Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the Department of Defense from spending money on climate change policies forced upon them by the Obama administration.

We shouldn't be diverting our financial resources away from the primary missions of our military and our national security in pursuit of an ideology.

For example, earlier this year, the President diverted crucial funding on rural sewer and water line grants to promote his climate change initiatives.

Let's make it clear. I acknowledge that climate change is occurring. The climate has always been changing. The question is whether or not, given the global unrest from these rogue nations and our war on terrorism, whether we should be diverting our funds to support an ideology instead of maximizing our investments in national security.

Now, climate change alarmists contend that man-made CO2

CO2 is the cause of climate change. Most people may not realize that 96 percent of all the CO2 emissions occur naturally, and America's CO2 emissions' contribution to the global community is actually less than 1 percent, Mr. Chairman. But even with these facts, decarbonizing America's economy is still a long-term goal of the climate alarmists. But to what end?

If America totally stopped burning coal--I mean this, Mr. Chairman. If every coal-fired powerhouse, factory, school, institution, if every institution in America stopped burning coal today, we would reduce the emissions of CO2 in the globe around the world by 0.2 percent. Think about that, Mr. Chair, 0.2 percent. Within 5 years, the rest of the world's CO2 emissions would make up the difference while our entire economy would have been turned upside down. We would have gained nothing in America at considerable cost to our country's economy.

Yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry was quoted saying: ``If we make the necessary efforts to address climate change, and supposing we are wrong, what's the worst that can happen?''

``What's the worst that can happen?'' What about spending trillions of dollars, the loss of millions of jobs, more expensive electric bills, and making our economy less competitive?

People like this talk about these issues as if there is no downside or cost to what they are advocating. Mr. Chairman, you and I know that is not the case.

Germany is switching back to coal-fired power, and China and India are building coal-fired power plants every week. America is the only industrialized nation discouraging the use of coal and other fossil fuels.

Leadership expert John Maxwell once said: ``He who thinks he leads but has no followers is only taking a walk.''

The President should look around. He is alone on this issue. We shouldn't be putting our funds for the military and our defense at risk by diverting funds for an ideologically motivated agenda.

If this administration truly wishes to address the problem of CO2 emissions, they should help the rest of the world tackle the deforestation of our tropical rain forests.

Al Gore and the Sierra Club acknowledge that deforestation in Africa and the Amazon is five to six times more of a polluter than the combination of every coal-fired powerhouse in America--five to six times worse. These tropical forests are being destroyed because developing nations don't have access to affordable electricity for heating and cooking and clean water.

Unfortunately, the debate on this issue has turned to name-calling. One of my colleagues today has called those of us who disagree with the President over this issue ``irresponsible,'' ``Republican science deniers,'' and ``members of the Flat Earth Society.'' Al Gore called people who question climate change policies ``immoral, unethical, and despicable.''

Mr. Chairman, you and I are old enough to know that bullying and name-calling are just childish tactics and don't have a place in this debate. Let's stop the name-calling. It is time for an adult conversation.

We should not sacrifice our economy and our national security by diverting funds in pursuit of an ideological crusade. This is not the time to divert our financial resources from our military for climate change purposes when we are confronting Syria, Iran, Russia, Libya, and other rogue nations around the world. In addition, we have Boko Haram, Hamas, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups promoting instability and threatening liberty and freedom around the world.

Consequently, this amendment will ensure we maximize our military might without diverting funds for a politically motivated agenda. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source