? Is there any end to the power grabs of this administration, 
which has thrown every obstacle it can think of in the path of our 
small businesses? Supporting the Murkowski resolution would check the 
EPA and give our small businesses that make up the most important part 
of our economy a fighting chance.
  This is the last chance to stop the EPA's carbon overreach and the 
slippery slope that will ensue if we allow them to move forward with 
these harmful regulations. Please vote yes on the motion to proceed and 
yes on the motion for disapproval.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 
26, the resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA, relating to the endangerment for greenhouse 
gases under the Clean Air Act.
  Today's debate and this resolution are about whether this Congress 
will allow an executive branch agency--EPA--to unleash a regulatory 
onslaught that within a few years will capture homes, small businesses, 
farms, hospitals, and apartment buildings in an expensive, intrusive, 
and bureaucratic regulatory program. The consideration of this 
resolution is about preserving the traditional and constitutional role 
of Congress as the elected representatives of the citizens of this 
country to make necessary and proper laws for the Nation.
  Congress is the appropriate branch of the Federal Government to 
debate and design a climate change policy. Many have complained that 
the Senate is taking too long to do this, but that doesn't mean EPA 
should go ahead and regulate on its own. It is also highly cynical for 
administration officials to suggest that the specter of EPA regulations 
should force Congress to act. I don't appreciate the implied threat 
that if Congress doesn't go along with EPA then the agency will impose 
costly regulations.
  Many argue that passage of the resolution would prevent increases in 
the vehicle fuel economy and undo the ``historic'' agreement among the 
Federal Government, several states, labor unions, and the auto 
industry. It doesn't. The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration--NHTSA--has had authority to regulate and increase 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy--CAFE--standards for more than 30 years. 
In fact, Congress directed the agency to increase the standards to at 
least 35 miles per gallon by 2020 in the 2007 Energy Independence and 
Security Act. And these new standards will reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions. EPA's activities on fuel economy through its so-called 
tailpipe rule are unnecessary to achieve the desired results, given the 
authorities already held by NHTSA.
  Many also argue that passage of the resolution is contrary to the 
science of climate change. A letter generated by the Union of Concerned 
Scientists claims the resolution ``ignores'' the scientific findings of 
EPA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that the 
resolution is an ``attack'' on the Clean Air Act. They must not have 
read the resolution as even a cursory review of it will dispel this 
notion.
  The resolution states, ``That Congress disapproves the rule submitted 
by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment 
finding . . . and such rule shall have no force or effect.'' This means 
the agency cannot use the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gas 
emissions. This does not speak to the issue of whether climate change 
is happening or what is causing it. Those who claim the resolution 
ignores science appear to be avoiding the debate over the economic 
consequences and legal validity of EPA's approach. I also believe that 
they are attempting an end-run around a skeptical Congress. I am sorry, 
but that is not how the American system of government works.
  I know the climate in changing. In 2006, I visited Greenland. I 
toured the Kangia Ice Fjord and took a boat tour of Disko Bay to view 
the world's largest glaciers and icebergs floating in the bay. These 
glaciers were formed more than 1,000 years ago. I saw the glaciers 
melting and the remains of a 4,000-year-old village. Obviously, it was 
warm enough in the past for humans to live and thrive in that part of 
the world, even though in recent memory we only think of Greenland as 
covered in ice. I talked to the scientists who have studied Greenland's 
glaciers for decades. They told me that while the climate is changing 
they don't know with any certainty if the changes are natural or caused 
by human activity or a combination of the two. I found it interesting 
that while some glaciers are

[[Page S4812]]

melting, some are increasing in size. We just don't see what is 
happening on the back side.
  The President and the Administrator of EPA, Lisa Jackson, have said 
their preference is for Congress to act. They know the Clean Air Act 
was not designed for controlling greenhouse gases. Yet they are swiftly 
moving ahead. Last week, EPA issued a final rule for regulating 
greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air 
Act's permitting programs. The so-called tailoring rule is the fourth 
significant action taken by the administration to regulate greenhouse 
gas emissions.
  The first major action was EPA's determination--the Endangerment 
Finding--that greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks 
endanger human health and welfare. On April 1, 2010, EPA finalized the 
light duty vehicle rule controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Under the 
Clean Air Act, when a pollutant becomes subject to regulation by one 
provision of the Act, it then becomes subject to regulation under other 
provisions. Hence, greenhouse gas emissions are now subject to 
regulation under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration--PSD--and 
title V operating permit programs. It is only a matter of time before 
greenhouse gases are subject to other provisions in the law, such as 
national ambient air quality standards.
  Under current law, the title V program permitting requirements are 
triggered when a facility releases 100 tons per year of a regulated 
pollutant. For the PSD program, the threshold is 250 tons per year. In 
the final rule, EPA ``tailors'' the application of the programs to 
significantly higher threshold levels. Without the tailoring rule, EPA 
estimates that about 6 million sources, including 37,000 farms and 3.9 
million single family homes, will be required to obtain Clean Air Act 
permits.
  EPA's own documents call the tailoring rule a commonsense approach to 
addressing greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the 
Clean Air Act permitting programs. But I don't follow the agency's 
logic. The rule states emissions from small farms, restaurants, and all 
but the very largest commercial facilities will not be covered by these 
programs at this time. The rule establishes a schedule that will 
initially focus the permitting programs on the largest sources and 
without this tailoring rule the lower emissions thresholds would take 
effect automatically for greenhouse gases on January 2, 2011.
  The agency, in its proposed rule, recognized the inherent problems 
with using the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule states, ``This 
extraordinary increase in the scope of the permitting programs coupled 
with the resulting burdens on the small sources and on the permitting 
authorities was not contemplated by Congress in enacting the PSD and 
Title V programs.'' It further states that, ``The new rules would apply 
Title V to millions of sources Congress did not intend to be covered 
and would impede the issuance of permits to the thousands of sources 
that Congress did intend to be covered.''
  It is cold comfort that the smallest sources will not be regulated 
until 2016. We have a rule now that says it is not if but when 
hospitals, farms, small businesses, and apartment buildings can expect 
to have to apply for a clean air permit. We can only imagine what will 
happen to the economy if EPA is successful and its plans to fully 
regulate greenhouse gas emissions under all of the authorities of the 
Clean Air Act come to fruition.
  One of the most troubling aspects about the tailoring rule and EPA's 
approach to its suite of greenhouse gas regulations is that there is no 
economic analysis. The agency hasn't even attempted to quantify the 
economic costs and regulatory burdens it will impose on American 
businesses and consumers. We have no idea what it will mean for jobs, 
economic growth or small businesses. Even though we can't quantify it 
or point to a document, it is not hard to imagine the significant costs 
it will impose.
  While EPA isn't worried about this, States, businesses, unions, and 
individuals are. For example, in March, 20 Governors, including 
Governor Sunny Purdue of Georgia, wrote House and Senate leadership 
expressing grave concern about EPA's efforts to impose greenhouse gas 
regulations. They believe EPA's actions will place heavy administrative 
burdens on State environmental quality agencies just as States are 
expected to face their worst financial situations over the next 2 
years. The Governors also are concerned that the regulations will be 
costly to consumers and could be devastating to the economy and jobs. 
The Governors believe that complex energy and environmental policy 
initiatives should be developed by elected representatives at the State 
and national level but not by a single Federal agency.
  While Georgia believes the final rule is an improvement over the 
proposed one, there are still significant concerns. Most notably is its 
legal vulnerability. I quote from the Georgia Department of Natural 
Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch 
comments on the proposed rule:

       The GHG Tailoring Rule appears to be legally vulnerable and 
     may not provide intended relief from the statutory permitting 
     thresholds for PSD and Title V. If the Tailoring Rule is 
     vacated, the workload for permitting authorities will 
     increase exponentially at a time when State and Local 
     governments are experiencing severe budgetary challenges due 
     to the current economic climate. Vacatur of the GHG Tailoring 
     Rule seems to be a very real possibility.

  The letter further states:

       We also believe that EPA has failed to take into account 
     the length of time that it will take for permitting 
     authorities . . . to go through rulemaking, . . . hiring, and 
     training in order to implement the mandate of regulating GHG 
     emissions under the Title V and PSD permitting programs. In 
     Georgia, rulemaking will be required in order to insert the 
     new GHG emission thresholds. Rulemaking will also be required 
     in order to increase Title V fees consistent with the Clean 
     Air Act requirement that permitting programs collect enough 
     revenue to implement the program requirements. Given the 
     current state of the economic situation in our state and 
     country, this issue should not be taken lightly. Then, 
     permitting authorities must hire and train staff to issue 
     these complicated permits. This could take up to two years 
     after the requirement is triggered. Raising the regulatory 
     threshold will not abate the predicted permitting backlog if 
     additional permitting personnel are not in place at the time 
     the additional workload occurs.

  EPA is moving ahead despite these concerns and the economic 
consequences of its plans. They will increase energy prices, add to 
administrative costs for companies, decrease job creation, and create a 
large new government bureaucracy, which will endanger economic recovery 
and limit future growth. While the final rule with its phased-in 
implementation is a small step in the right direction, the Clean Air 
Act continues to be the wrong tool for the job, and EPA's timeline and 
its shaky legal foundation will continue to create significant 
uncertainty for the State permitting agencies and businesses community.
  At this time, there is no other option to stop EPA from moving ahead. 
Some of our colleagues have introduced measures to provide for a time 
out; others are looking at ways to codify the tailoring rule and 
provide permanent exemptions for small businesses. However, there are 
no plans for the Senate to consider these measures. If there were 
another option, I would be open to it.
  The Congressional Review Act was designed for the purpose of 
reviewing agency actions. The majority leader understands this and 
recognizes that, ``overburdensome and unnecessary federal regulation 
can choke the life out of small businesses by imposing costly and 
often-ineffectual remedies to problems that may not exist.'' No 
description could be more accurate about EPA's greenhouse gas 
regulatory plans.
  Some argue that it would be a dangerous precedent for Congress to 
stop EPA's endangerment finding. However, it is far more dangerous for 
the Nation if Congress allows an agency to impose these regulations 
under a law that was not designed for the purpose. By issuing the 
tailoring rule, the administration has again reminded us that if 
Congress won't legislate, EPA will regulate. I believe my colleague 
from Alaska was correct when she called this a highly coercive 
strategy. I am appalled by the actions of EPA.
  There is a reason why the U.S. Senate hasn't acted on a cap and trade 
bill. This is because analyses of these bills shows they cause 
significant economic harm--job losses, higher energy prices, higher gas 
taxes, less economic growth.

[[Page S4813]]

It makes no sense for Congress to pass job-killing legislation in order 
to stave off costly regulation.
  The House and Senate cap and trade bills are truly bad for 
agriculture. They would dramatically increase energy and other input 
costs and, according to EPA, would cause the shift of 59 million acres 
out of production into trees. With a growing world population to feed, 
our farmers and ranchers will need to produce more food in the future, 
not less. If enacted as written today, cap and trade legislation would 
only push agriculture production overseas, raising many of the same 
concerns that have been expressed about the loss of manufacturing jobs.
  Rather than driving American agriculture offshore, a more sensible 
approach would be to increase food, fuel, and fiber production right 
here at home. In this Nation, we have an abundant natural resource 
base, an economy built on open and transparent markets, and sufficient 
protections for consumers and the environment.
  Last fall, Texas A&M University released a study on the House cap and 
trade bill. I mention it again today because it is most instructive of 
what we can expect to see in the agricultural sector under a cap and 
trade regime.
  Texas A&M University used its representative farm database to study 
the effects of the House bill at the farmgate level. This database was 
developed to help Congress better understand the effects of legislation 
at the individual producer level. The study shows that 71 out of 98 
farms in the database will be worse off under the House bill. The 27 
farms that benefit do so because other producers go out of business 
they benefit because there are fewer acres in production, thus crop 
prices rise.
  Some producers will see increased revenue from an offset program, but 
it is not a significant factor in the profitability of farms in the 
analysis. The study also dramatically shows the regional disparities of 
the House bill. Only some cornbelt farmers benefit. It's hard to 
imagine that members of the Senate Agriculture Committee will be able 
to endorse a policy that disproportionally favors certain commodities, 
few producers and one part of the country at the expense of others.
  In January, 150 agriculture organizations sent a letter to my 
colleague from Alaska supporting the introduction of the resolution. 
These groups wrote that, ``Such regulatory actions will carry severe 
consequences for the U.S. economy, including America's farmers and 
ranchers, through increased input costs and international market 
disparities.'' They also believe that, ``EPA's finding puts the 
agricultural economy at grave risk based on allegations of a weak, 
indirect link to public health and welfare and despite the lack of any 
environmental benefit.''
  On May 18, I received another letter from 49 different agriculture 
groups. They state:

       Without relief from Congress, we fully expect the 
     application of these programs to have severe economic impacts 
     on agriculture. Not only will producers likely incur 
     increased costs as a result of the regulatory impacts on 
     other economic sectors, but agricultural producers will 
     eventually be directly regulated. The final EPA tailoring 
     rule estimates the average cost for these permits is $23,200 
     per permit. For the 37,000 farms identified by EPA as likely 
     to require permits this would cost them more than $866 
     million just to obtain the permit.

  In contrast to the campaign slogans and feel-good messages of hope 
and change for farmers, ranchers and rural America, this administration 
is causing great pain through its actions, especially its economic 
policies and far-reaching regulatory programs and goals. The 
endangerment finding and related regulations are only one set--albeit a 
very significant set--of regulatory actions facing producers and rural 
America. By themselves, these will impose higher energy costs on rural 
residents and businesses. Higher costs in rural areas mean fewer jobs 
and opportunities for those who live there.
  Another immense expansion of Federal regulatory authority that will 
have severe consequences for producers and rural landowners is the 
administration's support for legislation to grant EPA and the U.S. 
Corps of Engineers--Corps--nearly unlimited regulatory control over all 
``intrastate waters,'' including all wet areas within a State, such as 
groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, gutters, and desert features. The 
administration supports giving EPA and the Corps unrestricted authority 
to regulate all private and public activities that may affect 
intrastate waters, regardless of whether the activity is occurring in 
or may impact water at all. Unbelievably, the administration supports 
eliminating the existing regulatory limitations that allow commonsense 
uses such as those allowed with a prior converted cropland designation. 
I strongly oppose this effort to expand EPA's and the Corps' regulatory 
control. I do not believe the Federal Government should regulate all 
wet areas within a State.
  The administration also is attempting to circumvent one of the most 
highly regarded environmental statutes--the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, that governs the licensing and use of 
pesticides. This is a well-crafted law that balances the risks and 
benefits of pesticide use. EPA has an excellent staff of scientists and 
experts working in this area. However, the agency's political 
leadership is trying to implement by regulatory fiat a precautionary 
approach, which is contradictory to current law.
  For example, last fall, EPA proposed to add language to pesticide 
product labels that will forbid pesticide applications that result in 
drift that could cause harm or adverse effects. For many years, EPA and 
state pesticide regulators recognized that a small amount of drift 
inevitably will occur, and that when pesticides are applied according 
to their label instructions, this small amount of drift does not cause 
an unreasonable adverse effect. If an unreasonable adverse effect is 
likely to be caused by a certain use of a pesticide, FIFRA requires, 
and Congress expects, the label to reflect that information and 
appropriate mitigation be required.
  In April, I wrote to EPA, along with the chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee and other colleagues, about the need for greater 
clarity in pesticide drift policy and noted that such clarity would 
benefit the agency, pesticide users and State regulatory agencies. 
However, we noted that the proposal set forth vague standards and would 
not have clarified pesticide drift policy. It also exceeded the 
authority granted to the agency by FIFRA. We asked the proposed policy 
to be reconsidered. I am pleased to note that recently EPA made the 
right decision to do so.
  One other issue I raise reflects the administration's willingness to 
cast aside rational, science-based policy when given the opportunity to 
impose additional regulation. In January 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court 
of Appeals issued an opinion in National Cotton Council v. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency that would require pesticide 
applications to be permitted under the Clean Water Act's National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--NPDES. The permit would be in 
addition to any label requirements or restrictions already placed on 
the use of the pesticide under FIFRA.
  Unfortunately, the administration refused to appeal the decision even 
though it admitted in a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court this year 
that the Sixth Circuit Court reached the wrong decision. Pesticides are 
not pollutants under the Clean Water Act and have never been. Instead, 
EPA, for political reasons, has been working to develop a NPDES general 
permit for discharges from the application of pesticides. EPA released 
the draft permit last week for public comment and will issue a final 
permit in December 2010. Pesticides applications must be covered by a 
permit by April 9, 2011. Is your State ready to issue these permits? 
Are your producers and applicators ready to apply for them?
  This has been a particular concern for State and public health 
officials as it has the potential to seriously affect their ability to 
control mosquitoes, especially those carrying the West Nile Virus. 
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 
720 cases, including 32 deaths, attributed to the virus in 2009. This 
is better than 2008, in which there were 1,370 cases, including 37 
deaths. In 2009, two of those deaths were in my home State of Georgia.
  Talk about overburdensome, unnecessary regulation! Requiring 
producers, pest control agencies and other users to obtain NPDES 
permits will do nothing to enhance the environment. It

[[Page S4814]]

only doubles the number of permitted entities and creates new 
requirements for monitoring, surveillance, planning, recordkeeping, and 
reporting that only will create significant delays, costs, reporting 
burdens and legal risks from citizen suits. These permits will provide 
absolutely benefit only cost.
  All issues regarding water and pesticides are addressed by EPA as 
part of the pesticide registration process. If there are concerns, 
mitigation is required. We are fortunate we have a strong law that 
requires rigorous science and careful balancing of risks and benefits.
  The Endangerment Finding and related rules, along with the other 
environmental regulations planned by the administration will hurt the 
productivity of American farmers and ranchers and make the future for 
U.S. agriculture far less bright than it should be. These actions are 
basically a backdoor tax on every American family and business by 
unelected bureaucrats. Federal regulation is not the key to success or 
jobs in rural areas or in any other part of this Nation.
  Some claim that EPA's actions should scare Congress into passing a 
cap and trade bill, but I disagree. Congress should not be bullied into 
passing bad legislation and neither should it stand for an agency that 
is vastly overreaching. The choice is clear to me--do Senators want EPA 
to impose a regulatory regime that it has tenuous authority to create 
or do you want Congress to make the laws of the land? If you believe 
Congress should develop laws and set policy, then vote in support of 
the resolution. I strongly oppose EPA's actions and plan to vote yes on 
the Murkowski resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this 
discussion we are having. I was here when the Congressional Review Act 
was put into place for the very purpose it is being used for, which is 
when we have a Federal agency that overreaches and seeks to put in 
place a regulation that will cost tens of billions of dollars, without 
any legislative action taking place, the Congress should step in. That 
is what the Congress is seeking to do with this--step in on something 
that has enormous economic consequences, enormous costs across society, 
and yet has not been voted on by this legislative body.
  Clearly, if we are going to do something of this nature, it should 
pass the Senate. It should come up in front of this body.
  Toward that end, I tell my colleagues we have a bipartisan energy 
bill that passed through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, which 
Chairman Bingaman worked through his committee over a month's period of 
time, that has a number of issues regarding renewable energy, regarding 
nuclear technology, to reduce CO2 emissions. Lots of things 
are in it. It passed in a bipartisan way through committee.
  That is what we ought to bring up on the Senate floor. We should pass 
the Murkowski disapproval resolution so that EPA doesn't act 
prematurely before the Congress acts. We should bring up the bipartisan 
American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, consider it, and use that 
as the route forward for us as a legislative body to act on a major 
issue facing our country, without having it done by fiat by an 
unelected bureaucracy, which is going to make people mad, and it will 
have a lot of costs.
  In my State, Kansas City has a board of public utilities. If we put 
these costs on their electric generation, which is mostly out of coal, 
they are going to see their utility rates go up from the mid-20 percent 
to 50-some percent in less than a decade's period of time. Is that 
going to happen without any vote of this legislative body? We are going 
to see people's utilities rates go up possibly 50 percent with no vote 
taking place?
  I think people would say we need to have a clear deliberation of this 
body. Also on this point, the way we have solved problems of this 
nature and magnitude in the past is through investment and innovation, 
not through taxes and regulation. It is us saying let's figure 
different ways forward to deal with this rather than let's tax people 
and regulate people more and drive up their costs.
  A year and a half ago, we had the first hydrogen fuel cell locomotive 
roll down the tracks in Topeka, KS, done by BNSF, the Army, and several 
other groups. It is replacing a diesel. It is a test unit. But that 
investment and innovation by BNSF, which uses 5 percent of the diesel 
fuel in the country, that is the way you move forward rather than raise 
utility rates for people in Kansas City by 50 percent.
  It is also a way that we as the American people have been most 
successful--investment and innovation--when people look at a better way 
for us to move forward, which is cost effective, and the American 
people embrace it if it works well. If it is, people will embrace it. 
They are delighted to do that. If we go the other route and say we are 
not going to do that through investment and innovation, we are going to 
do it through taxes and regulation and raise utility rates 50 percent, 
people are going to be flaming mad about that, and it is being done by 
an unelected bureaucracy to pursue that.
  It would not work and it would not be accepted by the American 
public. It is not the way we have moved forward as a society. It would 
not be us leading in the world. It will be us following on, yet again--
when somebody says you have to go by taxes and regulation, we say, OK, 
we will do it. That is not the American way. It is through investment 
and innovation. We have done it in the past. We can do it now, and we 
can have Congress's role in this on supporting a renewable energy 
standard, which is one way, where we get more energy from wind, 
nuclear, and a bipartisan bill that has already been produced. That is 
an acceptable way, the way the American public can embrace--not this 
route which raises taxes and regulation and will not be accepted by the 
American public.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Murkowski resolution of 
disapproval and reject the EPA's endangerment finding and take up the 
bipartisan Energy bill that is cleared through the Bingaman committee 
for us to consider on renewable energy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico 
is recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
our 30-minute block, which is coming up now, be divided in the 
following manner: Senator Whitehouse for 10 minutes, Senator Webb for 5 
minutes, Senator Murray for 5 minutes, Senator Leahy for 5 minutes, and 
I will close with 5 minutes. With that, I yield to my good friend from 
Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I stand in opposition to the 
resolution offered by the Senator from Alaska. The text of the 
resolution asks Senators to second-guess scientists and public health 
officials by voiding the scientific finding that carbon pollution may 
endanger public health or welfare--like there is any legitimate dispute 
about that question. The text of this resolution would halt all efforts 
by EPA to address carbon pollution, including the necessary and long-
overdue fuel efficiency standards that EPA negotiated with States and 
the automobile industry, to everyone's satisfaction.
  Mr. President, that is the text of the resolution. But the point of 
the resolution is far simpler: to delay--delay action on energy 
legislation, delay action by EPA to protect public health and, more 
importantly, to delay action in this Congress on energy reform and to 
preserve the status quo by taking off the pressure of facts and science 
and law that is now driving the process. They want to trump that with 
pure politics.
  What you will hear from many colleagues who support this resolution 
is that they want Congress to act to address carbon pollution and not 
the EPA. But with all due respect, many of the resolution's supporters 
want nothing to do with comprehensive clean energy and climate 
legislation. What they want is for EPA to go away. If they can delay 
EPA's work to address carbon pollution or stop it in its tracks 
altogether, they take the pressure off of anybody to do anything 
serious

