Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Mar 16th, 2011 :: 3:25:35 to 3:46:55
Total video length: 9 hours 34 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:226 Duration: 0:21:20 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Chuck Grassley

3:25:31 to 3:25:51( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: cofnlg i am looking forward to that gaivment i think the american people have to have an open and honest debate what is going on in this country. i am going to suggest the absence of a quorum. and others may come to the floor to speak on other subjects. i see senator let me take back the quorum and say senator grassley is free to speak on this or

Chuck Grassley

3:25:35 to 3:46:55( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Chuck Grassley

Chuck Grassley

3:25:52 to 3:26:16( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i believe that there is an amendment been submitted that hopefully we will vote on called the mcconnell amendment which basically takes away from the environmental protection agency the authority

Chuck Grassley

3:26:17 to 3:26:38( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to regulate greenhouse gases. the environmental protection agency gets this power from a supreme court decision that said they had the authority to do that. that supreme court decision was about two or three years ago, came about 16 or 17 years after the 1990 clean air act was passed.

Chuck Grassley

3:26:39 to 3:26:59( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: those of us that were around here and debated and worked on the clean air act of 1990 don't remember any discussion about e.p.a. under that legislation having the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. but obviously the supreme court read the law different than we do.

Chuck Grassley

3:27:00 to 3:27:21( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and so the environmental protection agency was told, you can regulate greenhouse gases. now, the environmental protection agency didn't have to do that, but i suppose they're like regulators generally. you know, you kind of say, why cows

Chuck Grassley

3:27:22 to 3:27:43( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: squeal, and why do regulators regulate? because that's what regulators do. so they are they're is going to issue a regulation if they've got the authority to do t the situation is this: if we don't take away the authority and in a sense overturn the supreme court case,

Chuck Grassley

3:27:44 to 3:28:05( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: e.p.a. is going to put us in a position to be economically uncompetitive with the rest of the world, particularly in manufacturing. when you increase the cost of energy by anywhere from $1,800 under one study to $3,000 under another study per household,

Chuck Grassley

3:28:06 to 3:28:27( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: you're very dramatically increasing the cost of production of manufacturing. and if you're worried about too many manufacturing jobs going overseas, and we would let the e.p.a. follow through with what they want to do, increasing the

Chuck Grassley

3:28:28 to 3:28:51( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: cost of energy, we will lose all of our manufacturing overseas. and i haven't checked the record, but my guess is that a lot of our colleagues who are fighting the amendment and think it's not the right thing to do are the very people who are very

Chuck Grassley

3:28:52 to 3:29:13( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: shag grinned and blaming american industry because jobs are going overseas. well, if we're going to pass a law that increases the cost of energy in this country, we're not going to have a level playing field with our competitors overseas. and that's why i've always said if you want to regulate co2,

Chuck Grassley

3:29:14 to 3:29:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: you need to do it by international agreement. because if china's not on the same level playing field as we are, then we're going to lose our manufacturing to china and other countries. and it happens that china puts more co2 in the air than we do. and you take china and brazil

Chuck Grassley

3:29:35 to 3:29:56( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and india and indonesia and they put a lot more co2 into the united states, or into the air than the united states does. and yet, somehow e.p.a. is of the view that the united states can global warming problem.

Chuck Grassley

3:29:57 to 3:30:18( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: well, even the e.p.a. director has testified before committees of congress that if the rest of the world doesn't do it, we're not going to make a dent in co2 just by the united states doing it. but the argument goes that the united states ought to show political leadership in this global economy we have. and if the united states would do something about co2, the rest of the world would follow along.

