[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 88 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3496-S3504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. President.
[[Page S3497]]
First, I thank Senator Sanders of Vermont, Senator Markey of
Massachusetts, and Senator Heinrich of New Mexico for their remarks. I
look forward to the remarks of Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma.
Viewers may wonder what we are doing here. As some will recall,
several weeks ago a number of Democratic Senators--I think we ended up
being 31 in total--participated in an all-night event to raise the
awareness of and the discussion of climate change in this body. At that
time only one of our Republican colleagues appeared to join the
discussion, and that was the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, who
is here again this evening.
We heard some rumblings that some of our colleagues didn't feel they
were included or wished they would have had the opportunity to
participate. So taking them up on that offer, a number of us sent a
letter on May 30 that says, in part:
Dear Colleague . . . We would welcome an opportunity to
engage with our Republican colleagues in a discussion of how
to address the problems of climate change. Indeed, we think
our Republican colleagues could have a lot to offer if they
wished to join us in exploring solutions.
Republican colleagues have co-authored bipartisan climate
legislation, voted for the comprehensive Waxman/Markey
climate legislation in the House, spoken out in favor of a
carbon fee, and campaigned for national office on climate
action. Republican senators represent states with great
coastal cities inundated by rising tides, states with
farmlands swept by unprecedented floods and droughts, states
with forests lost to encroaching pine beetles and wildfires
unprecedented in season and intensity, states with
disappearing glaciers and reduced snowpack, and states with
dying coral reefs and shifting habitats and fisheries.
Republican senators represent home-state corporations with
international brand names, corporations that urge action on
climate. Republican senators represent great universities
that contribute to the scientific understanding of climate
change and how human activities are changing it. We look
forward to the opportunity to discuss climate change and how
to respond to it with Republican senators.
I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, May 30, 2014.
Dear Colleague, As you may know, thirty-one of us recently
took to the floor of the Senate for a ``climate all-nighter''
to express our concern over Congress's inaction on carbon
pollution. We have heard some feedback expressing concerns
that Republican colleagues were not invited to join in. We
would welcome an opportunity to engage with our Republican
colleagues in a discussion of how to address the problems of
climate change. Indeed, we think our Republican colleagues
could have a lot to offer if they wish to join us in
exploring solutions.
Republican colleagues have co-authored bipartisan climate
legislation, voted for the comprehensive Waxman/Markey
climate legislation in the House, spoken out in favor of a
carbon fee, and campaigned for national office on climate
action. Republican senators represent states with great
coastal cities inundated by rising tides, states with
farmlands swept by unprecedented floods and droughts, states
with forests lost to encroaching pine beetles and wildfires
unprecedented in season and intensity, states with
disappearing glaciers and reduced snowpack, and states with
dying coral reefs and shifting habitats and fisheries.
Republican senators represent home-state corporations with
international brand names, corporations that urge action on
climate. Republican senators represent great universities
that contribute to the scientific understanding of climate
change and how human activities are changing it. We look
forward to the opportunity to discuss climate change and how
to respond to it with Republican senators.
For any colleague who felt left out of our climate all-
nighter we invite you to come to the floor. We've requested
from leadership that time after votes on June 9th be reserved
to engage in a robust exchange of views.
We earnestly believe that the stakes of failing to exercise
American leadership and solve this problem are very high,
with ramifications for our health and safety, our economic
well-being, our food and water supplies, and our national
security and standing. We hope you will join us in a sincere
discussion.
Sincerely,
Sheldon Whitehouse,
Barbara Boxer,
Bernard Sanders,
Jeff Merkley,
Edward J. Markey,
U.S. Senators.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. That sets the frame for what we are doing. We have
had four Democratic Senators speak. We will be joined, I believe, by
Chairman Boxer and perhaps others later on in the evening.
Pursuant to the unanimous consent we have agreed to, I yield to the
Senator from Oklahoma for his remarks and will seek recognition
pursuant to the unanimous consent at the conclusion of his remarks.
Pursuant to that understanding, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. First, I thank my good friend for yielding. I think we
will have several people coming down and talking about this tonight.
I want to say something about Senator Sanders from Vermont. I
appreciate very much his comments. I think they were very appropriate.
I remember one time when he and I had a difference of opinion on an
amendment. It had to do with the amount of money one of the large oil
companies made. He and I debated on floor for something like 3 hours. A
vote was taken, and I did win the vote. Afterward, he came up to me and
he said: I want you to know that since I have been here from the House,
that was probably the most enlightened debate we have ever had, and you
won and I lost, and I really do appreciate it.
We have been very good friends since then.
Well, the comments he made are real because I don't have any doubt in
my mind that Senator Sanders and the rest of you have strong feelings
about this.
What I want to do is something a little bit different. I have heard
several people talk, and they talk about what is the hottest year and
the coldest year and all of that. I am very careful to document
anything I say, and I will continue to do that tonight.
Last Monday, the EPA released the long-awaited global warming
regulations for the Nation's existing fleet of powerplants. We had
already talked about the new powerplants and what we are going to do.
We have seen the evidence of the increased pricing of energy in this
country as a result of that. Now, of course, we are going to be talking
about the existing program.
The interesting thing about this--this is what they are talking about
doing through regulation after they have lost every single issue on the
floor of this Senate--and so trying to do it now by regulations.
The EPA's proposed rule requires powerplants to reduce their
CO2 emissions by 25 percent by 2020 and by 30 percent by
2030. I do believe there will be major legal challenges facing this
rule if it goes final, and I will talk about that in just a minute.
Over the past decade the Senate has debated a number of cap-and-trade
bills. The first one was the McCain-Lieberman bill of 2003--I am going
from memory now. I think Republicans had a majority at that time. I
think I chaired either the subcommittee or the committee of
jurisdiction. We defeated the McCain-Lieberman bill. It came up again
slightly changed in 2005. We defeated it at that time too. Then the
Warner-Lieberman bill came up in 2008, and we defeated that even by a
larger margin. The Waxman-Markey bill--and keep in mind that this was
when the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was in the House--
came up in 2009, but it never did reach the floor.
