Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago the President gave a…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, 2 weeks ago the President gave a beautiful speech on global warming. He said that the world is coming to an end if we don't act; that it is our moral obligation to make sure our planet is safe for future generations; that it is all up to us. And to be successful we must regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
For more than a decade environmentalists have been pressuring Democrats to do this--pressuring all of us to do this--and we all know why.
I can remember years ago--and this would have been back when I was in the House--that my first observation when I looked at liberals in the House was that there were four flawed premises on which they based their decisions. One was--and I am going from memory now because this was many years ago--that the Cold War is over, we no longer need a defense; another one was that deficit spending is not bad public policy; the third one was that punishment is not a deterrent to crime; and the fourth one--and this is the big one--was that government can run our lives better than the people can. That is exactly what we are talking about here.
The reason they have been wanting to regulate carbon is better articulated by a guy I don't think anyone will argue could be the most knowledgeable scientist in America. His name is Richard Lindzen, and he is with MIT. His quote was that regulating carbon is a ``bureaucrat's dream.'' He said, ``If you control carbon, you control life.'' You control life. And that is what bureaucrats want to do. That is what the environmentalists want to do. In controlling our lives, they want to determine what cars we drive, what kinds of houses we live in, how our cities are built, and all of that, and they can do all of this by regulating carbon dioxide.
Democrats--particularly in the Senate--have been unsuccessful in passing legislation to accomplish this. And this is the key. Way back during the Clinton administration, when Al Gore came back from the Kyoto Convention, he said we need to pass and ratify the Kyoto Convention. The Kyoto Convention would do exactly that--it would allow us in this country and others around the world to regulate carbon emissions. In doing this, they would be able to control lives. It was way back 13 years ago that this took place.
Anyway, they tried to pass legislation. The first bill actually was not necessarily a Democratic bill; it was the McCain-Lieberman bill, and it was one that was a cap-and-trade bill, quite frankly. At that time the Republicans were in the majority, and I chaired the committee called the Environment and Public Works Committee, so I was on the floor managing the opposition to that particular cap-and-trade bill. That was a carbon control bill. We won the debate, and as the years went by we continued to win over and over.
I guess what I am saying is that the reason the President is doing this right now is because he can't get this done through legislation, by those who are held accountable to the people. He can't get it done through legislation so he is trying to do it through regulation. The most recent attempt, in 2009, was the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.
By the way, I congratulate Senator Markey for winning his election. It is going to be fun for us because we have debated each other on this issue now for years and years, but now we are in the same Chamber.
The bottom line is that in 2009 they did pass that bill in the then- Democratic-controlled House, but when it came over to the Senate, of course it
was not even considered here. But that particular piece of legislation would have regulated only the largest emitters, and this is the hardest thing to get across to people. Everyone understands, after 12 years of repetition and listening to me at this podium saying it over and over again, that if we were to pass any kind of a cap-and-trade bill, the cost to the American people would be somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. The reason I say that is the Wharton School came up with the figure of around $350 billion, MIT came out with the figure of about the same, and so no one for 10 years has debated that the cost of regulating through cap and trade would have been somewhere around $300 billion to $400 billion.
Now, as onerous as I think all these bills were in trying to do this through legislation, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as what is happening today, for this reason. This gets into the weeds here, but it is important that we in this body understand what this is all about. The bills we killed, which would have cost $400 billion a year, would have regulated only the largest emitters--those emitters that emitted 25,000 tons of CO2 a year. That would have cost the economy $400 billion. We rejected that, and we all know that is what the cost was, but because the President owes this environmental base and he can't pass his legislation, he is now taking unilateral regulatory action to regulate greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide.
Keep in mind that this is not the same as one of the bills we defeated. That would have only caused the emission control on those entities that emitted 25,000 tons of CO2 or more in a period of a year. If it is done through regulation, then it has to be done under the Clean Air Act, and the significance of that is this would not just go after the big emitters, it wouldn't go after just those big emitters of 25,000 tons a year, it would catch people and individuals and organizations that emit 250 tons as opposed to 25,000 tons. That means it would apply not just to large emitters, such as powerplants, but every refinery, oil and gas well, every manufacturing facility, every plastics plant, the iron smelters and steel mills, every apartment building, churches, and every school. So that is everybody. So one thing that has never been calculated is what the cost of that would be. If the cost of just those emitting 25,000 tons would be $400 billion a year, then how much would it be if we applied this to everyone, all the way down to 250 tons?
