Senate Proceeding on May 1st, 2009 :: 0:04:10 to 0:32:55
Total video length: 5 hours 9 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:119 Duration: 0:28:45 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

0:04:10 to 0:32:55( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: James Inhofe

0:04:13 to 0:04:33( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: to go? mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent i be considered under morning bu consume. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. inhofe: mr. president on friday of -- first of all, mr. president, i really am here to express concerns i have

0:04:34 to 0:04:55( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: concerning guantanamo bay and the efforts that some people for no reason that i can understand want to close it. however, before doing that, another thing is happening right now. friday of last week the administration set in motion a ticking time bomb with its release of an endangerment

0:04:56 to 0:05:17( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: finding for carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases and the ruling proposes that carbon diox that threatens the public health and welfare and therefore must be regulated under the 1970 clean air act. now this so-called endangerment finding sets the clock ticking on a vast array of regulations

0:05:18 to 0:05:38( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and taxes on small businesses throughout america that would just be devastating. they claim at least for moscow to attempt to organize the chaos by limiting it to motor vehicles which is bad enough option considering the state of the auto industry which we're all so sensitive to, today, with what is

0:05:39 to 0:05:59( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and any attempt to stretch the clean air act to regulate these gases illustrates a game of russian roulette. we start with auto industry, and i assure you it will not end up there. they are presenting policy-makers with a false choice using outdated ill eastbound quimed and economically disastrous option under the clean air act to pick

0:06:00 to 0:06:21( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: another bad option, cap and trade. what they're doing is saying we will either find this endangerment finding which will allow us to go ahead under the clean air act and we're going to then start something almost the same thing as cap and trade except it be done through the executive

0:06:22 to 0:06:43( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and it will be done through the clean air act amendments so that we wl have in control on it in terms of legislation. as you know there are several cap-and-trade schemes out there. just last friday, a week ago today "the wall street journal" in an editorial comments on this false choice.

0:06:44 to 0:07:04( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: they argue, and i agree with them, they said and i quote "the wall street journal" a week ago today, why would e.p.a. confin the rule only to cars and trucks? by their own logic it shouldn't matter where the carbon emissions cop from, from a car's tailpipe is the same from a

0:07:05 to 0:07:26( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: coal-powered fire plant and transportation is res for only 28% of u.s. emissions versus 34% great electric generation. the e.p.a. is clearly trying to limit the economic impact of the ruling so not to ignite two great of a business and consumer backlash.

0:07:27 to 0:07:51( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: but their half measure is also too clever by half. by finding carbon a public danger she is inviting lawsuits from environmental lobbies demanding that e.p.a. regulate all carbon in massachusetts, and two other states, they have sued in federal court to force the

0:07:52 to 0:08:12( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: e.p.a. to create a next process for co2. we have gone thr process. further background on this matter let me explain the history hype the e.p.a.'s -- behind the e.p dates to anyone nine when the international center for technical assistance joined by greenpeace, the green party of

0:08:13 to 0:08:33( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: rhode island, and 15 other organizations far left-wing organizations i might add, filed a petition with the e.p.a. demanding it regulate greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles. these groups urged the e.p.a. administrator to reduce the effects of global warming by regulating the emissions on

0:08:34 to 0:08:56( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: greenhouse gases for new motor vehicles. in the landmark supreme court case massachusetts vs. e.p.a. they successfully argued that auto emissions were causing global warming which was eroding the massachusetts coast line and the remedy they said was to control greenhouse gases emissions from cars, all of this

0:08:57 to 0:09:18( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: begs, obviously, the question of what effect would e.p.a. regulation would tailpipe emissions have on global temperatures? in recent testimony before the house ways and means committee on the climb impacts of regulating carbon emissions, dr. john christie of the university of alabama at huntsville, found that such regulations would be -- quote

0:09:19 to 0:09:41( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: -- "undoubtedly expensive proposition and with have virtually no climate impact." he calculated using the ipcc climate models, the united nations, the intergovernmental climate change panel on climate change who have been bias in this whole thing and who actually

