Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
TO OUR ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE WE
HAVE ADEQUATE PROTECTIONS IN
PLACE.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MORNING
BUSINESS IS CLOSED.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE
SENATE WILL RESUME CONSIDERATION
OF S. 1813, WHICH THE CLERK WILL
REPORT.
CALENDAR NUMBER
311, S. 1813, A BILL TO
REAUTHORIZE FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY
AND HIGHWAY SAFETY CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA IS
MR. PRESIDENT, I'D
LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THE
COMMENTS OF MY FRIEND, THE
SENATOR FROM TEXAS.
ON AN ISSUE THAT WE WILL BE
VOTING ON THIS AFTERNOON I
UNDERSTAND REGARDING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SO-CALLED
KEYSTONE X.L. PIPELINE.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'VE BEEN
SOMEWHAT FRUSTRATED BY THE
DEBATE AROUND THIS ISSUE AND,
UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK WE ARE
GOING TO BE CONFRONTED AGAIN
WITH KIND OF A BIFURCATED CHOICE
HERE THAT DOESN'T GET TO THE
POSSIBILITY OF US ACTUALLY
PUTTING IN PLACE A COMPREHENSIVE
ENERGY POLICY THAT WILL REMOVE
THIS NATION'S DEPENDENCE UPON
FOREIGN OIL, START TO LOOK AT
THE ABILITY OVER THE LONGER HAUL
TO BRING DOWN THE PRICE AT THE
MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE TRULY A PARTICIPANT IN THE
OPPORTUNITIES OF A GLOWING,
MULTIFACETED ENERGY POLICY GOING
FORWARD.
MR. PRESIDENT, I SUPPORT THE
PIPELINE.
I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE
AN ENERGY POLICY THAT HAS AN
ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE APPROACH.
I BELIEVE THERE ARE APPROPRIATE
REGULATORY REVIEWS THAT NEED TO
BE MADE, AND I FRANKLY THINK
THAT ANY CONSTRUCTION OF A
KEYSTONE PIPELINE SHOULD TAKE
INTO CONSIDERATION THE VERY
SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS THAT PARTICULARLY
AFFECT THE STATE OF NEBRASKA,
AND THERE WILL NEED TO BE A
ROUTE FOR THIS PIPELINE THAT
WOULD AVOID THAT POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THIS
PROCESS IS BEING LAID OUT, I
WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR THE
KEYSTONE AMENDMENT TODAY
BECAUSE, BY MAKING THIS A
STRAIGHT UP-OR-DOWN ISSUE
WITHOUT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PUT TOGETHER THE
BEGINNINGS OF AN ENERGY PACKAGE,
WE'RE MISSING OUT ON A GREAT
OPPORTUNITY.
AS I'VE MENTIONED, IF WE ARE
TRULY SERIOUS ABOUT ENERGY
SECURITY AND IF WE ARE TRULY
SERIOUS ABOUT REDUCING OUR
DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL, I
BELIEVE WE NEED AN ENERGY POLICY
THAT HAS AN ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE
APPROACH.
YES, THAT MEANS MORE DOMESTIC
OIL AND GAS, BUT IT MEANS THAT
WHEN WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF
AN ISSUE, CONTROVERSY LIKE THIS
REGARDING KEYSTONE, THAT WE
COULD HAVE TAKEN THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO INCLUDE A
RATIONAL APPROACH, WITH
APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEWS TO GET TO, I BELIEVE, A
POSITIVE ANSWER ON KEYSTONE BUT
ALSO LINK THAT WITH OTHER ENERGY
SENSE.
I KNOW THE PRESIDING OFFICER HAS
GOT IN HIS STATE A NUMBER OF
WIND FACILITIES AND SOLAR
FACILITIES.
UNFORTUNATELY, THOSE AREAS THAT
NEED AS WELL TO BE PART OF OUR
ENERGY MIX, THE TAX TREATMENT
THAT ALLOWS THOSE PROJECTS TO
MOVE FORWARD HAVE BEEN PUT IN
LIMBO BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF
CONGRESS TO EXTEND THE SO-CALLED
TAX PROVISIONS, THE TAX
EXTENDERS, ON A GOING-FORWARD
SO WIND PROJECTS ALL ACROSS THE
COUNTRY -- AS A MATTER OF FACT,
I WAS JUST VISITING WITH SOME
FOLKS RIGHT BEFORE THIS COMING
TO THE FLOOR WHERE THEY HAVE A
VARIETY OF WIND PROJECTS THAT
ARE STOPPED DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS
BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY
WHETHER CONGRESS WILL
ACT.
THE ABILITY TO GET A KEYSTONE
PIPELINE PASSED IN COMBINATION
WITH PASSING AS WELL THE
EXTENSION OF THESE APPROPRIATE
RENEWABLE ENERGY TAX CREDITS, I
THINK, COULD HAVE BUILT THE KIND
OF BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS AROUND
NEEDED.
I ALSO BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE
MOST -- THE LOWEST-HANGING FRUIT
IN TERMS OF HOW WE SAVE AND CAN
HAVE A RATIONAL ENERGY POLICY IN
THIS COUNTRY MEANS A MUCH
GREATER INVOLVEMENT WITH ENERGY
CONSERVATION.
THERE IS A VERY STRONG
BIPARTISAN ENERGY CONSERVATION
BILL -- THE SHAHEEN-PORTMAN BILL
-- THAT COULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED
IN THIS PACKAGE AS WELL.
I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO GET
SERIOUS ABOUT REDUCING OUR
DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL, IF
WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
GIVE THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS A
VISION THAT IN THE FUTURE WE'RE
GOING TO SEE THE ABILITY TO
REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE UPON,
AGAIN, FOREIGN OIL THAT ULTIMATE
ARES-- THAT RESULTS IN HIGHER GAS
PRICES, WE ACTUALLY COULD HAVE
PUT TOGETHER AROUND THIS
KEYSTONE PROPOSAL A TRUE
BIPARTISAN, BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS
THAT WOULD HAVE INCLUDED
CONSTRUCTION OF KEYSTONE WITH
THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEWS, WITH THE MAKING SURE
THAT THOSE KEY AREAS OF NEBRASKA
ARE PROTECTED, INCLUSION OF THE
ENERGY TAX CUTS AND TAX
PROVISIONS THAT WE DO AN ON
ANNUAL BASIS THAT WOULD CONTINUE
TO ALLOW WIND AND SOLAR AND
OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY
CONSTRUCTION AND PRODUCTION TO
CONTINUE IN THIS COUNTRY, AND A
MEANINGFUL ENERGY CONSERVATION
BILL -- THE SHAHEEN-PORTMAN
BILL, A BIPARTISAN BILL.
THOSE THREE POLICIES LINKED
TOGETHER, I BELIEVE, WOULD HAVE
RESULTED IN A VOTE THAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN OVERWHELMINGLY
BIPARTISAN, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
A DEMONSTRATION TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE THAT WE'RE GOING TO KIND
OF GET OUT OF OUR RESPECTIVE
FOXHOLES AND PUT THE BEGINNINGS
OF A TRULY ENERGY COMPREHENSIVE
POLICY IN PLACE.
UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T THINK
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A STRAIGHT
UP-AND-DOWN VOTE ON KEYSTONE
THAT DISMISSES ANY OF THE
APPROPRIATE REVIEW PROCESS, THAT
DOESN'T BRING IN THE ISSUES
AROUND THE SO-CALLED ENERGY TAX
EXTENDERS OR THE CONSERVATION
BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION THAT WAS
PUT TOGETHER BY SENATOR SHAHEEN
AND SENATOR PORTMAN, AND INSTEAD
GETTING A MORE COMPREHENSIVE
VOTE THIS AFTERNOON THAT I
WOULD HAVE PASSED
OVERWHELMINGLY.
WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH ONE
MORE VOTE THAT'S FOR THE MOST
PART GOING TO BREAK DOWN ON
PARTISAN LINES.
SO I'M DISAPPOINTED IN THAT.
I DO BELIEVE THAT WE NEED THE
PIPELINE.
I DO BELIEVE WE NEED MEANINGFUL
ENERGY CONSERVATION LEGISLATION.
I DO BELIEVE WE NEED MEANINGFUL
TAX POLICY THAT PROMOTES
RENEWABLE ENERGIES -- WIND,
SOLAR, BIOMASS.
AND UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE MISSED THE OPPORTUNITY
TODAY TO SEND THAT STRONG SIGNAL
OF A COMPREHENSIVE,
ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE ENERGY POLICY
THAT WOULD MOVE THIS NATION
SO I KNOW MY FRIEND, THE SENATOR
FROM TEXAS, IS NO LONGER HERE.
