Volume 155, No. 134 covering the 1st Session of the 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CLIMATE CHANGE” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S9648-S9650 on Sept. 22, 2009.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me thank the Senator from California for allowing me to go first in this group that I am sure will appear down here to talk in morning business.
As the cap and trade continues to languish in the Senate, President Obama is trying to salvage international climate change talks that are on the brink of collapse. So he gave a climate change speech at the United Nations, hoping to inspire hope in the process marred by failure. His speech, however, fell short of expectations, offering only to talk of rising sea levels and climate refugees, sort of resurrecting things that have been refuted in the old Gore speeches.
President Obama's speeches have been delivered against a backdrop of confusion and disagreement in the international community over climate change. The European Union is angry that the Senate is stalling cap and trade. China and India refuse to accept binding emissions cuts. The New York Times admits that global temperatures ``have been stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.'' In other words, we are actually in a cooling period right now, maybe not as dramatic as the one I recall back so well in 1975, when they said another ice age is coming, nonetheless it is cooler. We are not involved in global warming right now.
He was addressing the global economic recession that has taken precedence over climate change in countries throughout the world. This global economic recession is one that has captured the interest of the people all over the world and has them looking to see: Is this science really there that they were talking about, going all the way back to the late 1990s and the Kyoto treaty? This is deja vu all over again. These are some of the same issues that have stymied climate talks ever since Kyoto.
We were told all rancor and disagreement would evaporate once the new administration assumed power in the United States. After all, the failure to achieve an international climate pact was simply George Bush's fault. President Obama would bring change and the ability to persuade the likes of China and India to transcend their national self-
interest for the global good. That has not happened and is not going to happen.
I was surprised President Obama failed to define what success will mean in Copenhagen, so I will have to do it for him. From the standpoint of the Senate, success will not mean a vague, open-ended commitment on the emissions from India or China, the world's leading emitter. Success can only mean that China and other developing countries agree to mandatory emission cuts comparable to those required in America and that any treaty or agreement that did not avoid causing harm to our economy would not be acceptable. Unless those conditions are met, no such treaty or agreement will be approved by the Senate.
I remember the Senate resoundingly rejected exempting developing nations such as China way back in 1997. That is still alive today. It passed 94 to 0. It said we will not agree to any treaty. At that time, Vice President Gore had signed the Kyoto treaty. They were trying to encourage us to ratify that treaty. President Clinton never brought it to the floor. It is because we had spoken loudly and clearly with a unanimous vote in the Senate that said we are not going to ratify anything that either doesn't force the developing countries such as India and China to have the same requirements as we have or that hurts us economically. That is the position--it was then and is today--of the U.S. Senate. I think that still commands support in the Senate. Any treaty the Obama administration submits must meet that resolution.
We hear that China is making progress in reducing emissions and that the administration will persuade China to agree to more aggressive steps in Copenhagen.
By the way, that is where they have the annual meeting, the big bash the United Nations puts on. I went to one of those back in about 2003, I guess it was, in Milan, Italy.
The administrations's climate change envoy, Todd Stern, is saying something different. On September 2--he is the person from the Obama administration--on September 2, he said: ``It is not possible to ask China for an absolute reduction below where they are right now'' because, as he said, ``they are not quite at that point to be able to do that. And, in that respect, developing countries are different''--
totally violating the intent of the 1997 agreement that this Senate had.
This is the first time someone from the administration has said let's treat developing countries different from developed countries.
Let me restate a bit. Stern is saying China simply can't make reductions that would be comparable to anything the United States accepts domestically. This is not a surprise considering China is now the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide while U.S. emissions have remained relatively stagnant. Make no mistake here, China is unapologetic for its refusal to accept binding emissions cuts, and it will pursue an all-of-the-above strategy, including burning coal as it deems necessary; all of the above: oil, gas, coal, nuclear; they are very big in nuclear over there.
China also stated that before it accepts absolute, binding emissions reductions, developing countries must reduce their emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020.
Let me say that again. China won't accept absolute reductions until developing countries--that is, the United States, including the United States--reduce their emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This is really astounding considering that the Waxman-Markey bill only calls for a 14-percent reduction and they are saying they expect us to have a 40-percent reduction.
Accepting the Chinese position would mean certain economic disaster for the United States, for jobs and businesses--not to mention emissions--going to China.
Over the coming days and weeks, we will hear much about China's national mitigation plan, its 5-year plan to reduce emissions. We will hear stern warnings that China is outpacing the United States on clean energy. But this is a smokescreen to hide the chaos and failure of international climate change negotiations.
In the coming weeks, President Obama will reach some sort of bilateral agreement with China on climate change, but it won't require China to do anything other than business as usual. We have gone through this before. I can understand China's position. If I were in China, in that government, I would say the same thing. I would say: Let's go ahead and let's get the developed nations to have some kind of reductions so that will move manufacturing jobs to us, to China. I have to say this about the new Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, in her honesty the other day in a public hearing--I asked her the question: If we were to pass one of these bills where we unilaterally pass something in the United States, like Waxman-Markey, if we did that, would that have any reduction in worldwide reductions in CO2? She said no, it would not have any effect. Obviously, it wouldn't.
Anyway, you could argue that if we were to pass Waxman-Markey, it would have the effect of increasing worldwide emissions because our manufacturing base would go to countries where they didn't have any emission requirements.
So, in the final analysis, President Obama's speech to the United Nations was a failure to define success, a failure to provide real solutions for international energy security, and a failure to sketch the outlines of a meaningful international climate change agreement that will pass the Byrd-Hagel test of 1997.
I think surely after the August recess, after so many people were beaten up on the fact that they did not want to have any type of a government-run health system, they certainly did not want to pass something that would be a cap and trade that would have the effect of providing the largest single tax increase in the history of America, a tax increase in the range of $300 to $366 billion a year.
I can remember back when we passed that very large tax increase in 1993. It was called the Clinton-Gore tax increase. It increased the marginal rates, increased capital gains, it increased the death tax, all of the other taxes. I was pretty upset about it at that time. I talked on the Senate floor. I said that was a $32 billion tax increase. This would be 10 times that size. So I do not think it is going to happen. This commission will listen to the speeches between now and Copenhagen. I plan to make a few myself.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado.) The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up