Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding 03-29-11 on Mar 29th, 2011 :: 0:51:30 to 1:11:10
Total video length: 4 hours 40 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:87 Duration: 0:19:40 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

James Inhofe

0:51:28 to 0:51:49( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: other business entities, associations in support of the rockefeller amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. webb: i thank the chair and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, let me, first of all, say to my good

James Inhofe

0:51:30 to 1:11:10( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: James Inhofe

James Inhofe

0:51:50 to 0:52:10( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: friend from virginia that i agreed with everything he said up until the last three minutes. you know, we have something that is -- that needs to be talked about. i would only make reference to the letter that has been entered into the record that, yes, they did make that statement. if the choice is to do nothing at all or to have the

James Inhofe

0:52:11 to 0:52:31( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: rockefeller amendment, it's better to delay something bad for two years. but that's not the choice. the choice is -- and he's referred to it as the mcconnell amendment, the bill i introduced and now introduced as an amendment to the small business act, is one that will actually resolve the problem. i think it's necessary to set the record straight as to what

James Inhofe

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

James Inhofe: the two alternatives really are. i call them cover. this is kind of a term that's used inside these halls. when someone's wanting to vote for something, vote against something the people at home want, they give them something else to vote for so they can offer cover, something normally meaningless such as these two cover votes.

James Inhofe

0:52:53 to 0:53:16( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: the cap-and-trade agenda, i think we all understand, is destroying jobs in america and certainly decreasing our domestic energy supply. as a consequence the consumers are going to pay more for their gas, for their electrical bills and attack affordable energy. but it can be stopped. it can be stopped by the passage

James Inhofe

0:53:17 to 0:53:37( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: of the energy tax act of 2011. as we're looking at it now, that same bill encompassed as an amendment called amendment number 183 to the small business act. let me go back, if i could, in history to make sure that people understand where we are today and how we got here. many years ago, back in the

James Inhofe

0:53:38 to 0:53:58( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: 1990's, they came forward -- and this is during the clinton-gore administration -- with the kyoto treaty. they went to i don't see toerbgs japan, and -- they went to kyoto, japan, and said we want to join with all the other countries and reduce emissions from co2. this is a treaty you would sign on to. most of the european countries did. many others did.

James Inhofe

0:53:59 to 0:54:19( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: i might add now, many years later, none of them who signed on to it were able to accomplish any kind of reduction, meaningful reduction in emissions. but nonetheless, we had that. i remember standing here at this podium and saying back then that we're not going to ratify any agreement that was made at kyoto

James Inhofe

0:54:20 to 0:54:42( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: that doesn't affect the developing countries the same as the developed countries. in other words, if it's not going to cover china and mexico and different countries in africa, then we don't want to be just the only twhaupbz this affects -- the only ones this affects because it is going to be a punitive thing. secondly, we were not going to

James Inhofe

0:54:43 to 0:55:04( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: ratify any kind of treaty that was an economic hardship on our country. we successfully stopped it. in 2003 they started introducing legislation that would do by legislation what the kyoto treaty would have done but it would only affect the united states of america. well, at that time republicans were a majority. i was the chairman of a committee called the environment and public works committee.

James Inhofe

0:55:05 to 0:55:25( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: we had the jurisdiction over this issue. and so i almost unilaterally was able to stop this from taking place, legislation. we had the same legislation that came up again in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009. and it's been before us for votes now in this, in the senate

James Inhofe

0:55:26 to 0:55:47( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: seven different times, and each time we defeated it. i might add, mr. president, defeated it by a larger margin each time that we defeated it. it's kind of interesting because?? i've had so many people say to me, you know, what if you're wrong? what if co2 is damaging to the environment? what are the causes of some of these problems?

James Inhofe

0:55:48 to 0:56:09( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: i have to say the science has been mixed on this. the science has been cooked in many cases. the united nations, who came up with the ipcc, which is the science used to base all these new programs on, has been pretty much scandalized in the climategate situation. but nonetheless, that's something that we don't really,

James Inhofe

0:56:10 to 0:56:30( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: really don't need to talk about. the point is that we were able to stop any legislation. why did we want to stop legislation and put restrictions on the, on co2? well, one reason is it came out very clear, and i'll always give my appreciation to lisa jackson.

