[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3945-3948]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think Senators Thune and Nelson have 
done a great job of putting together the reauthorization bill for the 
FAA. It is

[[Page 3946]]

something that should have been done some time ago. We are hoping the 
House will adopt what we have or something close to it because we are 
getting ready to do this. It is significant.
  I want to mention something that people may not be aware of. This 
month leaders from around the world are going to meet in New York to 
sign the Paris climate agreement--an agreement that hinges entirely on 
President Obama's commitments to reduce emissions in the United States.
  In Paris, he said: We commit that the United States will reduce our 
CO2 emissions somewhere between 26 and 28 percent by 2025.
  Of course, that is just not going to happen.
  President Obama has three legacies, as his days are now numbered. One 
of them is to take away people's guns. We all know about Second 
Amendment rights. Every time something happens, they always try to 
restrict gun ownership. He still wants to do that. Closing Gitmo is 
another one. The third one we are trying to survive is his global 
warming program.
  While the President has been working to solidify his legacy on global 
warming, he has chosen to ignore the reality that the United States 
will not keep his carbon promises. The document that will be signed on 
April 22--Earth Day--will soon be added to the president's stack of 
empty promises on global warming. This has been going on since 1997. 
While President Obama will undoubtedly issue a press release praising 
the signing as a ``historic'' event--he won't even be attending. That 
should be a good indication that he knows he is not going to be able to 
do this. He is not even going to be there.
  Once again, I want to make sure the international participants are 
warned that the President's climate commitment lacks the support of his 
own government and it is going to fail. There is no question about 
that. I can say that because history has already repeated itself. I 
have been on the frontlines dating back to the failed Kyoto treaty of 
1997. For over 20 years, history has been repeating itself, and I have 
been on the frontlines dating back to that time.
  This is kind of interesting. In 1997 President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore went to the Kyoto convention. They signed the treaty and 
they thought: This is great. Everyone is going to have to do cap and 
trade.
  They got back here, and there was a little thing called the Byrd-
Hagel resolution. It passed this body 95 to 0. What did it say? It 
said: If you come back with the Kyoto treaty and it does one of two 
things, we will vote against it. That was 95 Members; there were 5 
people absent that day.
  They said they would not do it if two things were in it: No. 1, if it 
is an economic hardship on the United States of America, and No. 2, if 
you come back with a treaty that doesn't treat developing countries the 
same as developed countries. In other words, if we have to do something 
in the United States that China doesn't have to do, that India doesn't 
have to do, that Mexico doesn't have to do, then we will vote against 
it.
  Of course, they came back with something that violated both. So there 
was never any possibility that it was going to pass, and it didn't. We 
subsequently rejected four cap-and-trade bills in the following 13 
years.
  This past year a bipartisan majority in both the Senate and the House 
spoke again when we passed two resolutions of disapproval formally 
rejecting President Obama's carbon regulations. There is a little thing 
a lot of people don't know about called the CRA, the Congressional 
Review Act. That means if the President tries to do something that is 
against the wishes of the people through their elected representatives, 
then you can pass a CRA--Congressional Review Act--that will reject the 
regulation. So we passed two resolutions formally disapproving what he 
was trying to do.
  So I say to the 196 countries that might show up here: Don't show up 
anticipating that something is going to happen, because it is not. This 
