[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 167 (Thursday, November 3, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7116-S7117]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE HIGHWAY BILL

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, after the vote today, I think that any 
effort to pass a bill such as the ones we just voted on would be very 
difficult. But something good does happen from that; that is, we had 
the vast majority of people in the Chamber recognizing that we need to 
do something that would be stimulative to the economy--something unlike 
the stimulus bill we had before, where only 3 percent of the money 
actually went to building roads, highways, maintenance, and that type 
of thing.
  I do appreciate the fact that we are now in a position where I think, 
with this behind us, we can be looking at a good, legitimate highway 
transportation reauthorization bill. I have been working very closely 
with Senators Boxer, Vitter, and Baucus--we are considered the ``big 
four'' in the Environment and Public Works Committee--to come up with 
something. I have to say that we have worked very hard, and I am 
talking about hours and hours. Anytime you can get Senator Barbara 
Boxer from California and me to agree on something, you know we have 
gone through a lot of work--and we have. We have gone through a lot of 
give and take.
  Senator Boxer and I, along with Senators Vitter and Baucus, recognize 
that we desperately need to have a transportation reauthorization bill, 
and we need to do it the right way. All these things we have been doing 
with extensions don't work. There is not a Member of this Chamber who 
doesn't go back every week and talk to his transportation director and 
say why can't we quit these extensions and get a good bill.
  We have a good bill, and we are talking about reforms. It is our 
intention next week, I believe, to mark up this bill. We are looking 
forward to that. I have a very strong bias toward transportation. For 
the years I was in the House, I was on that committee. We didn't have 
these problems then. We had a highway trust fund that always had a 
surplus because we were very aggressive at that time and, of course, a 
lot more people were purchasing gas at that time and revenues were up. 
So we had a surplus.
  Unfortunately, this always happens in Washington, DC. Members came 
along and looked at the surplus, and that was a target. Everybody 
wanted in on it, so they put their deals into the highway trust fund. 
That is partly why we got to where we are today.
  I appreciate the conversation we have gotten from the President. He 
talks about how he wants infrastructure, and he has a picture of where 
he was standing in front of a bridge making a speech about creating 
jobs. But he doesn't have anything in his program that does anything 
with infrastructure. Our problem is that President Obama has been 
talking the talk, and he has spoken more about infrastructure than any 
other President since Eisenhower proposed the Interstate Highway 
System. But when you get up to the $800 billion stimulus bill, in doing 
the calculations, only 3 percent--about $27 billion of that--was in 
highway construction or maintenance. Senator Boxer and I made an effort 
on the floor--a bipartisan effort--to try to raise the percentage. I 
wanted it up to 10 percent or higher, but we were unable to do it. The 
President was not on our side on that.
  I think the good news is that today's votes, of both Democrats and 
Republicans, showed that they are very interested and supportive of a 
highway bill. We have gotten a lot of that out of the way and we can 
concentrate on a highway bill. I think both parties are trying to 
create jobs and economic growth through the building of highways and 
bridges.
  Most Americans are unaware of how damaging regulations are. When I 
stop and think about proposing a massive program, which is what we are 
talking about now--reauthorization program--it is massive in that the 
funding level would probably stay the same as it has been since the 
highway authorization bill of 2005. But when they talk about that, we 
are always faced with the regulation problems. We are trying to address 
in this bill the regulation problems that are out there to try to have 
some shortcuts, to try to get some things done that otherwise would 
take a lot longer. Regulations have been a huge problem.


                            EPA Regulations

  This administration's Environmental Protection Agency alone has an 
unprecedented number of regulations, and they are destroying jobs. The 
results are there. I will mention the five most expensive regulations 
of all the regulations that have come out.
  First is the greenhouse gas regulation. I think we all know what that 
is. That is them trying to do something through regulations they were 
unable to do through legislation.
  Second, ozone, the national ambient air quality standards. That would 
be about a $678 billion loss in GDP by 2020.
  Incidentally, I failed to mention the greenhouse gas regulations, 
which would be in excess of $300 billion to $400 billion a year.
  The boiler MACT regulations--that would be a $1 billion loss to GDP. 
Utility MACT--MACT is maximum achievable technology. In other words, 
one of the problems with all these MACT bills coming out of the 
administration is that there is no technology available to carry out 
the mandates on emissions. Cement MACT is another, with $3.5 billion in 
compliance costs.
  Fortunately, in September, President Obama withdrew the EPA's 
proposed toughened ozone standards. There is good reason for that, and 
one is that ozone standards are supposed to be predicated upon new 
science. This was on the same science that the last ozone changes were 
based on. I think when people caught on to that and recognized what it 
would cost--in Oklahoma, we would be looking at some 15 counties that 
would be out of attainment, and there is nothing more dreadful that 
could happen to a State than have your counties go out of attainment so 
that you are not able to recruit jobs, or even keep the jobs you have. 
We would be talking about around 7 million jobs throughout the United 
States. Because of that, politically, he postponed that. Frankly, I 
think he is postponing it until after the next election. If he should 
be reelected, I can assure you we will see that again.

