Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Apr 6th, 2011 :: 6:18:25 to 6:28:35
Total video length: 9 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:107 Duration: 0:10:10 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

James Inhofe

6:18:21 to 6:18:42( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: mr. inhofe: the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: first of all, let me just state that i agree in one respect with the senator from california. first of all, we agree on a lot of things. we agree on infrastructure and things we know this country needs. but in the area of the clean air act, she said show me one

James Inhofe

6:18:25 to 6:28:35( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: James Inhofe

James Inhofe

6:18:43 to 6:19:05( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: republican who supports it -- i support the clean air act. it's been a tremendous success. you stop and look at the real pollution. i'm not talking about greenhouse gases. i'm talking about the six real pollutants and what has happened. it's amazing the success of the clean air act. i agree with that. i'd like to remind everyone

James Inhofe

6:19:06 to 6:19:27( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: though that the clean air act would not be regulating co2 except if the court said if you want to do it, you can do it. they did not mandate it can be done. it's really worth considering. i think since i have the time right now until we're voting on the first of three cover votes before they get to mine -- by the way, i'm willing to correct my good friend from california.

James Inhofe

6:19:28 to 6:19:48( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: she referred to mcconnell. it's the mcconnell-inhofe amendment. in fact, it came from my bill that i introduced with fred upton some time ago, a bill that's going to be voted on in the house of representatives, i think, today. so it's very appropriate that we take it up now. i might add that this amendment has been up, i think, postponed six or seven times, and i

James Inhofe

6:19:49 to 6:20:12( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: applaud the majority leader for letting us have these votes. it's very important that we do this. now, here's what i'd like to say that i think is important. people need to understand a couple of things. first of all, what this is all about. you know, we talked about, starting in 2003 -- no, starting

James Inhofe

6:20:13 to 6:20:33( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: in the 1990's when they had the kyoto convention that we were supposed to ratify, president clinton never did submit it to the senate for ratification. but nonetheless, it was one that regulated greenhouse gases. and i remember at that time i think it was the wharton school. we did an analysis. what if the united states of

James Inhofe

6:20:34 to 6:20:55( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: america were to ratify the kyoto amendment and live by its requirements. what would the cost be. it came out somewhere in the neighborhood of between $300 billion and $400 billion. we defeated that. didn't defeat it, we just never ratified it because the president never submitted it for ratification. then in 2003 came a number of votes.

James Inhofe

6:20:56 to 6:21:17( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: almost every year we had legislation that was introduced that would do essentially what the kyoto treaty would have done and would have trade. so we had m.i.t. and others look at it to see what in fact would be the cost if we were to do this. i can rember when my good friend, the junior senator from california, senator boxer, and i talked on the floor during the

James Inhofe

6:21:18 to 6:21:38( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: last time we defeated her bill, i think this might have been the waxman-markey bill. it doesn't matter, they're all the same. i stipulated to the science. i said let's assume the science is right. it's not but let's assume it is so we don't have to talk about that. assuming it is, let's talk about the economics. that's when we developed what it would cost.

James Inhofe

6:21:39 to 6:21:59( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: in my state of oklahoma, i have a policy that when we talk about billions and trillions of dollars, i try to say put it in context as to what it would, how it will affect my taxpayers in the state of oklahoma. so i have a very simple thing that i do. i take the total number of families that file tax returns and then i do the math.

James Inhofe

6:22:00 to 6:22:20( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: if you divide that into say $350 billion a year, that means the average taxpayer in my family -- my state of oklahoma would have to pay $3,100 a year in additional taxes in order to pay for the cap and trade regime that comes with any type of a legislation.

James Inhofe

6:22:21 to 6:22:41( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: and so we talked about that, and consequently we defeated each bill that came along. this is the key thing: the obama administration is very beholden to some of the far and left wing people and he commited to try and pass some kind of cap and trade. so he said if we can't do it legislatively, we'll do it through regulations. so we have all these regulations

James Inhofe

6:22:42 to 6:23:04( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: that they started, e.p.a. started coming down with. i have to mention, of these regulations one is very significant because i remember when she was before our environment and public works committee, i said to her -- and this is right before going to the big u.n. party in copenhagen about 16, 18 months ago, i said

James Inhofe

6:23:05 to 6:23:25( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: you know, i have a feeling, madam director, that you're going to come up with an endangerment finding, and when you do it has to be some type of science. what science would you base it on? and she said primarily on the ipcc. just make sure everybody understands what the ipcc is, the ipcc is the united nations. they are the ones that came wup

James Inhofe

6:23:26 to 6:23:47( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: this whole thing -- came up with this whole thing and said this is what the end of the world is going to be and all this. anyway, i said if you're going to have an endangerment finding, co2 is endangerment to the health, it has to be based on some science. what science on? the answer was, well, the united nations, it's going to be based

James Inhofe

6:23:48 to 6:24:08( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: on the science of the -- of the ipcc, the intergovernmental panel on climate change. that's the united nations. coincidentally, right after that is when climategate came and they found they had been cooking this since for about ten years and that the legitimate interests and input of real scientists were completely rejected. and so the science just flat wasn't there.

