and he looks at the way in which foreign aid was a major cause of what we call state failure, catastrophe. cs bar who was a dictator in somalia received a great deal of aid which she was unable to use to provide resources to nomadic goat herders have been massacred their goats, they became dependent on the aid delivered by the international a committee. now we have the concentration of the people, a conscripted him to invade ethiopia. this is one of the ways in which somalia which is not a wealthy country really began to collapse. had the aid not been available he wouldn't have been able to do that. this was one of the reasons or the poor of the nightmare of somalia. we can then look also at what is happening a geisha and contrast

that with northern somalia. neither is a very attractive place to live in northern somalia is certainly a lot better. the astonishing violence in mogadishu was largely what were called the technical, a funny term, tacticals. that's what these games are called. they have a pickup truck, big .50 caliber machine gun on the back and they terrorize neighborhoods, extract resources from people. that was technical assistance to foreign aid delivery. we paid for that and we bought those trucks and we mounted a .50 caliber machine guns on them, and then it turned out we give a young got a .50 caliber machine gun and a truck, he becomes pretty important person. and so we effectively armed what turned out to be these horrific, horrific games. when the united states intervene, you may remember "black hawk down" and so on, the

u.s. intervened, it was a disaster and it was a disaster not only with respect to american soldiers but people there as well. the reason was, local stable equilibria cannot emerge when you always fear that outside power with enormous firepower from united states or nato or other major powers can come in and disrupted anytime they they want. people won't make local agreements and then create institutions of mutual trust, mutual respect and so on. northern somalia, again, i'm not romanticizing this, i'm not saying go to northern somalia tomorrow, it's not as bad. it's much better than in southern somalia. why? no foreign troops. that was the key. and so, local leaders, warlords, tribal leaders, elders were able to get together and say look, let's work out some system that we're not constantly fighting each other.

and those health because you didn't have the united states army or other foreign militaries intervening and disrupting them. so those people were very lucky. they said don't come here. and the u.s. state out as did the other parts. the people in the south were unlucky. they were unlucky enough to receive all of our insistence, which disrupted local institutions that were able to generate more order or legality and more peace. so our aid has contributed substantially to the creation of failed states. a couple of the very good books, excellent book. she document over and over what has happened with that. an economist from ghana, also actual. is a number of books in english, what has happened with the aid industry and how it has been so

disruptive and damaging, especially in africa. so i think the best way to avoid these problems, frankly, is to stop the aid. that's it. just stop it. been allowed trade. get rid of the trade barriers that we impose on those countries, so there's an element of the trade initiative that president clinton and then president bush did initiate, allow people to sell their stuff to us. they can produce all kinds of valuable things. let him do that. reduce foreign aid to zero. and i think that will begin the process of healing countries that have been deeply grievously wounded by our foreign aid. yes, sir. >> this is historical question. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry?

icann, please. >> you use a lot of steps. [inaudible] natural order. but the steps, the one step is -- [inaudible] it is a myth. so i feel you -- [inaudible] >> an elemen of what? i'm sorry? >> government. >> can i we? [laughter] i apologize. did you write down your question? could you bring it to me? may i see the question? i apologize.

okay, but the ancient greeks -- >> commonwealth incurred natural order. [inaudible] >> okay. [inaudible] >> we will discuss it further later to be able to grasp, because i think it's an important question. the greek term polis has given us the term political, but we don't use it in quite the same way that the greeks used the term polls. is often a problem in political history, to see a term, a word

that originates in one context and then is applied to another. and polis is a classic example. the greek city polis was a -- these are communities of persons that were self-governing by which i mean they were not governed by foreign groups, does not mean that they were democracies in our sense of the term. a multitude, a different political systems within them, but the greek polis was considered to be the only proper way for a human being to live your as articulated by aristotle, for example. one of the reasons, although while i admire aristotle tremendous we have to go way beyond his political science. he thought you could not have a polis, a political body, larger, more extensive than the voice of a harold could reach. we've seen that, much more extensive political bodies, and not only as empires but also as

lott governance institutions subject to constitutions and so on. so i would like to discuss this with you further later on, to get the core of it, but the notion that greek institutions of democracy are the foundation of our modern political system are deeply flawed. because there's the historical discontinuity, the dark ages, if you will, the end of classical civilization. and it's only much later that people rediscovered the greek texts and begin to take the vocabulary for that context and apply to really a very different set of institutions and practices. and that's led to a little bit of historical confusion. though some of our political institutions were rooted in greek wines when there's discourse. but let's talk about that again later as well. yes, sir.

we're going to wrap up. we are just a few more minutes spent my question is in regards to the narrative that you presented today. does that continue into the future? in other words, are we approaching some end up on as we approach more and more minimal state and, therefore, we're just in a perpetual battle against the state? or do you see us on a more larger run towards the ultimate state of society at some point in the future? >> i'm deeply suspicious of all philosophies of history. that is to say, all the views that some of history aiming. there's someplace it has to be, some end of history. i don't believe that. i think francis fukuyama should've put an end to that notion by having incorrectly claimed history ended some years ago. it didn't. it kept going on. but to be fair to him, he didn't mean things wouldn't happen. what he meant was the final political form of human community has been achieved, and

no challenges would emerge to it. at the time i thought it was interesting thought but ridiculous, and, of course, there will be all kinds of new challenges and new political ideologies and new state formations that we can't anticipate today. the rise of radical religious ideologies is a good example of that. it was a surprise to him evidently that these things were still out there. what we find is that the enjoyment of liberty often waxes and wanes. you can have good faith and that courage. sometimes we see the retreat of civilization. and the growth of monstrous predatory institutions. and sometimes they are beaten back. so there's a constant battle between principles of liberty and principles of uncontrolled power. i do not believe for a moment that the trial of liberty is inevitable, but i also don't think that defeat is inevitable

either. i think it will depend on what we do. to a very substantial degree, but i'm deeply suspicious of all, these deposits in place what are headed to. imagine you're walking down a hallway backwards. that's how we should conceive of a human progress of the future, right? we can see what we've already been passed through history, but the stuff we're going to see come encounter in the future, we are blind. i think that's a better image of the historical progress. yes. >> i wanted to circle back to the discussion on administrative rulemaking of the federal register. and for example, i want to talk about like the fda rat hairless which is basically a list of the amount of maggots that can be in a piece of sauce and delicious stuff like that. so i wanted to know what are your thoughts on this list, and do you think that it should be

publicized like in television commercials so the american public knows like the quality and the educated -- educated guess of public administrators that are making these rules? >> right. that's a case in which you have governance institutions that have taken responsibility, food and drug administration notably, for allegedly guaranteeing the safety, purity of food. but you face the real problem there. and that is that there's always some cost on the margins of getting an additional increment of safety or security or cleanliness or whatever it may happen to be. if you have a command-and-control regulatory system you have to articulate standards like that. so if you went down, unpleasant to think about it, how many spider hairs you can have in something, at some point the cost of eliminating the last

spider hair is so great, it's greater than all the values and then realize and whatever product you are trying to produce, it's not worth it at that point. so i'll write a story bodies, whether private regulatory bodies or state raider tory bodies will have to establish some kind of standard. the mistake is somehow thinking that oh, my god they are letting all these spider hairs go into things. it's not the case, there's not some guy by the fda sprinkling spider hairs on your food in order to meet the standard. what they are saying is that he can keep it below a certain amount, that's good enough. to get it even further below that would be too costly. so i think that it's a little bit unfair to characterize the regulatory process that is somehow responsible for the remaining impurities or safety

problems, because the established standards to any kind of standard setting has to do that at some point because of the increasing marginal cost of eliminating them. this will be the last one. maybe one other one, but very quickly. >> my question deals with your argument that ending foreign aid would help decrease the state failure. do you see any that benefit torch recipients or donors to foreign aid? >> any net benefit to donors? not me. depend on who the recipients are. the political leaders love this system. trust me. you can map the flows in and the flows out to cayman islands and swiss and other bank accounts. it's very, very clear, robust correlation. what you have is state leaders appropriate the vast bulk and the user for the benefit.

this is one of the reasons why foreign aid is such a crime. it also undermines democracy. why? because the ruler now knows my constituents, the ones who pay the bills are in washington, new york, paris, london, brussels, oslo, not down the street, not my constituents. so they are no longer responsive, no longer democratically accountable to the citizens of those countries. they are paying attention on keeping the people paying the bills happy, those people are quite distance and don't have to live with the consequences. so the net beneficiaries would be to people who live there, and the taxpayers who of course they for. the losers would be the bureaucrats who administer it. and by the way, i spent a lot of time in very poor countries come anytime you go there you go there you see all those white u.n. fans, not to say there are no brave people in the united nation. i don't want to give that impression.

they were many nice brave people. one thing you see is that it phagocytic expensive vehicles parked outside the very last bars in town, and it is a great experience to go on these junkets and have an adventure at the taxpayers expense. we've got time for less than one minute. >> so one thing he reminded me of, speaking about the greeks and speaking about the takers and makers and the previous lecture about -- i lost my train of thought. one thing i'm wondering if it into more to say about the difference between society and government? i read recently, when aristotle said man is a political animal, it was mistranslated. no, no, no. the greeks did not mean social. they met political as opposed to social spent i have lots to say on the. even in aristotle, human being

defined, the animal with reason or speech. when he talks about man as a political creature he means essentially greek man. not quite the centric we'll talk about suicide and government later this afternoon. i will see you all at land. it will be in the conference center upstairs. 2:00 we will start again. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> that wraps up c-span2's coverage of today's cato forum on economics and politics. we'll have more from the forum later today on c-span3 with a look at understanding public policy like that to pm eastern time. the senate gavels in that to as low. lawmakers will start with a judicial nomination, a procedural vote on a nomination is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. and the senate may also work on a cybersecurity measure. you can watch the senate live here on c-span2. also at 2:00 secretary of state hillary clinton will discuss this years international religious freedom report from the carnegie endowment for international peace. that will be live on a companion network c-span.

>> the u.s. is currently experiencing the most widespread drought since 1956. according to the u.s. drought monitor, two-thirds of the continental u.s. is in a moderate to exceptional drought. in response, the house science space and technology committee held an oversight hearing wednesday examined the state of drought information systems. speakers include the director of know was national integrated drought information system and executor of the oklahoma water resources board, and indianapolis mayor gregory ballard. congressman ralph hall of texas chairs this committee hearing. it's about an hour and 50 minutes.