Chuck Grassley

3:30:19 to 3:30:39( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: but china's already said they weren't going to follow along. even japan that, signed on to the kyoto treaty, said that they wouldn't be involved in extending the kyoto treaty beyond 2012. and so, if the united states did it by itself, under the guise of

Chuck Grassley

3:30:40 to 3:31:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: being a world leader and setting an example and the rest of the world didn't do it, uncle sam would soon become uncle and we would find our manufacturing fleeing the united states to places where they don't have regulation on co2, where energy expenses aren't so

Chuck Grassley

3:31:05 to 3:31:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: high, and we'd lose the jobs accordingly. and in a sense then, those people that have complained for decades about american manufacturing moving overseas would destine the united states to do more of it. and so i don't understand how people that are concerned about

Chuck Grassley

3:31:26 to 3:31:48( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: losing jobs overseas could be fighting the mcconnell amendment. because if you want to preserve jobs in america, our industry has to be competive with the rest of the world. so i hope that the mcconnell amendment will be adopted. and i hope there will be some consistency in the reasoning of

Chuck Grassley

3:31:49 to 3:32:09( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: people who are concerned about the movement of jobs overseas, that it's inhrebgt wall disupon -- intellectual dishopb minority to support e.p.a. adopting regulations that's going to make america uncompetitive. there's nothing wrong with seeking a solution to the co2 problem. there's nothing wrong with

Chuck Grassley

3:32:10 to 3:32:32( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: seeking, working on the issue of global warming. but it ought to be a level playing field for american industry so that we can be competitive with the rest of the world and not lose our industry, not lose our manufacturing overseas and not losing the jobs that are connected with it. but it often is the case that

Chuck Grassley

3:32:33 to 3:32:53( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: when either the courts or the congress delegates broad powers to the executive branch agencies, it seems like you give them an inch and they take a mile. and there are plenty of other examples as well, and i'll go into some of them in just a moment, of e.p.a. having some

Chuck Grassley

3:32:54 to 3:33:16( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: authority and moving very dramatically in a way that doesn't meet the commonsense test. and the work of e.p.a. on co2 is a perfect example of, first of all, they didn't have to do it just because the supreme court said that they could do it.

Chuck Grassley

3:33:17 to 3:33:37( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: but like regulators, they want to regulate. and they're moving ahead. i suppose they're moving ahead also because in 2009 the house of representatives passed a bill regulating co2, a bill that would have made the united states very uncompetive, as i've stated the e.p.a. will.

Chuck Grassley

3:33:38 to 3:33:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: but the senate didn't take it up. and i think this administration is intent upon getting the job done. and so they go to e.p.a., issue a rule because congress isn't passing legislation. it's so typical of so many things that this administration's doing that

Chuck Grassley

3:33:59 to 3:34:19( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: because congress won't pass a law that we'll see what we can do by regulation. and so they're setting out to accomplish a lot of change in public policy because congress won't act, but they're going to act anyway. and if they have the authority to do it, they'll probably get

Chuck Grassley

3:34:20 to 3:34:41( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: away with it. you know, avoid the will of the people, the will of the people expressed through the congress of the united states. the will of the people, congress doesn't do something, so can the administration ignore the will of the people? yes, they can if they want to. but they should not, in my judgment. and it brings me to not only the

Chuck Grassley

3:34:42 to 3:35:02( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: mcconnell amendment, but a lot of other things that we should be doing around here to prevent this outrages overreach -- outrageous overreach by not only the environmental protection agency but by a lot of other agencies as well. because when the e.p.a. and other agencies promulgate rules that go beyond the intent of

Chuck Grassley

3:35:03 to 3:35:24( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: congress and never should have passed, it undermines our system of checks and balances. the american people can hold their congress accountable for passing laws that they don't like. however, when unelected bureaucrats implement policies with a force of law that they would not have been able to get

Chuck Grassley

3:35:25 to 3:35:45( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: through the congress, and that's without direct accountability when a regulator acts instead of congress acting, these policies that take effect do something that's very wrong when it's against the will of the paoefplt so i think it's -- will of the people. so i think it's time for

Chuck Grassley

3:35:46 to 3:36:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: congress to reassert its constitutional role. we try to do it from time to time on a process called the congressional veto. i recall last june the senator from alaska, senator murkowski, proposed doing that on these very rules affecting co-2.

