Clean Energy Act of 2009

Madam President, this is a very important debate. The Murkowski resolution we are considering today would overturn the endangerment finding developed by scientists and health experts in both the Bush and Obama administrations that too much carbon pollution in the air is dangerous--dangerous for our families, dangerous for our environment. Imagine, 100 Senators--not scientists, not health experts--deciding what pollutant is dangerous and what pollutant is not. Personally, I believe it is ridiculous for politicians, elected Senators, to make this scientific decision. It is not our expertise; it is not our purview.

The Murkowski resolution threatens jobs, jobs that we need, that are made in America for America.

Our hearts break every day that we look at what is happening in the Gulf. It seems to me more than ironic that Senator Murkowski is advocating repealing the scientific finding that too much carbon pollution in the air is dangerous, at the same time every American sees graphic evidence on television every single day of the deadly carbon pollution in the Gulf of Mexico.

We see here in the saddest pictures what too much carbon-based pollution does in water, what it does to our shorelines, what it does to our beaches, what it does to our wetlands. I will show a couple of other photographs. They are almost too painful.

But what we do here has consequences. And for someone to come to this floor and say too much carbon is not dangerous, then I am sorry, we are going to have to look at these pictures even though we do not want to. We know the devastation this causes. Our eyes do not deceive us.

This horrific spill in the gulf has disrupted the lives of hundreds of thousands of people employed by fishing industries, tourism industries, recreation industries along the gulf coast. So, yes, this resolution, this Murkowski resolution, is about jobs.

Yesterday, Madam President, in your committee on which you serve--and I am so proud to have you as a member of the committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee--we heard from Captain Michael Frenette. He owns the Redfish Lodge in Venice, LA. He shared with us the terrible pain, both personal and economic, that the people of the gulf region are living through.

This is what he said:

The possibility truly exists for many livelihoods to cease;

livelihoods that have existed for generations and now are on

the brink of financial disaster because of poor decisions by

a supercorporate entity that has created the worst oilspill

in history off the coast of Louisiana.

This spill is threatening the $18 billion in economic activity generated by fishing, tourism, and recreation on the gulf coast. The economic damage in the gulf could last for years to come, although we will, of course, do everything in our power to mitigate that damage.

I want to show you the pictures of the unspoiled California coastline and talk a moment about our coastal economy. Ever since I have been elected to public life--I was a county official, then a House Member, and then the

greatest privilege of all, to serve in this body--I have fought to protect our coasts. I have fought to protect our coasts because I believe they are a gift from God. I believe it is our responsibility to protect that gift and to leave that gift for future generations. I have fought to protect that coast and I have fought to protect those businesses, the businesses that depend on it.

There are so many other beautiful areas such as this along our Pacific coastline--spectacular rocky islands, sandy beaches, estuaries. We must preserve these treasures.

Now $23 billion is the economic activity that supports 388,000 jobs off the coast in California. In my home State, our 19 coastal counties account for 86 percent of the State's annual activity, for more than $1 trillion. We must move to clean energy, to protect our environment, to protect our jobs. We have to move away from the old ways.

No one can tell the American people that carbon is not a danger, because they have seen it every day of this spill. To say there is no danger, and that is what we would be saying today, is absolutely contrary to everything people are seeing every day, and do it for big oil. That is what this is about. Big oil backs the Murkowski resolution.

So whose side are we on? Are we on the side of the people? Are we on the side of clean energy jobs? Are we on the side of the lobbyists and special interests that are behind this resolution?

How does the Murkowski resolution threaten clean energy jobs? We know that to move forward with smart regulation of this pollutant, you have to have the endangerment finding. It is the predicate for moving forward. Therefore, it is the predicate for the incentives that will come for clean energy technology.

We must transition away from those old polluting sources of energy. We must look toward the future with optimism. And, again, all you have to do is look at the gulf. That is the irony of the timing of this Murkowski resolution.

I think when the timing was set, it was before the gulf spill. But the gulf spill tells us why the Murkowski resolution is so wrong. To repeal an endangerment finding, straightforward, made by health experts in the Bush administration, scientists in the Bush administration, health experts in the Obama administration, scientists in the Obama administration, for 100 elected people, with no expertise to say, we know more than the scientists in the Bush and Obama administrations, we know more than the health experts in the Bush and Obama administrations is the height of hubris. It is wrong. I know we all feel that we have powerful positions here. We have no right to do this. What is next? What are we going to do next, repeal the laws of gravity? If we start down this path, there is no end in sight. Any Senator can decide that she or he knows more than the scientists. Maybe we will say the Earth is flat and come down here and argue that one too.

Everyone knows we are not going to move away from the old energies overnight. We need to work together to make sure we do it right. But we need to move, move toward a clean energy economy, and the good jobs that come with it. This will set us back on purpose. On purpose. Because the very people who are bringing you this have not come forward with any bill to move us away from these old energies. They are stopping us from doing it. They admit it.

Let's hear what John Doerr, who is one of the leading venture capitalists in this country and in the world--he helped launch Google, he helped launch Amazon. He tells me that more private capital moves through the economy in a day than all of the governments of the world in a year. This is where we are going to get the stimulus money to grow jobs.

He told us that clean energy legislation is the spark we need to restore America's leadership. He predicted that the investments that flow into clean energy would dwarf the amount invested in high-tech and biotech combined.

Mr. Doerr said:

Going green may be the largest economic opportunity of the

21st century. It is the mother of all markets.

We can either believe the oil lobbyists or we can believe the people on the ground who have shown that they know where the economic opportunities are. If we go this route, and we repeal this endangerment finding, you are moving away from clean energy. You are moving away from these opportunities. You are moving away from these technologies that will be made in America for America and, frankly, the technologies the whole world wants.

A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trust found that 125,000 jobs were generated during the period of 1998 to 2007 in my home State. Those jobs, those clean energy jobs, were generated 15 percent faster than the economy as a whole, and 10,000 new clean energy businesses were launched in that period. So when we look back at California, what do we see? We see the greatest area of job growth and new businesses is clean energy. What a tragedy. If we pass this today, and it were to become law--which I doubt, but it could, and that is its purpose--we would completely walk away from America's leadership in clean technology, turning our backs on the leading venture capitalists in our Nation who are telling us, do not do this.

Nationwide, Pew found that jobs in the clean energy economy grew much faster than traditional jobs. Clean energy jobs grew at a national rate of 9.1 percent, compared to 3.7 percent for traditional jobs between 1998 and 2007. So if you do not want to believe John Doerr--but I suggest you do, because he founded Amazon and Google, he funded them-- let's listen to Thomas Friedman. His book is, ``Hot, Flat and Crowded.'' Here is what the central theme is:

The ability to develop clean power and energy efficient

technology is going to become the defining measure of a

country's economic standing, environmental health, energy

security, and national security over the next 50 years.

As I said, the EPA finding that too much carbon pollution is dangerous for our people and our environment is the key incentive to moving forward toward our clean energy economy. It is the basis upon which we move forward. It is the basis upon which we see their incentives then in place for clean energy technologies.

If this finding were eliminated under the Murkowski resolution, not only would it be, I believe, a worldwide embarrassment that the Senate is now taking to repealing health findings and scientific findings, but it would stop in its tracks the economic opportunities that come from clean energy technology.

We cannot ignore the basic finding that is made in this endangerment finding that carbon pollution in the air presents a very serious danger, threatening the health of our families, our quality of life, and our natural resources. I guess if we pass the Murkowski resolution, there would not be any danger anymore because we said so. I mean, you know, we can pass a resolution that says there should not be any more rain, and I guess then there would not be any more rain. We cannot ignore the basic scientific conclusion in that endangerment finding. If we were to do this, it would be extraordinary and unprecedented.

In 2007, the Supreme Court was clear when it ruled that carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas emissions are air pollutants, and they directed the EPA to determine whether this pollution endangers our health. So EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency--and I want to say to my colleagues, it is not the Environmental Pollution Agency. If you want to create an Environmental Pollution Agency, let's have a vote on that. It is the Environmental Protection Agency.

They are not supposed to be influenced by the politics of the day, as you know. They are charged with protecting the health of the kids, of our families, of our senior citizens, whether they are in Alaska, California, New York, or anyplace else in America. They are not the Environmental Pollution Agency. As much as big oil would like to dictate to them, they are not going to be dictated to by big oil.

By the way, the EPA was set up by Richard Nixon. Let's be clear here. Some of the officials from these States, Republicans, have weighed in against the Murkowski resolution and we will show that in a bit here.

EPA did what they were directed to do by the court. They had to do what the scientists and the health experts

told them to do. Again, the Murkowski resolution would overturn these findings. Leading scientists, physicians, and many others agree with the finding and have told us how much damage carbon pollution in the atmosphere can do. That is why they have stated their strong opposition to the Murkowski resolution.

Less than a month ago, the National Research Council, which is an arm of the National Academy of Sciences comprised of America's leading scientists, concluded that climate change is occurring. It is caused largely by human activities, and it poses significant risks for and is already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems. The National Research Council further concluded that changes in climate pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems, including freshwater resources, the coastal environment, ecosystems, agriculture, fisheries, human health, and national security.

EPA Administrators under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan oppose the Murkowski resolution. Let's be clear. This should not be a partisan issue. It may wind up being that, but it should not.

Russell Train, EPA Administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, writes: I urge the Senate to reject this and any other legislation that would weaken the Clean Air Act or curtail the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to implements its provisions.

William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under Presidents Nixon and Reagan, said: Thanks to the 2007 Supreme Court decision on global warming, EPA clearly has the right to regulate carbon. Anyone who would take away that power--it is a terrible idea.

William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under Nixon and Reagan, said the Murkowski resolution is a terrible idea because this is the way we are going to address the problem of climate change.

Eighteen hundred scientists wrote to us opposing efforts to overturn this endangerment finding. In a letter to us, these scientists wrote: We the undersigned urge you to oppose an imminent attack on the Clean Air Act which would undermine public health and prevent action on global warming.

They go on to say: EPA's finding is based on solid science. This amendment represents a rejection of that science.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter signed by 1800 scientists.

I also wish to display the public health organizations that oppose the Murkowski resolution.

We have to decide whom we want to listen to. Do we want to listen to big oil or politicians or do we want to listen to public health organizations that oppose the Murkowski resolution? I ask the American people to determine which side they are on--the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's Environmental Health Network, the American Nurses Association, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, Trust for America's Health, Physicians for Social Responsibility, National Environmental Health Association, American College of Preventative Medicine, American Thoracic Society, the Association of Public Health Laboratories, the Association of Schools of Public Health, the Hepatitis Foundation International, the Union of Concerned Scientists. Again, we have included for the record the scientists, 1,800 of whom signed a letter to us opposing this.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed by these entities as well as a separate letter from the American Lung Association.

These are the experts. These are the people we rely on when our children get sick. They don't take them, with all due respect, to Senator Boxer for a checkup or Senator Murkowski for a checkup. They go to the pediatrician. The pediatricians oppose the Murkowski resolution. They are afraid of it because they know who is behind it. They know it is the special polluting interests, the big polluters who give big money to politicians. They know that. They are smart.