>> okay, the committee on science space technology will come to order. and i say good morning to you and welcome. everyone today's hearing on drought forecasting, monitoring and decision-making. a review of the national integrated draft information system, unquote. this hearing is particularly timely as given the current drought conditions that are, in fact, a lot of the country, including much of my home state of texas. i going to take a little of my time out to do a story about pass a bill some five years ago, and i was over in paris, texas, making a speech about it. and when my good good friends over there just put it on me, said congressman, will your bill make it rain? it was dry and hadn't rained in days and days. i thought a minute or so and i said yeah, it will, that section

four of the third page. he said really? i said hell no. i just give you a silly answer to a silly question. he was a good friend of mine, but three years later, we had, i mean rainfall that drowned people above tech soma -- texoma, all the programs, farm programs below, ruined everybody. rained incessantly for day and night. i told them about 3:00 one morning, and his wife said when he got to the phone, he had his toe on the chair and he was mad when he got to the phone but he said hello? i said hello. to remember the question you asked me about my bill? go outside. i have to go through that every time i go to paris, texas, now, but he was a good enough friend and i could talk to him like that. but we know how important it is, how really timely this hearing is that we are very grateful to

you all for your time and for preparation and time to get here. and a time to help us. according to the u.s. drought monitor, over 70% of the united states is currently classified as abnormally dry or worse. and further, over half of the continental u.s. is experiencing moderate to extreme drought, and a third of the country is characterized as being in severe to extreme drought. these widespread drought -- conditions are negatively affecting corn and soybean crops, as of july 17, the department of agriculture reported that 88% of the nation's corn and 87% of the nation's soybeans were in drought stricken areas. in response to the pervasiveness of such a dry conditions, secretary of agriculture, tom vilsack, designated 1055 counties across the country as disaster areas. droughts unfortunately have long been and continue to be returned events. using noaa's own document over the past winter temperatures we

see that drought has frequently occurred in the united states, the worst thing that those borders of the 1930s and the drought of the '50s. this is some, of course, and there are those who would attribute this year's drought to climate change. by the congressional research service tells us that drought has the good portions of north america for thousands of years, and they history suggests it's -- extended droughts are inevitable and part of natural climate cycles. in anything, debating the cost of drought is not to be a finalist today. the real question is what can be done to provide better and timely information to help enable federal, state and local governments, and individual citizens better deal with droughts impacts, and how to afford better forecast and quicker reactions by government entities. that's kind of what i think my guilty. and my bill was really to let them know that we were concerned about what they're going to end that we are sorry for them but it wasn't a heck of a lot we could do for them at that time.

the national integrated drought information system established by the national integrated drought information system fact of 2006 is one such effort that's undertaken to answer this question. housed in the climate program office within the office of oceanic and atmospheric research at noaa, its goal is to improve to quote improve the nation's capacity to proactively manage drought related risks, and by providing those affected with the best available information and tools to assess the potential impacts of drought come and to better prepare for and mitigate the effects of the drug. the nidis program developed and currently operates the u.s. drought portal, a website that features a range of services related to drought, including historical data on past droughts, current data from climate observation, early warnings about emerging and

potential droughts, decision support services for managing droughts, and a forum for stakeholders to discuss drought related issues. nidis's authorization expires at the end of this year so we'll receive testimony from witnesses representing federal, state and local governments as well as stakeholders on the program and on the decision try. the national integrated drought information system reauthorization act of 2012. i welcome our witnesses and look forward to the test with them i recognize ranking member mrs. johnson for her opening statement. >> think he very much mr. chairman. we often rising the national integrated drought information system or nidis. in recent weeks, virtually every media outlet across the country has shown a map that takes over half of the continental united states has experienced severe drought conditions.

the federal government has declared one-third of the nation's counties, roughly 1300 of them across 29 states as federal disaster areas as a result of the drought. in my own home state of texas, over the last two years, rainfall and high temperatures have reached have it on the economy. farmers and ranchers always been the brunt of it. and that hits the pocketbook of every american as food prices go up. but the damage is not limited to agriculture. for instance, in texas conditions are again ripe for the kind of extreme wildfires that scarred large portions of the state last year. tourism is something as water levels and lakes and rivers plummeted, leaving boats and

marinas stranded on dry land, communities impose water restrictions and explore new and more expensive water resources and technologies. and power plants and grid operators are taking a serious look at emergency plans for cooling water supplies. given the potential for massive economic damage come we need to recognize drought for what they are. and extreme weather event and design policies accordingly. unlike disasters such as -- drought do not leave i scrambled for cover. there are no sirens or emergency evacuation plans. the onset is slow with no defined beginning or end. the path of a drought disruption is a sprawling. often encompassing a whole region of the country. wilder rations are typically

measured in years. just as we designed policy programs and infrastructure to make predictions and limit the impacts of other extreme weather events, we should strengthen our capacity to do the same for droughts. one tool at our disposal is noaa's nidis program, and in six years existence, nidis is already provided important seasonal and long-term drought information that has aided countless communities in preparing for and mitigating the impacts of drought. but we cannot have a comprehensive approach to drought research and medication without exploring the potential linkages with a changing global climate. while i will be the first to urge caution and jumping to conclusions about the present the impacts of a warming planet, i know that climatologists

around the world are coming to a much better understanding of this complex relationship. we should leave the science to the scientists. to play politics and categorically deny the linkage between climate change and extreme weather is both irrational and irresponsible. policymakers at every level have a duty to protect public welfare, and ignore the realities of climate change simply leaves us less informed and ill-prepared for catastrophic events such as drought and floods. reauthorizing nidis is an important step, and i commend the chairman for considering this bill. ..

>> thank you and general lady, yields back. if there are other members whoish wish to submit -- i plan to introduce three of the witnesses and recognize the representative harris to introdoes witnesses from their home state. our first witness is roger. the national of integrated

drought and chief of the climate program division at the national ocean begannic and atmospheric administration. the research and public indication on the extreme advance and disaster risk reduction in the western united states, latin america, and the cash kish began. the third witness is j.d. under the strong ease leadership the home water resources board updated the oklahoma comprehensive water plan. a fifety-year water supply and policy strategy designed to make oklahoma's future water. he also receives an administration and aaa rated 2. billion financial assistance program. he began the career at oklahoma water resources board working as

an environmental specialist. our next witness is dr. james famiglietti. i did pretty good with that. professor and director of earth system science at the university of california urban. his research group uses nasa gravity recovery and climate experiment mission for satellite remote sensing and attract water availability, and groundwater depletion on land. before joining the faculty of university of california urban in 2001, he was an assistant associate professor and department of agree logical sciences at the university of texas. glad to have you there. i now recognize representative beau shon to introduce the second witness. >> thank you, mr. chairman. our second witness today is the

mayor of indianapolis. the honorable greg bar. he was elected on november 6. the city of annapolis re-elected him to a second term on november 8th 2007. he launched an initiative to rebuild residential streets, sidewalks, and bridges as well as to address neighbor drainage and flooding issues for the city and this is on a successful pathway. mayon ball lord also lead a steam that successfully hosted this year's super bowl, congratulations to the city of indianapolis. and bassed on that success will be competing and winning, we hope the super bowl in 2018. welcome, mayor ballard. >> thank you. thank you the gentleman from indiana. i recognize mr. harris to introduce the final witness.

>> thank you it's my pressure to introduce -- in addition the commission of the ken county planning chition and the afarred board. she and her husband and family operate large grain farm and raise livestock. she has the hands on experience that she will bring to the testimony among her recognition, she and her husband were unduct to the hall of fame in indiana. they were named the mid atlantic master farmers and were honored as cooperators of the year by ken county soil conservation district. again, it's a pleasure to have mrs. langenfelder join us this morning. i yield back. >> thank you for yielding back and for the good introductions to both of you. as our witnesses should know, spoken testimony and after which the member of the committee will have five minutes each to ask questions and we'll be liberal with the five minutes.

we're going to be tighter with those up here where we are not here all day. we're honored to have you and we thank you very much and i recognize some of the witnesses to present that testimony. doctor, you're republic niced for five minutes. give us what you think we need. >> thank you. good morning chairman and members of the committee. the program director of the information system and the department of commerce. it's honored to be here. in the testimony i will highlight the role in improving the capacity in understanding and predicting and responding to drought. as you know eted it's part of the american experience from the southwest long dry period to the 13th century and the 20th century. from 2000 to 2010 the annual average land area affected by drought was 25%. repeatedly over the past month more than half of the country

has experienced moderate or stronger drought conditions. this is unauthorized in the public law 109.34 to -- that includes indicators of droughter isty and impact reflecting regional and state differences. it is directed to so in part by coordinating and building upon existing forecast and assessments programs. to fulfill this task new york d.a. supports all elements. firstly -- researchers to assess the impacts of drought and develop drought tools. secondly, the climate test research to improve the operational climate forecast products. thirdly, provides a one stop shop for monitoring products and the fourth element is a networking of regional drought early warning information systems that recognizes the

drought impacts vary from region to region. the drought early warning system integrated information from the above three elements. from the portal, the observation and research and the federal and local partner. a recent expample of an outlook from wyoming, utah and colorado. to date, nidis implemented an early warning system in the first kind in the upper colorado river basin and developing similar systems in the state of california. they approaches and tools developed for these systems are intended to be transferred to other regions such as pacific northwest, the carolinas and the chesapeake bay. since it was thorsz authorized in 2006 nidis improved effectivenesses by increase the number of states and institutions and data and capacity to perform drought

risk-management and the needs assessments and most critically the percentage of the u.s. population covered by adequate drought early warning information system. s. now provide a specific examples. since spring of 2010, nidis supported weekly drought updates and web are ins at the upper colorado drought early warning system. bringing together stakeholders from federal and state agencies water conservation districts, recreation and trowr rich, throughout the upper basin to raise awareness of the state reservoir conditions and wild fire risk nidis product and colorado pay with a sin now include improved doubt indicate ease linking seasonal climate forecast and monthly stream flow of estimates. according to the since the early warn systemming was initiated local, public and private entities have refined the doubt monitory the national useful

pructsd for specific needs. this was long thought after by groups such as the water counsel and others. the second example comes from a southeastern city. throughout the nidis cooping with drought research efforts. they worked with a water shed decision of alabama. we have 53,000 residences. to reduce the impact of drought. in march of 2011, based on the information the city issued to manage water demand. as a result of the proactive response the water supply was not greatly affected. city uses the seasonal drought information and demand management on an ongoing basis. many other examples of research product development and early warning exist. as acknowledged by the partner and state in regional and federal offices the research, data, and outlooked supported by nidis such as the drought in 2011 to twflt significantly

improve planning and coordinate relative to that of previous events. tire toth nidis information. it is strongly dedependent on enables capabilities these include the usda national resources natural resources conservation smack. the usgs water smart efforts, stream flor and reservoir levels from the u.s. army corp. of years engineer and the national weather service. essential research partners at the university of nebraska and lincoln work actively with nidis to improve operational products and reform drought planning at every level. it is important der rein the -- are also critical. to achieve the truly national drought early warning presence and envisioned by the act requires improvements nidis has

begun to address for which further advances are needed. these include unctioning drought forecast riebility from a season to a decade including unensing the role of precipitation effects. collaboration and the public to enhance the value of the observation networks and the transfors of successful tools to regions not having early warn systemming. most critically is working with the private sector and others on guidance and standards of developing added products. key to the future success of nidis is a sustained major system of credible and authoritative observation. we are grateful for the committee's interested continue in nidis. i look forward to working with you and take full advantage of nidis to anticipate and reduce the impact of drought. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. >> thank you.

now recognize mayor ballard to present his testimony. >> thank you, chairman, ranking has member and science and space and testifying at at that today's hearing. further focused on the drought has impacted the city of indianapolis or residences, and our business community. the drought in 2012 annapolis is one of historical portion and has been compounded by extreme temperatures. nims division of homeland security which considers nidis to be extremely important monitored the weather using the emergency center and data provided by the national weather service. repeated activates the extreme heat plan prompted them to seriously consider evaluate possibly risk of drought conditions. similarly, indianapolis water unity which ask citizens water

operates the city's water supplies published on the monitor website of which is a part of nidis. to determine whether enhance conservation efforts were necessary and response to progressing drought conditions. by late june, citizens had been delivering record amounts of water in the record breaking heat. they estimated that 30 to 40% of their water load was for lawn irrigation. citizens asked customers to stop watering their lawns voluntarily on july 6 resulting in a modest 20 million combat gallons per day. i enacted mandatory water use restrictions to participate the city's dwindling water supply and ensure there was adequate water for the public safetied and for the well being. these water use restrictions include ban on watering lawn, washing vehicles, using water to clean outdoor services sidewalks or driveways, filling empty swimming pools and landscapes.

water hi dranteds were authorized solely for fire suppression. in less than a week water usage dropped an 58 million gallons in a day. some businesses that depended on water were exempted from the ban golf coursings, parks and the like. this time we don't have complete and comprehensive information on the impact of the drought to the residences and government or businesses in marion county but many businesses voice concerns over the impact of water use restrictions. these include pool companies, lawn care and landscaping business, irrigation repair companies, painting power washing companies, contractors and buildings. none of these businesses were exempted from the mandatory water and many are small business owners. so jobs have definitely been effected. typically be sometime before we understand the full impact of the economic drought.

we know that the drought and the ensuing water restrictions z have placed a burden on businesses that rely on water to operate and homeowners to maintain their property. it's unfortunate but a necessary response to a severe drought that is expected to persist into the fall. clearly the indianapolis knowns about the con conditions and we can prepare our leaders and community for water conservation that. said, the expected accuracy of the predicts likely have to be quite high before we rural in implementation in mandatory restrictions. ratherring the nidis i essential support nor timely and accurate reporting services that help all of us. thank you. >> thank you, mayor. i now recognize -- for five minutes. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you do discuss

an issue that is critical to oklahoma and western states. that is drought. my name is j.d. strong. i serve as executive director. in addition to coordinating state drought activities my agency carries out numerous responsibilities all of which are heavily impacted and influence. i testify today as director of the oklahoma water resources board the state water management agency i note through the involvement in the western states water counsel and western governor association many other western states share similar thoughts. nidis. why is crowd such a challenge for us? and like other natural disasters such as floods and tornadoes that strike suddenly the effects of drought settle in slowly and subtly over months or years.

that's why it's often referred to as creeping disaster. it's adult to know when a drought has started and more challenging to know when dratteds will end. additionally and partly because of the subtle onset. that we ignore drought until "the situation" is dire we willment the collar more energy funding but in variably at rains we forget there was a problem and go back to business as usual. we must break this sickle. drought also means different things to different regions. which highlights the importance of focusing research and monitor and reporting not so much on a national scale, but on measures and predictses that are real vaunted to state, regional and local and triable stakeholders. oklahoma is no stranger to drought. some 80 removes from the infamous dust bowl era with reexperiencing the nird major

drought within six short years. virtually every year in oklahoma one quarter or more of the state is classified in at least the severe drought category. notably my agency and the water development board and the chairman and ranking members home state of texas were created in 1975 on the heels of what is the worse drought of record. we have come far in oklahoma in understanding and mitigating droughts impacts. oklahoma's world renowned weather research community utilizing the 120 climate monetary stations scattered across the state has developed advance tools utilizing real time on precipitation, soil, moisture and many othe parameters impacting water management and stakeholders. augmented this special weather data and research conducted at national weather center is stream flow information collected by the usgs cooperate extreme program. land sat, thermal images and

numerous resources of critical data. still oklahoma like the nation in general remains largely vulnerable to drought and the. reducing those impacts requires improved insight into the recurring disasterrer. that is the goal of the still relatively new nidis program. the result of congress including the leadership of chairman and with many input and assistance from organization like the western governor's association, the national integrated drought system with launched in 2006. in short, it was created focus research anedvancing our predictive cape accounted link between the scientific community and those most effected by drought. what is does it accomplish? from data integration to engagement with local, state, triable and regional and federal officers nidis has accomplished a more coordinated and effective

drought monetarying and response networking. prier to that there was no such coordination and similarly stakeholder involvement was lacking to nonexistence. no oklahoma nidis has a strong presence due to the weather center as well as the southern climate planning program one of noaa. information provided through nidis drought portal made my agency's job easier in providing continuous updates of drought conditions allowing us to focus our attention and regions of state. a particular importance nidis provides the seasonal drought outlike from the predicts center and hydrological forecast. nidis has been largely successful many work remains including monitor stools and predictses sector and agencies and integration of drought

preparedness and response and state water and hazard plans. more importantly we eager await development of the drought early warning system our area which is a key of the program and central to effective drought preparedness and response. specifically to the draft of legislation we appreciate sponsorship of reauthorization and applaud this committee for giving it due consideration specifically i would respectfully urge the committee to add language focuses on those nidis components that are still lacking full implementation a deadline for development of early warning system and drought predicts strategies. in closing, drought is a present danger that affects this nation to the tune of billions of dollars and countless lives every year. as my congressman frank who is i know is chair ag committee meeting at this moment can attest from the chairmanship the

disaster assistance is mammoth compared to the sum on analysis and reporting. and decisions that involve billions of taxpayer dollars and american lives should be well informed. we as a nation can look forward to step back on what is natural disaster. we need take the next step forward by building on the fundamental work accomplished under nidis since 2006 to establish the most valuable product. an early warning system that can save both money and lives. even incremental improvements in the accuracy of predictses regarding the location, duration and intensity of drought particularly upon a seasonal to one-year scale would be extraordinary beneficial in establishing and informing diss made by water manager, farmers, ranchers, energy producers and countless other water.

emphasis on those components no not fully operational at this point in time as well as necessary funding to ?ert full implementation. thank you. >> thank you. and now recognize dr. famigleitti to present his testimony. >> chairman, ranking member, and other members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. i name is james famigleitti and i'm a hydrologies and professor at the university of california urbane and formally at the university of texas. drought is a and side use and patient killer of food, and fuel crops of livestock, and of humans. and it has emerged as a major threat to the food, health, economic, and water security. unfortunately, these may be at greater risk in the coming decades as increasing temperatures are expected to result in more frequent and proloinged drought.

inspite of the enormous emotional -- planning tools such as those that we are discussing today. remains far too small to effect timely progress toward critical improvements. the goal of nidis are essentially for a national scale drought monitoring predicts and awareness strategy. i fully support the continuation of proposed increase of nid funding. the key successes are school board -- nidis drought early warning system, is e americans as crucial step toward diminishing drought embank accounts and cause. nidis supported many innovative research projects that are yielding insights toward improve drought monitory predicts and met gracious. the most widely used and visible drought awareness tools is the u.s. drought monitor and important partner of the nidis

program. the gaps identified in the nidis plan drastically limit the confidence of predicts and the accuracy of early warning systems. of these in my opinion, the most important are related to deficiencies in the nation's hide logical. a lack of observation of the water environment, and the integration. all of these underlie drought information systems like nidis. in fact, our nation's ability to monitor and predict the state of the water environment is well behind where it needs to be to address not only issues of drought, but also of water variability, flooding, groundwater depleption, of human and the impact of global change. more over, we are fallen behind the capabilities of other nations while significantly constraining our domestic

efforts to ensure sustainable water management. the following are critical steps toward an advanced drought pacht -- are needed that represent all major natural and human components of the water cycle. a significant acceleration in the development of advance computer models for hydrologies and water management including an integrated national water model is essential for effect evely managing drought, and arrange critical water issues. second, we must fill in fundamental knowledge gaps of earth water environment. at the surface, and the shelf sub surface. we know very little about the unseen topography beneath the water surface. for example, the thousand of river channels, flood rains and lakes or soils or hydroagree

yolings at the national scale. third we need your support for key satellite observation. let me emphasize those for satellites. several current and future nasa missions are making fundamental contributions toward understanding drought and improving predicts. the gracious mission has been successful in identifying areas of water stress in a groundwater depletion. the figure shown on the screen, for example, shows areas which it lost significant amounts of water over the last ten years shown in red either to ice meltings while the areas shown in blue have gained water. the region of groundwater is being rapidly deleted in the arid part of the world where natural replenishment is limited and population is growing. in other words, it won't be getting any better in those locations. upcoming nasa missions such as the service water and s.w.a.t.

mission will changes service water storage including high and low level flows. continues sport of congress for these core water missions is essential for effective and sustainable water management including advances our capabilities in the united states. water is on a trajectory to rival energy in the importance in the united states. yet the investment ands and observation model and exploration of the sub surface peals peals in comparison. we have the potential to be world leaders in characterizing monitor, and predicting all aspects of the water environment from forecasting droughts and floods, to science and technology-based long-term sustainable water management. the vision and the technology are in place.