  Democrats always say we need to have tax increases and that is the 
best way to grow. I look at this sometimes. Recently, the Office of 
Management and Budget came up with a calculation that is consistent 
with one I have been using for 20 years: For each 1-percent increase in 
economic activity in this country, or 1-percent growth, that equates to 
about $50 billion of new revenue. Interestingly enough, this is all a 
Republican idea. President Kennedy, who was a Democrat, said we have to 
raise more money for the Great Society, and the best way to raise money 
is to reduce marginal tax rates. He did it and it worked. We saw what 
President Ronald Reagan did in the years that followed that. During the 
8 years he was in office, the proceeds for marginal rates went from 
$204 billion to $466 billion. That was at a time when rates were 
reduced more than any other 8-year period in history. We are looking at 
other opportunities to reduce regulations and all that so we can 
resolve the problem.
  There is one thing that is very important--and I know there is nobody 
in this Chamber who doesn't recognize the concern I have expressed over 
the

[[Page S7117]]

years about the legislation proposed ever since the Kyoto treaty on 
legislative cap and trade. Every time there is an analysis made--
whether by MIT, or by the Wharton School, Charles Rivers, or any of the 
rest of them--the range of the cost of cap and trade legislatively is 
always between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. We found out that 
if you do it by regulation, it is going to be far more than that. These 
are Democrats who are on record as saying that. Lisa Jackson, for whom 
I have a great deal of respect, is the Obama-appointed Director of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. Every time I ask her a question, she 
gives me an honest answer. She said:

       I have said over and over, as has the President, that we do 
     understand that there are costs to the economy of addressing 
     global warming emissions, and that the best way to address 
     them is through a gradual move to a market-based program like 
     cap and trade.

  Yes, they would cost a lot of money. Nobody refutes the $300 billion 
to $400 billion figure.
  John Kerry said this:

       If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate 
     change, the administration will use the Environmental 
     Protection Agency to impose new regulations.
       These regulations would be more expensive. I think the EPA 
     admitted that if they were able to accomplish this through 
     regulations, they would need to hire an additional 230,000 
     employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement 
     its greenhouse gas regime.

  All of this economic pain is for no gain. As EPA Administrator 
Jackson also admitted before the EPA committee, these regulations will 
have no effect on the climate. I want to mention that. That is 
significant. A lot of people disagree with me in terms of the impact of 
CO2 emissions and all of that.
  Let me say this. Two things having to do with that issue are very 
important. One is that if we were to pass legislation or do something 
through regulation that would be aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, 
would this have an effect on the reduction of emissions worldwide? I 
asked that question to Lisa Jackson, and her answer was 
``no.'' Obviously, the problem is not here in the United States, it is 
in China, India, and other places.

  In looking at it that way, I have to also mention that we all know 
what happened with climategate. We all know, when we went in and 
started an endangerment finding, it was based on the science that came 
from the IPCC, which has now been totally discredited. When I have more 
time, I will go into the details as to how that was discredited. For 
example, this was such a great scandal, the Daily Telegraph said:

       This scandal could well be the greatest in modern science.

  So that is what was happening. They were cooking the science at the 
United Nations and the IPCC. Now we are at the point where we asked for 
an inspector general opinion as to whether the EPA had followed the 
proper guidelines in trying to regulate greenhouse gases, and, in fact, 
they did not follow the right guidelines.
  So I would only say that the inspector general's investigation 
uncovered that the EPA failed to engage in the required record-keeping 
process leading up to the endangerment finding decision, and it also 
did not follow its own peer review procedures to ensure that the 
science behind the decision was sound science. EPA Administrator Lisa 
Jackson readily admitted the science that was used was flawed, the 
science used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  So I would say this: We are concerned about what is going to happen 
now. We are concerned about the overregulations. We are concerned about 
the process that has been used and how regulations are used to support 
an agenda the President has.
  I will mention one last thing, and that is a regulation I didn't 
mention before. Of the five most expensive regulations, this isn't one 
of them, but it could end up costing the most. We know for a fact that 
the United States of America--we have a report now that shows that with 
all the findings and with all the good things that are happening in the 
shale throughout the United States and elsewhere in the Northern 
Hemisphere, we could be totally free from dependency on any other 
country if we would just get politicians out of the way and develop our 
own resources.
  We have enough natural gas to meet America's demand for 90 years and 
enough oil for 50 years, but in order to do this, they have to use a 
process called hydraulic fracturing. Ironically, that was started in my 
State of Oklahoma in 1949 and has been used ever since that time, and 
there has never been a confirmed case of groundwater contamination. 
Nonetheless, right now we see that they are going through this process 
of saying: We are going to take over the regulation of hydraulic 
fracturing from the States and place it with the Federal Government. I 
have to be suspicious that there is motive behind that, and that motive 
is to restrict the use of hydraulic fracturing.
  We could open the east coast, the west coast, the gulf coast, the 
northern slope, and everything else, but if we can't use that process, 
we will not be able to achieve energy independence, which we can do. We 
don't have to use anything new that is out there other than oil, gas, 
and coal. With what is happening right now with hydrogen, we have an 
opportunity to become self-sufficient.
  With that, I will yield the floor so my good friend can make his 
comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.

                          ____________________