Senate Proceeding on Sep 24th, 2009 :: 3:22:15 to 3:41:45
Total video length: 9 hours 42 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

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

Views:46 Duration: 0:19:30 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

3:22:06 to 3:22:26( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: amendments which would include my amendment 2350 and to set aside the pending eements so mine may be called up for consideration. the presiding officer: is the senator from illinois -- mr. dorgan: on behalf of the majority leader, i object. the presiding officer: socks is heard. ms. murkowski: mr. prident, thank you.

3:22:15 to 3:41:45( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Lisa Murkowski

3:22:27 to 3:22:47( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: i do believe that it is unfortunate that we are not allowed to consider this amendment. the amendment that i was hoping to be able to bring up and to consider is one that would prohibit the use of funds that has the effect of making carbon dioxide a plew stant subject to the -- a pollutant subject the regulation under the clean air act for any source other

3:22:48 to 3:23:09( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: than a mobile source. it is unfortunate that the majority will not allow us to consider this amendment. the problem it seeks to address is significant, and i don't believe it is going to go away if we just choose to ignore it. and as disappointed as i am, this amendment has clearly received considerable attention, so i would like to take this

3:23:10 to 3:23:30( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: time this afternoon to fully explain its intent, my efforts to ensure its bipartisan nature, as well as the reasons that i believe it's so incredibly important for the senate to be given an opportunity to vote in favor of its adoption, if not now then at some other point. in writing this amendment over this past week, i've listened to

3:23:31 to 3:23:51( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: the concerns of many of my colleagues, the concerns of the environmental community, as well as the concerns expressed administration. and you don't have to take my word for this. look at the text of the amendment and see how it reflects -- i think it reflects very seriously -- the and the criticisms from those who have weighed in.

3:23:52 to 3:24:12( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: so all i would ask at this time is that for the next few minutes my colleagues and my critics return the favor and listen to what i have to say on this. for context, let's start back at the beginning. back in april of 2007, the supreme court declared in the case of massachusetts v. e.p.a. that carbon dioxide is a

3:24:13 to 3:24:33( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: pollutant that can be recreated under the clean air act -- that can be regulated under the clean air act. the court held that e.p.a. must beegulate emissions from mobile sources -- meaning vehicles -- if the agency determined that carbon dioxide posed a threat to public health and welfare. in the wake of that decision, the e.p.a. began to lay the groundwork for

3:24:34 to 3:24:56( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: regulation of greenhouse emissions. and through its proposed endangerment finding, the agency has sought to confirm that greenhouse emissions are indeed a threat to the public health and welfare. that proposal is now under review and most expect at it will be finalized in the very near future.

3:24:57 to 3:25:17( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: the e.p.a. has also released its draft rule to regulate mobile source emissions, as required by the supreme court. and this will be accomplished through a dual standard that includes increased vehicle fuel economy and reduced tail pipe emissions. mr. president, i am not putting the brakes on that proposal, despite some assertions to the contrary.

3:25:18 to 3:25:39( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: but i am deeply concerned about the reach that it may ultimately have. you see, under the prevention of significant deterioration provisions within the clean air act, anything found to be a pollutant under one section will be subject to regulation under all other sections of the statute. so what exactly does this mean

3:25:40 to 3:26:00( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: in plain english? the e.p.a.'s decision to regulate carbon dioxide legally covers not only mobile sources but also we tend to think of power plas plants when we think of stationary sources but also think of office buildings, hospitals, schools,

3:26:01 to 3:26:21( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: apartment buildings, go along that line. you've got the right idea here. very clearly, stationary sources must reduce emissions in order to bring our nation to its climate goals. but forcing them to do so through the clean air act would be one of the least and most damaging ways to pursue

3:26:22 to 3:26:43( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: that goal. it would be rife with unintended consuences, and i believe potentially devastating for our economy. you see, under the clean air act, any stationary source that emits more than 250 tons of pollutants each year i subject to regulation. d unlike other pollutants,

3:26:44 to 3:27:05( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: pretty much every form of economic activity generates some level of carbon dioxide emissions. so these add up relatively quickly. in fact, the u.s. chamber of commerce has looked at this very closely. they believe that more than 1.2 million buildings that have never before been regulated

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

Lisa Murkowski: under the clean air act would come under this regulation, if congress does not intervene and if e.p.a. moves forward. the 250-ton threshold would encompass more than just our major emitters. caught in the same net that we're trying to go after the

3:27:28 to 3:27:49( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: major emitters would be establishments like dry cleaners, restaurants, the local barnes & noble bookstore. realistically, we are probably talking about any facility that is heated or cooled by conventional means that's more than 65,000 square feet in size. now, i think there's some very

3:27:50 to 3:28:10( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: grave concerns about the path that the e.p.a. would lead us down. i think that they're apparent. i think others are seeing this as well and are expressing their concerns. just this week i received letters from over 11 different agricultural groups, including the american farm bureau federation.