leadership and congress is what will make it a reality. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. >> and we thank you. now recognize our panel witness for today mrs. patricia. >> good morning. my name is patricia langenfelder. my husband is generation farmer and together with our three children we farm 3,000 acres in indiana about 80 mimes east of here. we grow corn, so soybeans and we have a livestock operation. i currently serve as president of the maryland farm bureau and i serve on the board of the american farm bureau federation, the nation's largest general farm organization on who's behalf i am speaking today. i would like commended a chairman and ranking member for holding this hearing today on the very important matter.

as it's been stated a million times already, today on the news and moo ya much of the nation is gripped in the grip of a significant dratted that ultimately touch the lives of every ag producer and consumer. .. >> the highest percentages in the drought monitor data going

back to 2000. more than 54% of the country's pasture and rangeland is rated as poor or very poor, by far the highest percentage in the available data going back to 1995. corn crop condition ratings are the worst for this point in the growing season since the devastating drought of 1988. dry pasture conditions have begun to force many ranchers to sell their cattle. given the long biological lags in livestock and poultry production systems, it may take many months -- in cases years -- for the full effects to be reversed. ultimately, the reduced production of beef, pork, poultry, eggs and dairy products will be felt by consumers in higher retail prices. it is clear what a significant and vital role ndis plays in

providing support and timely information to farmers and markets. it provides an unparalleled set of data and graphics on drought conditions in the united states. nidis data is more frequently updated with maps and even realtime information on precipitation and temperature allow more informed adjustments to expectations for important usda reports like the weekly crop progress and the monthly crop production reports. this makes it less likely that these reports will catch the market by surprise, resulting in episodes of extreme price volatility. in conclusion, farm bureau supports the national integrated drought information system act because it provides the nation's farmers, ranchers and markets an effective drought warning system

for key indicators of drought conditions and impacts. it is vitally important that congress reauthorize the national integrated drought information system, and farm bauer row will -- bureau will do everything we can to assist you in this effort. we look forward to working with you to reauthorize this important legislation. thank you, and i would be pleased to respond to any questions. >> and we thank you. and thank all of you for your testimony. i'll remind members of the committee, committee rules limit the questioning to five minutes, and the chair at this point will open the round of questioning. i recognize myself for five minutes. i'd like to ask you folks who live in the real world, and each of you have touched on cities' rulings and, mayor, you've had to enforce it. i've had a touch of that in my hometown i'll tell you about later if we have time.

but i'll ask you all that are on the ground, mr. strong, mayor ballard and mrs. langenfelder, does nidis really, does it really provide the necessary drought information that you all think we need, and what improvements do you suggest for it? and, remember, we just have five minutes, so -- >> i can, mr. chairman, i can speak generally to it. i can't speak about all the details. i would tell you our homeland security system and our eocs rely on it, certainly our water utility relies on it, also, so it's been a big part of planning, getting ahead of it. i think anything that could be added to that that would allow us to look even more into the future with some sort of accuracy, i think, would be beneficial also. but we certainly use it at the city level which maybe -- i'm not sure that was the original intent, it might have been more agricultural in nature, but we've used it quite a bit, and our folks appreciate it.

>> good. anyone else want to tie into that one? >> and i would just echo what the mayor said as well. i think that nidis has definitely improved in integrating the data and information in one place that we can use to make decisions going forward. the holy grail, though, will be more accurate, longer-term predictions of drought into the future so that we can actually make, um, some mitigation measures helpful a season or even a year in advance. >> and i would echo the same, and i just think that it's important that the agricultural community be aware. early warning would be wonderful so that, you know, it helps when you're doing planting preparations to know that, gee, there's a drought coming. when you planted earlier this year, we did not know that. some areas of the country did not know that, did not realize it. so, therefore, a lot of money and expenditures was put into the ground, and there's no crop

coming back out. >> well, i thank you, and you've given us a lot of practical information. you know what you're talking about, for sure. i just thank all of you and instead of that five-minute speech i gave to begin and i should have just said we need to know more about when the drought's going to hit us and then give some reaction to it a little bit quicker. that's what this hearing's really all about. and, dr. full -- dr. pulwarty, how accurate are the forecasts for a month or a year, 30 minutes or whatever. [laughter] >> certainly on the seasonal, the 30-day to 90-day when there are conditions such as el niño, la nina events in the pacific, the forecasts are fairly

reliable. in fact, as early as summer of 2010 because of the climate prediction center of noaa was able to say that the likelihood of drought development in the southern states was pretty high. so from the standpoint of reliability, the seasonal forecasts are fairly reliable. moving out to the year, what ends up creating issues related to predictability and the reliability of forecasts has to do with the background variability on the ten-year time scale. so from our standpoint linking the seasonal forecast and the reliability of those forecasts to what's happening in the background, the atlantic multidecadal oscillation, natural variability, changes the reliability of the forecast as an area of research and, in fact, an area of applications. >> i'm very close to the end of my questions, so i'll recognize mrs. johnson for her five-minute questions.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. noaa recently released the 2011 state of climate report detailing global climate indicators and notable weather events. it included details on a number of extreme weather events such as deadly tornado outbreaks in the u.s. and the extreme drought in texas. also released was an article published in the bulletin of the american meteorological society that examines the potential linkages between climate change and the extreme weather events of 2011 such as the drought. i know that many of my colleagues on the other side like nidis, but for the past couple of years they have done everything possible to block investments in climate change research and provide inclimate

services more efficiently. i think the only way for us to know how to mitigate and respond to these events is to understand what is happening and the extent to which climate change is contributing to the severity and duration. in addition to coordinating monitoring activityies are other coordinated information and research needed to understand global warming's potential role in driving the severity and frequency of such extreme weather events? i'd like to hear from you, mr. strong, as well as dr. famiglietti, famiglietti, on your comments on this. >> well, he's certainly the scientist, so i'm sure he has a lot to say about that. i'll just reiterate what i said earlier. i think, um, long-term

predictions of climate misvariability over 10, 20, 30, 40, 50-year time scales would be great, but as a practical matter what we're more interested in at this moment is can we get to a year forecast of drought that will be something that we can take, take to the bank? that, to us, is really as a practical matter more important than those longer-term forecasts even though longer-term forecasts certainly have value. i think the adage you've got to walk before you can run is applicable here, so getting those shorter-term, more accurate drought predictions in place would certainly help us do our jobs much easier. >> famiglietti. it's a silent g. the links between climate change

and increasing extremes like flooding and drought are becoming much better established. they have been predicted by the ipcc for a number of years now, and more research is being conducted that is bearing that out. i can just mention some of our own research using the grace mission, which has only been operating for ten years, but in that ten-year time period -- and that's the slide behind me that showed the trends -- there's a core responding map that i don't have in my testimony that actually shows how the water cycle and where it is strengthening. and by strengthening we immediate more precipitation and more evaporation and, therefore, more storms and more droughts. so we're working on quantifying the frequency and the intensity of flooding and drought, and

even in just a ten-year time period we're seeing some increases in at least figuring out how to quantify them. >> thank you. how does nidis aid in water planning and management during times of drought? i know that immediate information makes a difference, but as a climate prediction for future droughts to aid and also early warning, shortness of time but also having time to plan when you can predict longer times. could you comment on that, mr. pulwarty? >> thank you. i appreciate dr. famiglietti's comments and his name. usually mine is the most difficult to pronounce. [laughter] what we've been seeing from the standpoint of the information we've pulled together is in the midst of the development of drought while the onset is very

critical -- as we've seen in texas and elsewhere -- it is the development of drought intensification that begins to matter. when the reservoirs are lower, when food prices for livestock begin to go up. one of the things that we do is very much from the onset, before any of that happens, insure that the federal drought plans and the state drought plans are developed. people develop them on their own, it's their role to do so. we insure that the information that we're going to be able to provide can be used more effectively up front by those plans. and from that standpoint, we try not to just show up when a drought is happening, but instead work on insuring the plans can take full advantage of the moisture monitoring of the forecast and so on. where planning begins to take place from our standpoint is in improving the local assimilation of data that a national product,

that informs the national product such as the drought monitor. the drought plans and water plans in many areas are not as well linked, and part of our role is to make sure that they both receive the same data and information. from a water resources management standpoint, we make certain or try to make certain in the areas that we've been able to put early warning systems the way the entry points for information are in those plans are identified long up front so that we're not trying to find them during a drought vent. >> thank you very much. i yield. >> thank you. now recognize congressman smith, the gentleman from texas, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, mr. chairman, i want to say that i concur with the comments you made about the effect of the drought in texas. all the friends i have who engage in dryland farming in south texas have now lost their crops two years in a row because of a lack of rain, and it literally looks like a desert. i was there last weekend.

first of all, dr. pulwarty, i'd like to send a compliment your way. the lower colorado river authority in texas that you're familiar with has told me that they very much appreciate your willingness to disseminate information to them, to land other thans, to the farmers -- landowners, to the farmers and policymakers as well, and they appreciate that good communication. i'd like to direct, though, my questions to the other panelists. dr. pulwarty, i expect you to defend the president's budget, so i'm not going to ask you budget questions. but i would like to ask the other panelists if they feel that in the current budget proposal nidis has received a high enough priority, or should there have been greater sense of urgency and a greater priority given to what nidis does? and, mayor ballard, i guess we'll start with you. finish. >> that's a great question. i'm not familiar with all the, all that goes on in this city,

as you can tell all the time, but i would suggest to you, sir, that anything that can mitigate the cost, the losses if you will of the last few months across the nation and as you mentioned last year also, needs to be upgraded in a priority listing. because it saves all of us. it not only keeps people working, but it also increases the tax base for municipalities, for states and for the federal government eventually. so this could be the being the penny wise in this instance. >> okay, thank you. mr. strong, do you feel nidis gets a high enough priority in the budget proposal? >> well, i don't know specifically budget proposal, but i would say given the billions of dollars and number of lives that are at stake, it certainly deserves heightened importance both in the budget and just in terms of attention. i know dr. famiglietti can talk

more specifically about the shortfalls and gaps and did in his testimony. so, certainly, additional funds and resources would help. but given the billions of taxpayer dollars that are going to go out to address this issue, being able to avoid that by having some proactive measures in place using drought, um, outlooks, for example, would be extremely helpful. >> dr. famiglietti? >> so by priority do you mean higher amount? >> that and more emphasis, perhaps, higher priority? >> okay. so i make a comment in my written testimony that if nidis is to continue to play mostly a coordinating role, then i think the amount of money that's been allocated is sufficient. but, um, to really do a great job, you know, what underlies what dr. pull pulwarty is tryino accomplish is the models. and so i made the point that i think the models are far from where they need to be. and so that's a much greater