Chuck Grassley

3:36:08 to 3:36:28( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: we did not get a majority vote so it didn't happen. maybe in the new congress such an attempt would get a majority vote. and if we can't apply that congressional veto again to those rules, then that brings about the mcconnell amendment that i'm speaking about to take away the authority of e.p.a. to

Chuck Grassley

3:36:29 to 3:36:52( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: do it. but perhaps we can use the congressional veto on a lot of other issues yet that regulators are regulating maybe against the will of the people. and i hope we will. but there's one that senator paul has suggested that i ask unanimous consent to be added as

Chuck Grassley

3:36:53 to 3:37:15( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: a cosponsor to amendment 231. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: that would be the -- he uses the acronym, r-e-i-n-s. it's called the regulation from the executive in need of scrutiny. and basically what it does --

Chuck Grassley

3:37:16 to 3:37:36( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and i applaud senator paul for his amendment, and i will surely vote for it -- and that is that we delegate authority to agencies in the executive branch of government to write regulations. if those regulations are

Chuck Grassley

3:37:37 to 3:37:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: considered -- quote, unquote -- major regulations, then they would have to be submitted to the congress for our approval before they can go into effect. and then would also have to be signed by the president before they would go into effect. it seems to me that that's a natural extension of congress's authority under the constitution to legislate and to be the only

Chuck Grassley

3:37:58 to 3:38:20( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: branch of government that can legislate. and it seems to me to be a very adequate check on out-of-control bureaucracy that they can only do those things that congress intended they do in the legislation they pass. i would extend my remarks on

Chuck Grassley

3:38:21 to 3:38:41( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: something a little bit unrelated to the mcconnell amendment but still to the overreach of the environmental protection agency. and this is in regard to some of their regulations in agriculture. and when it comes to their regulation of agriculture, instead of aoepl standing for

Chuck Grassley

3:38:42 to 3:39:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: environmental protection agency, i think it stands for end production agriculture. now, that's not their intent. but in this city of washington -- and i describe it sometimes as an island surrounded by reality -- that

Chuck Grassley

3:39:05 to 3:39:26( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: it's an evidence of not enough common sense being put into the thought process of issuing regulations. and i could give several examples, but i may just give a few. but before i give those examples , i want to compliment e.p.a. on one thing.

Chuck Grassley

3:39:27 to 3:39:49( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: after a year or two ago that one of their subdivision heads testified before congress and the issue was agriculture, and she said "i'd never been on a family farm." in the 20-something years of working with e.p.a. and dealing with such issues, i invited her

Chuck Grassley

3:39:50 to 3:40:12( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to a family farm and she came and spent -- showed a great deal of interest. we had a very thorough tour of some facilities, research, agriculture and biofuels. and they were very thankful that we did it. and i believe that it has helped their consideration of the impact that maybe some of their

Chuck Grassley

3:40:13 to 3:40:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: regulation writing has on agriculture. but still i'm not totally convinced. and so i would use one or two examples of regulation that's out of control. and one of them would deal with what i call the fugitive dust issue. fugitive dust is a term that

Chuck Grassley

3:40:35 to 3:40:58( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: e.p.a. uses to regulate what they call particulate matter. and the theory behind fugitive dust rules is that if you're making dust that is harmful, then you have to keep it within your property line. so let's see the reality of that. you're farming.

Chuck Grassley

3:40:59 to 3:41:20( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the wind's blowing, and you've got to work in the fields. and the wind's blowing so hard that you can't keep the dust when you're tilling the fields within your property line. well, are you supposed to not farm? are you supposed to not raise food? are you supposed to not be concerned about production of

Chuck Grassley

3:41:21 to 3:41:42( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: food that's so necessary to our national defense and the social cohesion of our society because, you know, we're only nine meals away from a revolution. if you go nine meals without eating, you know, and you don't have prospects of it, are you going to be able to have revolts like they do in other countries because they don't have enough food?