Let's be clear. We have on our side the people who are responsible for taking care of our kids, taking care of families, looking out for their health. They don't have any political skin in this game. They don't have any special interest in this game. They have one concern-- the health of our families.

Overturning a scientific finding that states that carbon pollution is a threat to the health and well-being of the American public is a dangerous step. It would lead us down a perilous road that sets a precedent for appealing other scientific findings. I talked a little bit about that.

I want to talk specifically about two other findings that maybe one day any Senator, on either side of the aisle, could seek to repeal. Imagine if we had done this on lead, lead and children.

In 1973, EPA did what it had to do and issued an endangerment finding for lead in gasoline. At the time, the lead endangerment decision was controversial. This was the EPA under Richard Nixon. They said there was too much lead in gasoline. They said it was a danger to our kids. They said it would cause harm to the brains of our children. So the Administrator under Richard Nixon, William Ruckelshaus--who opposes the Murkowski resolution today--reached the conclusion that lead presented a significant risk of harm to the health of our population, particularly our children. What if a Member of Congress came down and said: We are going to overturn that. We don't like that rule. We don't like that finding. We disagree. We don't think it causes a problem. Can my colleagues imagine what would have happened? We would have seen the phase down of lead in gasoline delayed for a decade or more, leaving another generation of Americans exposed to serious health threats. We would have seen hundreds of thousands more children with impaired mental function. That is a fact. It may be a fact the other side doesn't want to hear, but it is a fact. That is why we have former members of the Nixon administration opposing the Murkowski resolution.

Let's look at the science behind the dangers of smoking. What would have happened if people didn't agree with Surgeon General Everett Koop--another Republican administration--and they came down and said: Well, we are going to speak for the tobacco companies here. Let's repeal that. Nicotine isn't a problem, not a problem at all. Let's just overturn that health finding.

Again, I ask my colleagues do they want to stand with the health experts, the lung association, the pediatricians, the nurses, or do they want to stand with the powerful special interests? It is a simple question. Every Member has to answer that.

We have to stop this attack on science and health. We have to stop this attack on the safety of our citizens. Our families come first.

I think it is important to note that overturning this endangerment finding--supporting the Murkowski resolution--is opposed by the auto industry and the autoworkers. This is what they tell us. We are spending $1 billion a day importing foreign oil. Do Members like that? Then vote for the Murkowski resolution. It is going to set us back. We won't get off foreign oil if we go down this path.

This is why we have the automakers opposing Murkowski: On behalf of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and its 11 member companies, I am writing to express concern over the proposed resolutions of disapproval. If these resolutions are enacted, the historic agreement creating the one national program for regulating vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions would collapse.

The autoworkers are asking us not to do this. Let's see what they say: The UAW is deeply concerned that overturning EPA's endangerment finding would unravel the historic agreement on one national standard for fuel economy. And they go on.

Clearly, we are at a point where we are finally seeing the auto industry come back to life. Let's not pass the Murkowski resolution and get them off track. After all the debate and all the arguments, I know the Senators from Michigan care deeply about what is happening to their autoworkers and their auto companies. We are very clear here what side they are on.

In summary, the Murkowski resolution would upend a historic agreement between auto companies, autoworkers, environmental groups, leading States such as California that formed the foundation of the recent EPA and DOT standards.

I am going to include for the Record a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be, over the next 20 years, the leading cause of conflict putting our troops in harm's way. That is why we have so many returning veterans who want us to move forward and address this issue so we can create the new technologies that get us off this foreign oil. Every time we import oil, we hurt ourselves. We have to get off these old energy sources. It is a transition. It is not going to happen overnight. But if we do things such as the Murkowski resolution, we will create chaos. We are going to see jobs lost. We are going to see us continue in an economic situation that has no new paradigm for economic growth, as we have learned from our venture capitalists, as we have learned from analysts, such as Thomas Friedman, who are so clear on this point.

The question before us is this: Will we protect the people we represent from dangerous pollution or will we choose to reject science? Will we choose to ignore the findings of the scientific community, the public health officials, and national security experts?

If we care about jobs--I know the Presiding Officer does--if we care about moving to a clean energy economy, if Members care about health, if they care about our environment and our natural resources, then they should vote no on proceeding to this resolution.

I hope we will carry the day. I know it will be close. But I have to tell my colleagues, this is a significant moment for the Senate because if we move down this path, ``Katy, bar the door.'' Any resolution, any health finding, any scientific finding is subject to politics. I would have thought that in the Senate, we might disagree with how to deal with the scientific finding--in other words, what kinds of rules and regulations should come out of it--but not to repeal the scientific finding itself. That would be unprecedented in the worst of ways.

I have used my time, the first half hour; am I correct?

Madam President, I have a number of fantastic speakers we will hear from in the next ensuing time.

I yield the floor.

How much time remains on the Republican side?

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that whatever extra time was given to the other side be added to our time.

Madam President, at this point, we are going to hear arguments against the Murkowski resolution from Senator Durbin for 6 minutes, followed by Senator Reed of Rhode Island for 5 minutes.

Madam President, our speakers at this time will be Senator Shaheen for 5 minutes, Senator Sanders for 5 minutes, and Senator Cantwell for 5 minutes.

Madam President, at this time I yield 10 minutes to Senator Feinstein, followed by 10 minutes to Senator Carper.

I yield 5 minutes to Senator Menendez, followed by 5 minutes to Senator Cardin.

Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Do we have 2 unused minutes?

I would ask if we could carry that time to the next segment, please.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to Senator Kerry.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Kerry. We now turn to Senator Lieberman for 5 minutes, followed by Senator Merkley for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, before we hear from Senator Merkley, I want to note that immediately following him, Senator Bingaman will have 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Udall for his remarks.

I turn to a real leader on clean air, clean water, a real fighter for the health and safety of our children and our families, Senator Lautenberg, for 7 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I am going to wrap it up in about 10 minutes and then go to the vote.

Before the Senator from New Jersey leaves the floor, if I may have his attention, I thank him so much. He put this whole vote in the exact right perspective. Big oil supports the Murkowski resolution. That is a fact. They have sent a letter saying they support the Murkowski resolution.

Why do you think they support the Murkowski resolution? The reason is,

this resolution would repeal, overturn, do away with the endangerment finding made by the Environmental Protection Agency that says that carbon pollution is a danger to our families, to their health.

Senator Lautenberg just said it from the heart. If ever there was a vote to find out whose side you are on, this is it. What could be clearer?

Let's put up a chart. Let's look at some of the public health organizations that are opposing the Murkowski resolution. I will only list a couple of them: The American Academy of Pediatrics--they know that carbon is a danger to our children--the Children's Environmental Health Network; the American Nurses Association; the American Lung Association; the American Public Health Association.

Whose side do you want to be on? We had a letter from 1,800 U.S. scientists, from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Do you want to be on the side of the special interests or do you want to be on the side of the children and the families and the people who gave their whole professional careers to protecting the health of our families?

This is one of those votes. This is what we call a turning-point vote in everyone's career. When we look back at this vote, our grandchildren will want to know: Where was the Senate on this important vote?

We know this resolution is opposed by America's leading public health experts. They do not want us to repeal a health finding. What is next? Somebody else will have a brilliant idea to repeal a scientific finding that nicotine causes cancer. Oh, we can debate that. What is next?

Someone else will say: Lead is no problem in paint. Let's repeal that finding. Think of all the children who would be adversely impacted with brain damage if we did that.

The choice is with Senators: Stand with big oil or stand with the children, the families, the doctors, the public health people. This is a moment in time.

There may not be bipartisan opposition on this floor. I think the vast majority of my Republican friends are going to support Senator Murkowski. But look at the outside world where we are getting support for our side.

EPA Administrators under Nixon, Ford, and Reagan oppose the Murkowski resolution. People forget, the environment used to be an issue that was bipartisan. The EPA--that has been so criticized by my Republican friends--was created by Richard Nixon, was supported by Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. What has happened? How did this happen? I think it goes back to politics and special interests and the money that flows in here.

But that is another debate for another time. Today, we have a very simple proposition before us in the Murkowski resolution: Should we repeal the health finding and the scientific finding that is the basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions?

Ronald Reagan's EPA Administrator, Richard Nixon's EPA Administrator, Ford's--Russell Train, William Ruckelshaus--very strongly opposed. They urge the Senate to reject this and any other legislation that would weaken the Clean Air Act or curtail the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to implement its provisions.

It is the Environmental Protection Agency--the EPA--not the environmental pollution agency. If somebody wants to turn it into that, they ought to come here and make that proposal. We can debate it.

There is enough pollution in the gulf to teach us a lesson today. How ironic that this is coming before us.

How about jobs? The people on the other side say supporting the Murkowski resolution is supporting jobs. That is false. The U.S. automakers oppose the Murkowski amendment. They say it will lose jobs. If these resolutions are enacted, the historic agreement creating the one national program for regulating vehicle fuel economy would collapse.

We are finally getting the U.S. auto industry on its feet. With the Murkowski resolution, if it became law, that is all over and our auto industry will falter again.

The auto workers also come out against the Murkowski resolution. They are deeply concerned that overturning this endangerment finding would unravel the historic agreement on one national standard for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.

If you haven't been convinced on the jobs question in the auto industry, if you are not convinced on the health argument, let's look at a statement made by 33 U.S. generals and admirals. Climate change is making the world a dangerous place, threatening our security.

I don't have time to read every word, but it says the State Department, the National Intelligence Council, the CIA, all agree and are all planning for future climate-based threats. America's billion- dollar-a-day dependence on oil makes us vulnerable to unstable and unfriendly regimes.

We have a list of the people who signed onto that. I will just read a few, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this document.

Mr. President, this is a list of lieutenant generals, vice admirals, major generals, rear admirals, brigadier generals--and all of them real patriots--saying to us: We cannot become more dependent on oil, and as a result of this Murkowski resolution, that is what would happen.

How much more do we want to spend on importing foreign oil? We are up to a billion dollars a day, and it is going to people who don't care for us very much, in case you didn't notice that. We want to get off foreign oil. We want to unleash the capital in our own country. And our own businesses are telling us this--that those dollars would come in if in fact we move forward and enact legislation that makes sense. The Murkowski resolution would simply stop us in our tracks.

More than a thousand businesses have weighed in against the Murkowski resolution--a thousand businesses. The resolution would eliminate

incentives for innovations that could drive a clean energy economy. The Murkowski resolution would send the wrong signal to the American business community. That is signed by an organization representing 850 business leaders. The resolution will jeopardize and hinder progress. That is signed by Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy. Then the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, on behalf of 320 member companies, opposes the resolution from Senator Murkowski. The member companies in the leadership group provide nearly 250,000 local jobs or one out of every four private-sector jobs in Silicon Valley.

