Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Mar 16th, 2011 :: 6:47:00 to 7:13:45
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:330 Duration: 0:26:45 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

James Inhofe

6:46:48 to 6:47:09( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: 183. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: madam president. and i say to the controller of the bill, i notice that we didn't have any speakers down, so i thought i'd come down. we do have this bill in consideration right now, in process for a vote. it's my understanding there will be a vote on amendment number

James Inhofe

6:47:00 to 7:13:45( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: James Inhofe

James Inhofe

6:47:10 to 6:47:31( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: 183 in the next perhaps hour or so, maybe just a few minutes. let me just give you a little background on what happened on this and where we are today. back in the early 1990's we had the kyoto treaty up for consideration. that was during the clinton administration. the kyoto treaty was one that we looked at, studied here in this senate.

James Inhofe

6:47:32 to 6:47:54( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: one of the concerns about it was it was assuming that we have catastrophic global warming and it was due to manmade gases, anthropogenic gases, methane. that assumption most people thought was probably right because everyone said it was, until such time we found out what the cost would be if we at

James Inhofe

6:47:55 to 6:48:15( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: that time would ratify the kyoto treaty and live by its emissions restrictions, the cost would be somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion. that actually came from the wharton school. we looked at that and thought we better look at that pretty closely. over some debate, we decided if this treaty came barks which the

James Inhofe

6:48:16 to 6:48:36( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: president -- came barks which president clinton signed, had to come to the senate for ratification, if it came to the senate for ratification, we would not ratify any treaty that had either one of two things. number one, it would be devastating to our economy. and number two, would not treat developing countries the same as developed countries.

James Inhofe

6:48:37 to 6:48:57( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: well, as it turned out, it did both. it is one that only affected the developed countries. of course with the reports that we had on the cost, it would be very expensive. that was back in the 1990's. of course starting in the year 2000 and specifically 2003, it was called to our attention, at that time i say to you,

James Inhofe

6:48:58 to 6:49:19( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: madam president, that i was the chairman of the environment and public works committee, had the jurisdiction, and we looked at this and evaluated it as well as we could, the science that was behind it. the science on which this is all predicated came from the united nations. actually in 1988 the ipcc, the intergovernmental panel on

James Inhofe

6:49:20 to 6:49:43( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: climate change watts formed. so this came from the united nations. the science behind it was pretty much confined to recommendations from the ipcc. we started getting phone calls from well-respected scientists all over the country. these scientists would say to us that the ipcc is a closed society, that they wouldn't let

James Inhofe

6:49:44 to 6:50:05( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: anyone in to offer their judgment unless they agreed that in fact anthropogenic gases were causing catastrophic global warming. so these scientists started piling up until i believe it was around 2003, we had a couple hundred of them. and i remember standing at this podium and talking on the floor

James Inhofe

6:50:06 to 6:50:26( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: about all the scientists that disagreed with the science of the ipcc. at that time i made a statement that became quite an irritant to a lot of people. i said the notion that we're having catastrophic global warming that is due to anthropogenic gases could very well be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the american people.

James Inhofe

6:50:27 to 6:50:49( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: i remember going to the, one of the meetings. every year the united nations throws a big party, and each year we -- we just had our 15th, i would add. everyone remembers a year ago it was this year it was cancun. back then in 2003, it happened to be in milan, italy.

James Inhofe

6:50:50 to 6:51:12( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: in milan, italy, i was kind of detested by everyone there because it was something that everyone there was saying that we have to do something about this catastrophe that was about to hit us. well, as the years went by, we had bills. we had the bill in 2003, the bill in 2005, a bill in 2007, 2009.

James Inhofe

6:51:13 to 6:51:33( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: the last one was the markey -- who is it with markey? waxman-markey bill. each time those who were behind this to pass some kind of a cap-and-trade bill were fewer every time we voted. at last count there is a total of 30 members of the united states senate that would say they would vote for the last cap-and-trade bill.

James Inhofe

6:51:34 to 6:51:56( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: the interesting thing about the bill coming up now is that they were unable to pass it legislatively, which is what we should be doing. we should be handling this through legislation. they tried, and we considered it, and it went through the process and they failed. now they're trying to do it through regulations. and it's been speculated that the cost to the american people

James Inhofe

6:51:57 to 6:52:18( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: would be even greater if done through the environmental protection agency than if it were done legislatively. it wasn't long ago that we had a hearing. i have a great deal of respect for president obama's director of the environmental protection agency, lisa jackson. she was in and testifying before our committee, live on tv.