James Inhofe

6:24:09 to 6:24:31( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: that's why i said at the time that we -- that we had this bill up, i'll stipulate to the science even though the science isn't there. i know it's not there. but what is there is the economics. here we are faced with the situation where we were looking at the possibility of the environmental protection agency coming and regulating co2.

James Inhofe

6:24:32 to 6:24:52( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: i will contend that they can do it if they have an endangerment finding but they don't have to do it. the economic punishment to america would be tremendous but it wouldn't do any good. here's the big question: what if i'm wrong. people asked me, inhofe, what if you're wrong?

James Inhofe

6:24:53 to 6:25:13( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: you've been leading this fight for nine years. what if co2 does endanger health and cause global warming and all these scare stories you hear? my response is if that's the case it's not going to make any difference because even the e.p.a. director admits that if we unilaterally in the united states of america pass some type

James Inhofe

6:25:14 to 6:25:35( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: of regulation that stops the regulation of greenhouse gas that is it's not going to affect the overall release of the emissions, co2 emissions. the reason for that is very simple. that if you, if you do only in the united states of america, you would argue that that's not where the problem is. the problem is in china, the problem is in mexico, the problem is in india, in

James Inhofe

6:25:36 to 6:25:57( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: countries, third-world countries that don't have any emission controls at all. i think everyone agrees if we pass something like these regulations of the e.p.a. unilaterally, it wouldn't reduce emissions any, not any at all. consequently, all this economic punishment to achieve nothing. i would take one step further.

James Inhofe

6:25:58 to 6:26:19( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: as we chase away our manufacturing base, as they say would happen, that we would be in a position where we couldn't -- they'd go to countries where there's no emission, it would have the result of increasing emission. even if senator boxer is right in everything she says, she's wrong in the respect that if we

James Inhofe

6:26:20 to 6:26:40( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: passed it, it's not going to lower emissions. that's the fact. we're running out of time but i have the time up to 4:00 and i'm going to go over four things that are going to happen, tpaoeupbzing the -- finalizing the vote. let me finish because i'm going to need all the time i've got right now. mr. baucus: i ask unanimous consent to speak for two minutes

James Inhofe

6:26:41 to 6:27:01( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: prior to the vote on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. inhofe: reserving the right to object, is the senator talking about doing it after 4:00? mr. baucus: before the vote, yes. mr. inhofe: before the vote? all right. i'd say if you would include me to speak for one minute at that time, i have no objection. mr. baucus: that would be fine. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: the senator, by

James Inhofe

6:27:02 to 6:27:22( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: the way, senator baucus is going to have an amendment up, and i think it's kind of interesting because with three amendments i refer to as cover amendments -- in other words, there are a lot of democrats who don't want to vote to take away the jurisdiction of the environmental protection agency to regulate greenhouse gases, so they have other ones. the baucus amendment is one that is going to exempt certain small

James Inhofe

6:27:23 to 6:27:43( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: people, small farmers and all that, but that doesn't exempt them from having their electricity rates escalate. the american farm bureau says we don't want any of the cover votes. we don't want the baucus bill. we don't want stabenow and we don't want the rockefeller. stabenow would also have a delay in certain parts of the regulation.

James Inhofe

6:27:44 to 6:28:05( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: the rockefeller vote, which is going to be the third vote that we vote on starting at 4:00, is one that would merely have a two-year delay. in other words it, says you can go ahead and do this regulation, but we're going to kind of put it off for two years. the real vote and the one that is the critical vote -- and if there is anyone out there that doesn't want to go home to the people and say i'm responsible for passing the largest tax

James Inhofe

6:28:06 to 6:28:28( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: increase in the history of america by defeating the inhofe-mcconnell amendment, then go ahead and vote that way. that's going to be a serious problem not for me, but for the senators who might vote the wrong way. so i'd only say this, that the mcconnell-inhofe amendment would be the fourth one that we vote on. this is the critical one.

James Inhofe

6:28:29 to 6:28:36( Edit History Discussion )

James Inhofe: the rest are cover with that being yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator mr. baucus: mr. president, i also ask consent that in

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