I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
SUPPORT A PACKAGE THAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN COMPREHENSIVE, THAT
WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE KEYSTONE
EFFORT TO MOVE FORWARD IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THESE OTHER
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
THE YEAR OR ON
A FUTURE DEBATE WE'LL HAVE THE
ABILITY TO COBBLE TOGETHER
SOMETHING THAT INCLUDES MORE OF
AN ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE ENERGY
POLICY AND WE CAN GET AROUND TO
MAKING SURE WE HAVE A NATIONAL
ENERGY POLICY THAT INCLUDES ALL
OF THE ABOVE, AS THERE IS NO
SILVER BULLET ON THIS.
WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO MAKE
SURE WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALL
THE POTENTIAL ENERGY RESOURCES
THAT WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY --
OIL AND GAS, OFFSHORE OIL, WITH
APPROPRIATE REVENUE SHARING FOR
STATES LIKE MINE, VIRGINIA,
NUCLEAR, BUT ENERGY
WELL.
THE SOONER WE GHOAT THAT GET TO THAT KIND
OF DEBATE, THE SOONER WE CAN
BUILD THE KIND OF BIPARTISAN
COALITIONS THAT WILL ALLOW THAT
TO MOVE FORWARD.
WITH THAT, I YIELD THE FLOOR AND
NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
QUORUM CALL:
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
QUORUM CALL.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I NOW CALL UP MY
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1535 WHICH IS
AT THE DESK, AND I ASK THAT IT
BE REPORTED BY NUMBER.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT.
LOUISIANA, MR. VITTER, PROPOSES
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1535.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, AMENDMENT NUMBER
1535, THE VITTER AMENDMENT, IS
SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD,
IMPORTANT ISSUE.
IT GOES TO THE ISSUE OF THE
PRICE OF ENERGY, PARTICULARLY
THE PRICE OF GASOLINE AT THE
PUMP.
AND THIS AMENDMENT WILL BE A
VOTE TODAY, MR. PRESIDENT.
IN FACT, IT WILL BE THE FIRST
VOTE WE TAKE THIS AFTERNOON.
THE AMENDMENT IS VERY SIMPLE.
IT WOULD ALLOW US TO GO BACK TO
THE PREVIOUS LEASE PLAN FOR THE
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF,
REPLACING THE CURRENT OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION LEASE PLAN WHICH
CUTS THAT PREVIOUS PLAN IN HALF,
MOVES US IN THE WRONG DIRECTION
IN TERMS OF PRODUCING OUR
ABUNDANCE OF DOMESTIC ENERGY,
INCLUDING OIL AND NATURAL GAS.
MR. PRESIDENT, EVERYBODY IS
CONCERNED ABOUT THE RISING PRICE
AT THE PUMP.
IT IS ON THE RISE AGAIN.
IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASING.
AND THAT HITS MIDDLE- AND
LOWER-CLASS FAMILIES RIGHT IN
THEIR POCKETBOOK, RIGHT WHERE IT
HURTS.
AND IT'S PARTICULARLY HARMFUL IN
A DOWN ECONOMY.
WE'RE STRUGGLING TO GET OUT OF
THIS PAST RECESSION.
WE'RE TRYING TO MOUNT A
RECOVERY.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE POSITIVE
THINGS HAPPEN.
AND THESE INCREASING PRICES AT
THE PUMP ARE HITTING AT THE
WORST TIME POSSIBLE.
NOW WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?
WELL, THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS
WE CAN DO, BUT CERTAINLY
INCREASING SUPPLY, INCLUDING
DOMESTIC SUPPLY, IS ONE MAJOR
POSITIVE THING WE CAN DO.
88% OF THE PRICE OF AN AVERAGE
GALLON OF GASOLINE IS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE COST OF
CRUDE OIL AND TAXES.
THAT ONLY LEAVES 12% THAT IS
REFINING, MARKETING, AND
DISTRIBUTION.
AND, BY THE WAY, THAT 12% ALSO
INCLUDES THE COMPLYING COST FOR
A HOST OF MANDATES REQUIRED BY
STATUTES AND REGULATION RELATED
TO REFINING, MARKETING AND
DISTRIBUTION.
SO AGAIN, THE HUGE BULK OF THAT
PRICE IS REPRESENTING THE PRICE
OF CRUDE OIL AS WELL AS TAXES.
WELL, I COULD ARGUE FORCEFULLY
PREVENT DATA THAT TAXES ON OIL
AND GAS ARE ACTUALLY TOO HIGH.
BUT I DON'T EXPECT A MAJORITY OF
THIS SENATE TO LISTEN.
SO WHAT WE'RE LEFT WITH AS A WAY
TO IMPACT THOSE RISING PRICES AT
THE PUMP IS TO FIND MORE,
DEVELOP MORE, INCREASE SUPPLY.
AND THAT BRINGS PRICE DOWN
WORLDWIDE.
WE CAN DO THAT STARTING RIGHT
HERE AT HOME.
MR. PRESIDENT, MOST AMERICANS
DON'T REALIZE IT BECAUSE OF
FEDERAL POLICY, BUT THE UNITED
STATES IS THE MOST ENERGY-RICH
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD BAR NONE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL OF OUR
ENERGY RESOURCES, CERTAINLY
INCLUDING OIL AND GAS, THE
UNITED STATES IS THE MOST ENERGY
RICH.
AND WE'RE FAR RICHER, BY A LONG
SHOT, IN TERMS OF THOSE TOTAL
ENERGY RESOURCES THAN ANY MIDDLE
EASTERN COUNTRY LIKE SAUDI
THE ONLY OTHER COUNTRY THAT
COMES CLOSE IS RUSSIA, AND
THEY'RE WELL BEHIND.
BUT THE PROBLEM, MR. PRESIDENT,
IS THAT THE UNITED STATES IS
ALSO THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE
WORLD THAT PUTS ABOUT 90% OF
THOSE RESOURCES OFF LIMITS AND
SAYS NO UNDER CURRENT FEDERAL
LAW, UNDER THE CURRENT OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION LEASE PLAN.
NO TO DRILLING OFF THE EAST
NO TO DRILLING OFF THE WEST
COAST.
NO TO PRODUCTION OF ENERGY IN
THE EASTERN GULF, AT LEAST AS OF
NOW.
NO TO MOST THINGS OFFSHORE
ALASKA.
NO TO ANWR, THE ALASKA NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE.
AND INCREASINGLY THIS
ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO SAY NO
AND WANTS TO PUT UP HURDLES AND
LAND WHERE A LOT OF
ENERGY PRODUCTION IS HAPPENING
BECAUSE OF ENORMOUS SHALE FINDS
AND RELATIVELY NEW TECHNOLOGY.
AND SO, ONE MAJOR THING WE CAN
DO TO AFFECT THE PRICE AT THE
PUMP NE RICE DIRECTION, TO --
PUMP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, TO
LOWER IT, IS TO DEVELOP MORE OF
OUR DOMESTIC ENERGY.
UNFORTUNATELY IN THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS, UNDER PRESIDENT
OBAMA WE'VE BEEN MOVING IN THE
OPPOSITE DIRECTION, AND WE'VE
PRODUCTION.
AND AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE IS THE
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.
THIS FIRST CHART THAT I'LL PUT
UP IS THE LAST LEASE PLAN PRIOR
TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THAT
WAS ACTUALLY BEGINNING TO SAY
YES IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY.
THIS WAS THE RESULT OF THE
OUTCRY FROM THE PUBLIC, THE
APPROPRIATE OUTCRY AFTER THE
SUMMER OF 2008, THE LAST TIME
PRICES AT THE PUMP SPIKED SO
SIGNIFICANTLY.
AND PEOPLE SAID, WAIT A MINUTE,
WHY AREN'T WE PRODUCING MORE AT
HOME AND WASHINGTON FINALLY
RESPONDED TO THAT, AND THROUGH
THIS LEASE PLAN WE WERE SAYING,
YES, MORE AND MORE.
WE'RE SAYING YES, GREEN LINE ON
THE EAST COAST.
YES, DO MORE IN THE GULF.
YES, GREEN LIGHT OFF THE WEST
COAST.
YES, DO MORE IN OFFSHORE ALASKA.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT CAME TO A
SCREECHING HALT UNDER THE OBAMA
ONE OF THE FIRST ENERGY ACTIONS
THIS ADMINISTRATION TOOK,
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR SALAZAR WAS TO VERY
QUICKLY CANCEL THIS LEASE PLAN
ONCE THEY TOOK OFFICE.
THEY SCRAPPED THIS.
