[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 2 (Monday, January 6, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9-S11]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Global Warming

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think we are going to have a lot of 
discussions on the floor concerning a number of things that happened in 
the last couple of weeks, not the least of which is what is going on in 
Antarctica right now, and the fact that some people had to be lifted 
out of there.
  It is kind of interesting, and I don't want anyone to misunderstand 
me and think that I am reviving a lot of the previous interest 
concerning the issue of global warming for any reason other than the 
fact that right now, after it has been determined, without any doubt, 
that the House and Senate would never pass anything like cap and trade, 
the President is attempting to do through regulation what he could not 
do through legislation. What I am concerned about is the expense, and 
in a minute I will talk about the cost of these issues.
  We have a real serious problem in this country. People are concerned 
about the spending and about what is happening with our military. They 
are concerned about a lot of issues, but the cost of the overregulation 
that has taken place in our society is overlooked quite often.
  If you ask anyone associated with the farm bureau or anyone in the 
agricultural community what their major problem is, they will tell you 
it is the overregulation by the Environmental Protection Agency that is 
really making it difficult for them to survive. It is the same thing 
with manufacturers, producers, and others. When we look at the crown 
jewel of all regulations, it is cap and trade. Cap and trade would 
constitute the largest tax increase in the history of this country.
  I think it is kind of interesting that what is happening right now up 
in the Antarctic is something that has been happening for quite a long 
period of time. While there has been a concerted effort of people who 
believe that global warming is taking place and that we are all going 
to die, and all of that, at the same time the evidence out there is 
almost laughable.
  In January of 2004, when Al Gore held a global warming rally in New 
York City, I remember that it was one of the coldest days in New York 
City in its history. In March of 2007, a Capitol Hill media briefing on 
the Senate climate bill was canceled due to a snowstorm. In April of 
2007, global warming rallies were greeted by unseasonable snow, and as 
a result several of them were canceled. In October of 2007, Gore's 
global warming speech at Harvard University coincided with temperatures 
that nearly broke a 125-year temperature record. In October of 2007, 
the British House of Commons held a marathon debate on global warming 
during London's first October snowfall since 1932.
  In December 2008, Al Gore spoke to an audience in Milan, Italy--by 
the way, I attended that meeting--about global warming, and outside it 
was snowing, which is a rare event for that area. Snow and freezing 
rain also struck Rome, Naples, Palermo, and Sicily.
  A lot of people are not aware that among those who were responsible 
for the whole global warming movement was the United Nations. It was an 
effort--I will not go into it now unless it becomes appropriate and I 
have more time to talk about it. But the United Nations has one big 
party every year--usually in December--and it is what we call the 
global warming party. It is where all the countries come to attend, and 
they have all-you-can-eat and all-you-can-drink. It is the biggest 
party of the year.
  I can remember going to one of these annual parties when there was 
someone from Benin, which is a Sub-Saharan African country. I went up 
to this person and said: You can't tell me you believe all this stuff. 
The whole idea was to have the 192 countries that go to this party 
every year believe global warming is taking place, and we are all going 
to have to stop doing things to try to preclude it from happening, and 
that would destroy our economies. His response was: Oh, no, but this is 
the biggest party of the year.
  That took place, as I said, in Milan, Italy in 2008. I always 
remember that one because they had my picture on telephone poles saying 
``Wanted.'' I saved several of those and brought them back to the 
United States so I could distribute it to the people who were enjoying 
it quite a bit. Anyway, the meeting in Milan was about global warming. 
Yet there were records set on snowfall and freezing rain.
  In March of 2009, Nancy Pelosi--at that time she was the Speaker of 
the House--had a big global warming rally that was supposed to be the 
largest one that had ever taken place in this country, and it was 
snowed out.
  In February of 2010, the Senate EPW, Environment and Public Works 
Committee--at that time I was the ranking member of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee--had a hearing entitled ``The Global Warming 
Impacts, Including Public Health, in the United States,'' and it was 
canceled due to a major snowstorm. This goes on and on.
  One thing that is not on the list, which should be on this list, is 
what happened in Copenhagen in 2009, and that was the annual party of 
the United Nations. I remember it so well because people were trying to 
go over there and say that the United States of America was going to 
pass cap and trade, and that we would encourage all of them to do it. I 
am going from memory now, but I am quite sure that Secretary of State 
Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and John Kerry were all 
there. At that time, John Kerry was a Member of the Senate. All of them 
assured these people--these 191 countries--that we were going to pass 
cap and trade.
  I went all the way over and all the way back to spend 3 hours on the 
ground--and I have to say it was probably the most enjoyable 3 hours I 
ever spent--to tell them that under no circumstance was the United 
States going to pass the largest tax increase in history based on 
trying to stop--something they were calling at that time--global 
warming. The 191 countries which attended that meeting had one thing in 
common, and that was that they all hated me.
  Nonetheless, I was telling them the truth, and they tried to pass it 
again and again. There probably aren't 35 votes in the Senate right now 
that would vote for a cap-and-trade bill which would constitute the 
largest tax increase in the history of this country.
  All of that had taken place over a long period of time, and now we 
are up to 2013 and 2014. In November, President Obama issued an 
executive order on climate change stating ``excessively high 
temperatures'' are ``already'' harming natural resources, economies, 
and public health nationwide.