Chuck Grassley

3:41:43 to 3:42:03( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: no, we have a stable supply of food in in country so we stkroepbt to worry about it. but suppose we did have to worry about it? there's more to farming than just the prosperity of rural america. the national defense and social cohesion and all those things. but the point is that they've

Chuck Grassley

3:42:04 to 3:42:24( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: issued, that they're thinking about issuing a rule. in fact, they started a process down the road two or three years ago of issuing a rule. maybe a year or two from now hopefully they'll decide not to. it says that you've got to keep the dust within your property line. so i just wonder when i talk about the common sense that's

Chuck Grassley

3:42:25 to 3:42:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: lacking in this big city, not just tphoepbl e.p.a. but in a -- not just only in e.p.a. but in a lot of agencies, do they realize that only god determines when the wind blows? do they realize that only god determines when soybeans have 13% moisture in september or october. and that 13% moisture you've got

Chuck Grassley

3:42:47 to 3:43:07( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: to harvest them and you've only got about two or three days of ideal weather to harvest them. and when you combine soybeans, dust happens. and if dust happens and you can't keep it within your property lines, you're going to violate the e.p.a. regulation. what are you supposed to do? shut down and let a whole year's

Chuck Grassley

3:43:08 to 3:43:29( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: supply of food stay in the field? no. good business practices would say that when beans get to 13% moisture whether the wind's blowing or not, you're going to take your combine out into the field and not worry about the dust. and does somebody down at e.p.a.

Chuck Grassley

3:43:30 to 3:43:50( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: that john deere's and caterpillar and new holland all those companies are thinking about, we have the problems with the e.p.a., we have do something about the dust and we have to control it coming out of our combines or our tillage goes across the field, we have to consider the dust that comes up

Chuck Grassley

3:43:51 to 3:44:12( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: from tilling the fields? well, we've asked these manufacturers. they don't have any solutions to fleems. and i think they -- to these problems. and i think they probably think it's ridiculous after 6,000 years of agriculture throughout our society that it's really an issue. but there's people down at e.p.a. that thinks it's an issue.

Chuck Grassley

3:44:13 to 3:44:33( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and so i use the fugitive dust thing as one example of their -- of do they realize what they're doing to production agriculture? another one would be the spilt milk. you know, milk has fat in it.

Chuck Grassley

3:44:34 to 3:44:54( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: so now they're saying that -- that dairy farmers, well, if they have above-the-ground tanks to store their milk, they're just like above-the-ground oil tanks, and they're going to have the same regulation applied to

Chuck Grassley

3:44:55 to 3:45:15( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: them as applied to petroleum. now, the compliance requirements on this have been delayed pending action on an exemption, so maybe this won't go through, but just think how ridiculous it is that people at the environmental protection agency are saying that if you're a dairy farmer and you happen to

Chuck Grassley

3:45:16 to 3:45:37( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: spill a little milk, you have to follow the same environmental requirements as an oil company if they spilled oil and the cleanup of that. but that's where we are on these sort of rules. i've got other examples like

Chuck Grassley

3:45:38 to 3:46:01( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: atrozine, the application of chesapeake bay requirements on the -- on chesapeake bay applicable to the rest of the country as other examples. but i hope that we will take a look at this mcconnell amendment that spoke about

Chuck Grassley

3:46:02 to 3:46:23( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: carbon dioxide, plus the examples that i gave of the harm that e.p.a. regulations are going to be doing to just family farming and stop to think about we've got to find ways to stop e.p.a. from doing things that just don't make common sense. and i think a start would be to

Chuck Grassley

3:46:24 to 3:46:45( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: vote for the mcconnell amendment. and i'm going to vote for it. i yield the floor and i the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid