[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8298-8301]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
GLOBAL WARMING
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for such time as I may consume.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if you have been watching the global
warming debate lately, you will notice the supporters of cap and trade
are getting kind of nervous. They realize the political environment for
cap and trade couldn't be more favorable--they have a majority of
liberals in the Senate, a majority of liberals in the House, and
liberals in the White House. But they also realize time is running out.
The November elections are looming, and there are a lot of people
coming up for reelection who don't want to go back to the electorate
and say: Look at me; aren't you proud; I voted for the largest tax
increase in American history.
As Senator Kerry put it, this is the last call to pass the bill, and
that is exactly what Senator Kerry is trying to do. But he will not get
60 votes. He will not get the support of the Democrats in the
heartland, and he will not convince the American public they need this
tax increase. I say this with confidence because the bill Senator Kerry
introduced last week with Senator Lieberman is the same old cap-and-
trade scheme the Senate rejected in the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003,
the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2005, the Warner-Lieberman bill in 2008,
and the Waxman-Markey bill in 2009. Let us keep in mind that cap and
trade is cap and trade, and that is a very large tax increase.
Don't forget that the Senate support for cap and trade over that time
has actually dropped. If you take it from 2003 to the present time, in
2003, they got 43 votes; in 2005, they got 38 votes; and in 2008, they
got 48 votes. But you have to keep in mind that 10 of those were for a
procedural vote and they said they wouldn't vote for it, so it went
down to 38 votes at that time. So that is a far cry from the 60 that
will be necessary.
The Kerry-Lieberman bill is not going to pass. However, those who
still believe in the anthropogenic catastrophic warming--which I don't,
but even if you did believe it--should keep in mind that this wouldn't
solve the
[[Page 8299]]
problem. What I am saying is this: There are a lot of people around--
not nearly as many as 5 or 10 years ago--who believe that anthropogenic
gases--CO2, methane, carbon dioxide--are causing
catastrophic global warming.
They are still here. They still believe that. But even if you
believed it, passing this bill would not help the situation because in
this bill, all it applies to is the United States of America. We could
go ahead and restrict all the CO2 we want to in the United
States, it is not going to lower it at all.
I have a lot of respect for the new--not too new, now she has been
here for a while--EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson. I appreciate her
honesty. I asked her the question back when we had the Waxman-Markey
bill before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
I said to the Administrator: In the event we were to pass any of these
cap-and-trade bills in the United States, would it have the effect of
lowering the CO2 worldwide?
She said no, it wouldn't. In fact--we showed a chart. I should have
it with me down here right now. She said it would not because this only
applies to the United States.
I contend it would actually increase world emissions. The reason I
say that is if we were to unilaterally do this, restrict our ability to
build power in America, then our jobs would have to go to countries
where the power is. Consequently, they would go to countries such as
Mexico, China, and India, places where they do not have any meaningful
restrictions on CO2. That would have the effect of
increasing it, not decreasing it.
I have a lot of respect for Lisa Jackson. I kind of abused her time
during this oilspill. I called her many times. I know she is right on
top of things and is doing a very good job.
Here we go again. Look closely at the Kerry-Lieberman bill. I am sure
you have seen it before. It is the Waxman-Markey bill. You remember
that. It passed in the middle of the night in the House of
Representatives. We all remember that, passing by 219 to 212. Every
kind of deal in the world was made and nobody knew it except the vote
finally took place and they eked it out. Democrats, 44 of them, voted
no because they knew the cost of the bill. The Waxman-Markey bill,
according to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, would lead to a
net reduction of 3.6 million jobs, raise electricity rates by 48
percent, and disproportionately affect the West, Midwest, South, and
Great Plains, which rely heavily on fossil fuels.
The word about Waxman-Markey spread across the country and the
American people were listening. Citizens at townhall meetings expressed
their outrage. They said no to a bill that would give big government
control over how we use electricity and how we live every day of our
lives. That is what the public would get with Kerry-Lieberman.