So whether you are voting on this on the basis of the health of our children, whether you care about the auto companies, whether you care about jobs and the rest of the economy and the ability of this economy to create good jobs or because you feel we need to get off our billion- dollar-a-day habit of importing oil, you have a lot of important issues to think about.

I want to close with looking at something no one wants to look at--no one can bear to look at. If anyone thought that carbon isn't a danger, look at what carbon pollution is doing on the ground in the gulf region--in the water, on the beaches, in the marshlands. Do you think that a pollutant like this, when it goes in the air, causes no problem?

There was a cartoon in today's paper that showed a cap going over the well--which we all hope is going to succeed--and out of that well is escaping some of the carbon pollution. It is going into the air and under it, it says: Now it is no problem.

My colleagues of the Senate, this is a point in time we have to make a decision. We are not experts in public health here. We chose as our career to say that we want to be on the side of the people who send us here. This is the moment. Choose sides: It is big oil and all that comes with it and all the polluters or it is protecting our families.

I urge a no vote to proceed to this resolution, and I ask that the regular order occur on the vote at this time.

I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, during the Memorial Day recess, we received two pieces of alarming news that should inform the work of every Member in this Chamber. First, we learned the national debt has surpassed $13 trillion in total, and then shortly after that, we learned that nearly all the jobs that were added in May came from temporary census positions. The private sector created just 41,000 jobs last month--many fewer than expected and certainly a far cry from the pace that will allow us to dig out from under this economic recession.

I think we all recognize there is no question that our recovery is still fragile--very much in doubt. It is also quite clear it will take some time for millions of unemployed Americans to find their jobs and get back on their feet again. These tough facts should encourage us to focus on these policies that create jobs, that reduce our debt, and at the same time should encourage us to guard against policies that fail in either or both of those areas.

Madam President, we are here today to debate a policy that works against both of those goals--the Environmental Protection Agency's effort to impose economy-wide climate regulations under the Clean Air Act. The sweeping powers being pursued by the EPA are the worst possible option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and there is broad bipartisan agreement that this approach would forgo all of the benefits, all of the protections that are possible through legislation. It would reduce emissions at an unreasonably high cost and through an unnecessarily bureaucratic process. It would amount to an unprecedented power grab, ceding Congress's responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats, and move a very important debate, a critical debate, from our open halls to behind an agency's closed doors.

This approach should have been, could have been taken off the table long ago. Yet because the EPA is determined to move forward aggressively and because neither Congress nor the administration has acted to stop them, it is now in the process of becoming our Nation's de facto energy and climate policy.

Because this is our worst option to reduce emissions and Congress needs time to develop a more appropriate solution, I have introduced a resolution of disapproval--I introduced this back in January--to halt the EPA's regulations. My resolution does not affect the science behind the endangerment finding, but it will prevent the finding from being enforced through economy-wide regulations.

Forty other Senators here in this body have joined me and are cosponsors of this effort. Our resolution has garnered significant support among the American people, and from the day it was introduced, we have had individuals and we have had groups and organizations from all across the country that have expressed their support and their appreciation. It really is a tremendous coalition, a significant coalition from farmers and manufacturers, to small business owners, to fish processors. There are more than 530 stakeholder groups that have endorsed our resolution's passage, and I will tell you, when you look at some of those groups, you would not put them in a category where you would say: Well, this is an entity that is standing up to fight, to push back against the EPA. But I will suggest to you that the broad range of stakeholders is really quite impressive.

Despite that support, I will still be the first to admit that we face an uphill battle. We oppose the EPA's regulations because of their costs, most definitely. But, unfortunately, that seems to be precisely why some Senators have gone out front to support them, hoping these economic costs will be so onerous that it will force us here in the Congress, here in the Senate, to adopt legislation we otherwise wouldn't move to do.

This has been an interesting, sometimes difficult and contentious several months as we have moved forward with this resolution of disapproval. Personal attacks have been directed at supporters of this resolution in an effort, I think, to intimidate others from adding their names.

The EPA Administrator has, somewhat incredibly, suggested our resolution was somehow related to the oilspill that is ongoing in the gulf. Some have even claimed the resolution is a bailout for the oil companies and are trying to make sure we don't let another crisis go to waste--in other individuals' terms--in their efforts to pass sweeping cap-and-trade measures. I would suggest that the only similarity I see between the spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the EPA's regulations is that both of these are unmitigated disasters. One is happening now; the other one is waiting in the wings if Congress fails to adopt this resolution.

This decision--where we are today here in the Senate debating this resolution of disapproval--ultimately boils down to four substantive factors. The first one is the inappropriateness of the Clean Air Act for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The second is the likelihood that the courts will strike down the tailoring rule. Then we also have the lack of economic analysis from the EPA, which is stunning--that we do not have a better sense in terms of what the economic impact of these regulations will be. Then finally and certainly above all else is the undisputed fact that climate policy should be written here in Congress. It is not just Lisa Murkowski who says that, and it is not just the other 40 Senators who have signed on as cosponsors to this resolution of disapproval; it is everyone from the President, to the Administrator of the EPA, to colleagues on the House side who have said time and time again that it should be the Congress, it should be those of us who are elected Members of this body who set the policy of this country and not the unelected bureaucrats within an agency.

I would like to speak to each of these four factors in a little greater detail, so I will start by examining why the Clean Air Act is such an awful choice for reducing these emissions. I have explained this many times before, so I will reiterate two main points here--first is the way these regulations are carried out.

You have command-and-control directives that are issued by the government that affect every aspect of our lives, rather than market- based decisions made by consumers and businesses. I wish to reinforce that, the fact that these are directives that will impact every aspect of our lives.

When we were debating health care reform here on this floor not too many months ago, it was repeated time and time again that it was so important we get this right because health care reform will impact one- sixth of our economy. Well, I would suggest to you that when we are talking about climate policy, that is something which is going to impact every aspect--100 percent--of our economy.

The system imposed by the EPA will entail millions of permit decisions--millions of permit decisions--by midlevel EPA employees, without effective recourse, and it will leave regulated entities with very little flexibility to comply.

Another reason the Clean Air Act is extremely complicated for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: the Clean Air Act's explicit regulatory thresholds. They absolutely put an exclamation mark on why this law is such a poor choice for addressing climate change.

Under the Clean Air Act, if you emit more than 100 or 250 tons of a pollutant each year, you must acquire a Federal air permit. These relatively low limits

make sense for conventional air pollutants that are emitted in small quantities, but they become wildly problematic when dealing with a substance emitted in huge volumes through nearly every form of commerce, such as carbon dioxide is.

So the question needs to be asked, then, how big is this new regulatory act we are talking about? The EPA recently projected that some 6.1 million sources could be required to obtain new title V operating permits. Under the current regulations, the EPA is dealing with about 15,000. So the EPA would now be charged with moving up dramatically from regulating and issuing about 15,000 title V operating permits to some 6.1 million permits. Whom does this include? It would include millions of residential buildings, small businesses, schools, hospitals, and restaurants found in every town in America.

Over time, the EPA's approach would increase their regulation by an order of magnitude, and the consequences would be just as enormous. And no one is more aware of this very uncomfortable fact than the EPA itself. They know they can't go from the 15,000 permits they currently deal with on an annual basis up to 6.1 million permits. That is why the Agency has attempted to very dramatically increase the threshold for greenhouse gases in its tailoring rule. They are unhappy with the plain language, the very direct language of the Clean Air Act. The Agency plans to lift its limits up to 1,000 times higher than Congress has directed.

So what you have is a situation where the EPA has simply not accepted that the Clean Air Act is not structured for this task, and instead they have attempted to make it so by ignoring the plain language--the plain language that says you have to regulate at 100 or 250 tons per year. They are effectively unilaterally amending the Clean Air Act.

Equally astounding is that by temporarily relieving part of a permitting burden, the EPA is claiming that consumers and businesses-- the people who purchase and the people who use the energy--will face no economic impact, which is incredible to believe.

I ask my colleagues to think about the logic behind the tailoring rule. The EPA is asking us to accept that while greenhouse gases are not in the Clean Air Act, the Congress clearly intended them to be regulated under it. At the same time, we are expected to believe that while explicit regulatory thresholds are in the act, Congress meant for the EPA to ignore them. Well, Madam President, I would suggest to you that is a pretty thin read, and it becomes even thinner when you consider the changes that are made between the tailoring rule that was proposed just last year and then the final rulemaking that was issued just last month.

In last year's draft, what you saw was the EPA planning to ratchet down to the Clean Air Act's actual threshold levels--to get down to the 250 tons per year--and to put that into effect over the course of the next 5 years. Now the EPA is suggesting that it may exempt entire sectors and never even reach the statutory limits. Think about it. What happens then? That is when the lawsuits pop up. This is not going to provide the level of certainty I think those in business are seeking. What you will see is lawsuits as some sectors and some sources are regulated while others are not. And I would suggest that difference between the tailoring proposal from last year and where we are now is driven not by the law but by fear of the political backlash out there-- the outrage from people all over the country in terms of the negative economic impact to them and their families and their communities.

That is why it is tough to find an impartial legal expert who believes this tailoring rule will actually hold up in court. Consider a speech given last year by Judge David Tatel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This was a speech on how the EPA can avoid being sued over its rulemakings. Judge Tatel said:

. . . whether or not agencies value neutral principles of

administrative law, courts do, and they will strike down

agency action that violates those principles--whatever the

President's party, however popular the administration, and no

matter how advisable the initiative.

Those were the comments from a DC Circuit judge specifically on this issue as to how the EPA avoids lawsuits.

Let me move to the third area of concern I have with EPA moving to regulate in the area of greenhouse gas emissions--the economic consequences of EPA regulation. We have to ask the question: What exactly are those consequences? Believe it or not, at this point in time we still do not know because the EPA has refused to provide projections of the economic impacts. In the various rulemakings out there, the Agency has engaged in something of a shell game. They are either hiding or they are simply not considering the economic cost.

The EPA has also ignored requests from Members of Congress. I have asked them, and other Members of Congress have asked, to conduct this very important analysis, but to this day the Agency still has not provided anything close to a full projection of the economic impact its economy-wide climate regulations will have.

I guess there were a couple of reasons. The EPA either has no cost estimates or they know they are too astronomical to calculate, and they do not want them released. My staff has had numerous briefings with EPA officials, and they have been told essentially that we will not know how much these regulations cost until the best available control technologies are imposed on the regulated entities; that is, until the EPA figures out how to deal with what it signed itself up for.

The problem is, the best available control technologies remain completely undefined at this point. It could mean efficiency improvements, expensive add-on technologies, or even fuel-switching requirements. Over time, the EPA would have very little choice but to impose all of those requirements and more, regardless of the consequences.

Again, it is not hard to find this quite amazing and alarming. We need to be growing our economy not paralyzing it. Everything we do right now within this body should be focused on how we grow our economy, how we grow the jobs from Maine to Alaska and points in between. We know the national unemployment rate remains at almost 10 percent. Private sector job growth is anemic. Yet as millions of Americans are doing everything they can just to find work, bureaucrats in Washington, DC, are contemplating regulations that would destroy these opportunities.