I do something in Oklahoma each year. I get the total number of people who file Federal tax returns, and I kind of do the math. So I will take the amount of a tax increase--in this case, let's use $400 billion a year--and I will say: How much will this cost the average family in my State of Oklahoma who files a tax return? It works out to $3,000 a year. So we are talking about a major--by far the largest tax increase this country has ever seen.
So don't let the President fool you into believing he will stop at the powerplants. He is in an all-out war against fossil fuels and affordable energy. And legally, if he goes down this path, he will not be able to stop just at the large ones. This will apply to everybody out there under the Clean Air Act, and that would be those emitting 250 tons.
He is also doing this unilaterally just for the United States. If you believe man is causing global warming--I don't, but if you do--then you should be concerned about worldwide emissions because who cares if it is just the United States of America? It is not just what is happening in the United States of America, it is all over the world. That is really where the problem--if there is a problem--would be. If all we do is lower our emissions without convincing China, India, Mexico, and other countries to do the same, then U.S. manufacturers, out seeking the energy to run their operations, would have to leave the United States and go to those other countries where they do not have regulations. So this would have the effect actually of increasing, not decreasing, emissions.
I remember when Lisa Jackson was the Director of the EPA. She was my favorite liberal. I used to say I had three favorite liberals, and she was one of the three of them. And I liked her because even though I disagreed with her philosophically, she was always honest with me. I would ask her a question and she would answer it.
I remember when I asked her live on TV, in a hearing, this question. I said: You know, if we were to pass this legislation that would regulate CO2 levels, would this reduce emissions worldwide? She said: No. Because this only affects the United States and it would not affect the other countries.
So you won't hear the President talking about this. You won't hear him talking about the cost, even though they will shrink from our economy by more than $400 billion a year. We know that, and no one refutes that. It requires the EPA to hire an additional 230,000 employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement the regulatory regime. And these are not my figures, these are the EPA's figures. You won't hear him talking about it because he knows it is a losing argument. In fact, the day before the President gave this speech, he had his campaign send out talking points to all of the activists he had working on his behalf. They told--``they'' meaning the White House--these people exactly what to talk about, what to say and exactly what not to say.
We recovered this. We found these talking points the President sent out to people so this is what Americans would be listening to. I think it is worthwhile for us to go over this now.
On this first chart, we have his overarching three-point strategy. Point No. 1 is, we have an obligation to act. The memo continues: We have a moral obligation to future generations to leave them a planet that is not polluted and damaged by carbon pollution.
Notice that they are not talking about climate change anymore. They are not talking about global warming. The new words they are using now are ``carbon pollution.''
It is all the same thing. Global warming didn't work, so they discontinued that. They tried climate change. That didn't work. Now the new word is called carbon pollution.
These are the President's talking points. I think this kind of wordsmithing is actually smart, and I compliment them on going to professionals and seeing what kind of words they can use to make the public believe something that isn't true.
The second thing they have charged would be that communities all over America are already being harmed. The memo continues:
Climate change is already harming Americans all over the
country. Cleaning up after climate-driven disasters last year
cost the taxpayer over $1,100. (Or cost taxpayers nearly $100
billion, one of the largest non-defense discretionary budget
items in 2012.)
These are the words coming from the White House for people to use in their talking points. These figures come from the total cost of all natural disasters. I am from Oklahoma. I think we all know we have tornadoes in Oklahoma. We have had tornadoes as long as I have been living in Oklahoma--all my life.
So he is talking about that figure on all natural disasters that has nothing to do to with carbon whatsoever. He is attributing the cost of all natural disasters and its total costs to global warming or carbon pollution, as the President now says, even if you believe global warming is true.