THEN THEY STUDIED IT FOR QUITE
AWHILE WITH NO LEASE PLAN IN
SIGHT.
AND FINALLY, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO
THEY ANNOUNCED AND PUT FORWARD
THEIR OWN LEASE PLAN, THE FIRST
UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
A DIFFERENCE AN
ELECTION MAKES.
WHAT A DIFFERENCE A CHANGE IN
ADMINISTRATION MAKES.
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE GREEN
LIGHTS BECAME RED LIGHTS AGAIN.
WE REVERTED TO THE OLD POLICY OF
MORATORIA ON PRODUCTION AGAIN.
AND THE ANSWER AGAIN WAS NO, NO,
NO, NO, NO.
NO OFF THE EAST COAST.
NO FOR NOW IN THE EASTERN GULF.
NO OFFSHORE ALASKA.
NO OFF THE WEST COAST.
NO, NO, NO.
THIS PLAN IS HALF AS MUCH ONLY
PLAN.
SO INSTEAD OF MOVING IN THE
POSITIVE DIRECTION, ACCESSING
MORE OF OUR ENERGY, INCLUDING IN
THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF,
WE'RE BACKING UP.
WE'RE TURNING AROUND.
WE'RE TURNING OUR BACK TO THE
NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
NO.
THIS AMENDMENT, VITTER AMENDMENT
NUMBER 1535, WOULD REVERSE THAT,
WOULD SAY YES, WOULD SAY NO THIS
A GOOD IDEA.
LET'S GO BACK TO THE PRIOR
FIVE-YEAR LEASE PLAN.
LES DEVELOP, EXPLORE, PRODUCE IN
A RESPONSIBLE WAY U.S. ENERGY.
AGAIN, WE ARE THE SINGLE-MOST
ENERGY-RICH COUNTRY IN THE WORLD
BAR NONE.
WE HAVE ENORMOUS RESOURCES,
INCLUDING OFFSHORE, INCLUDING
OIL AND GAS.
BUT WE ARE THE ONLY COUNTRY IN
THE WORLD THAT SAYS NO, NO, NO,
NO, THAT PUTS OVER 90% OF THOSE
RESOURCES OFF LIMITS.
THIS AMENDMENT WILL BEGIN TO
THIS AMENDMENT WILL REVERSE THAT
MISTAKEN POLICY.
AND IN SO DOING, IT WOULD
SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE
SUPPLY OF OIL WHERE WE CAN
HOME.
AND WHEN EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS
THE SAME, YOU INCREASE SUPPLY,
WHAT HAPPENS?
PRICE GOES DOWN.
THAT'S THE FIRST LAW OF
ECONOMICS.
SO LET'S SAY YES.
LET'S SAY YES TO GOOD, RELIABLE
U.S. ENERGY.
LET'S SAY YES TO INCREASED
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE BY DOING
MORE FOR OURSELVES RIGHT HERE AT
HOME.
LET'S SAY YES TO GREAT AMERICAN
JOBS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD PRODUCE AS WELL.
JOBS WHICH BY DEFINITION CAN'T
BE OUTSOURCED.
YOU CAN'T TAKE GOOD U.S. ENERGY
JOBS AND SHIP THEM TO CHINA OR
YOU CAN'T DO THAT BY DEFINITION.
LET'S EVEN SAY YES IN THIS
AMENDMENT TO DEFICIT AND DEFICIT
REDUCTION, BECAUSE THIS
INCREASED ACTIVITY, WHAT DOES IT
IT PRODUCES SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL
REVENUE.
THE FEDERAL REVENUE OR ROYALTY
ON DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION IS
THE SECOND-BIGGEST SOURCE OF
REVENUE TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, SECOND ONLY TO THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
LET'S SAY YES.
LET'S DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE
RISING PRICE AT THE PUMP.
LET'S TAKE CONTROL OF OUR OWN
SUPPORT AMENDMENT NUMBER
AS I SAID, MR. PRESIDENT, I URGE
ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
THIS IMPORTANT AMENDMENT,
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.
IT WILL BE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
VOTE WHICH WE TAKE THIS
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE
SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA IS
GOING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE
VITTER AMENDMENT BECAUSE I THINK
IT IS A HUGE DANGER TO OUR
ECONOMY, AND I WILL EXPLAIN WHY.
AND IT'S A HUGE OVERREACH BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTO THE
ABILITIES OF THE STATES TO
DETERMINE IF THEY WANT A
RECREATION INDUSTRY, IF THEY
WANT A FISHING INDUSTRY, IF THEY
WANT A TOURIST INDUSTRY.
I WILL SPEAK MORE ABOUT IT, BUT
BEFORE I DO THAT, I WANT TO LET
MEME KNOW WHERE WE ARE.
-- I WANT TO LET PEOPLE KNOW
WHERE WE ARE.
THANKS TO THE EXTRAORDINARY
PATIENCE OF OUR MAJORITY LEADER,
HARRY REID, TODAY WE FINALLY
HAVE A PATH FORWARD TO THE
TRANSPORTATION BILL.
AND I WANT TO SAY, NORMALLY I
WOULD NAME LOTS OF OTHER PEOPLE.
YES, WE'VE ALL BEEN INVOLVED.
BUT SENATOR HARRY REID IS
EXTRAORDINARY, AND HE SAT IN HIS
OFFICE LAST NIGHT, 7:00, 8:00,
9:00, 10:00 -- I WAS CALLING
HIM, FINDING OUT WHAT'S
HAPPENING, I WAS CALLING HIS
GREAT STAFF HE HAS, WORKING WITH
MY STAFF AND SENATOR INHOFE'S
STAFF, WHO I HAVE GROWN TO
RESPECT SO MUCH; GIVEN ALL THE
ISSUES THAT ARE FACING YOU WE
OLOGYALL KNEW THAT HAVING A
TRANSPLANTATION BILL IS CRITICAL
-- A TRANSPORTATION BILL IS
CRITICAL.
AND WE DO DEBATE VERY FIERCELY
ON LOTS OF THINGS.
AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT
THIS MORNING.
WHEN IT COMES TO INFRASTRUCTURE,
WE HAVE FOUND COMMON GROUND WITH
FRIENDS.
NOW, I DO WANT TO SAY, THOSE WHO
TUNE IN TO THIS DEBATE TODAY ARE
GOING TO BE A BIT CONFUSED
BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR
DEBATES ON AMENDMENTS THAT
RULELY ARE NOT ABOUT HIGHWAYS,
BRIDGES, ROADS.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR TOO
MUCH ABOUT THAT FOR A WHILE.
WHY IS THAT?
BECAUSE THE NATIONAL IS THE
SENATE.
AND WE TRIED VERY HARD TO LIMIT
THE DEBATE TO RELEVANT
AMENDMENTS, BUT WE WERE THWARTED
A COUPLE OF TIMES.
WE COULDN'T GET THE 60 VOTES,
PRETTY MUCH PART-LINE.
COLLEAGUES WANTED TO HAVE VOTES
ON VERY CONTROVERSIAL
AMENDMENTS, WHICH I DO NOT THINK
ARE GOING IT PASS, BUT WE'LL
FIND OUT.
AND ONE OF THEM IS THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY SENATOR VITTER OF
LOUISIANA.
AND THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
ESSENTIALLY TAKE THE DRILLING
PLAN THAT WAS RELEASED IN THE
LAST FEW DAYS OF THE BUSH
WOULD OPEN UP
FOR DRILLING DRILLING ENTIRE NEW AREAS ON
THE ATLANTIC, PACIFIC, THE
EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO, AND
BRISTOL BAY.
AND THE FACT IS, SINCE THAT PLAN
WAS OFFERED, WE HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE DRILLING
MORE NOW THAN EVER BEFORE.
WE HAVE FOUR TIMES THE NUMBER OF
RIGS OUT THERE.
WE ARE NOW EXPORTING OIL.
NOW, DOES EVERYONE AGREE WE WANT
I WANT MORE OIL.
I WANT IT TO STAY IN AMERICA.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO ENDANGER
ENTIRE ECONOMIES BY SAYING TO
OUR FRIENDS IN THE STATES, UNCLE
SAM SAYS, FORGET ABOUT YOUR
FISHING INDUSTRY, FORGET GO YOUR --
FORGET ABOUT YOUR TOURIST
INDUSTRY, FORGET ABOUT EVERYBODY
WHO DEPENDS ON IT -- I CAN TELL
STATE, TOURISM IS THE
BIGGEST INDUSTRY WE HAVE AND THE
BEAUTY OF OUR STATE AND COAST IS
WHAT DRAWS SO MANY PEOPLE THERE.
SO THIS HEAVY HEAVY-HANDED AMENDMENT
THINK.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO OPEN UP
EVERYTHING.