James Inhofe

0:56:31 to 0:56:51( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: lisa jackson is the obama-appointed director at the environmental protection agency. i asked her at a public hearing, live on tv, if we were to pass any of these pieces of legislation -- at that time i think it was the waxman-markey bill -- would this have meaningful reduction in terms of co2 emissions in the world? and the answer was no, it wouldn't because this would only

James Inhofe

0:56:52 to 0:57:14( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: apply to the united states of america. and if we do it here, we'll take all the financial hardship of doing it. however, as we lose our manufacturing base, they go to other countries where there are less emission requirements. china is a good example. china, doors are open now to try to say we're cranking out three or four coal-fired generating

James Inhofe

0:57:15 to 0:57:36( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: plants in china every week. manufacturers come in here, we've got the energy that you need. so they were unable to do it. and when the obama administration came in with a strong majority in both the house and the senate, they said all right, since you're not going to pass cap-and-trade, then we will do it through regulations.

James Inhofe

0:57:37 to 0:57:59( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: what would cap-and-trade do to america? granted, by everyone's admission, it would not reduce emissions at all worldwide. so what would it cost? well, the cost was put together back during the kyoto treaty by, it was the wharton school at that time. since then m.i.t., c.r.a., many others have come in. the range is always between $300

James Inhofe

0:58:00 to 0:58:22( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: billion and $400 billion a year. i'm not as smart as a lot of guys around here, so when i hear about billions and trillions, i say how does that really affect people in my state of oklahoma? i have the math. i think -- i say to the presiding officer right now, i take the total number of people and families in my state of oklahoma who file a tax return, and then when they come up with

James Inhofe

0:58:23 to 0:58:43( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: something that's going to cost our nation $300 billion to $400 billion, i do the math. what that would amount to my average family in oklahoma who files a tax return, it would be $3,100 a year. and you don't get anything for it. so, anyway, the president came in with a new majority and he said if you're not going to pass this, we're going to go ahead

James Inhofe

0:58:44 to 0:59:04( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and do it by regulation. we'll have the environmental protection agency do it by, by regulation. so, to do that, they had to have what is called an endangerment finding. and that is a finding that co2 is an endangerment to health. now, the courts never said that

James Inhofe

0:59:05 to 0:59:25( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: we have to regulate co2. they said if you want to, you can. that was the choice of this administration and of the environmental protection agency. i asked the question again at one of the hearings -- this is the same administrator jackson -- i said -- and this was a year ago december. i said i have a feeling you're going to come up with an endangerment finding so that you

James Inhofe

0:59:26 to 0:59:47( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: have justification for regulating co2 the same as if we were passing legislation to do it. her response was kind of a smile, and i said to have an endangerment finding, tough base that on science. what science are you going to base it on? she said primarily the ipcc, intergovernmental panel on climate change. that's the united nations. they are the ones that started

James Inhofe

0:59:48 to 1:00:09( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: all this fun stuff. and so i said, with that it was not more than two weeks later that the scandal broke with the recovery of some of the e-mails that were sent out by the ipcc that they had in fact cooked the science. so, nonetheless, lawsuits are pending right now and all that to try to stop the e.p.a. from regulating co2.

James Inhofe

1:00:10 to 1:00:30( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: they're doing other regulatory things right now. they're trying to do original haez legislation -- haze legislation. trying to do regulation on ozone, changing the regulations. nonetheless, this one we're talking about today is the regulation of greenhouse gases. so this is what is happening

James Inhofe

1:00:31 to 1:00:53( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: right now. to keep them from doing it, i introduced a piece of legislation that was called the energy tax prevention act of 2011. my good friend over in the house of representatives, fred upton, has been a friend of mine for many years, he's the chairman of the appropriate committee over there the same as i'm the ranking member of the appropriate committee here.

James Inhofe

1:00:54 to 1:01:14( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: so we introduced together the upton-inhofe -- or if you're on this side, i call it the inhofe-upton legislation that would take away the jurisdiction of the environmental protection agency to regulate greenhouse gases. you take away the jurisdiction, they can't do it. that's the ultimate solution. that's the moment of truth at you'll read in tomorrow

James Inhofe

1:01:15 to 1:01:35( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: morning's "wall street journal." they are taking that up. they'll pass it over there. on a partisan basis over here, they'll try to kill it. so what we have done, leader mitch mcconnell and i have introduced an amendment that encompasses my bill, the prevention act that i just referred to, and puts it on to an amendment on the small business act.

