Washington, D.C. - Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, blasted the Evangelical Environmental Network's claim that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule is somehow "pro-life." Rev. Mitchell Hescox, President and CEO of the Evangelical Environmental Network, testified today on this subject before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"I find it extremely ironic that Rev. Mitchell Hescox and the Evangelical Environmental Network think that the pro-life agenda is best aligned with a movement that believes there are too many people in the world, actively promotes population control, and sees humans principally as polluters," Senator Inhofe said. "To claim that EPA's devastating, job-killing regime is somehow 'pro-life' is absurd.
"Democrats already tried this tactic when they brought in Rev. Cizik, an avid global warming alarmist - who was featured on the cover of a 2006 issue of Vanity Fair walking on water - to testify on the 'morality' of cap-and-trade legislation. Well, in a May 2006 speech to the World Bank Cizik said, 'We need to confront population control and we can - we're not Roman Catholics after all - but it's too hot to handle now.' Not exactly a pro-life viewpoint.
"While I appreciate anyone who stands up for life, the Evangelical Environmental Network is simply wrong to align the pro-life movement with EPA's Utility MACT rule. I applaud the more than 30 pro-life leaders, including Cal Beisner, who have come forward to oppose this campaign. As they rightly said in a statement, they reject the Evangelical Environmental Network's claim because 'that portrayal is disingenuous and dangerous to our efforts to protect the lives of unborn children.' I stand with them.
"Of course, we all support clean air for our children - I have twenty kids and grandkids. But unfortunately, Utility MACT is not about public health. When the Obama EPA puts forth a rule that is unaffordable and largely unachievable; will cost $11 billion with a projected $6 million in direct benefits, the only conclusion is that this is just another part of President Obama's ongoing war on affordable energy and American energy jobs.