[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 25742-25744]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CAP AND TRADE

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this morning we had the first of 3 days of 
hearings we are having on the proposed Kerry-Boxer climate bill. It was 
one I never quite had an experience such as that before. Senator Kerry 
came in, was given 30 minutes to talk about the same thing Al Gore has 
been talking about for the last 15 years, without any chance to rebut.
  What I would like to do is take a few of the statements. It is a very 
confusing issue we have because we do not have a lot to work with. We 
were given a draft of a bill with some analysis. I think it was a 
couple days ago--not time to get into it. But the bottom line is, it is 
going to be the same thing, according to the EPA, as the Waxman-Markey 
bill.
  So what I would like to do is use them interchangeably, since that 
was the response we got from the EPA when we made a request that we be 
given time to get an analysis, an EPA analysis of the bill. I think the 
words were: You do not need an EPA analysis of the bill because it is 
the same bill, for all practical purposes, as Waxman-Markey.
  So that is what we have. I would like to go over it point by point. 
Senator Kerry is correct that cap and trade will impose higher costs in 
the form of higher prices for electricity and gasoline. I think we do 
know these costs are there.
  According to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the bill--which 
I will refer to as ``the bill,'' it could be Waxman-Markey, it could be 
Kerry-Boxer--the bill would increase gas prices by 19 cents a gallon by 
2015, 38 cents a gallon by 2030, 95 cents a gallon by 2050. Also, 
electricity bills would rise by about 4 to 5 percent in 2020.
  I say this because the head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce 
was an excellent witness. He brought the point home. Not only is this 
bill--this cap-and-trade bill--expensive, it would be something that 
would be regressive because the percentage of expendable income by a 
poor person is far greater than a rich person on such things as home 
heating and driving your cars. So his whole point was it was a 
regressive tax.
  In a recent Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, Senator 
Jeff Sessions asked the government witnesses--the government witnesses 
were CBO, EPA, EIA, and the CRS--whether anyone disagreed with the 
finding that the net effect of cap and trade would be to reduce jobs. 
None did. Again, this morning, most of the witnesses responded in the 
same way.
  Then Senator Kerry talked about the NASA scientists. ``The best 
experts we have,'' he said, ``tell us that the last 10 years have been 
the hottest in decades on record.''
  Of course, we know that we have--in fact, just the other day, last 
week, BBC, which is certainly no friend of skeptics, in their lead 
story said: What happened to global warming? This headline came out as 
a bit of a surprise; so, too, might the fact that the warmest year 
recorded globally was not 2008 or 2007 but 1998. It went on to say that 
for the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global 
temperatures. In fact, we have actually had the indication we are 
starting another cyclical cooling spell.
  Senator Kerry said: That is why countries of the world, including 
India, China, and the United States, have agreed to limit the global 
rise in temperature to just 2 degrees Celsius. In

[[Page 25743]]

fact, this is not true. I am sure he thinks it is true or he would not 
have said it. But China is the world's leading emitter of 
CO2. India is No. 3. India has been moving up. We have a 
quote from the top environmental minister in India, whose name is 
Jairam Ramesh: ``India will not accept any emissions reduction target, 
period.'' He went on to say: ``This is non-negotiable.'' You cannot get 
any more emphatic than that.
  At the same time, when you talk about China, they may give you some 
lip service. Let's keep in mind, though, that China is cranking out 
coal-fired generating plants at two a week right now. So that does not 
show there is much interest in China to do anything close to what has 
been represented. The next statement made was that the pollution 
reduction measures in this bill are tightly focused on maximum impact.
  Only companies emitting 25,000 tons of carbon each year are covered, 
98 percent of America's businesses. The bill still covers three-
quarters of America's carbon pollution. So what he is saying is that 
three-fourths, as near as I can determine, of the carbon that is 
emitted comes from only 2 percent of America's businesses.
  The fact is, the Kerry-Boxer bill or ``the bill,'' I will say--
because it could be Markey or the same--contains no provision to stop 
the EPA's endangerment finding, which would trigger a flood of 
regulations under the Clean Air Act. As such, all the sources Senator 
Kerry mentions would be covered in some form of regulation under the 
act.
  Second, Senator Kerry ignores the fact that the sources he mentioned 
would be severely impacted by higher energy prices, declines in 
productivity, fewer jobs in the sluggish economy that would arise 
because of Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey.
  I mentioned what the National Black Chamber of Commerce had said 
about that. I think that should stand. He stated: Third, climate change 
and our dependence on foreign oil are a threat to our national 
security. I agree with that. We are dependent upon foreign countries 
for our ability to run this machine called America.
  Unfortunately, this is a very partisan subject because it is the 
Democrats who insist on having a moratorium on offshore drilling. The 
problems we are having right now--we have something, and this came out 
just last week. The new report from the Congressional Research Service 
reveals that America's combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal 
reserves are the largest on Earth.
  We keep hearing people say: We do not have these reserves. We do. Far 
greater than Saudi Arabia's; they are No. 3. No. 4 is China. That is 
not even talking about including America's immense oil shale and 
methane hydrate deposits. So we have the largest reserves and the 
capability, I believe, and I will make this statement and, hopefully, 
someone will refute it because I cannot find anything to the contrary; 
that is, we are the only country that will not develop its own natural 
resources.
  They say we are dependent on other countries. Well, yes, we are 
because politically they will not let us develop our own resources. I 
would say that between the oil and gas and the coal--and of course we 
are all concerned about nuclear, we want to do everything we can to 
overcome the obstacle that such a small percentage of our energy comes 
from nuclear. However, that is not going to be here tomorrow. We need 
to start working on that now.
  I am talking about things where we can get energy produced right in 
the United States and stop--we could actually stop our dependence on 
foreign oil just by developing our own natural resources.
  Then Senator Kerry talked about 11 former admirals and high-ranking 
generals who issued a seminal report warning that climate change is a 
threat multiplier.
  They talk about famines and catastrophes. These assertions, which 
were first made by Al Gore back when he did his science fiction movie, 
have all been refuted. Consequently, when I hear 11 former admirals and 
generals out of 4,000, if they could only find 11, I think they have a 
problem.
  The other thing is the fact that the bills would do virtually nothing 
to stop the pandemics, droughts, floods, and the like. According to an 
analysis by Chip Knappenberger of Master Resource:

       No matter how the economic and regulatory issues shake out, 
     [Waxman-Markey] will have virtually no impact on the future 
     course of the earth's climate.

  He went on:

       By the year 2050, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would 
     result in a global temperature ``savings'' of about 0.05 
     degrees Celsius.

  That reminds me, back in the 1990s we had an analysis by, at that 
time, one of the top scientists around. This was done by then-Vice 
President Al Gore. The guy's name was Tom Wigley, a top scientist. Vice 
President Gore gave him the chart. He said: If we were to sign on to 
the Kyoto Treaty, if we complied with its emissions requirements, how 
much would this reduce the temperature in 50 years?
  The answer was 0.07 degrees Celsius. That is not even measurable. He 
didn't use that afterwards, but we found the report. Nonetheless it was 
there, and it is quite obvious.
  Stop and think about the fact that we have gone through these natural 
cycles year after year. We have the cycles, and they show what we are 
going through. It reminds me--and I am old enough to remember--of the 
middle 1970s when the same publication, Time magazine, and the rest of 
them, many of the same scientists said we would have to do something 
about global cooling because another ice age was coming, and we have to 
address it.
  We have to keep in mind there is a lot of money in these statements. 
People like to think a disaster is occurring because there is a lot of 
money in it.
  That reminds me of something else said this morning by Senator Kerry. 
He talked about Duke Energy and others. There are about five major 
corporations in America that joined a group called CAP USA. These were 
corporations that came in and said: We are stewards of the environment. 
We want to do something. We embrace cap and trade.
  Then we stopped and did an analysis of the five that appeared before 
the committee only to find that without exception, each one of the 
five, if we were to have some type of a cap and trade--and it doesn't 
matter whether it was the Markey bill or the current Kerry-Boxer bill--
if we were to do that, we know what the results would be because we 
have gone through this before over and over again. The idea that we 
could have something like this and not have the problems come has been 
disproven for a long period.
  Let's go back to the Kyoto Treaty. We actually have had five debates 
on the Senate floor. We had the Kyoto Treaty, then in 2005 the McCain-
Lieberman bill, then the 2003 McCain-Lieberman bill, then the 2008 
Warner-Lieberman bill. In each case we had analyses done by the Wharton 
School of Economics, by MIT, and other groups. They all agreed it would 
be an expensive proposition. They said it would cost the American 
public between $300 and $400 billion a year.
  I know that is difficult for people to understand. How does that 
impact me? But we do have an analysis that breaks that down. For the 
average family, it would cost about $2,000 a year. In my State of 
Oklahoma, it would be more than that because the price would be higher 
in the central part of the United States than it would be on the east 
coast or the west coast.
  The cost is going to be there, and it doesn't seem to make too much 
difference which of the five different approaches we soundly defeated 
in the past is under consideration. Senator Kerry also claims that 
India is working on its own domestic legislation to reduce carbon 
pollution. I already read what their top people have said. They have no 
intention of doing it. In fact, I have talked to people who are from 
China, people who are saying: We are sitting back and are kind of 
hoping maybe America will do this because, if they do, American 
manufacturers have to go someplace to find their energy.
  Since we have rationed it in this country, if we should pass such a 
cap-

