Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. BOXER. Do we have 2 unused minutes?

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

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

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

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

Mrs. BOXER. 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.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. 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.

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

Mrs. BOXER. 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.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleagues from the bottom of my heart for this vote. This was, in many ways, a turning point for the Senate, because what was before us was unprecedented, the first time we had ever been asked to repeal a health finding, a scientific finding, a finding that was made by scientists and health officials in the Bush administration and the Obama administration. That finding, as we know, is the predicate, is the basis for curbing pollution, carbon pollution, that we know is harmful to our families. We see what carbon pollution is doing in the gulf, to the wildlife. We know what it is doing to an entire way of life. We know what it is doing to the fishermen, to the people who rely on recreation for jobs, to the people who rely on tourism. Tonight we had a choice. We could have decided to stand with the polluters, big oil mostly, who were behind the Murkowski resolution, or we could have decided, which we did, to stand with those who are looking out for our kids, the doctors, the physicians who treat them, the pediatricians, the Lung Association, the public health agencies in all of our States. We did the right thing, and this was important. It also means we are going to move to alternative energy. We are going to move to the millions of jobs that will come about when we have technologies made in America for America. I want to see the words ``Made in America'' again. So we are on that path right now. I want to thank the extraordinary leadership of our leaders, Senators Reid and Durbin. They went that extra mile. I want to thank the staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee, headed by Bettina Poirier, extraordinary staff. I want to thank the cloakroom here and all the people here who helped us make sure that every Senator was able to be heard. Senator Murkowski and I worked very well together debating this in a civil manner. I want to say, as I note Senator Lautenberg standing here, I felt the moment this debate came together was when he came to the floor to make a statement, brief though it was. He talked to us not from his notes but from his heart, about what it means to him as a grandparent to watch a grandchild suffer and struggle through asthma, and as he has noted on this floor on more than one occasion, his family making sure that when this child plays in an athletic tournament or goes somewhere, how close is the emergency room. This is what we are dealing with today, pollution. And today we said: We stand with the physicians, we stand with the scientists, and we are going to move forward toward a clean energy economy and all of the jobs that will come with it, and all of the technologies that will make America a leader in the world. At this time I yield the floor to my friend Senator Durbin.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, and that I be recognized to make some remarks after this very historic vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The U.S.-China Economic Relationship: A New Approach for A New China.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Strategic Arms Control and National Security (Treaty Doc. 111-5).''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Production over Protections: A Review of Process Safety Management in the Oil and Gas Industry'' on June 10, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 3 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m. in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Deep Impact: Assessing the Effects of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on States, Localities and the Private Sector.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 10, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Julie DeMeester, a fellow in Senator Durbin's office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the Murkowski resolution debate.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Baucus, that a fellow, Andrew Erickson, be granted the privileges of the floor during the consideration of this resolution.