James Inhofe

1:01:36 to 1:01:58( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: that is scheduled for a vote tomorrow morning. i hope it does happen. now, the reason i'm talking today -- i've already covered this several times and i'm sure people are tired of hearing it. but they have cover votes that are coming up. we know that this is going to happen. but why is it that this administration wants to do something that is going to drive

James Inhofe

1:01:59 to 1:02:19( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: the energy costs of america upwards? this administration has said over and over again they don't want oil, they don't want coal. you can't run this machine called america without oil, gas and coal. there is a motivation here. and that is, it's come from this administration, that they want to replace fossil fuels -- oil,

James Inhofe

1:02:20 to 1:02:42( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: gas and coal -- with what they call green energy. someday that might happen. it will be long after i'm gone, i'm sure, but they might have the technology to run this country on what they call renewable energy. right now we'll do as much as we can with wind power, solar power, all the other options. but nonetheless, we still have to have fossil fuels to run the country.

James Inhofe

1:02:43 to 1:03:06( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: steven chu, secretary of energy for the obama administration, said -- this is a quote -- "somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of europe." that's $8. this is the administration saying we want to increase the price of gasoline to be equal to what that is in western europe.

James Inhofe

1:03:07 to 1:03:27( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and so, this is something that, it's something that has been a policy of this administration for a long time. in fact, president obama himself said under this, the cap-and-trade plan -- this is what they're trying to do now -- electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket. the president had it right, the point of cap-and-trade regulation is to make you pay

James Inhofe

1:03:28 to 1:03:49( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: more for energy bills, and the obama administration, e.p.a. is here to make that hafplt in a recent -- happen. in a recent editorial of the "wall street journal," the energy tax prevention act, my bill is called one of the best proposals for growth and job creation to make it on to the senate docket in years. why is that? because the e.p.a. regulations will raise energy prices and

James Inhofe

1:03:50 to 1:04:10( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: strangle economic growth. the national association of manufacturers stated -- and this is a quote -- they said -- quote -- "at a time when our economy is attempting to recover from the most severe recession since the 1930's, e.p.a. regulations will establish disincentives for the long-term investments necessary to grow jobs and kpe

James Inhofe

1:04:11 to 1:04:33( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: indict economic recovery -- expedite economic recovery." you have the families, workers and consumers are all going to feel the pain. in a study that charles rivers associates did, the international -- estimates the cap-and-trade regulations could increase wholesale electricity costs by 35% to 45%.

James Inhofe

1:04:34 to 1:04:54( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: what we're talking about is everyone understands if they are able to do these regulations, the e.p.a. doing what the legislature refused to do, and that is regulate the emissions of fossil fuels, it will increase electricity prices about 40%. so, what do we get in return? i think we've already mentioned

James Inhofe

1:04:55 to 1:05:16( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: you don't get anything for this because it just would drive our jobs elsewhere, and it would only affect the united states of america. now, the claims that the energy tax prevention act -- that's the amendment that we'll be voting on tomorrow -- would undermine health protections or fuel economy standards is disingenuous on the face. the amendment doesn't touch

James Inhofe

1:05:17 to 1:05:38( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: e.p.a.'s authority to regulate criteria or hazardous air pollutants. what's more, both emissions of co2 and the real pollution have been in steady decline, yet instances of asthma have been on the increase. so, as the regulation, as the emissions decline, the incidents has actually increased.