isn't even supported by a majority of the Members of the Senate or the 
House. Congress has continuously shown that the American people don't 
want the Federal Government imposing harsh penalties like cap and trade 
to address the highly contested theory of manmade global warming.
  The first attempt to enact cap and trade back in 2003 would have cost 
our economy upwards of $400 billion a year.
  I say to our good friend from Alaska who is the Presiding Officer 
right now that every time I hear a large figure, I take the current 
population in my State of Oklahoma--those families who actually pay 
Federal income taxes--and I do the math. In this case, this would cost 
in the neighborhood of $3,000 per family, and of course, as I will 
demonstrate in just a minute, they will get nothing for that.
  In 2003 the first bill that came up would have cost upwards of $400 
billion. This has not been contested, and the numbers aren't much 
different from what the President is trying to do right now with his 
Clean Power Plan, which he is trying to do through regulation because 
he knows it won't pass as legislation.
  The Clean Power Plan--the centerpiece of the President's promise to 
the international community that the United States will cut greenhouse 
gases between 26 and 28 percent by 2025--this plan, which attempts to 
do through regulation what the President was unable to do through 
legislation, stands on very shaky legal ground.
  Most recently, the Supreme Court joined the chorus in signaling to 
the President that the President's efforts on climate change are dead 
on arrival. This is the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I think we owe it to the 196 countries to let them know that nothing 
is going to happen once they get here. I think it is nice if they all 
want to come and tour America and spend their money, maybe take old 
Highway 66 down through my State of Oklahoma and see what America 
really looks like. I would love to have them come. But I want to make 
sure they know that nothing is going to happen in terms of the 
President's Clean Power Plan or his broader international commitments.
  The Supreme Court dealt the President's legacy a major blow when it 
voted 5 to 4 in February to block the implementation of Obama's Clean 
Power Plan while it is being litigated by over 150 entities, including 
27 States, including Oklahoma, which are filing a lawsuit to make sure 
this does not happen. So we have a majority of States in America 
saying: Not only do we not want it, but we are suing them to make sure 
it is not implemented. There are also 24 trade associations, 37 
electric co-ops and 3 labor unions challenging EPA in court. They are 
all filing these lawsuits, so the Supreme Court comes along and says: 
Until these are resolved, we are going to stay the regulation.
  This decision delays implementation of the rule until the next 
President and completely upends Obama's Paris commitments. Without the 
central component of his international climate agenda, achieving the 
promises he made in Paris is a mere pipe dream. Even with the Clean 
Power Plan, the United States would fail to meet 45 percent of the 
promised greenhouse gas emission reductions. Now, with the Supreme 
Court's stay on these regulations, there could be an even greater 
deficit. If the Clean Power Plan is overturned, the United States will 
miss the mark by about 60 percent. Furthermore, the litigation on the 
Clean Power Plan won't likely get resolved until 2018. That means the 
regulations will be blocked for at least the next 2 years, as the chart 
shows.
  First, on June 2, the three-judge panel on the DC Circuit will need 
to hear the case. The three-judge panel will issue a decision sometime 
this fall, and it will almost certainly be challenged with a request 
for an en banc review by the entire DC Circuit. A decision from an en 
banc panel won't come until much later--likely by the end of the year, 
as we can see on the chart. This decision will almost certainly be 
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Court decides to hear the 
case, a final decision is expected in late 2017 or 2018.
  The DC Circuit has already decided to delay hearing the case on the 
Clean