The President's third talking point was to his climate plan. This is what he is telling his followers, in this body and elsewhere, to use:
That's why we applaud President Obama's climate plan, which
is full of common-sense solutions, starting with his call for
the EPA to limit the carbon pollution.
While we set limits for arsenic, mercury, and lead, we let
power plants release as much carbon pollution as they want.
It's time to set a limit on pollution that affects public
health, and that's why it's so important that the President
is rising to this challenge.
Those are his talking points that he wants people to say about his speech and about his program. What this demonstrates to me is that the President is no longer fighting greenhouse gases--which he says caused global warming--but is instead fighting against carbon pollution.
But if carbon pollution is simply carbon dioxide--or CO2-- and is dangerous to our health, what are we going to do about the air we breathe? Don't we emit CO2 every time we exhale? Is this the pollution they are talking about?
Also in the memo the President's alarmists are given a concrete list of
things to talk about and things not to talk about.
This is something we received just a few hours ago, and we are very pleased to be able to get a copy of it. This was only supposed to go to alarmists. Alarmists, for the benefit of my colleagues, are people who believe the world is coming to an end and it is all man's fault. It says what to do and what not to do. Look at this. It is amazing, what you can say and what you can't say. We will highlight just a few items.
The first point is the instruction to not talk about the cost of regulations. The memo from the White House says, ``Don't lead with straight economic arguments.'' Why? Because global warming legislation will cost between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, and the regulations will cost much more than that.
Charles River Associates is a credible group that to my knowledge no one has challenged. Their study of the Waxman-Markey bill reported that the policies would cost the economy $350 billion a year in 2030 and $730 billion a year in 2050. Again, go back to the figures consistent with what the Wharton School, 10 years before, and MIT came out with.
The Heritage Foundation said the average family would see its direct energy costs rise by over $24,000 in the first 20 years following the bill's enactment. This is the Heritage Foundation said it is going to affect every family in America. The costs will be far higher under the President's unilateral regulatory action, thereby bypassing Congress, because they are talking about regulating down to much lower levels.
This memo also instructs the President's alarmists to talk about his actions being ``the latest in a series of steady and responsible steps the administration has taken'' to combat global warming. In that vein, however, the memo instructs them to not overstate the magnitude of the action being taken.
In other words, the President does not want his people talking about this as being the first of many steps in regulating every refinery, manufacturer, oil and gas wells, steel mills, plastics, and all the rest.
The next memo instructs alarmists to ``discuss the impacts--carbon pollution is bad for the health of our kids and our planet'' but to not ``debate the validity or consensus of the science that is already settled.''
In other words, don't debate the science. Just say it has been settled. Because we have more and more people now questioning the science, and it is far from being settled. They don't want to bring that up. They don't want people talking about it. The science is far from settled, and since when does carbon dioxide--which we all breathe out every day--hurt our kids?
The memo also instructs the alarmists to ``inform audiences about the nature of the problem, who is at fault, and what can be done,'' but to not ``debate the increase in electricity prices. Instead pivot to health and clean air messages.''
In other words, don't admit the truth; that is, overactive, unilateral regulation will do nothing more than increase electricity prices and unilaterally shut down our economy by imposing EPA regulations on every single industry and dramatically expand the Federal Government's role in our lives without doing anything to reduce global emissions. This is all instruction coming from the White House.
I have to repeat this. If it were done by legislation or by regulation, we have already shown clearly it would not reduce CO2 emissions, even if that were your goal, because that is what Obama's Administrator of the EPA said. In answering the question, ``Is this going to reduce CO2 emission,'' the answer, ``No, it won't.''
Richard Lindzen and other scientists have talked about:
Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream. If you
control carbon, you control life.
So keep that in mind. All this effort is being made, and we have made it very clear that it is not going to accomplish anything they want to accomplish in terms of reducing CO2 emissions worldwide.
The last thing I will mention from the memo is that it says to ``discuss modernizing and retooling power plants and innovation that will create green jobs'' but to not ``try to suggest net job increases.''