[[Page S4815]]

about a new energy policy or our addiction to fossil fuel. This is 
about delay on change in our energy policy.
  Congress could be spending its time now setting the country on a new 
energy course by placing a price on carbon and investing in low-energy 
and clean-energy alternatives. Transforming our energy base will not 
happen overnight, but the longer we delay, the harder it will be.
  That is what Congress could be doing. Instead, we are spending time 
arguing about whether the Clean Air Act should be used to fight air 
pollution. Outside these walls, in the real world, this question has to 
seem absurd. What else would the Clean Air Act be used for?
  This issue has been all the way to the Supreme Court, and it is 
established law that the Clean Air Act applies. Then why are we 
debating this legislation? We are debating this because the big 
polluters--the same industries that brought us the April 5, 2010, mine 
disaster in West Virginia and the explosion on the rig in the Gulf of 
Mexico--like things the way they are. They like the status quo.
  Under the status quo, while the rest of America was struggling to 
pull out of a recession earlier this year, big oil raked in record 
profits--$23 billion in just the first quarter of 2010. Under the 
status quo, when workers pay the costs of mining and drilling with 
their lives, when our environment pays for devastating oilspills, when 
our children pay the cost of dirty air with childhood asthma, big 
polluters don't have to pay the full cost of the pollution they have 
caused. That is the status quo they want to preserve.

  In 2009, the polluters spent $290 million lobbying Congress or 10 
times what the clean energy companies spent. This year, they have 
lobbied Members of the Senate to support this Murkowski resolution. 
They will keep on lobbying for delay and against energy reform, that is 
clear.
  The question is, How will we respond to that big oil industry 
pressure? Will we fold before these big companies and their corporate 
lobbyists and delay again action on energy and climate change or will 
we stand up to the special interests and work to enact comprehensive 
climate and clean energy legislation?
  This is not the first time I have spoken on the Senate floor in 
opposition to an effort to delay EPA action. But it is the first time I 
have done so against the backdrop of an environmental catastrophe.
  This time, when I say polluters want to delay action on climate 
change and energy reform, we understand in a very real way the risk 
that delay poses. Despite the multimillion-dollar ad campaign by BP 
telling us not to worry because they are ``beyond petroleum,'' hundreds 
of thousands of gallons of crude oil now pour into the Gulf of Mexico 
from a BP well that exploded 2 months ago because they were big 
polluters and badly prepared.
  Polluters have a powerful voice in Congress. Make no mistake about 
it; if they are successful in getting Congress to keep EPA from 
addressing carbon pollution, they will take all the pressure off for 
clean energy jobs legislation. But the tragedy along the gulf coast 
makes clear that we must do something. Today's vote will make clear who 
in this Chamber is on the side of delaying action on real energy reform 
and who is fighting for the American people, for jobs, and for the 
environment.
  America is already years, if not decades, behind in the race to lead 
the global clean energy revolution. As far back as the 1890s, 
scientists documented the ``greenhouse effect'' of increased carbon 
dioxide in our atmosphere. The first congressional hearings on climate 
change were held three decades ago.
  In 1994, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change recognized 
human-caused climate change. The issue has been out there for decades, 
and now it is time to take action. We have to move swiftly to address 
climate change and to have America in front in the global race for 
clean energy jobs.
  In the meantime, we have to allow EPA to use its legal authority to 
reduce carbon pollution and encourage the deployment of clean energy. 
The EPA isn't just inventing this authority, it is following the law of 
the land. Congress enacted the Clean Air Act in 1970 under a Republican 
President. For four decades, EPA has used the Clean Air Act to make our 
air safer to breathe. Over that same time, guess what. Our economy 
grew--many times over.
  Some argue that the Clean Air Act isn't meant to clean up carbon 
pollution. Well, the Supreme Court disagreed. Congress wrote a very 
broad definition of ``air pollutant'' and specifically, in 1990, 
defined carbon dioxide as a pollutant in the Clean Air Act amendments.
  Despite this broad authority, EPA was indeed idle for many years, but 
not of its own accord, and not when it was sued. In fact, the Bush EPA 
fought the application of the Clean Air Act to carbon dioxide every 
step of the way and to the bitter end, right up to the doors of the 
Supreme Court, where they lost. Despite the heavy hand of the Bush 
administration holding EPA back from doing its legal duty, the Supreme 
Court--one of the most conservative Supreme Courts in generations--
ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions 
were ``pollutants'' under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court held 
that if the Agency thought this pollutant could ``reasonably be 
anticipated'' to endanger public health or welfare, the EPA had to act.
  Yet here we are, and some Senators still want delay. For delay, they 
are willing to vote for a resolution that disregards science. For 
delay, they are willing to vote for a resolution that undermines the 
Clean Air Act. For delay, they are willing to vote for a resolution 
that tosses aside a Supreme Court decision. And for delay, they are 
willing to vote for a resolution that ignores the will of the American 
people, largely for the benefit of big oil and other corporate 
polluters.
  Should we have a national discussion on how to control carbon? Yes. 
Should we debate how to move to cleaner sources of energy? Absolutely. 
But rather than have an honest discussion about how to do this, 
supporters of this resolution want to delay doing anything at all.
  The attorney general of my State of Rhode Island, Patrick Lynch, with 
10 other attorneys general and the corporation counsel of New York 
City, sent a letter to the Senate leadership yesterday urging us not to 
vote for the Murkowski resolution because it ``would be a step 
backwards undoing the settled expectations of States, industry, and 
environmentalists alike.''
  In closing, that is exactly the point of this resolution. It is a 
deliberate step backward. It is a delay tactic. It is a last attempt by 
polluters to hold onto the dirty energy economy that has treated them 
so well--$23 billion well so far this year.
  Under this dirty energy economy, we spend $1 billion a day on foreign 
oil from countries that do not wish us well. Companies such as BP can 
cut corners on worker safety and the environment and then expect the 
government to come in and clean up their $30 billion mess. Twelve 
percent of our children in New England downwind from the polluters 
suffer from asthma and pulmonary disease. These kids matter. This issue 
matters. We can delay no longer.
  I urge my colleagues to say no to delay, say no to taking all the 
pressure off the polluters, and vote against the Murkowski resolution 
so we can get to work to forge clean energy reform in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today in somewhat regrettable 
opposition to the resolution offered by the Senior Senator from Alaska.
  I do not believe this is about big oil. This is not about oilspills. 
It is not about people who like dirty air. It is about the extent to 
which the executive branch in our government can act without the clear 
expression of intent from this Congress. I appreciate Senator 
Murkowski's efforts to illuminate this issue further in front of our 
body.
  Like Senator Murkowski, I have expressed deep reservations about the 
consequences of the endangerment finding on carbon dioxide and five

[[Page S4816]]

other greenhouse gases that the Environmental Protection Agency issued 
on December 7, 2009. As many of us in this body well know, without 
proper boundaries, this finding could be the first step in a long and 
expensive regulatory process that could inevitably lead to overly 
stringent and very costly controls on carbon dioxide and other 
greenhouse gas emissions. This regulatory framework is so broad and 
potentially far reaching that it could eventually touch nearly every 
facet of this nation's economy, putting unnecessary burdens on our 
industries and driving many businesses overseas purely at the 
discretion of the executive branch and absent the clearly stated intent 
of the Congress.
  Our farms and factories, our transportation system, and our power 
generating capacity would all be subject to these new regulations. This 
unprecedented, sweeping authority over our economy at the hands of the 
EPA is at the heart of Senator Murkowski's concern, and ultimately, 
whichever way one votes on her amendment, it is what this debate is all 
about.
  At a time when the economy continues to struggle under the burdens of 
the worst recession since the Great Depression, I do not believe that 
Congress should cede its authority over an issue as important as 
climate change to unelected officials of the executive branch. 
Congress--and not the EPA--should make important policies, and be 
accountable to the American people for them.
  This is not a new concern for me. When this administration declared 
last November that the President would sign a ``politically binding'' 
agreement at the United Nations Framework on Climate Change in 
Copenhagen, I objected. I was the only Member of Congress to send the 
President a letter stating clearly that ``only specific legislation 
agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could 
actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.''
  I have also expressed on several occasions my belief that this 
administration appears to be erecting new regulatory barriers to the 
safe and legal mining of coal resources in my state and others. My 
consistent message to the EPA is that good intentions do not in and of 
themselves equal the clear and unambiguous guidance from the Congress.
  In examining this issue, I have also reviewed carefully the Supreme 
Court's holding in Massachusetts v. EPA. My opposition to EPA's 
regulation of carbon dioxide for stationary sources stems in part from 
my reading of the case. I do not believe that prior EPA Administrators 
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in declining to regulate carbon 
dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Nor am I convinced that the Clean 
Air Act was ever intended to regulate--or to classify as a dangerous 
pollutant--something as basic and ubiquitous in our atmosphere as 
carbon dioxide.
  Notwithstanding these serious concerns with the endangerment finding 
and what I view as EPA's potentially unchecked regulation of carbon 
dioxide, I have decided to vote no on the resolution before the Senate. 
I have done so for two principal reasons.
  First, Senator Murkowski's resolution would reverse significant 
progress that this administration has made in forging a consensus on 
motor vehicle fuel economy and emissions standards. A little more than 
one year ago, the Obama administration brokered an agreement to 
establish the One National Program for fuel economy and greenhouse gas 
standards. This agreement means that our beleaguered automotive 
industry will not face a patchwork quilt of varying State and Federal 
emission standards. Significantly, this agreement is directly in line 
with the holding in Massachusetts v. EPA, which dealt with motor 
vehicle emissions. Both in the Clean Air Act and in subsequent 
legislation enacted by the Congress, there has been a far greater 
consensus on regulation of motor vehicle emissions than on stationary 
sources with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.
  It has been estimated that these new rules, which are to apply to 
vehicles of model years 2012 to 2016, would save 1.8 billion barrels of 
oil and millions of dollars in consumer savings. The agreement, 
however, and the regulations that will effectuate it, both rest upon 
the same endangerment finding that would be overturned by this 
resolution. In this sense, the Murkowski resolution goes too far. And 
it is for this reason that the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers and 
the United Auto Workers, UAW, have publicly stated their opposition to 
the legislation before us.
  Second, I have concluded that an alternative, equally effective 
mechanism exists to ensure that Congress--and not unelected Federal 
officials--can formulate our policies on climate change and energy 
legislation. Senator Rockefeller has proposed legislation to suspend 
EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources for 2 
years. I am a cosponsor of Senator Rockefeller's bill. His approach 
would give Congress the time it needs to address our legitimate 
concerns with climate change, and not disrupt or reverse the important 
progress that has been made on motor vehicle fuel and emission 
standards. I note that, to her credit, this was an approach that the 
senior Senator from Alaska originally proposed, and I am hopeful that 
we can take this approach in the future.
  I am also pleased that in my discussions with the majority leader, he 
has assured me of his willingness to bring the Rockefeller bill to a 
vote this year.
  Finally, let me say I share the hope of many Members of this body 
from both sides of the aisle that we can enact some form of energy 
legislation this year. I have consistently outlined key elements that I 
would like to see in any energy package. The centerpiece of any climate 
policy must be to encourage the development of clean energy sources and 
carbon-mitigating technologies. We should explore mechanisms that will 
incentivize factory owners, manufacturers, and consumers to become more 
energy efficient. We should also fund research and development for 
technologies that will enable the safe and clean use of this country's 
vast fossil fuel resources.
  In November 2009, I introduced the Clean Energy Act of 2009, S. 2776, 
with Senator Lamar Alexander. This bipartisan bill will promote further 
investment in clean energy technologies, including nuclear power and 
renewable sources of energy. Specifically, the Clean Energy Act of 2009 
authorizes $20 billion over the next 10 years to fund loan guarantees, 
nuclear education and workforce training, nuclear reactor lifetime-
extension, and incentives for the development of solar power, biofuels, 
and alternative power technologies. I believe it is a practical 
approach toward moving our country toward providing clean, carbon-free 
sources of energy, helping to invigorate the economy, and strengthening 
our workforce with educational opportunities and high-paying jobs here 
at home.
  This legislation by itself is not intended to solve all of our 
climate change challenges. It is, however, a measurable and achievable 
beginning and will place the Nation on a path to a cleaner energy 
future. In addition, through investment in lower emission 
transportation fuels, incentives to electrify the transportation 
sector, and support for technologies that will eventually enable the 
burning of fossil fuels in a carbon-free fashion, it provides a 
framework for technologies that will eventually enable a more effective 
response to climate change.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. My understanding is all the time is 
allocated in this 30-minute block. Senators are lined up to speak, I 
say to Senator Webb.
  Mr. WEBB. I was told last night that I would have 10 minutes. I got 
down here and discovered I have 5. Let me just say Senator 
Rockefeller's bill can do the job. I hope my colleagues will look at 
it.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield an additional minute.
  Mr. WEBB. I appreciate that.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, before Senator Webb continues, may I 
ask a question? If an additional minute is to be yielded to the 
opposition, I request that we also have additional time added to our 
side.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I have yielded 1 minute from my time out of 
the 30-minute block. It is not additional time.

[[Page S4817]]

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I rescind that request if it is coming out of the 
Senator's time.
  Mr. WEBB. Let me make this a lot simpler. I will take 15 seconds and 
say I am a cosponsor of Senator Rockefeller's bill. I believe it is an 
effective approach. To Senator Murkowski's credit, it is an approach 
she originally proposed, before she was shut off from getting a vote on 
that type of a procedure. I am going to vote against Senator 
Murkowski's resolution, but I think she is on the right track.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will oppose the resolution. The 
resolution of disapproval before us reminds me of a skills competition 
for young people that has been promoted by the National Football 
League. It is called Punt, Pass, and Kick. The resolution is an 
engraved invitation for the Senate to make a big league handoff of a 
basketful of illness, economic stalemate, and environmental pollution 
to our children and grandchildren.
  It would punt away constructive action to begin addressing many 
threats that each and every American faces from climate change, and the 
threats we face every day to our national security.
  It would pass on opportunities to foster cleaner air and water for us 
and for the generations that will follow us. It would kick away the 
progress already negotiated by the Obama administration and key 
industries, such as automobile and truck manufacturers, to usher in new 
products that would pollute less while creating good American jobs--
jobs that cannot be sent overseas, jobs we need in America.
  Many on the other side of the aisle have been adamant in trying to 
wish these problems away and to forfeit the economic opportunities at 
our fingertips to lead the world in these new energy technologies. 
Powerful corporate interests are more than glad to contribute to these 
efforts to stalemate any progress.
  What we are debating today is whether business as usual is good 
enough for the environmental challenges and economic opportunities that 
are already before us. We are being asked to overturn with a political 
veto the strong scientific evidence that points to a healthier future. 
We are being asked to undermine America's ability to clean up our air 
and our waters.
  The science is clear that greenhouse gases are a danger, and they are 
a clear and present health and economic threat to the American people.
  At a time when our Nation is responding to our worst environmental 
catastrophe of all time and oil continues to gush into the Gulf of 
Mexico, passing this resolution would be the Senate's way of saying: 
Nothing has changed; nothing should change. I disagree. It is a 
declaration of our intent to keep relying on the outdated, dirty, and 
inefficient technologies of the past, and to let every other 
industrialized country create jobs in their countries, leap ahead of us 
in developing and selling these new technologies. I disagree with that. 
This is another proposed bailout of big polluters.
  I do not think this is the path we want to chart for our children and 
our Nation. A decade from now, will we be able to look back at this 
vote and not be ashamed of ourselves? EPA's findings are based on sound 
science and an exhaustive review of scientific research. Let's not the 
100 of us cast a political vote to overturn that.
  Much of what the special interests and big oil and their lobbyists 
have been saying in favor of this resolution is steeped in politics and 
mistruths, not in science. What we have here is the Environmental 
Protection Agency focused on protecting the American people, whether it 
is arsenic in our drinking water, smog in the air, mercury in the fish 
we eat, or greenhouse gases. Overturning these findings would be like 
trying to overturn science. You don't do it.
  If we pass this resolution, it is not a case of hurting the economy. 
Quite the opposite. The resolution will hurt the economy by causing the 
American people to forfeit a third of the greenhouse gas emissions 
reductions that are projected to come from last year's historic 
agreement.
  Do not overturn the EPA findings. Do not force our Nation's already 
struggling automakers to spend even more money to produce more fuel-
efficient cars because a dozen States, such as Vermont and California, 
could then go forward, each with their own rules and standards.
  Let us not be known as the Congress to continue to punt, pass, and 
kick on these crucial issues about which the American people are 
looking for solutions.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington State is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the resolution before us that would block the EPA from 
regulating greenhouse gas emissions and protecting our families and the 
environment.
  This resolution is not based on science, and I feel strongly it would 
be a step in the wrong direction for our country. We know greenhouse 
gas emissions are dangerous for our environment and to our families' 
health.
  The science on this issue is clear, and it is something people in my 
home State of Washington take very seriously. Climate change would 
wreak havoc on much of what our families treasure--our forests, our 
coastlines, our salmon habitats, and our farmland.