NOW, IN 2006, THIS BODY PASSED
THE GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY AND
SECURITY ACT, AND I KNOW MY
FRIEND FROM FLORIDA IS ON THE
FLOOR.
THAT ACT OFFERED UP 8.3 MILLION
ACRES FOR DRILLING IN THE
CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF
PLANNING AREAS IN EXCHANGE FOR
PROTECTING FLORIDA'S COAST --
UNTIL 2022.
WE WILL SEE IF THIS WERE TO
PASS.
LEASE SALES, 220 -- LEASE SALE
NUMBER 220 OFF THE COAST OF
VIRGINIA GO FORWARD DESPITE THIS
WILL INTERFERE WITH THE NAVY'S
REGION.
AND THE VITTER AMENDMENT
REQUIRES DRILLING IN BRISTOL
BAY, ONE OF THE WORLD'S RICHEST
FISHING GROUNDS WHICH SUPPORTS A
FISHING INDUSTRY WORTH $2
BILLION A YEAR.
$2 BILLION A YEAR.
NOW, LET'S BE CLEAR, AMERICA.
WE HAVE 2% OF THE WORLD'S PROVEN
OIL SUPPLIES.
AND WE US A WE USE 20% OF THE WORLD'S
ENERGY.
SO YOU CAN'T DRILL YOUR WAY OUT
OF THIS.
WHAT YOU CAN DO, IF YOU VOTE FOR
VITTER, IS MAYBE FEEL THAT
YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING.
BUT YOU ARE DESTROYING WHOLE
AREAS OF OUR NATION THAT ARE SO
DEPENDENT UPON THE BEAUTY OF OUR
COASTLINE.
ON TOP OF IT ALL, THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD WAIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
OF THIS THE ENTIRE PLAN.
NO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
SO NOBODY IN THE COUNTRY WOULD
KNOW WHAT LAY AHEAD.
LOOK, WE DON'T NEED ANYMORE
GIVEAWAYS TO BIG OIL.
RAGING
PROFITSMENT EVEN AT THEPROFITS.EVEN AT THE HEIGHT OF THE
RECESSION, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
AND HERE'S THE POINT: THEY'RE
SITTING ON 50 MILLION ACRES OF
ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE LEASES THAT
THEY HAVE YET TO DRILL UPON.
LET ME REPEAT THAT.
SENATOR VITTER WANTS TO OPEN UP
HUGE SWATHS OF THE COASTLINE TO
BIG OIL COMPANIES WHO ARE MAKING
RECORD PROFITS.
THE PRICE OF GAS IS SOARING.
AND THEY'RE SITTING ON 50
MILLION ACRES OF LAND ONSHORE
AND OFFSHORE LEASES THAT THEY
HAVE YET TO DRILL UPON.
THEY'VE DONE NOTHING WITH MORE
THAN 70% OF THE OFFSHORE ACRES,
AND NEARLY 60% OF THE I DON'TEN I -- OF THE
ONSHORE ACRES ON WHICH THEY
CURRENTLY HOLD LEASES.
SO WHEN THEY HAD A CHANCE TO BID
ON MORE LEASE SALES, THEY ONLY
6% OF THOSE
OFFSHORE ACRES IN 2009 AND 2010,
SO THEY'RE NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE
OF THE LEASES THEY HOLD.
BUT SENATOR VITTER WANTS TO OPEN
UP HUGE SWATHS, WAIVE OWL
ENVIRONMENTAL RE-- WAIVE ALL
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, PUT AT
HISKRISK -- HOW MANY JOBS IN
CALIFORNIA ALONE? -- 400,000
JOBS.
THAT'S LARGER THAN SOME OF OUR
TINY STATES.
WELL, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT
I THINK ONE OF OUR STATES HAS
ABOUT 500,000.
THIS IS 400,000 JOBS, FOLKS.
AND WE HAVE TO BRING -- WE HAVE
TO DEFEAT THIS.
YOU KNOW, IT IS A GREAT BUMPER
STICKER -- DRILL, BABY, DRILL IS
A GREAT BUMPER STICKER.
BUT I COULD WRITE ANOTHER ONE
THAT SAYS "KEEP THE OIL HERE IN
THE OIL.
WE'RE EXPORTING OIL.
AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE OF
COME TO THE
KEYSTONE PIPELINE.
SO HERE'S THE DEAL:
THE VITTER AMENDMENT IS A
GIVEAWAY TO BIG OIL.
THEY MADE A COMBINED $137
BILLION IN PROFITS LAST YEAR.
THE AMERICAN CONSUMER DOESN'T
SEE A DIME OF SAVINGS AT THE
PUP.
-- AT THE PUMP.
IT WOULD DOING DO MOG TO LOWER GAS
PRICE -- IT WOULD DO NOTHING TO
LOWER GAS PRICES.
IT WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO SIT
ON THEIR ASSETS.
THAT'S WHAT I THINK THIS IS
ABOUT.
THEY LIST THEIR ASSETS IN THEIR
YEARLY REPORT TO THEIR
SHAREHOLDERS, AND THOSE ASSETS
HAVE VALUE.
AND SO THEY JUST SHOW THEM YEAR
AFTER YEAR, AND THEY NEVER
DRILL.
SO IN REWARD FOR THAT, WE'RE
GOING TO GIVE THEM EVEN MORE
ASSETS THAT THEY CAN BRAG ABOUT.
I'M GOING TO PUT AGAIN INTO
FACTS WHAT I SAID BEFORE.
PRODUCTION UNDER
PRESIDENT OBAMA IS UP.
THERE'S 1,272 ACTIVE OIL RIGS IN
THE U.S. RIGHT NOW, MORE THAN
FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT IN 2009.
IN 2010, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
13 YEARS, IMPORTED OIL ACCOUNTED
FOR LESS THAN 50% OF THE OIL
CONSUMED IN AMERICA.
NOW, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?
ITS EIGHTIT'S HAPPENING FOR MANY, MANY
DIFFERENT REASONS.
WE ARE DRILLING MORE AND WE'RE
DOING IT IN A SENSIBLE WAY.
NOT DESTROYING AREAS THAT
IMMEDIATE TO BE PROTECTED AND
JOBS THAT NEED TO BE PROTECTED.
BUT IN A WISE WAY, IN THE
REGULAR ORDER, IN THE REGULAR
PROCESS.
BUT ALSO WE'RE DRIVING MORE
FUEL-EFFICIENT VEHICLES, AND
THAT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT,
BECAUSE I ALREADY TOLD YOU, YOU
CAN'T DRILL YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS
MESS WITH ONLY 2% OF THE SUPPLY,
USING 20% OF THE WORLD'S ENERGY.
IT IS A TILT, IT IS A MISMATCH.
SO WE HAVE TO HAVE MORE
FUEL-EFFICIENT CARS.
AND OF COURSE OUR PRESIDENT LED
THE WAY ON THAT, AND DETROIT HAS
REBOUNDED BECAUSE OF THIS
PRESIDENT, AND THOSE IN THIS
SENATE AND HOUSE WHO VOTED TO
ASSURE THAT THEY WOULDN'T GO
BANKRUPT.
SO THE TRUTH IS, THE VITTER
AMENDMENT IS DANGEROUS.
IT'S VERY DANGEROUS.
IF HE WANTED TO COME HERE WITH
AN AMENDMENT THAT HAD ANY CHANCE
OF PASSING, WHY DOESN'T HE GO
AFTER THE SPECULATORS ON WALL
STREET WHO ARE TRIEFG UP DRIVING UP
IT IS CALCULATED THAT CONSUMERS
PAY AN ADDITIONAL $7 TO $15 ON
EACH TANK OF GAS DUE TO OIL
SPECULATION.
SO YOU WANT TO COME HERE AND
REALLY DO SOMETHING THIS WE
COULD ALL SUPPORT, COME HERE
WITH AN AMENDMENT THAT SAYS, THE
OIL COMPANIES SHOULD DRILL ON
THE LANDS THEY ALREADY HAVE
WE ARE VERY
WILLING TO OPEN UP MORE ACRES
THAT MAKE SENSE, WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT OIL WILL
STAY HERE; WE WILL WORK TO STOP
THE SPECULATION ON WALL STREET
THAT'S DRIVING UP PRICES; AND
FRANKLY I THINK IF WE SEE THIS
CONTINUED UPSWING IN PRICES, MY
BELIEF IS WE SHOULD GO TO THE
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE,
WHICH HAS BEEN DONE TIME AND
TIME AGAIN UNDER REPUBLICAN AND
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS, AND WE'VE
SEEN A SALUTORY IMPACT ON GAS
THEY GO DOWN -- AT LEAST ONE
TIME IT WAS 10 CENTS -- I
REMEMBER 10 CENTS A GALLON RIGHT
AND ONE TIME THEY STABLIZED THE
PRICES.
