Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first, before the Senator from Rhode Island leaves, let me remind him he started the discussion by saying this is the first time we have been debating this. We have been debating this for years. I know the Senator from Rhode Island wasn't yet elected when we had the McCain-Lieberman bill on the floor and I remember that so well because I was down here for 6 solid days doing nothing but debating this. One thing I wish to ask you to do is--we made the request when we first started--this is not a discussion on science. We are now talking about a bill. We want to talk about the bill. I am convinced that people coming down and talking about science are doing that because they don't want to talk about the bill, they don't want to talk about the tax ramifications of this bill. Now, for the purpose of this discussion from now on, let's assume the science is there, that we don't have to worry about science. Let's talk about the bill. I yield the rebuttal time to the fine Senator from Tennessee, Senator Corker.

Mr. INHOFE. The problem with that is, as you well know, it is not very reasonable because we are on a schedule to listen to other people, other than the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. INHOFE. I will be happy to do that after the remarks of the Senator from Iowa. Is that all right?

Mr. INHOFE. I don't think that is entirely accurate because I think the Senator who just spoke, Mr. Grassley, was on the list and was designated as the speaker with some time.

Mr. INHOFE. The UC that was passed allowed Senator Grassley to speak. He was out of order only by one. Senator Whitehouse was supposed to be first, and then he was supposed to speak. What is it you want? Maybe I can accommodate that.

Mr. INHOFE. OK. For 1 minute. After this I think we will try to stay on schedule.

Mr. INHOFE. That is fine.

Mr. INHOFE. The reason I ask is because we have a lot of people who have lined up afterwards who do not want to wait much longer.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, can I make a parliamentary inquiry? Is the time that was used by the Senator from Virginia going to be taken from his time?

Mr. INHOFE. He is asking for additional time.

Mr. INHOFE. No, I will not. Not now. Then, getting into the nuclear, it is one of the things I think no one is going to argue with. You are not going to resolve the energy crisis unless it has a strong nuclear component. I think you are going to have some amendments coming up on this bill that certainly are supported by Senator Warner, who is a cosponsor of the bill, that say we need to dramatically increase our nuclear capacity in America. I have been saying that for a long time. If you look at European countries where there are not problems right now, in the European countries, actually 80 percent of their energy comes out of nuclear energy. In our country it is about 20 percent. I would say any kind of correction of this problem is not going to take place unless we have the nuclear plants. The study that was referred to, the one that said only 2 cents a year, that is assuming we have an increase of 260 nuclear plants--it is wildly optimistic, impossible, can't be done. Nonetheless, that is what is being discussed. Nuclear energy is a very important part of our mix. It is going to have to be in the future. I would say this: If I were on the other side of this bill, and I were trying to get this bill passed, I would welcome the opportunity to have that discussion on the nuclear amendment that will be offered by more than one person, but certainly offered by even the author of the bill, Senator Warner. I see the Senator from Iowa has arrived, and I think he is scheduled to speak for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. No, I will not. That has nothing to do with scientists. We talked about 2,000 scientists. We have a list of 30,000 scientists who said: Yes, there can be a relationship between CO2 and a warming condition, but it is not major. Let me use an example. This is the best example because it comes from someone we all love dearly, former Vice President Al Gore. Former Vice President Al Gore wanted to explain to us how serious it was way back when he was Vice President. This is in the middle 1990s. He said he hired a scientist. The scientist's name was Tom Wiggly. Tom Wiggly was a well-known scientist, one who was supposed to know what he was talking about. He was the choice of Vice President Al Gore. When he did this, the Vice President said: Do a study and tell us what would happen, how much cooling would take place if all of the nations who were developed nations--not developing nations, not China, not India, not Mexico--just the developed nations were all to sign onto the Kyoto Treaty and live by the emissions requirements. How much would that reduce the temperature in 50 years? Do you know what the answer was? Do you remember that? You remember that. It was seven one-hundreths of 1 degree Celsius. That is not even measurable. Of course, that is not Senator Jim Inhofe; that was Vice President Al Gore. Al Gore has done his movie. Almost everything in his movie--in fact, everything has been refuted. Interestingly enough, the IPCC--on sea levels and other scare tactics used in that science fiction movie, it has been totally refuted, and refuted many times, by the IPCC. On the conversation we have been having on gas prices, if you look at different studies--you don't want to believe studies. Look at some of the government studies. They have a responsibility to come out with something that is realistic. If you do not want to do that, just use logic. If you are to pass a bill that has a cap on the supply of oil and gas in this country, and that cap goes into effect, by mere supply and demand the price is going to go up. It has to go up. So the EPA estimates that this bill, the Lieberman-Warner bill, will increase fuel costs an additional 53 cents per gallon, and by $1.40 by 2050. The Energy Information Agency weighed in on the same thing and estimated gas prices will increase anywhere from 41 cents a gallon to $1 a gallon by 2030. While the climate bill's proponents, as we heard just a few minutes ago from the distinguished junior Senator from California, argued that this shows the gas price numbers going up by only 2 cents a year, that is assuming we have 2\1/2\ times the nuclear plants we have today. That is all written in this report. Right now we have approximately 104. That would be 260 nuclear plants.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, we have heard the same thing over and over. This is only the second day. I guess we have maybe 10 days to go. The junior Senator from California is so interested in the fact that it is only up by 2 cents a year. Looking at the Energy Information Agency study, what is interesting about that is the Energy Information Agency study presumes that we would have an additional 260 nuclear plants on line. When the appropriate time comes I will be asking her that question, if she supports that. We have several speakers coming down. Senator Grassley from Iowa is coming down, so I will visit a little bit until he gets here. Then we want to go on schedule, and I am hoping we will be able to go back and forth and hear from a number of these Members. First, I thank my colleague from Wyoming. I don't know what he experienced this last winter. When the Senator from California talks about temperatures and all this, it happens that we in the State of Oklahoma have had the worst cold spell during this last winter than we have in 30 years. I find this to be true all over the country. You just can't have it both ways. One of the good things about this discussion and this debate is we are not going to be discussing the science. I know the Senator from Massachusetts talked about the scientists in the IPCC. I have to remind my friends across America, really it was the IPCC. That is the United Nations, in case nobody knows who the IPCC is. They are the ones who started all this. By the way, anytime there is a quote from the IPCC, it is a summary for policymakers. Those are not--