All of these bills would have established greenhouse gas regulations
for the Nation's largest manufacturing power-generation facilities, but
once the American people learned how much these cost, Congress ran away
from these bills and they were defeated.
Each and every one of these bills would have cost the economy between
$300 and $400 billion in lost GDP every year. These figures are not
disputed. The first time they were calculated was back when the first
bill came up. At that time everyone assumed that global warming was
real, they assumed that the end of the world was coming and that
manmade gases were responsible for it, and that was something which was
kind of accepted.
At that time, though--and I remember hearing the first speculation as
to the cost--the Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates came out
with the range of between $300 and $400 billion a year. Then the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, and Charles River
Associates and others came out with the same range--between $300 and
$400 billion a year.
When you break this down to each household--every time there is some
big regulation that comes along, I take
[[Page S3498]]
the number of people from my State of Oklahoma who filed a Federal tax
return, number of families, and then I will calculate, do the math, and
it turns out about $3,000 a family. That would make cap and trade the
largest tax increase in American history.
It is not surprising that these bills did not become law. They were
defeated. The McCain-Lieberman bill of 2003 fell 43 to 55; then the
McCain-Lieberman bill in 2005--an even wider margin--38 to 60; and the
Waxman-Markey fell because they didn't have the votes to do it.
What I am saying is that the trend is not going the way my good
friend from Rhode Island would like to have it go. Instead, more and
more people are opposing this.
Part of what is motivating the EPA's rule is that they want to say
they leveled the playing field between parts of the country that don't
have cap-and-trade programs. I think one of the previous speakers
talked about the fact that many places like--I see the Senator from
California is here now--California and the Northeastern States have cap
and trade. These regions are hurting economically in part because of
the onerous environmental regulations, including cap-and-trade programs
they have been working to implement for so many years.
But the real result of this has been higher electricity prices. In
fact, the average price of retail electricity in New England, according
to the Energy Information Administration, is 17.67 cents per kilowatt
hour. That is almost 18 cents a kilowatt hour. Compare that to
Oklahoma. We are at 9 cents per kilowatt hour. We are one-half the cost
in my State of Oklahoma for electricity. You see we have a real
competitive advantage. There is nothing that keeps the Northeast from
bringing their electricity costs down, but they are unwilling to do it.
They are unwilling to do what we did; that is, utilize a diverse,
inexpensive fuel supply we can source from right at home in Oklahoma.
California implemented its own cap-and-trade program just over a year
ago, and it applies to both heavy industry and power generation. The
State boasts that its program is second in size only to the European
cap-and-trade program. Today, however, California's electricity prices
are 15.94 cents--in other words, 16 cents per kilowatt hour--a stunning
70 percent more than they are in my State of Oklahoma.
Knowing this, it isn't surprising we constantly hear about all the
jobs and companies and manufacturing facilities that are moving from
places such as California and New England to States such as Oklahoma
and to the South where we don't have these same kinds of regulations.
What we want to do in Oklahoma is develop a nurturing environment for
business to thrive, and a big part of it is having inexpensive,
reliable energy. That is what we have in Oklahoma. EPA's rule threatens
all we have worked so hard to accomplish, and it is all because so many
politicians are beholden to the radical environmentalists.
What is interesting to me is the more and more the other side talks
about global warming and all of the purported solutions here in
Washington, the less and less people care.
In March, when Senate Democrats hosted their first global warming
slumber party, Gallup released the results of the poll I believe the
same day, showing Americans rank global warming as the 14th most
important issue out of 15. I believe this was on March 9 or 10 when
they had their last slumber party. It used to be No. 1 or No. 2, and
now it is nearly last. We can see on this chart Gallup's poll numbers
over time showing Americans care less about environmental issues than
they ever did before. We can see the changes that have taken place.
What people really care about are the economy and government spending.
Those are the top two issues across party lines.
If enacted, this rule is going to cause serious damage to the
economy. The Chamber of Commerce last week put out a study on
regulations similar to the EPA's new greenhouse gas rules and found
they will cost the economy $51 billion in lost GDP and 224,000 lost
jobs each year--not just once but each year.
The Heritage Foundation put out separate analysis calculating that
the rule would enact a cumulative hit of $2.23 trillion in lost GDP and
destroy 600,000 jobs. By their measure, the average income for a family
of four would decrease by $1,200 a year. I believe it is actually
closer to $3,000 a year. Nonetheless, there is the consistency.
If we want to see where these regulations will ultimately lead, we
need look no farther than the modeling President Obama uses. We need to
be, as he says, more like Germany. Starting a few years ago, Germany
began implementing an aggressive alternative energy agenda where they
hiked subsidies and set a goal of generating 35 percent of their
electricity from renewables by 2020. By 2050, this goal would increase
to 80 percent. In doing this, the price of German retail electricity
has doubled from where it was before. It is now 3 times--300 percent--
higher than ours.
The next chart is Der Spiegel, a major publication in Germany. They
recently had this on the cover of the magazine with the heading
``Luxury Electricity: Why energy has become more expensive and what
politicians must do about it.''
In this, they talk about the politicians and others who are wishing
Germany had not done what it was doing. And while industry, utilities,
consumers, and some politicians are calling for reforms to the laws, it
may be too late because everything is already on the books. This is
what they are finding in Germany--and we all know how hard it is to
repeal a law once it becomes implemented. So the Germans started this,
and we are now emulating Germany, and their cost of electricity has
doubled. When we talk about doubling, to a lot of people--maybe a lot
of us who serve in this Chamber--that is not a big deal. But take a
poor family that is spending 50 percent of their income on energy. It
is something they can't handle.