  The debate we should be having today ought to be how we move forward 
on that issue, not how to obstruct and stall and maintain the status 
quo. What we should be discussing is how to pass a comprehensive 
climate and energy bill that would reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil, support our national security objectives, and unshackle this 
economy; that would tap the creative energy of our Nation's workers and 
create millions of good, family-wage jobs here in this country and make 
sure our workers continue leading the way in the 21st-century economy.
  I know there are several proposals that have been put on the table on 
this issue, but we can't just simply block EPA's endangerment findings 
and expect our greenhouse gas emission problem to resolve itself. I 
know there are industries that have concerns about being regulated. I 
understand they would prefer a legislative solution. I would too. But 
we have to keep moving forward so we can address this critical issue, 
and blocking the EPA's endangerment finding is a step backward toward 
the failed environmental policies of the past.
  The law on this is clear. The Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA 
has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. A lengthy 
process was conducted to determine this endangerment finding, and the 
public, as well as the business community, has been fully engaged 
throughout. In fact, as has been said, the auto industry opposes this 
resolution because it would put them right back into a state of 
regulatory uncertainty.
  If we look at vehicles alone, the national clean car standards as 
proposed under the Clean Air Act will cut carbon pollution from 
vehicles by 30 percent. In my home State, the transportation sector 
accounts for more than 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. And 
increased fuel efficiency standards will save our families money at the 
pump and it will cut demand for oil by an estimated 450 million barrels 
over the life of this program. All of that is threatened by this 
resolution.
  It is especially disappointing to see this on the floor while images 
of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico and devastating the local 
environment and economy continue to be shown on every news channel in 
this Nation.
  The resolution we are debating today is going to take us back to the 
failed old policies that have made us more and more dependent on oil. 
If the big oil companies and their lobbyists get their way on this 
vote, our families will continue to spend more on fuel, and it will be 
a lot harder for our economy to make the shift to cleaner and more 
efficient sources of energy.
  The longer we put off dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, the more 
it

[[Page S4818]]

will cost our economy, our environment, and our health. So I strongly 
oppose this resolution that prioritizes big oil companies over our 
families and our small business owners. I hope that after this, we can 
work together to find real solutions.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from 
Washington for her comments, and I yield myself any remaining time in 
our 30-minute block.
  Today, America faces an energy crisis. The Senate owes the American 
people solutions. But this resolution is an attempt to bury our heads 
in the sand and ignore reality.
  The oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico is only the most visible aspect of 
our energy crisis. The true consequences of our energy policy are 
spread even wider than the spill and the costs, even more deadly.
  First, our dependence on imported oil is a threat to our national 
security. Imported oil fuels dictators and terrorists, and the CIA 
believes climate change will make the world more unstable. If we block 
the clean energy transition with this resolution, we will be forced to 
use an additional 450 million barrels of oil, most of which will be 
imported. Instead, the Senate should reject this resolution and 
recognize that the transition to a clean energy economy is a national 
security priority. Americans want our national security out of the 
quagmire of foreign oil dependency. This resolution puts us in deeper.
  Here at home, this dependence is also a threat to the pocketbooks of 
American families and businesses.
  In 2008, American families and businesses sent $475 billion overseas 
to pay for foreign oil. Last year, we sent over $300 billion overseas. 
By the end of this year, we will have sent over $1 trillion outside the 
U.S. for imported oil in the last 3 years.
  That is a massive transfer of wealth from families in New Mexico and 
the other 49 States to the treasuries of foreign nations.
  If this resolution succeeds, we will import millions more barrels of 
oil and send billions more of our hard-earned money overseas.
  If the Senate fails to act, the administration must take up the 
slack. This resolution would paralyze the Federal Government.
  The administration is already making progress with new vehicle fuel 
efficiency rules, which will save 450 million barrels of oil. This 
resolution would jeopardize that effort, taking us backwards.
  Further administration efforts will improve efficiency at power 
plants and major factories and reduce pollution.
  Small businesses, farmers, and ranchers need not worry. They will not 
be subject to any EPA regulations on greenhouse gases.
  Our dependence on dirty fossil fuels is also a threat to the global 
climate system--the air we breathe and the water we drink--in New 
Mexico and around the world. This resolution specifically rejects the 
EPA's scientific finding, conducted by nonpartisan scientists, that 
greenhouse gas pollution is a threat to public health and to the 
environment. There are no climate scientists in the Senate. This body 
has no business injecting political bias into scientific deliberations. 
The resolution should be rejected for this reason alone.
  It is revealing that this resolution is supported by dozens of 
special interests that have worked for years to discredit strong 
science. The vast majority of the evidence tells us that global warming 
is real. Strong scientific evidence shows that unless we transition to 
clean energy sources, our home States will pay a heavy price.
  Many supporters of this resolution doubt climate science. In 
response, I point to the scientists of Los Alamos National Lab. The 
scientists and supercomputers there keep America's nuclear arsenal 
safe, secure, and reliable. They have no margin for error. Los Alamos 
also runs some of the most sophisticated global climate models used by 
scientists around the United States and the world. These models 
indicate a serious risk to our landscapes and water supplies. Many 
scientific studies in the field confirm those risks.
  In New Mexico, scientific evidence indicates devastating forest 
fires, droughts, and invasive species will be worsened by global 
warming. According to the Nature Conservancy, over 95 percent of New 
Mexico has seen temperature increases due to global warming. Ninety-
three percent of our watersheds have become dried, and snowpack has 
decreased over the last 30 years.
  Making matters worse, this same reliance on fossil fuels pollutes our 
atmosphere with toxic compounds such as sulfur dioxide, soot, and 
mercury, alongside greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
  Luckily, we have numerous cost-effective solutions at hand to address 
the energy and climate crisis. New Mexico and many other States across 
the Nation are rich in much cleaner domestic sources of energy, sources 
such as wind, solar, geothermal, and natural gas.
  Last week, a uranium enrichment plant opened in New Mexico to provide 
emission-free fuel for American nuclear powerplants. Several years ago, 
wind energy was unusual, but now it is increasingly common, especially 
in the American West. Offshore wind has the potential to provide 30 
percent of the east coast's power as well. The United States is now 
installing over a gigawatt of solar power each year. And there are 
another six gigawatts of concentrated solar power projects planned 
nationally, particularly in the Southwest. U.S. natural gas reserves 
have also increased by 35 percent in just 1 year. We now have a 
century's worth of supply. While natural gas is a fossil fuel, it is 
significantly cleaner than either coal or oil, and it is more abundant. 
The clean energy transition does not just mean renewable energy; it 
also means a renewed focus on natural gas and nuclear power.
  Ironically, this resolution would also eliminate the incentive to 
invest in carbon capture technologies which are the future of coal.
  Even worse, this resolution undercuts the push for energy efficiency. 
Without rules to reduce pollution, powerplants lack the right 
incentives to save energy. Both government and industry studies have 
found that the right efficiency investments could save energy and more 
than $1 trillion at the same time. Energy efficiency does not mean 
turning down the heater in the winter or the air-conditioner in the 
summer.
  Mr. President, at its core, this resolution is about delay. The House 
is not going to take up this resolution. The sponsor of this resolution 
knows the President does not support this. There are not the votes. And 
really what is going on here is delay.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time, the 30 minutes under 
Republican control will be allocated as follows: Senator Wicker will 
have 5 minutes; Senator Thune, 10 minutes; Senator Johanns, 5 minutes; 
Senator Kyl, 5 minutes; and Senator Sessions, 5 minutes. Senator Thune 
will lead off this block.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Alaska for 
her leadership on this issue. This is an important debate to have, and 
I wish to remind my colleagues what this debate is about because I have 
heard lots of discussion on the floor today about how this is somehow 
about the science of climate change.
  This isn't about the science of climate change. Maybe we ought to 
have that debate. Perhaps that is something we should debate, but that 
is not what this debate is about. This debate is also not about some of 
the other issues that have been thrown out here--that this is about big 
oil or this is about the Republicans wanting to delay or protect 
somehow the status quo. That is not what this debate is about. This is 
a very simple, straightforward question. That question is, Do we, the 
U.S. Senate, want to be on the record with regard to the issue of 
whether the EPA ought to move forward and try to regulate 
CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act or should we wait 
until Congress takes up and deals with that issue?
  What is ironic about what my colleagues on the other side are 
suggesting is that a lot of people have said

[[Page S4819]]

that Republicans just want to delay; they want to delay because they do 
not believe in the science. Well, we don't control the agenda; the 
Democratic leader controls the agenda. They have a climate change bill 
they could bring to the floor and we could debate it. They do not want 
to do that because they don't want to put a lot of their Democrats on 
record on that vote. So what do they do instead? We allow the EPA--a 
bunch of unelected bureaucrats--to move forward and do something that 
would have tremendous consequence to the American economy without 
hearing from the Congress.
  I think that, in a very simple, straightforward manner, is what this 
debate is about. It is about, do we want the EPA to move forward with 
the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions absent direction from the 
Congress--the people's representatives--or do the voices of the people 
need to be heard through the debate we ought to be having here in the 
Congress?
  I will say that irrespective of what you believe about the science 
behind climate change and whether or not human activity is contributing 
to it, one thing we know with great certainty is that it will have 
profound economic impacts on the American economy.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. THUNE. I will yield at the conclusion of my remarks to the 
Senator from Massachusetts, but I have some things to get to before 
that.
  Mr. President, what is important is that everyone acknowledges, 
including the Obama administration, that moving forward with the EPA 
regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act would cause 
the economy to suffer.
  I want to quote something the Office of Management and Budget put out 
last August in a document. It says:

       Regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Act for the 
     time is likely to have serious economic consequences for 
     regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including 
     small businesses and small communities.

  If you look at the impact on small businesses, farms, and ranches, 
the proponents are going to say: Well, the EPA is not intending to 
regulate smaller entities like that; we just want to get the big 
polluters. OK. We start at 100,000 tons. Well, in 2012, we move to 
50,000 tons.
  I would argue--and it is supported by statements made by folks in the 
administration--the EPA Administrator has indicated that by 2016, they 
intend to regulate smaller emitters, if we get to 2016, because what 
will happen is this so-called tailoring rule will get challenged in the 
courts and it will likely get overturned because the Clean Air Act said 
the threshold for regulation is 250 tons.
  At 250 tons, you don't get just the big emitters. You don't get the 
large polluters. You get over 6 million entities, to include farms, 
ranches, small businesses, churches, hospitals, and you can go right 
down the list. That is what happens when you regulate at the 250-ton 
level. As I said, they are saying that is not going to happen, that we 
have this tailoring rule. Well, the law is very clear. If we are going 
to use the Clean Air Act as the authority to do this, the Clean Air Act 
stipulates 250 tons. That captures a whole lot of entities that strike 
at the very heart of the American economy.
  The cap-and-trade legislation that was passed by the House last 
summer has yet to be voted on here in the Senate, but there has been a 
lot of analysis of that done in my State of South Dakota. The public 
utilities commission in my State suggested that, if passed, that would 
increase power rates in States such as South Dakota by 50 percent.
  If you look at what the actual impacts are going to be on small 
businesses across this country--not only because of the cost of the 
original construction permits that would be included in this but also 
operating permits--the Wall Street Journal said in a May 2009 story 
that in 2007 the Clean Air Act cost those who had to apply for permits 
$125,000 per permit and 866 hours to obtain it.
  So whether you subscribe to the notion that this is only going to 
apply to large entities or whether you subscribe, as I do, to the 
belief that this is ultimately going to cover a lot more smaller 
entities that are going to be adversely impacted and deal with much 
higher power rates, I think it is pretty clear that whoever is covered 
by these new regulations is going to be faced with a lot higher costs 
when it comes to permits, a lot higher costs when it comes to the 
implementation of best available technology, and therefore a lot higher 
cost to the American consumer who will deal with the burden of that 
when it is passed on by these various emitting entities.
  My State of South Dakota, of course, is composed of a lot of farmers 
and ranchers. Agriculture is a 45-percent energy-intensive business, if 
you look at the inputs that are necessary to make a living in a farm or 
ranch operation. That means 45 percent of a farmer or rancher's costs 
are going to be increased by this backdoor energy tax imposed by the 
EPA. The fees and fines that are placed upon machinery manufacturers, 
energy companies, and fertilizer companies starting in 2011 and 2012 
will be immediately passed down to the farm and ranch families who are 
going to be impacted by this.
  If the EPA is forced to regulate at the statutory 250-ton threshold--
which, as I said, once this is litigated I believe that is what the 
courts are going to find--farms with as few as 25 dairy cattle would be 
forced to apply for a title 5 permit and pay a fee for each ton of 
greenhouse gases emitted by their cattle: the cow tax. That is what 
this is about. This is not, as I said, about the science of climate 
change. It is not about Republicans wanting to delay. We don't control 
the agenda around here. It is not about big oil. It is about small 
businesses, family farms, and ranches trying to make a living, trying 
to create jobs in the economy and constantly having Washington stand in 
the way and throw new hurdles and impediments and obstacles and 
barriers in their way.
  What the Murkowski resolution does, very simply, is it forces us to 
answer a fundamental question and that is should Congress be acting on 
legislation that would direct these activities or do we allow a bunch 
of unelected bureaucrats at an agency downtown to move forward with 
regulations that would impose massive new costs on the American economy 
at a time when we are trying to create jobs and get this economy on its 
feet. That is the straightforward, simple question put forward by the 
resolution from the Senator from Alaska.
  I hope my colleagues here realize, irrespective of what they think 
about the science of climate change, irrespective of all the other 
arguments that are being used as a distraction here on big oil and 
Republicans delaying this debate, when you get down to the fundamental 
question, that is what the issue is, whether this Senate wants to be on 
record about allowing a bunch of unelected bureaucrats to move forward 
with the regulations that would impose massive new costs on our 
economy, not just on big polluters, large polluters--who, by the way, 
are going to pass those costs on--but directly hitting the small 
businesses, farms, the ranches that are the very backbone of the 
American economy.
  This is not, by the way, just a Republican issue. There are lots of 
Democrats who have weighed in on this and there are lots of Democrats I 
believe here in the Senate today who I hope will be willing to support 
this resolution. But I want to read for you very quickly here, because 
I know my time is running out, a couple of things that have been said 
by Democrats in the House of Representatives. Collin Peterson, a 
Congressman from Minnesota, has said:

       The Clean Air Act was never meant to be used for this but 
     they're trying to do it anyway. . . . Most everyone I've 
     heard from about this thinks that elected officials--not EPA 
     bureaucrats--should decide how to address our energy 
     problems.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. THUNE. John Dingell called this a ``glorious mess,'' if the EPA 
moves forward with this. I have other statements from the Democratic 
Members of the House of Representatives which I will be happy to submit 
for the Record, as well as a letter from a bunch of Representatives in 
my State supporting the Murkowski resolution.
  I yield my time and hope my colleagues will support this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Nebraska.

[[Page S4820]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, let me, if I might, start out and say how 
much I appreciated the comments by the Senator from South Dakota. Many 
months ago I did a roundtable with a great company in Nebraska, Nucor 
Steel. Nucor Steel is one of those companies you hope takes a look at 
your State and creates the jobs that they have in your State--and they 
have. They employ about a thousand people. They do everything right. 
They are very pro-America. They are a well-managed company. They are a 
company that pays well. On average across the Nucor system, their wages 
are about $70,000 a year. For that area of any rural State, that is 
huge. That is huge.
  We sat down in this roundtable. As the Senator from South Dakota 
points out, the impact on our businesses--the first thing I asked the 
folks of Nucor Steel, I said to them, Where is your competition? Who 
are you competing with?
  They said: The Chinese.
  I said: The Chinese?
  They said: Absolutely. When we go out and fight for a contract to 
keep these people employed, we are fighting with the Chinese.
  I said: Let me ask you, talk to me about the impact of all of this 
legislation and various proposals on climate change on your company and 
that competitive relationship.
  They were very blunt and straightforward. They said: Very simply, 
Mike, here is what happens. We go in a situation where we cannot 
compete. Already, this is a very tough business. If you pile onto us 
these additional requirements, we are in trouble immediately.
  Here is what I want to say about the Murkowski amendment, to get 
started here today. I respect the Senator from Alaska for bringing this 
forward because this is the kind of debate we should be having on this 
very important issue on the Senate floor and on the House floor. This 
should not be a situation where we have relegated or allowed the 
responsibility to be taken over by bureaucrats here in Washington, DC.
  I rise today to offer my support for Senator Murkowski's resolution 
of disapproval. At the end of last year, as we all know, EPA announced 
that greenhouse gas emissions would be regulated under the Clean Air 
Act. But Congress never designed the law to do that. Yet this 
administration seems absolutely bent on this overreaching, regardless 
of, congressional intent. That is why I am one of the cosponsors on 
this resolution.
  The resolution is very simply our way of saying, here in Congress, 
the Clean Air Act was never designed to allow you, the EPA, to regulate 
greenhouse gases. This endangerment finding is simply bad for 
everybody. It is bad for Nucor Steel, it is bad for business, and it is 
bad for every American out there who flips on a light switch.
  EPA tells us over 6 million entities will be captured by these new 
permitting requirements. Who are they? They are commercial buildings, 
they are hospitals, they are ethanol plants. You can keep naming 
business after business that will get caught up in this. Thousands of 
business owners would now have to go to the EPA if they plan to expand 
through new construction or modifications. One Nebraska manufacturer 
recently wrote to me, concerned with this very stark reality, and said: 
``These regulations will certainly influence our future decisionmaking 
regarding acquisitions, expansions, and new plants.''
  So at a time where our economy is struggling, where everybody is 
trying to figure out the best pathway to create jobs----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Let me wrap up and ask my colleagues to support this 
very important effort by Senator Murkowski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to first say how much I support 
the Murkowski resolution, and I will be voting for it. But I want to 
point out, as ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, how it is 
we got into this circumstance and why it is not justified. Why it 
should never have happened, and why it is a product of the worst kind 
of judicial activism. And finally, why we need to see how we can work 
our way out of it.
  In 1970, the Congress passed the Clean Air Act, and they allowed EPA 
to regulate pollutants. Rather than try to specifically define 
pollutants, they said it would be defined by the Director of the EPA, 
and he would have that decision-making authority. That is the way it 
was for many years.
  Then years went by and people began to talk about global warming. 
Global warming developed a certain momentum and a number of scientists 
signed onto this idea. Even though CO2 is a plant food and 
the more CO2 that is in the atmosphere the better plants 
grow. And even though we breathe out CO2 and plants breathe 
in CO2 which produces the oxygen that we breathe in this 
wonderful system that we are a part of. They concluded that 
CO2 was increasing because we were taking carbon fuels 
mostly from our soils, burning it, and that was increasing the 
percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably it had at 
one time been in the atmosphere and had been sucked up by plants.
  So this argument arose that it would create global warming. In 1997 
Congress had a vote on the Kyoto accord, to deal with whether we wanted 
to take these firm, aggressive steps to reduce CO2. By a 
vote of 97 to 0 we voted not to do that. We were not prepared to do 
that.
  Someone filed a lawsuit. In 2007, it came before the U.S. Supreme 
Court. The Supreme Court was asked to decide on the prohibition of air 
pollutants, which passed in 1970 when nobody was thinking about global 
warming, instead they were thinking about particulate matter, 
NOX and SOX, acid rain, and those kinds of 
pollutants that go into the atmosphere. The question was, did that word 
``pollutant'' include CO2?
  To me, a responsible court would have said Congress had all these 
years to pass a law and specifically add CO2 as a pollutant 
if they wanted to. In fact, we have amended the law and never added it. 
They would have asked, Is this a big economic issue we are deciding? It 
is a huge economic issue, because it would give the Environmental 
Protection Agency the right to regulate every single emission of 
CO2--every automobile, every factory, every home, every 
hospital, every steel mill; everybody who emits CO2 would be 
under the regulation of the EPA.
  They voted and by a 5-to-4 margin the Supreme Court of the United 
States just declared--just by dictate declared--that Congress intended 
to cover CO2 when they passed the Clean Air Act of 1970.
  It is a stunning thing. It is a huge activist decision. In my 
opinion, it shows how dangerous judges are who are not committed to 
restraint and responsible action--how dangerous it can be when you give 
them the power to pass something Congress would not have passed. They 
didn't pass it then. And in my opinion, they would not pass it today. 
But the Supreme Court said so.
  I support the Murkowski resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I too support strongly the Murkowski 
amendment. There has been a lot of misinformation spread about this. 
Let me clear up a couple of things. First, this resolution is not about 
the science of climate change. It has nothing to do whatsoever with 
greenhouse gases or the Earth's temperature.
  It would not prevent the Senate from considering climate legislation 
if that is what the Senate chooses to do. Nor does this resolution have 
anything to do with the spill in the gulf coast, although some have 
tried to make it appear that way. Let's remember this resolution was 
introduced months before that spill even began. It has nothing to do 
with the disaster. We should not exploit this serious crisis for 
political gain, as the White House has tried to do.