They also get a gas tax or linked fee. This is Washington jargon for
a thing like gas tax: they don't call it a gas tax, they call it a
linked fee for transportation fuels. From what I understand, this
linked fee is being pushed by a select group of big oil companies. That
is right, oil companies. I said some time ago the only way they can
somehow pass any kind of cap and trade is to somehow divide and
conquer. In other words, go to some of the oil companies, gas
companies, coal companies, nuclear companies, and tell them we are
going to pick winners and losers, but guess what. You are a winner. We
will pick you and everything is going to be wonderful. The public needs
to know a lot of big oil companies are involved. They are pushing a tax
they know will be paid for by consumers, the same consumers suffering
from an economy with 10 percent unemployment. I will make myself clear:
I stand with the consumers, and by that I mean farmers, families,
truckers, businesses large and small in rural Oklahoma, who drive long
distances. They don't need this tax increase now or ever.
It is a sad thing that we have to use those tactics. Then it is even
not all that smart, when you stop and think that has not worked before.
They tried the same thing, to divide and conquer, before. In this case
they brought in some of the refiners and said if you will join with us,
this will be fine with you. You have to raise your rates, but then you
can pass that on to the consumers. Then we pass a gas tax increase and
those consumers will be hit twice, but you will be all right.
That is not the way it works. The other provision is crafted and
select business groups. Do they think a bill on cap and trade is good
for the economy, good for your members? I don't think so.
Don't forget what happened with Waxman-Markey; some utilities thought
they had a deal. When the language was actually drafted, the deal made
Waxman and Markey happy but not the utilities.
This is interesting, because they had the great unveiling that took
place last week but didn't have the bill language. It had an outline of
some things but not the exact bill language. That is exactly what they
tried to do with Waxman-Markey. This time we will insist on seeing the
actual language.
I remind my colleagues of a pattern here. We had the Waxman-Markey
vote under the cover of night. We had the ``Cornhusker'' kickback, with
the Senate health care bill. Now we have secret meetings with
stakeholders and CEOs. There is a sense that what they are doing has
little support with the American people. They are hiding and obscuring
and evading.
I suppose I can't blame them. Remember the August recess of last
year? That was the beginning of what we call the tea party movement.
This was interesting because this all happened during the August recess
when those of us in the House and Senate were back in our States. The
people of the tea party movement were objecting to four things. There
are four things they are complaining about.
No. 1 was the runaway cost of government, the increased deficits.
Let's stop and think about it. In the first year of the Obama
administration the deficits increased by $1.4 trillion. That is what
happened the first year. That was after the tea parties, the August
recess of 2009.
The second issue then was not to have a government-run health care
system. We temporarily lost that. There will be some changes in the
Senate and House after the November elections. A lot of that can be
corrected. Nonetheless, those are the first two issues of the tea
partiers who are out there today. These are people who have not
identified with any party but they want to save America from this
socialist trend we have right now.
The third issue was complaining about the closing of Guantanamo Bay
or Gitmo. I look at this and I wonder, we have a President with an
obsession to close Gitmo, a place where we have been able to put people
who do not fit into a prison system since 1903. It is one of the best
deals the government has. I think we only pay a lease of $4,000 a year.
It is just like it was in 1903. Here is a place where you can put
terrorists, the terrorists who are the detainees. These people are not
criminals in the sense of our criminal code. These are terrorists. They
don't fit in our court system. There is not an American out there who
has not heard about what they are doing with the constitutional rights
and Miranda rights and all that. That does not apply in these cases. It
should not apply in these cases. But this President has wanted to bring
these terrorists--close GITMO, with no place else to put them--bring
them back to the United States for either trial or incarceration.
At the beginning the President had identified some 17 institutions in
America where you could put these terrorists. One happened to be in my
State of Oklahoma. It was Fort Sill. Fort Sill has a great artillery
installation there and they do have a small prison. I went down after
he had made these suggestions of putting terrorists throughout the
United States and I talked to--there is a Sergeant Major Carter down
there in charge of that prison. She said go back and tell those people
in Washington keep GITMO open. She happened to have had two tours of
duty in Gitmo. She said that is
[[Page 8300]]
state of the art. People are treated well; they don't torture anyone;
it is the only safe place to keep terrorists; they have a courthouse
they can use for tribunals that cannot be found anyplace else in the
United States.