EPA's rules will push us in the same direction as Germany--which
makes sense, when we consider the EPA's recent rules such as utility
MACT and the 316(b) rule, and the NRC's incessant overregulation of the
nuclear power industry. We have perfectly good powerplants being forced
to shut down all over the country. Now we have this rule coming out of
EPA that will force even more shutdowns and push the Nation to more
aggressively adopt renewables, and over a very short period of time.
This is going to cause reliability and affordability issues.
We have been talking about affordability. Reliability is another
thing too, because we have to have a reliable source that doesn't stop.
There is no way around it. It is not just me saying this. FERC
Commissioner Phil Moeller recently predicted that because of EPA's
overregulation, the Nation could face rolling blackouts by next summer.
Renewables will only make this risk more severe. If a substantial
amount of electricity is being provided by renewables, then we will
become vulnerable to reliability risks.
What I mean by that is we don't always know when the Sun is going to
be shining or when the wind is going to be blowing, but there is always
a demand for power. The demand is always there, but the wind stops. I
understand this. I am from Oklahoma. We can have a very windy day and
all of a sudden it stops, and the Sun maybe stops shining. If the wind
is blowing really hard one day and then stops the next, significant
strains are put on the electricity grid.
To compensate for that, we have to have backup power ready to come
online at a moment's notice--where it is turned off 1 minute and then
on the next. Having that kind of capacity sitting around waiting for
the Sun to stop shining is incredibly expensive, which is one of the
reasons Germany's power is so much more expensive than others.
So when I hear the President and EPA saying this rule could actually
lower electricity bills, it makes me wonder if they ever sit down in
the same room with FERC and NERC and NRC to tell it like it is.
Honestly, they are not telling the truth.
The President and Administrator McCarthy have also been touting the
human health benefits this rule will deliver. To help announce the new
rule, President Obama did a conference call with the American Lung
Association and said it would help reduce instances of childhood
asthma. Gina McCarthy made the same point in her remarks about the
rule. But this completely contradicts what EPA previously said.
[[Page S3499]]
In this chart which the Agency has published, in official
documentation, it says greenhouse gases ``do not cause direct adverse
health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects.'' I know others
will stand up to refute this, but this is what the EPA said.
What is even worse is this rule will not have any impact on global
CO2 emissions. We know this because of the President's first
EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson. This is kind of interesting. I asked
her the question during the committee hearing, on live TV: If we were
to do away, either pass cap-and-trade or by regulation, would this
reduce the overall CO2 emissions worldwide?
And she said: No, it wouldn't. Her quote is: ``U.S. action alone will
not impact world CO2 levels.'' This is because the largest
tax increase in history, without any benefits--because once you
implement these regulations, our manufacturing base would go someplace
where they can find it; maybe China, maybe India, maybe Mexico. But
they will go places where they don't have the stringent emission
requirements we have in this country. So in that case, emissions would
actually go up instead of down.
Add to all of this the fact that there has been no increase in global
surface temperature between 1998 and 2013. This is according to the
journal Nature, the Economist, and even the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change that is the United Nations. They are the ones who
started this, and even they say there has not been any increase in
global surface temperature between the years of 1998 and 2013.
This pause was totally unexpected by the scientific community. After
all, CO2 concentrations went up by 8 percent over the same
period of time--which, according to the models, should have led to
significant temperature increases. This chart shows the difference
between actual temperatures--the blue and the green lines down here--
and the temperatures that were predicted by ``consensus'' scientific
community--the red line. They said this is where the heat was coming,
and it didn't happen. It is clear the scientific community, which
everyone puts so much trust in, did not predict a pause would actually
happen.
Add to this the fact that the U.S. Historical Climatology Network is
reporting that this is the coldest year so far on record for the United
States. Others will say, no, that is not true. So I quoted this source,
the U.S. Historical Climatology Network, that if things continue as
they are so far, this will be the coldest year on record in the United
States.
Normally, putting all this together would make me wonder why the
President is pushing these regulations. But then I remember Tom Steyer.
Let me introduce him.
This man, who made billions in the traditional energy industry, is
the new poster child of the environmental left. He is the one who
promised to direct $100 million to resurrect the dead issue of global
warming. He has the President and others on board with his plan, and
they are following through. Tonight's slumber party is proof enough.
I can hear it now. A severe case of righteous indignation is going to
show up, and they are going to say: Are you saying Tom Steyer is
putting 100 million in these races?
No, I am not saying that. That is what Tom Steyer is saying.
I have a quote here from him: It is true that we expect to be heavily
involved in the midterm elections. We are looking at a bunch of races.
My guess is we will end up being involved in eight or more races. And
that is with $100 million.
But that is what this all comes down to--a key constituency of the
Democratic Party wanting to see the Nation completely change the way we
generate and consume energy--for no environmental benefit. The only
benefit here is a political one.
In closing, I wish to highlight a few of the legal issues I mentioned
a minute ago that will likely come up once the rule is finalized. There
are three main reasons why I do not believe this rule, from a legal
perspective, is an appropriate construct of the Clean Air Act. I always
supported the Clean Air Act amendments, and good things happened from
them.
The first is the Clean Air Act was never designed to handle
greenhouse gas emissions. We know that. This is a bipartisan
perspective. Congressman John Dingell, one of the principal architects
of the Clean Air Act over in the House, said last week:
I do not believe the Clean Air Act is intended, or is the
most effective way, to regulate greenhouse gases.
The second legal reason is this rule relies on an outside-the-fence
approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act should only allow the EPA to establish a process where the
States determine the most appropriate emission reductions on a
facility-by-facility basis. Instead, the EPA has set statewide emission
reduction mandates, without regard to the technical feasibility of
actually accomplishing the goal.
Cap-and-trade proposals will emerge under this, which will ultimately
pit industries against one another. So the real impact of this rule
could far exceed its advertised intent of targeting only powerplants.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has effectively made this case
and will lead the charge challenging the legal authority of this rule,
should it become final. I am very proud of the attorney general,
because he has been very effective in leading other attorneys general
around the country to join in this effort.