[[Page S4821]]

  So what is the resolution about? Well, it boils down to a simple 
question: Should the Environmental Protection Agency be allowed to act 
unilaterally to set climate and energy policy through new Clean Air Act 
regulations without the delegation or approval of Congress. And the 
answer is no. It is wrong for the administration to try to achieve its 
goals by any means possible, in this case by going around the 
legislative branch and by using the EPA to enact sweeping economic and 
energy regulation.
  In order to stop that, we need to approve this resolution. Let me 
provide a bit of context for how we got to this point. In December of 
2009, the EPA finalized so-called endangerment findings for six 
greenhouse gases, allowing it to establish greenhouse gas emission 
standards for a few new motor vehicles.
  Once those standards go into effect, under the law EPA has no choice 
but to follow through and issue regulations for stationary sources of 
greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the EPA has estimated that about 6 
million of these stationary sources: buildings, and facilities, 
including hospitals, nursing homes, schools, farms, and so on, will be 
subject to regulation.
  There will also be a new regulation of homes and RVs and cars and 
tractors and so on. The new regulation will touch every corner of our 
economy and necessarily lead to higher energy costs, increasing the 
cost of nearly everything, and in the process killing jobs.
  President Obama himself said that under the plan he favors, 
electricity prices ``would necessarily skyrocket.'' Well, the Murkowski 
disapproval resolution would nullify the legal effect and force of the 
EPA's endangerment finding. It would prevent the EPA from using the 
Clean Air Act to set up a regulatory regime to impose backdoor climate 
regulations that would lead to a job-killing national energy tax.
  Americans have made it very clear that they do not like the idea of 
legislation that will increase their energy bills and raise their 
taxes. They want Congress and the administration to focus on 
strengthening the economy and providing incentives to job creators 
rather than burdening them with new regulations. They deserve to be 
heard. If they say through their representatives they do not want a 
national energy tax in the form of cap-and-trade legislation to pass 
Congress, then the administration should not be able to circumvent 
their will by simply having the EPA do it.
  This is a clear up-or-down vote to stop a power grab by unelected 
officials at the Environmental Protection Agency, and to force any 
climate and energy regulation to go through a democratic process 
conducted by Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Murkowski resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, 
we had reserved 5 minutes for Senator Wicker, but I am to going to 
yield those 5 minutes to Senator Hutchison.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Alaska for her great 
leadership in bringing this to the floor. I support this resolution. 
While cap-and-trade legislation has stalled in the Senate, the 
administration is pursuing a backdoor approach to implement new 
regulations. The EPA's use of the Clean Air Act as a vehicle to expand 
its authority is a political maneuver that will allow the agency to 
bypass Congress and regulate greenhouse gases.
  This is the prerogative of Congress and Congress has not acted 
because it would be a mistake to act. So here comes the regulatory 
agency to bypass Congress because they cannot get congressional 
approval to do what they are trying to do.
  This vote has nothing to do with the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. 
It is unfortunate that some are trying to use this tragedy in the Gulf 
of Mexico as some sort of leverage against this resolution. We all 
agree that we need a responsible energy policy that strikes a critical 
balance between the protection of our environment, natural resources, 
and the preservation of American jobs. It is the responsibility of 
Congress to implement such a balanced policy.
  It is also the responsibility of Congress to consider the economic 
impact that regulations will have on Americans throughout our country. 
Here is how these regulations will affect my home State of Texas. In 
Texas, more than 30,000 businesses will be in industries that will now 
be newly subject to the EPA regulations.
  Texas' agriculture industry, which accounts for $106 billion, or 9.5 
percent of Texas' total gross State product, would be 
disproportionately damaged by the proposed regulations because of their 
use of fertilizers which are already regulated.
  Across the country, small businesses, which are the backbone of our 
economy, and farmers and ranchers, which are the backbone of our 
economy, will be devastated by these regulations. According to the U.S. 
Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, the smallest 
businesses bear a 45-percent greater burden than their larger 
competitors.
  The annual cost per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees 
is over $7,000 to comply with their regulatory burden. Actions from the 
EPA are going to give foreign competitors an advantage over American 
businesses. While our businesses will become burdened with these new 
regulations, companies in China and India will have free rein in U.S. 
markets.
  As our economy begins to recover, the last thing families and small 
businesses need is a backdoor energy tax that is going to raise their 
costs across the board. Rather than imposing invasive regulations, we 
need a responsible energy policy that focuses on making alternative 
sources of energy, such as nuclear, wind, and solar commercially 
available. We all agree on that. That would be a balanced approach to 
an energy policy, which is what elected representatives should be 
making.
  This vote is to prevent a federal bureaucracy from doing the work of 
the elected representatives of the people. I am alarmed by this further 
attempt of the administration to circumvent congressional authority. I 
am sorry to say but this is becoming a hallmark of this administration, 
more regulation. And if Congress does not agree, let the agencies do 
it.
  I am dealing in the Commerce Committee right now with the FCC that is 
doing exactly the same thing. They are going to impose net neutrality 
rules when Congress has not authorized the regulation of the Internet 
in that way. It is a pattern that is beginning to show itself and it is 
wrong for our country.
  I am going to stand strong against cap and trade. I will certainly 
oppose the audacious attempt by this administration to bypass Congress 
and implement new regulations without the authority of Congress.
  As a solution to climate change, we need to work together to promote 
the use of clean and renewable sources of energy. We need to work on 
creating jobs, not tax small business to keep us from being able to 
create the new jobs.
  It is important that we work together. We are the elected 
representatives of the people. The EPA is not. And this is overreach. 
If we do not stop it, who will? Who will stop bureaucracy and agencies 
that are not authorized by Congress to take on more and more regulatory 
responsibility that is not theirs, and that is going to cost jobs in 
our country?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. The growth of government is breathtaking in this 
country. I urge my colleagues to think about this and support the 
Murkowski resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, has all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to Senator Kerry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have heard the arguments on both sides 
of this debate. But for all the discussion and all the rhetoric, the 
choice before us is really stark and simple. This is a vote and choice 
between recognizing the greatest environmental risk of our time or 
legitimizing the deniers. It is a choice between protecting the health 
of

[[Page S4822]]

our families and the air we breathe or continuing a pattern of 
pollution that threatens our children and our communities. It is a 
choice between getting serious about policies that will put America on 
a real path to energy independence or increasing our Nation's oil 
dependency by 450 million barrels.
  The stakes for our country are enormous. And if you have any doubt 
about that, any doubt at all, look no further than what is happening in 
the Gulf of Mexico even as we debate this choice. Every hour on our 
television screens we are watching another tragic and costly reminder 
of the hazards of our oil addiction, all that from only a single 
accident at a single offshore oil well.
  In April 2007, the Supreme Court for the first time issued a ruling 
on the issue of climate change. The Roberts Court was asked to consider 
the Bush administration's refusal to issue greenhouse gas standards for 
cars and trucks. The case hinged on two key issues: (1) does the Clean 
Air Act authorize regulation of greenhouse gases and (2) if so, should 
EPA set emissions standards for motor vehicles. The decision by the 
majority in the landmark Massachusetts v. EPA case was conclusive on 
both fronts. The justices determined that ``the harms associated with 
climate change are serious and well recognized,'' and they firmly and 
positively identified greenhouse gas emissions as the cause of those 
harms. In light of that assessment, they found that greenhouse gases 
``fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of `air 
pollutant.' '' In light of that, the justices directed EPA to fulfill 
its obligation under the Clean Air Act to determine, based on 
scientific evidence alone, whether greenhouse gas emissions from cars 
and trucks pose a threat to human health or welfare. This 
``endangerment finding'' was finalized in December of last year.
  The resolution under consideration today, S.J. Res. 26, seeks to 
overturn this finding and permanently prohibit EPA from ever issuing a 
similar determination, regardless of the strength of the science and 
the urgency of action.
  This resolution is not based in substance or in fact. We know that 
the threats of climate change are widespread, compelling and urgent.
  In fact, on May 19, the National Research Council, our Nation's 
leading scientific body, declared in its most comprehensive study to 
date that the evidence of climate change is ``overwhelming.'' They 
urged ``early, aggressive, and concerted actions to reduce emissions of 
greenhouse gases.''
  However, the resolution we are debating today would achieve precisely 
the opposite goal. We are being asked to literally vote down the 
science, squander billions of barrels of oil savings, and shirk our 
responsibility to address the greatest energy, national security, and 
environmental challenge of our time.
  By invalidating the scientific finding that greenhouse gases pose a 
threat to human health and welfare, this resolution would remove the 
legal basis for the landmark agreement that was reached last year to 
regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. According to 
the Union of Concerned Scientists, this agreement is on track to save 
American consumers a total of $34 billion and create 263,000 American 
jobs in 2020. This agreement also takes a tremendous step toward energy 
independence by reducing our oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels. By 
removing EPA's authority to jointly implement these regulations with 
the Department of Transportation, this resolution comes at the very 
steep cost of 450 million barrels, almost one quarter of these oil 
savings.
  And, that is just the minimum amount by which this dangerous 
resolution will increase our oil dependence. In light of President 
Obama's recent announcement that the administration plans to extend the 
vehicles standards beyond 2016, the prohibition on EPA action will 
eliminate significant additional opportunities in the future to reduce 
our Nation's oil consumption, increase our energy security, and draw a 
bright line between ourselves and those nations that would do us harm.
  So why are we being asked to affirmatively reject a scientific 
finding based on ``overwhelming evidence'' and potentially billions of 
barrels of oil savings? Congress, we are told, needs more time to 
develop energy and climate legislation and the Federal Government must 
be stopped from making any progress in the interim.
  As someone has been meeting with my colleagues now for over a year, 
sitting down with all the stakeholders, I am struck by the irony that 
many of the proponents of this argument are the very same people who at 
every opportunity have avoided engaging in a serious legislative effort 
to tackle these issues. On the one hand, they say it is a job for 
Congress not the EPA, then they stand in the way of Congress doing the 
job in the first place. And they stand in the way even at a time when 
we have brought together an unprecedented coalition of industry and 
environmental support for action in this Congress. If you do not want 
the EPA to act, but you will not let Congress lead, when are we going 
to solve this challenge?
  Here is how Ron Brownstein, one of the keenest observers of 
Washington, summed it up: ``It's reasonable to argue that Congress, not 
EPA, should decide how to regulate carbon. But most of those Senators 
who endorsed Murkowski's resolution also oppose the most plausible 
remaining vehicle for legislating carbon limits: The comprehensive 
energy plan that Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, ID-
Conn., recently released. Together, those twin positions effectively 
amount to a vote for the energy status quo.''
  Let's not kid ourselves. The Senate has never solved a problem by 
delaying. And on the issue of climate change, we have delayed action 
too long, for two decades we have stood still. We have stood still 
while other countries race ahead, while we lose market share in a 
global market, and while China and India create jobs and profits racing 
ahead with technology that Americans invented.
  Mike Splinter, the CEO of Applied Materials, crystallized our choice 
in his May 25 op-ed. He said, ``Our failure to act has consequences. 
Ten years ago, the U.S. accounted for 40 percent of worldwide solar 
manufacturing. Today that figure is less than 10 percent. Meanwhile, 
China has gone from producing five percent of the world's solar panels 
in 2007 to nearly half last year . . . Over the next five years, China, 
India and Japan will out-invest the US in energy technology by at least 
three-to-one.''

  And still here we are debating the science itself, still distracted 
by campaigns to foster the idea that climate change was ``theory rather 
than fact.'' That is the same campaign the tobacco industry waged for 
decades, arguing that the link between cigarettes and lung cancer was 
``theory rather than fact.''
  Well, you can delay the inevitable only so long. If you put science 
on trial, as they did in the famous Scopes Monkey trial in 1925, the 
truth will win out. And I will tell you the science on climate change 
is more definitive than ever and more troubling than ever.
  Globally, temperatures are at an all-time high, with the first decade 
of this century conclusively establishing as the hottest decade on 
record. Man-made pollution is acidifying our oceans at a rate at least 
10 times faster than previously thought, creating inhospitable physical 
conditions for shell-building animals that serve as the basis of our 
ocean food chain. Sea level rise is threatening cities like Boston, 
where city officials are actively planning for how to manage 100-year 
floods that are now becoming 20-year floods, in the face of global sea 
level rise of three to six feet by 2100. Worsening drought conditions 
will create persistent drought in the Southwest and sharply increase 
Western wildfire burn area. And the National Academy of Sciences has 
confirmed that these damages may be irreversible for 1,000 years.
  Those who say we are not ready, we need more time, miss the fact that 
we know what we have to do and we know how to do it in a way that makes 
economic sense. We have debated bipartisan energy and climate 
legislation in the Senate for years, beginning in earnest with the 
McCain-Lieberman bill of 2005. The House of Representatives passed a 
comprehensive energy and climate bill nearly 1 year ago, and the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee reported out a similar bill last 
fall. Over the last several months, Senator Lieberman and I, with the 
help of Senator Graham, built on these

[[Page S4823]]

efforts to develop the American Power Act.
  Our legislation adopts the formula originally developed by 
Republicans and implemented by President George H.W. Bush, that 
environmental goals should be achieved at the lowest possible cost to 
American consumers and businesses. In fact, the nonpartisan Peterson 
Institute for International Economics just completed the first 
independent analysis of the American Power Act, and found that the bill 
would generate a decade of multimillion-dollar investments, creating 
200,000 new jobs a year and reducing foreign oil imports by 40 percent. 
The study also says that because of the strong consumer protection 
provisions in the bill, American families will see a $35 net decrease 
in energy costs annually through 2030.
  The Senate can and must take action this year, and the American Power 
Act provides the foundation for getting the job done. I urge my 
colleagues who recognize the threats caused by our oil dependence to 
close the gap between words and action and join us in passing a bill 
this year. We have collectively kicked the can down the road long 
enough, and the Nation is less secure as a result. It is time to stand 
with 75 percent of the American people and pass energy and climate 
legislation that makes a meaningful and lasting difference.
  Before I yield the floor, I would like to make one final point. While 
many members have come to the floor today to eviscerate the EPA and 
create a caricature, the reality is that the Agency is taking a 
thoughtful, measured, step-wise approach to regulating greenhouse gas 
emissions. Administrator Jackson has logically committed to addressing 
the largest sources first: new power plants or factories that emit over 
100,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, or existing plants that 
undergo significant expansions representing over 75,000 tons, and they 
won't go into effect until over a year from now. Contrary to the wild 
claims you have heard today, these regulations will not impact small 
businesses or family farmers, and will remain focused on only the 
largest polluters for at least the next 6 years.
  Mr. President, protecting our environment does not have to be a 
partisan issue. On the first Earth Day in 1970, more than 20 million 
Americans, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, all turned out to 
protest the pollution of our environment. And later that year, 
President Nixon signed the EPA law because Republicans recognized as 
much as Democrats that we had to put an end to rivers catching on fire, 
Great Lakes dying, and air pollution so great that on some days here in 
Washington you could barely see the Capitol from Arlington Cemetery.
  It has been 40 years since we put the EPA in charge of cleaning up 
our water and air, and its track record is indisputable. Russell Train, 
the EPA Administrator during the Nixon and Ford administrations, 
emphasized in a recent letter opposing the Murkowski resolution that 
the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act have exceeded its costs 10 
to 100-fold. But the resolution under consideration today would stop 
the EPA in its tracks, without any sort of alternative plan for 
addressing the greatest environmental threat of our time. Let's stop 
the demonizing and get to work.
  Today we should be debating how to craft comprehensive energy and 
climate legislation, not how to reverse the important progress that is 
underway. This amendment is a distraction. It is an excuse. It is time 
for the Senate to do what this institution was meant to do, and provide 
leadership on an issue that is crying out for it.
  I have been listening carefully to a whole bunch of our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle come to the floor and talk about what this 
is not about. Every single one of them has laid out a rationale for 
doing away with something as if it were a regulation. They come to the 
floor and, frankly, there have been very few facts here, because I keep 
hearing about the tailoring rule of the EPA, that does not take effect 
until 2016, which lays out a whole process by which we normally do 
things.
  But we keep hearing our folks on the other side of the aisle say this 
is not something that Congress intended, or this is not something we 
should leave to the bureaucracy. Neither could be further from the 
truth.
  We created the law on which this is based. The Congress passed the 
Clean Air Act, and the Supreme Court of the United States, not a 
bureaucracy, made a fundamental health finding decision that, in fact, 
global climate change is happening, and that the pollutants of 
greenhouse gases are, in fact, included in what the Clean Air Act 
envisioned.
  The Supreme Court has dictated this policy, and they dictated it as a 
matter of health, not as a matter of some bureaucratic rule. We do not 
have a rule in front of us right now. We have a process by which the 
EPA is going to go through, determine what they may or may not do.
  I heard my colleague from South Dakota come to the floor and say: 
Well, all we are trying to do is delay this so Congress can act. This 
is going to be the great hypocrisy test resolution. We are going to see 
how many of those folks who are here on the floor saying: We need to 
leave it to Congress, how many of them are actually going to show up 
and vote to do what we need to do in order to change things. How many 
of them are going to be on the front lines trying to, in fact, make the 
things happen that have to happen in order to restrain greenhouse 
gases?
  We heard him say: We are just delaying this. No, they are not just 
delaying it. That is not true. Because under the Administrative rule 
act, when you reject a resolution, have a resolution of rejection, as 
this is, you are specifically not allowed to come back with the rule or 
anything like it.
  Let me read specifically from there. It says:

       A rule shall not take effect if the Congress enacts a joint 
     resolution of disapproval.

  That is what this is.

       (2) A rule that does not take effect under paragraph 1 may 
     not be reissued in substantially the same form, and the new 
     rule that is substantially the same as such rule may not be 
     issued.

  There it is, plain and simple, folks. That is what is happening here. 
This is an effort to permanently prevent the EPA from ever taking up 
the question of greenhouse gases and their right to restrain them.
  Let me read exactly what the Supreme Court said. This is the Supreme 
Court. And let me put a little politics history behind this. In 1999, 
under the Bush administration, the first Bush administration, they did 
not want to do this, for all of the same reasons people do not want to 
do it now. So people went to court to get them to do what they are 
supposed to do in the public interest. But it was challenged. It went 
all the way to the Supreme Court, and here is what the Supreme Court of 
the United States said. Greenhouse gases ``fit well within the Clean 
Air Act's capacious definition of air pollutant.''
  So the Supreme Court of the United States, not a bureaucracy, found 
that the intent of Congress was properly being fulfilled in the effort 
to restrain greenhouse gases. What Senator Murkowski and colleagues are 
trying to do here is undermine the health finding. This, in fact, is 
represented by the Supreme Court.
  The Court found that climate science has already indicated that 
rising levels of greenhouse gases were warming and harming the Earth. 
They go through that reasoning. The Court then said they reviewed the 
history of the Clean Air Act and found that in 1970, Congress added a 
broad definition of ``welfare,'' including ``effects on climate.''
  Finally, the Court found that the Clean Air Act's sweeping definition 
of ``air pollutant'' unambiguously includes greenhouse gases. That is 
why we are here today.
  What our colleagues are trying to do is prevent this from happening. 
They are repealing an entire health finding.
  It is kind of interesting. Look at the people who represent health in 
the United States: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Children's 
Environmental Health Network, American Nurses Association, American 
Lung Association, American Public Health Association, National 
Association of County and City Health Officials, Trust for America's 
Health, Physicians for Social Responsibility, National Environment 
Health Association, American College of Preventative Medicine, and on 
it goes. All of them are opposed to what Senator Murkowski is doing 
because it does not represent the health interests of the country.