James Inhofe

6:52:19 to 6:52:40( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and i asked the question, i said if we were to pass -- it might have been the waxman-markey bill. it doesn't matter. they're all the same. cap-and-trade is cap-and-trade. when it costs between $300 billion and $400 billion to the american people if we ratified kyoto, and the same thing would have been true if we ratified

James Inhofe

6:52:41 to 6:53:01( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: any of the five or six cap-and-trade bills since then. let's say we passed this and signed into law, would this reduce co2 emissions? that's the whole idea. co2 is supposed to be causing all this stuff. her response -- i was proud of her because it took a lot of courage to give the response that she did. she said in her response, no, it

James Inhofe

6:53:02 to 6:53:23( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: wouldn't because it would only affect the united states of america. and i would take it one step further. as we restrict -- that's what would happen. if we had a cap-and-trade, whether it's by legislation or by regulation, it doesn't really matter. what they're going to do is regulating everything that's out there in our society.

James Inhofe

6:53:24 to 6:53:44( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and as i say, the cost would be between $300 billion and $400 billion. what i do, since i'm not as smart as the rest of them around here, when i hear the billions and trillions of dollars, i try to see what does this cost my people in oklahoma. so i did the math, and in oklahoma if we take the total number of people that have filed

James Inhofe

6:53:45 to 6:54:05( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: tax returns and divide it into the amount of tax this would cost, it would be about $3,100 per family. my state of oklahoma. now, what do you get if you get it? you get something that even the e.p.a. director says is not going to lower worldwide co2 emissions. so you don't get anything for it.

James Inhofe

6:54:06 to 6:54:27( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: now the big vote that's coming up in a few minutes is going to be a bill that i introduced, we now have introduced this as an amendment to this small business bill, and that would say to the e.p.a. that you no longer have jurisdiction, which they shouldn't have, and i question that they had in the first phraeurbgs over the regulation of co2.

James Inhofe

6:54:28 to 6:54:48( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: -- first place over the regulation of co2. there's a lot of talk about the clean air act. i was a very stronger supporter of the clean air act. and several people who take a different position from me on the vote coming up talk about the clean air act and all the wonderful things it's done. i agree, it has. i feel strongly about it.

James Inhofe

6:54:49 to 6:55:10( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: we have cleaner air now than we had in a long period of time. the thing is it was designed to take care of six known pollutants. co2 was not one. it was not a pollutant. the courts said you don't have to count it as a pollutant, but if you want to, you can do it. so it was optional to the environmental protection agency and to the government of our country.

James Inhofe

6:55:11 to 6:55:32( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: well, they elected to do that. in order to do that, they have to have an endangerment finding. an endangerment finding is something that says co2 is an endangerment to public health. well, when the same administrator, administrator jackson was before our committee, this was right before the copenhagen thing. this would have been a year ago last december.

James Inhofe

6:55:33 to 6:55:55( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: i can remember making the statement to her again in the same public meeting. i said, madam administrator, i have a feeling when i leave for copenhagen tomorrow that you're going to have an endangerment finding. i could see a few smiles. i said if that happens, it's got to be based on some science, doesn't it? yes. what science would you base it on?

James Inhofe

6:55:56 to 6:56:16( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: primarily the ipcc. coincidentally, madam chairman -- madam president, this was right before, right before the all the climategate stuff came out, where they saw they were falsifying science and all the things we had found during the mid-1990's about scientists coming in, they were correct after all. that they had been cooking the science on this thing.

James Inhofe

6:56:17 to 6:56:38( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: that's another problem that we have that we're faced with. the way to solve the problem, and i think that many of my democrat friends, many of them have said that they agree that this should be a matter of the legislature, not a matter of the e.p.a. making these decisions. this morning i

James Inhofe

6:56:39 to 6:57:01( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: the -- i've got it right here. senator baucus, he's a democrat senator. he said i mentioned that i do not want the e.p.a. writing those regulations. i think it's too much power in the hands of one single agency. but rather climate change should be a matter of essentially left to congress. i agree with that, and it was left to congress. and we considered five or six bills on this. senator nelson, another democrat

James Inhofe

6:57:02 to 6:57:22( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: from nebraska, ben nelson, he said controlling the levels of carbon emissions is the job of congress. we don't need e.p.a. looking over congress's shoulder telling us we're not moving fast enough. and i agree with him. in addition to that, we have eight other democrat senators who said essentially the same thing. so i think that's pretty well understood. one reason i wanted to mention