0:09:42 to 0:10:05( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: issue, the concept that manmade gases anthrogenic gases, co2, methane, cause climate change or global warming so christie calculated using the climate models that entire country adopts these rules, the net impact would be,

0:10:11 to 0:10:31( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: at most, .01 degree by 2100 and would be less than .04 of a degree in 2100 in an amount so small we cannot measure. this, by the way, is almost exactly the same thing, back when, during the clinton administration, when we had al

0:10:32 to 0:10:52( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: gore as vice president he called on someone to put together, that time we were close to ratifying kyoto convention and he said we want you to do a study and say if we were to ratify all other countries that are developed nations would do the sam thing, how much would i

0:10:53 to 0:11:13( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: reduce the temperature in 50 years. they did the study and was a minimal tried to hide tt. that's exactly the same thing that dr. christie is saying that he has discovered. and what he testified to just last week. now, onc

0:11:14 to 0:11:34( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: findg the greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare under the clear air act who, specifically is affected? as e proposed rulemaking taking place nows they make it clear that dangerment find leads to regulation covering nearly every facet of american economy. in reading through the comments

0:11:35 to 0:11:56( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: filed in the regulatory docket, one is struck by how broadly the clean air act would apply once an endangerment finding is made especially previous sources that have never come under control of this act. the public commends from various industries and groups that expressed concern and outright opposition on issues of cost,

0:11:57 to 0:12:18( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: competitiveness, jobs, administrative complexity, to the greenhouse gases regulations under the clean air act. the following excerpts were taken from comments filed by this they speak for themselves. the first one, mr. president, is the american association of hous

0:12:19 to 0:12:42( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: the members of this association, the american association of housing services for the aging, help millions o individuals and their families every day through mission-driven, not-for-profit organizations, dedicated to providing the services that people need. and when they need place they call home.

0:12:43 to 0:13:04( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: our 5,700 member organization, -- and i quote -- "many of which have served their communities for generations, offer continuum of aging services, adult day services, home health, community services, senior housing, assisted

0:13:05 to 0:13:26( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: this organization opposes regulations of the greenhouse gases under the clean air act -- and i quote -- "the clean air act is not suited to regulate greenhouse gases. the e.p.a. administrator and self-other federal agencies have opined. in addition, if they regulate greenhouse gases under the clean air act many of the

0:13:27 to 0:13:48( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: services for aging group, the members could be subject to costly and burdensome clean air act programs. for example, health care facilities with 51,000 square meet or greater would be to the prevention of significant deterioration," that is a psd "permitting such facilities to get a psd

0:13:49 to 0:14:09( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: permit prior to new construction or motions." and,inally, there is the possibility that health care facilities would need to obtain title 5 operating permanents from the e.p.a. a year from when the greenhouse gases become regulated which would add to the alady s nonprofit health care facilities.

0:14:10 to 0:14:30( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: now, that was the american association for the services for the aging. here's another one, testimony just week ago: "family diaries u.s.a.," a diary cooperative of some 3,600 members located in the six-state areas of the upper

0:14:31 to 0:14:51( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: midwest and of the united states our members a production agriculture meaning a majority produce the feed the cows that produce the milk that feeds the nation and we are opposed to the country regulations relating greenhouse gases relating to production agriculture.

0:14:52 to 0:15:14( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: this should be of interest to any of the members from ag states like my state of oklahoma. i'm quoting now from this organization: "title five requires that any entity emitting more than 100 tons per year of regulated pollutant, must obtain a permit in order to continue to e.p.a. has no choice but to

0:15:15 to 0:15:38( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: require these en this is not an option. the usda, the u.s. department of agriculture, has stated that, an operation with more than 25 dairy cows emits more then 100 tons of carbon and would have to to continue to operate if the

0:15:39 to 0:16:01( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: greenhouse gases are regulated. title 5 is administered by the states and permit fees and taxes vary from state to state. e.p.a. sets a presumptive minimum rate for permits and that 2008 and 2009. for states charging $43.75 per ton, the cow fee or the tax for

0:16:02 to 0:16:23( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: dairy, would be $175 a cow. the cow tax would impose a significant added cost for our dairy farmers that cannot easily be absorbed. imposition of the tax would cause many operators to go out of business and likely raise prices would. all that was quoting from the american dairy u.s.a. -- the

0:16:24 to 0:16:45( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: family dareries. mark manney, we are a midsize construction -- this i testimony last week. "we employ 30 full-time staff and have been in business since 1944. we primarily engage in the treatment of water and waste water treatment facilities flute the upper midwest.

0:16:46 to 0:17:06( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: we believe the clean air act is ill-suited for regulating greenhouse gases emissions and the e.p.a. should not move forward with the rule under the clean air act." doing so," quoting the small construction -- "doing so could easily delay if not halt all

0:17:07 to 0:17:29( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: future highway construction. new construction and and renovation are vital to our economy and to the future improvement of our environmental performance of our nation's infrastructure and must not be allowed to continue." this is ser now we are looking at reauthorizing the transportation bill. the last time we don't it was 2005.

0:17:30 to 0:17:50( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: that was $287.4 billion bill for a five-year rea now we are a up for reauthorization in 200 and we're right now trying to figure out what to do about america's infrastructure. all we don't need is to have this additional regulation increasing the cost of the construction of the roads and bridges and they're so desperately needed.

0:17:51 to 0:18:11( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: according to expert on the clean air act, an endangerment finding will lead to new e.p.a. regulations covering virtually everything, including office buildings, apartment buildings, warehouse and storage buildings, educational buildings, health care buildings such as hospitals and assisted living facilities,

0:18:12 to 0:18:33( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: hotels, restaurants, religious worship build, public assembly buildings, superrkets, retail malls, agriculture facilities and many others. an array of new development projects could be delayed perhaps for several years causing an economic train wreck. this conclusion was supported recently about the heritage foundation center for data

0:18:34 to 0:18:55( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: analysis which found that e.p.a.'s new carbon regulations would destroy over 800,000 jobs and res g.d.p. loss of some by 2029. the administration a other groups have recently argued that these are only scare tactics and that no one is taking e.p.a. to

0:18:56 to 0:19:16( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: do - they argue in fact that e.p.a. has already figured out ways it could avoid sweeping in small sources of co2. that's what they always say. this is not just the big guys and not the little guys. i think we a know better.

0:19:17 to 0:19:39( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: republicans on the e.p.w. who is set to head the office for the regulation follow. we answer yet. i know this, mr. president, because i'm the ranking member on the environment and public works and we're going through the nomination process, confirmation process. i've been very cooperative. i certainly supported lisa

0:19:40 to 0:20:01( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: jackson and others who -- even though i don't agr with them philosophically but ware not getting straight answers on this. nobody wants to admit that we're going to regulate everything if this comes along. one reason to question i not based on scare tactics. stf covered some comments in the proposed record that argued

0:20:02 to 0:20:23( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: quite differently. the conservation law foundation in their comment advance notice of proposed rule making -- that's wt we're in the middle of now -- on greenhouse gas regulation under the clean air act did ask e.p.a. to regulate such sources. moreover, both groups asserted that e.p.a. is required by law -- it is not optional --

0:20:24 to 0:20:45( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: required by law to apply the p.s.d. program to sources emitting above 100 to per year and no exceptions. that's pretty scary. the center for biological diversity argued -- quote -- that e.p.a. should prioritize the largest pollution sources

0:20:46 to 0:21:08( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: first, one of the reasons that the n.s.r. program will be such an greenhouse gas emissions is that it applies to a wide variety of sources that will emit in excess of an applicable statutory threshold of 250 or 100 tons per year.

