Resolution Of Disapproval Of EPA Rule-Motion To Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to the Murkowski resolution which, sadly, is sponsored by virtually the entire Republican caucus, which would overturn EPA's endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to the public health and welfare.

This resolution is not about whether EPA or Congress should regulate greenhouse gas emissions. What this resolution is about is whether we go forward in public policy based on science or based on politics. That is what this resolution is about.

I have a very hard time understanding where all of this antiscience sentiment is coming from. If an American gets sick and goes to a doctor, she does not worry about whether that doctor is a Republican or a Democrat, whether the doctor is conservative or progressive. The concern is that the physician is well trained by a certified academic institution and has the scientific knowledge needed to treat the ailment. That is what Americans go to doctors for. It is not a political issue. It is a matter of science and biology, of the best medical treatment available.

But somehow when we talk about global warming, we do not have to worry about the science, we do not have to worry about what the leading experts and scientific institutions all over the world are telling us. For whatever reason, this discussion about global warming is now political, not scientific.

This is absurd. It should be no more political than the best cancer treatment available or how we deal with a broken leg. Let's look at the science. Let's look at the leading scientists all over the world.

Scientists at the following world-renowned American institutions have all found that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Here they are: NASA, National Science Foundation, Departments of Defense, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, Transportation, Health and Human Services, State, Commerce, the Smithsonian Institute, the National Academies of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The CIA believes global warming presents one of the major security risks facing our country. If all of these scientific institutions are wrong, why do we continue funding them?

But this is not an issue just for the American scientific community or governmental agencies. This is the consensus that exists in virtually every country in the world.

It is ironic this resolution against the science of global warming comes from the Republican Senator from Alaska, a State clearly experiencing the impacts of global warming. The Alaska State government Web site says:

Global warming is currently impacting Alaska and will continue to impact it in a number of ways. These impacts include melting polar ice, the retreat of glaciers, increasing storm intensity, wildfires, coastal flooding, droughts, crop failures, loss of habitat and threatened plant and animal species.

Three Alaskan villages have begun relocation plans, and the U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers says over 160 more rural communities are threatened by erosion from global warming impacts. This is going on in Alaska.

The evidence of global warming is overwhelming. NASA has reported that the previous decade was the warmest on record--90 percent of observed glaciers are shrinking. Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers in 1910 and now has just 30. Arctic sea ice is covering smaller areas every summer. Sea levels have risen as much as 9 inches in some areas, causing the island nation of Maldives to divert revenues to purchase a new homeland for its people. Harmful insects are migrating for higher altitudes and causing forest destruction, including 70,000 square miles of American and Canadian forests since 2000.

So with all of this evidence, who is arguing against global warming? Who is saying it is not real? Well, the well-known climate expert Glen Beck has suggested climate scientists should commit suicide and compared Al Gore to Adolf Hitler. There you go. Rush Limbaugh, another scientist of outstanding repute, says global warming is ``bogus'' and is the work of ``pseudoscientists.''

Well, from where are these rightwing media commentators getting their talking points? In many cases from precisely those corporations that want us to remain dependent on fossil fuel, that want us to continue importing hundreds of billions of dollars a year of foreign oil, that want to continue making record-breaking billions and billions of dollars in profit as they charge us $3 per gallon of gas.

During the 1990s, big oil companies such as Exxon and BP funded an industry front group called the Global Climate Coalition.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SANDERS. These oil companies used tobacco industry lobbyists and tactics to cast doubt on global warming science.

What this is about is, if our Nation is to prosper, if we are to create the millions of jobs we desperately need, we have to have science-based public policy and not politically based. I would hope that we will reject, very strongly, the Murkowski resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source