James Inhofe

6:57:23 to 6:57:44( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: this before the vote takes place, my wife thinks the greatest problem facing america is the price of gas at the pumps. i know that my wife is not the only wife around who believes that. she was saying for a long period of time, what causes these things? it's very easy because my wife and i have been married 51

James Inhofe

6:57:45 to 6:58:05( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: years, and we have 20 kids and grandkids. and even my grandkids understand that the, it's supply and demand. that's taught in elementary schools nowadays. so supply and demand is at work here. well, we have supply in the united states of america. we have -- and i'm going to show you in just a minute. in fact, i'll go ahead and do that now because i want everyone

James Inhofe

6:58:06 to 6:58:26( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: who votes on this to understand anyone, democrat or republican, who votes against my amendment is voting to increase dramatically the price of gas at the pumps. the next time you hear someone say that we have -- this is something you keep hearing -- that we have just 3% of the oil

James Inhofe

6:58:27 to 6:58:47( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: in this country, i think that's interesting because they say 3% of the proven reserves. well, proven reserves can't take place until -- go ahead and put that chart up -- as you drill to prove it. well, we have members of the majority, along with the white

James Inhofe

6:58:48 to 6:59:08( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: house, the majority of the senate disallowed us to go out an drill. if you can't drill, 83% of the public lands where we could be drilling for oil we can't do it because they won't let us do it. they do have recoverable reserves and our recoverable reserves right now in america

James Inhofe

6:59:09 to 6:59:31( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: are 135 billion barrels. all we have to do is in order to do that is -- is to go out and take advantage of that and use thee recoverable reserves and with the c.r.s. report that came out -- the congressional review, the c.r.s., is something that is recognized as an impartial,

James Inhofe

6:59:32 to 6:59:53( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: bipartisan or nonpartisan study group and they study these things and they said that as of a year ago the united states of america -- now this is very important, madam president, because the united states of america has the largest recoverable reserves in coal, gas, and oil of any of the nations. now, there they are right there. this is the reserves of the

James Inhofe

6:59:54 to 7:00:15( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: coal -- this is all three, isn't it? fossil fuels, coal, gas, and oil. and there it is. that's the united states of america. if you had this up, we have more than saudi arabia, china, and canada, iraq combined. now, that's what we've got here. but the problem is politically they won't let us drill for it. i know, and i just regret to say

James Inhofe

7:00:16 to 7:00:38( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: this, because i was just challenged, but it's true because i was there, 21 ago we had exxon valdez. it was a disaster. it took place in prince william sound. most people here rember that now. it was an accident where they had a deficient ship and it

James Inhofe

7:00:39 to 7:00:59( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: leaked in the beautiful war there. there were a bunch on the far left that celebrated that it happened. why? they celebrated because they're going to stop all production on anwr or the north slopes of alaska. i said, how do you figure that?

James Inhofe

7:01:00 to 7:01:20( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: because prince william sound -- exxon valdez, that was a advance taition accident. that hit something causing it to break. i say, if you do away with drilling in america, that means we have to transports it into foreign countries and the likelihood of it happening again is far greater. i hate to say this also, but when we had the spill in the

James Inhofe

7:01:21 to 7:01:41( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: gulf not too long ago, a lot of people said, we're going to stop all drilling in deepwater drilling in the gulf. well, we have tremendous reserves down there in the gulf and while the moratorium was lifted, the administration is only -- has only issued one deepwater drilling permit since that happened. now what i'm saying is we've got

James Inhofe

7:01:42 to 7:02:02( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: all these reserves out there and we can do it and i'm talking about gas and oil and -- and coal. the -- it's not just the -- the

James Inhofe

7:02:03 to 7:02:23( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: oil and gas but we have another opportunity out there if you use the next chart u i think that's t here. that's coal. all right. we talked about oil. we talked about gas. now, in oil, if we just export our own resources, that that we know is there, the reserves that

James Inhofe

7:02:24 to 7:02:45( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: we have in oil and in gas, it would run this country in oil and gas for 90 years. that's our own stuff. that's not from saudi arabia, not from the middle east, not even from mexico. that's our stuff. the same is true with the coal reserves. there's the united states, 28% of all the coal reserve. 58% of the power generated in the united states is generated

James Inhofe

7:02:46 to 7:03:06( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: with coal fire generations and they are trying to do away with that. so that's a target. but, again, we have these tremendous reserves in the united states and let's don't forget that's -- so we could run this country for 100 years on just what we have except the politician won't let go in and recover our own reserves.

