Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense amendment that will protect American jobs and our economy by prohibiting funds from being used to implement the Obama administration's flawed social cost of carbon valuation.
This job killing and unlawful guidance sneakily attempts to pave the way for cap-and-trade-like mandates. Congress and the American people have repeatedly rejected cap-and-trade proposals.
Knowing that he can't lawfully enact a carbon tax plan, President Obama is attempting to circumvent Congress by playing loose and fast with the Clean Air Act and unilaterally implementing this unlawful new requirement under the guise of guidance.
The committee was wise to raise concern about the administration's abuse of the social cost of carbon valuation in the report. My amendment explicitly prohibits funds from being used to implement this deeply flawed guidance in the bill text.
The House voted in favor of similar measures to reject the social cost of carbon four times last Congress and multiple times over the past couple of years.
Roger Martella, a self-described, lifelong environmentalist and career environmental lawyer, testified at the May 2015 House Natural Resources Committee hearing on the revised guidance and the flaws associated with the social cost of carbon model, stating that the social cost of carbon estimates suffer from a number of significant flaws that should exclude them from the NEPA process.
Among these flaws are:
One: The projected costs of carbon emissions can be manipulated by changing key parameters, such as timeframes, discount rates, and other values that have no relation to a given project undergoing review.
Two: OMB and other Federal agencies developed the draft social cost of carbon estimates without any known peer review or opportunity for public comment during the developmental process.
Three: OMB's draft social cost of carbon estimates are based primarily on global rather than domestic costs and benefits.
Four: There is still considerable uncertainty in many of the assumptions and data elements used to create the draft social cost of carbon estimates, such as the damage functions and the modeled time horizons.
Mr. Martella's testimony was spot on. Congress, not Washington bureaucrats, at the behest of the President should dictate our country's climate change policy.
The sweeping changes that the White House is utilizing did not go through the normal regulatory process, and there was no public comment.
Unfortunately, this administration just doesn't get it and continues to try to circumvent Congress to impose an extremist environmental agenda that is not based on the best available science.
Worse yet, the model utilized to predict the social cost of carbon can be easily manipulated to arrive at the desired outcome.
For instance, the administration recently attempted to justify the EPA's methane rule using the social cost of carbon. Using this flawed metric, they claim that the EPA's methane rule will yield climate benefits of $690 million in 2025 and that those benefits will outweigh the $530 million that the rule will cost businesses and job creators that year alone.
Clearly, the social cost of carbon is the administration's latest unconstitutional tool to deceive the American people and to enact job- killing regulations.
The House voted in favor of similar measures to reject the social cost of carbon four times last Congress and multiple times over the last couple of years.
This amendment is supported by the Americans for Limited Government, Americans for Tax Reform, Arch Coal, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, FreedomWorks, the National Taxpayers Union, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, and the Gila County Cattle Growers Association.
I ask that all Members join me once again in rejecting this flawed proposal and in protecting job rights here in America.
I commend the chairman and the committee for their efforts on this legislation and for recognizing that the NEPA process is in desperate need of reform.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire from the Chair how much time I have.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, the Earth's climate has been changing since the beginning of time, and that is something on which I think we can all agree.
MIT researchers have looked at a massive extinction some 252 million years ago as a result of a massive buildup of carbon dioxide. Funny, man wasn't around.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates that the administration squandered $77 billion, with a B, between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2013 in trying to study all this.
Now, if the President, the emperor himself, would like to bypass Congress, that is fine. But Congress has a fiduciary duty and a responsibility legislatively to actually pass something that the agency should enforce.
We talked about wildfires. Well, there we go again. It has been mismanagement of our forests that have created these catastrophic wildfires. Take it from somebody in Arizona who should know.
So I ask all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to save taxpayer money, help the Department of Energy avoid duplicative programs, and ensure the agency's limited resources are focused on programs directly related to its mission to ensure energy security for the United States.
This simple amendment would prohibit the use of funds for the Climate Model Development and Validation program within the Department of Energy. This exact same amendment passed this body in fiscal year 2015 and 2016.