0:21:09 to 0:21:29( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and thclose quote. and that is a quote from this group. they argue that as a threshold matter, the asserted belief that e.p.a. officials -- that the statutory requirements are burdensome railroad not efficient as they should be simply does not excuse the agency from following the law. the e.p.a. has no authority to

0:21:30 to 0:21:51( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: weaken the statute simply because its political appointees don't like the law's requirements. can't e.p.a. just invent new thresholds. seferlt suggestions that the e.p.a. has advanced are -- several of the suggestions that the e.p.a. has advanced are outside the scope of its authority. the e.p.a.

0:21:52 to 0:22:14( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: set higher greenhouse gas major source cutoffs at significant levels. this is something that is pretty scary, and i think that what we need to understand is that we are looking at the united states of america. you know, i've been floor now for nine years, startingay back when we were

0:22:15 to 0:22:39( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: considering the ratification of the kyoto treaty. and i have to say, mr. president, at that time i was president -- i was the chairman of the environment and public works committee -- republicans were in the majority and i was chairman. i assumed tha anthropogenic gases, co2,

0:22:43 to 0:23:04( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: methane, were causin causing global warming. that's what everybody said. then the wharton school of chickeconomics came out with a study. the range was between 300 and $330 billion a year. now, after all these things that our new president has been doing with the all

0:23:05 to 0:23:26( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and a $3.5 trillion budget and tripling the public debt in the next ten years, we don't thi too much about $3 billion being that much, but it really is. we're talking about $3,000 a family in my state of oklahoma, actually it exceeds that. so i thought at that time, if there's some doubt as to the about it because we're about to sign this treaty and that's what it's going to cost the people in america.

0:23:27 to 0:23:47( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: well, we started checking. we found out a lot -- the whole thing started with the ipcc from the united nations. they all wanted -- they would love nothing more than to have some big global tax and not have to be accountable to individual countries, but maybe that -- maybe that wasn't their motive. i do know this: we started looking at the science only to find out that

0:23:48 to 0:24:08( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: many of the people who were the leaders in other countries -- names come to my mind like d he was with a l gore marching up and down the street saying global global warming is going to kill

0:24:09 to 0:24:30( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: everything. he is now skeptical about the science. the same thi is true with claude allegra in france, the very well-known socialist, one that i don't agree with on anything except his new position which has now refuted this idea that greenhouse gases are caused by man-made -- or that global

0:24:31 to 0:24:52( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: warming is c gases. now, with all these changes, and i suggest if any of my colleagues here would like to see documentation, i have site -- an this web site we cite over 7 huer scientists that were on the other side of the have now cined the skeptics list.

0:24:53 to 0:25:14( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: the reason they're trying to regulate greenhouse gases under the clean air act is because they know that they can't get it pass chaivment in the house probably would get passed. the house has never had occasion to debate this issue. they haven't had it. we've had it four tiles. we had it in the kyoto treaty,

0:25:15 to 0:25:35( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: the m mccain-lieberman bill and the sanders-boxer amendment. and if you start and look at the trend, more and more of my cleeling realizing that it isn't

0:25:36 to 0:25:57( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: when i chaired the committee, it was my responsibility to defeat this thing. thatas the bill. we had that the time it was going to be a tax increase for the american people and we debated it for five days, ten hours a day. i stood right here on this desk for 50 hours. we could only get two or three senators to come down and participate and help me on my side.

0:25:58 to 0:26:20( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: but we defeated it because people didn't want to have to go home, explain to people dubious science they're passing this huge tax increase. then you fast-forward to 2008. in 2008 it was totally different because that was the warner-lieberman bill. that was an even more aggresse bill in terms of its emission requirements.

0:26:21 to 0:26:41( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and the m.i.t. had a value of that somewhere around $366 billion a year. so that would be another huge tax increase. now, whatappened in this three-year period. in 23008 it didn't take days to defeat it. it happened in two days. 23 senators came down and helped me on the floor.

0:26:42 to 0:27:03( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: why are so many people concerned about so many -- so many house members and senators concerned about this iss they'll vote right but they don't want to talk about it because they have huge amounts of money, moveon.org, george soros, the hollywood elitists. they put in an awful lot of money.