SO WE'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN BEFORE.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A STRATEGIC
SO YOU WANT TO COME WITH A
BALANCED PLAN, TALK ABOUT HOW
THE OIL COMPANIES HAVE LEASES ON
LANDS, HOW WE SUPPORT DRILLING
WHERE IT MAKES SENSE AND IT
DOESN'T PUT PEOPLE OUT OF WORK
IN THE RECREATION AND TOURISM
AND FISHING INDUSTRY, GO AFTER
THE SPECULATION ON WALL STREET,
AND TAP THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM
RESERVE, WHICH IS 97% FULL, IF
IT LOOKS LIKE WE CAN'T GET A
HANDLE ON THESE PRICES.
NOW, THAT'S A PLAN, IN ADDITION
TO WHICH WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO
GIVE TAX CREDITS AND TAX WRITE
DISWROFS THOSE PEOPLE WHO -- AND
TAX WRITE-OFFS TO THOSE PEOPLE
WHO BUY FUEL-EFFICIENT VEHICLES.
AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE AN ADDED
BENEFIT FOR THOSE MADE IN
AMERICA.
SO VITTER SHOULD BE DEFEATED.
IT IS VERY, VERY CONTROVERSIAL.
IT DOESN'T HELP US AT ALL AND IT
WOULD ONLY PAD THE PAYCHECKS OF
THE OIL COMPANIES.
MR. PRESIDENT.
WOULD THE SENATOR
YIELD?
THE
SENIOR SENATOR FROM FLORIDA IS
YES, I WOULD.
I JUST WANT TO
UNDERSCORE THE SENATOR FROM
CALIFORNIA'S STATEMENT WITH
REGARD TO THE OUTER CONTINENTAL
SHELF AND POINT OUT THAT THE
VITTER AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW
DRILLING IN THE ONE PLACE ON THE
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF THAT IS
OFF-LIMITS IN LAW, AND THAT IS
THE GULF OF MEXICO OFF OF
FLORIDA.
AND THE REASON THAT THAT WAS
PASSED IN A BIPARTISAN WAY, WITH
MY COLLEAGUE, SENATOR MEL
MARTINEZ, BACK IN 2005, IS
SEVERAL REASONS.
IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE IS NO
OIL OUT THERE OF ANY APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT.
AND THE SENATOR HAS ALREADY
POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE 50
MILLION ACRES UNDER LEASE THAT
ARE NOT DRILLED.
WELL,ING 30 MILLION OF THOSE
ACRES -- WELL, 30 MILLION OF
THOSE ACRES UNDER LEASE THAT
HAVE NOT BEEN DRILLED ARE IN THE
GULF OF MEXICO, WHERE THE OIL
IS.
IN THE CENTRAL AND WESTERN GULF,
AND THERE'S VERY LITTLE OIL IN
THE EASTERN -- AND GAS IN THE
WHY?
BECAUSE MOTHER NATURE HAD THOSE
SEDIMENTS COMING FOR MILLIONS OF
YEARS DOWN THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER, AND THEN THE EARTH'S
CRUST COMPACTED FOR MILLIONS OF
YEARS AND MADE THAT OIL AND THE
OIL IS WHERE THE SEDIMENTS WERE.
IT'S NOT OUT THERE.
AND THE OIL COMPANIES KNOW THAT,
AND THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE 37
MILLION ACRES UNDER LEASE AND
ONLY 7 MILLION IN THE GULF OF
MEXICO ARE DRILLED, ARE
PRODUCING OF THE 37 MILLION.
NOW, THAT OUGHT TO BE PRY PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF WHY YOU DON'T
NEED TO GO IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
OFF OF FLORIDA.
BUT THERE'S MORE.
DIDN'T WE HAVE SOME LESSONS FROM
THE B.P. OIL SPILL TWO YEARS AGO
OF WHAT HAPPENS TO TOURISM WHEN
OIL COMES UP ON THE BEACH, AND
IT CAME VERY LITTLE ON THE
LORD.
BUT THE TOURISTS THOUGHT THAT
THE BEACHES WERE COVERED UP, AND
SO THAT TOURIST SEASON ON OUR
GULF COAST BEACHES WAS A BUST
ALL THE WAY FROM THE BARACK -- ALL THE
WAY FROM THE ALABAMA-FLORIDA
LINE.
YOU GET DOWN TO CLEARWATER
BEACH, ST. PETERSBURG BEACH, LO
AND BEHOLD, THEY HAD A
DEVASTATING DROPOFF OF TOURISTS
THAT DIDN'T COME TO THOSE HOTELS
AND THOSE RESTAURANTS AND ALL OF
THOSE ANCILLARY BUSINESSES.
AND PART OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN
DOING WITH THE B.P. MONEY IS
MAKE PEOPLE WHOLE FOR
ALL OF THE INCOME THEY LOST.
THAT OUGHT TO BE REASON ENOUGH.
BUT THERE'S ANOTHER REASON.
AND THIS IS WHERE PEOPLE OFTEN
ARE SO SURPRISED WHEN I TELL
THEM, THE GULF OF MEXICO OFF OF
FLORIDA IS THE LARGEST TESTING
AND TRAINING AREA FOR THE UNITED
STATES MILITARY IN THE WORLD.
AND THIS SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
HAS TWO LETTERS FROM TWO
SUCCESSIVE SECRETARIES OF STATE.
BY THE WAY, BOTH REPUBLICAN.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD AND SECRETARY
GATES, THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T PUT
OIL DRILLING AND OIL-RELATED
ACTIVITIES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
OFF OF FLORIDA IN THE TEST AND
TRAINING RANGE, WHICH IN EFFECT
IS THE GULF OF MEXICO OFF OF
FLORIDA.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO BOLSTER
SENATOR'S STATEMENTS ABOUT
WHY WE HAVE GOT TO VOTE THIS
VITTER AMENDMENT DOWN.
I WAS JUST GOING TO
SUGGEST THAT, SENATOR NELSON,
YOU CONTINUE WITH THE TIME
BECAUSE I DON'T NEED ANY MORE
TIME AT THIS POINT.
SO PLEASE CONTINUE.
OKAY, MR. PRESIDENT,
IF I MAY BE RECOGNIZED, I WANT
TO POINT OUT THAT LATER ON
TODAY, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN
AMENDMENT THAT IS BIPARTISAN.
IT IS AN AMENDMENT THAT OF ITS
ORIGINAL BILL FILED, THERE ARE
TEN SENATORS, THREE OF THEM ARE
DEMOCRAT AND SEVEN OF THEM ARE
REPUBLICAN, AND IT'S CALLED THE
RESTORE ACT, AND WHAT IT DOES IS
WHEN THE FINE IS ALLOCATED ON
FIVE MILLION
BARRELS OF OIL THAT THEY WERE
SPILLED, THE FINE ALLOCATED
ACCORDING TO THE WATER POLLUTION
ACT WHICH SAYS THAT A FINE WILL
BE LEVIED UPON ANYONE THAT
SPILLS A BARREL OF OIL IN PUBLIC
WATERS, AND OF COURSE BECAUSE OF
THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF OIL THAT
WERE SPILLED, THIS IS -- COULD
BE A VERY SUBSTANTIAL FINE.
FIVE MILLION BARRELS OF OIL AND
ONCE THAT FINE IS DETERMINED,
THEN THE QUESTION IS HOW IS IT
GOING TO BE ALLOCATED.
WELL, IF -- IF NOTHING IS DONE,
IT GOES INTO THE -- ONLY ABOUT A
BILLION AND A HALF WOULD GO INTO
THE OIL PILL LIABILITY TRUST
FUND, AND THE REST OF IT IS
UNDECLARED.
NATURALLY, WHAT THE GULF
COAST SENATORS WANTED TO DO WAS
TO HAVE SOME OF THAT MONEY TO
COME BACK TO RESTORE THE GULF,
THE CRITTERS, THE WATER AND THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE THE ONES THAT
SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THE B.P.
OIL SPILL.
AND SO WHAT WE HAVE WORKED OUT
IS A FORMULA THAT 20% OF
WHATEVER THE FINE IS WOULD GO
BACK TO THE OIL LIABILITY TRUST
FUND.