James Inhofe

1:05:39 to 1:05:59( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: carbon dioxide emissions don't cause asthma either directly or indirectly, and they don't harm public health. energy prevention act is not about asthma and public health. but it's about protecting jobs. by the way, there is a very well respected scientist by the name

James Inhofe

1:06:00 to 1:06:21( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: of richard lindsen from m.i.t. he wrote a letter to me i just received a couple of days ago -- it was actually a little bit longer ago than that. he said -- quote -- "as to the impact of increased co2 there is widespread agreement that modest warming should improve welfare for the united states. uts, we are -- under the circumstances we are in the

James Inhofe

1:06:22 to 1:06:42( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: bizarre situation of being able to declare a pollutant when the evidence suggests it is beneficial." i hesitate saying this. i'm the first one to admit i'm not a scientist. but certainly professor lindsen s. he says here we are talking about talking about reducing something that is not a problem,

James Inhofe

1:06:43 to 1:07:04( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: certainly to the health. then the other thing having to do with the highway -- this is mentioned by the senator from virginia just a few moments ago -- that somehow this is going to impair our standards of lowering gas consumption. the amendment doesn't prohibit the national highway traffic safety administration from setting fuel economy standards for cars.

James Inhofe

1:07:05 to 1:07:25( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: it stops the e.p.a. from regulating carbon dioxide from tailpipes after 2016. so the regulation, this would have no effect on that whatsoever. that is not done been i e.p.a. . that's done by nhtsa. the vote comes down to a simple choice: are you for jobs and

James Inhofe

1:07:26 to 1:07:46( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: affordable energy or president obama's strategy, energy, taxes, and bureaucratic regulations? of course, when you playbook at the things that are coming along, i mentioned when i started talking that there are some things called "cover" that if there's something out there that the people back home are clam thearg they want -- in this

James Inhofe

1:07:47 to 1:08:11( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: case they want this amendment that will stop the e.p.a. from regulating greenhouse gases -- then if they can vote for something else that does nothing, then they can say, we will, that's why i voted for this. it's called "cover." the rockefeller vote would be nothing except just kicking the can down the road for two years. in the meantime, the regulation goes on.

James Inhofe

1:08:12 to 1:08:32( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: under the baucus amendment, this is something called the tailoring rule. it is a little more difficult. when you talk about the emissions that we are concerned with, that the e.p.a. would be regulating, they would be on any emissions that would affect all the farmers, the schoolhouses and everybody else. well, the baucus amendment would exempt some of these small ones.

James Inhofe

1:08:33 to 1:08:54( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: when you listen to the foreign bureau, which has been very helpful in all of this all along -- i have their quotes here. listen to this, mr. president. quote -- this is the american farm bureau, just a recent quote just this year -- quote -- "farmers and ranchers would still incur the higher cost passed down from utilities, and fertilizer manufacturers that

James Inhofe

1:08:55 to 1:09:15( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: are directly related -- regulated as of january 2, 2011." we will, so if the baucus amendment passes, it's going to still be regulating the refineries, the manufacturers and that is going to be passed down and it's going to be -- the increased cost to power and energy theansdz why the farm bureau is so emfat iefnlgt i just left the farm bureau a

James Inhofe

1:09:16 to 1:09:36( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: couple of minutes ago before i came here and was talking about this very subject. well, the manufacturers feel the same way. the industrial energy consumers of america wrote the baucus approach -- quote -- "does not solve the underlying problem that regulating greenhouse gases under the clean air act is a very costly and -- for manufacturing.

James Inhofe

1:09:37 to 1:09:57( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: it will impact global competitiveness and encourage capital investment outside of the united states." why would that be? because if china ends up with all the jobs, then they're the ones who believe getting the investment. the only way to stop the higher cost of compliance of which the farm bureau fears is to pass the energy tax prevention act which

James Inhofe

1:09:58 to 1:10:19( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: now is senate resolution -- amendment number 183. so i -- by contrast, it couldn't be starker. i think -- i was told that tomorrow morning you may see the moment of truth going on, and that's -- i think it is going to be from "the wall street journal," that people are going to realize that there is only

James Inhofe

1:10:20 to 1:10:40( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: one way to stop this massive tax increase and regulation increase that will come. it won't be by the rockefeller amendment t won't be by the bauer cuss amendment. it'll be by the inhofe-mcconnell amendment that hopefully will be voted on tomorrow. that would take out from the jurisdiction of the e.p.a. the ability to regulate greenhouse gases. that's what we're hoping will happen. i think when people realize it,

James Inhofe

1:10:41 to 1:11:02( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: they're not going to be fooled by some of these, what i refer to as "cover votes." with that, i yield the floor, mr. president. and i suggest 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