  I guess if you say something long enough, sooner or later people are 
going to believe it because they assume if the President says it, it 
must be true.
  On January 6, AccuWeather issued a warning that a ``blast of arctic 
air will deliver some of the coldest weather in 20 years'' to the 
midsection of the United States.
  Meteorologist Ryan Maue of Florida said about the historic cold 
outbreak: ``If you're under 40 [years old], you've not seen this stuff 
before.''
  The National Weather Service reported that the temperature at 
Chicago's O'Hare International Airport hit 16 degrees below zero on 
January 6, breaking the negative 14-degree record in 1884. This makes 
Chicago colder than the South Pole where it was 11 degrees below zero. 
The average temperature in the United States on January 6 was 12.8 
degrees.
  I say all of this because this is kind of a predicate to what is 
happening

[[Page S10]]

now. On November 27, the research expedition to gauge the effect of 
climate change on Antarctica began. This was in the news today.
  On December 24, the day before Christmas, a Russian ship carrying 
climate scientists, journalists, tourists, and crew members for the 
expedition became trapped in deep ice up to 10-feet thick. An 
Australian icebreaker was sent to rescue the ship, but on December 30 
efforts were suspended due to bad weather.
  On January 2, a Chinese icebreaker--and here come the Chinese now--
called the Xue Long, sent a helicopter that airlifted 52 passengers 
from the Russian ship to safety to the Australian icebreaker. The 
Chinese vessel is now also stuck in ice along with the Russian vessel. 
There are 22 Russian crew members who are still on board the Russian 
ship, and an unreported number of crew members remain on the Chinese 
ship.
  On January 5, the U.S. Coast Guard was called to assist the ships 
which were stuck in the Antarctic.
  That is what is happening today. Let's go back and relive a little 
bit of history when I was under a lot of criticism because I was 
opposed to assertions by Al Gore which the New York Times said might 
arguably be the first environmental billionaire.
  In December 2008, Gore said, ``The entire North Polarized cap will 
disappear in five years.'' It is 5 years later, and it hasn't 
disappeared yet. In fact, we have been reading about it.
  On December 13, the BBC reported that the Arctic ice cap coverage is 
``close to 50% more than in the corresponding period of 2012,'' which 
means it has increased by 50 percent over this period of time. That 
means it is increasing by 50 percent over this period of time. This is 
the same icecap Al Gore said was going to disappear 5 years ago.

  President Obama, in May of this last year: ``The climate is warming 
faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.''
  To contrast with The Economist, they said: ``Over the past 15 years, 
air temperatures on the Earth's surface have been flat. . . . ''
  Gina McCarthy, recently sworn in as the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, said: ``Extreme weather events are 
proof enough for me to show why action is necessary.''
  We are talking about action on CO2.
  According to preliminary reports, 2013 turned out to be one of the 
least extreme weather years on record, which is right after she made 
that statement. But the one I enjoyed so much was--I have a lot of 
respect for Gina's predecessor, Lisa Jackson. Lisa Jackson came in as 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I remember 
her very well because I asked her the question--keep in mind she was 
appointed by President Obama. Her job is to make people think global 
warming is taking place and all of these extreme things are going to 
happen. I asked her the question: In the event that we did the action--
at that time, there were two or three cap-and-trade bills offered in 
the House and in the Senate. So I said: Let's assume one of these bills 
passes. Would this reduce CO2 worldwide? Her reaction was: 
No, because this is just in the United States. This is not where the 
problem is.
  So by their own admission, even if we were to sustain the economic 
disaster we would have to have in the event we passed one of these 
bills, it would not impact or reduce the levels of CO2.
  The other recent study--15 year pause--from Nature magazine, said:

       For this period, [1998-2012], the observed trend of 
     [temperatures] is . . . not significantly different from zero 
     [and] suggests a temporary `hiatus' in global warming.