THE REMAINING 80% WOULD BE
ALLOCATEED ACCORDING TO A
FORMULA ADVISED BY A NATIONAL
GULF RESTORATION COUNCIL
APPOINTED BY THE STATES AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND IT WOULD
ENVIRONMENT OF
THE GULF WHOLE, GO TO HELP WITH
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE
GULF THAT HAD SUFFERED, AND VERY
CRITICALLY TO THIS SENATOR WOULD
GO TO HELP RESEARCH THE
LONG-TERM HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE
GULF BECAUSE NO TELLING WITH ALL
THAT OIL SLOSHING AROUND OUT
THERE, WE ARE ALREADY SEEING
JUST ENORMOUS EFFECTS AND ARE
GOING TO BE SEEING THAT FOR
YEARS AND YEARS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE TWO
SENATORS -- TWO PROFESSORS DOWN
AT L.S.U. THAT I VISITED WITH
THAT HAVE BEEN DOING RESEARCH ON
A LITTLE FISH THAT ROOTS AROUND
IN THE MARSHES TO GET ITS FOOD.
AND SO THIS LITTLE FISH CALLED
KILLIFISH -- IT'S ABOUT THE SIZE
SILVER DOLLAR -- THAT
LITTLE FISH THEY TOOK AND TOOK
SLICES OF ITS GILLS, PUT IT
UNDER A MICROSCOPE, AND HAVE
SHOWN DRAMATIC RESULTS OF THE
FISH THAT LIVE IN THE MARSHES
WHERE THE OIL PENETRATE IT, SUCH
AS THE BAY WHERE IT'S ALL MIXED
UP IN THE SEDIMENT AND THEN
TAKING SAMPLES OF THE KILLIFISH
THAT CAME FROM THE MARSHES WHERE
NOT MUCH OIL HIT.
AND THE DRAMATIC RESULT SHOWS
THAT THESE LITTLE FISH DON'T
THE ONES THAT ARE THERE ARE
STUNTED IN THEIR GROWTH.
THEY HAVE ALL KINDS OF
ABERRATIONS IN THEIR ACTUAL
THIS
SPELLS BAD NEWS FOR THE FUTURE
OF THE GULF.
AND SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AS
ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
TRANSPORTATION BILL, IT'S ABOUT
FIVE DOWN ON THE LIST.
HOPEFULLY WE WILL VOTE ON IT
THIS AFTERNOON, WITH SEVEN
REPUBLICAN SENATORS BEING THE
SPONSORS OF THE ORIGINAL
LEGISLATION.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THIS UP,
AND I PLEAD WITH THE SENATORS IF
YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT YOU DON'T
WANT ALL OF THIS MONEY THAT IS
BEING FINED AS A RESULT OF THE
SPILL IN THE GULF, THINK WANT IT
TO GO ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTRY,
I PLEAD FOR YOU TO RECOGNIZE IF
YOU WERE IN OUR SHOES WHAT YOU
WOULD WANT.
THAT YOU WANT
SOME OF THE MONEY, THERE IS,
BECAUSE WE HAD TO GET A PAY-FOR
AND THE PAY-FOR IS A -- IT'S NOT
CONTROVERSIAL, AND YET IT
PRODUCES ABOUT A BILLION AND A
HALF DOLLARS ADDITIONAL THAT CAN
GO TO THE LAND AND WATER
THE PAY-FOR IS SOMETHING THAT
THE SENATE HAS EXTENDED EVERY
YEAR A PORTION THAT WAS PASSED
BACK IN 2004 HAVING TO DO WITH
THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION, A
VERY COMPLICATED THING, AND EACH
YEAR THE SENATE HAS PUT THAT IN
ABEYANCE FOR ANOTHER YEAR.
THAT'S OUR PAY-FOR.
TO PUT IT IN ABEYANCE FOR THE
NINTH YEAR OF THE TEN YEARS THAT
THIS PROVISION WAS TO BE IN
EFFECT, AND WHAT IT DOES, IT
PRODUCES ABOUT A BILLION AND A
HALF DOLLARS FOR THE LAND AND
WATER CONSERVATION FUND SO THAT
IT WILL HAVE AN EFFECT FOR THOSE
CONCERNED OUTSIDE OF THE AREA OF
THE GULF OF MEXICO.
NOW, AS YOU KNOW, THE DEEP WATER
HORIZON OIL SPILL WAS RIGHT AT
FIVE MILLION BARRELS.
IT COATED THE BEACHES.
IT SEEPED INTO THE WETLANDS.
IT KEPT FISHERMEN AT THE DOCK
DURING ONE OF THE BUSIEST
FISHING SEASONS.
IT KILLED WILDLIFE.
IT KEPT THE TOURISTS AWAY FROM
THE GULF.
THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS ARE NOT
KNOWN BECAUSE THERE IS STILL A
LOT OF OIL DOWN THERE AT
5,000 FEET ON THE FLOOR OF THE
GULF OF MEXICO.
THE FISH AND THE WILDLIFE THAT
IMMEDIATELY KILLED ARE
SHOWING THE SIGNS OF DAMAGE AS I
HAVE INDICATED WITH KILLIFISH.
AND THE GULF RESIDENTS AND THE
COMMUNITIES CONTINUE TO SUFFER.
IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE
TODAY, WE HAVE A CHANCE TO TAKE
A STEP TO MAKE THE GULF COAST
WHOLE AGAIN.
AND A SIGN OF -- IN A SIGN OF
SOLIDARITY FOR THE GULF, OF THE
FIVE GULF COAST STATES THAT
COLLECTIVELY HAVE TWO DEMOCRATIC
SENATORS AND EIGHT REPUBLICAN
SENATORS, ALL BUT ONE SENATOR OF
THOSE FIVE STATES SIGNED AS A
SPONSOR OF THE BILL.
IT'S BIPARTISAN.
THIS COMMONSENSE LEGISLATION,
IT'S SUPPORTED BY SO MANY PEOPLE
STUFF.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS,
SPORTSMEN, CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE,
ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS, LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY, AND SO TODAY'S VOTE
IS GOING TO BE A HUGE STEP
TOWARD MAKING SURE THAT THE FINE
THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPOSED UPON
B.P., HOWEVER MUCH IT IS, ENDS
UP IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES THAT
WILL HARM BY B.P.'S OIL SPILL.
OTHERWISE, THE MONEY IS GOING TO
END UP IN THE FEDERAL TREASURY,
AND THERE IS NO TELLING THEN
WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE SPENT.
SO THE RESTORE ACT AMENDMENT
PROVIDES FUNDING TO EACH GULF
STATE FOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
IT ALSO CREATES A FEDERAL-STATE
COUNCIL RESPONSIBLE FOR
DEVELOPING AND EXECUTING A
HOLISTIC PLAN TO INCREASE THE
RESILIENCY OF THE GULF
ECOSYSTEM.
YOU'VE SEEN WHY WERE DOLPHINS,
WHY WERE BABY DOLPHINS DYING?
WE DON'T KNOW, IN RECORD
WE'VE GOT TO FIND OUT, AND WE
HAVE GOT TO TEST THESE RESULTS
FOR YEARS TO COME.
THE AMENDMENT IS ALSO GOING TO
ENSURE THAT EACH GULF STATE
WOULD COME UP WITH A STATE PLAN
THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE
FEDERAL-STATE COUNCIL PLAN.
AND FINALLY, THIS BILL SETS
ASIDE FUNDING FOR SCIENCE,
SPECIFICALLY DEDICATING FUNDING
FOR DATA COLLECTION FOR OUR
WILDLIFE, FOR
LONG-TERM OBSERVATION AND
MONITORING AND SETS UP CENTERS
OF EXCELLENCE TO CARRY OUT
RESEARCH ON THE GULF FOR YEARS
TO COME.
BUT THERE'S ALSO A NATIONAL
COMPONENT TO THIS BILL.
IT CREATES AND SETS ASIDE THE
FUNDING FOR AN ENDOWMENT FOR THE
OCEANS.
AN ENDOWMENT FOR THE GREAT
LAKES, SO THAT IN ADDITION TO
RESTORING THE GULF WHERE THE
HARM OCCURRED, WE CAN BETTER
PROTECT ALL OF OUR COASTS FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL HARM, AND IT
PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS
IN THE LAND AND WATER
CONSERVATION FUND WHICH I
MENTIONED WHICH PROTECTS AND
CONSERVES LAND IN EACH AND EVERY
STATE IN THIS UNION.
I BELIEVE THAT OUR PEOPLE, THE
AMERICA, DESERVE A
HEALTHY AND PRODUCTIVE GULF, AND
THE CIVIL FINES THAT ARE GOING
TO BE ASSESSED TO B.P. ARE A
PLACE THAT CAN ENSURE THAT.
I'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH MY
COLLEAGUES A VISION FOR A
RESTORED GULF OF MEXICO.
