Resolution Of Disapproval Of EPA Rule-Motion To Proceed
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source