The third issue of these tea partiers was to reject the idea that we
should close Gitmo and bring these terrorists to the United States.
That comes to the fourth one, the one of our discussion today, and
that is the fact that they were protesting cap and trade. Cap and trade
is a tax increase. A lot of people say if you want to reduce
CO2 emissions, why don't you put a tax on CO2
emissions? Some of the strongest supporters of the global warming
concept are the ones who say let's have a tax on CO2. Do you
know why they don't? They don't have it because that way, people know
what it costs, and they will reject it.
If you have cap and trade, that is a way you can pick winners and
losers and convince everyone he or she is going to be a winner. So one
of the things they were protesting during the August recess of 2009 was
this thing that would result in being the largest tax increase in the
history of the country.
I have often said the most egregious vote in this Senate's history,
up to that time, up to October 1, 2008, was the $700 billion bailout.
That led to the AIG bailout and the Chrysler bailout and the General
Motors bailout. All of that took place and that was on October 1, 2008;
$700 billion to have an unelected bureaucrat to do whatever he wanted
without any constraints. As bad as that is, a cap-and-trade bill would
end up--at least $700 billion, that is a one-shot deal. With the cap
and trade it is every year.
I know it is difficult for people in America when you start talking
about billions and trillions of dollars, so I always do my math in
relation to the State of Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, I take the number of
families who file a tax return and do the math. For example, the $700
billion came out that would cost each taxpaying family in Oklahoma
about $5,000 for that. A cap-and-trade tax--they have actually done
some calculations, the Wharton School of Economics, MIT, CRA, and other
groups. The range is always between $300 and $400 billion, but that is
every year. That would cost my people in Oklahoma, according to the
calculations of CRA, a little bit over $3,100 a year and you don't get
anything for it.
The opposition has only grown stronger and more intense. Thus, the
back-room dealing and secret deals to get 60 votes are not going to
work.
I should note, if Kerry-Lieberman were successful in passing, which
it will not be, but if it were, it would go to conference--that is the
way things are worked here--with the Waxman-Markey bill. If this bill
passed the House, that would go to conference, and if this goes to
conference that means that Waxman-Markey lives.
We all remember what it did, the Waxman-Markey bill. The authors of
that bill, as well as Senators Kerry and Lieberman, have argued that we
need one standard, one framework to regulate greenhouse gases. However,
the problem is in addition to imposing what would be the largest tax
increase in history, these bills do not preempt other laws now being
used to regulate greenhouse gases and drive up costs for industries.
This would mean there would be multiple standards, multiple
regulations, creating more confusion, more bureaucracy and, of course,
more taxes.
But we still have a liberal press that is in denial, the same as some
of the Senators who are promoting this. I picked up USA Today last
Friday on my way back to Oklahoma and I think on page 3 at the top was
this article talking about how the lizards are going to become extinct
as a result of global warming. They don't say ``alleged global
warming,'' they just say it is global warming. So a lot of people, even
though they realize the truth of this, because the truth has come out
with climate change and all that stuff, they keep reading this over and
over so they assume it is true.
Today I should have been speaking in Chicago, at the Heartland
Institute's climate conference, but because we had votes this afternoon
I was not able to do it. I didn't want to miss these votes. I thank my
former staffer Marc Morano, who will be speaking at the event, for his
efforts at exposing global warming alarmism. At the Heartland
Institute, it is my understanding, is the Fourth International
Conference on Climate Change. It will be held in Chicago today, held as
we speak. The theme of the ICCC-4 will be ``Reconsidering the Science
and Economics.''
New scientific discoveries are casting doubt on how much of
the warming of the twentieth century was natural and how much
was manmade, and governments around the world are beginning
to confront the astronomical cost of reducing emissions.
Economists, meanwhile--
I am reading now from their statement--
are calculating that the cost of slowing or stopping global
warming exceeds the social benefits.
