Resolution of Disapproval of EPA Rule--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Today, in the midst of the biggest oil spill in our Nation's history, we are debating a joint resolution, supported by the oil industry, among others, that effectively says that the Senate, with its extensive expertise, believes the Environmental Protection Agency was wrong to conclude that greenhouse gases are pollutants despite the preponderance of the evidence, scientific evidence, that shows this to be an accurate and correct assessment. The Senate can pass a resolution saying practically anything, but it does not change reality. The fact is, the best science tells us that climate change is real and that greenhouse gas emissions contribute significantly to it.

It is also true that our continuing reliance on fossil fuel undermines not only our environmental quality but our national and economic security. We have seen the environmental effects played out dramatically and catastrophically in the Gulf of Mexico with the BP disaster. But if we do nothing, we will continue to see our economy held hostage by our need for fossil fuels and the billions of dollars a year we send overseas to buy oil. We will see our national security imperiled by our over-reliance on these fossil fuels and our continuing inability to take effective, measured action based on science to control these greenhouse gases.

This resolution is more than just our opinion; it would effectively and permanently block the EPA from taking concrete steps today to deal with this problem. For example, it would prevent the EPA from collaborating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on new vehicle efficiency and emission standards. These are commonsense, doable achievements, and, in fact, we are seeing even the automobile industry support this. It is estimated that if the EPA and the highway traffic safety administration move forward, they could save consumers more than $3,000 in fuel costs over the lifetime of their vehicles. Think of that. If we were talking about a $3,000 tax rebate to Americans, everybody would be jumping up and down saying that is great.

By improving the efficiency of automobiles and doing it in a thoughtful way, we can provide consumers, families, over the lifetime of a vehicle--several years--$3,000 in benefits rather than shipping that $3,000 overseas to buy petroleum. That is a pretty good deal. This resolution would effectively prevent that.

The proponents of the resolution say: Congress has to act on this. That is true, but I would be more encouraged with that line of argument if it were matched by effective action to deal with the serious problems that face this country today. Indeed, we have spent months and weeks laboring over the extension of unemployment benefits. Every significant bill that has come to this floor has been filibustered time and time again. To suggest disingenuously that we will pass this resolution and get on to a climate change bill, pass it within several weeks or months is, I think, not borne out by the evidence of what we have seen in this Chamber over the last several months.

We have to move forward. As I said, this is not only an economic issue. It is a national security issue. The Quadrennial Defense Review in February 2010 noted--this is the review that is done periodically to assess the strategic position of the United States:

Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.

In effect, what this review suggested is that it is very likely climate change will be an accelerant of instability. At this moment in time, the last thing we need is to accelerate instability in the world.

One of the challenges we face is that this is not the Cold War where we are facing a monolithic Soviet Union and its allies in a strategic conflict that can be managed through deterrence. This is a situation where our greatest danger today is in unstable parts of the world, and that instability is going to be accelerated if we do not take steps. This is not just an issue of the economy, environmental rules, whether Congress should act or the agencies act. This is whether we are going to deal with the forces that are causing turmoil and instability in the world.

For these reasons and many others, I urge rejection of this resolution.

I reserve the remainder of our time, and I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source