Worse still, the people of our States have no voice in this bureaucratic process. They are on the verge of being subjected to rules, subjected to regulations that will directly impact their lives, their livelihoods, their economic opportunities, without ever having an opportunity to express their concerns through their Representatives in Congress.

That brings me to my final point. Politically accountable Members of the House and the Senate, not unelected bureaucrats, must develop our Nation's energy and climate policies. It is as direct as that. Those policies must be able to pass on their own merits instead of serving as a defense against ill-considered regulations.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating: Congress will not pass--should not pass--bad legislation in order to stave off bad regulations. We are neither incapable nor unwilling to legislate on energy and environmental policy. We have demonstrated this in the past. We did this with landmark environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We can, we should, and we will deal with these environmental challenges that face us. But forgoing legislation in favor of regulation would sacrifice the priorities and protections that are sought by just about every Member of the Senate.

The things that are being considered when we talk about climate legislation are worker training, funding for clean technologies, energy security enhancements, border adjustments, manufacturing concessions-- these would all go by the wayside if climate policy is directed through regulation as opposed to legislation. There will be no agricultural offsets, no free allowances, no banking, and no borrowing under the Clean Air Act. There will be no funding for climate research or adaptation, no protection for consumers, and no assistance for businesses or workers.

I do understand some Members say they will only support climate legislation that puts a price on emissions.

They are frustrated that we in the Senate have not done that--have not agreed to do that yet. But I do not believe that mandating higher energy costs and imposing regulations on consumers and businesses is the only way to solve this challenge.

Some have likened the EPA regulation as the gun to the head of Congress that will force us somehow to act more quickly on climate legislation than we otherwise would. I think, sadly, a few Members of the Senate have actually bought into this coercive strategy. Throughout the yearlong debate on this issue--and it has been just about a year. It was last September that I attempted to introduce legislation that would put the EPA in a 1-year timeout. I was not allowed to bring that measure to the Senate floor. But throughout this yearlong debate on the issue, opponents have refused to discuss the actual impacts of EPA regulation. So I want my colleagues to listen today, listen to the debate. See if any opponents actually defend such regulation as being good for America.

Instead, we are going to hear red herrings about science, about fuel standards, about the oilspill. But as much as some would want it to be, this debate is not about the science of climate change. It is not a referendum on any other legislation that is pending in the Senate, nor is it about fuel efficiency. The Department of Transportation is and has been in charge for 35 years now, and we do not need another agency and another standard thrown into the mix to do the same job.

We updated our Nation's CAFE standards less than 3 years ago to at least 35 miles per gallon, and we left DOT in charge of their administration. We also outlined a very rational process for standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Every target set by this administration can be met with existing authorities. As the Department of Transportation has admitted, our resolution does not directly impact their ability to regulate the efficiency and thus the greenhouse gas emissions of motor vehicles.

There is one very small potential exception and that is air- conditioning, but I have very little doubt that we would gladly provide EPA with the specific authority to regulate those systems instead of broad powers over our entire economy.

The EPA does not need to take over this process, and it should not be allowed to do so under a law that was never intended to regulate fuel economy. I understand concerns about a patchwork of standards and how difficult it would be for the industry to comply. But while we had one national standard at the start of 2009, we now have two national standards set by two Federal agencies driven by California's standards. I have a letter from the National Automobile Dealers Association dated just yesterday that spells this out quite clearly. They indicate that it in no way helps us to have, again, two national standards set by two Federal agencies. The best way to avoid a messy patchwork would be to pass our disapproval resolution, revoke California's waiver, and allow one Federal agency to set one standard that works for all 50 States.

Bringing climate science, the oilspill, and fuel economy into this debate are attempts at misdirection. They are red herrings that are intended to convince Members to oppose the resolution of disapproval. But this debate has nothing to do with those topics. It is about finding the best approach to reduce emissions and defending against policies that fail to strike an adequate balance between the environment and our economy. It is about maintaining the separation of powers between the legislative and the executive branches as our Founding Fathers intended and rejecting an unprecedented overreach by the EPA into the affairs of Congress. At its core, this is a debate about jobs, about whether we should seek conditions that will lead to their creation or enable policies that will destroy them.

This is our chance to make sure that Federal bureaucrats do not place a new burden on millions of hard-working Americans at a time that they cannot afford it and in a way they cannot reject. The time has come to take the worst option for regulating greenhouse gases off the table once and for all.

Under the procedures of the Congressional Review Act, I accordingly move to proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 26. I encourage Members of this Chamber to support debate on this measure and to vote in favor of both the motion to proceed and final passage.

I know under the unanimous consent agreement, this morning and throughout the day it is 30 minutes per side. I am not certain how much time I have consumed this morning, if the chair can instruct me?

I know Senator Lincoln was hoping to come over this morning. What I will do at this point in time, if I may reserve those 2 minutes, seeing that Senator Lincoln is not yet here, we can move to the Democratic side of the aisle, if Senator Boxer is ready to proceed.

Madam President, at this time on the Republican side, I ask unanimous consent that for this next half hour, the order be Senator Lincoln for 7 minutes, followed by Senator Inhofe at 13 minutes, Senator Voinovich for 7, and Senator Graham for 5 minutes.

Madam President, for this next 30 minutes, we will be allocating the block in a 20-minute segment that will be under the control of Senator Barrasso to engage in a colloquy with several of our Republican colleagues, and following that 20 minutes there will be 10 minutes under the control of Senator Nelson of Nebraska.

We have a lot of Members who wish to speak in support of this resolution, so we are trying to accommodate as many as possible. With that, I yield to my friend, the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. President, before Senator Webb continues, may I ask a question? If an additional minute is to be yielded to the opposition, I request that we also have additional time added to our side.

I rescind that request if it is coming out of the Senator's time.

Mr. President, at this time, the 30 minutes under Republican control will be allocated as follows: Senator Wicker will have 5 minutes; Senator Thune, 10 minutes; Senator Johanns, 5 minutes; Senator Kyl, 5 minutes; and Senator Sessions, 5 minutes. Senator Thune will lead off this block.

Mr. President, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, we had reserved 5 minutes for Senator Wicker, but I am to going to yield those 5 minutes to Senator Hutchison.

Mr. President, has all time expired?

Mr. President, I am assuming that time on the Democratic side has expired.

I thank the Chair.

At this time, in our remaining 30 minutes, it shall be allocated as follows: Senator Coburn for 5 minutes, Senator Rockefeller for 10 minutes, followed by Senator McCain for 5 minutes, and then I will conclude with 10 minutes.

How much time remains on the Republican side?

Mr. President, as we conclude the day's debate on this resolution of disapproval, I will say that the debate has been good. Many points have been raised, and I appreciate that. I will say, though, as I have listened throughout the course of the 6 hours, I have heard consistently on the side of those who support this resolution of disapproval--I have heard consistently that this is about jobs, it is about the health of our economy, it is about the strength of the economy as a whole and about really ensuring, again, that our Nation remains strong while at the same time we take care of our environment. These are not mutually exclusive goals--never have been and never will be.

I want to address some of the statements that have been made here and made very clearly.

First is the issue of overreach--overreach by the EPA into the domain of the legislative branch. This has been spoken to so many times as we have discussed this resolution of disapproval--that the overlapping triggers that are contained in the Clean Air Act effectively give the EPA control of our Nation's energy and climate policy. I do not think that is a sane and rational policy when we cede our authority in the legislative branch to effectively allow our energy and climate policy to be developed and implemented by an agency, that being the EPA. This has huge implications for the separation of powers and our constitutional system of checks and balances, not to mention what I said at the outset--the jobs and the recovery from this economic recession.

This is not a debate about the science. Science has been discussed a lot. Really, this is about how we respond to the science. We are not here to decide whether greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced. We are here to decide if we are going to allow them to be reduced under the structures of the Clean Air Act. Unlike what some of my colleagues have said, this resolution doesn't gut the Clean Air Act at all. It doesn't address it. It does not change the text in any way. It only prevents a massive expansion of its authority.

It has been suggested that somehow or other this resolution is a bailout; somehow or other this is tied to the disaster in the gulf; somehow or other this is all tied to the oil industry. Again, this is absolutely not anything that has to do with the disaster in the gulf, in no way, shape, or form.

The suggestions that somehow or other this is all about big oil belies the coalition of support that has been built across this country, from Maine to Alaska and all the points in between--530 organizations, different stakeholders all over the board, in terms of why they feel EPA should not be setting climate policy for this country.

You cannot see this chart because the print is so small. I apologize for that. But there are 530 organizations, businesses, stakeholders, and advocacy groups that have endorsed this bipartisan resolution. So you look through here and you say: OK, are these all the oil and gas organizations that are in this country? But I will just direct you to some of the ones from, for instance, Texas. Texas is an oil- and gas- producing State.

Look at Texas. There is the Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council, the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, Texas Aromatics, Texas Association of Agricultural Consultants, Texas Association of Dairymen, Texas Cattle Feeders Association, Texas Citrus Mutual, Texas Cotton Ginners' Association, Texas Independent Ginners Association, Texas Food Processers Association, Texas Forestry Association, Grain and Feeders Association, Nursery and Landscape Association--and I am only halfway through the Texas organizations that support our resolution of disapproval.

So the suggestion that somehow this is all tied into the oil industry, again, just simply does not comport with what has been happening. Why are these organizations standing up and speaking out and saying this is not the path we should be taking with climate? It goes back to the jobs. It goes back to the issue of where we are as an economy. It goes back to the level of bureaucratic overlay that will be imposed on the California Citrus Mutual or the California Cotton Growers Association or the Carpet and Rug Institute or the pizza company from Ohio.

This is absolutely about how we as a Nation determine those policies that will, in fact, allow us to have the clean air we all want. But we can achieve those goals in a way that isn't going to kick our timing in the head. Who can do that? Is it the EPA, whose mission is solely and exclusively that we have to follow the letter of the law here? The letter of the law says to not only go after the big polluters but all the way down to the small emitters, which emit 250 tons of carbon per year. And every effort EPA may want to make in terms of tailoring, all it is going to take is one lawsuit that challenges that tailoring to inject the uncertainty back into the market, back into the business place. So once again we have an economy that just can not get back on its feet.

This is not a referendum on any other bill that is pending in Congress, but it is a check on EPA's regulatory ambition. It presents an opportunity for us to stop the worst option for regulating greenhouse gases from moving forward, while we work on a more responsible solution.

I want to take a moment to thank my colleague from West Virginia, who spoke very passionately about why he supports this resolution--because of the people he represents. I ask all of us to look to the people we represent. Look at your small businesses, your farmers, your ranchers, your pizza manufacturers. Look to them. Look to the health of their families and their communities.

