HH: First, I want to tell you about an extraordinary letter that was sent yesterday, which I have a copy of, from two United States Senators, Senators Vitter and Inhofe of Louisiana and Oklahoma, respectively, and Darrell Issa, our friend from down south. They sent it to the White House Science Advisor. It’s about scientific misconduct, five specific instances. It’s a very important letter, and to discuss what’s in it, I am joined by Oklahoma Senator, James Inhofe. Good to talk to you, Senator, welcome back.
JI: Hey, Hugh, nice to be back with you.
HH: You know, before we do a little politics, I’ve got to say, because Oklahoma and Oklahoma State have avoided the Big Ten thus far, you’re having a pretty good year in the BCS rankings.
JI: Yeah, we are, and I want you to be watching very carefully on December 3rd when OSU and OU play each other. That’s going to be the game.
HH: And so which side of the stadium does James Inhofe sit on?
JI: I’m on the OSU side. You know, I like them both. I didn’t go to either one of them, but it’s the more conservative of the two institutions, and I lean that way.
HH: All right, well good to know that. You’re lucky they just don’t have to play the Big Ten.
HH: Now Senator, tell the audience about this letter, because it’s really extraordinary. I don’t think I’ve seen a letter like this to the White House Science Advisor ever.
JI: Well, you know, they don’t use science. That’s the bottom line. Hugh, how many times have I been on your show, and we talked about how they’re using phony science on the cap and trade thing, on all these findings on the various restrictions they have on emissions. This letter talked about a number of different things. One is that they are trying to use, for example, they’re trying to say formaldehyde is a human carcinogen. Well, there’s no science that says that. In fact, it’s denied by science. But they’re using this to restrict things that we can do. The Interior Department, they have this thing called the Delta Smelt. I used to talk about the Arkansas Shiner. It was kind of like this issue, and they declared it to be a protected species. In my state of Oklahoma, any farm that would get run off from the rivers in Western Oklahoma, would have these little things. And I hate to say it, but I used to bait my trout line with these little critters. And now, they’re trying to say that they’re endangered.
HH: Yeah, I don’t think they can go back and indict you for that, Senator, but they might try…
JI: No, they can’t.
HH: I live the Endangered Species Act. That’s my law practice. I know the Delta Smelt, I know Harris Ranch, I know the Pacific Legal Foundation. But what I’m glad someone in D.C. noticed is that Judge Wanger, who is the judge in this case, ripped the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service experts for basically lying on their testimony.
JI: That’s right. Well, he called the Fish & Wildlife Service scientists who had testified in the case of the, who did not let facts get in the way of their goals. I mean, you don’t get much stronger language than that. Then look at Yucca Mountain. I’m anticipating this call. I just found out about it a few minutes ago. I asked my staff to go and get the total amount of money that’s been spent so far on the Yucca Mountain thing. And it’s, the $9 billion dollars is not the total amount. That’s the most recent figure that we have of recent things. Now we have to, sooner or later, do something about this waste. And we have this huge investment in it, and now they try to use science as a reason not to do it. And so you know, I think something that’s easier to understand than this letter would be, Hugh, back when, remember Copenhagen? I went to Copenhagen as a one-man truth squad, to make sure that everybody knew that the president of the United States, and Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer, and John Kerry, were lying to them, and that America was not going to pass any kind of cap and trade. And it had 192 countries there, and a press conference with all of them represented. They all had one thing in common. They all hated me. But they’re trying to use science, and that’s what your discussion is right now. We had Lisa Jackson before my committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee. And I said to her, this was in December two years ago, I said Lisa, I’m going to be going to Copenhagen to tell the truth there, and I have a feeling that once I leave, you’re going to have an endangerment finding. Well, an endangerment finding has to be based on science. So I said I know you’re going to do this. Tell me what science you’re going to base this endangerment finding on. And she said the United Nations IPCC, Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. And so it would happen, it was right after that, Climate-gate. We found out they were cooking the science, and we all know, and you’ve talked about that on your program. Now, the most recent thing that you may not even be aware of it that sixteen months ago, I made a request to the IG, the Inspector General, to tell us about the quality of the science that was used in that endangerment finding, and they trashed it.