3:28:11 to 3:28:33( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: i've received letters from the american council of engineering companie, nfib, the national association of manufacturers, and the u.s. chamber of commerce. mr. president, i would ask consent that the letters from these organizations be included as part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. murkowski: thank you.

3:28:34 to 3:28:56( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: now, to its credit, the e.p.a. realized that regulations at the 250-ton level are simply not feasible. so to try and resolve this issue, the agency is apparently considering what they're calling a tailoring proposal. and this would lift the clean air act's regulatory threshold to 25,000 tons.

3:28:57 to 3:29:17( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: that's 100-fold increase. now, i share the agency's concern about a 250-ton carbon dioxide limit. but, mr. president, this 250 -- 250-ton proposal moving up to 25,000-ton proposal -- this tailoring issue -- is simply not going to hold. it has to legal basis.

3:29:18 to 3:29:38( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: i think we expect that it would be swiftly rejected by the courts. the e.p.a. cannot constitutionally ldgconstitutionally legislate a change in the clean air act. the carbon dioxide regulations would remain in effect, but the

3:29:39 to 3:29:59( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: threshold would be triggered at a level 100 times lower than the agency are planned. and this brings us to the tremendous consequences that we can expect as a result. there's widespread agreement that the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions under the clean air act would be absolutely unworkable and at the

3:30:00 to 3:30:20( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: same time economically devastating. in the words of a long-term democrat over in the house, it will create a -- quote -- "glorious mess." another observed that it could result in -- quote -- "one of the largest and most bureaucratic nightmares in the u.s. economy that americans have ever seen."

3:30:21 to 3:30:42( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: just this week the editors of "the washington post" argued that the clean air act is breathtakingly unsuited to the great task of battling global warming. "the wall street journal"'s editors cast it as reckless endangerment. and they went on to assert that the regulation would be like putting a gun to the head of

3:30:43 to 3:31:03( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: congress to play cap-and-trade roulette with the u.s. economy. now, that top, but even some members of the environmental community have agreed with the metaphor. one clean-air advocate affirmed this by saying this regulation is -- quote -- "the legal equivalent of a .44 magnum."

3:31:04 to 3:31:24( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: mr. president, this regulation is a train that could wreck our fragile economy. it is our own creation and barreling towards us at full speed. riently saw an -- i recently saw an ironic motivional poster said: government, if you think

3:31:25 to 3:31:45( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: the problems that we create are bad, wait until you see our solutions. it's fair to say that the regulation of carbon dioxide under the clean air act is one of the many examples of why that poster was created and, sadly, occasionally rings true. today, however, the senate can choose another course debate over energy an climate

3:31:46 to 3:32:06( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: policy. the clean air act is one of our worst options to regulate carbon dioxide emiions, but it is not our own option for that cause. those of us here in congress can and should step up and pass workable, intellectually honest climate legislation.

3:32:07 to 3:32:28( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: whether it's a system of cap-and-trade, a carbon tax or something else, that removes the clean air act from the equation. nearly every participant in this debate, from elected officials to businesses and the environmental community have stated their preference for legislation over regulation. that's where my amendment comes in, mr. president.

3:32:29 to 3:32:49( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: for exactly one year it would limit the e.p.a.'s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions to just the mobile sources that were the subject of the 2007 mismisv.e.p.a. lawsuit. this is nothing more than a temporary timeout that will give

3:32:50 to 3:33:11( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: us breathing room in an already heated debate. it will give us the time that we need to develop a sensible, effective policy that achieves the same result as much lower costs. anyone who -- who takes the time to read my amendment will see that i've gone to great lengths here to ensure that it does not lead to any unintended or

3:33:12 to 3:33:33( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: adverse consequences. it's been drafted -- it's been redrafted to limited one action by the e.p.a. for one year and nothing else. i've been responsive to bipartisan requests, even from members that i knew wouldn't able to support this amendment, because i am committed to avoiding any overreach.

3:33:34 to 3:33:54( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: the result that we have is an amendment that will not interfere or conflict with any regulation or action that e.p.a. is obliged to complete. and that goes for the prep triwork for the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. it holds through for the -- true for the rule to expand renewable standards, construction permits

3:33:55 to 3:34:17( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: and regulations to foster the development of clean coal technologies. my amendment will not in any way impact e.p.a.'s authority relating to the authority of greenhouse gas emissions, its ability to develop a vol teiry carbon offset program, to have infrastructure on or near

3:34:18 to 3:34:38( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: federal land, permit carbon sequestration projects or to move forward with important work for exploring for and producing the vast reserves of domestic energy on our outer continental shelf. all of these concerns have been raised over the past several days before this amendment was even introduced. and all of these concerns are

3:34:39 to 3:35:00( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: explicitly addressed within it. some of our nation's leading clean air act attorneys, among the best and brightest legal minds, have assisted us in this preparation. and they agree that it will do exactly as it says, and that leaves very little ground for the claims that have been made against it. given how devastating the