The third reason this rule is inappropriate is because the Clean Air
Act states that section 111(b) regulations cannot be pursued in the
event the facilities are already regulated under section 112, which
governs air toxins. Powerplants are already regulated under this
section. So the fact they are trying to regulate them under 111(b) is
inconsistent with the law, and that of course will be on our side on
this.
There are a number of major reasons why this rule may not stand up in
the courts. But it is my expectation that it will not come to that
point. The largest tax increase in history. The Earth's surface has not
gotten warmer in 14 years. Polling shows Americans don't believe it is
a huge problem. It is huge for job losses. Stopping CO2 in
the United States won't affect world CO2 emissions. That is
what we have from the Administrator of the EPA. So we will be hearing a
lot of things tonight, all about what is going on, and they will be
discreet with me. That is the reason I always document things.
Let me predict what I think is going to happen. A lot of people are
not aware that there is something called the CRA, the Congressional
Review Act. The Congressional Review Act is something where people say:
Yes, there is a crisis in this country. Don't blame me. I am a Member
of Congress. I didn't vote for it, but the regulators did this. This
puts them where they should be in having to take a position.
The CRA is something introduced with 30 cosponsors. I already have 30
cosponsors to file a CRA on every one of these regulations, if they do
become final. You cannot do it until they become final. Then it is a
simple majority. So people are going to have to get on record, and to
me that is really all we really need to get people on record on this.
I think you are probably going to hear some issues and people will
assume that these are really happening. You will hear that extreme
weather is increasing. The reinsurance company and global-related
disaster losses have declined by 25 percent as a proportion of GDP.
They will say that hurricanes are happening. Yet the Washington Post
says the United States has not been witness to a category 3 or higher
major hurricane landfall since October of 2005 when Wilma hit Southwest
Florida as a Category 3 storm.
They will be talking about drought, in spite of the fact that even
the IPCC has stated that in the United States droughts have become less
frequent, less continuous, or shorter in central North America. Nature,
the well-respected publication, says drought for the most part has
become shorter, less frequent, and covered a smaller portion of the
United States over the last century.
Flooding--the IPCC comes in again talking about this. The USGS says
floods have not increased in the United States in frequency or
intensity since at least 1950. NOAA says flood losses as a percentage
of GDP have dropped by 75 percent since 1940. You are going to hear
about flooding. That is why it is necessary to document these things.
[[Page S3500]]
NOAA, talking about tornadoes, says: Tornadoes have not increased in
frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950. Some data shows
that there has been a decline. So we have all these issues that I am
sure we will be discussing sooner or later.
Polar bears--the chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee gave me a polar bear coffee cup, which I use frequently, and
we display that very prominently. But they say in the 1950s and 1960s
there were between 5,000 and 10,000 polar bears. Today there are
between 15,000 and 25,000.
So we have all these issues that are a reality on the glaciers. You
can record the hurricanes and all these other items, and, yes, they are
going to be talking about them, I am sure, during the course of the
evening.
Let me just mention one other item from memory on this, but I know it
is right because the I have said it so many times and it has recently
been documented. We go through these 30-year cycles all the time. We
have been going through them for a long time. If you take in 1895, all
of a sudden everything started getting cooler, and that is when the
term ice age first came along. They said another ice age is coming.
That lasted until 1918. In 1918, all of a sudden it started getting
warmer, and that was the first time you heard about global warming.
That was 1918 to 1945. In 1945 it turned again--you see, every 30
years--and all of a sudden it got cold. They talked about another ice
age coming. I remember Time magazine had a cover talking about the ice
age. Then in 1970 another warm period came along. That is the one that
people have been talking about.
Here is the thing. In 1945 we had the largest amount of increase in
CO2 emissions of any time in the recorded history of this
country, and that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling
period. Now as they have said, we haven't been warming for the last 15
years. So this is always a difficult issue to deal with. I know the
effort is there. I know it is renewed now and people are excited about
it, and I could assure you the trend is in the wrong direction, and it
is not going to happen.
With that, Mr. President, my time has expired, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Under the unanimous consent request, the floor
reverts to me, but the distinguished Member from California, my
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has joined us,
and I will yield for the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I also want to thank
my friend Senator Whitehouse, such a great leader on this issue.
I am really glad that Senator Inhofe, my good friend, came down to
the floor. He deserves a thank you because he has laid out why he
denies the obvious, and that is that this planet is warming and it is
due to human activity. Frankly, it is his right to turn his back on 97
percent of the scientists just like the deniers did when we learned
that it was, in fact, smoking that was causing an epidemic of lung
cancer. I respect Senator Inhofe. I am glad he came. But I have to say,
I am sad that we haven't seen any Republicans come here except for
Senator Inhofe who has written a whole book on this--and we know his
views--but we don't see anybody else.
Let me tell you what we know from our other colleagues. Let's just
take the Speaker--the Republican Speaker of the House, who said when
asked about climate change--he kind of has a different view than
Senator Inhofe, as does Senator Rubio. This is what they said when
asked what they think about climate change. Their answer is: Well, I am
not a scientist. What do I know?
Well, right. They are not. Why don't you listen, then, to 97 percent
of the scientists, if you admit that you are not a scientist?
What are Speaker Boehner or Senator Rubio or the others who are these
deniers saying? They are now saying they are not a scientist. Let's say
they went to the doctor and the doctor said: Look, you have a serious
liver condition, and I have a new drug that has been created to cure
your disease. I don't think we should wait, and let's go.
And you didn't say: Well, I want a second opinion; I want to go to
another doctor. You said: You know what. I am not a doctor. I don't
think so.
Does that make sense?
What if you went to a dentist and the dentist said: Senator, you have
an abscess. It is pretty straightforward. I can fix it. If you let it
go, you are going to get an infection. I don't know what can happen.
Now, if I said to the dentist that I am going to check with a couple
other people, then that is fine. But no, if I said: Oh, I am not a
dentist, but I don't think so. As my friend told me before, you take
your car in for repair, and they say: You know, there is something
wrong with the brakes here, and we have to tighten those brakes. Can
you leave the car here?
