On the recordJune 20, 2019
While I respect the gentlewoman's opinion--and this is one of those things where we agree to disagree--I do have to say one thing. She said the science in measuring the social cost of carbon has proven true. Actually, that is not true. The science isn't there. We actually don't have a good method to measure the social cost of carbon. That is why the whole issue is that it can easily be manipulated to fit whatever model they choose, which means that they can pick and choose what type of energy we are able to produce and how we produce it, meaning that they can choose, not the consumer, to say: We no longer want to have fossil fuels as a choice; we only want renewables. If we are going to be an all-of-the-above country and we are going to embrace industry and entrepreneurs, then we have got to embrace all of the above. If consumers don't want that, if certain States don't want to buy fossil fuel energy, then they can choose not to do so. In Oklahoma, we are all of the above. Not only are we a leader in producing fossil fuels, but we are also the third largest in producing renewables. We believe all of the above. Our neighbor in Texas, while they are a leader in producing oil, they are the number one in renewables. Isn't it ironic that both are red States? All we are saying here is let's not manipulate and allow the government to pick and choose. Let the consumer choose. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.