This year, this amendment is even more important because, despite this amendment getting approval from this body multiple years in a row and being denied funding from the bipartisan Appropriations Committee multiple years in a row, the President was given access to about half of what he requested previously to create this new duplicitous and wasteful program.
With our Nation more than $19 trillion in debt, the question must be asked: Why would Congress give millions of dollars to the President for new computer-generated climate models? The administration is already manipulating the social cost of carbon models to deceive the American people and to enact job-killing regulations.
For example, the administration recently attempted to justify the EPA's methane rule using the social cost of carbon valuation model. Using this flawed metric, they claimed that the EPA's methane rule will yield climate benefits of $690 million in 2025 and that those benefits will outweigh the $530 million that the rule would cost businesses and job creators that year alone.
If funded, the Climate Model Development and Validation program will be yet another addition to the President's ever-growing list of duplicative global warming, research, and modeling programs currently being hijacked by the EPA to manufacture alleged climate benefits and force new regulations like the EPA's Clean Power Plan and WOTUS down the throats of the American people. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates this administration has already squandered $77 billion from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2013 studying and trying to develop global climate change regulations.
This amendment is about fiscal responsibility and priorities. While research and modeling of the Earth's climate--including how and why Earth's climate is changing--can be of value, it is not central to the department's mission and is already being done by dozens of government, academic, business, and nonprofit organizations around the world. With more than 50 universities and academic institutions around the globe engaged in climate modeling, this particular issue is being addressed very well by the academic and nonprofit sector with much greater efficiency and speed than any government bureaucracy can offer. Further, the research and models utilized by our universities are not being manipulated to impose a partisan agenda.
Regardless of your opinion on climate change, I feel strongly that the House of Representatives must continue its firm position that we should not be wasting precious taxpayer resources on programs that are duplicitous in nature and compete with programs funded by private investment.
The wastefulness of the Climate Model and Validation program has been recognized by several outside spending and watchdog groups. This amendment proposal has been supported in the past by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the American Conservative Union, Eagle Forum, and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
The House of Representatives has wisely declined to fund this program in fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016. Considering the extensive work being done to research, model, and forecast climate change trends by other areas in government, the private sector, and internationally, funding for this specific piece of President Obama's climate agenda is not only redundant, but inefficient. Considering the Nation's $19 trillion in debt, it is also irresponsible
I thank the chairman, ranking member, and committee for their work.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about making a statement about climate change or the validity of science. This amendment is about fiscal responsibility and efficiency.
More than 50 universities and institutions around the globe are engaged in climate modeling. This particular issue is being addressed very well by the academic and nonprofit sector, with much greater efficiency and speed than government bureaucracy can offer.
Can I remind you of the VA? The government doesn't do anything very well at all, and we need to start looking at this.
When we talk about responsibility, $19 trillion in debt, there are some apples that we need to start coming to look at. When we start looking at institutions that are actually doing this, they are hardly second-tier institutions--the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT for short; the University of California, Berkeley. There are some really good people out there doing this work on our behalf.
When we start looking at efficacies and effectiveness, we need to look no further than the private sector and the universities that are already doing this. This is something we don't need to be duplicitous in and be partisan in our outcomes.
I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment which will prevent the administration from causing unnecessary delays and blocking important information from being released to the general public under the Freedom of Information Act.
In 2009, the White House released a secret memo to every executive department and agency urging them to consult with counsel at the White House before releasing any documents or fulfilling any requests that may involve ``White House equities.''
Last year the Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, released a special report titled The Department of Energy's Freedom of Information Act Process.
In this report, Federal investigators determined that, in numerous cases where the Department of Energy's general counsel had provided their FOIA response to the White House, ``the FOIA case file was incomplete and did not contain all of the documents related to the FOIA response.''
What does that mean, Mr. Chairman? As the report tells us, incomplete documentation in these cases prevents us from being absolutely certain we know what changes or redactions were made when the White House reviewed the documents. Further, we don't know how many records requests submitted to the Department of Energy were blocked by the White House.
For an administration that once sought to be the most transparent administration in our Nation's history, actions such as these do nothing to inspire trust or confidence amongst the American people.