Well, I am not a repairman.
Ninety-seven percent of the scientists--they are all peer reviewed
and are telling us what is happening to our planet.
Here is the thing about these deniers. If they want to jump off the
climate change cliff and just go by themselves, that is their choice,
but they are going to take everybody with them; OK? My grandkids, your
grandkids, and their kids--and we are not going to let it happen.
Senator Whitehouse isn't going to let it happen. I am not going to let
it happen. The President isn't going to let it happen.
Climate change is all around us. We must take action to reduce
harmful carbon pollution, which 97 percent of scientists agree is
leading to dangerous climate change that threatens our families. We
cannot be bullied by those who have their heads in the sand, and whose
obstruction is leading us off the climate change cliff.
One week ago the President released his new proposal to control
dangerous carbon pollution from existing power plants, and it is a win-
win-win for the American people. Power plants are the largest source of
the Nation's harmful carbon pollution accounting for nearly 40 percent
of all carbon released into the air. Unlike other pollutants, right now
there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that can be
released into the air for power plants. The President's carbon
pollution reduction plan will protect public health and save thousands
of lives. It will avoid up to 6,600 premature deaths, 150,000 asthma
attacks, 3,300 heart attacks, 2,800 hospital admissions, and 490,000
missed days at school and work.
The President's plan to reduce harmful carbon pollution will also
create thousands of jobs. By reducing carbon pollution we can avert the
most calamitous impacts of climate change--such as rising sea levels,
dangerous heat waves, and economic disruption.
As the recent Congressionally-required National Climate Assessment
report tells us, we could see a 10 degree Fahrenheit rise in
temperature if we do not act to limit dangerous carbon pollution now.
The President's proposal is respectful of the States' roles and
allows major flexibility, while ensuring that big polluters reduce
their significant contributions to climate change. The plan will allow
the States to work with the EPA to analyze costs, and ensure carbon
pollution standards continue to promote innovation and continue
America's leadership in pollution control technology.
By cutting carbon emissions from power plants by 30 percent
nationwide from 2005 levels, the President's plan will also help
American families and businesses. The President's plan is projected to
shrink electricity bills roughly 8 percent by increasing energy
efficiency and reducing demand in the electricity system.
The American public wants action. According to a Washington Post-ABC
poll released today, a bipartisan majority of the American people want
Federal limits on carbon pollution. Approximately 70 percent say the
Federal Government should require limits to carbon pollution from
existing power plans, and 70 percent--57 percent of Republicans, 76
percent of Independents, and 79 percent of Democrats--support requiring
States to limit the amount of carbon pollution within their borders.
The President's proposed carbon pollution standards for existing
power plants is supported by the Clean Air Act. Congress gave the
President the ability to control air pollution in the Clean Air Act. In
1990, revisions to the
[[Page S3501]]
Act overwhelming passed by a vote of 89-11 in the Senate and 401-21 in
the House. In 2007, the Supreme Court confirmed in Massachusetts v. EPA
that as passed by Congress, the Clean Air Act in no uncertain terms
gave the Environmental Protection Agency authority to control carbon
pollution. Four years later, the Supreme Court in American Electric
Power v. Connecticut, specifically found that the Clean Air Act has
provisions in place to limit carbon pollution from power plants--the
very provisions the President is using in his proposed power plant
carbon standards.
We have long known that air pollution contributes to climate change.
During the debate on the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments, Senator Boggs
introduced into the record a White House Report stating that: ``Air
pollution alters climate and may produce global changes in temperature.
. . . [T]he addition of particulates and carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere could have dramatic and long-term effects on world
climate.'' And the Clean Air Act has a proven track record.
The U.S. has shown we can continue to protect the environment and
grow the economy. Over the last 40 years since the passage of the Clean
Air Act, air pollution has dropped 68 percent and America's GDP has
grown 212 percent. Total private sector jobs increased by 88 percent.
Between 1980 and 2012, gross domestic product increased 133 percent,
vehicle miles traveled increased 92 percent, energy consumption
increased 27 percent, and U.S. population grew by 38 percent. During
the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air
pollutants dropped by 67 percent.
It is in America's DNA to turn a problem into an opportunity, and
that is what we have done by being a pioneer in the green technology
industry. These new carbon pollution standards are no different.
Landmark environmental laws have bolstered an environmental technology
and services sector that employs an estimated 3.4 million people,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And many of these jobs,
like installing solar roofs and wind turbines cannot be outsourced.
We must take action to protect families and communities from the
mounting impacts of climate change. Just look at China, which has
hazardous levels of air pollution and toxic emissions. According to a
scientific study from the Health Effect Institute on leading causes of
death worldwide, outdoor air pollution contributed to 1.2 million
premature deaths in China in 2010, which is nearly 40 percent of the
global total. Officials in China have recently suggested that they plan
to take steps to address their carbon pollution, but the U.S. cannot
wait for China to act. The President's new power plant standards are a
major step forward. They show that America will finally lead on a path
to averting the most dangerous impacts of climate change.
On Friday the White House released a report on the harmful health
impacts of climate change, especially on our most vulnerable
populations like children, the elderly and low-income Americans. The
report cited impacts like increased ground level ozone which could
worsen respiratory illnesses like asthma, increased air pollutants from
wildfires, and more heat-related and flood-related deaths. The first
line in this new report sums up why we must take action to reduce
carbon pollution:
We have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet
that's not irrevocably polluted or damaged.
The American people want us to protect their children and families
from dangerous climate change. We must safeguard our children, our
grandchildren, and generations to come.
The people of my home State of California and the American people
deserve these new protections, and the President should be lauded for
moving forward and tackling one of our Nation's greatest challenges.
I am going to spend the rest of my time summing it up by refuting
some of the things Senator Inhofe said.
I have to say the President deserves a lot of credit for his plan.