3:35:01 to 3:35:23( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: e.p.a.'s regulation against carbon dioxide emissions could be, many casual view rs are probably left wondering why -- why exactly my amendment has drawn such -- such fierce opposition. well, again, let me be clear. as much as anything else, the regulation of carbon dioxide under the clean air act is being

3:35:24 to 3:35:46( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: used as a thinly veiled threat to force the senate to act on climate legislation regardless -- regardless of where we are in what remains an ongoing and incredibly important debate. the possibility that our worst option to reduce emissions will move forward despite its consequences is supposed to

3:35:47 to 3:36:08( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: somehow compel us to move faster. we're expected to push through a climate bill, perhaps regardless of its content, in order to stave off thisegulation. if the house debate is any indication of how our own will proceed, we'll be asked to rush judgment, to cut off debate on one of the greatest challenges of our time, and to pass a bill,

3:36:09 to 3:36:31( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: any bill, that purports to reduce emissions. now, in my mind, mr. president, this situation has created a false dilemma of proverbial of morton's fork -- it is like a choice between a rock and hard place here -- but right now those of us here in the senate are left with two bad choices:

3:36:32 to 3:36:53( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: the e.p.a.'s endangerment regulation or the house's energy and climate bill. neither of which i believe will end well for the american people. and making matters worse, we're told there isn't enough time to consider our option and develop a more viable path forward. so by being able to vote on my amendment -- vote yes on my amendment, we could easily

3:36:54 to 3:37:15( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: change this unfortunate dynamic. but we will not halt or hinder progress on climate legislation, as some have suggested. not one -- not one of climate bills that have been introduced so far would take effect until the year 2012. two full years after the limitation that would be imposed -- that my amendment would impose. now, if my amendment were to be

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

Lisa Murkowski: accepted, the e.p.a. will continue its work to regulate emissions from mobile sources. the agency and its employees will go about their business exactly as normal. they can even continue developing regulations for carbon dioxide emissions from stationary sources. they simply can't, for the next year, put those regulations then into effect.

3:37:37 to 3:37:59( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: one year after the bill is signed into law, that limitation would expire and the e.p.a. would he every authority to proceed if congress still has not acted. so for those who have expressed concern that my amendment would become a long-term fixture in appropriations legislations, be assured, i will work with you to

3:38:00 to 3:38:20( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: ensure that the climate debate not only proceeds, but reaches a conclusion in the form of a responsible bill that a majority of us can support. as -- as an elected representative of the state that has been hit hardest by climate change, i will work in good faith. i'll work in good faith with all

3:38:21 to 3:38:44( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: who want to address climate change in an effective way while protecting our fragile economy from further harm. for those who have claimed that i'm trying to put the brakes on climate legislation, i simply remind you of my longstanding support for renewable, fluke lee, and for alternative energy as parts of the solution. there's a right way and there's

3:38:45 to 3:39:05( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: a wrong way to moving forward in addressing climate change. e.p.a. regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is simply the wrong way. we must reduce the emissions, but it's unacceptable to do so at any cost and by any means. and while congress has not yet developed a workable bill, i will continue to work as hard as

3:39:06 to 3:39:27( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: i can to make sure that, in fact, we do. unlike many members of the senate, i've also cosponsored cap-and-trade legislation. i cosponsored the low-carbon economy act offered by senator bingaman, senator specter. this year, recognizing that our work is far from finished,

3:39:28 to 3:39:49( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: senator bingaman and i worked together very cooperatively, very collaboratively, on -- on another comprehensive measure. this was the american clean energy leadership act. and we reported that bill from the energy committee more than three months ago. it would significantly reduce our nation's greenhouse gas emissions without economic harm. and, yet, it's still waiting to

3:39:50 to 3:40:11( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: be heard here on the senate floor. the 23 committee produced a bipartisan energy bill in the first six months of congress. i've got every reason to believe that the full senate can over a time period twice as long develop an effective climate policy that will further reduce emissions without disrupting our

3:40:12 to 3:40:32( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: economy. but that will require us to base our decisions more than on just vote counts and special requests. it will require us to set aside the politics to truly focus on the substance. it will force us to cross the aisle instead of closing ranks. andt will mean acting on

3:40:33 to 3:40:54( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: behalf of the american people in their best interests rather than our own or our party's. mr. president, wi regards to my amendment, the majority has -- has again objected to -- to calling this up. they have done everything they can to prevent a vote from occuring on my amendment

3:40:55 to 3:41:15( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: culminating in the objection that we not even have debate on matter today. but i do want all of my colleagues to know, however, this issue will not go away. and neither will my commitment to seeing it addressed head-on in a responsible and, if at all possible, in a bipartisan way.

3:41:16 to 3:41:36( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: mr. president, i would ask consent that senators barrasso, johanns and chambliss be added as cosponsors to my amendment. and, with that objection, so ordered. ms. murkowski: thank you. a senator: mr.

3:41:37 to 3:41:46( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i know senator boxer, the chairman of the environment and public works committee, has an hour reserved to come to speak.