investment. >> great. mrs. langenfelder? >> well, you're talking to someone who doesn't know very much about how much is budgeted for, so i would just say that is an important factor if reporting, but i'm not familiar with that, and i'd have to apologize for not having a good answer. >> i was going to use the farm bureau could always use more in that area. >> oh, we could always use lots more of everything. [laughter] >> okay, last question. let me start again with the same four panelists, is there anything more that nidis should be doing? you know, what other practical improvements can be made in their programs? >> well, it's easy to state the obvious, i think, for most folks. i always like more research, no question about that. but the longer and more accurate we can make these forecasts, i think, is going to have -- >> number one priority? okay. mr. strong? >> number one priority for us as well. if we could get early warning systems, especially for oklahoma, in place right away,

that would be great. >> great. >> i think education and awareness amongst the general public's critical. >> okay. and mrs. langenfelder? >> and early warning for the agricultural community. >> thank you all for your answers. mr. chairman, i can't help but make a plug here, because one of the great spin-offs of the space program has, in fact, been better weather forecasting. so that's an example where what you all are talking about and our space program are interconnected, and that's one of the great spin-offs that we've had. thank you, mr. chairman. >> and i thank you. ms. lofgren, california, for five minutes. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. and i -- this is, obviously, a very timely hearing, and i think i'm hearing general consensus from the panel that when our chairman and then-colleague mark udall put together this scheme, it actually has resulted in a good thing, and it's been helpful, nidis has. and the question, i guess,

before us is, can we make it even more useful to the country. dr. famiglietti, i was struck by your chart that you showed and is also in your testimony about trends in freshwater availability. what is the reddest spot on that map are the poles, massive loss of ice at both poles which brings to the forefront the question that so many americans have, which is what is the role on the changing climate to the weather that we're experiencing? if we are going to move beyond a mere coordinating role for nidis as you suggest, how would we integrate the climate change data that is being collected throughout the world into this

mission that is nidis'? i mean, that's a huge challenge. >> that's right. and so we're actually blessed in this country to have a great set of observations on the ground, and so your support in continuing those and increasing some of those will be greatly appreciated. but i think the key thing is some of these satellite missions like the ones i mentioned, you mentioned the chart from the grace mission, and there's a future satellite mission called smap, soil, moisture and -- it's a soil moisture mission that will measure the wetness of soils. it'll be great for agriculture, for flood prediction and tracking surface water storage changes over land. so i think one of the key frontiers for predictive modeling of the sort that underlies nidis is to be able to tightly integrate that satellite

information with our models. and that is a huge task because the sensors make measurements at different time, at different spatial resolutions, and if we want to integrate the ground measures, it's a difficult problem but essential. >> as a fellow californian, welcome to the committee. i'm wondering if you could discuss how nidis might be used to, in assessing complex water planning that goes on -- >> sure, sure. >> for example, as you know, our governor has just made a proposal relative to the sacramento delta's, pretty controversial given the amount of water that would be removed. >> right. >> implicit in that discussion is not just the water quality issue -- >> right. >> -- but what's going to happen in terms of water flow, the impact on the the ecosystem of

the san francisco bay as well as the delta. >> right. >> the collapse of the snow pack. can this data be used not just for a prediction for a drought for planning, because that is obviously important, but for a broader assessment of how we're going to cope? >> right. yes, so, absolutely. that's exactly what i'm talking about. so by this tight integration of, say, california: high-resolution computer models of the water cycle for california integrated with the space-based and ground-based measurements would give us the very best available picture of what's happening with the snow pack, what's happening with the stream flow, what's happening with the soil moisture and what's happening with the ground water. once we have that, then we can give that to the department of water resources, to the governor's office and say this is what we see, and we can also do some predictions into the future about planning options based on the best available

science. >> and finally, in terms of planning options -- and you may not be able to answer this question -- but, um, the pace of climate change has exceeded all the computer models that i ever saw. i mean, it's in the, it's in the worst case analysis that i saw back in '95 when the brits did the first modeling. >> right. >> how far out given that the reality has exceeded the worst case prediction on climate change do you think we could predict using the models that you're talking about? >> so it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult question, and i think once you go past, you know, a few decades, um, the uncertainty grows, of course, but you can see general trends, and you can think about options, and you can plan out a range of options. it's just that the uncertainty gets greater because it's further out in the future. there's a difference between, say, forecasting like what's going to happen in the next week or the next month and long-term

planning. so, you know, with the forecasting very similar to what dr. pulwarty is working on, we can probably go out a few months to see then, once you get to a year there's not much value, but from a planning and sort of future perspective, thinking about the possibilities of what will happen with, say, water resources in california or the western u.s. we can go out a few decades and really start to think about what might happen and start to plan for that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. >> thank you. and i recognize dr. harris, yesman from maryland, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and, you know, with regards to predicting the outcome or decades out and the ipcc report, let's just remember that the 201 ipcc report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change mitigation concluded

that, quote: there is low confidence in the attribution of changes in droughts at the level of single regions due to inconsistent ed. it might be be we just need more evidence, but they want orr r on to say: there's been an overall, sliepght tendency towards less dryness, end quote. so just in case some members or some folks want to say that there is some definite connection and that this climate change has some, you know, some definite, longstanding effects, i mean, this is the ipcc. this is not, you know, this is not a, a anti-environmental group coming out saying there is a medium confidence that there has been an overall, slight tendency toward less dryness. i can tell you, i can't see more hedging than that in the wording. anyway, mrs. langenfelder, in your testimony you spoke to the adverse impacts drought can obviously have on farmland and how it will effect the price of

corn and related agricultural commodities. now, i will tell you as you're well aware, corn hit a -- went over $8 a bushel, i think if it wasn't earlier this week, it was late last week. record high. and we know the price of gas just went up. affordability's becoming a problem for more americans. even those who have jobs. i mean, they say, look, things are not affordable. the price of grain effects not only directly the price of food, but in terms of livestock the kind of drought effects it in two ways. one, it raises the price of grain. the other is that you lose livestock, that is, owners thin their herds, they just don't raise as much either because it's no longer profitable to raise the livestock -- is that, is that correct? i mean, is that what we're going to see in the next few months, the price of grain commodities directly and food directly and then livestock indirectly are going to increase, become even less affordable for americans?

>> there -- that is anticipated that will happen only because the price of feed gets so extremely high that the farmers, ranchers cut back on their livestock numbers. they'll market them, maybe in the short term there'll be a downturn in pricing for some of the meats if you're talking about the meat specifically. but in the long term if they've thinned the herds out, then in order to rebuild it takes -- for cattle it takes years for it to reverse, and poultry is a little quicker turn around on that, and hogs are kind of in the middle. so, yeah, it could effect it in the long term, and that's an unfortunate outcome of a drought because we lose the crop, the cash crop, the grain and then the farmers who are feeding can't afford it, so then they cut back on their herds and there's less meat out there. >> and we know, in fact, and the gentleman from texas brought it

up and the chairman, i'm sure, is well aware that, you know, this is what's happened to, certainly, the price of beef. you know, i was in the store over the weekend. we all go to the store on the weekend. it's different over the last couple of years because the american heard herds have been thinned. dr. pulwarty, let me ask you because nidis, hopefully, if we could predict with some confidence even in the short term, even the seasonal term that we knew what sections -- and we know where we're growing the grain, so we could, we could make a guess at some of the prices of grain. the reason why this is important is because there was an article this morning in "the wall street journal" reporting that one of the largest hog producers in the united states is going to buy its grain now from brazil, okay? so we're basically going to import grain because the price of grain is so high. so what are the folks over at noaa doing to talk to the folks

at epa to say, wait a minute, if we can predict we're going to have a drought and the price of corn may go well over $8, and, in fact, we're going to drive some of our acquisition of grain go overseas, we're going to have the price of gasoline go up, we're going to have the price of beef and chicken go up and cereal, breakfast cereal go up, have you been talking to the folks at epa to say, wait a minute, why doesn't the administration talk about controlling the affordability of things like gas and food by thinking of maybe freezing the renewable fuel standard? because this is something -- could you have predicted this two months ago? could you have predicted the fact that it looked like grain prices were going to rise a couple months ago? >> to answer the question, the main groups that we work with from that standpoint is, in fact, usda. and we look to other parts of the world for where droughts like these are happening and where purchasing can be much less from our standpoint.

in terms of the near future, we can certainly say something about the persistence of drought in the midwest, in the upper midwest and maybe the relief of drought conditions in the southeast. from that standpoint our major collaborator has been the water agencies such as the corps of engineers, reclamation and the usda. but not with epa other than on low-flow water quality issues during drought. >> and if i might just take ten more seconds, mr. chairman, why not the epa since the renewable fuel standard is what is combined with the drought is what causes corn to be at near $8 a bushel right now? >> so from our standpoint the major role of nidis is to produce an information system that allows people to have the information they seed to make their decisions. so we do not make recommendations about what they should be doing. >> oh. thank you, mr. chairman. i hope they'd send something over to the epa. thanks. >> all right.

thank you. chair recognizes mr. mcnerney, gentleman from california. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. i think it's an important, it's important information. in my mind it's critical that programs like the nidis be in place to provide critical information and support, and i'm really delighted to see many of my republican colleagues agree on this. mr. famiglietti, can you kind of give us an idea of how accurate programs such as nidis can be in providing drought early warning? >> yes. nidis, you know, what underlies nidis are weather prediction models. so we really won't be doing that much better with drought prediction than we will on our short and medium-range weather predictions. so in that sense the problems that underlie or the ways to increase or improve our drought reliability forecasts are the

same that we need to do to improve our weather forecasts and our hydrological forecasts. so i think that we can realize great decreases in uncertainty mainly by integrating available measurementsing both on the ground -- measurements both on the ground and from satellites into our models. so i think we can get our uncertainties down. you know, at some point we'll be moving out, too, from having much more reliability to our annual forecasts. sort of the next horizon. >> well, thank you. you mentioned needing more realistic modeling in the national water model. now, that includes data from noaa's geosynchronous satellite, is that right? >> sure. right. that's right. >> what else do we need besides those additional pieces of -- >> okay. so some of the key things that are missing, and this is an important question because it krauses a link between -- draws

a link between predicting the drought and the work that we do in our research group which is sort of understanding what happens to the water. so many people don't realize that we do not have national scale water model that can help us predict stream flow, you know, on any of the major rivers of the united states. we don't have it. we don't have a national model that can tell us how much water is in the ogallala aquifer or in the central valley. we don't have that. so that's something that's absolutely essential to take the step from the occurrence of drought to knowing how much water is available. >> um, so one of the things you said was kind of striking that we can lead the world in long-term water management understanding. how would we get there? >> so i think with help from you and encouraging more research

funding through funding agencies like nasa, the national science foundation and noaa. but also i think that there's a lot of potential benefit in public/private partnerships. there's a lot of resources available there, and there is a lot of technology. so i think the time is ripe for those sorts of partnerships because we could really, we could really surge ahead. >> thank you. i know noaa was hurt by the cutoff of the polar satellite system, um, and i would expect that would impact this program as well, the nidis program as well. >> right. so i'm not -- i'm actually not familiar with that satellite, with those satellites that you're talking about. >> mr. pulwarty, you're familiar with that, could you address that a little bit? >> the addition of information that provides shorter-term risk analyses as some of those satellites provided helps us

understand when a drought might end from the standpoint of whether or not you get heavy rainfall events, and that was one of the contributions of that satellite. >> well, i mean, it seems that what you're talking about needs consistent, reliable research data and information, and cutting off programs like that is going to set us back whenever it happens. these programs, these satellite programs, they have long-term, long-lead items that take six months, nine months, years, and companies need to plan ahead for those purchases. so what you guys need, in my opinion, is just a reliable budget so you'll know what to plan for and how to use the resources that are available. not just additional resources, but consistency of resources. >> that's right. mostly we operate on a three to five-year at best -- average three-year funding cycle, at best a five-year funding cycle.