What is really interesting is it is supported by 70 percent of the
American people, who ``think the Federal Government should limit the
release of greenhouse gasses from existing power plants in an effort to
reduce global warming.''
That includes amazingly 57 percent of Republicans, 79 percent of
Democrats, and 76 percent of Independents who support the President's
plan. They are not stupid. They are smart.
Look what happens when you throw the environment under the bus.
People walk around in air that you can see. You don't want to see the
air. You don't want to wear a mask when you go outside. The American
people get it.
Then my colleague says: They are going to scare you. They are going
to scare you. There is no problem with carbon in the air. There is no
problem at all.
Well, let me tell you who disagrees with Senator Inhofe, who
disagrees with the Republicans: the American Medical Association, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Thoracic Society, the
American Public Health Association, the American Lung Association, the
National Nurses Union. They all have statements that say climate change
is a threat to public health.
Who are the people going to listen to? Us politicians or people who
spend every day of their life waking up in the morning and thinking of
ways to protect our health? Yes, if the deniers want to jump off the
cliff and they only hurt themselves, I suppose that is their option.
But they are taking my kids, and they are taking all the kids of our
American families, and we are not going to let that happen.
I will close with this. The Senator from Oklahoma started to say:
This is going to kill you. It is going to raise your prices of
electricity. Jobs are going to be lost. He cited a U.S. Chamber of
Commerce study that has been so rebuffed that the Washington Post gave
it their most Pinocchios--in other words, four Pinocchios for the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce because they were responding to something that
never came about.
This plan of the President's makes a whole lot of sense. He has
courage to do it. We are going to stand behind it. And, yes, the
Republicans are going to try to repeal it. Let me give them the bad
news from their perspective. They have sent over dozens and dozens of
environmental riders. I want to say over 90--over 90--and we have
beaten back every single one of them. For colleagues to stand there and
say Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and I are doing this because it is an
election year is a joke. We have been doing this for years.
I daresay Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has made more speeches on the
floor than anyone on this subject. When I had the gavel for the first
time in 2007, I had to fight to keep it in my hand because, guess what.
We had Al Gore before the committee. Remember? Senator Inhofe was so
stressed he tried to grab the gavel. We have kind of a funny picture in
our office in which I said: ``Elections have consequences.'' And they
do. But to say that we are doing this because there is some donor is
the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
I will put in the record a statement by Lyndon Johnson. This shows
how far back Democrats have warned about this. This is amazing. My
staff discovered this. He said this in 1965.
In his ``Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and
Restoration of Natural Beauty'' President Lyndon B. Johnson stated
that, ``The Clean Air Act should be improved to permit [EPA] to
investigate potential air pollution problems before pollution happens,
rather than having to wait until the damage occurs, as is now the case,
and to make recommendations leading to the prevention of such
pollution.''
``Air pollution is no longer confined to isolated places. This
generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global
scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon
dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.''
So don't come on this floor and say suddenly the Democrats care about
this because it is an election year. It is ridiculous. We have known
about this for years. We have been trying to get the attention of our
colleagues.
I thank Senator Whitehouse. He and I signed a letter with several
others inviting our colleagues to the floor. All we got was Senator
Inhofe--not that we don't love him, and we appreciate he came over
here, but we have to now assume he speaks for everybody on that side,
which is scary, because they have turned their backs on the doctors.
[[Page S3502]]
They have turned their backs on the scientists, and they have turned
their backs on the American people.
Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, and I would yield back to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the hope for this evening was that by
extending a formal invitation to our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle, somebody would come to the floor who was not just outright
denying that climate change is happening.
For a while Senator Inhofe's was focused on the economics of various
types of regulation during his remarks. At that point I thought maybe
we could have a conversation about the best way to solve the climate
change problem, but toward the end of his remarks, he got back to
denying that it is happening at all, which makes a tough place to begin
negotiations.
There are plenty of other Republican Senators in this body, many of
whom have worked on this issue in the past. I don't know whether it is
a coincidence, but the level of activity by Republican Senators on
climate change collapsed shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Citizens United. As many of my Republican friends have
pointed out to me on the floor, there have been times when the big,
dark, anonymous election money that has been thrown around since that
decision has been made has been spent against Republicans more than
against Democrats.
We hope that as we resolve that issue, some of our friends find a way
back to the positions they have held in the past, back to campaigning
nationally on climate issues, supporting bipartisan climate
legislation, supporting a carbon fee, and voting for a cap-and-trade
bill. That is where they had been before Citizens United, and we had
hoped to bring them back. But the champion sent by the Republican side
to represent their point of view tonight was Senator Inhofe, who has
written a book that said this is all just a big hoax. In that sense it
was disappointing.
I have heard these arguments before, and as we go down the list, I
think it is worth taking a moment to knock them aside. One of my
personal favorites is that the EPA is doing this after the issue was
repeatedly blocked in Congress. Well, yes, it has been blocked in
Congress by coal and oil and polluter interests. So the interests that
have blocked a highway don't get to complain when traffic has to take a
detour.
We would be delighted to work on serious climate legislation in this
body. We would be delighted to have it here. For a lot of reasons, we
would get a better result if we addressed climate change legislation
here rather than through the EPA rule. This is where the conversation
should take place, but when oil and coal and polluting industries take
the position that this is not real and force the Republican Party into
that position--that climate change is not real--then we are obviously
not going to have a very meaningful discussion about solving a problem,
and that is what forces it go to the EPA. It is a little rich for those
who have shut down this forum for solving this problem to complain when
it gets solved in another and less efficient way. They don't very well
get to do that.
The high cost of the solution is--I think Senator Inhofe said--$300
to $400 billion and that it is not disputed. Well, yes, it is totally
disputed. It is absolutely disputed. In fact, it is not even true.
The best way to solve this problem is with a revenue-neutral carbon
fee. What does revenue neutral mean? Revenue neutral means that for
every dollar that comes in from the carbon pollution fee that the
polluters have to pay, it goes right back out to the American people
and straight back into the economy; 100 cents on the dollar goes back
to the American people. That is what I would like to see. It can be
done through tax deductions.