[[Page S4824]]

  We have heard a lot of arguments, but for all the discussion and 
rhetoric, the choice before us is stark and simple. This is not a 
simple delay. This is brought to us by some of the same people who have 
resisted doing anything about many of these things for ages. Why is it 
that the United States is more dependent today on foreign oil than we 
were before September 11? It is because we haven't done anything to 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We have an opportunity to do it 
now. This is about that.
  The same people have resisted changes through the years--resisted 
CAFE standards, resisted changing where and how we produce oil, a long 
list of things that have been prevented from happening. The American 
people today are paying $100 million a day to Ahmadinejad and Iran in 
order to buy oil because we haven't reduced it.
  The option is whether we are going to get serious about those other 
things. This is a vote between whether we recognize the greatest 
environmental risk of our time or whether we legitimize deniers of 
that. It is a choice between protecting the health of our families and 
the air we breathe or whether we continue a pattern of pollution that 
threatens our children and communities. That is what the EPA was set up 
to protect. It has protected that through the years. This is a question 
of whether we are going to get serious about policies that will put 
America on a path to energy independence or increase our Nation's oil 
dependence by another 450 million barrels.
  The stakes for our country are enormous. If Members have any doubt 
about that, every day on television everybody is seeing what is 
happening in the gulf, the result of one single accident, one single 
offshore oil well.
  In April of 2007, the Supreme Court, for the first time, issued a 
ruling on the issue of climate change. Some people don't like it. The 
Roberts Court was asked to consider the Bush administration's refusal 
to issue greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks. The case hinged 
on just two things: Does the Clean Air Act authorize the regulation of 
greenhouse gases, and, if so, should the EPA set emission standards for 
motor vehicles?
  The decision by the majority was conclusive on both fronts. In light 
of that, the Justices directed the EPA to fulfill its obligation under 
the Clean Air Act to determine--I emphasize--based on scientific 
evidence whether greenhouse gas emissions for cars and trucks pose a 
threat to human health.
  On May 19, the National Research Council, which is our Nation's 
leading scientific body, declared in its most comprehensive study to 
date that the evidence of climate change is overwhelming. They urged 
early, aggressive, and concerted actions to reduce emissions of 
greenhouse gases. The resolution we are debating today would achieve 
absolutely the opposite goal. We are being asked to vote down the 
science, to squander billions of barrels of oil savings, and shirk our 
responsibility to address the greatest national security and 
environmental challenge of our time.
  Some may say, no; they are just trying to restrict the bureaucrats 
from doing this. Everybody understands what this battle is all about. 
By invalidating the fundamental scientific finding that greenhouse 
gases, in fact, pose a threat to human health and welfare, this 
resolution would remove the legal basis, the legal foundation for the 
agreement that was reached last year to regulate greenhouse gas 
emissions from cars and trucks.
  According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, this agreement, the 
agreement to which I am referring, is on track to save American 
consumers a total of $34 billion and to create 263,000 American jobs in 
2020. The agreement also takes a huge step forward toward energy 
independence by reducing our oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels. If 
we remove the EPA's authority to jointly implement those regulations 
with the Department of Transportation, then we lose the foundation for 
proceeding forward with that benefit. That is the minimum amount by 
which this resolution would increase our oil dependence.
  In light of President Obama's recent announcement that the 
administration plans to extend the vehicle standards beyond 2016, the 
prohibition on the EPA action would eliminate significant additional 
opportunities in the future to reduce our Nation's oil consumption, 
increase our energy security, and draw a bright line between ourselves 
and those nations that want to do us harm.
  Why are we being asked to affirmatively reject a scientific finding 
that has been based on overwhelming evidence, and why would we be asked 
to reject potentially billions of barrels of oil savings? We are told 
Congress needs more time to develop energy and climate legislation. The 
Federal Government has to be stopped from making progress in the 
interim.
  I have been meeting with my colleagues now for over a year at least, 
over 20 years that I have been working on this issue. The distinguished 
chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, similarly, 
and others, have been at this for a long time. I am struck by the irony 
that many of the proponents of this argument are the very same people 
who, at every opportunity, have avoided engaging in a serious 
legislative effort to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or deal 
with climate change.
  On the one hand they say it is the job of Congress, not the EPA. Then 
they stand in the way of Congress doing its job in the first place. 
They stand in the way even at a time when we have built an 
unprecedented coalition of industry--the faith-based community, the 
national security community, businesses small and large, 
environmentalists, all of whom believe we now have a method by which we 
can grow jobs in our country, increase energy independence, and reduce 
pollution all at the same time.
  Let me share with colleagues what Ron Brownstein, one of the keenest 
observers of Washington, summed up in writing the following:

       It's reasonable to argue that Congress, not EPA, should 
     decide how to regulate carbon. But most of those Senators who 
     endorsed Murkowski's resolution also opposed the most 
     plausible remaining vehicle for legislating carbon limits.

  I want to make sure we understand something as we do this. A lot of 
people have come to the Senate floor to eviscerate the EPA and create a 
caricature of that Agency, when that Agency, frankly, is taking a 
thoughtful, measured, stepwise approach to regulate greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  Administrator Jackson has said she is committed to addressing the 
largest sources first, new powerplants or factories emitting more than 
100,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, and then going to those over 
75,000 tons. None of that will even go into effect until a year from 
now through the normal administrative public process that we have set 
up for our agencies to represent us.
  It is astonishing to me that this has become a partisan issue. In 
1970, 20 million Americans came out of their homes to march in the 
streets because they saw the Cuyahoga River in Ohio light on fire. They 
wanted to stop the pollution. We passed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water 
Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, marine mammal protection, coastal zone 
management. The history of the implementation of those acts has been to 
clean up rivers, clean up lakes, and see fish swim again where they 
didn't, to be caught again by kids who go fishing with their parents. 
We brought that back. Now we are trying to undermine the ability to 
continue that job, to make the health and welfare of our citizens 
better, and to lead the world with respect to these technologies. The 
United States is not leading in one of these technologies today. It is 
time for us to understand, we need to get our act together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kerry. We now turn to 
Senator Lieberman for 5 minutes, followed by Senator Merkley for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer for her 
leadership in this matter.
  I rise to oppose the resolution offered by my friend from Alaska, and 
she is my friend. I rise to say that I think, though I oppose the 
resolution, that debate on the resolution has clarified the choices 
Members of the Senate have on this matter. I think it has illuminated 
the scientific consensus, and

[[Page S4825]]

in the end, the defeat of this resolution, which I hope for and 
support, will actually increase momentum to adopt comprehensive energy 
and climate legislation this year which is the real alternative to 
executive action by EPA next January.
  I know several of my colleagues have argued today that this 
resolution is about stopping EPA from regulating greenhouse gas 
emissions and preserving that role for Congress. But the resolution 
does, of course, much more than just offer an opinion about who should 
regulate greenhouse gas emissions. It rejects EPA's finding that ``six 
greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health 
and the public welfare of current and future generations'' of 
Americans. It would also prevent EPA from reaching a similar conclusion 
in the future.
  To me, that means this resolution looks an awful lot like an attempt 
to impose political judgments on scientific judgments. That is wrong.
  There has been a lot of talk over the years of basing what we do on 
sound science. This resolution would lead us in exactly the opposite 
direction. Should the resolution become law, Congress would in effect 
be saying EPA was wrong when it reached its conclusion that global 
warming emissions harmed public health. Since that finding was the 
basis for EPA's tailpipe emissions standards, the Murkowski resolution 
would send EPA back to the drawing board on those rules, which are 
broadly supported by the business and environmental communities and 
significantly increase both our dependence on foreign oil and air 
pollution.
  Regardless of whether my colleagues believe Congress or the EPA 
should determine our national strategy for addressing the threat of 
global warming, I hope they can agree that unchecked carbon dioxide 
emissions endanger human health and welfare. Frankly, I thought that 
debate was over. Climate change is happening. The science is 
convincing. The current pattern of energy consumption is just making a 
bad problem worse. It is time to move past the debate about climate 
science and engage in an honest, productive, bipartisan conversation 
about what we can do as a nation, as a people privileged to be leaders 
of this Nation, to combat the problem, the challenge that science tells 
us is happening.
  The solution we come up with can and will create good jobs. It can 
and will ensure our role as a leader in the global clean energy 
economy. It can and will safeguard our national security by 
safeguarding our energy security. Last month, Senator Kerry and I 
presented the American Power Act, which I think achieves all of those 
goals I have stated and more. It is the product of months of 
discussions with Republicans and Democrats, the business community, and 
the environmental community. Together I think we came up with an 
innovative approach to addressing both our energy and climate 
challenges. It enjoys broader support than any similar proposal I have 
ever been involved in from the business and environmental communities. 
It is a coming together of the work of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee under Chairman Boxer and the Energy Committee under Chairman 
Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would say, finally, there is a path forward that 
allows Congress to act but does not reject the science of climate 
change. That path forward is a ``no'' vote on the resolution and a 
``yes'' vote on comprehensive energy and climate legislation like the 
American Power Act.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before we hear from Senator Merkley, I 
want to note that immediately following him, Senator Bingaman will have 
5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today I rise in opposition to the 
resolution before us from my colleague from Alaska.
  Since 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency has been charged with 
responding to and identifying threats to our atmosphere, threats that 
affect public health, threats that affect weather, threats that affect 
climate.
  During this time, the EPA has identified and responded to many 
threats: sulfur dioxide; nitrogen dioxide; mercury, a potent 
neurotoxin; lead, lead that was poisoning the air our children breathed 
and affecting their mental development. In each of these cases, we had 
a force that said: We must respond.
  Now, today, we have before us a resolution which says: It does not 
matter that our public health is being affected. We are going to 
overturn the finding. We are going to call the science invalid. We are 
going to say politics, not science, should be the foundation of our 
policy.
  This, of course, is the attitude that was put forward year after year 
during the Bush administration: Take the scientific papers and shred 
them. Take the scientists and set their views aside. Today, we have a 
continuation of that Bush strategy of burying science. It is the wrong 
foundation for public policy to bury science. We should take and 
respond responsibly.
  We have now before us a finding that was developed actually by the 
scientists in the Bush administration. You might recall, it was the 
Bush administration scientists who first developed the finding related 
to changing the atmosphere with the global warming gases of methane and 
carbon dioxide and other gases that are changing the chemistry of the 
environment, and that we have to respond to protect the health of our 
citizens--a straightforward concept, supported by the scientists of the 
last administration and by the scientists of this administration.
  Not only that, but we are proposing in this resolution to undo the 
tailpipe emissions rules that reduce our demand on foreign oil. This 
resolution will increase our demand for foreign oil by 455 million 
barrels per year. That is a lot. Let me translate that. That is not 
equivalent to the amount of gasoline to drive around the Equator once. 
No. That is not equal to the amount of gas to drive around the Equator 
10 times. Not at all. It is not even equal to the amount of gas to 
drive around the Equator 1,000 times. This is an increase in our 
dependence on foreign oil equal to the amount of gasoline that would 
propel a car around the Equator 10 million times.
  This means far more money in the hands of foreign governments that do 
not share our national interests. This means a compromised national 
security. This means a lot of additional carbon dioxide being put into 
the air. And this means a lot more harm to the citizens of the United 
States.
  Burying science is wrong. This resolution that challenges our 
national security, diminishes our economy, and threatens the atmosphere 
and our public health is also wrong. It must be defeated in this 
Chamber.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will vote ``no'' on the Murkowski 
resolution of disapproval. Senator Murkowski and I have worked together 
on a comprehensive energy bill this Congress and also on a cap-and-
trade bill in the last Congress. She has been very consistent in her 
view that we need to act on the issue of global warming but that we 
need to be sensitive to the impacts of such legislation on our economy.
  I appreciate the concerns she has voiced with respect to the need to 
protect industry from onerous regulation. I firmly believe those views 
are sincere. I disagree, however, with the substance of this 
resolution, in that, regardless of overall intent, it is asking 
Congress to overturn a scientific finding made by some of our best 
scientists. In my view, the EPA should not be prevented from continuing 
its work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions until Congress is able to 
prescribe a more permanent fix.
  For the past several Congresses, we in Congress have been engaged in 
a dialog on how best to provide a permanent fix. There have been many 
bills introduced on the topic. We have had several votes on specific 
legislation. Each time, though, we have fallen short of actually 
enacting legislation. Now, as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, we 
are in a situation where the EPA is required by law to take action to 
regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
  There is a near universal agreement among Members of the Senate that 
it

[[Page S4826]]

would be better for Congress, rather than the EPA, to take action and 
to prescribe the means of regulating greenhouse gases. Congress has the 
ability to consider the whole economy and the global scope of the 
problem in a way that is not available to the Administrator of the EPA 
under the Clean Air Act. Congress can design and enact policy that 
would be mindful of the wide range of stakeholders and minimize its 
economic impacts, and ensure a smooth transition to a clean energy 
economy.
  I continue to support action by the Congress to regulate greenhouse 
gases instead of direct regulation by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. 
However, the resolution before us is not about whether the EPA should 
be regulating greenhouse gases or how they should go about it. We are, 
instead, being asked to vote on whether the EPA was correct in its 
finding that ``current and increasing levels of greenhouse gases 
threaten the public health and welfare of current and future 
generations.''
  Frankly, there is nothing controversial in this fundamental 
scientific finding. It has survived intense scrutiny by thousands of 
scientists and interested parties the world over in the past decades. 
Just last month, in a report delivered by the National Academies of 
Science at the request of Congress, this finding was further supported 
by our Nation's top scientists. So this vote would amount to a 
congressional rejection of the most basic findings of climate science, 
and how we vote today will be looked on by many, including the 
international community, as they evaluate America's commitment to 
address this global problem.
  Finally, I have reviewed the EPA's actions on greenhouse gas 
emissions and their recent tailoring rule that would ensure that only 
the very largest sources would be subject to any kind of regulation. Of 
these very large sources, only those that are new or are pursuing major 
modifications will be required to implement new control technologies.
  As EPA considers what technologies must be implemented, the economic 
viability of the technology is taken into account as well. I believe it 
is important that EPA continue with its work and that we in Congress 
get on with taking the steps we need to take. For these reasons, I urge 
a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am assuming that time on the 
Democratic side has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  At this time, in our remaining 30 minutes, it shall be allocated as 
follows: Senator Coburn for 5 minutes, Senator Rockefeller for 10 
minutes, followed by Senator McCain for 5 minutes, and then I will 
conclude with 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have listened to a great deal of the 
debate. I have heard it claimed that the EPA has scientists; that none 
of us are--except that is not accurate. There are about four or five 
trained scientists in the Senate, and I happen to be one of them. But 
the whole predicate that we heard from the Senator from Massachusetts 
was: The basis was the Supreme Court. They are certainly not 
scientists.
  The other thing I would reject is what the Senator from New Mexico 
said. As a scientist--and if you read the minority opinions on all the 
reports they have cited--this is not settled science. Even if it were, 
this is one Senator who would say this is not the time to do this. Our 
economy is still on its back, and it is going to be that way for the 
next 4 years. We have massive problems in front of us. And we are going 
to add a ruling--not a congressional ruling, a bureaucratic ruling--
that is going to kill jobs, that is going to increase the cost of 
everything we produce in this country because it all starts with 
energy. It is going to mandate changes in behavior that will affect 
every family in this country. So even if it were absolutely true, I 
would tell you we should not be doing it now.
  The second thing is to say that the EPA is going to do this. Do you 
realize the EPA cannot even train 250,000 contractors for lead paint? 
They blew it. They totally blew it. They were incompetent, and, 
consequently, we have hundreds of thousands of people who today still 
are not working on older homes because of the EPA's incompetence.
  So for us to claim we have to do this now, and we should not reject 
this now, is like cutting off our nose to spite our face. No matter 
what anybody says, it is going to have a major impact on our economy at 
the time when we cannot afford to have another negative drag on our 
economy.
  Even if it is true--it is not; but even if it is--it would be stupid 
for us to do this now, especially when the rest of the world is not 
coming along at all and the footprint we might minimize will not have 
any impact on the health of Americans. So we are going to have a 
certain amount of CO2 no matter what because the Chinese 
certainly are not doing it, the Indians certainly are not doing it, and 
they are building one smokestack a day in China right now.
  So for us to take this action--in light of the incompetency at the 
EPA, in light of our economic situation we find ourselves in--I find it 
highly ironic, even if it is the right thing to do, now is not the 
right time to do it, given the place where we find ourselves 
economically in this country.
  Then, finally, I have been in this body for 5 years, and I have 
heard, time and time again, the people opposing this motion to disagree 
complain about an administration taking away our rightful legislative 
duty. This is not something that should come from a bureaucracy. This 
has way too big of an impact.
  If we cannot get it through Congress, it should not happen. That is 
what our country is set up on. Instead, by default, we are going to 
allow a bureaucracy to take over what we are supposed to be doing? The 
way this country works is, if we do not do it, it should not be 
happening because there is not a consensus in the body to get a clean 
energy program out of the Senate. So you cannot have it both ways. You 
cannot complain about it when you are seeing it in things you like and 
not complain about it when it is things you do not like.
  I will finish with this one point: We better be very careful in this 
body about what we are doing. We are playing with the future of 200 
million Americans that is extremely precarious at this point in time 
from an economic standpoint. We can claim all the long-term negative 
health consequences, but as a physician, if you do not have an economy 
or you have an economy that crumbles, no matter what you have done on 
that, you have not helped anybody.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I yield back and thank the Senator from 
Alaska for the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I rise today to lend my support to the Murkowski Resolution of 
Disapproval for one simple but enormously important reason: because I 
believe we must send this strong and urgent message that the fate of 
our economy, our manufacturing industries, and our workers, including 
our coal workers, should never be placed solely in the hands of the 
federal Environmental Protection Agency. I have long maintained this in 
Congress. I have been around here for a while. I was a Governor for 8 
years. I think the elected people, and not the unelected EPA, have a 
constitutional responsibility here and on an issue which is so totally 
important. We are accountable to those people.

  Some here seem to talk about other aspects of this. I tend to focus, 
as a VISTA volunteer who went to West Virginia and lived among coal 
miners, on people and all the problems, including the problem of 
climate change, that attend to their future.
  I am not here to deny or bicker fruitlessly about the science, as 
some would suggest. In fact, I would suggest that I think the science 
is correct. However, it doesn't one iota deter from my support of the 
Murkowski resolution.
  I care deeply about this Earth and resent anybody who suggests 
otherwise about either me or the people of my State. I care about the 
fundamental human commitment--the higher calling we all have--to be a 
steward.