In other words, don't mention this is going to shut down every coal, oil, and eventually natural gas powerplant we have in this country and kill thousands of jobs at manufacturers around the Nation. We don't want to talk about the job loss. The President only wants to talk about the benefits of his regulatory actions and not about the costs.
But what we have to remember is that even the benefits are overstated because they do not rely on the true costs of the regulations. But we should not be surprised, this coming from an administration that thinks more regulations means more jobs. These are talking points, but the mechanics of these new and future EPA greenhouse gas rules will be done by the EPA.
The reason I am here today is to first demonstrate in the speech he made how that relates now to the current EPA and perhaps the confirmation hearing vote that will be coming up.
Gina McCarthy is currently being considered to take the top job at the agency. Remember, I said Lisa Jackson had that job before and how much I thought of her. I like Gina. I like her very much. I have worked with her. She has had a different job for several years. She was the Assistant Administrator of the EPA for air issues.
It is very important people understand what we are looking at. We have a good personal relationship, but she is the one who is responsible for all of the worst regulations that have come from the EPA in the last 4 years under Lisa Jackson's leadership. Lisa Jackson was the director, but Gina McCarthy was the air director. It is from the air office, the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, where she has the most expertise and where all of the worst regulations will come from in the future.
After President Obama's speech on global warming, it became clear that Gina McCarthy would be used as the tool of the administration for all these regulations that will destroy the American economy. I have listed these up here, and it is worth looking at.
In the last 4 years, we have had Utility MACT. MACT means the maximum achievable control technology. That means what technology is out there to control emissions. She was able to get that through, and $100 billion and 1.5 million jobs were lost. The next is Boiler MACT, $63.3 billion and 800,000 jobs lost. Regional haze--another regulation regulating the air--will increase the cost of Oklahoma's electricity bills by over $1.8 billion. These are all figures that are incontrovertible, so people don't disagree with.
In the next few years, even worse regulations are likely to come out. Greenhouse gas regulations may be the worst, but there are also the others listed. Greenhouse gas is the one we have been talking about, but you also have the ozone NAAQS regulations. Adjustments to that rule will put 2,800 counties out of attainment, including all of them in Oklahoma.
We have 77 counties in the State of Oklahoma. I can remember when I was the mayor of Tulsa, they came out with new regulations that put Tulsa County out of attainment. When you are out of attainment, that means you can kiss any energy development, new manufacturing opportunity, any other business expansion goodbye. They will not be able to get a permit from the EPA.
Gina McCarthy is the face of President Obama's overregulatory agenda that is threatening our energy independence and putting our economic future in peril. We can't allow these regulations to move forward. I think the key to that is the person who is responsible for all the regulations, all the costs, all the jobs I just enumerated, both during her tenure as the air boss of EPA and then these that would come in the future, that would be in her goal. She would be the tool that is being used by the administration.
Yesterday was kind of interesting because Heather Zichal is President Obama's climate czar and she was on the Hill huddling in a secret meeting with some of the chief alarmists such as Barbara Boxer and the rest. In the meeting, they talked about the President's plan and presumably this memo--with wordsmithing talking points from the memo we talked about before. So the one we had up before is
the same thing they talked about yesterday: This is how you are going to have to word all this stuff.
Their goal is not to protect the American people; it is to control them. They want top-down control, and carbon dioxide regulations will give them this tool. Their talking points memo proves they are doing all they can to craft their message in a way that convinces Americans they are not trying to crush our economy but instead trying to help. But the truth is, their regulatory agenda will only cause more unemployment, lower economic growth, and lower take-home pay for the American people.
President Obama delivered a beautiful speech on global warming. That is how I started this. It was well thought out, and he is very gifted. He had a beautiful speech, and he is embarking on the most devastating surge in regulation that will cost hard-working Americans millions of jobs and tax increases to accomplish this.
Keep in mind, if you do all these things it is not going to lower CO2 emissions. That is proven. No one has denied it. That even came from the Administrator of the EPA. It is going to be devastating to the American people.
This is big. It has a lot to do with the confirmation hearing of the very fine lady who has been a good friend of mine for a long time, but the one who is responsible for these air regulations that are killing jobs in America, and we cannot let that happen.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.