It took a FOIA request in 2014 to reveal that, out of more than 450 Department of the Interior inspector general requests, the Obama administration only allowed the IG to release three reports.
While that stat is troubling, figures released by the Associated Press this year through their annual FOIA review are even more disturbing. The annual review covers Freedom of Information Act requests made to more than 100 different Federal agencies.
Shockingly, the AP reported in March that, in 2015, the American people received censored responses or nothing in 77 percent of all FOIA requests, redacted releases or nothing in response to nearly 600,000 Freedom of Information Act requests. Absolutely shameful.
Daniel Epstein, executive director of the nonprofit government watchdog Cause of Action, said it best when he stated: ``Information seekers, whether they're individuals, members of the news media or public interest groups, should be extremely troubled by the fact that this White House has been interfering with how Federal agencies comply with the Freedom of Information Act.''
This amendment is supported by Americans for Tax Reform; the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; the National Taxpayers Union; the Taxpayers Protection Alliance; Concerned Citizens for America, Arizona Chapter; the Gila County Cattle Growers Association; and the Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative.
Agency officials that want to comply with the law and respond to Freedom of Information Act requests in a timely manner should not be blocked from doing so because of an arbitrary memo from the White House.
The Department of Energy IG and numerous government watchdog groups claim the memo that my amendment defunds is limiting public access under the Freedom of Information Act.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and defund this unlawful memo.
I also want to thank the distinguished chair and ranking member for their work on this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to just actually reiterate these responses. Seventy-seven percent of all FOIA requests were not complied with. Redacted releases are nothing in response to nearly 600,000 Freedom of Information Act requests. Once again, smoke and mirrors. When are we going to get this?
I would ask everybody to vote for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which will help prevent an unnecessary tax increase on hardworking families and send a strong message from the House of Representatives that we oppose the administration's new mandatory climate change transportation program.
In February, the Obama administration proposed creating a new program nicknamed the 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan that aims to spend $320 billion over the next 10 years and divert precious taxpayer funds to self-driving cars, high-speed rail, and mass transit in the name of preserving the environment.
In fact, $20 billion of the estimated $32 billion each year for this proposed program won't go to roads or bridges, but instead will be squandered on inefficient programs that require significant taxpayer subsidies.
To pay for the majority of this unlawful $320 billion program, the Obama administration has proposed a $10.25 tax on every barrel of oil. This new tax on crude oil and petroleum products will inevitably be passed on to hardworking Americans that can't afford another new tax increase from the Obama administration.
In fact, the $10.25 per-barrel tax is estimated to add an additional 25 cents to the cost of every gallon of gasoline. Millions of energy- related jobs will be put at risk and low-income families will be forced to bear larger financial burdens as a result of this unnecessary tax that is being proposed to pay for Obama's flawed climate change transportation program.
In the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2017 budget, the agency requested $1.3 billion for this year and $11.3 billion over the next 10 years to fund the administration's 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan.
My amendment rejects the new $10.25 tax on every barrel of crude oil and prohibits funding in this bill for the administration's flawed climate change transportation program.
This amendment is supported by Americans for Limited Government; Americans for Tax Reform; the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; the National Taxpayer Union; the Taxpayers Protection Alliance; Concerned Citizens for America, Arizona Chapter; the Gila County Cattle Growers Association; and the Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative.
I thank the distinguished chair and ranking member for their work on this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind everybody that $20 billion of the estimated $32 billion each year for this proposed program won't go to roads or bridges, but to these inefficient programs.
I guess we are going to the future. We are $19 trillion in debt and soon to be $22 trillion and $23 trillion and $24 trillion in debt. Yes, I do understand, in the Department of Energy's fiscal year 2017 budget, the agency requested $1.3 billion for this year and $11.3 billion over the next 10 years to fund the administration's 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan.
Now, while the budget request this year happened to be mandatory, next year it could be discretionary. The House has not taken action to date to reject the $10.25 tax on every barrel of oil and to this fundamentally flawed program.
My amendment rejects that tax increase and the Obama administration's new climate change transportation program.
I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source