HH: Oh, my goodness.
JI: It took sixteen months.
HH: I didn’t know that.
JI: And they said…I know, this is brand new. But again, this administration has been using phony science to get their very liberal agenda passed, and it’s something that we’re exposing, and we’re winning on it. And by the way…
HH: Now Senator, I’m going to talk in the third hour with your once and future colleague, George Allen. And I hope between George Allen and Josh Mandel and Adam Hasner, and Ted Cruz, and a bunch of other great candidates, you get the majority back in the United States Senate.
JI: Oh, we will.
HH: If that’s the case, are you going to hold hearings with John Holdren, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy?
JI: Are you kidding? Yes, I’ll be chairing that committee like I did last time before we lost our majority. And everybody knows we’re going to get the majority back, and they know that we’re going to be…of course, I’m hoping that’s the 2012 elections, that we don’t have the same president. But regardless, we’re going to hold the hearings and make sure that America all knows what those guys have been doing. And by the way…
HH: Yeah, that’s what I was getting to. I think we’re going to win the presidency back, but this scientific abuse, especially in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, I know it intimately. They always cook the species books.
JI: Sure, they do.
HH: And I’m so glad someone noticed it. Tell people as well about the deep water permitting scandal, or scientific Tom Foolery that went on.
JI: Oh, sure, they were talking about in the Gulf of Mexico, the deep water thing. And they’re doing everything they can to make us more dependent upon the Middle East for our ability to provide power to run this machine called America. And we’ve talked about this before, and talked about it. You bet we’re going to have hearings. By the way, when you talk to George Allen, I’ve already maxed out to him. I supported him the day that he announced. And I think I heard you talk about Rick Perry, and I know that he’s gone through some hard times. But I am supporting him for this very reason. He understands our energy problem and our regulation problem that is based on phony science better, and is willing to not be intimidated by the EPA and do something about it.
HH: Before we run out of time, Senator Inhofe, I also want to get to the fifth issue you raised in this letter, which is Chairman Jaczko,
HH: Jackzo, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, what did he do vis-à-vis the Japanese nuclear incident that’s got your attention and the attention of Senator Vitter and Congressman Issa?
JI: Well, first of all, he went over there and declared this emergency type of status where he didn’t allow any of the other members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be involved in it, and he made unilateral decisions. The law clearly says that he has to share this information with the other members of the Commission. His attempt was he was going to try to use the disaster in Japan to somehow overregulate this, and stop us from getting into the nuclear energy that we have to have to help us be self-supporting. And so he used it, and tried to use phony science. But there’s no relationship to what happened in Japan and what happened here, and what could happen here. But nonetheless, that doesn’t keep them from trying to use this to retard our efforts to become energy self-sufficient in America.
HH: So Senator, you’ve sent this letter with your colleagues. You asked for a response in two weeks. What do you expect is going to happen? Do you think the White House will stonewall you?
JI: Oh, yeah. That’s what they always do. But nonetheless, we keep requesting. On the other hand, I have to say this. We can take other steps. For example, we already took the step with the IG, and the fact that they just came back and agreed with our assessment of the quality of the science that gave them the opportunity to have…by the way, the regulation that they’re trying to do to invoke cap and trade would cost the American people between $300-400 billion dollars a year. And by Lisa Jackson’s own admission, Hugh, it would not, it wouldn’t have any positive results in terms of emissions of CO2, because, as she said, well no, that would just affect the United States. This isn’t where the problem is.
JI: So it would be a tax increase of, here, we’re talking about this great supercommittee, that’s supposed to find $1.5 trillion dollars. My gosh, if they did that, and then we ended up over the same ten years having to have government regulated, through the EPA, cap and trade, that would be twice that amount. That would be $3 trillion dollars that we would be paying, or taking out of the GDP, and accomplishing nothing.
HH: Senator James Inhofe, thanks for joining me on short notice. I’m going to catch up with your colleague, David Vitter, next. This is a great letter. I hope the national news media picks up on it. We’re glad to report it first. Thanks for joining us, Senator Inhofe.
End of interview.