  This is a publication that was kind of leading the charge at one 
time.
  So we see these things that are happening and we see that even 
though, time and time again, just the reverse is true, that we are 
going through this thing--I always have to go from memory when I go 
back. I remember the earlier years of this, some 12 years ago when they 
were looking at the Kyoto treaty. We remember the Kyoto treaty, I say 
to the Presiding Officer, which was an agreement we would sign on to--
an international treaty, the Kyoto treaty--and we would agree to reduce 
all the CO2 in this country and all of that. Of course, that 
didn't happen, but the cost was discussed at that time. I remember back 
when Republicans were in the majority, I chaired the committee called 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, and some 12 years ago, 
about the time of Kyoto, I believed it was true--everybody said global 
warming was coming and we were all going to die. So I assumed it was 
true until I started exploring a little bit and hearing quietly from 
some of the scientists who said: Look. The whole thing is rigged and 
the science is not the same as the United Nations would have us 
believe. So one by one they started coming forth. I stood at this 
podium for about a 3-year period and started naming all of the 
scientists who said the U.N. scientists, the IPCC, were not being 
honest and that they had their own agenda they were trying to support. 
At that time, a group of several universities--MIT was one of them, the 
Wharton School--a lot of their scientists said what the cost would be 
if we were to pass global warming legislation that had been proposed. 
It would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year.
  Now, $300 billion to $400 billion a year, yes, that would constitute 
the largest tax increase. I took this to my State of Oklahoma. I did my 
calculation as I always do. I get the number of people who file Federal 
tax returns and have them pay taxes and it would be about $3,000 a year 
per family. Yet, by their own admission, as Lisa Jackson said, it would 
not reduce overall temperatures, even if one believes that is a 
problem, which I don't.
  Anyway, the cost--Charles River came along with a very similar cost--
$350 billion a year. So with all of those costs, we wanted to look at 
it and see if, in fact, the science was there, and we determined it was 
not.
  If we look at the regulations at the EPA right now--the National 
Association of Manufacturers has a cumulative impact study, not 
including ozone or the greenhouse gases, of $630 billion annually and 
some 9 million jobs lost. As per the regulations for ozone, 77 counties 
would be out of attainment in my State of Oklahoma and 7 million jobs 
lost. That is all of our counties. That means we would have job losses 
in all of those. Utility MACT, that cost is $100 billion, and that has 
already been implemented. That affected all the coal States in a major 
way. The Boiler MACT cost would be $63 billion. I mentioned the BLM. 
The hydraulic fracking regulations would cost about $100,000 per well. 
That is an increase everyone else would have to pay in terms of 
producing right now. Greenhouse gas costs would be between $300 billion 
and $400 billion, as I mentioned before.
  If we just take these regulations--the list is a lot longer than 
that, but this is a huge issue. This is the major problem we are having 
with the economy right now. Nobody seems to understand it. No one seems 
to care. I think that a time to bring this up as an issue is right now 
because of what is happening, what has been publicized recently, so it 
is our intention to continue to do that.
  This has been a relentless 4\1/2\-, 5-year war the President has on 
fossil fuels. It is not just coal, but it is coal, oil, gas, and other 
fossil fuels. The sad part of this is we could be completely 
independent from all other countries--certainly from the Middle East--
from any other country in terms of supplying our own energy in this 
country. All we would have to do is do the same thing--allow drilling 
exploration on Federal public lands as we are doing throughout the 
country. Right now, we have had a 40-percent surge, increase, in 
exploration and in production in this country, and at the same time we 
have had a 40-percent increase overall. That is on State land and on 
private land. We have had a reduction on Federal land. So we have an 
exclusion to the problem there, and I think one of the things we can do 
to help people understand is to let them know that what they have been 
listening to--what the EPA has been telling our people, what our kids 
are learning in school on global warming--people are now realizing this 
is something that is not factual.
  We are so inundated right now with problems. We have problems in 
Afghanistan. We have problems with our foreign policy in the Middle 
East. We are all concerned about the problems around the world. The 
area people

[[Page S11]]

aren't talking about is the cost of overregulation in America that is 
doing probably as much damage as all the rest of the problems are doing 
at this time.
  So I only wish to submit for the Record that some things are 
happening today that I think the American people need to look at. I 
think those statements made, which I will come to the floor and talk 
about later on, from 10 years ago are now becoming a reality.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.