A conservative organization, the American Enterprise Institute, has
coauthored a report with the Brookings Institution on what they call a
carbon tax. I call it a carbon pollution fee, because when we are
giving all the money straight back to the American people, it is not
truly a tax. It is not general revenue to the government. The money
goes straight back out. When we do that, I think there is a case to be
made that that actually propels the economy.
Investing in innovation, supporting and creating different types of
energy that we can build in America is inevitably going to be better
for our economy than having to use fossil fuels, clean up after the
pollution, and deal with the foreign countries that traffic in fossil
fuels. It would all lead to a better circumstance for our country.
The Senator from Oklahoma also said this is the product of what he
called the radical environmental movement. One group that speaks very
strongly on climate change is NASA. Right now NASA is driving around a
Rover on the surface of Mars. They built a Rover that is about the size
of an SUV, launched it into space, landed it successfully on the planet
Mars, and they are now driving it around. Do you think these people
know what they are talking about? Do you think NASA is a radical
environmentalist movement? Really? That is a conspiracy theory that has
run amok if you think NASA is part of a radical environmentalist
movement.
How about our military? ``National Security and the Accelerating
Risks of Climate Change'' by the CNA Military Advisory Board. The CNA
Corporation is a corporation largely comprised of retired military who
are kept on in that role to advise the military on emerging issues. It
is sort of a think tank for the U.S. military that has been there
through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. This report,
``National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change,'' was
done by this military advisory board with some very interesting people.
How about BG Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., the former dean at the U.S.
Military Academy. Do you think the dean from West Point is part of a
radical environmental movement?
How about Lee Gunn, a former inspector general of the Department of
the Navy. He doesn't seem like a very radical environmentalist to me.
ADM Skip Bowman, former Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program; Gen. James Conway, former Commandant of the Marine Corps--now
there are some radical leftwing environmentalists for you, the U.S.
Marines.
This is so far beyond that. Organizations such as Walmart, Coke and
Pepsi, Ford and GM, UPS and FedEx, Target, Nike, VF Corporation, one of
the biggest apparel manufacturers in the country located in North
Carolina--all are totally on board with this.
The military is totally on board with this. NASA is totally on board
with this, as is the National Science Foundation and every major
scientific organization in the country--every single one. So let's not
pretend this is a fringe group of radical environmentalists trying to
foist an idea on the country. This is a fringe residue of oil and coal
and polluting interests trying to prevent the end of a long holiday
they have had from any responsibility for all the harm their carbon
pollution has caused.
Let me tell you firsthand there is harm happening in my home State of
Rhode Island, and it is not deniable. The deniers will never talk about
the oceans. They will never talk about the oceans. They will talk about
distant climate theory all day long, but when we go to the sea, the sea
does not bear false witness.
The sea level is rising, and we measure that with essentially a
yardstick nailed to the end of a pier. A tide gauge is not a complex
instrument, and off the Naval War College in Newport, RI, the seas are
up 10 inches since the 1930s. Why is that? We have known since
President Lincoln was President that when we add carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere, it warms the planet. That is not a hypothesis. That
science has been established since Abraham Lincoln in his stovepipe hat
drove around Washington in a carriage.
We know billions of tons of carbon dioxide have gone up there. We
know further that virtually all the heat has gone into the oceans.
Unless somebody wants to deny the law of thermal expansion--and I have
not heard anybody willing to deny that yet--when we warm up the ocean,
guess what. It expands and rises. We in Rhode Island have seen seas 10
inches higher thrown at our shores by a big storm or hurricane. It
makes a big difference.
[[Page S3503]]
I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to give me
just 5 minutes of their time and go to Google and look up the images of
the hurricane of 1938. Look at the pictures of what happened in my
State when the sea level was 10 inches lower.
Senator Inhofe mentioned the U.S. Chamber of Commerce study. I am a
little surprised he did that because he is not the first Republican to
mention the U.S. Chamber of Commerce study. Speaker Boehner mentioned
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce study too. He earned a false from
PolitiFact for referencing that study. The Washington Post gave it four
Pinocchios. You know Pinocchio, his nose would grow longer when he
would not tell the truth. So that was a strange place to go.
He said there has been no temperature increase. He said: ``It didn't
happen.'' It did happen. It absolutely did happen. It happened in the
oceans where more than 90 percent of the heat goes. It happened in the
oceans, and it can be measured with thermometers. It is not
complicated.
If you go to Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island, you will see that the
mean winter water temperature is 3 to 4 degrees warmer, and it has a
real effect on Rhode Islanders. Men used to go out on boats with trawls
and catch winter flounder in Narragansett Bay, and it was a cash crop.
It was a fishery that fed their families. It has crashed 90 percent,
and a significant part of that is because the bay is no longer
hospitable to winter flounder when it is 3 to 4 degrees warmer. It
simply doesn't work.
The public is with us, and we will get this done. Tonight we have
seen what we are up against. Not one Republican in this building would
come tonight at our invitation and say one word about climate change
being real--not one Republican, not one word. So that is what we are up
against. But they have lost the American public, and so the fall of the
denial castle is inevitable. It is built on sand, and the sand is
eroding. It is eroding.
Even among young Republican voters--self-identified Republican voters
under the age of 35--the hypothesis offered by the deniers that climate
change is not real is viewed as--and these are the words from the poll,
not my words--``ignorant, out of touch, or crazy.''
I submit that a party whose own voters under the age of 35 view that
party's position of denying climate change as ``ignorant, out of touch,
or crazy'' is a party that needs a new position on climate change. They
are not even selling their own young voters, and they are certainly not
selling the general public, which wants the President to do something
about this in enormous numbers--70 and 80 percent, depending on whether
one is looking at Democrats, Independents or the full population.
I will close with two specifics because we often have these debates
sort of at the IPCC versus the Sierra Club level.