ONE OF THE LESSONS THAT WE
LEARNED AND WE LEARNED IT TOO
LATE IS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE
SUFFICIENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE
GULF ECOSYSTEM.
WE KNOW THAT ONE-THIRD OF OUR
DOMESTIC SEAFOOD COMES FROM THE
GULF WATERS.
BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE A CLEAR
PICTURE ON THE BIOLOGICAL STATUS
OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE FEDERALLY
MANAGED FISH STOCKS THAT CALL
THE GULF HOME, SO IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT SOME OF THESE FINES GO
TOWARD DEDICATEED LONG-TERM
SCIENCE ABOUT THE GULF
THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS
THAT I WANTED TO GET INTO THE
RESTORE ACT BECAUSE OF THE
OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
LONG TERM IN THE FUTURE.
A RESTORED GULF IS ONE IN WHICH
CLEAN WATER THAT'S FREE FROM
ALGAE BLOOMS AND FREE FROM TAR
BALLS IS HOME TO OYSTER REEFS
AND FISH HABITAT AND SEAGRASS
BEDS, WHERE CHARTERS FERRY
TOURISTS FROM HOTELS TO PRISTINE
BEACHES AND THEN ON OUT TO THE
PRODUCTIVE FISHING SPOTS AND AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE RESTORATION
IS TO SHORE UP THE COASTAL
COMMUNITIES THAT WERE HARDEST
HIT BY THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF
THE OIL SPILL, AND IT'S GOING TO
TAKE A SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT TO
ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE
SENATE, THE GULF CANNOT WAIT.
THE
RIGID PARTISANSHIP THAT
SOMETIMES HAS GRIDLOCKED THIS
BODY HAS GIVEN WAY TO A SPIRIT
OF STRONG COLLABORATION AND
BIPARTISANSHIP IN THIS SENATE
WHEN IT COMES TO THE RESTORE
ACT.
I WANT TO THANK ALL THE
COSPONSORS OF THE AMENDMENT,
AND THE COSPONSORS OF THE
RESTORE ACT.
AND I WOULD URGE, I WOULD PLEAD
WITH OUR COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
THIS AMENDMENT.
IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR
THE GULF, IT'S THE RIGHT THING
TO DO FOR THE COUNTRY.
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
JUST ONE SECOND.
I'LL MAKE -- I CALL UP MY
AMENDMENT 1822 WHICH IS AT THE
DESK AND ASK THAT IT BE REPORTED
BY NUMBER.
THE CLERK
WILL REPORT.
THE SENATOR FROM
FLORIDA, MR. NELSON FOR HIMSELF
AND OTHERS PROPOSES AMENDMENT
1822.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE
SENATOR FROM MAINE IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
CALL UP MY AMENDMENT, NUMBER
1660, WHICH IS AT THE DESK AND
NUMBER.
THE CLERK
WILL REPORT.
THE SENATOR FROM
MAINE, MS. COLLINS FORCE
HERSELF AND OTHERS PROPOSES
ANSWER AMENDMENT NUMBERED 1660.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE TODAY TO
OFFER THE REGULATORY RELIEF ACT
WHICH IS AMENDMENT 1660 TO THE
HIGHWAY REAUTHORIZATION BILL.
I'M VERY PLEASED TO HAVE SENATOR
ALEXANDER, SENATOR PRYOR,
SENATOR TOOMEY, SENATOR
LANDRIEU, AND SENATOR
McCASKILL JOINING ME AS
COSPONSORS OF THIS AMENDMENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, LAST YEAR I
INTRODUCED THE LEGISLATION VERY
SIMILAR TO THIS AMENDMENT TO
PROVIDE THE E.P.A. WITH THE TIME
THAT THE AGENCY ITSELF SAYS THAT
IT NEEDED TO REWRITE THE
PROPOSED BOILER MACT RULES, TO
BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST
MANUFACTURING JOBS.
THE LEGISLATION HAD THE SUPPORT
OF 41 OF MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH
SIDES OF THE AISLE, AND AN
IDENTICAL BILL, NEARLY
IDENTICAL BILL, PASSED THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH
BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THIS
FALL.
THE E.P.A. REGULATORY RELIEF ACT
IS STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT WILL HELP ENSURE THAT THE
FINAL BOILER MACT REGULATIONS
WILL BE ACHIEVABLE AND
AFFORDABLE, AND THAT
MANUFACTURERS WILL HAVE ADEQUATE
TO BRING THEIR FACILITIES
INTO COMPLIANCE, THUS
PRESERVING JOBS.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE HEAR OVER AND
OVER AGAIN THAT THE TOP PRIORITY
OF THE SENATE SHOULD BE TO
CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE JOBS
ARE CREATED AND PRESERVED.
WELL, THIS, MR. PRESIDENT, THIS
AMENDMENT IS ALL ABOUT SAVING
JOBS.
SINCE THE E.P.A. PROPOSED THESE
NEW BOILER MACT REGULATIONS IN
APRIL OF 2010, THERE HAS BEEN
WIDESPREAD BIPARTISAN ALARM OVER
THE COST OF THE IMPLEMENTATION
AND POTENTIAL JOB LOSSES.
IT HAS BEEN OUR SHARED GOAL TO
ENSURE THAT THE FINAL RULES
CRAFTED BY THE E.P.A. PROTECT
PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT WHILE PREVENTING THE
THOUSANDS OF JOBS THAT
WE CAN ILL AFFORD TO LOSE.
ENACTMENT OF THIS LEGISLATION IS
NECESSARY TO PROTECT AND TO GROW
AMERICA'S MANUFACTURING WORK
FORCE.
THIS IS ALL ABOUT JOBS.
WE HAVE URGED THE E.P.A. TO SET
A EMISSION STANDARDS BASED ON
REAL-WORLD CAPABILITIES OF THE
BEST-PERFORMING BOILERS
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
AFTER ALL, THAT'S WHAT BOILER
MACT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ALL
ABOUT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE E.P.A. DID
NOT BEGIN ITS RULE MAKING WITH
THAT GOAL IN MIND, AND THE
CONSEQUENCES ARE SO SERIOUS,
THE FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY IS
THE LIFE BLOOD OF MANY SMALL,
RURAL COMMUNITIES IN MY STATE OF
MAINE AND MANY OTHERS.
I WAS THEREFORE, AND REMAIN
ALARMED BY A STUDY COMMISSIONED
BY THE AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER
ASSOCIATION WHICH FOUND THAT
IMPLEMENTING THE E.P.A. RULES AS
ORIGINALLY DRAFTED COULD CAUSE
36 PULP AND PAPER MILLS AROUND
THE COUNTRY TO CLOSE, PUTTING
MORE THAN 20,000 AMERICANS OUT
OF WORK.
THAT IS 18% OF THE WORK FORCE IN
JUST THIS ONE MANUFACTURING
SECTOR.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, YOU MAY
HAVE HEARD THAT THE E.P.A. HAS
REVISED ITS RULES, AND IT HAS.
BUT DESPITE THESE REVISIONS,
THE BOILER MACT RULES REMAIN AN
ISSUE OF GREAT CONCERN TO
MANUFACTURERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
AND TO MANY OF MY CONSTITUENTS.
WITH THE RECONSIDERATION PROCESS
THE E.P.A. HAS TAKEN SOME
STEPS, BUT THEY ARE NOT
EVEN CLOSE TO SUFFICIENT.
THE AGENCY'S REPROPOSED RULES
STILL DO NOT ADDRESS THE SERIOUS
AND REAL THREAT TO FACTORIES AND
MILLS THAT WILL BE MOST DIRECTLY
AFFECTED.
THE REVISED RULES, THE REVISED
RULES, MR. PRESIDENT, ARE STILL
ESTIMATED TO COST BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS AND THOUSANDS OF JOBS.
REGIONS ACROSS THIS NATION
ALREADY STRUGGLING WITH THE
DECLINE IN MANUFACTURING WOULD
BE THE HARDEST HIT.
FURTHERMORE, A RECENT COURT
RULING HAS CREATED EVEN MORE
UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION, AND
HAS INCREASED THE PRESSURE ON
E.P.A. TO JUST RUSH THROUGH
THESE RULES WITHOUT CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION IS NEEDED TO
ENSURE ACHIEVABLE AND AFFORDABLE
RULES TO ALLOW ADEQUATE
COMPLIANCE TIME, AND TO REDUCE
THE RISK TO INDUSTRIES POSED BY
THE PENDING LEGISLATION WHICH
HAS CREATED SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY
THAT MANUFACTURERS ARE TELLING
ME THEY ARE PUTTING ANY JOB
EXPANSIONS ON HOLD.