[[Page 25744]]

and-trade bill, then that would send more manufacturing jobs to places 
where there is no rationing.
  I appreciate very much Lisa Jackson, the new Director of the EPA. 
Several weeks ago--she was there again this morning--she was on the 
witness stand. I asked a question: If we were to pass one of these 
bills like the Waxman-Markey bill, and we were to pass it unilaterally, 
how much would that reduce emissions globally?
  The answer was, it wouldn't. I would go one step further. It will not 
reduce them unless we include Third World countries, the major 
emitters--China, India, Mexico, and these other countries. If we don't 
do that, then we will chase our manufacturing bases where there are no 
restrictions, and that would have the effect, common sense would 
dictate, of increasing CO2 emissions.
  We have gone through this now for 10 years. I think it is going to 
come to a climax in Copenhagen. Once every year the U.N. has this big 
party, and they have all these countries come in and say what they are 
going to do to try to stop emission of greenhouse gases.
  I had one--I will not mention his name, but he was from the West 
African country of Benin--who was there the last time I attended one of 
these conferences. It was in Spain at that time, I believe. Milan, 
Italy. I went up to this individual and I said: You and I have talked 
about this before. You know there is no relationship between greenhouse 
gases and global warming.
  He said: Yes, but this is the biggest party of the year. So you are 
going to have a lot of people to go to Copenhagen in December who 
really aren't strongly behind the effort of the United Nations.
  One last time, it all started with the United Nations, the IPCC, the 
Intergovernmental Climate Change Program. It started there. They are 
the ones who are perpetrating this thing. As we get into the debate--
and we will have more hearings tomorrow--I hope we will be in a 
position, before we send a bill to the floor from the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, to analyze it.
  We have called upon the EPA to give us an analysis so that we will 
have something and we will know more specifically, is this just a 
warmed-over bill that passed the House, the Waxman-Markey effort, or is 
this something that is different? According to the EPA, it is about the 
same. I suggest it is about the same as it was back in 2005, 2003, and 
back during the Kyoto discussion.
  We will move forward. We have seen certain incontrovertible truths 
that have come up. One is there is no question that if something like 
this is passed, something like the draft form we are discussing and 
having hearings on right now, if this should become a reality it would 
be the largest tax increase in the history of America. The last large 
tax increase we had was in 1993. It was called the Clinton-Gore tax 
increase. It increased marginal rates, inheritance taxes, gasoline 
taxes, capital gains taxes, all the rest. We were pretty outraged at 
the size of that increase. That was a $32 billion tax increase.
  According to all the analyses we are looking at now, this would be 10 
times the size of that tax increase.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be recognized 
when I have completed my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me respond to my friend in regard to 
the global climate change bill that was introduced by Senators Kerry 
and Boxer. Today Chairman Boxer started hearings before the Environment 
and Public Works Committee on the climate change bill. I agree with my 
colleague, we want to make sure we get this right. This is an important 
issue, and we want to take the time necessary to make sure this bill 
does what it needs to do.
  There is a sense of urgency for many reasons. We can look globally at 
what is happening with climate change and the impact on the stability 
of countries. We now have climate migrants, those forced out of their 
homes because of rising sea levels.
  I don't have to take my colleagues to Asia or Africa or Europe. I can 
take them to Maryland on the Eastern Shore, Smith Island is 
disappearing. The residents are concerned as to what is going to happen 
to their homes. I can show them in my own State the urgency of dealing 
with global climate change by talking to watermen who tell me the 
Chesapeake Bay is warming too quickly. As a result, the sea grasses are 
not surviving and juvenile crabs cannot survive, affecting the 
waterman's livelihood. There is a sense of urgency for the sake of our 
environment, for the sake of America being an international leader on 
this issue to move forward with global climate change.
  Let me offer a reason with which I think everyone will agree: We need 
an energy policy that not only allows us to lead on the environmental 
issues but also helps us on the economic front. Clean energy will mean 
new jobs, good jobs in America. We developed the technology for 
alternative and renewable energy sources. Let's keep the jobs in 
America. These are good jobs. This bill means more jobs in America by 
investing in technology that other countries are now investing more in 
than America. They understand the future is going to be in wind power 
and solar power and, yes, in nuclear power. This bill allows us to move 
forward so we can keep jobs in America.
  Lastly, I think everyone will agree that from a strategic point, we 
need to use less energy and produce more in America. The bill Senator 
Kerry has brought forward will help us achieve those goals.
  I look forward to debating global climate change and energy policy. I 
hope we can come together for the sake of the Nation, for the sake of 
the future, and develop an energy policy that not only will keep us 
safe, will not only help our economy, but will be responsible on 
international environmental issues and be an international leader.

                          ____________________