I have been going around to different States, and I have been looking
at what is going on State by State. I have been to seven States
already. I wish to mention two tonight. I just got back from New
Hampshire, the most recent trip. What is going on in New Hampshire? New
Hampshire, as many people know, has a big ski industry. It is a winter
holiday destination, a winter vacation and tourism destination, and
skiing is a big part of that. I met with the guy who runs the Cranmore
ski mountain. They have, I want to say, tripled, or thereabouts, the
number of snowmaking guns they have on their slopes. They have gotten
better at it. They have made it more efficient so they make more snow.
So as there is less snowpack in the mountains, they are able to get
around it by making more snow. But the reality of this is proven by the
fact that they have to go out there and make more snow. As a New
Hampshire official said, that is fine for the slopes. They can get out
there, and they can roar those guns all night long and make snow on
those mountain slopes. But if a person is a Nordic skier, they have to
go out on trails, and there is no economic way to blow snow onto
trails. If a person is a snowmobile enthusiast, they go out on snow
trails, and there is no economic way to blow snow onto snowmobile
trails. They are seeing a dramatic falling off in Nordic and snowmobile
tourism as a result and of the availability of that important market
for them.
They talked about two animals. I will start with the moose. It is a
pretty iconic species for New Hampshire, I was told. There are moose
tours. Who knew? People go up to New Hampshire to look at moose. Moose
touring is a multimillion-dollar industry. I learned something new on
that trip. That industry is suffering from a couple of things. First of
all, sometimes they do the moose tours on snowmobiles--no snow, no
snowmobile moose tours. But worse--indeed, eerily, horrifyingly,
creepily--the moose are dying off because they are being overwhelmed by
ticks. Now, picking a tick off my dog is enough to give me the heebie-
jeebies, and if I find one myself, it is a little creepy. We are not
talking about one tick on these moose. We are not talking about 100
ticks. We are not even talking about 1,000 ticks on these moose. We are
talking about 50,000 to 100,000 ticks per moose--so much that they
can't keep themselves healthy. The blood is being sucked out of them by
tens of thousands of ticks.
So the expert in that area who spoke to me said the reaction from the
mothers is to just have one calf instead of two. That keeps the
population from growing, and the calves basically starve. They die of
anemia. They can't feed themselves.
They can't keep a blood system running that feeds themselves and the
thousands of ticks. These things grow to be the size of a blueberry or
a grape. It is really appalling. This is an emblematic mammal of New
Hampshire, and this is what is befalling it.
What do the New Hampshire folks say is causing it? The retreat of the
snow. The ticks, when they are falling and breeding and laying their
eggs--whatever the heck they do to reproduce; I am no tick expert. But
they do it on Earth now, whereas when they fell on snow, boom, that was
it. So the explosion in the tick population and the disgusting
infestation on those poor animals is directly related to the retreat of
the snow.
The last point on New Hampshire, the State bird is evidently the
purple finch. The purple finch has a very particular kind of habitat.
Because of the way the climate is changing, that habitat is shrinking,
and one of the bird experts I spoke to said they are looking at the
prospect of the purple finch being a species that New Hampshire folks
have to go to Canada to find. It is their State bird, but they have to
go to Canada to find it.
The other State I will close with is Florida. Florida is ground zero
for climate change. In Florida, great cities are flooding at high tide.
The systems that used to drain water out of the cities in a rain storm
are now flooding salt water into the cities because of sea level rise
at high tides. I have met with former mayors and county commissioners
who have shown me pictures of people riding their bicycle hub deep
through water, on a bright sunny day. It is not raining; it is salt
water. It has come up. One picture was of a yard where the homeowner
had hammered a sign into the yard, ``No wake zone,'' so that cars
driving by on the flooded road wouldn't create a wake and wash more
salt water into their yard. Some weren't so lucky, and the water was
right through the front door and into the house.
The Republican mayor of Monroe County has made climate change a
priority. She has instructed her county government to do a climate
change report, looking particularly at sea level rise--the Republican
mayor of Monroe County. Yet, what do we hear from the Republican side
here? Not a peep. Not a peep.
She said something else that is interesting. I will close with this.
I asked her how the coral reefs were doing. A lot of people go to
Florida to snorkel and to scuba dive and to see the wonders of the
world under the sea. I said: Mayor, how are your reefs doing? I have
heard a lot about what acidification and warming temperatures are doing
to reefs. She said: They are still beautiful. Then she paused and said:
Unless you were here 10 or 20 years ago. Ten or 20 years, and we see
that change.
What is happening to the reefs is really catastrophic.
My friends on the other side never want to talk about this. They want
to talk about climate modeling. We don't need a model to go to the end
of the dock at Fort Pulaski and see how much
[[Page S3504]]
the sea level has risen. We measure it. It is simple. It is the same
thing at the Naval War College. We measure it. It is simple. We don't
need complex computer models to go to Narragansett Bay and see it is
nearly four degrees warmer mean water temperature and all the changes
that happen as a result. We use a thermometer. It is not complicated.
And the acidification of the oceans that is affecting the coral reefs
and so many other creatures--it wiped out the northwest oyster spat.
People grow oysters in the Pacific Northwest, and the sea water that
came in was so acidic, it dissolved the shells of the baby oysters and
wiped out a huge percentage of their crop. That we measure with the
same kind of litmus tests kids do with their aquariums. It is not
complicated. But they always want to talk about where it can be
confusing. They never want to confront the problem.
We are going to find ways to continue to insist on confronting this
problem. They may not be here tonight, but as the old saying goes, you
can run, but you can't hide. There are too many of my colleagues who
have been helpful and good on this issue before--as I said, before
Citizens United. If we look at the Republican Senate activity on
climate change before Citizens United and after, it is like looking at
a heart attack. We see steady activity until Citizens United, and then
it is a flat line. Citizens United, dark money, polluter money has done
as much damage polluting our democracy as they have done polluting our
planet. But we are going to continue to do something about it, and the
American public not only is with us, they are going to insist on it.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.