I have a packet here that outlines the broad support for this resolution among the Alaska stakeholders. It is everything from our Alaska State Legislature to our Governor, our seafood processors, our small business refiners, those who are trying to get an Alaska gas line in place, our native corporations, the assembly from Anchorage,

letters from local mayors. I am listening to what the people of Alaska are saying. They are making very clear that they want to ensure that when we develop climate policy, the ``we'' is ``we the people,'' we the elected Members of Congress, and not those unelected bureaucrats within an agency who will not only develop that policy but then in turn implement that policy. The Alaskans I am hearing from are saying: Make sure that as we as a State try to build our economy, we can do so in a manner that allows us time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, we have heard the arguments on both sides of this debate. But for all the discussion and all the rhetoric, the choice before us is really stark and simple. This is a vote and choice between recognizing the greatest environmental risk of our time or legitimizing the deniers. It is a choice between protecting the health of

our families and the air we breathe or continuing a pattern of pollution that threatens our children and our communities. It is a choice between getting serious about policies that will put America on a real path to energy independence or increasing our Nation's oil dependency by 450 million barrels.

The stakes for our country are enormous. And if you have any doubt about that, any doubt at all, look no further than what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico even as we debate this choice. Every hour on our television screens we are watching another tragic and costly reminder of the hazards of our oil addiction, all that from only a single accident at a single offshore oil well.

In April 2007, the Supreme Court for the first time issued a ruling on the issue of climate change. The Roberts Court was asked to consider the Bush administration's refusal to issue greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks. The case hinged on two key issues: (1) does the Clean Air Act authorize regulation of greenhouse gases and (2) if so, should EPA set emissions standards for motor vehicles. The decision by the majority in the landmark Massachusetts v. EPA case was conclusive on both fronts. The justices determined that ``the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized,'' and they firmly and positively identified greenhouse gas emissions as the cause of those harms. In light of that assessment, they found that greenhouse gases ``fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of `air pollutant.' '' In light of that, the justices directed EPA to fulfill its obligation under the Clean Air Act to determine, based on scientific evidence alone, whether greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks pose a threat to human health or welfare. This ``endangerment finding'' was finalized in December of last year.

The resolution under consideration today, S.J. Res. 26, seeks to overturn this finding and permanently prohibit EPA from ever issuing a similar determination, regardless of the strength of the science and the urgency of action.

This resolution is not based in substance or in fact. We know that the threats of climate change are widespread, compelling and urgent.

In fact, on May 19, the National Research Council, our Nation's leading scientific body, declared in its most comprehensive study to date that the evidence of climate change is ``overwhelming.'' They urged ``early, aggressive, and concerted actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.''

However, the resolution we are debating today would achieve precisely the opposite goal. We are being asked to literally vote down the science, squander billions of barrels of oil savings, and shirk our responsibility to address the greatest energy, national security, and environmental challenge of our time.

By invalidating the scientific finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and welfare, this resolution would remove the legal basis for the landmark agreement that was reached last year to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, this agreement is on track to save American consumers a total of $34 billion and create 263,000 American jobs in 2020. This agreement also takes a tremendous step toward energy independence by reducing our oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels. By removing EPA's authority to jointly implement these regulations with the Department of Transportation, this resolution comes at the very steep cost of 450 million barrels, almost one quarter of these oil savings.

And, that is just the minimum amount by which this dangerous resolution will increase our oil dependence. In light of President Obama's recent announcement that the administration plans to extend the vehicles standards beyond 2016, the prohibition on EPA action will eliminate significant additional opportunities in the future to reduce our Nation's oil consumption, increase our energy security, and draw a bright line between ourselves and those nations that would do us harm.

So why are we being asked to affirmatively reject a scientific finding based on ``overwhelming evidence'' and potentially billions of barrels of oil savings? Congress, we are told, needs more time to develop energy and climate legislation and the Federal Government must be stopped from making any progress in the interim.

As someone has been meeting with my colleagues now for over a year, sitting down with all the stakeholders, I am struck by the irony that many of the proponents of this argument are the very same people who at every opportunity have avoided engaging in a serious legislative effort to tackle these issues. On the one hand, they say it is a job for Congress not the EPA, then they stand in the way of Congress doing the job in the first place. And they stand in the way even at a time when we have brought together an unprecedented coalition of industry and environmental support for action in this Congress. If you do not want the EPA to act, but you will not let Congress lead, when are we going to solve this challenge?

Here is how Ron Brownstein, one of the keenest observers of Washington, summed it up: ``It's reasonable to argue that Congress, not EPA, should decide how to regulate carbon. But most of those Senators who endorsed Murkowski's resolution also oppose the most plausible remaining vehicle for legislating carbon limits: The comprehensive energy plan that Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, ID- Conn., recently released. Together, those twin positions effectively amount to a vote for the energy status quo.''

Let's not kid ourselves. The Senate has never solved a problem by delaying. And on the issue of climate change, we have delayed action too long, for two decades we have stood still. We have stood still while other countries race ahead, while we lose market share in a global market, and while China and India create jobs and profits racing ahead with technology that Americans invented.

Mike Splinter, the CEO of Applied Materials, crystallized our choice in his May 25 op-ed. He said, ``Our failure to act has consequences. Ten years ago, the U.S. accounted for 40 percent of worldwide solar manufacturing. Today that figure is less than 10 percent. Meanwhile, China has gone from producing five percent of the world's solar panels in 2007 to nearly half last year . . . Over the next five years, China, India and Japan will out-invest the US in energy technology by at least three-to-one.''

And still here we are debating the science itself, still distracted by campaigns to foster the idea that climate change was ``theory rather than fact.'' That is the same campaign the tobacco industry waged for decades, arguing that the link between cigarettes and lung cancer was ``theory rather than fact.''

Well, you can delay the inevitable only so long. If you put science on trial, as they did in the famous Scopes Monkey trial in 1925, the truth will win out. And I will tell you the science on climate change is more definitive than ever and more troubling than ever.

Globally, temperatures are at an all-time high, with the first decade of this century conclusively establishing as the hottest decade on record. Man-made pollution is acidifying our oceans at a rate at least 10 times faster than previously thought, creating inhospitable physical conditions for shell-building animals that serve as the basis of our ocean food chain. Sea level rise is threatening cities like Boston, where city officials are actively planning for how to manage 100-year floods that are now becoming 20-year floods, in the face of global sea level rise of three to six feet by 2100. Worsening drought conditions will create persistent drought in the Southwest and sharply increase Western wildfire burn area. And the National Academy of Sciences has confirmed that these damages may be irreversible for 1,000 years.

Those who say we are not ready, we need more time, miss the fact that we know what we have to do and we know how to do it in a way that makes economic sense. We have debated bipartisan energy and climate legislation in the Senate for years, beginning in earnest with the McCain-Lieberman bill of 2005. The House of Representatives passed a comprehensive energy and climate bill nearly 1 year ago, and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out a similar bill last fall. Over the last several months, Senator Lieberman and I, with the help of Senator Graham, built on these

efforts to develop the American Power Act.

Our legislation adopts the formula originally developed by Republicans and implemented by President George H.W. Bush, that environmental goals should be achieved at the lowest possible cost to American consumers and businesses. In fact, the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics just completed the first independent analysis of the American Power Act, and found that the bill would generate a decade of multimillion-dollar investments, creating 200,000 new jobs a year and reducing foreign oil imports by 40 percent. The study also says that because of the strong consumer protection provisions in the bill, American families will see a $35 net decrease in energy costs annually through 2030.

The Senate can and must take action this year, and the American Power Act provides the foundation for getting the job done. I urge my colleagues who recognize the threats caused by our oil dependence to close the gap between words and action and join us in passing a bill this year. We have collectively kicked the can down the road long enough, and the Nation is less secure as a result. It is time to stand with 75 percent of the American people and pass energy and climate legislation that makes a meaningful and lasting difference.

Before I yield the floor, I would like to make one final point. While many members have come to the floor today to eviscerate the EPA and create a caricature, the reality is that the Agency is taking a thoughtful, measured, step-wise approach to regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Administrator Jackson has logically committed to addressing the largest sources first: new power plants or factories that emit over 100,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, or existing plants that undergo significant expansions representing over 75,000 tons, and they won't go into effect until over a year from now. Contrary to the wild claims you have heard today, these regulations will not impact small businesses or family farmers, and will remain focused on only the largest polluters for at least the next 6 years.

Mr. President, protecting our environment does not have to be a partisan issue. On the first Earth Day in 1970, more than 20 million Americans, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, all turned out to protest the pollution of our environment. And later that year, President Nixon signed the EPA law because Republicans recognized as much as Democrats that we had to put an end to rivers catching on fire, Great Lakes dying, and air pollution so great that on some days here in Washington you could barely see the Capitol from Arlington Cemetery.

It has been 40 years since we put the EPA in charge of cleaning up our water and air, and its track record is indisputable. Russell Train, the EPA Administrator during the Nixon and Ford administrations, emphasized in a recent letter opposing the Murkowski resolution that the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act have exceeded its costs 10 to 100-fold. But the resolution under consideration today would stop the EPA in its tracks, without any sort of alternative plan for addressing the greatest environmental threat of our time. Let's stop the demonizing and get to work.

Today we should be debating how to craft comprehensive energy and climate legislation, not how to reverse the important progress that is underway. This amendment is a distraction. It is an excuse. It is time for the Senate to do what this institution was meant to do, and provide leadership on an issue that is crying out for it.

I have been listening carefully to a whole bunch of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle come to the floor and talk about what this is not about. Every single one of them has laid out a rationale for doing away with something as if it were a regulation. They come to the floor and, frankly, there have been very few facts here, because I keep hearing about the tailoring rule of the EPA, that does not take effect until 2016, which lays out a whole process by which we normally do things.

But we keep hearing our folks on the other side of the aisle say this is not something that Congress intended, or this is not something we should leave to the bureaucracy. Neither could be further from the truth.

We created the law on which this is based. The Congress passed the Clean Air Act, and the Supreme Court of the United States, not a bureaucracy, made a fundamental health finding decision that, in fact, global climate change is happening, and that the pollutants of greenhouse gases are, in fact, included in what the Clean Air Act envisioned.

The Supreme Court has dictated this policy, and they dictated it as a matter of health, not as a matter of some bureaucratic rule. We do not have a rule in front of us right now. We have a process by which the EPA is going to go through, determine what they may or may not do.

I heard my colleague from South Dakota come to the floor and say: Well, all we are trying to do is delay this so Congress can act. This is going to be the great hypocrisy test resolution. We are going to see how many of those folks who are here on the floor saying: We need to leave it to Congress, how many of them are actually going to show up and vote to do what we need to do in order to change things. How many of them are going to be on the front lines trying to, in fact, make the things happen that have to happen in order to restrain greenhouse gases?

We heard him say: We are just delaying this. No, they are not just delaying it. That is not true. Because under the Administrative rule act, when you reject a resolution, have a resolution of rejection, as this is, you are specifically not allowed to come back with the rule or anything like it.

Let me read specifically from there. It says:

A rule shall not take effect if the Congress enacts a joint

resolution of disapproval.

That is what this is.