[[Page S4827]]

Greenhouse gas emissions are not healthy for the Earth or her people, 
and we must take significant action to reduce them. We must develop and 
deploy clean energy, period. I accept all of that. But EPA regulation 
is not the answer. EPA has little or no authority to address economic 
needs. They say they do, but they don't. They have no ability to 
incentivize and deploy new technologies. They have no obligation to 
protect the hard-working people I represent with deep and abiding 
passion--people who changed my life. I was born anew in the coalfields 
of West Virginia at the age of 26. So I fight for my people. I 
understand I am a Senator, but I am a Senator from West Virginia, and I 
have a right to fight for them, and I do, and I support Senator 
Murkowski's amendment because of that. Their jobs matter. Their people, 
their work matters. Their lives matter. Any regulatory solution that 
creates more problems than it fixes and causes more harm than good in 
the real lives of real people, if they are affected badly, is no 
solution at all. I won't accept it. It is not something I will be a 
part of.
  We are capable of tackling this great challenge in a way that 
supports rather than undermines our economy and our future. But the 
process has to work. It has to be open. It has to be not the property 
of a couple of people, but it has to be something the Congress comes to 
understand. I have always felt that if you went to more than 10 percent 
of the Congress, House and Senate, and asked them to explain what cap 
and trade means, they would have no idea. That was one of our problems 
with the health bill. It is fairly important that people understand 
what it means on this bill--not on this bill but the bill that is being 
talked about.
  I am willing to work with people on a solution, but it has to be 
legislative because on this, above all, the Congress must decide. I 
don't care about the Supreme Court. I don't care about EPA in the sense 
of them being the final voice on the future of my people in the State 
that has some of the most carbon of any in the country. I know people 
laugh at coal. We don't. You can't run this country without coal. I am 
for all alternative fuels, even nuclear, to my surprise. I am for all 
of them. But when you add them all up, nobody can make the point that 
you can do any of this without coal. Does it have to be cleaner? 
Absolutely. Is there any excuse for not making it cleaner? No, there is 
not. But you can take 90 to 95 percent of the carbon out of it. That is 
a solution for our people, and we mine coal. We mine coal and send it 
to the States of people who are drawing up this bill. I just wish they 
knew us a little better.
  I asked Administrator Jackson to clarify the EPA timetable as well as 
the impact of EPA regulations on industrial facilities. She responded 
quickly to my letter. She was nice about it. She showed some 
willingness to set a timetable, moved it up about a year, and I 
appreciate that. But she also made clear that the EPA's regulations 
will go forward regardless of whether Congress has acted on a 
comprehensive energy policy and regardless of whether Congress has 
given the EPA a direction in law about how and when and upon whom those 
regulations should be imposed.
  So I introduced my own legislation to suspend EPA action for 2 years. 
It is a little different from the Murkowski legislation, but it makes 
the same point. The EPA can't decide. We have to. Some can ridicule 
that. I don't. I am elected to protect my people and my country, but 
first comes my people and especially on this issue.
  I support legislation to prevent any future catastrophe like the oil 
spill, which is, to my mind, a totally separate issue and has no 
business being discussed at the same time this is being discussed. I 
also support legislation to advance new clean energy and clean coal 
technologies.
  West Virginia is poised to lead a major part in the effort on clean 
technology because we know energy. We have lived with it for the last 
150 years. We know coal. We know natural gas. We are coming to know CCS 
as few others do. It is a triumph when one of our power plants reduces 
90 percent of the carbon emissions from the flue stream that it treats. 
That is a triumph to us--maybe to nobody else, but to us it is because 
it happened and it came from the stimulus package and we were a part of 
that.
  The fact is, we in West Virginia know and embrace what too many 
others either don't understand or will not choose to see, which is that 
our Nation is dependent on coal for more than 50 percent of its 
electricity today, and nothing is going to change that fact. All the 
renewables in the world will not change that fact.
  So I close. Even if the country achieves maximum success for all of 
the new ideas on the table for new green energy, our American quality 
of life and the rapid rise of energy needs around the globe will drive 
the same or greater need for coal for many generations to come. So we 
better do coal correctly. It is going to be coal that solves it.
  Coal mining is hard. It is dangerous. Most people have never been 
down a mine. A few people who have discussed this don't know what they 
talk about when they talk about it. And it is not the fault of a coal 
miner. He just mines or she mines the coal that is out there. That has 
to be handled at the stationary source.
  I don't want EPA making all those rules. I don't want EPA turning out 
the lights on America. As I said, coal can be cleaner. But the 
responsibility for putting in place laws and policies that spur new 
technologies and new ideas and the responsibility for any major energy 
and environmental policy change lies not with the Federal regulatory 
agency acting in isolation--I don't even know where EPA is located--but 
with the Congress, with the people who are elected--us--to be included 
in a process which has not been well managed to do the right thing.
  I proudly support the Murkowski resolution, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the Murkowski 
resolution before us.
  The American people deserve to fully understand what this vote is 
really about and what is at stake for them if Congress fails to prevent 
EPA from unilaterally imposing massive regulations that will damage our 
economy and destroy jobs.
  I wish to be clear to my colleagues and to the American people. This 
vote is not about the science of climate change. It is not about 
whether Congress should or should not create policies to limit carbon 
emissions. It is not about protecting oil companies or, as the White 
House has absurdly claimed, the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. What 
this resolution is really about is whether the American people, through 
their elected representatives, get a say in our Nation's energy policy 
through their elected representatives or if they will be bound by the 
whims of the unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection 
Agency. More importantly, it is about protecting the American people 
from a crippling backdoor energy tax that we, and small businesses and 
large, cannot afford.
  I wish I could provide my colleagues and the American people with a 
detailed assessment of the impact EPA's proposed regulations would have 
on our economy, but the EPA has refused to provide Congress a 
comprehensive analysis of the potential economic impact. To paraphrase 
Speaker Pelosi's comment that we have to pass ObamaCare so we can find 
out what is in it, I guess EPA will need to impose new regulations on 6 
million buildings, facilities, farms, and other ``stationary sources'' 
before we find out how much it will cost or what impact it will have on 
the economy.

  There is one thing we can all agree on: Allowing the EPA to be turned 
loose on the American people is a terrible idea that will be extremely 
expensive. A spokesman from the Edison Electric Institute, which, to 
their shame, supports congressional efforts to pass a cap-and-trade 
bill, stated that the only certainty is that EPA regulations to limit 
carbon emissions would be far more expensive than if done by Congress.
  Let's not forget what we now know about the legislation that was 
passed in the other body. That would cost families upwards--every 
family--of $1,000 a year. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget 
warned that:

       Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the 
     Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious 
     economic consequences for

[[Page S4828]]

     regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including 
     small business and small communities.

  Even some bureaucrats at the EPA must have realized how crippling 
these regulations would be to small businesses and farmers, which is 
why they proposed a tailoring rule to delay the effect these 
regulations would have on the American public. Unfortunately for the 
American people, the tailoring rule stands on shaky legal ground.
  This is really an Orwellian kind of experience. Demonstrating an 
unparalleled disregard for congressional intent, the EPA is attempting 
to make a case that Congress intended to regulate greenhouse gas 
emissions under the Clean Air Act, even though greenhouse gas emissions 
were not formally addressed by the act. Conversely, EPA claims that the 
tons-per-year threshold set by Congress in the Clean Air Act should not 
apply to greenhouse gases. In simpler terms, EPA believes that although 
Congress didn't cover greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, it 
really did, and although Congress set thresholds for covered 
pollutants, it really didn't.
  Finally, for those who claim this is somehow about protecting oil 
companies, I suggest we listen to what over 425 companies and 
organizations are saying about these regulations. Small business men 
and women across the country are telling us that EPA's proposed 
greenhouse gas requirements will stifle economic growth and 
disadvantage them in the global marketplace. I suggest we listen.
  So here we are. Here we are. Last Tuesday, we had a vote where people 
turned out in massive numbers against what is going on in Washington. 
They believe their Constitution is being taken away from them. They 
believe they no longer have a voice in what we do here. What this EPA 
decision would do is deprive the Congress, our Nation's elected 
representatives, of a role in profound decisions that would have 
tremendous effects on the economy of this country.
  I strongly suggest that no matter how you stand on the issue of 
greenhouse gas emissions or climate change, you reject this government, 
unelected bureaucrat takeover of a significant portion of the U.S. 
economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. How much time remains on the Republican side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 minutes remaining.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we conclude the day's debate on this 
resolution of disapproval, I will say that the debate has been good. 
Many points have been raised, and I appreciate that. I will say, 
though, as I have listened throughout the course of the 6 hours, I have 
heard consistently on the side of those who support this resolution of 
disapproval--I have heard consistently that this is about jobs, it is 
about the health of our economy, it is about the strength of the 
economy as a whole and about really ensuring, again, that our Nation 
remains strong while at the same time we take care of our environment. 
These are not mutually exclusive goals--never have been and never will 
be.
  I want to address some of the statements that have been made here and 
made very clearly.
  First is the issue of overreach--overreach by the EPA into the domain 
of the legislative branch. This has been spoken to so many times as we 
have discussed this resolution of disapproval--that the overlapping 
triggers that are contained in the Clean Air Act effectively give the 
EPA control of our Nation's energy and climate policy. I do not think 
that is a sane and rational policy when we cede our authority in the 
legislative branch to effectively allow our energy and climate policy 
to be developed and implemented by an agency, that being the EPA. This 
has huge implications for the separation of powers and our 
constitutional system of checks and balances, not to mention what I 
said at the outset--the jobs and the recovery from this economic 
recession.
  This is not a debate about the science. Science has been discussed a 
lot. Really, this is about how we respond to the science. We are not 
here to decide whether greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced. We 
are here to decide if we are going to allow them to be reduced under 
the structures of the Clean Air Act. Unlike what some of my colleagues 
have said, this resolution doesn't gut the Clean Air Act at all. It 
doesn't address it. It does not change the text in any way. It only 
prevents a massive expansion of its authority.
  It has been suggested that somehow or other this resolution is a 
bailout; somehow or other this is tied to the disaster in the gulf; 
somehow or other this is all tied to the oil industry. Again, this is 
absolutely not anything that has to do with the disaster in the gulf, 
in no way, shape, or form.
  The suggestions that somehow or other this is all about big oil 
belies the coalition of support that has been built across this 
country, from Maine to Alaska and all the points in between--530 
organizations, different stakeholders all over the board, in terms of 
why they feel EPA should not be setting climate policy for this 
country.
  You cannot see this chart because the print is so small. I apologize 
for that. But there are 530 organizations, businesses, stakeholders, 
and advocacy groups that have endorsed this bipartisan resolution. So 
you look through here and you say: OK, are these all the oil and gas 
organizations that are in this country? But I will just direct you to 
some of the ones from, for instance, Texas. Texas is an oil- and gas-
producing State.
  Look at Texas. There is the Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council, 
the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, Texas Aromatics, 
Texas Association of Agricultural Consultants, Texas Association of 
Dairymen, Texas Cattle Feeders Association, Texas Citrus Mutual, Texas 
Cotton Ginners' Association, Texas Independent Ginners Association, 
Texas Food Processers Association, Texas Forestry Association, Grain 
and Feeders Association, Nursery and Landscape Association--and I am 
only halfway through the Texas organizations that support our 
resolution of disapproval.
  So the suggestion that somehow this is all tied into the oil 
industry, again, just simply does not comport with what has been 
happening. Why are these organizations standing up and speaking out and 
saying this is not the path we should be taking with climate? It goes 
back to the jobs. It goes back to the issue of where we are as an 
economy. It goes back to the level of bureaucratic overlay that will be 
imposed on the California Citrus Mutual or the California Cotton 
Growers Association or the Carpet and Rug Institute or the pizza 
company from Ohio.
  This is absolutely about how we as a Nation determine those policies 
that will, in fact, allow us to have the clean air we all want. But we 
can achieve those goals in a way that isn't going to kick our timing in 
the head. Who can do that? Is it the EPA, whose mission is solely and 
exclusively that we have to follow the letter of the law here? The 
letter of the law says to not only go after the big polluters but all 
the way down to the small emitters, which emit 250 tons of carbon per 
year. And every effort EPA may want to make in terms of tailoring, all 
it is going to take is one lawsuit that challenges that tailoring to 
inject the uncertainty back into the market, back into the business 
place. So once again we have an economy that just can not get back on 
its feet.
  This is not a referendum on any other bill that is pending in 
Congress, but it is a check on EPA's regulatory ambition. It presents 
an opportunity for us to stop the worst option for regulating 
greenhouse gases from moving forward, while we work on a more 
responsible solution.
  I want to take a moment to thank my colleague from West Virginia, who 
spoke very passionately about why he supports this resolution--because 
of the people he represents. I ask all of us to look to the people we 
represent. Look at your small businesses, your farmers, your ranchers, 
your pizza manufacturers. Look to them. Look to the health of their 
families and their communities.
  I have a packet here that outlines the broad support for this 
resolution among the Alaska stakeholders. It is everything from our 
Alaska State Legislature to our Governor, our seafood processors, our 
small business refiners, those who are trying to get an Alaska gas line 
in place, our native corporations, the assembly from Anchorage,

[[Page S4829]]

letters from local mayors. I am listening to what the people of Alaska 
are saying. They are making very clear that they want to ensure that 
when we develop climate policy, the ``we'' is ``we the people,'' we the 
elected Members of Congress, and not those unelected bureaucrats within 
an agency who will not only develop that policy but then in turn 
implement that policy. The Alaskans I am hearing from are saying: Make 
sure that as we as a State try to build our economy, we can do so in a 
manner that allows us time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is up.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining time on our side be divided as follows: myself, 2 minutes; 
Senator Udall of Colorado, 5 minutes; Senator Lautenberg, 5 minutes; 
and Senator Boxer for the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this debate is not about the overreach of 
an agency because indeed this Congress charged EPA with responding to 
threats to our atmosphere that endanger the public health of our 
citizens. We asked them to do that because we know that if it was 
decided on this floor piece by piece, it would be politics over policy. 
So we gave them the responsibility to respond to lead, to respond to 
mercury, to respond to global warming gases, and they are exercising 
that responsibility in a very moderate fashion.
  Second, this is about science because this resolution does not say we 
accept the science but we are going to change the way we respond to it. 
It doesn't say that. It says we reject the science. It says we reject 
the endangerment findings to the public health of our citizens.
  Third, this is about big oil. Have no doubt, this resolution 
increases our dependence on the Middle East and Venezuela to the tune 
of an enormous amount, so much that you would have to drive a car 
around the Equator 10 million times to consume that oil. It is wrong 
for our national security and wrong for our economy, and if you have 
any doubt, take a look at the impassioned plea from the oil industry, 
saying: Please, don't pass this. Why do they not want us to pass this? 
They want to sell us that gas from the Middle East and Venezuela and 
drive a car around the Equator 10 million times or the equivalent 
across America.
  So for our national security and for our economy to create jobs, we 
must reject this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from 
California for her leadership on this crucial resolution before us.
  I rise in opposition to the resolution offered by my good friend, the 
Senator from Alaska.
  Recent events have given us pause. If there has ever been a wake-up 
call, then surely the images of oiled pelicans, docked charter boats, 
and the sickening plume of oil cascading into the blue waters of the 
gulf should provide it.
  Time and time again, we have seen opportunities to seize our energy 
future passed up because of our addiction to fossil fuels, our tendency 
to put off difficult choices or our habit of letting partisanship get 
in the way. This unsustainable path has led us to a complacent sense of 
security, and now look at where we are--caught off guard by a tragic 
set of events in the Gulf of Mexico.
  As the gulf disaster has made clear, our existing sources of energy 
come at a cost greater than just the price at the pump. They can be 
catastrophically damaging to our economy, our national security, and 
our environment. I don't have any illusions about our need for 
traditional energy sources, and on that I agree with the Senator from 
Alaska. The more quickly we transition to cleaner energy, the sooner we 
secure a strong and vibrant future for America.
  Every year, we send nearly $800 billion overseas to buy oil from 
foreign countries, some of which clearly don't have our interests at 
heart. But I believe the resolution we are debating today would help 
continue this reliance.
  Let's not be fooled. We are in a race against foreign competitors in 
the European Union and in Asia to meet the world's demand for clean 
energy. Advanced and entrepreneurial countries like ours should do well 
in such a race. Instead, over the last 5 years, as clean energy started 
to boom, the U.S. renewable energy and trade deficit ballooned by 1,400 
percent. China, South Korea, and Europe are all pulling ahead of us in 
this crucial race.
  I just returned from China, along with Senators Feinstein and Hagan. 
My impression, quite simply, is that China appears to be taking bolder 
actions than the United States.
  For example, the largest wind farms and solar farms in the world are 
being built in China. Moreover, China is investing heavily in safe 
nuclear powerplants and clean coal technology.
  Perhaps, though, most troubling is their development of clean energy 
is in part financed by Americans who see more stable support and a 
better investing climate for clean energy abroad.
  I believe the resolution from the Senator from Alaska, however well 
intended, signals to investors that our country is not ready to fully 
support these investments in clean energy.
  While there is a compelling economic and national security case to be 
made for transitioning to a clean energy portfolio, that is not the 
only reason. Scientists, industry, and State and local officials all 
agree that climate change is a challenge our society must address.
  In my home State in Colorado, we are already witnessing the effects 
of climate change. Increased threats from drought, wildfire, and the 
bark beetle infestation are not theoretical, they are real. Come to my 
State and see those effects.
  I firmly believe to fully jump-start this inevitable revolution we 
must put a price on carbon. Some have suggested this would lead to job 
loss. I disagree. Our experience in Colorado tells a different story. 
By setting renewable targets, we have helped create an exciting, 
vibrant, growing clean energy economy in Colorado that has delivered 
thousands of new jobs. Those jobs have remained in this economic 
downturn because they are real jobs, they are future jobs, they provide 
the energy we need.
  Our financial markets and our energy markets have been waiting for 
years for leadership from the Congress on this issue. Despite the 
economic, the environmental, and the national security interests at 
stake, some of my colleagues seem to be dead set on throwing up 
barriers in front of investors. This is in part why I am opposing this 
resolution. It sends a message that the status quo is acceptable. It is 
not. We need a clear path forward, we need a price on carbon, and we 
need to set achievable standards for renewable energy to create a 
positive environment for private investment.
  This resolution would block that path. No less than our safety and 
our security is at stake. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Udall for his remarks.
  I turn to a real leader on clean air, clean water, a real fighter for 
the health and safety of our children and our families, Senator 
Lautenberg, for 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California 
and commend her for the struggle we have had with this issue when, in 
fact, there should not be any struggle.
  This is not an issue, in my view, that ought to be debated. To reduce 
the protection we want to offer our families to me sounds silly, and I 
believe to the American public it is going to sound silly as well. I do 
not ascribe any evil intent on the part of the Senator from Alaska, but 
I think it is absolutely mistaken.
  The question before us today is simply, Whose side are you on? Do you 
want to afford your children and your grandchildren the most protection 
they

[[Page S4830]]

can have against foul air, against contamination, against pollution 
generally, or are you worried about the oil companies? We should not 
have to worry about them. As a matter of fact, they ought to worry a 
little more about us--a heck of a lot more about us.
  Taking nothing away from the experience and the knowledge the Senator 
from Alaska brings, I was in Alaska the second day after the Exxon 
Valdez ran aground. I saw the casual attitude that prevailed with 
Exxon. It told me something about the thinking of these companies. 
There it was, the ship was foundering. We had people already up there. 
There were heroic efforts by people from Fish and Wildlife, by people 
from the Park Service, Interior, up there caressing little seals, 
trying to get the oil off them so they could survive, eagles and all 
kinds of animals.
  What happened there--and I use this as an example--what happened 
there is that Exxon was assessed a penalty. They paid the compensatory 
damages, but they were assigned a penalty for their behavior. They were 
fined $5 billion. Instead of paying at that time when they made $3 
billion--equivalent to $6 billion in today's currency--when they spent 
all their time in court on lawyers, the $5 billion that was owed to the 
American people was cut down to $500 million. That is the attitude. We 
see it with BP--all kinds of disguises, all kinds of fabrications, all 
kinds of lies, wanting to talk about: This is not such a bad thing; we 
will take care of it.
  First they offered to take care of it. Then they said they will pay 
the claims and then legitimate claims. Always modifying.
  The question is, Whose side are we on? The side of big oil, the 
people who are right now responsible for much of the destruction in the 
Gulf of Mexico or are you on the side of your own children, your own 
grandchildren?
  I have experienced it, as most families have, with a child who has 
asthma and another one who has diabetes. We are not sure of the source 
of these conditions, but if my colleagues vote for this resolution they 
are voting to allow a clear and present danger to the health of their 
own families. How can they do that?
  The American Academy of Pediatrics, 60,000 members, all of them well 
trained in science and medicine, has been clear in the warning that 
climate change will have the most dramatic effect on children.
  What is our responsibility? To me, the responsibility is to take care 
of our kids however we can do it, protect them from all kinds of 
dangers. Here is one that will just increase it if we permit this 
resolution to go through.
  Think about your grandchildren coughing and gagging on foul air in 
the future. I see it in my own family. My oldest grandchild is 16. He 
has asthma. When the atmosphere is bad, he is in terrible shape. When 
my daughter takes him--he is a good athlete--to play baseball or 
otherwise, the first thing she checks is where is the nearest clinic so 
if he starts to wheeze, she can get there in a hurry.
  We have seen a troubling increase of asthma. The rate of asthma in 
children has doubled, and we know carbon pollution causes increased 
asthma attacks.
  More global warming means increases in malaria and food and water 
shortages that will devastate children around the globe. Global warming 
is upon us. We have to solve the problem and with that the pollution of 
the air.
  Put simply, this resolution is an attack--unintentionally I am sure--
on children's health but that is going to be the result. That is why 
the groups that support children and health are opposed to Senator 
Murkowski's resolution.
  The resolution puts politics--politics--ahead of science. The science 
is clear: Emissions from burning coal and oil are sickening children 
all around the world, and if we can help them--I don't care what 
country they are in--we should help them. But we want to take care of 
those in our country.
  The resolution asks Senators to say to the scientists: You are wrong, 
scientists. I say leave the science to the scientists and not to the 
politicians.
  At the same time, big oil and their lobbyists will stop at nothing to 
keep our country's dependence on oil, to have us victimized by people 
who are not our friends, taking our money and at the same time fouling 
our air. For too long, they have had our country by the barrel and by 
the throat.
  This resolution is a gift to BP. I don't think BP deserves any 
contributions from the U.S. Congress or from the American taxpayers 
right now.
  This resolution is a direct attack on the Clean Air Act. For the last 
40 years, the Clean Air Act has led to cleaner skies and healthier 
children. When we strengthened the Clean Air Act, big oil rang an alarm 
that the changes would cost too much and shut down businesses and put 
Americans out of work. The actual costs were less than one-fifth of the 
estimates that were projected.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for their family, vote for science, which 
means to vote against the Murkowski resolution. We have to meet our 
obligations to future generations, and we have to get serious and solve 
our Nation's problems and move toward a clean energy future and not 
more carbon pollution and oil.
  I urge my colleagues to please vote for their children, vote for 
their families, vote no on this resolution and keep the future clean 
for the sake of our children and grandchildren. Don't worry about the 
oil companies. They will take care of themselves.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, anyone who has opened a newspaper or turned 
on a radio in West Virginia recently is aware of the ongoing discussion 
about the future of the coal and manufacturing industries. There is no 
doubt that the West Virginia coal industry and many West Virginia 
workers have been dealt a difficult hand over the past ten years, and 
are indeed facing some uncertainty about their futures. Such 
uncertainty is a pressing public concern for our State--and for many 
other States--and Senator Murkowski has sought to propose a resolution 
that she evidently feels would respond to those concerns. However, we 
need to do something other than hold a political vote on the Murkowski 
resolution, which has zero prospect of enactment, and which would not 
alleviate uncertainty about the future even if it did pass the Senate. 
The Murkowski resolution would only foster confusion. I believe that 
the best and most practical course of action is for the Senate to pass 
a bill that provides certainty and real answers for West Virginians and 
all Americans--a bill that will be passed by the Congress and signed by 
the President before new requirements that would broadly affect our 
economy are imposed by regulation.
  I understand that the Senate Democratic leadership is willing to move 
forward on a bill that pre-empts EPA action, and can win 60 votes in 
the Senate, be approved by the House, and be signed by the President 
into law. Senator Rockefeller recently proposed legislation to provide 
a temporary pre-emption of EPA. I know that I am joined by many others 
in West Virginia in my belief that the Senate find a way to accomplish 
that objective--an objective that I know Senator Rockefeller and I both 
share.
  I have recently secured commitments from my fellow Senators to 
provide on the order of $2 billion for each major power plant that 
installs clean coal technology during the coming decades--with 
additional funding available to larger projects. I am also negotiating 
a commitment to provide the West Virginia region with billions more 
annually to strengthen new and existing regional businesses, to 
complete the construction of better highways, and to provide other 
critical investments to ensure that the next generation of West 
Virginians will have a bright future at home in the Mountain State. 
President Obama has also assured me of his ongoing support for these 
priorities of mine.
  The way to ensure that we make these transformative new investments 
in the future of West Virginia, and in the Appalachian coal industry, 
is for Congress to do the difficult work of enacting the necessary 
policies. The Murkowski resolution does not accomplish that objective, 
and it may even undercut our ability to achieve it. The resolution is 
an open-ended denunciation of many leading scientific studies and 
regulatory initiatives. Were it to be enacted, the resolution could 
actually hamper important Federal initiatives--including rules that 
will assist in the deployment of clean coal technologies

