Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, in 2010, the administration put together a working group to monetize the cost per ton of carbon emissions for use in cost-benefit analyses for rulemaking undertaken by all agencies in the Federal Government, and then reconvened this group again in 2013 to further increase what they called the ``social cost of carbon.'' They increased that amount by 50 percent in just 3 years.

The process was done behind closed doors and without any public input. The administration refuses to release how much of their deliberations were done in public, how much were done in private, or any of the details of their deliberations. They refuse to release the way they used the scientific modeling or even who actually did the modeling for them, or even something as basic as the list of participants at the meeting--even when it was discussed.

Months after releasing the report--and only after sustained pressure--the administration relented, put the document and the numbers up for public comment, a procedure that is routine for the rulemaking process. But the administration has continued to use the calculations that they said they set aside. They use those calculations for the recent EPA rules decreasing emissions by 30 percent for existing power plants by 2030.

My amendment would prevent the Department of Energy from doing the same thing. This is a rule that has been set aside. It is a number that has not been agreed to and there was no public comment for. They cannot change a regulatory number without any notice and comment and without any public input. This would prevent them from doing that.

The DOE rulemakings using the social cost of carbon have the potential to raise the cost for everyday activities and purchases for all Americans.

I would ask that this group join me in supporting the amendment, which would prohibit the flawed and capricious social cost of carbon rule from being implemented by the Department of Energy.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad for the Members of this body to enroll in a science class. I would also be glad for the Members of this body to enroll in a world history class and possibly look at the history of the Earth.

Do you realize there were glaciers in Ohio centuries ago?

If we are talking about weather today, we are talking about a different topic. We are talking about an administration not following the Administrative Procedure Act.

If this is about an administration saying they can change rules as they choose to, I look forward to seeing that same standard being applied to Republican Presidents in the days ahead.

But when an administration can change a rule without notice and comment and shift the social cost of carbon by 50 percent in a 3-year time period without following the rule, without following the law, so much so that when we addressed it in a hearing, they admitted it, set the rule aside, and then the EPA chose to use it anyway, we are not talking about weather anymore. We are suddenly talking about the rule of law.

Now, this is not an area on which we had disagreement--Republicans and Democrats--in committee because it was clear that the administration did not follow the rule of law. This is a simple statement. It is not a statement about climate change. It is not a statement about a future ice age or of a future flood. It is a statement about: Do we choose to follow the law or not?

If someone wants to argue that we shouldn't follow the Administrative Procedure Act, I look forward to the day when we just set the entire thing aside and let the administration do whatever it wants to at any point, but I hope that day does not occur and that we do follow the rule of law and require the administration to do the same.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LANKFORD. I can assure you I have great care, Mr. Chairman, for future generations, as I do for this generation and as I do for the United States Constitution.

No administration can ignore the Administrative Procedure Act, change it capriciously by 50 percent and say, I have new science, and go into a room and literally not publish who was in the room, not take any public comment, not even disclose what the memos were or all of the models that were even used in the discussion, but just say, I am going to change this by 50 percent because there have been updates, and so everyone's costs just went up dramatically.

That is not the way we work things in America. This is not about science. This is about law, though this is the first time I have ever heard anyone, Mr. Chairman, discuss the loss of piglets as being connected to weather, as has been discussed on the floor today. It was a virus that spread across the entire United States. This is not about piglets. This is not about weather. This is just law.

With that, I would encourage the passage of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Source