(2) A rule that does not take effect under paragraph 1 may

not be reissued in substantially the same form, and the new

rule that is substantially the same as such rule may not be

issued.

There it is, plain and simple, folks. That is what is happening here. This is an effort to permanently prevent the EPA from ever taking up the question of greenhouse gases and their right to restrain them.

Let me read exactly what the Supreme Court said. This is the Supreme Court. And let me put a little politics history behind this. In 1999, under the Bush administration, the first Bush administration, they did not want to do this, for all of the same reasons people do not want to do it now. So people went to court to get them to do what they are supposed to do in the public interest. But it was challenged. It went all the way to the Supreme Court, and here is what the Supreme Court of the United States said. Greenhouse gases ``fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of air pollutant.''

So the Supreme Court of the United States, not a bureaucracy, found that the intent of Congress was properly being fulfilled in the effort to restrain greenhouse gases. What Senator Murkowski and colleagues are trying to do here is undermine the health finding. This, in fact, is represented by the Supreme Court.

The Court found that climate science has already indicated that rising levels of greenhouse gases were warming and harming the Earth. They go through that reasoning. The Court then said they reviewed the history of the Clean Air Act and found that in 1970, Congress added a broad definition of ``welfare,'' including ``effects on climate.''

Finally, the Court found that the Clean Air Act's sweeping definition of ``air pollutant'' unambiguously includes greenhouse gases. That is why we are here today.

What our colleagues are trying to do is prevent this from happening. They are repealing an entire health finding.

It is kind of interesting. Look at the people who represent health in the United States: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Children's Environmental Health Network, American Nurses Association, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, National Association of County and City Health Officials, Trust for America's Health, Physicians for Social Responsibility, National Environment Health Association, American College of Preventative Medicine, and on it goes. All of them are opposed to what Senator Murkowski is doing because it does not represent the health interests of the country.

We have heard a lot of arguments, but for all the discussion and rhetoric, the choice before us is stark and simple. This is not a simple delay. This is brought to us by some of the same people who have resisted doing anything about many of these things for ages. Why is it that the United States is more dependent today on foreign oil than we were before September 11? It is because we haven't done anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We have an opportunity to do it now. This is about that.

The same people have resisted changes through the years--resisted CAFE standards, resisted changing where and how we produce oil, a long list of things that have been prevented from happening. The American people today are paying $100 million a day to Ahmadinejad and Iran in order to buy oil because we haven't reduced it.

The option is whether we are going to get serious about those other things. This is a vote between whether we recognize the greatest environmental risk of our time or whether we legitimize deniers of that. It is a choice between protecting the health of our families and the air we breathe or whether we continue a pattern of pollution that threatens our children and communities. That is what the EPA was set up to protect. It has protected that through the years. This is a question of whether we are going to get serious about policies that will put America on a path to energy independence or increase our Nation's oil dependence by another 450 million barrels.

The stakes for our country are enormous. If Members have any doubt about that, every day on television everybody is seeing what is happening in the gulf, the result of one single accident, one single offshore oil well.

In April of 2007, the Supreme Court, for the first time, issued a ruling on the issue of climate change. Some people don't like it. The Roberts Court was asked to consider the Bush administration's refusal to issue greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks. The case hinged on just two things: Does the Clean Air Act authorize the regulation of greenhouse gases, and, if so, should the EPA set emission standards for motor vehicles?

The decision by the majority was conclusive on both fronts. In light of that, the Justices directed the EPA to fulfill its obligation under the Clean Air Act to determine--I emphasize--based on scientific evidence whether greenhouse gas emissions for cars and trucks pose a threat to human health.

On May 19, the National Research Council, which is our Nation's leading scientific body, declared in its most comprehensive study to date that the evidence of climate change is overwhelming. They urged early, aggressive, and concerted actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The resolution we are debating today would achieve absolutely the opposite goal. We are being asked to vote down the science, to squander billions of barrels of oil savings, and shirk our responsibility to address the greatest national security and environmental challenge of our time.

Some may say, no; they are just trying to restrict the bureaucrats from doing this. Everybody understands what this battle is all about. By invalidating the fundamental scientific finding that greenhouse gases, in fact, pose a threat to human health and welfare, this resolution would remove the legal basis, the legal foundation for the agreement that was reached last year to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, this agreement, the agreement to which I am referring, is on track to save American consumers a total of $34 billion and to create 263,000 American jobs in 2020. The agreement also takes a huge step forward toward energy independence by reducing our oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels. If we remove the EPA's authority to jointly implement those regulations with the Department of Transportation, then we lose the foundation for proceeding forward with that benefit. That is the minimum amount by which this resolution would increase our oil dependence.

In light of President Obama's recent announcement that the administration plans to extend the vehicle standards beyond 2016, the prohibition on the EPA action would eliminate significant additional opportunities in the future to reduce our Nation's oil consumption, increase our energy security, and draw a bright line between ourselves and those nations that want to do us harm.

Why are we being asked to affirmatively reject a scientific finding that has been based on overwhelming evidence, and why would we be asked to reject potentially billions of barrels of oil savings? We are told Congress needs more time to develop energy and climate legislation. The Federal Government has to be stopped from making progress in the interim.

I have been meeting with my colleagues now for over a year at least, over 20 years that I have been working on this issue. The distinguished chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, similarly, and others, have been at this for a long time. I am struck by the irony that many of the proponents of this argument are the very same people who, at every opportunity, have avoided engaging in a serious legislative effort to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or deal with climate change.

On the one hand they say it is the job of Congress, not the EPA. Then they stand in the way of Congress doing its job in the first place. They stand in the way even at a time when we have built an unprecedented coalition of industry--the faith-based community, the national security community, businesses small and large, environmentalists, all of whom believe we now have a method by which we can grow jobs in our country, increase energy independence, and reduce pollution all at the same time.

Let me share with colleagues what Ron Brownstein, one of the keenest observers of Washington, summed up in writing the following:

It's reasonable to argue that Congress, not EPA, should

decide how to regulate carbon. But most of those Senators who

endorsed Murkowski's resolution also opposed the most

plausible remaining vehicle for legislating carbon limits.

I want to make sure we understand something as we do this. A lot of people have come to the Senate floor to eviscerate the EPA and create a caricature of that Agency, when that Agency, frankly, is taking a thoughtful, measured, stepwise approach to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Administrator Jackson has said she is committed to addressing the largest sources first, new powerplants or factories emitting more than 100,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions, and then going to those over 75,000 tons. None of that will even go into effect until a year from now through the normal administrative public process that we have set up for our agencies to represent us.

It is astonishing to me that this has become a partisan issue. In 1970, 20 million Americans came out of their homes to march in the streets because they saw the Cuyahoga River in Ohio light on fire. They wanted to stop the pollution. We passed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, marine mammal protection, coastal zone management. The history of the implementation of those acts has been to clean up rivers, clean up lakes, and see fish swim again where they didn't, to be caught again by kids who go fishing with their parents. We brought that back. Now we are trying to undermine the ability to continue that job, to make the health and welfare of our citizens better, and to lead the world with respect to these technologies. The United States is not leading in one of these technologies today. It is time for us to understand, we need to get our act together.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 26, the resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, relating to the endangerment for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Today's debate and this resolution are about whether this Congress will allow an executive branch agency--EPA--to unleash a regulatory onslaught that within a few years will capture homes, small businesses, farms, hospitals, and apartment buildings in an expensive, intrusive, and bureaucratic regulatory program. The consideration of this resolution is about preserving the traditional and constitutional role of Congress as the elected representatives of the citizens of this country to make necessary and proper laws for the Nation.

Congress is the appropriate branch of the Federal Government to debate and design a climate change policy. Many have complained that the Senate is taking too long to do this, but that doesn't mean EPA should go ahead and regulate on its own. It is also highly cynical for administration officials to suggest that the specter of EPA regulations should force Congress to act. I don't appreciate the implied threat that if Congress doesn't go along with EPA then the agency will impose costly regulations.

Many argue that passage of the resolution would prevent increases in the vehicle fuel economy and undo the ``historic'' agreement among the Federal Government, several states, labor unions, and the auto industry. It doesn't. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--NHTSA--has had authority to regulate and increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy--CAFE--standards for more than 30 years. In fact, Congress directed the agency to increase the standards to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020 in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. And these new standards will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EPA's activities on fuel economy through its so-called tailpipe rule are unnecessary to achieve the desired results, given the authorities already held by NHTSA.

Many also argue that passage of the resolution is contrary to the science of climate change. A letter generated by the Union of Concerned Scientists claims the resolution ``ignores'' the scientific findings of EPA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that the resolution is an ``attack'' on the Clean Air Act. They must not have read the resolution as even a cursory review of it will dispel this notion.

The resolution states, ``That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding . . . and such rule shall have no force or effect.'' This means the agency cannot use the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gas emissions. This does not speak to the issue of whether climate change is happening or what is causing it. Those who claim the resolution ignores science appear to be avoiding the debate over the economic consequences and legal validity of EPA's approach. I also believe that they are attempting an end-run around a skeptical Congress. I am sorry, but that is not how the American system of government works.

I know the climate in changing. In 2006, I visited Greenland. I toured the Kangia Ice Fjord and took a boat tour of Disko Bay to view the world's largest glaciers and icebergs floating in the bay. These glaciers were formed more than 1,000 years ago. I saw the glaciers melting and the remains of a 4,000-year-old village. Obviously, it was warm enough in the past for humans to live and thrive in that part of the world, even though in recent memory we only think of Greenland as covered in ice. I talked to the scientists who have studied Greenland's glaciers for decades. They told me that while the climate is changing they don't know with any certainty if the changes are natural or caused by human activity or a combination of the two. I found it interesting that while some glaciers are

melting, some are increasing in size. We just don't see what is happening on the back side.

The President and the Administrator of EPA, Lisa Jackson, have said their preference is for Congress to act. They know the Clean Air Act was not designed for controlling greenhouse gases. Yet they are swiftly moving ahead. Last week, EPA issued a final rule for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act's permitting programs. The so-called tailoring rule is the fourth significant action taken by the administration to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The first major action was EPA's determination--the Endangerment Finding--that greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks endanger human health and welfare. On April 1, 2010, EPA finalized the light duty vehicle rule controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Clean Air Act, when a pollutant becomes subject to regulation by one provision of the Act, it then becomes subject to regulation under other provisions. Hence, greenhouse gas emissions are now subject to regulation under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration--PSD--and title V operating permit programs. It is only a matter of time before greenhouse gases are subject to other provisions in the law, such as national ambient air quality standards.

Under current law, the title V program permitting requirements are triggered when a facility releases 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant. For the PSD program, the threshold is 250 tons per year. In the final rule, EPA ``tailors'' the application of the programs to significantly higher threshold levels. Without the tailoring rule, EPA estimates that about 6 million sources, including 37,000 farms and 3.9 million single family homes, will be required to obtain Clean Air Act permits.