[[Page S4831]]

like carbon capture and storage. I also note that the Murkowski 
resolution is being considered by the Senate via an unusual legislative 
process that constrains debate and prohibits Senators from offering 
amendments.
  As I have said before, to deny the mounting science of climate change 
is to stick our heads in the sand and say ``deal me out'' of the 
future. But we have also allowed ourselves to ignore other realities. 
It is a simple fact that the costs of producing and consuming Central 
Appalachian coal continue to rise rapidly. Older coal-fired powerplants 
are being closed down, and they appear unlikely to be replaced by new 
coal plants unless we very soon adopt several major changes in federal 
energy policy. In 2009, American power companies generated less of 
their electricity from coal than they have at any other time in recent 
memory. In the last month alone, two major power companies have 
reportedly announced that they will idle or permanently close over a 
dozen coal-fired powerplant units that have consumed millions of tons 
of West Virginia coal in recent years. Moreover, an even larger portion 
of America's aging fleet of coal-fired powerplants could be at risk of 
being permanently closed in the coming years--and the ability to sell 
coal in those markets could be lost for an indefinite period, if there 
is no new Federal energy policy to support the construction of new coal 
plants.
  Some companies may feel that it is helpful for Congress to go on 
denouncing a new energy policy that makes it once more attractive to 
build new coal plants. But those companies are taking this opportunity 
to invest in natural gas, or other types of investments. They are not 
thinking about fighting for the longer term future of coal jobs and 
other jobs in West Virginia. I am. In the meantime, what happens to the 
miners, other workers, local governments, and many West Virginia 
citizens during the course of further delay on a new energy bill? They 
continue to be laid off, and to struggle with insufficient revenue, and 
to remain frustrated about their uncertain future.
  So, there is a long list of compelling reasons to oppose this 
resolution, and a rather short list of reasons to support it. For the 
sake of West Virginia's best interests, and the vital longer-term 
interests of our Nation and our world, the Senate must now move 
promptly to take responsible, decisive, and effective action on a 
moderate but major new energy policy.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today, we are going to be voting on a 
significant yet controversial resolution introduced by Senator 
Murkowski. This resolution, S.J. Res. 26, squarely confronts the issue 
of how the United States will address the issue of climate change and 
the regulation of greenhouse gases. The resolution speaks directly to 
whether or not the Environmental Protection Agency should be allowed to 
regulate sources of greenhouse gases. This is an important issue for 
the U.S. Senate to address.
  In short, the Murkowski resolution disapproves of EPA's recent 
endangerment finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to public 
health. This rule is a result of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling directing 
EPA to make a determination as to whether or not greenhouse gases are a 
public endangerment. After 2 years of consideration of the scientific 
evidence, the EPA found that six greenhouse gases are a threat to 
public health. Senator Murkowski's resolution would nullify this 
decision.
  While I am sympathetic to the concerns raised by Senator Murkowski, 
the impact of her resolution would be, among other things, to negate 
the significant progress the EPA has made in increasing fuel economy 
standards for vehicles. For that reason I am unable to support it.
  Instead, I am working with my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, to pass 
his bill, S. 3072, of which I am a cosponsor, to preserve the EPA's 
ability to regulate emissions from vehicles but allow the Congress an 
additional 2 years to address the regulation of all other sources of 
greenhouse gases.
  Like, Senator Murkowski, I believe that the best way to address 
climate change is to allow Congress time to pass comprehensive 
legislation, not rely on regulations handed down by the EPA. A 
legislative approach would allow us to mitigate what likely would 
result from EPA regulation of stationary sources: unfair cost increases 
that will be borne by millions of Americans who have no choice but to 
rely on energy produced from coal. This is my biggest concern, as 
eighty-five percent of the energy produced in Missouri comes from coal.
  I have long stated that I cannot support an approach to greenhouse 
gases regulation that will unfairly impact Missourians or unduly harm 
Missouri's small businesses just because they happen to be in a state 
that is largely reliant on coal energy. Unfortunately, while the 
resolution offered by Senator Murkowski is an attempt to give Congress 
greater time to address these types of concerns in any climate 
regulation, it also negates a historic agreement between the EPA and 
the auto industry. This goes too far.
  Last year, in an unprecedented announcement, the auto industry agreed 
to allow the federal government to set new standards for vehicle 
emissions and worked in concert with the government to set these new 
standards. This was a model of effective, reasonable negotiated 
rulemaking and should be embraced, not negated. These new standards 
will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by a projected 1.8 billion 
barrels, while providing real benefits for consumers. Compared with 
today's vehicles, a family purchasing a vehicle under the new standards 
will save, on average, more than $3,000 on fuel costs over the life of 
that vehicle. If the Congress passes Senator Murkowski's resolution, it 
will effectively eliminate these new standards. I believe it would be a 
mistake to jeopardize the progress we have made with the auto industry, 
lose the consumer benefits of increased fuel economy and lose the 
benefit to our national security of reducing our dependence on foreign 
oil.
  This is why I am working with Senator Rockefeller to pass his 
alternative approach to delay EPA regulation of all other sources of 
greenhouse gases for 2 years. I believe this is a better option that 
will not unfairly penalize Missourians. I look forward to working with 
Senator Rockefeller, as well as Leaders Reid and McConnell to secure a 
vote on this very important legislation.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the resolution 
of disapproval offered by Senator Murkowski. This resolution is a 
stunning departure from the science of climate change. It jeopardizes 
our ability to address a continuing threat to our national security and 
public health by overturning EPA's science-based finding that global 
warming pollution endangers the public health and welfare. The United 
States is making progress--in solar, wind and other alternative energy 
sources--job creators that will sustain our future. We are also making 
progress in reducing the harmful pollutants in our air which threaten 
future generations. But this resolution would not continue this 
progress--it would take us back by weakening the Clean Air Act, a 
proven tool in addressing air pollution.
  But what would taking away EPA's ability to protect the health and 
welfare of Americans from greenhouse gas pollution mean in our day to 
day lives? For the people of Maryland, who are particularly vulnerable 
to the effects of climate change because of the state's expansive 
coastline, it would mean our coasts would be eroded at an accelerated 
pace---many areas losing more than 260 acres a year. It would also mean 
steadily rising sea levels in Ocean City, which could lose billions of 
dollars in tourism. And, it would lead to a rise in asthma and lung 
disease rates, which already disproportionately hits our urban areas, 
like Baltimore. With these clear threats to our livelihoods, now is not 
the time to take a major tool out of the toolbox that could help combat 
the prevalence of greenhouse gases in our daily lives. This is politics 
as usual in a time where we need solutions.
  The resolution being considered today sends the wrong message to the 
American public, to our businesses and to the world. It sends the 
message that the U.S. Congress is not taking the threats to our 
environment seriously. It sends the message to our businesses that it 
is okay to continue with the status quo. And in a time where we need 
the innovation, the technology, and the workforce that is committed to 
transitioning the United States to a

[[Page S4832]]

clean energy society, this is not the message that we want to send. The 
message that we need to send is that we are committed to a national 
energy policy that protects our families, protects the quality of our 
air and water, and creates jobs for the 21st century.
  The timing of this resolution is also very concerning. In recent 
weeks, due to the crisis in the gulf, we have seen what our unhealthy 
addiction to oil can do. This resolution will prevent progress that we 
have made in breaking this. Without these regulations in place, 
Americans will use 455 million more barrels of oil, which equals the 
amount of oil that would be in the gulf if the spill raged on for 65 
years. We must break this cycle.
  The U.S. Senate must make it clear how we will deal with the reality 
of climate change. Stripping the authority of the EPA to address the 
issue is not the way to make progress. Instead it is a serious and 
counterproductive step backwards. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing this resolution.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support the 
senior Senator from Alaska's resolution of disapproval over the 
Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse gas 
emissions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA has completely overstepped 
its bounds with this action and I am proud to support Senator 
Murkowski's effort to undo this harmful regulation.
  A colleague of mine, currently serving here in the Senate, once 
remarked that: ``Overburdensome and unnecessary Federal regulations can 
choke the life out of small businesses by imposing costly and often 
ineffectual remedies to problems that may not exist.''
  This statement was made by the majority leader and I could not agree 
more with it, especially when staring such a problem in the face as we 
have here with EPA's draconian new rules. The majority leader's 
statement was made in 1996 shortly after passage of the Congressional 
Review Act. This important tool, designed to rein in out of control 
Federal bureaucracies, is the same tool that we are using today in this 
disapproval resolution currently being debated.
  Make no mistake--the Congressional Review Act was designed to take on 
this exact sort of executive overreach. The Obama administration's EPA 
is making a huge power grab by twisting the principles of the landmark 
Clean Air Act and declaring greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public 
health and welfare. Now, I will not use this time today to debate the 
science of greenhouse gas effects on climate change, nor the effects of 
climate change on the planet. However, greenhouse gases are found 
naturally in abundance in our atmosphere. In fact, the most famous 
greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is emitted whenever we exhale. The 
purpose of the Clean Air Act was to reduce substances toxic to humans, 
not substances that are not directly harmful to us.
  Because the Clean Air Act was not designed for this kind of 
regulation, the actions EPA has taken will not work and will have a 
devastating effect on the economy and business in the United States. 
Carbon dioxide will be considered a ``regulated air pollutant'' under 
these regulations, thus requiring EPA to massively increase the number 
of entities it will regulate. In fact, the number of permits for new or 
modified construction will soar from 280 to 41,000. The additional 
Title V permits, which are required to begin these operations, will 
explode from 14,700 to 6.1 million applications. This would seem to me 
to be a regulatory burden on an agency that cannot possibly be met 
without a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars.
  Thus, we know that an enormous amount of new entities will come under 
the regulation of the Clean Air Act. Who will be newly roped into this 
government regulation? Essentially anyone, such as office buildings, 
apartment complexes, large retail stores, small businesses, farms, 
hospitals, power plants, and schools. It is difficult to fathom just 
how massively intrusive this Federal expansion will be.
  This action by EPA also represents a rule by fiat of government 
bureaucrats. The Clean Air Act as written makes no mention of 
addressing global warming. To change this, the elected representatives 
of the people, Congress, should be the ones making the decision, not 
unelected bureaucrats in Washington. When Congress considers 
legislation, the people who elected them expect that they will consider 
all the effects of what is being debated. The EPA does not have this 
consideration, which is obvious by the way they have completely 
disregarded any and all of the economic consequences of their actions. 
Congress does, though, and has to weigh the effects of policies upon 
those that they will be implemented on. Elected officials need to be 
responsive to legislation such as this that will prevent the 
strengthening and recovery of the American economy. For instance, 
Congress can factor in the extremely poor timing of this as our economy 
is trying to drag itself out of recession. However, proponents of this 
regulation in the Obama administration know it will not pass Congress, 
so they are trying to do it by bureaucratic fiat instead of letting the 
elected representatives of the people work out a reasonable compromise 
to the problem.
  It is for these reasons that I strongly support the Murkowski 
resolution of disapproval over EPA's actions. I hope the majority 
leader remembers what he said almost 15 years ago about the burdens of 
unnecessary regulation and the use of these sorts of resolutions. I 
hope our other colleagues heed his advice, as I intend to, and vote to 
support this resolution.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition 
to S.J. Res. 26, which would invalidate the EPA's endangerment finding 
for greenhouse gas emissions issued last December. This disapproval 
resolution is the absolute wrong approach to energy and climate policy 
in this country. Not only does it fly in the face of the science 
currently available on this issue, but it also ties our hands at a 
critical moment when we should be exploring every option available to 
us for mitigating the potentially disastrous environmental, economic, 
and national security-related effects of climate change.
  The scientific evidence currently surrounding our planet's changing 
climate could not be clearer, or the need to address it more urgent. 
There is broad consensus in the scientific community that most of the 
rise in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is 
due to human activity and that this warming trend could have 
potentially far-reaching consequences for the environment, agriculture, 
and public health. The EPA's endangerment and cause or contribute 
findings, which state that greenhouse gas emissions threaten public 
health and that emissions from new motor vehicles regulated under the 
Clean Air Act contribute to climate change, unequivocally reflect this 
longstanding scientific consensus. Indeed, the EPA's conclusions are 
based on empirical assessments from such highly respected, nonpartisan 
institutions as the U.S. Global Climate Research Program and the 
National Research Council.
  Nevertheless, in spite of the veritable mountain of evidence 
demonstrating that we need to immediately begin addressing this 
challenge, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to 
ignore the available science and bury their heads in the sand by 
supporting this ill-conceived disapproval resolution. They are, in 
effect, voting to continue the failed policies of the Bush 
administration, which for 8 long years ignored sound science, ridiculed 
good policy, and relegated the U.S. to the back bench in the race to 
develop and deploy clean, renewable sources of energy.
  This is not a path on which we can afford to continue. As the ongoing 
tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico clearly shows, our Nation's failure to 
comprehensively address climate change and free our country from its 
addiction to oil and other fossil fuels poses a serious threat to our 
economy and the public's well-being. It is now time for the United 
States to take a leading role in this effort--to reach into the deep 
well of technical expertise and ingenuity of its citizens--and build a 
new, clean energy economy that will create new jobs and help rescue the 
planet from some of the most deleterious impacts of climate change.
  Today we are presented with a choice. Do we acknowledge the 
scientific near-certainty of climate change and the critical role the 
EPA must play in addressing it? Or do we hamstring our Nation's 
environmental

[[Page S4833]]

experts, gut a national oil savings program, and reject sound science? 
We must send a strong message to the American people and the rest of 
the world that the United States is fully committed to robustly 
confronting climate change and pioneering new, innovative approaches to 
energy policy that move our country away from its dangerous 
overreliance on fossil fuels. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
misguided legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our Nation is not lacking in complex 
challenges. But among the most complex and difficult is this: How can 
we deal with the reality of climate change while also strengthening an 
economy that has depended for so long on fossil fuels? There is no 
denying the difficulty of meeting those often conflicting goals. The 
resolution before us purports to respond to this challenge, but I 
cannot support the approach that Senator Murkowski offers. Let me 
explain why.
  Senator Murkowski offers a resolution of disapproval of the 
Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding regarding the 
harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions. This resolution's impact 
would be to block EPA from implementing that rule.
  First, I believe we all should understand that the subject of this 
resolution--EPA's endangerment finding--is a product of scientific 
review of the facts regarding climate change. Current law, and a 
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, require EPA to act in the face of 
these facts. If you believe in the science, as I do, then you must 
either acknowledge EPA's responsibility to act or seek to change the 
law that imposes that responsibility.
  Second, as a practical matter, I am afraid this resolution, if 
enacted, would have an effect quite different from its sponsors' stated 
intent. The argument in favor of the resolution is that EPA regulation 
of greenhouse gases would unwisely harm our economy. In fact, for my 
State, passage of this resolution more likely would produce economic 
harm. That is because it would undo a carefully crafted agreement among 
the Federal Government, auto manufacturers, environmental groups and 
others, reached more than a year ago, relating to national greenhouse 
gas emissions standards for vehicles. This agreement resulted in a 
single, national standard for such emissions, binding on all States 
through 2016. The certainty and predictability of a binding national 
standard is vital for vehicle manufacturers. To help them pursue the 
path to a clean-energy future, that path must be clearly marked, and 
not confused by the myriad of different turns they would face if 
individual states are allowed to set their own standards.
  EPA at one point granted California a waiver permitting that State to 
separately regulate greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources. 
California officials have agreed, for 2010 to 2016, to a joint NHTSA-
EPA process for regulating carbon emissions from vehicles. If the 
Murkowski resolution is enacted, California would presumably act to use 
its waiver, and other States would follow. The economic impact of 
varying State regulation would harm manufacturers that are the economic 
backbone of many States and communities across this Nation. Auto 
manufacturers and auto workers have made clear, in letters to the 
Congress, their concerns that the result of this resolution's passage 
would be to upend a clear national standard binding on all States. 
While the supporters of this resolution may not intend such a 
consequence, it is surely there, and that is why I cannot support this 
resolution.
  Let me also take this opportunity to point out that my commitment to 
a single national emissions standard that is binding on all States also 
leads me to oppose the Kerry-Lieberman climate change bill in its 
current form. Why? Because carbon dioxide is a global problem. The 
threat of greenhouse gas emissions is not unique to any State. There is 
an urgent need for government action to confront the problem of carbon 
dioxide, but the need is for strong national and international action. 
To suggest that the need is different from one side of a State line to 
the other actually undermines the argument that carbon dioxide is a 
global threat that knows no boundaries.
  Just as vehicle manufacturers and workers have made clear their 
concerns that the Murkowski resolution threatens a single, binding 
national standard, they have also made clear their concerns about the 
effects of the Kerry-Lieberman bill as currently written. As the United 
Auto Workers Union has pointed out in a letter to Senators, that 
proposal ``fails to provide regulatory predictability for the 
automotive sector because it does not require continuation of the Obama 
administration's historic achievement in promulgating one national 
standard for greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy for light duty 
vehicles.'' The UAW is right. The Kerry-Lieberman bill, while hinting 
that there should be a single national standard, does not commit the 
Nation to such a standard. In order to gain my support, it must include 
such a commitment.
  So, let no one misunderstand my vote today. I oppose the Murkowski 
resolution because it will unravel the agreement on a single national 
carbon standard for mobile sources binding on all States through 2016. 
I also oppose the Kerry-Lieberman bill as currently drafted because it 
does not ensure such a standard beyond 2016.
  I ask unanimous consent that several letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                       Alliance of