and it's really tough to get any mum. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield back. >> all right, thank you. chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan for five minutes. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for being here this morning. it is great to hear from you all. my question is for mrs. langenfelder. as you may know, i represent northern michigan where agriculture is a critical part of our economy. we have fruit orchards, dairy farms and a lot of business and industry that support those farmers. and i'm impressed with the results of the drought-related research and the data that nidis has been able to produce, but i'm wondering how individual farmers can best use this data. you know, i'm a friend to farmers, i want to support farmers in any way i can in my district, but do you feel that the farmers are up to speed on this? do they have the technology, the information, the education they

need to implement this data that or use it effectively? >> well, the data would be, obviously, what we're interested in is the weather and, also, the soil moisture content and things like were discussed earlier. and, yes, farmers are -- if they want to stay in business, they try to stay up with technology and information and do learn about that, those kind of things that they need to use and utilize in order to stay in business. i mean -- >> so at your farm you access this site weekly or, i mean, how do you get your information? >> well, you know, the internet and all the things come on smartphones and all that. [laughter] my son and daughters are quite agile with those, unlike their parents. >> but you don't access it yourself then? >> not personally, no. >> well, the kind of thing i'm boarding about, you know, if there's been enough education of farmers that they have, you know, day-to-day access, you

know, do they know how to do it s the farm bureau talking to those guys? >> certainly, there's educational. you have the extension helps you quite a bit in education to the farmers, and we get a lot of publications, and you get information in weekly or monthly reports from soil conservation service, and you get it from extension all the time. i mean, so there is updated information out there for farmers, and if they're internet savvy, they certainly are on top of it. >> dr. pulwarty, did you have a comment there? you kind of looked like you wanted to chime in. >> thanks for the question. one of the major contributions we've tried to make is by working with the national drought mitigation center, with the extension services, with state climatologists on helping communities and local folks become more conversant with what we put on the web and more critically how to use that information.

to say that we have national coverage and really working with folks at that level is not true. but what we have are a set of programs with the mitigation center, with extension service on creating what we call drought-ready communities whose major role is to be able to access and get guidance on the use of the information that we put on the web site. >> all right, thanks. mr. strong, what lessons has oklahoma used, learned that you could share with the committee to, you know, in your work to support farmers such as what methods have been more successful than others, is there information that could have been provided more timely? are there specific programs within this that are especially valuable? >> sure. i think one of the great successes of nidis has been the integration of -- and coordination with other agencies in gathering that day. i think that the program i would

say is still in its infan is si after -- infancy after only five or six years, but already we've seen great gains in that regard. so when we talk about how can farmers actually access this information, the weathermen, for example, in a state, in an agriculture state like oklahoma are rock stars. those are the guys that most people pay attention to when they watch the nightly news. but now folks are starting to learn and the farmers and producers on the ground in oklahoma are starting to learn they can access even more information related to drought through the drought portal which has been set up, through integration of noaa and the scientists involved with land grant universities, that sort of thing is helping to get the word out and helping our farmers and producers be able to get better access to that data information. i think there's still a lot of gains to be made in that regard as well and, hopefully, an an

additional six years or more of nidis will be able to help us get that valuable information out to our farmers and producers so they can make sound decisions and investments a season in advance, if not a year in advance, about what the plant and that sort of thing. >> thank you very much. it looks like i'm out of time, but i'd like to see this program continue as well thanks. >> i thank the gentleman. chair now recognizes the gentlelady from oregon for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. to begin with, thank you all for coming here to testify today. the district i represent, the first congressional district in oregon, is home to some diverse agricultural interests, and while we may not today be facing the same drought conditions that are being experienced in places like the midwest and other places of the country, i want to assure you that we're certainly interested in the conversation that we're having here today. i'd like to take some of my time

to talk about nidis and the cooperative extension services. the extension services play a vital role in my community and across the country by linking the agricultural research and the communities and farmers that rely on the local extensions to get information. the thousands of extension offices across the country bring the expertise of the land grant colleges to their communities and surrounding regions in the data that nidis provides is used by extension professionals as they help my constituents plan for weather conditions. so in oregon we have a prevalence of specialty crops, things like blueberries, hazelnuts, making the extension services even more important. some of, for example, the wheat growers may go directly to the oregon wheat commission to learn about the nidis predictions, but the specialty crop growers often go directly to the extension services for information.

now, some of the extension offices even have specific information about the specific crops for the growers in the district. so my constituents have expressed some concern about the proposed reductions to the extension services and the fy-'13 appropriations for the department of agriculture. although you may not know the details of those proposed reductions, i wonder or -- wonders especially, dr. pulwarty, one of the topics you discuss is the collaboration with extension services as you work to develop a network of state-based drought information coordinators. and i know, ms. langenfelder, you just brought that up and, mr. strong, the importance of extension services and the land grant universities. so considering this, can you describe how reductions in the budget for programs like extension services would impact drought preparedness in response to agricultural communities across the country? >> relative to oregon itself,

one of the things we help promote is the oregon climate center out of oregon state university. and in addition, a big part of their role is to provide information to the extension services. any capability we have to get down to the level of which droughts are actually declared at the county level increases the value of the information to the american people. >> thank you. mrs. langenfelder, you're nodding your head. >> well, i was just in agreement, and it's very important to keep the extension service available. it's integral to the success of agriculture across the country really. >> thank you. thank you very much. mr. strong and dr. famiglietti, i wanted to ask you, you both mentioned the hydro-illogical cycle. human behavior to ignore drought until water resources are depleted and the situation is dire.

so how can we break that cycle? what can we do about that? >> education and outal is the key -- outreach is the key there. you talked about extension service, land grant universities i mentioned, that sort of thing, that's why they're also critical in that regard, helping people understand that this is not just something that's going to go away and never come back. this is something that happens in oklahoma every year and how do we best prepare for it. so i think it is a key, and as far as i'm concerned. >> first of all, i wanted to say that you had me at blueberries and hazelnuts. [laughter] so, you know, we think about this a fair amount, and one of the things that we've come to in our research group is that people need to understand where their water is coming from. and if they understand where their water is coming from and what's happening to that particular source, then they'll understand the long-term availability. so in southern california we have water from the si -- si yea

rah's, and we use ground water, and we import water from the colorado river basin where the snow pack is also decreasing. so that sort of awareness, i think, will really help people understand the long-term prognosis. >> thank you very much. and we also have very fine vineyards in my district which i would be remiss to not mention. [laughter] thank you, mr. chair, i yield back. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair x thank you for the hearing. i think it's so timely, and to the witnesses, the input has been very valuable. mr. strong mentioned oklahoma's work with one of noaa's regional integrated sciences and assessments groups. are these regional groups addressing options for adaptation, and if so, is this a role that should be strength strengthened? >> i -- you know, we have a

relatively recent in oklahoma. certainly, that is part of the goal there. certainly, better integration with the water users, farmers, producers, energy producers and that sort of thing to make sure that data and information that is relevant to the their line of work is getting to them and is being collected. so making that connection, certainly, is a benefit of the -- [inaudible] and adaptation, i believe, is certainly a function of those centers as well. again, it's going to hinge on being able to make better, more accurate predictions going forward as to whether or not a lot of that information is valuable. but it certainly was helpful to us in our recently-completed, long-range water planning process as well, looking at different potential scenarios whether it's warmer, moister, hotter, drier, that sort of thing. >> and is there a way to strengthen the capability through the nidis program? >> i'm sure there is because i

think the nidis program does provide that fundamental information that's valuable to that long-term prediction and the biggest benefit, i believe, is integrating all of the other data collection efforts together into one place. >> dr. pulwarty, i think you wanted to address the whole capability. >> yeah, thank you. there are 11 of those centers around the country, and as mr. strong was describing, their major role is really to understand how the cities, the states and the regions that they're in are developing their planning, preparedness and adaptation and then to insure that the best available scientific information is provided to them. from that standpoint we've seen many successes around the country on increasing the capabilities of municipal, industry and state. and what we tend to do through the coping withdrawal research

program is insure that those have the funds to work with the network of information users. >> thank you. um, there was also mention made of -- i believe it was by mr. strong -- of noaa's river forecast centers and the stream gauge network operated by the usgs in partnership with the states. as you're all aware, i'm assuming, the usgs network is struggling, and we have lost some gauges. there's been talk of the satellites here this morning, but the gauges as part of that network with realtime measurement, this network -- especially for gauges where we have long-term measurements -- are crucial to understanding our water budget and getting better predictions for droughts and floods. wonder if you could address that, any of you on the panel, please. dr. famiglietti? >> so you raise a critical

issue, and so the number of stream gauges in the united states is in decline. it's also in decline globally. the satellites will help us understand some things, bun of the things that they really -- one of the things they really won't be able to do in a great way is tell us what the discharge is at a certain point on a river basin. it'll be a prediction, but it won't be a direct observation. so there is no substitute for a robust, ground-based network of stream gauges. not only stream gauges, but more monitoring groundwater wells and even the usda is now measuring soil moisture with its scan site. so those are invaluable, they need your continued support, and the usgs could certainly use your help. >> thank you. anyone else? >> i might just add that because nidis is not a bureaucracy in and of itself but it's heavily dependent on coordination with all of the other agencies that collect invaluable information like stream-gauging information