EPA's own documents call the tailoring rule a commonsense approach to addressing greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act permitting programs. But I don't follow the agency's logic. The rule states emissions from small farms, restaurants, and all but the very largest commercial facilities will not be covered by these programs at this time. The rule establishes a schedule that will initially focus the permitting programs on the largest sources and without this tailoring rule the lower emissions thresholds would take effect automatically for greenhouse gases on January 2, 2011.

The agency, in its proposed rule, recognized the inherent problems with using the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule states, ``This extraordinary increase in the scope of the permitting programs coupled with the resulting burdens on the small sources and on the permitting authorities was not contemplated by Congress in enacting the PSD and Title V programs.'' It further states that, ``The new rules would apply Title V to millions of sources Congress did not intend to be covered and would impede the issuance of permits to the thousands of sources that Congress did intend to be covered.''

It is cold comfort that the smallest sources will not be regulated until 2016. We have a rule now that says it is not if but when hospitals, farms, small businesses, and apartment buildings can expect to have to apply for a clean air permit. We can only imagine what will happen to the economy if EPA is successful and its plans to fully regulate greenhouse gas emissions under all of the authorities of the Clean Air Act come to fruition.

One of the most troubling aspects about the tailoring rule and EPA's approach to its suite of greenhouse gas regulations is that there is no economic analysis. The agency hasn't even attempted to quantify the economic costs and regulatory burdens it will impose on American businesses and consumers. We have no idea what it will mean for jobs, economic growth or small businesses. Even though we can't quantify it or point to a document, it is not hard to imagine the significant costs it will impose.

While EPA isn't worried about this, States, businesses, unions, and individuals are. For example, in March, 20 Governors, including Governor Sunny Purdue of Georgia, wrote House and Senate leadership expressing grave concern about EPA's efforts to impose greenhouse gas regulations. They believe EPA's actions will place heavy administrative burdens on State environmental quality agencies just as States are expected to face their worst financial situations over the next 2 years. The Governors also are concerned that the regulations will be costly to consumers and could be devastating to the economy and jobs. The Governors believe that complex energy and environmental policy initiatives should be developed by elected representatives at the State and national level but not by a single Federal agency.

While Georgia believes the final rule is an improvement over the proposed one, there are still significant concerns. Most notably is its legal vulnerability. I quote from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection Branch comments on the proposed rule:

The GHG Tailoring Rule appears to be legally vulnerable and

may not provide intended relief from the statutory permitting

thresholds for PSD and Title V. If the Tailoring Rule is

vacated, the workload for permitting authorities will

increase exponentially at a time when State and Local

governments are experiencing severe budgetary challenges due

to the current economic climate. Vacatur of the GHG Tailoring

Rule seems to be a very real possibility.

The letter further states:

We also believe that EPA has failed to take into account

the length of time that it will take for permitting

authorities . . . to go through rulemaking, . . . hiring, and

training in order to implement the mandate of regulating GHG

emissions under the Title V and PSD permitting programs. In

Georgia, rulemaking will be required in order to insert the

new GHG emission thresholds. Rulemaking will also be required

in order to increase Title V fees consistent with the Clean

Air Act requirement that permitting programs collect enough

revenue to implement the program requirements. Given the

current state of the economic situation in our state and

country, this issue should not be taken lightly. Then,

permitting authorities must hire and train staff to issue

these complicated permits. This could take up to two years

after the requirement is triggered. Raising the regulatory

threshold will not abate the predicted permitting backlog if

additional permitting personnel are not in place at the time

the additional workload occurs.

EPA is moving ahead despite these concerns and the economic consequences of its plans. They will increase energy prices, add to administrative costs for companies, decrease job creation, and create a large new government bureaucracy, which will endanger economic recovery and limit future growth. While the final rule with its phased-in implementation is a small step in the right direction, the Clean Air Act continues to be the wrong tool for the job, and EPA's timeline and its shaky legal foundation will continue to create significant uncertainty for the State permitting agencies and businesses community.

At this time, there is no other option to stop EPA from moving ahead. Some of our colleagues have introduced measures to provide for a time out; others are looking at ways to codify the tailoring rule and provide permanent exemptions for small businesses. However, there are no plans for the Senate to consider these measures. If there were another option, I would be open to it.

The Congressional Review Act was designed for the purpose of reviewing agency actions. The majority leader understands this and recognizes that, ``overburdensome and unnecessary federal regulation can choke the life out of small businesses by imposing costly and often-ineffectual remedies to problems that may not exist.'' No description could be more accurate about EPA's greenhouse gas regulatory plans.

Some argue that it would be a dangerous precedent for Congress to stop EPA's endangerment finding. However, it is far more dangerous for the Nation if Congress allows an agency to impose these regulations under a law that was not designed for the purpose. By issuing the tailoring rule, the administration has again reminded us that if Congress won't legislate, EPA will regulate. I believe my colleague from Alaska was correct when she called this a highly coercive strategy. I am appalled by the actions of EPA.

There is a reason why the U.S. Senate hasn't acted on a cap and trade bill. This is because analyses of these bills shows they cause significant economic harm--job losses, higher energy prices, higher gas taxes, less economic growth.

It makes no sense for Congress to pass job-killing legislation in order to stave off costly regulation.

The House and Senate cap and trade bills are truly bad for agriculture. They would dramatically increase energy and other input costs and, according to EPA, would cause the shift of 59 million acres out of production into trees. With a growing world population to feed, our farmers and ranchers will need to produce more food in the future, not less. If enacted as written today, cap and trade legislation would only push agriculture production overseas, raising many of the same concerns that have been expressed about the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Rather than driving American agriculture offshore, a more sensible approach would be to increase food, fuel, and fiber production right here at home. In this Nation, we have an abundant natural resource base, an economy built on open and transparent markets, and sufficient protections for consumers and the environment.

Last fall, Texas A&M University released a study on the House cap and trade bill. I mention it again today because it is most instructive of what we can expect to see in the agricultural sector under a cap and trade regime.

Texas A&M University used its representative farm database to study the effects of the House bill at the farmgate level. This database was developed to help Congress better understand the effects of legislation at the individual producer level. The study shows that 71 out of 98 farms in the database will be worse off under the House bill. The 27 farms that benefit do so because other producers go out of business they benefit because there are fewer acres in production, thus crop prices rise.

Some producers will see increased revenue from an offset program, but it is not a significant factor in the profitability of farms in the analysis. The study also dramatically shows the regional disparities of the House bill. Only some cornbelt farmers benefit. It's hard to imagine that members of the Senate Agriculture Committee will be able to endorse a policy that disproportionally favors certain commodities, few producers and one part of the country at the expense of others.

In January, 150 agriculture organizations sent a letter to my colleague from Alaska supporting the introduction of the resolution. These groups wrote that, ``Such regulatory actions will carry severe consequences for the U.S. economy, including America's farmers and ranchers, through increased input costs and international market disparities.'' They also believe that, ``EPA's finding puts the agricultural economy at grave risk based on allegations of a weak, indirect link to public health and welfare and despite the lack of any environmental benefit.''

On May 18, I received another letter from 49 different agriculture groups. They state:

Without relief from Congress, we fully expect the

application of these programs to have severe economic impacts

on agriculture. Not only will producers likely incur

increased costs as a result of the regulatory impacts on

other economic sectors, but agricultural producers will

eventually be directly regulated. The final EPA tailoring

rule estimates the average cost for these permits is $23,200

per permit. For the 37,000 farms identified by EPA as likely

to require permits this would cost them more than $866

million just to obtain the permit.

In contrast to the campaign slogans and feel-good messages of hope and change for farmers, ranchers and rural America, this administration is causing great pain through its actions, especially its economic policies and far-reaching regulatory programs and goals. The endangerment finding and related regulations are only one set--albeit a very significant set--of regulatory actions facing producers and rural America. By themselves, these will impose higher energy costs on rural residents and businesses. Higher costs in rural areas mean fewer jobs and opportunities for those who live there.

Another immense expansion of Federal regulatory authority that will have severe consequences for producers and rural landowners is the administration's support for legislation to grant EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers--Corps--nearly unlimited regulatory control over all ``intrastate waters,'' including all wet areas within a State, such as groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, gutters, and desert features. The administration supports giving EPA and the Corps unrestricted authority to regulate all private and public activities that may affect intrastate waters, regardless of whether the activity is occurring in or may impact water at all. Unbelievably, the administration supports eliminating the existing regulatory limitations that allow commonsense uses such as those allowed with a prior converted cropland designation. I strongly oppose this effort to expand EPA's and the Corps' regulatory control. I do not believe the Federal Government should regulate all wet areas within a State.

The administration also is attempting to circumvent one of the most highly regarded environmental statutes--the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, that governs the licensing and use of pesticides. This is a well-crafted law that balances the risks and benefits of pesticide use. EPA has an excellent staff of scientists and experts working in this area. However, the agency's political leadership is trying to implement by regulatory fiat a precautionary approach, which is contradictory to current law.

For example, last fall, EPA proposed to add language to pesticide product labels that will forbid pesticide applications that result in drift that could cause harm or adverse effects. For many years, EPA and state pesticide regulators recognized that a small amount of drift inevitably will occur, and that when pesticides are applied according to their label instructions, this small amount of drift does not cause an unreasonable adverse effect. If an unreasonable adverse effect is likely to be caused by a certain use of a pesticide, FIFRA requires, and Congress expects, the label to reflect that information and appropriate mitigation be required.

In April, I wrote to EPA, along with the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and other colleagues, about the need for greater clarity in pesticide drift policy and noted that such clarity would benefit the agency, pesticide users and State regulatory agencies. However, we noted that the proposal set forth vague standards and would not have clarified pesticide drift policy. It also exceeded the authority granted to the agency by FIFRA. We asked the proposed policy to be reconsidered. I am pleased to note that recently EPA made the right decision to do so.

One other issue I raise reflects the administration's willingness to cast aside rational, science-based policy when given the opportunity to impose additional regulation. In January 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in National Cotton Council v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would require pesticide applications to be permitted under the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--NPDES. The permit would be in addition to any label requirements or restrictions already placed on the use of the pesticide under FIFRA.

Unfortunately, the administration refused to appeal the decision even though it admitted in a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court this year that the Sixth Circuit Court reached the wrong decision. Pesticides are not pollutants under the Clean Water Act and have never been. Instead, EPA, for political reasons, has been working to develop a NPDES general permit for discharges from the application of pesticides. EPA released the draft permit last week for public comment and will issue a final permit in December 2010. Pesticides applications must be covered by a permit by April 9, 2011. Is your State ready to issue these permits? Are your producers and applicators ready to apply for them?

This has been a particular concern for State and public health officials as it has the potential to seriously affect their ability to control mosquitoes, especially those carrying the West Nile Virus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 720 cases, including 32 deaths, attributed to the virus in 2009. This is better than 2008, in which there were 1,370 cases, including 37 deaths. In 2009, two of those deaths were in my home State of Georgia.