ENACTMENT OF THE E.P.A.
REGULATORY RELIEF ACT REMAINS
THE BEST WAY TO PROVIDE THE
NEED, TO PROVIDE THE TIME THAT
THE E.P.A. ITSELF SAYS IS NEEDED
TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT BOILER
MACT RULES THAT WILL DELIVER THE
INTENDED BENEFITS TO PUBLIC
HEALTH AND OUR ENVIRONMENT
WITHOUT DEVASTATING OUR ECONOMY.
THERE'S NO NEED FOR A CHOICE
HERE.
IT'S NOT THE ENVIRONMENT VERSUS
JOBS.
WITH CAREFULLY CRAFTED
REGULATIONS, WE CAN PROTECT THE
PRESERVE JOBS.
THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS THAT
REINFORCE THE CONTINUING NEED
FOR THIS LEGISLATION.
FIRST, THE OVERALL CAPITAL
COSTS TO MANUFACTURERS OF THE
BOILER MACT RULES REMAIN A
STAGGERING $14 BILLION AND
THREATEN MORE THAN 200,000
CRITICALLY NEEDED GOOD JOBS.
THINK ABOUT THAT, MR. PRESIDENT.
THE REVISED RULES HAVE AN
ESTIMATED COST OF $14 BILLION
AND 200,000 JOBS THAT WOULD BE
LOST.
SECOND, FOLLOWING THE JANUARY 9
COURT DECISION THAT OVERTURNED
THE E.P.A.'S STAY OF THE MARCH
MARCH 2011 RULES -- AND THIS
WAS THE STAY THAT THE E.P.A.,
TO ITS CREDIT, REQUESTED, BUT,
WAS DENIED --
BUSINESSES ARE FACING SERIOUS
AND ONGOING LEGAL AND REGULATORY
UNCERTAINTY.
THIRD, THE REVISED RULES STILL
DO NOT ALLOW COMPANIES ADEQUATE
TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW
STANDARDS AND INSTALL THE
REQUIRED EQUIPMENT.
FOURTH, IMPORTANT BIOMASS
MATERIALS ARE STILL NOT LISTED
AS FUELS.
THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.
WE'RE TRYING TO REDUCE THE USE
OF FOSSIL FUELS.
WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING THE USE
OF BIOMASS IN BOILERS.
AND, IN FACT, THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY IS DOING JUST THAT WHILE
THE E.P.A. IS DOING THE OPPOSITE
THROUGH THESE RULES.
IT MAKES NO SENSE TO FORCE MILLS
WHILE
LANDFILLING RENEWABLE BIOMASS
MATERIALS.
THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
FINALLY, THE E.P.A.'S CURRENT
SCHEDULE FOR FINALIZING THE
RULES IS INADEQUATE FOR FULLY
ANALYZING THE COMMENTS AND DATA
THAT WILL BE RECEIVED DURING THE
COMMENT PERIOD.
THAT.
THAT'S WHY IT ASKED FOR THE
STAY.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD ASK
OF MY COLLEAGUES, DO NOT BE
DECEIVED BY THE E.P.A.'S HOLLOW
PROMISES THAT SOMEHOW, SOME WAY
EVERYTHING WILL BE FIXED AND
THAT WE NO LONGER -- OR THAT WE
DON'T NEED THIS LEGISLATION.
THE FACT IS THAT THE E.P.A.
REGULATIONS ARE A MOVING TARGET.
WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY ULTIMATELY
WILL PROPOSE?
THE BIOMASS BOILERS, SOME OF
THE MATERIALS ARE STILL BEING
CONSIDERED AS SOLID WASTE AND
TREATED AS AN AN INCINERATOR
WITH FAR MORE COSTLY AND ONEROUS
REGULATIONS.
BIOMASS.
BUT THEN AGAIN, THIS IS THE
SAME E.P.A. THAT INITIALLY
PROPOSED THAT WE NO LONGER TREAT
BIOMASS AND WOOD AS CARBON
NEUTRAL, OVERTURNING YEARS OF
TREATING WOOD AS CARBON NEUTRAL.
THAT MADE NO SENSE, EITHER.
UNDER TREMENDOUS PRESSURE THE
E.P.A. FINALLY BACKED OFF ON
THAT FOR THREE YEARS.
BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING
TO HAPPEN.
NOW, LET ME SAY,
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT THE E.P.A.
DOES PERFORM SOME VITAL
FUNCTIONS IN HELPING TO PROTECT
PUBLIC HEALTH BY ENSURING THAT
AIR WE BREATHE IS CLEAN AND
THE WATER WE DRINK IS SAFE.
AND I'VE OPPOSED MANY ATTEMPTS
TO DELAY OR OVERTURN E.P.A.
BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT AS
THE E.P.A. ISSUES NEW
REGULATIONS, IT DOES NOT CREATE
SO MANY ROADBLOCKS TO ECONOMIC
GROWTH THAT IT DISCOURAGES
PRIVATE INVESTMENT, WHICH IS
THE KEY TO MAINTAINING AND
CREATING JOBS.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT E.P.A.
BOTH PROTECTS THE ENVIRONMENT
AND PROTECTS OUR ECONOMY, AND
DOES NOT IMPOSE BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS OF NEW COSTS ON
MANUFACTURERS, LEADING TO AN
ESTIMATED LOSS OF HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF JOBS IN
MANUFACTURING AT A TIME WHEN OUR
LEAST AFFORD IT,
AND WHEN THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE SHOULD
NOT BE BOILER MACT REGULATIONS.
I'M SAYING WE NEED MORE TIME FOR
E.P.A. TO GET IT RIGHT, TO WORK
WITH INDUSTRY, TO GET REAL-LIFE
EMISSION STANDARDS.
I'M SAYING THAT WE NEED MORE
TIME FOR COMPLIANCE SO THAT
WE'RE NOT IMPOSING THESE HUGE
COSTS AT A TIME WHEN OUR
MANUFACTURERS ARE STRUGGLING AND
THUS JEOPARDIZING JOBS.
MR. PRESIDENT, A COALITION OF
380 COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
ORGANIZATIONS -- I DON'T THINK
I'VE EVER OFFERED AN AMENDMENT
WITH MORE SUPPORT AND WHICH HAS
SO MANY COMPANIES SO UPSET ABOUT
DO TO THE
MUCH-NEEDED JOBS THAT THEY'RE
PROVIDING, ENDORSING A
PROPOSAL.
380 COMPANIES AND
ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES, THE
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MANUFACTURERS, AND THE AMERICAN
FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION.
THOSE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE
380, HAVE CALLED FOR PASSAGE OF
MY AMENDMENT.
THE MEMBERS OF THIS COALITION
ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH
E.P.A., TO BEING GOOD STEWARDS
AND TO SUPPORTING THE
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF ACHIEVABLE BOILER MACT
RULES, NOT RULES THAT DON'T
CLASSIFY BIOMASS, THAT FORCE
PEOPLE TO USE FOSSIL FUELS
INSTEAD OF BIOMASS.
IS THAT GOOD FOR OUR
ENVIRONMENT?
IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE E.P.A.
PRODUCE FINAL RULES THAT ARE
GUIDED BY THE SAME COMMITMENT.
THE E.P.A. IS MAKING PROGRESS IN
REDUCING THE COSTS AND COMING UP
WITH A MORE PRACTICAL APPROACH
TO THE BOILER MAC.
BUT WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THEY
ARE GOING TO END UP.
THEY ARE A MOVING TARGET, AND WE
HAVE HAD PROMISES NOT FULFILLED
BY THE E.P.A. BEFORE.
I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE
THE HEALTH BENEFITS THAT WE ALL
DESIRE, AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING
TO HEAR ON THE FLOOR THAT
SOMEHOW I'M TRYING TO HARM
CHILDREN OR DELAY HEALTH
BENEFITS, AND THAT'S NOT TRUE,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I'M TRYING TO ALLOW THE TIME
THAT THE E.P.A. ITSELF SAYS IS
GET THIS RIGHT.
WE CAN ACHIEVE HEALTH BENEFITS
THAT WE DESIRE WITHOUT PUTTING
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE OUT OF WORK
AND STIFLING THE ECONOMIC
RECOVERY.
THE BIPARTISAN AMENDMENT THAT IS
BEFORE US WILL HELP ENSURE THAT
RESULT, AND I URGE MY COLLEAGUES
TO JOIN ME IN SUPPORTING THIS
COMMONSENSE AMENDMENT TO
PRESERVE JOBS AND STRENGTHEN OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT.
THE
SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. PRESIDENT, JUST
FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING
THIS DEBATE, WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT A TRANSPORTATION BILL.