James Inhofe

7:03:07 to 7:03:30( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: oil shale, right now, it's something -- there's several pilot projects to prove that the shale's special viability, the green river formation located in colorado, wyoming, and utah. contains the equivalent of six trillion barrels of oil. let me say that again, six trillion barrels of oil. the department of energy estimates that of this six

James Inhofe

7:03:31 to 7:03:52( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: trillion, approximately 1.38 trillion barrels are potentially recoverable. that's the equivalent of more than five times the oil reserves in saudi arabia. but when i made this statement about having all these reserves more than any other country, i wasn't counting shale because not quite here yet. another domestic energy source that could lessen our dependence

James Inhofe

7:03:53 to 7:04:14( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: is methane hydrate. everybody knows that. i didn't count that either. so all these things that we could have counted are the point is this, we have enough reserves to take care of all the problems that we have in -- in this country for the years to come. i -- i look at some peep -- some people will come in -- they're well-meaning people.

James Inhofe

7:04:15 to 7:04:37( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: they say we have to go to green energy. i'm for green energy. but if you have something under development, it might be a year or 20 years or 30 years before it comes, then you have to continue to run this machine called america in the mean time. and what do we know works and what is available? it's oil, gas, and coal. now, just for a minute i'm going to deviate over there to what's happened in -- over in japan.

James Inhofe

7:04:38 to 7:04:58( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: we just came from a hearing and i'm very proud that not just our administration, the president, and the secretary of energy, but also the nuclear regulatory commission has said that that should not affect what we're doing right now. we currently have 12 applications pending. two of them are pending for almost immediate consideration for nuclear reactors so that we

James Inhofe

7:04:59 to 7:05:20( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: will get into nuclear. right now we only develop about 20% of our energy from nuclear. france, for example, does 80%. and so that's something that's out there. and i would say that in my opinion, as one member of the united states senate, in order to stop, not reduce, but stop our dependence upon the middle

James Inhofe

7:05:21 to 7:05:43( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: east all together, all we have to do is keep working on all the above. i want wind, i want solar, all of that. i also want those things that are developed and available today, coal, gas, and oil. now, you may wonder what i'm getting around to with these

James Inhofe

7:05:44 to 7:06:05( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: charts is the fact that we have a -- everyone admits that the -- that the goal of this administration, i'm looking for it right now, was to -- is to do away with price is so high that oil and gas so high that we'll have to be dependent upon other things. president obama said not long

James Inhofe

7:06:06 to 7:06:28( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: ago he said under this cap-and-trade -- we're talking about it could be legislative or it could be regulations -- quote -- "electricity prices would necessarily noticed he said necessarily skyrocket. his administrator of the -- or the secretary of energy to give you an idea of what's behind this, all the high price of gas

James Inhofe

7:06:29 to 7:06:49( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: at the pump said quote -- this is steven chew, secretary of -- chu secretary of energy for the obama administration, he said -- quote -- "we have to figure out way to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe." let me repeat that. "somehow we have to figure out a way to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in

James Inhofe

7:06:50 to 7:07:10( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: europe." what are the prices in europe? $7.78, italy $7.54, france $750. that is the motivation out there to do this. we have many others that we could quote in the administration, but i don't want to turn this into something that gives the appearance that we're

James Inhofe

7:07:11 to 7:07:31( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: just criticizing the administration. the fact is that we have to do something about developing our own resources an if we do that we're going to be able -- and if we do that, we're going to be able to -- we're going to be able to bring down the price -- do two things. first of all, for our national security, which worrying about -- quit worrying about depending on the middle east for our oil.

James Inhofe

7:07:32 to 7:07:52( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: we can stop that and develop our own resources. and, secondly, go right back to elementary supply and demand. if we can supply the oil and gas in coal, then we're going to have -- it will -- it will lower their price and lower it dramatically. everybody knows that. and that's why this bill that's coming up is so important. because the bill isn't just

James Inhofe

7:07:53 to 7:08:13( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: to -- vote isn't to keep us from having a $300 billio or $400 billion tax increase on the american people that won't accomplish anything. remember what the said the adminstrator of the e.p.a. said, -- but also that we can stop the rise of gas at the pump. so if somebody votes against