0:27:04 to 0:27:25( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: there are a lot of afraid of the issue. they only have 39 votes at most. they need 60 votes. since it is not going to pass the united states senate, w they are goi to try to do as much as they can under regulation. mr. president, just briefly, i want

0:27:26 to 0:27:51( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: i only the united states senate would take the time to go down to guantanamo bay and spend some time down there because if you do, you come back asking the question,hy in the world would we close this thing? you know, even media that's been very unfriendly -- liberal media would like to close anything having to do with military or prisons.

0:27:52 to 0:28:12( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: they come tthey come back and say minute. there's never been a documented case of any kind of waterboarding. everybody understands they're being treated better than they should be treated. did you know that we have one doctor or medical practitioner for each two of the detainees

0:28:13 to 0:28:35( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: down there. let's keep in mind who these guys are. these are detainees, these are not prisoners of war. these are detainees. these are terrorists. these are people -- many of them have called lot of americans and they're down there -- many of them have killed a lot of americans and they're down there right now and they're anticipating that there might be a problem keeping that facility open.

0:28:36 to 0:28:56( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: we are down to gitmo. 245 and i believe this is about a week old but i believe it is still accurate. there are 170 that cannot be sent back to their countries because their countries won't repatriate them, they won't allow them to come back. of the 170, some 110 are really tough guys. we're talking about the instigator of

0:28:57 to 0:29:20( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: talking about some really bad guys. and so the position that the obama administration first took -- and this came out during the inaugural address -- and i agreed with him at that time. he said, well, we'd like to close it but we want to wait and make sure we can take care of adjudicating and take care of

0:29:21 to 0:29:42( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: these detainees in some other gault facility. i greed that we should close it. on have -- we don't get many good deals in america -- that only cost us $4,000 a year since 1903. what else bargain out there like that. well, so it's -- now the alternatives are this. if they close it and don't do

0:29:43 to 0:30:03( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: anything to handle how they're going to adjudicate these cases, they could end $end umin our court system. i am not a lawyer. i am one of the few nonlawyers in but we no that the rules of evidence are different and the try in a tribunal than they are in a court case. get a conviction and consequently a lot of these guys could be turned loose.

0:30:04 to 0:30:22( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: i say toy friend from connecticut, it is very likely right now -- statestates passed something in their state legislatures -- in my state of oklahoma they have -- saying we don't want any kind after policy that's going to turn terrorists loose in the united states.

0:30:45 to 0:31:05( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and they have better than they've ever had before. they by their own statements say that it's better food than they've ever had before. and besides, there's no place else. one last want to abuse the time of my friend.

0:31:06 to 0:31:26( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: if you look at what doing and the alternatives that are there, we really don't have a and i think that if only people in this chamber -- and likewise on the house recognize that we're going to have to come up with some kind of an alternative before we close this tng down, we spent

0:31:27 to 0:31:47( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: $12 million -- it took 12 months to build -- i can't rember the name of it, but it is a courthouse in gitmo. that's where they handle these tribunals. and as i say, the rules of evidence are sufficient that they can't do it in our court system. and if we cut -- if we shut that down -- they've already that down. they should be trying them but they're novment there's no place

0:31:48 to 0:32:09( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: else. it's not just the 245 that are there but with the escalation of what we're doing in afghanistan -- and i was there last i can assure you there are goi to be more detainees that come n we're going to have to figure out somethin rest of them. i the position of closing guantanamo who answer two

0:32:10 to 0:32:31( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: questions: first of all, why? what is the possible reason for closing it? number two, what are you going to do with the do close it? with that, mr. president. i yield the floor. i express my appreciation to the presiding senator on the majority side forgiving time this morning. mr. dodd: thank you. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut.

0:32:32 to 0:32:52( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: mr. dodd: mr. president, the pending business before the senate is families save their homes act it is called. i would like to, if i could, briefly this morning take a few minutes and review the provisions of this senator shelby of alabama and i have offered in the form of a

0:32:53 to 0:32:55( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: substitute which is similar in many ways to the original bill