Talk about overburdensome, unnecessary regulation! Requiring producers, pest control agencies and other users to obtain NPDES permits will do nothing to enhance the environment. It

only doubles the number of permitted entities and creates new requirements for monitoring, surveillance, planning, recordkeeping, and reporting that only will create significant delays, costs, reporting burdens and legal risks from citizen suits. These permits will provide absolutely benefit only cost.

All issues regarding water and pesticides are addressed by EPA as part of the pesticide registration process. If there are concerns, mitigation is required. We are fortunate we have a strong law that requires rigorous science and careful balancing of risks and benefits.

The Endangerment Finding and related rules, along with the other environmental regulations planned by the administration will hurt the productivity of American farmers and ranchers and make the future for U.S. agriculture far less bright than it should be. These actions are basically a backdoor tax on every American family and business by unelected bureaucrats. Federal regulation is not the key to success or jobs in rural areas or in any other part of this Nation.

Some claim that EPA's actions should scare Congress into passing a cap and trade bill, but I disagree. Congress should not be bullied into passing bad legislation and neither should it stand for an agency that is vastly overreaching. The choice is clear to me--do Senators want EPA to impose a regulatory regime that it has tenuous authority to create or do you want Congress to make the laws of the land? If you believe Congress should develop laws and set policy, then vote in support of the resolution. I strongly oppose EPA's actions and plan to vote yes on the Murkowski resolution.

Mr. President, Senator Webb of Virginia, the colleague of the Presiding Officer, and I are introducing legislation today to propose that the United States build its clean energy future upon the lessons of the Manhattan Project of World War II. That helped end the war. It was a millions-of-man-hour effort that the New York Times called ``without doubt, the most concentrated intellectual effort in history.''

Specifically, we will introduce legislation to create the business and regulatory environment to double our country's nuclear power production within 20 years and to launch five mini-Manhattan Projects to make advanced clean energy technologies effective and cost- competitive.

The most important thing I can say is that the senior Senator from Virginia and the junior Senator from Virginia and I have all talked about this subject before. I think we see there is a great deal of consensus in this body about some steps we can take on clean energy. So what Senator Webb and I are hoping to do with this framework is to see on a one-on-one basis whether it is the kind of framework that will permit us to work with other Senators who expressed an interest in nuclear power and energy research and development. And while we are contending about economy-wide cap and trade, we could move ahead with these steps that have to do with clean energy, clean air, climate change, low-cost, reliable energy.

In other words, this is a piece of legislation that you can support if you are for an economy-wide cap and trade or if you are against an economy-wide cap and trade. There are some things we can do to help our country that also help us deal with climate change.

In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Senator McKellar, the Tennessean who chaired the Appropriations Committee, to hide $2 billion in the appropriations bill for a secret project to win World War II. Senator McKellar replied:

That should be no problem, Mr. President. I have just one

question: Where in Tennessee do you want me to hide it?

That place in Tennessee turned out to be Oak Ridge, one of the three secret cities that became the principal sites for the Manhattan Project that split the atom and built a bomb before Germany could. Nearly 200,000 people worked on the project in 30 different sites in 3 countries.

President Roosevelt's $2 billion appropriation would be $24 billion today.

After World War II, in 1947, ADM Hyman Rickover came to Oak Ridge for training that led to the nuclear Navy that helped to defend our country for half a century. Shortly thereafter, in December 1953, President Eisenhower proposed his Atoms For Peace Program that has grown into the world's most effective supplier of large amounts of reliable, carbon- free, low-cost electricity.

The rest of the world has a new interest in this American success story, as countries seek energy independence, clean air, cheap energy for job creation, as well as carbon-free energy to deal with global warming. The Chinese are starting a new nuclear powerplant every 2 or 3 months. The Japanese obtain a third of their power from nuclear plants and build new reactors from start to finish in less than 4 years. France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and, as a result, has among the lowest electricity rates and carbon emissions in Western Europe. Russia plans to double its nuclear power capacity. The United Arab Emirates is planning three new reactors by 2020, and just last week the United Kingdom announced it will build 10. Yet the country that invented this remarkable technology, the United States of America, has not started a new nuclear powerplant in 30 years even though we still get 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity and 19 percent of all our electricity from 104 reactors built between 1970 and 1990.

It is true that there are other promising forms of low-carbon and carbon-free renewable energy, but the stark reality is that there is a huge gap between this renewable electricity we would like to have and the reliable, low-cost electricity that a country that uses 25 percent of all the energy in the world has to have.

Today, despite heavy subsidies, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass renewable energy produce only 3 percent of U.S. electricity. The Energy Information Administration forecasts a 22-percent increase in U.S. electricity demand during the next 20 years. For that much electricity, our country simply cannot rely solely on conservation, on windmills and solar panels or even on natural gas. We are fortunate to have a new, massive natural gas set of discoveries in the United States, but a natural gas powerplant still produces about half as much carbon as a new coal plant. And if too many natural gas plants are built, today's low prices could mean high prices tomorrow for farmers, homeowners, and manufacturers.

Add to that a recent Nature Conservancy scientific paper that warned of a coming renewable energy sprawl, especially from biofuels, biomass, and wind turbines, that would consume an area the size of West Virginia. A biomass plant, for example, that would produce as much electricity as one nuclear reactor on 1 square mile would require continuously deforesting an area about 1.5 times the size of the Great Smoky National Park. Producing 20 percent of our electricity from 50- story wind turbines, as some have suggested, would require covering an area the size of West Virginia and building 19,000 miles of new transmission lines.

When these are strung along scenic ridgetops, coastlines, or other treasured landscapes, we will be destroying the environment in the name of saving the environment. Solar and wind installations require between 30 and 270

square miles to duplicate the output of just one nuclear reactor on 1 square mile. Moreover, these energy sources must be backed up by other generation since they only produce power when the wind blows or the Sun shines, and that electricity cannot be stored in large amounts. There is only one wind farm in the entire Southern United States because the wind doesn't blow enough. In the Tennessee Valley Authority region, solar costs at least four to five times as much as other electricity that TVA buys.

As for green jobs, according to the Department of Energy, there will be 250,000 construction jobs for 100 new nuclear plants. This would compare with 73,000 jobs to construct the 180,000 wind turbines needed to produce 20 percent of our electricity from wind. Of course, producing a lot of cheap, reliable energy is the best way to produce new jobs.

Think of it this way. If we were going to war, we wouldn't mothball our nuclear Navy and start subsidizing sailboats. If climate change, as well as low-cost, reliable energy are national imperatives, we should not stop building nuclear plants and start subsidizing windmills. I am on the side of those who say we need to deal with climate change. The national academies of 11 industrialized countries, including the United States, have said humans probably have caused most of the recent global warming.

If fire chiefs of the same reputation said my house might burn down, I would buy fire insurance, but I would buy insurance that worked and that was not so expensive that I couldn't pay my mortgage or my hospital bill.

Fortunately, there are two steps that will benefit our country in multiple ways--namely, cleaner air; more energy independence; more reliable, low-cost power--and will also help fight global warming. The first is to double production of electricity from carbon-free nuclear power, which would mean building 100 new plants as we did between 1970 or 1990 or a larger number of the new, small, and modular reactors now being discussed. The second is to apply to the promising new technologies, such as the renewable technologies, the same discipline and resources we did with the original Manhattan Project in order to make them effective and cost competitive.

That is why the bill Senator Webb and I are introducing today, the Clean Energy Act of 2009, proposes the following: No. 1, loan guarantees: $100 billion to encourage startup of all forms of carbon- free electricity production, expanding the $47 billion loan guarantee program that exists today, and $18 billion of those funds are currently available for nuclear projects.

Secretary Chu has suggested it should be in the forties. I believe that number should be closer to the sixties or the seventies. But the purpose of this is to get the first few nuclear plants up and running, and then the money is paid back. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this could cost up to $10 billion but might cost much less. New reactor designs, $1 billion over 5 years to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review new designs such as the generation 4 reactors that don't isolate plutonium and, therefore, help solve the used nuclear fuel problems, and small modular reactors that can be built in U.S. factories and assembled on site such as LEGO blocks. No. 3, nuclear workforce, $1 billion over 10 years to ensure a supply of nuclear engineers, operators, and craftsmen such as welders and pipe fitters. Americans have a generation gap in these skilled personnel. No. 4, more power from existing reactors. This would be $500 million over 10 years to increase the efficiency and develop longer lifetimes for our existing 104 reactors. If we did both of these things, we might create the equivalent production of 20 or 30 more reactors. Then, finally, the five new, what we call mini-Manhattan Projects for clean energy.

Here are the five mini-Manhattan Projects: $750 million per year over 10 years for research and development on, No. 1, carbon capture emissions from coal plants. In many ways that is the holy grail of energy R&D. If we can find a way to do that, we can have all of the low-cost, clean electricity we can use. No. 2, develop advanced biofuels from crops that we don't eat; No. 3, improve batteries for electric cars so instead of taking us 100 miles without recharging, they might take us 300 or 400 miles; make solar power more cost competitive.

That has the most promise in terms of renewable energy because we have rooftops on which to put the panels. They just cost too much today. Then recycling used nuclear fuel in a way that doesn't isolate plutonium, that reduces by 99.9 percent the radioactive life of what is left, and by 97 percent the mass we have to deal with. The cost to taxpayers over 20 years would be no more than $20 billion. There would be no new energy taxes or mandates. This $20 billion would compare with $170 billion we would spend in taxpayer subsidies, if we were to produce 20 percent of our electricity from wind, not counting the billions more for transmission lines.

By my computation, if we actually did build 100 nuclear plants in 20 years, as well as electrify half our cars and trucks in 20 years, which we should be able to do without building one new powerplant if we plugged them in at night, we would come close to reaching the 1990 Kyoto global warming protocols without expensive new energy taxes. Reaching that goal is even more likely if some of our mini-Manhattan Projects produce results we hope for from new technologies.

The world nuclear power revival is well underway. With our Clean Energy Act of 2009, that revival might finally reach American shores where it began. The lessons of the Manhattan Project could advance the days when more nuclear power and new forms of clean energy can make us more energy independent, clean our air, help fight global warming, and produce large amounts of reliable, low-cost, clean electricity that will keep American jobs from going overseas looking for cheap energy.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a one-page summary of the Alexander-Webb legislation, called the Clean Energy Act of 2009.

I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, for his leadership. He brings a special knowledge to this because of his background in the Navy as an engineer and as Secretary of the Navy. Thousands of our sailors have lived on top of reactors for 50 years safely. This is an idea that has broad support on both sides of the aisle, I believe. We have gotten so stuck on arguing about the economy- wide cap and trade that we have failed to notice the areas where we may be able to agree. We certainly agree on energy research and development.

The President has strongly supported that. We certainly agree on electrification of cars and trucks. The President also strongly supports that.

I believe there is more agreement on nuclear power than we have seen before. So we are going to work with Democratic and Republican Senators who have already expressed such an interest and others who may be thinking about it over the next few weeks to see if this will form a framework for that kind of discussion.