Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2014

Floor Speech

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have to say this. The resolution by Senator Klobuchar clearly demonstrates the vast political influence of the President's global warming advocates and what they have been doing over time.

This is not new. This started in this Chamber--let's see, 15 years ago--at the time the Clinton-Gore effort took place in South America and they signed on to the treaty down there. Of course, it never came up to be ratified.

This resolution cites 13 different government agencies that are colluding together to merge their policies to promote global warming, which underscores how effective the environmental activists such as Tom Steyer have been at getting their agenda into the Obama administration.

While some Democrats may be convinced global warming is continuing to occur, the scientific record does not agree. In fact, for the past 15 years temperatures across the globe have not increased. Let's think about that. Is anyone listening here? Temperatures have not increased over the last 15 years. This isn't just--a major magazine had an article on it, ``The Economist'' did, and even the scientists at the IPCC.

Let's keep in mind that the whole thing was started by the United Nations. They started this group called the IPCC--the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--and they have been promoting it ever since. Even the IPCC says we have had no warming for the last 15 years. Senator Wicker from Mississippi, at a hearing last week, pointed out that some 31,000 American scientists, 9,000 of whom have Ph.D.s, have signed a petition noting there is a lack of scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are causing global warming.

Looking at the political side of things, the Senate has been debating this issue for nearly 15 years. I can remember standing right here at this podium, the first bill that came down was the McCain-Lieberman bill. It was to legislatively do a cap-and-trade bill. It would have set up an economywide cap-and-trade program. It failed by a vote of 43 to 55. This is in the Senate. A short while after that they had another bill, which was in 2005, and it failed by a larger margin. In 2008, the Warner-Lieberman bill came up. It failed also. Each time it fails, it fails by a larger plurality, which leads me to question how people can possibly say the majority in this Senate has an interest in this legislation because they fail every time. The last time the bill was considered in Congress was in 2009. That was the Waxman-Markey bill. It passed the House but never got a vote in the Senate because they knew it was going to fail.

One might ask, Why is that? What changed from the time the polling showed Americans were interested in this issue? I will tell my colleagues when it was. I happened to be at that time chairman of the air subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee. They had at that time a study that came out. It was by the scientists from the Wharton School of Economics talking about what the cost would be if we were to pass cap and trade. That figure was between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. Let's keep in mind that would constitute the largest tax increase in the history of America.

It is not as if it is just one group. MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, came out and agreed with those figures. They said $300 billion to $400 billion. Then Charles Rivers came out and said the same thing, about $300 billion to $400 billion a year.

Since that time there has been a wake-up call for the American people. I don't know what my good friend from Minnesota--maybe she will elaborate a little bit on these polls. But I can remember back when the Gallup polls used to say, some 15 years ago, that global warming was either the first or the second major concern people had. A Gallup poll that came out just 2 weeks ago said it was No. 14 out of 15. In other words, they said: Name the 15 greatest concerns we have, and No. 14 out of 15 was global warming.

The Pew Research Center came out just the other day saying that 53 percent of Americans who believe in global warming--these are the ones who truly believe the globe is warming and we are all going to die--when they asked about the cause of global warming, either they said they don't believe there is enough evidence to blame manmade gases--that is anthropogenic gases--or they believe it is caused by natural variation.

This probably explains why it has been difficult for Tom Steyer to reengender a lot of interest in this issue. He has committed to raising $100 million. He promised to help Democrats win elections this fall. He put $50 million of his own money--this is Tom Steyer talking; he admits he is doing this--and he is going to raise the other $50 million. We found out from an article in Politico 2 weeks ago that the most he has been able to raise of the second $50 million is $1.2 million from outside donors so far. Maybe over the weekend he had a good weekend; I don't know. That is a possibility.

What we should be doing is learning from the international community. Just last week Australia repealed its much hated carbon tax--the same thing that is being promoted right now. Either cap and trade or a tax on carbon is what they passed in Australia, and they did it overwhelmingly. Then they realized the real cost. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, should be heralded as a hero for his courageous leadership to help the poor and those on fixed incomes who suffer when energy prices needlessly rise.

Upon passage of the bill to repeal the tax, he told the Australian people--this is his quote; listen very carefully: ``Today the tax that you voted to get rid of is finally gone. A useless destructive tax which damaged jobs, which hurt families' cost of living and which didn't actually help the environment is finally gone.'' He is talking about the tax they passed in the country of Australia and just recently rescinded that.

By the way, there is a guy, Senator Cory Bernardi, who came out--I happened to see him 3 or 4 days ago in Washington. He was here. He was one of the senators who actually had promoted this to start with and then changed his mind and realized this is something that is worth repealing. And they did it.

So the Australian people are thanking their Prime Minister. I believe we will be able to protect the American people from the senseless global warming policies here in the United States. It is something they have tried for 15 years here. Every time they stand up and say, oh, the science is settled, the science is settled, then we come up with more groups. I can remember the first time they said the science is settled. That was 12 years ago. Look at my Web site. I named a handful of scientists who had been intimidated by the IPCC--that is the United Nations--into saying: Yes, we want you to participate. But to do this, you have to believe this stuff on global warming. Of course, it did not happen.

So we started listing, and we got several hundred, then several thousand scientists who we still have on the Web site. You can access it. So it is not just recently that scientists have changed their mind on this, because they started a long time ago. By the way, I know this is a fine person, Tom Steyer, and we are reading from Politico. Later on he made the statement:

It is true that we expect to be heavily involved in the mid-term elections. We are looking at a bunch of races. My guess is that we will end up involved in eight or more races.

This is a guy talking about what he is going to do with $100 million. So it is something that is not going to happen. It sounds real good, standing up and talking about the world coming to an end, but that was not sellable back in 2003 when they had the first bill. It is not sellable today.

It always bothers me when we have a President who tries his best to get things done legislatively, and then cannot do it that way so he is trying to do it through regulations. So having said all of that, I object.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source:
Skip to top
Back to top