Resolution Of Disapproval Of EPA Rule-Motion To Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Murkowski resolution gives the Senate a choice between real science and political science. That is what it comes down to.

The EPA went to the scientists across America and asked them the basic question: Do greenhouse gas emissions endanger life and the planet on which we live? After months and thousands of comments and 380,000 scientific comments, they concluded that it does. They said that we have a responsibility under the Clean Air Act to protect the people in the United States and the people on Earth. We are going to move forward with a gradual, systematic way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions because we know they are causing damage.

Twenty-one years ago, I went to Alaska, to Prince William Sound, after the Exxon Valdez ran aground. I saw the thousands of barrels of black, sludgy oil covering that pristine and beautiful part of America in Alaska.

I have spoken to the Senator who is the sponsor of this resolution. Twenty-one years later, we still know that ecology, that environment has not recovered from that spill. But that was very obvious. You could see it. It was filthy. There are changes in the environment that are hurting Alaska today that are hard to see.

We know greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution are changing Alaska, with the loss of sea ice; the melting permafrost; coastal erosion in villages, such as Shismaref, that have been falling into the ocean; ocean acidification. The Arctic icecap, which is a key ecological component of Alaska's ecology, has a record-low amount of Arctic sea ice.

Are we to ignore this? You will ignore it if you vote yes for the Murkowski resolution. You will choose political science over the real science that tells us that unless we come to grips with the air pollution that threatens us, it will not only endanger our lungs and our lives, it will endanger the planet on which we live.

In 1970, we created the EPA, under President Richard Nixon. In those days, 40 years ago, the environmental issues were bipartisan issues. People came together and said: We can address the challenges facing us in the United States and around the world on a bipartisan basis.

Well, bipartisanship is still alive when it comes to important environmental issues. There is bipartisan opposition to the Murkowski resolution. It turns out those who headed the EPA under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan all oppose the Murkowski resolution. They believe, as scientists do, that we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to seize this moment and find a way to save this planet we live on and make it healthier for all of us and for our children.

We have had great success with the Clean Air Act. We have reduced pollution. We are moving forward. But the Murkowski resolution says stop--stop taking those actions that have been proposed by the EPA to reduce pollution; ignore the scientific findings and accept the political science.

What do I mean by that? There are political forces strongly in support of the Murkowski resolution. Big oil is one of them. Energy companies agree we should stop this EPA regulation. Of course, they have a vested interest. They have money on the table. How credible is big oil today on the floor of the Senate when we have witnessed the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? Are we going to criticize them in the morning in speeches and then reward them by passing this resolution in the afternoon? I hope not.

I hope we will take an honest look at the environment we live in and understand that to give away basic scientific findings, walk away from them, and embrace political science is something we will never be able to explain to future generations.

The United States should join in leading the world to clean up the planet on which we live. Passage of the Murkowski resolution is a step backward. It will say to the world that the United States is in complete denial; that the Senate is rejecting the findings of scientists all across the world; and that we don't need to address climate change and the impact of air pollution on our lives.

This is a singular historic moment. I sincerely hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and I hope it is bipartisan again--will join in standing up for science, for clean air, for an approach to the environment that says our kids will have a fighting chance to live on a planet that can sustain life and do it in a healthy way.

I reserve the remainder of my time on this side and yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source