James Lankford

We are probably going to occupy that, and no one else is going to use that control tower but us.

Let me ask about measuring success.

Let me ask you a question that is technically related.

I would like to ask unanimous consent to make a quick comment related to the markup as well, the SURVIVE Act.

Tell us what you would need from us in that.

I don't want to just start a new system and leave unworking systems still sitting there unresolved.

That is our thought as well, is that maybe there is a need to codify some of these things because it is a possibility that someone may be elected that does not----

So that the hard question is, can you commit to us you will follow through on Executive Order 12866 in 2016 and even in the rush to try to get some rules done at the end, we are still going to do due diligence at OIRA?

So the shift is what is interesting, I guess. If it is a reliable model and 3 years later you have to adjust it 50 percent, it causes all of us to raise our hand and say, Why is that a reliable model if you had to change it 3 years later…

That seems a get outside of that 20-year window we were talking about.

But it is a pretty significant input.

But it is obviously extremely important because when you are looking at cost and benefit, it is one of those factors that goes in that if it is not right, again when you look at a 20-year window or a 50-year window, it changes pretty…

Did you set an actual date like that?

So I guess that is where we are trying to get on some of the assumptions.

So you are saying that of all 25 candidates for President out there, you are confident that all 25 of them will continue the same process?

I would suggest those kind of dates are necessary so that every agency sees the deadlines that are coming.

If one side of the cost-benefit analysis is 20 years and the other side may go out 60, that is literally putting your thumb on the scale on one side and there is not a perception of fairness in between the two.

So back to the 7 percent versus 5 percent decision on social cost of carbon, can you help us understand how that decision was made?

We do not have to do that on a cost-benefit analysis on something that was very significant and it ends up being a very costly rule at the end of the day.

But the position has been that there has to be some kind of cost-benefit analysis.

But if the benefits are not for 20 years or for 30 years, I think that is the heart of Senator Enzi's question.

So what happens when SECRETARY or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or some other independent agency is working on a rule and you have other banking rules that are happening simultaneously?

Right, but I am trying to get back to this 20-year amount that you say is what is typical.

So how do you do the indirect benefits as well as indirect costs when you deal with something like the social cost of carbon?

It is an estimate, correct.