[[Page 3947]]

Power Plan's sister rule on carbon controls for new power plants until 
after the November elections, signaling little appetite for allowing 
this to be an easy, quick legal review of Obama's carbon mandates.
  Similar to the Clean Power Plan litigation, any decision on a new 
source rule--new sources of power plants--would likely be appealed to 
the Supreme Court, with a final decision expected in 2018. Critically, 
the new source rule is a legal prerequisite for the Clean Power Plan, 
so without the new source rule, there is no Clean Power Plan.
  The success of Obama's carbon mandates hinges not on just one but on 
two Supreme Court wins that will be decided well after he leaves 
office. He will be long gone. And with a new administration needing to 
fill a vacancy next year on the Court--who knows how that will impact 
or delay consideration of pending cases.
  We are clearly a long way off from knowing the outcome of the 
President's carbon regulations. You wouldn't know that when you hear 
the releases that came from Paris saying this has been a great success. 
He made the commitment as to what kind of reductions we are going to 
have when he in his own mind knew for a fact that was not even a 
possibility.
  So we are a long way from knowing the outcome of the President's 
carbon regulations that were written to help fulfill his pledge to 
international communities. But, as I said, Obama will be long gone by 
that time.
  It is important for the 196 countries involved in the Paris climate 
agreement to understand what I am saying. The Congress, the courts, 
climate experts, and industry are all pointing to the same conclusion: 
President Obama's climate pledge is unattainable, and it stands no 
chance of succeeding in the United States. For the sake of the economic 
well-being of America, that is a good thing. Again, we still would 
welcome the 196 countries to come over here and enjoy America, but 
don't expect any of President Obama's climate promises to happen.
  A few countries have taken note. Specifically, China and India, two 
of the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gas, are now second-
guessing the legitimacy of Obama's commitments.
  Navroz K. Dubash, a senior fellow at the Center for Policy Research 
in New Delhi told the New York Times that ``[the Supreme Court stay] 
could be the proverbial string which causes Paris to unravel.''
  Zou Ji, the deputy director general of China's National Center for 
Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation, also told the 
New York Times: ``Look, [if] the United States doesn't keep its word, 
why make so many demands on us?''
  In another display of solidarity against Obama's climate agenda, I 
led 34 Senators and 171 House Members in an amicus brief filed in the 
DC Circuit arguing that the Clean Power Plan is illegal. The plan would 
cause double-digit electricity price increases in 40 States and have no 
impact on the environment. Further, these regulations would prevent 
struggling communities from accessing reliable and affordable fuel 
sources, which could eventually lead to poor families choosing between 
putting food on the table and turning the heat on in the wintertime.
  Much of the focus this past year has been the Clean Power Plan and 
the Paris Agreement that is reliant on its success. The administration 
has the power generation sector in its crosshairs, but they will not 
stop there. We know that. We are keenly aware of Obama's war on fossil 
fuels--coal, oil, and natural gas.
  If I don't have to be someplace in conjunction with my obligations 
with the Senate Armed Services Committee, I go back home every weekend. 
They ask questions you don't hear in Washington. They ask: Now, wait a 
minute, if we are reliant upon fossil fuels--coal, oil, and gas--for 85 
percent of the power necessary to run this machine called America and 
if Obama is successful in killing coal, oil, and gas, then how are we 
going to run this machine called America?
  That is a logical question, but not here in Washington. You don't 
hear that here in Washington.
  The Clean Power Plan is a template for unauthorized action, and if it 
works for one sector, future bureaucratic agencies will use it to 
restructure every industrial sector in this country. The immediate 
threat to future generations is not climate change. The climate is 
always changing and will continue to do so regardless of who is in the 
White House.
  Luckily, the American people have caught on to the President's 
climate charade. But don't take my word for it; just look at the polls. 
I can remember back when the first bills were coming out. There was the 
McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003, and we looked at the bill. At that time, 
the polls showed that global warming was either the No. 1 or No. 2 
concern in America. That has all changed. A FOX News poll found just 
the other day that 97 percent of Americans don't care about global 
warming when they stack it up against terrorism, immigration, health 
care, and the economy. Even an ABC News/Washington Post poll from last 
November found that the number of Americans who believe climate change 
is a serious problem is on the decline. According to the Gallup poll--
they have a big one every March--the Gallup poll in March of 2015 had 
global warming coming in dead last of environmental issues that people 
are concerned about. George Mason University did a poll of 4,000 TV 
meteorologists, and it also dispelled the President's talking point 
that there is 97-percent consensus among scientists that humans are 
driving climate change. The survey found that roughly one out of three 
meteorologists do not believe man is the primary cause--if, in fact, it 
is happening.
  Overall, neither the American people nor Congress supports the 
President's detrimental climate change agenda and his attempt to 
bolster his personal legacy with empty promises.
  Let me wind up and say that we welcome the international community to 
come over here, but with regard to the Paris Climate Agreement, nothing 
is going to happen.
  I wish to mention a couple other things. Many countries quickly 
jumped on the global warming bandwagon that the United Nations was 
trying to sell to the world and instill an obligation to impose 
associated restrictions. Australia was one of the first countries to 
join in. They did this several years ago--until they realized what it 
cost, and then they came back and passed legislation taking themselves 
off of this so that they are no longer legally obligated to do anything 
about their emissions.
  If you stop and think about China, every 10 days China is building a 
new coal-fired power plant. This is the country the president is using 
to justify his own climate agenda while convincing the American people 
China is making similar contributions to reducing greenhouse gases. The 
problem with this is that China admits they are going to continue to 
build coal-fired plants and increase emissions until the year 2030 and 
then they will consider reducing their emissions. We know it is not 
going to happen.
  Lastly, I remember when Lisa Jackson was appointed by President 
Obama. She was his first appointment as Administrator of the EPA. I 
remember talking to her in a public meeting live on TV, and I asked her 
the question: Let's assume that one of these pieces of legislation 
passes on cap and trade or that through regulation they are able to do 
it. Is that going to have the effect of reducing overall emissions 
worldwide?
  She said: No, because this isn't where the problem is. The problem is 
in China; it is in India; it is in Mexico.
  In fact, you can actually say this could have the effect of 
increasing emissions because as we chase our manufacturing base 
overseas, it may go to countries like China that have lower 
environmental standards and will ultimately increase emissions, not 
decrease.
  So the President's international climate commitment is not going to 
happen. I want to make sure people are aware of that. We wouldn't want 
them coming over here under the impression

[[Page 3948]]

that something is going to happen when it is not.

                          ____________________