Mr. INHOFE. According to the Chair, I have 4 minutes remaining.

Mr. INHOFE. First, let me repeat what I started out talking about in the opening discussion on this bill. We said we are going to go ahead and we will not talk about the science because the science is not in this bill. What we are going to talk about is the economics of this bill. That is what we have done. I have also said that if anyone wants to talk about science--I used the example of Vice President Gore's own scientist who said what a small, immeasurable impact it would be if we were to sign on to the Kyoto treaty which is cap and trade, very similar to what we are talking about today. Then, in 2005, we went through the same thing with the McCain- Lieberman bill. That bill, I have to say to my good friend from Connecticut, was not nearly as bad as the Kyoto Treaty and far better than this bill today because the price tag on that was less than the Kyoto Treaty. The Kyoto Treaty would have been in the range of between $300 and $330 billion. That amount of money was a huge, very high amount. But the bill that came along in 2005 was the bill by McCain and Lieberman which is far less than that. Now, this is the one that is the big one. The range here in terms of the cost is about 20 percent, 25 percent higher than Kyoto would have been at that time. We started talking about gas prices and the fact that the nuclear component is going to have to be necessary. But what we did not really get around to--and I think we need to do it over and over again in the next few days, until such time as we get onto the amendments--is the fact that the amount of money this is going to cost over a period of time, according to Senator Boxer in one of her early press releases, is $6.7 trillion. This would be in the form of higher gasoline or electric bills. A lot of people will make the statement that this really is not an accurate figure. Well, this is not my figure, this is her figure. They have also said the bill provides that some of this money can be--or the amended bill, which we have not seen all that long a time, provides that some of this money can go back to poorer families. That amount in the maximum, as I calculate it, is $2.5 trillion, which leaves $4.2 trillion. Now, you might wonder, what is all this going to go to? I found it very interesting, when the junior Senator from California was complimenting the senior Senator from New Hampshire, when Senator Gregg said: Well, we are in somewhat agreement, she said: The difference is, he wants to return that money to the people, that $4.2 trillion, instead of supporting this bureaucracy. Well, as to the bureaucracy, we think it is going to be about 45 new bureaucracies, and it is going to take, over the 50-year life of this bill, I would suspect, right around $4.2 trillion to run that bureaucracy. I would conclude, though, by saying this country does not need 45 more bureaucracies.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me explain why. I know you are going to take it from your time, but the problem is, we have two speakers on this side who are pressed for time, and you are actually scheduled for after these two speakers. So if you could wait until your time, it would be----

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I think we are working on a unanimous consent request right now. Why don't you go ahead and use the remaining time in morning business, and then you will be the first speaker to use the remaining of that 21 minutes or whatever you want, and that 14 minutes will come out of the bill.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. First, we will have the Senator from North Carolina. Then I will have 5 minutes of rebuttal.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, what I would like to do, we do have it locked in right now in terms of a UC. It would be Senator Specter next for 5 minutes, me for 25 minutes, and Senator Lieberman for 20 minutes. I will be managing the time in opposition. The time that has been requested from me is for Senator Bond to follow Senator Lieberman. Then I am sure you would be on there.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, that is all right so long as the allocation of time does not punish us. I also ask unanimous consent to lock in, after your presentation, Senator Bond for 15 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. He is our time.