from usgs, it is important to make sure not only adequately funding is provided for nidis, t provided for all of these other stream-gauging programs, reservoir monitoring at the corpses of engineers, bureau of reclamation, snow pack monoporring at -- monitoring at nscs, all of those are extremely value and need support as well. >> thank you. and dr. pulwarty. >> thank you. to add to the chorus, there's nothing we can do without these enabling capabilities. the seasonal forecast, even longer projections are important, the satellite data is important, but there is no substitute for local monitoring and understanding people's local situation. >> thank you so much. and, mr. chair, i think i just went over my time. thank you. >> and pretty good time. you know, today's baseball teams

all have ha they call a closer -- what they call a closer. comes in there, eighth or ninth innings, and we've got one of the best closers in this congress, congressman rohrabacher from california, yield to him for five minutes. and then we have a democratic closer down on the end, too. don't want to forget about her. you're recognized, mr. rohrabacher. >> i think what the chairman is referring to is when i start, everyone else leaves. i apologize for having to come back and forth between hearings, mr. chairman. there was a hearing on foreign affairs committee on human rights abuses by the chinese government, and i feel that's very important for us to understand the economic relationship we have with the world's worst human rights abuser. so -- but what's important for us to stand up for our values is also important for us to make sure that we have the water and

the energy necessary for ordinary people in our own country to live decent lives and enjoy the freedom that is our heritage as americans. we have a lot of problem with water in california even. there is a problem that we understand is affecting a huge chunk of our major, of our most important industry which is agriculture. and we are dismayed, let me just note, mr. chairman, that we are dismayed in california that huge amounts of water are being permit today go off of the -- permitted to go off of the high siier rahs which is our water source and dumped into the association in the effort of safing the delta smelt, a little fish that's not even big enough to use for bait. and that type of nonsense has got to stop too. but i agree withmany of the points that have been made here

today. let me ask about -- and let me about the last point on monitoring. we have gotten in big trouble here in the last 20 years looking at computer models on weather and climate. big trouble with that. what we do need to make sure is that we are basing our decisions not on computer models, but on actual gauging and measuring. and the last point that was just made here in the community that is vitally important is that computer models can get screwed up by whoever's putting information into the computer because they can get out of the computer whatever they actually want but if we actually have the data, the hard data from instruments on the ground in measuring these water resources that we have, that puts us in a much more effective way of handling droughts and other natural challenges.

i take it from the testimony that we have had many droughts and many cycles. my family grew up in north dakota in the 1930s, and i grew up with all of these tales about the great dust bowl and how they couldn't even plant the gardens because the dust just took over their whole farm. and what i have heard before i had to run down to the other hearing was we now are suffering the worst drought since 1957. well, '57 in a geological realm was not very long, but it does show you we are going to face challenges of drought in a cyclical manner, and if we are going to minimize the damage to our own people, we've got to have alternatives established. now, what i wallet to ask about is the -- what i want to ask about is the alternatives right now. do we still see clouds? do we -- if we have determined

there's a drought and the drought's going to last through the cycle, another five years or something, do we see clouds? what's, what about taking water out of groundwater? of course, the point that has to be made also, we have to know exactly how much water is in that groundwater before we extract it. and what about massive desalinization by utilization of nuclear power which we haven't produced one new nuclear power plant in 30 years, and perhaps nuclear power could help us desal mate water that would help us get through these cycles. so i thought i'd just throw those questions about the potential of seeding clouds, groundwater and desalinization as a vehicle to offset these cycles that we're going through. maybe i'll start with my friend from irvine who, i might add, i'm proud resident of the county, and i overlook from my

neighborhood the university of irvine right there. we're very proud of what they are accomplishing and what you are contributing to the well being of our country. >> thank you, sir. so i take that to mean that you'll be watching me from now on. [laughter] so just to respond to some of your comments, we do need to look at a range of options in the future because we're going to be water stressed in many regions. and so desal is an option, and if we can bring the cost down, maybe it's nuclear, maybe it's something else, we have to -- the membrane technology is something that i think is driving up the cost. and, of course, thinking about what to do with the brines. and where we live, you know, it's an option. recycle, of course, we already do in orange county, and we have a phenomenal facility. if you've never visited, it's right up there on my list with disneyland. and so you made a good point about groundwater. i mean, there's -- we can't --

many people when we discuss renewable water resources, suggest that we just look at the difference between evaporation and precipitation and just use that. and that's a great idea, but it doesn't work, and that's why we see the groundwater depletion. we just have too many people, and we have too many water needs. but your point is a good one because we have to know how much water is in the aquifers not just in the united states, but around the world so we can manage our extractions. it's like money in the bank, you don't want to just blow it all at one time. >> we're going to leave the last few minutes of this hearing as the u.s. senate is about to gavel into session. a reminder, you can watch this and any c-span program anytime online at c-span.org/videolibrary. a look at the u.s. capitol here. a quick note that the house may take up some drought-related measures later this week. the senate today will start with a judicial nomination, a

procedural vote is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. eastern, and we may also see some work on cybersecurity issues. live now to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal savior, our god and our strength, in the shadow of your hand, we find protection from life's slings and arrows. you keep us from toiling in vein. today, use our lawmakers to make america a light of the nations.

may our senators work with such insegment grit and dependence on you that freedom may reach to the end of the earth. lord, help them to seek first and foremost to know and do your will and reward them for their service and sacrifices for freedom. have compassion on us all and guide us to springs of living water. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, july 30, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mark r. warner, a senator from the commonwealth of virginia, to perform the duties of the chai. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we're now on the notion road to s. 3414, which is the cybersecurity bill. this is postcloture. at 4:30 today, the senate will vote on robert bacharach to be united states circuit judge for the 10th circuit. this likely will be our last vote on a circuit judge for this

congress. i hope that we can be successful. this is a person that i'll talk about a little bit later. sinnerlcertainly well-qualified. at 5:30 today, there will be a cloture vote on the nomination. if cloture is not invoked on the bacharach nomination, the? the will proceed to a motion to itoproceed to the cybersecurity act. the clerk: an act replace within the 60-day review period president obama's proposed final outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings, mr. president. with -- in regards to this bill. the presiding officer: objection is is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: i was glad to hear

that speaker boehner last week said that we're going to bring the senate-passed middle-class tax cut to the house for a vote. i heard again today that he's going to hold to what he said. i think that's very, very good. the nation is one vote away from avoiding the fiscal cliff for middle-class families. every member of the house of representatives should have the opportunity to show where they stand -- with millionaires or with the middle class. they can support the republican plan to hand out more tax breaks to millionaires or billionaires while increasing taxes for 25 million american families struggling to put kids through college or food on the table. the two approaches demonstrate the glaring difference in priorities. there is eanother difference between the two plans. the democrats' proposal is the

only one with the chance of becoming law. president obama said he would sign it tomorrow. what he won't do is sign into law anymore wasteful givew. toys the wealthiest 2%. the senate has already defeated the republican proposal on a bipartisan vote, so it is simply a waste of time for house republicans to continue pursuing their middle-class tax hike. house republicans should stop holding the middle class hostage to extract more tax cuts fo fore richest of the rich. they should pass our middle-class tax cut now. american families can't afford wait until the last moment to find how the bottom line will look come january 1. people are sitting around their kitchen tables, mr. president, now trying to figure out whether they can afford to buy a home or should they rent a home or should they send their kids to college or trade school or should they retire -- or can they retire. republicans shouldn't force 114

million families to guess whether they'll have $1,600 mo-s to spend next year. one simple vote can give them that security. cybersecurity a is autumn can of new words. today the senate works to address this problem, a problem national security experts call the most urgent threat to our country. that is, weeknesse weaknesses ir defense against a cybersecurity attack. it could affect our nuclear grid, energy pipelines, transportation net wherebies, communications equipment, financial systems, just to name a future general martin dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has said, "a cyber attack should 1207 this country in its tractions. it doesn't just threaten our

national security. it threatens our economic security as well. hackers have already attacked one of the most important businesses we have in america today, the nasdaq stock exchange. major corporations are under atake every day spending millions and millions of dollars to protect against cyber attacks. these attacks cost our economy billions of dollars a year and thousands of jobs. general james clapper, director of national intelligence, said chinese cyber threat of american intellectual property is "the greatest pillaging of wealth in our entire history." close quote. that's our future disappearing in front of us, admiral keith alexander said. in a report released last year, the american chamber of commerce said government and the private sector should work together to develop incentives for businesses to voluntarily act to protect our nation's critical infrastructure. the legislation that's before this body today does exactly

that, establish a public-private partnership to make our nation safer and protect american jobs. i hope the chamber will join in our efforts to pass this important legislation. i personally believe this bill could go further to address threats to critical infrastructure, the networks operating our electric grid, our water supplies and other life-sustaining systems, but it is a tremendously important good first step. i applaud senators for their work on this legislation. the bill managers are compiling a list of relevant amendments for consideration. i hope we can cooperate to work through the list and pass this legislation this week. we can't afford to fail what experts call the greatest security challenge since the dawn of the nuclear analyst i said i would talk a little bit about judge bacharach and i intend to do that now. the senate will vote on whether

to end a filibuster on judge bacharach. this man is the type of noncontroversial nominee the senate would routinely confirm with broad, bipartisan support. it was voterred out of committee on a voice vote. senator coburn, the junior senator from oklahoma, said friday he is a stellar candidate. yet republicans have signaled they're going to block his nomination. if they hold up this consensus candidate, it will be the first time an appeals court nominee with bipartisan support has ever been filibustered on the floor. mr. president, why should we ever be surprised, though? we've already had 85 filibusters. just add another one to it. i hope that they don't filibuster this good man. i have always said this will be

our last circuit court judge. it is too bad, but that's the case. if senator coburn and senator inhofe withdraw their support for this nominee, blatant partisanship would be to blame. i can't believe they would do that. senator coburn said bacharach is an awfully good candidate caught in election-year politics. that's a direct quote. would the chair announce the business. the presiding officer: under the previous order, leadership time is reserved. the senate will t proceed to --

mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

#

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask that proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent that the follow fellow and interns be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day -- brian burrows, lucy