                                     Automobile Manufacturers,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2010.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid, Leader Boehner, and 
     Leader McConnell: On behalf of the Alliance of Automobile 
     Manufacturers and its 11 member companies, I am writing to 
     express concern over proposed Resolutions of Disapproval that 
     would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's 
     Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gas emissions. Automakers 
     agree with the fundamental premise that Congress should 
     determine how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
     However, if these resolutions are enacted into law, the 
     historic agreement creating the One National Program for 
     regulating vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions 
     would collapse.
       At this time last year, the auto industry faced the 
     alarming possibility of having to comply with multiple sets 
     of inconsistent fuel economy standards. First, NHTSA was in 
     the process of promulgating new fuel economy standards as 
     required by Congress under the Energy Independence and 
     Security Act of 2007. Second, EPA was preparing to propose 
     greenhouse gas standards under the Clean Air Act, in the wake 
     of the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. 
     Finally, California and 13 other states were planning to 
     enforce their own state-specific greenhouse gas standards. 
     (As a practical matter, greenhouse gas standards are the 
     functional equivalent of fuel economy standards, since the 
     amount of greenhouse gases emitted by a vehicle is 
     proportional to the amount of fuel consumed.) These multiple 
     standards would not have been aligned with each other, 
     presenting all automakers with a compliance nightmare across 
     the country. The state-by-state standards were especially 
     problematic for the industry, as manufacturers generally 
     faced the likely prospect of having to implement product 
     restrictions in some states, but not others, in order to 
     comply. Clearly, the industry wanted--then and now--a ``one 
     regulation fits all'' resolution to this problem.
       To achieve that result, the Obama Administration brokered a 
     historic agreement in May 2009 to create the One National 
     Program for fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards. Under 
     that agreement, NFITSA and EPA committed to coordinate their 
     rulemaking processes and promulgate a joint regulation 
     establishing consistent fuel economy and greenhouse gas 
     standards for the 2012-2016 model years. California agreed 
     that manufacturers who complied with the federal greenhouse 
     gas rules would be deemed to be in compliance with the state 
     standards for model years 2012-2016. The auto industry agreed 
     to suspend litigation seeking to overturn the state 
     standards, and ultimately to dismiss such litigation once the 
     conditions agreed to by the manufacturers have been met.
       In a letter to Senator Rockefeller dated February 22, 2010, 
     Administrator Jackson stated that the disapproval resolutions 
     would have the unintended effect of ``prevent[ing] EPA from 
     issuing its greenhouse gas standard for light-duty vehicles, 
     because the endangerment finding is a legal prerequisite of 
     that standard.'' This, in turn,

[[Page S4834]]

     would likely result in the disintegration of the One National 
     Program agreement. It is our understanding that California 
     would not abide by the agreement if EPA is unable to regulate 
     greenhouse gases. If the One National Program agreement were 
     dissolved, the manufacturers would be back where they started 
     last May with a NHTSA regulation coupled with a patchwork of 
     states adopting regulations inconsistent with NIITSA's. As we 
     stated in a letter to Senator Feinstein on September 24, 
     2009, this would present a myriad of problems for the auto 
     industry in terms of product planning, vehicle distribution, 
     adverse economic impacts and, most importantly, adverse 
     consequences for their dealers and customers.
       The Alliance believes that the One National Program 
     resolution fostered by the Obama Administration is critical 
     to the efficient regulation of motor vehicle greenhouse gas 
     emissions and related fuel economy in the United States, not 
     only for the 2012-2016 model years, but also for the 2017 
     model year and beyond. The ongoing existence of a national 
     program for motor vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas 
     standards for all future model years should be the shared 
     goal of not only the Administration and the industry, but 
     also Congress and the States, for the benefit of the 
     environment, the public, and the ability of the industry to 
     create and maintain high quality jobs.
       It is time for Congress and the Administration to enact and 
     implement measures to make a national program permanent for 
     2017 and beyond. However, given what appears to be the 
     inevitable consequence of the proposed Resolutions of 
     Disapproval, we do not believe they are the proper vehicles 
     for Members of Congress to express their legitimate concern 
     that Congress, and not EPA or the states, design the national 
     response to climate change. Instead we urge Congress to move 
     quickly to ensure that the national program does not end in 
     2016, and we stand ready to work with members to develop a 
     federally-led process to achieve a permanent national 
     program.
       Thank you for the opportunity to explain the impact of 
     these resolutions on the auto industry. Please feel free to 
     contact me if you have any questions or need additional 
     information.
           Sincerely,
     Dave McCurdy.
                                  ____

         International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
           Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2010.
       Dear Senator: This week the Senate may take up Senator 
     Murkowski's disapproval resolution that would overturn the 
     EPA's endangerment finding on greenhouse gas emissions. The 
     UAW opposes this misguided effort and urges you to vote 
     against this disapproval resolution.
       In our judgment, Congress should move forward to enact 
     comprehensive climate change legislation that will reduce 
     greenhouse gas emissions. Although we recognize the 
     difficulties involved in this effort, we believe that 
     legislation can be crafted that will reduce global warming 
     pollution while at the same time creating jobs and providing 
     a boost to our economy. In particular, we believe such 
     legislation can help to provide significant investment in 
     domestic production of advanced technology vehicles and their 
     key components, as well as other energy saving technologies. 
     But such progress would be undermined if a disapproval 
     resolution were to overturn EPA's endangerment finding.
       The UAW understands the concerns that have been expressed 
     about EPA attempting to use its authority under the Clean Air 
     Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from various 
     industries. However, we believe the best way to address these 
     concerns is for Congress to move forward with comprehensive 
     climate change legislation that properly balances concerns of 
     various regions and sectors, and establishes a new coherent 
     national program to combat climate change.
       The UAW also is deeply concerned that overturning EPA's 
     endangerment finding would unravel the historic agreement on 
     one national standard for fuel economy and greenhouse gas 
     emissions for light duty vehicles that was negotiated by the 
     Obama administration last year. As a result of this agreement 
     among all stakeholders, NHTSA and EPA engaged in a joint 
     rulemaking effort that will result in significant reductions 
     in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. At 
     the same time, these joint rules retain the structural 
     components that Congress enacted in the 2007 energy 
     legislation, thereby providing important flexibility to full 
     line manufacturers and a backstop for the domestic car fleet. 
     Most importantly, California and other states have agreed to 
     forgo state-level regulation of tailpipe emissions and abide 
     by the new national standard that has been created by these 
     NHTSA and EPA rules. This will avoid the burdens that would 
     have been placed on automakers if they had been forced to 
     comply with a multitude of federal and state standards. The 
     UAW is very pleased that all stakeholders recently agreed to 
     continue efforts to extend this national standard from 2016 
     to 2025.
       However, the critically important progress that has been 
     achieved with these historic agreements will be undermined if 
     EPA's endangerment finding is overturned. Without this 
     finding, EPA may not be able to implement the current rule on 
     light duty vehicles. In the absence of the EPA standard, 
     California and other states could move forward with their 
     standards, thereby subjecting auto manufacturers to all of 
     the burdens that the one national standard was designed to 
     avoid.
       For all of these reasons, the UAW opposes Senator 
     Murkowski's disapproval resolution that seeks to overturn 
     EPA's endangerment finding. We urge you to vote against this 
     measure. Thank you for considering our views on this 
     important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alan Reuther,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____

         International Union, United automobile, Aerospace & 
           Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 2010.
       Dear Senator: Last week Senators Kerry and Lieberman 
     released a discussion draft of far reaching climate change 
     legislation entitled the ``American Power Act.'' The UAW 
     supports the enactment of an economy-wide program to reduce 
     greenhouse gas emissions. However, we were deeply 
     disappointed with the Kerry-Lieberman proposal. In our 
     judgment, the Senate should insist that a number of 
     significant problems in this proposal must be corrected 
     before it moves forward.
       First, although the American Power Act contains a program 
     to encourage investment in the domestic production of clean 
     vehicles and their key components, it fails to provide 
     adequate funding for this program. Significantly, the funding 
     (through the allocation of carbon allowances) is lower than 
     the funding that was provided for similar programs in the 
     original Boxer-Kerry bill and the Waxman-Markey bill that 
     passed the House. Thus, the American Power Act represents a 
     step backwards on this important issue.
       The UAW believes that substantially higher funding levels 
     are justified, both by the enormous contribution that clean 
     vehicles will be making to the reduction in greenhouse gas 
     emissions, and by the much higher costs associated with these 
     emission reductions compared to costs in other sectors. We 
     also believe that higher funding levels are needed to ensure 
     that the vehicles of the future will be produced in this 
     country by American workers by building on the success of the 
     existing manufacturers' incentive program.
       Second, the American Power Act fails to provide regulatory 
     predictability for the automotive sector because it does not 
     require continuation of the Obama administration's historic 
     achievement in promulgating one national standard for 
     greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy for light duty 
     vehicles. Instead, it would allow auto manufacturers to be 
     subjected to conflicting federal and state standards. The UAW 
     believes that this also represents a step backwards.
       Third, the American Power Act fails to provide regulatory 
     predictability for businesses in general because it would 
     allow states to require companies to surrender federal carbon 
     allowances. This represents a back door means of allowing 
     individual states to de facto lower the federal cap on carbon 
     emissions, and to shift the burdens imposed on different 
     regions and sectors under the federal climate change program. 
     In addition to introducing an enormous element of 
     uncertainty, the UAW is deeply concerned that this will lead 
     to economic warfare between the states.
       Fourth, the American Power Act fails to protect American 
     businesses and workers from unfair foreign competition 
     because the border adjustment provisions allow for too much 
     discretion, and thus may never be invoked. Furthermore, the 
     border adjustment provisions do not apply to finished 
     products that contain large amounts of energy-intensive 
     materials, such as motor vehicles and their parts, and hence 
     would not provide any protection for the domestic auto 
     industry.
       Fifth, the American Power Act does not contain any program 
     to provide assistance to dislocated workers and communities. 
     The transition to a clean-energy economy will inevitably 
     cause some dislocation. In our judgment, a portion of the 
     revenues generated by the climate change program should be 
     earmarked to assure that adequate assistance is made 
     available to workers and communities that are adversely 
     impacted by this transition.
       The UAW strongly urges the Senate to insist that the 
     foregoing defects in the American Power Act must be fixed 
     before this legislation moves forward. Thank you for 
     considering our views on these important issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alan Reuther,
                                             Legislative Director.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. How much time 
remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to wrap it up in about 10 
minutes and then go to the vote.
  Before the Senator from New Jersey leaves the floor, if I may have 
his attention, I thank him so much. He put this whole vote in the exact 
right perspective. Big oil supports the Murkowski resolution. That is a 
fact. They have sent a letter saying they support the Murkowski 
resolution.
  Why do you think they support the Murkowski resolution? The reason 
is,

[[Page S4835]]

this resolution would repeal, overturn, do away with the endangerment 
finding made by the Environmental Protection Agency that says that 
carbon pollution is a danger to our families, to their health.
  Senator Lautenberg just said it from the heart. If ever there was a 
vote to find out whose side you are on, this is it. What could be 
clearer?
  Let's put up a chart. Let's look at some of the public health 
organizations that are opposing the Murkowski resolution. I will only 
list a couple of them: The American Academy of Pediatrics--they know 
that carbon is a danger to our children--the Children's Environmental 
Health Network; the American Nurses Association; the American Lung 
Association; the American Public Health Association.
  Whose side do you want to be on? We had a letter from 1,800 U.S. 
scientists, from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Do you want to be 
on the side of the special interests or do you want to be on the side 
of the children and the families and the people who gave their whole 
professional careers to protecting the health of our families?
  This is one of those votes. This is what we call a turning-point vote 
in everyone's career. When we look back at this vote, our grandchildren 
will want to know: Where was the Senate on this important vote?
  We know this resolution is opposed by America's leading public health 
experts. They do not want us to repeal a health finding. What is next? 
Somebody else will have a brilliant idea to repeal a scientific finding 
that nicotine causes cancer. Oh, we can debate that. What is next?
  Someone else will say: Lead is no problem in paint. Let's repeal that 
finding. Think of all the children who would be adversely impacted with 
brain damage if we did that.
  The choice is with Senators: Stand with big oil or stand with the 
children, the families, the doctors, the public health people. This is 
a moment in time.
  There may not be bipartisan opposition on this floor. I think the 
vast majority of my Republican friends are going to support Senator 
Murkowski. But look at the outside world where we are getting support 
for our side.
  EPA Administrators under Nixon, Ford, and Reagan oppose the Murkowski 
resolution. People forget, the environment used to be an issue that was 
bipartisan. The EPA--that has been so criticized by my Republican 
friends--was created by Richard Nixon, was supported by Gerald Ford and 
Ronald Reagan. What has happened? How did this happen? I think it goes 
back to politics and special interests and the money that flows in 
here.

  But that is another debate for another time. Today, we have a very 
simple proposition before us in the Murkowski resolution: Should we 
repeal the health finding and the scientific finding that is the basis 
for regulating greenhouse gas emissions?
  Ronald Reagan's EPA Administrator, Richard Nixon's EPA Administrator, 
Ford's--Russell Train, William Ruckelshaus--very strongly opposed. They 
urge the Senate to reject this and any other legislation that would 
weaken the Clean Air Act or curtail the authority of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to implement its provisions.
  It is the Environmental Protection Agency--the EPA--not the 
environmental pollution agency. If somebody wants to turn it into that, 
they ought to come here and make that proposal. We can debate it.
  There is enough pollution in the gulf to teach us a lesson today. How 
ironic that this is coming before us.
  How about jobs? The people on the other side say supporting the 
Murkowski resolution is supporting jobs. That is false. The U.S. 
automakers oppose the Murkowski amendment. They say it will lose jobs. 
If these resolutions are enacted, the historic agreement creating the 
one national program for regulating vehicle fuel economy would 
collapse.
  We are finally getting the U.S. auto industry on its feet. With the 
Murkowski resolution, if it became law, that is all over and our auto 
industry will falter again.
  The auto workers also come out against the Murkowski resolution. They 
are deeply concerned that overturning this endangerment finding would 
unravel the historic agreement on one national standard for fuel 
economy and greenhouse gas emissions.
  If you haven't been convinced on the jobs question in the auto 
industry, if you are not convinced on the health argument, let's look 
at a statement made by 33 U.S. generals and admirals. Climate change is 
making the world a dangerous place, threatening our security.
  I don't have time to read every word, but it says the State 
Department, the National Intelligence Council, the CIA, all agree and 
are all planning for future climate-based threats. America's billion-
dollar-a-day dependence on oil makes us vulnerable to unstable and 
unfriendly regimes.
  We have a list of the people who signed onto that. I will just read a 
few, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this 
document.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Climate Change is Making the World a More Dangerous Place

       It's threatening America's security. The Pentagon and 
     security leaders of both parties consider climate disruption 
     to be a ``threat multiplier''--it exacerbates existing 
     problems by decreasing stability, increasing conflict, and 
     incubating the socioeconomic conditions that foster terrorist 
     recruitment. The State Department, the National Intelligence 
     Council and the CIA all agree, and all are planning for 
     future climate-based threats.
       America's billion-dollar-a-day dependence on oil makes us 
     vulnerable to unstable and unfriendly regimes. A substantial 
     amount of that oil money ends up in the hands of terrorists. 
     Consequently, our military is forced to operate in hostile 
     territory, and our troops are attacked by terrorists funded 
     by U.S. oil dollars, while rogue regimes profit off of our 
     dependence. As long as the American public is beholden to 
     global energy prices, we will be at the mercy of these rogue 
     regimes. Taking control of our energy future means preventing 
     future conflicts around the world and protecting Americans 
     here at home.
       It is time to secure America with clean energy. We can 
     create millions of jobs in a dean energy economy while 
     mitigating the effects of climate change across the globe. We 
     call on Congress and the administration to enact strong, 
     comprehensive climate and energy legislation to reduce carbon 
     pollution and lead the world in clean energy technology.
       Lieutenant General Joseph Ballard, US Army (Ret.); 
     Lieutenant General John Castellaw, USMC (Ret.); Lieutenant 
     General Robert Gard, Jr., Army (Ret.); Lieutenant General 
     Claudia Kennedy, US Army (Ret.); Lieutenant General Don 
     Kerrick, US Army (Ret); Lieutenant General Frank Petersen, 
     USMC (Ret.); Lieutenant General Norman Seip, USAF (Ret.); 
     Vice Admiral Donald Arthur, US Navy (Ret.); Vice Admiral 
     Kevin Green, US Navy (Ret); Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, US Navy 
     (Ret); Major General Roger Blunt, US Army (Ret.); Major 
     General George Buskirk, US Army (Ret); Major General Paul 
     Eaton, US Army (Ret.); Major General Donald Edwards, US Army 
     (Ret); Major General Paul Monroe, US Army (Ret); Major 
     General Tony Taguba, US Army (Ret); Rear Admiral John Hutson, 
     JAGC, US Navy (Ret.); Rear Admiral Stuart Platt US Navy 
     (Ret.); Rear Admiral Alan Steinman, US Coast Guard (Ret.); 
     Brigadier General John Adams, US Army (Ret); Brigadier 
     General Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret); Brigadier General John 
     Douglass, US Air Force (Ret.); Brigadier General Michael 
     Dunn, US Army (Ret.); Brigadier General Pat Foote, US Army 
     (Ret); Brigadier General Larry Gillespie, US Army (Ret); 
     Brigadier General Keith Kerr, US Army (Ret.); Brigadier 
     General Phil Leventis, USAF (Ret); Brigadier General George 
     Patrick, III, USAF (Ret); Brigadier General Virgil Richard, 
     US Army (Ret); Brigadier General Murray Sagsveen, US Army 
     (Ret.); Brigadier General Ted Vander Els, US Army (Ret); 
     Brigadier General John Watkins, US Army (Ret); Brigadier 
     General Steve Xenakis, US Army (Ret.).

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is a list of lieutenant generals, 
vice admirals, major generals, rear admirals, brigadier generals--and 
all of them real patriots--saying to us: We cannot become more 
dependent on oil, and as a result of this Murkowski resolution, that is 
what would happen.
  How much more do we want to spend on importing foreign oil? We are up 
to a billion dollars a day, and it is going to people who don't care 
for us very much, in case you didn't notice that. We want to get off 
foreign oil. We want to unleash the capital in our own country. And our 
own businesses are telling us this--that those dollars would come in if 
in fact we move forward and enact legislation that makes sense. The 
Murkowski resolution would simply stop us in our tracks.
  More than a thousand businesses have weighed in against the Murkowski 
resolution--a thousand businesses. The resolution would eliminate

[[Page S4836]]

incentives for innovations that could drive a clean energy economy. The 
Murkowski resolution would send the wrong signal to the American 
business community. That is signed by an organization representing 850 
business leaders. The resolution will jeopardize and hinder progress. 
That is signed by Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy. 
Then the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, on behalf of 320 member 
companies, opposes the resolution from Senator Murkowski. The member 
companies in the leadership group provide nearly 250,000 local jobs or 
one out of every four private-sector jobs in Silicon Valley.
  So whether you are voting on this on the basis of the health of our 
children, whether you care about the auto companies, whether you care 
about jobs and the rest of the economy and the ability of this economy 
to create good jobs or because you feel we need to get off our billion-
dollar-a-day habit of importing oil, you have a lot of important issues 
to think about.
  I want to close with looking at something no one wants to look at--no 
one can bear to look at. If anyone thought that carbon isn't a danger, 
look at what carbon pollution is doing on the ground in the gulf 
region--in the water, on the beaches, in the marshlands. Do you think 
that a pollutant like this, when it goes in the air, causes no problem?
  There was a cartoon in today's paper that showed a cap going over the 
well--which we all hope is going to succeed--and out of that well is 
escaping some of the carbon pollution. It is going into the air and 
under it, it says: Now it is no problem.
  My colleagues of the Senate, this is a point in time we have to make 
a decision. We are not experts in public health here. We chose as our 
career to say that we want to be on the side of the people who send us 
here. This is the moment. Choose sides: It is big oil and all that 
comes with it and all the polluters or it is protecting our families.
  I urge a no vote to proceed to this resolution, and I ask that the 
regular order occur on the vote at this time.
  I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 26.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 184 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     LeMieux
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The motion was rejected.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________