The purpose of the ICCC-4 is the same as it was for the
first three events, to build momentum and public awareness of
the global warming ``realism'' movement, a network of
scientists, economists, policymakers and concerned citizens
who believe sound science and economics, rather than
exaggeration and hype, ought to determine what actions, if
any, are taken to address the problem of climate change.
They do not all agree on the causes and the extent, but it is kind of
interesting because one of the attendees there came out--I just read
this. I have it in front of me now. It is a geologist who is a very
prominent U.S. geologist--urging the world to forget about global
warming because global cooling has already begun.
Dr. Don Easterbrook's warning came in the form of a new
scientific paper he presented to the fourth International
Conference on Climate Change in Chicago . . .
That is today. Dr. Easterbook is an emeritus professor at Western
Washington University, who has authored 8 books and 150 journal
publications. His full resume is here.
So today the event is taking place. On his Web site,
climatedepot.com, we highlight some of the details.
Over the next several weeks, I will be speaking on the EPA's so-
called tailoring rule because this all goes back to the Clean Air Act
and the Clear Air Amendments. What it says is, they are going to change
that, since that belongs to--that would cover almost every church,
every small business, everything in America, to only cover the great
big giants.
It is not going to work. Everyone is going to be in on this deal.
That would not be constitutional. I think everyone knows it. Along with
the tailoring rule, I will continue to point out that the endangerment
finding is based on IPCC's flawed science.
By the way, the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. It is a part of the United Nations. They are the ones that
started this whole thing back in 1988. The problem we have with that is
they had an agenda when they started. I can recall, over the years,
scientists coming to me and I would stand at this podium and I would
make truthful statements about how the science is being fixed.
I have one, if anyone doubts my sincerity when I say this, it is on
my Web site. You can look it up. Five years ago, I talked about how the
top scientists in America were coming to me and saying: Look, they will
not allow people who disagree with their hypothesis, who disagree with
their opinions, to even be part of the IPCC.
Well, I was vindicated last December when the Climategate thing came
out, and all these people who had been sending stuff in, they uncovered
some memos going back and forth on how they were going to try and make
people believe that actually anthropogenic gases cause global warming.
Anyway, that came at a very appropriate time. I think the people are
aware of what is happening.
Let me make one last comment about this endangerment finding. We have
tried--not ``we'' but those who are promoting the idea of the
anthropogenic gases cause global warming, they have been trying to
introduce the bills to have a cap-and-trade system for the United
States. They have been doing this now about for about 9 years. It has
not worked.
[[Page 8301]]
So President Obama has stated: All right, if the House and the Senate
are not going to vote to do this, we will do it administratively. All
we have to do is have an endangerment finding, which we could
influence, and once the endangerment finding is there, then that would
include, with the real pollutants, SOX, NOX, and
mercury, CO2. If they do that, then they can start
regulating CO2.
Well, it is not quite that easy. Lisa Jackson, I have already said
some nice things about her, and I appreciated her honesty in response
to this question. Right before Copenhagen, I suspected that the Obama
administration was going to have an endangerment finding. When they
did, I knew it had to be based on science, so I asked her: What science
would this, by and large, be based on, if you have the endangerment
finding.
She said the IPCC. Well, wait a minute. That is the same science
that, through Climategate, has been totally rebuffed and no longer is
legitimate, either in reality or in the eyes of the American people and
people around the world.
So while I am concerned obviously that we should try to do something
such as this through an endangerment finding, do administratively what
he is unable to do through the House and Senate, that is not going to
work. So I would only say, I know all the Tea Party people are still
out there. Keep in mind, you lost your fight with the government-run
health care, you lost your fight with the huge deficit, and so far we
have not lost on the closing of Gitmo. I think we will be able to keep
it open. But the one issue that is up for grabs right now is this
endangerment finding.
Let's keep reminding all the people whom you meet with prior to the
elections of November, and particularly during the upcoming August
recess, that a cap-and-trade system would end up being the largest tax
increase in the history of America and it would happen every year and
it would not accomplish anything.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak
as in morning business but on an amendment that I will bring up later
on the bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________