James Inhofe

7:08:14 to 7:08:34( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: this amendment, all it does is say that the -- which many democrats, all the democrats and many democrats agree, we're going to find out how many, is that congress should be the one to address these things, not the environmental protection agency. so that's what the amendment's all about. anyone's who's going to be voting against the amendment is

James Inhofe

7:08:35 to 7:08:56( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: saying we don't want to develop our own resources and that's one of the most serious problems that we're dealing with right now. we have other problems that have to do with the -- the e.p.a. right now with all the regulations. they have this minimum achievable technology on emissions, on other things such as -- as -- as boilers and --

James Inhofe

7:08:57 to 7:09:18( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and other things that would end up costing -- increasing the cost to do business. ultimately it's -- it's the consumer that pays. i actually have a quote here that i can't seem to find right now since i'm not using notes that -- that says that we -- we do have the technology to do all

James Inhofe

7:09:19 to 7:09:40( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: these things and, yet, it's -- we are going to allow this to happen even though it's not necessary. so we've got a big vote coming up and that vote is, do you think the e.p.a. should regulate the emissions of co2 in america or do you think congress should do it? do you think the e.p.a. should do it, get ready for a tax increase, i'm sure that the

James Inhofe

7:09:41 to 7:10:01( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: president is ready to sign that will keep them -- that will allow them to continue to down the road of overregulating. there's a cost to regulation, i think we all know that, and it's one that's huge. if you just look hat these regulation that's we -- look at these regulations that we have

James Inhofe

7:10:02 to 7:10:24( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and the $300 billion and $400 billion, and how that affects people, the boiler regulation, the same e.p.a., that affects 800,000 jobs in america. the utility mec, and that's somebody that -- that the -- the director of the e.p.a. just had a news conference on today. that is having the minimum

James Inhofe

7:10:25 to 7:10:46( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: achievable reductions in utilities would cost about $100 billion. the ozone and the p.m. would be about $90 billion. i'd say we would be talking about a pretty big jobs bill. but only on this. i want to make sure that everybody understands. my friend john barrasso has a bill that is going to go a lot further than this.

James Inhofe

7:10:47 to 7:11:07( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and i'm a strong supporter of his legislation. it will go into keeping the e.p.a. from using the co2 to change the clean air act, the clean water act, the endangered species act and that's very good. that's not what this is. if anyone says -- oh, let me find -- i heard something this morning that i want to make sure to clarify.

James Inhofe

7:11:08 to 7:11:28( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: i think it's important because there's all kinds of things out there people are saying will happen if we -- if we pass this amendment. they're saying that's going to somehow affect -- in fact they said i respectfully ask the members of the committee to keep in mind the e.p.a.'s saves millions of adults and children

James Inhofe

7:11:29 to 7:11:52( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: from debilitating an expensive illnesses that occur when tailpipes release unrestricted amounts of pollution. i agree with that. i was a strong supporter when the clean air act came out and when the amendments came out. it was designed for the six criteria pollutants at the heart of the clean air act, air,

James Inhofe

7:11:53 to 7:12:13( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter. those are real pollutants, not imaginary like co2. that was targeted by the clean air act and, of course, it has nothing to do with -- with anything else and that's -- so those things are still going to be restricted. we've had some people say and i

James Inhofe

7:12:14 to 7:12:34( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: heard this several times today that the -- the energy -- this amendment would block the administration's announced plan to followup with the clean air act standards for cars an light trucks. not at all true. that's all done by the national highway traffic safety administration. that's not even within the jurisdiction of the e.p.a.

James Inhofe

7:12:35 to 7:12:55( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: that's -- that's nitsa, the national highway, traffic, safety administration. it has nothing to do with mileage or cars, nothing to do with -- with the whole effort that they're trying to do to increase mileage, that can go on. the -- and i would say, further, that the e.p.a.'s contributing practically nothing to the administration's global warming

James Inhofe

7:12:56 to 7:13:18( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: car deal. about 4% of the joint e.p.a. nitsa program emission reduction dropping e.p.a. would therefore have a meaningless effect on oil consumption. and according to the e.p.a., this is their figures, it's greenhouse gas car standards would mean that global mean

James Inhofe

7:13:19 to 7:13:40( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: temperature is reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 celsius by 2010. that's not even measurable. don't let anyone use the argument that it has anything to with cafe standards and doesn't do anything that is harmful to green.

James Inhofe

7:13:41 to 7:13:45( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: so, with that, i will say the amendment is coming up soon. we will find out who wants to

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