shine, keegan buchanan and andrea jerkel. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, two years ago, not long after i became chairman of the senate's health, education, labor and pensions committee, i made the decision to undertake an investigation of the for-profit sector of higher education. my reason for doing so was compelling. congress had just finished making huge new investments in the pell grant program. meanwhile, enrollment in for-profit colleges had increased 225%. over the previous ten years compared to 31% for the rest of higher education. so this is what we were looking at. the enrollment in the for-profit sector kept going up, and finally in 2006, it took a huge

increase up to from $765,000 in 2001 to $2.5 million almost in 2010 -- from 765,000 in 2001 to 2.5 million almost in 2010. while students at for-profit colleges minneapolis up up to 10% of all the students, for-profit colleges now were receiving almost 25% of all student loans and pell grants. meanwhile, troubling reports began to surface. prospective students being lied to by aggressive recruiters, other recruiters showing up at wounded warrior facilities and homeless shelters, students saddled with a mountain of debt, unable to find jobs. two years later, our investigation is complete. the committee has held six hearings, issued 30 document requests, compiled data from multiple agencies and interviewed many former students and employees and compiled a

fact-based authoritative public record. earlier today, we announced the release of our final report called for-profit higher education, the failure to safeguard the federal investment and ensure student success. this report provides a detailed explanation of how congress has failed to properly monitor student outcomes in this sector of higher education or to safeguard the enormous investment taxpayers are making. pell grants going to the for-profit sector have grown from 2.5 billion to 8.8 billion in just five years. and again, this is what we are looking at. just think that we had to do something and look at this. 2.5 billion up to 8.8 billion in just five years. in just five years. this is pell grants. as i said, about 10% of the

students, 25% of all the pell grants. and this was twice as fast as anything else in higher education. as the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds pell grants, we work very hard to make sure pell grants keep up, that we have increased them, so it was distressing and outrageous to learn that a disproportionate share of this federal investment is going to schools that are raking in big profits but failing to educate our students. now we'll put up another chart. you have to ask the question, has the american taxpayer gotten an acceptable return on this huge investment in students attending school in the for-profit sector? well, the answer is a resounding no. more than half of the students who enrolled in 2008 and 2009 have withdrawn by 2010. many of them, as this chart shows, the withdrawal rate was

67% here for ashford university. what this means is a student who signed up, got a loan, got a pell grant, signed up for one of these schools one year later, 50% of them were not there. as high as 67% at bridgepoint, ashford university weren't there. so you say well, whamed to the money? well, guess what? bridgepoint got the pell grant, bridgepoint got the stafford loan. the student dropped out, and the student has the debt. the student has the debt and the student has nothing to show for it. no appreciable skills, no diploma, nothing. in fact, they are worse off than when they started because now they have a huge debt hanging around their neck. i just want to say that in this

report, what you will find is overwhelming documentation of exorbitant tuition, unsavory recruiting practices, abysmal student outcomes, taxpayers dollars spent excessively on rketing and pocketed as profits and regulatory evasion, regulatory evasion and manipulation, and i'll have more to say about that later. again, these practices are not the exception. they're the norm. they're systemic throughout the industry. but there are, of course, individual exceptions. again, there are real differences. among the various for-profit colleges, that's why we took 0, profiles of 30 different companies, we took 15 that were publicly owned, investor owned, and we took 15 that are more private and we took some from the biggest to the smallest so that we would have a broad

picture of what was happening in this industry. now, again, compared to the industry overall, some for-profit colleges are doing a better job for their students. i would mention strayer, waldon , national american university, american public university, all private, for-profit schools, doing a much better job for their students. there are also for-profit colleges that have had serious shortcomings but they're beginning to make some changes. and they're now open to new thinking about how to improve student outcomes. by include kaplan, devry and apollo, which is basically the university of phoenix. but the bottom line is a large share of the $32 billion that taxpayers invested in these schools in 2010 was wasted. and we cannot allow this to

continue. why? because 73% of undergraduate students in this country are nontraditional students. for example, they're holding down jobs, they're older, perhaps they have family responsibilities, come from maybe low-income communities, maybe the first in their family to attend college. our nation's existing network of public and nonprofit colleges and community colleges cannot meet the demand for higher education or meet president obama's goal of producing more college graduates without increasing the number of americans who spend at least some time in higher education. we need for-profit schools to offer these students more than a path to enrollment, we need them to offer students a path to success and graduation. we uncovered two overall problems with the status quo.

in the for-profit higher education. one, billions of taxpayer dollars are being diverted from the educational activities they were intended to finance and two, taxpayers' dollars are being used to do real, lasting harm to the students these colleges enenroll. again,, think about it. in just one year that we examined, more than half a million students enrolled in for-profit colleges and then quit. almost every one of those dropouts left school worse off than when they began with no tangible academic benefit but saddled with debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. far less able now to continue their higher education in the future. because they will have defaulted on those loans. they will not be able to get further loans and won't get any more pell grants. so you got to ask why is this

happening. one of the reasons is that the tuition hat for-profit colleges is grocery out of line with the cost of comparable programs at nonprofit institutions and fails to reflect the often dubious value of a degree from for-profit. as this chart shows and this is average, from a public college in yellow, the purple here is for-profit colleges. for an average certificate program, public schools, $4,249. this is tuition. at a for-profit, $19,806. for an average associate degree, two years, $8,000 in public schools, that's bigger community colleges and others, 34 no thousand $900, almost $35,000 at a for-profit school and for a bachelor's degree,

$52,000 in public schools, $62,000 in the for-profit schools. 20%, think about this -- it costs 20% more for an online degree from ashford university than a degree from the university of michigan. now, you would think since these schools don't have bricks and mortar, don't have to pay heating bills and cooling bills and upkeep of dorms and all that kind of stuff, you would think they would offer these courses much cheaper than what they're doing. that's not the case. much more expensive. so why doesn't this lower overhead translate into lower tuition? we'll put up the next chart. the answer is that the efficiencies, the efficiencies of online education are not passed on to students.

instead, those lower costs of dlirry go go straight to profits, marketing, and executive salaries. tuition is set primarily based on maximizing revenue from federal taxpayer dollars and on what executives think the market will bear. that's sort of what this chart shows. this is red line is the average available federal aid to a student. this would be stafford loans and pell grants. this is average. $13,205. when we examined all of the private schools and this is just a representative sample, they're all just above that line. in fact, we have internal documents from thean of these schools -- from many of these schools from their executives saying they're going to set their tuition in order to make sure they can maximize access to these federal dollars. now, there are exceptions and i wanted to put one in here. american public institute, as i

said earlier, they're way down here and they made a profit. their profit -- they're profitable, they provide a good service, they're not pegging their tuition costs at just what they can maximize. so there are examples out there, but the vast majority set at just what the market will bear and what -- how they can maximize their federal dollars. and how much of these federal dollars? about 83%. about 83%. so i think another feature of the for-profit schools is they're nearly almost total re -- total reliance on taxpayer money. they say they're for profit but not for profit like a private business selling washingtoning machines or refrigerators or a service where you can pick and choose choose.

about 83% -- this is military, 3.8%, 79.3% is student federal aid dollars. 83% comes directly from the taxpayers. directly from the taxpayers of this country. so if for-profit colleges charge exorbitant tuition and often provide an inferior education while experiencing sky-high dropout rates, how are they able to recruit a steady stream of new students? the answer is that for-profit colleges are what i would call a marketing machine. they spend 42.1% of their revenues on marketing, recruiting and profit. yet they only spent 17% of revenues on actual instruction. by comparison, the university of north carolina system spends less than 2% of its budget on marketing. 2%. and what we see here is 42%.

42% on marketing and profits, 17% on student instructions, and this is interesting here, 40.7%, all other spending. by point out here -- i would point out here is our executive salaries. executive compensation, bonuses paid to recruiters, and on and on and on. only 17% for instruction. most colleges, most colleges when they talk about marketing is down around 2% or 3%. i'll bet the university of virginia is probably down there, i don't know, we might have that documentation, i know the university of iowa system is down around that, 2%, 3% total for marketing, you see their ads different things for public universities, nonprofit universities. but nothing close to 42%. and this is what leads to what we call the churn. students come in, they get recruited, they get their pell grants, they get their loans,

the school gets the loan, a year later the student drops out so the market aers go out and bring in more students so you get this tremendous churn in the student body at these for-profit schools. perhaps most critically these institutions fail to provide adequate student support services as i said. this is a critical finding of our report. despite knowingly, knowingly enrolling some of the most at-risk students in our country, many of these schools don't provide those students with the services common sense tells us they need to succeed. how many times have we heard from the for-profit industry, yes, we're different because we're enrolling students that don't go to your normal colleges, don't go to the university of iowa, the university of virginia. these are nontraditional students. maybe of them -- many of them are poor. that's true. but that's who they're recruiting. why are they recruiting them?

they get the most pell grants and the most stafford loans, student loans and that's what the college gets. now, if they're doing that, then they really need to provide mentoring, tutoring, some kind of alumni network, job partnerships, genuine career counseling. two of the largest for-profit companies provide no career counseling or placement to students whatsoever. and yet these are the very students that need the most help when they go to college. students from upper-income families that go to good schools, they don't need that. english language learners, latinos, african-american students, they intuitively know they need more sceation and maybe they've lost a job and now they realize i got to do something, i got to get a better education. these marketers go after them. these marketers go after them.

and this is what our report found. if you look at the enrollment of these schools, as i said, it's gone up tremendously, the enrollment's gone up, look at the recruiters. just from 2007 to 2010 we went from a little over 20,000 to 35,202 recruiters at 24 of these companies. down here in the red line these are your career services. these are the people that counsel and montanaor and tutor and -- mentor and tiewt moror and help but career guidance. huge increase in students, big increase in recruiters, almost no increase at all in career counselors. this is a failure, an abject failure. so, m president, this report is the first comprehensive fact-based analysis of this

industry. now, earlier today i saw that the association for for-profit institutions called this a flawed process. as near as i can understand their critique the process was flawed because it was about them but this is what congressional oversight is about. this was not an overnight thing. this is what we produced. four huge volumes, data driven, documentation, documentation on what's happening in this industry. this is the summary and this holds most of what we found. this -- these three here would have all of the backup documentation that is needed to support the findings that we had. we have before us a factual record that we've never had before. the department of education didn't have it, no one's had it before. this can guide us as we move towards reauthorization of the higher education act next year.

again, in reauthorization we'll also be looking at traditional higher education. we've already held two hearings on college affordability, and there's no question that we need to find a way to improve outcomes not just at for-profit colleges but also at low-cost community colleges. that said, the fact is there are problems that are unique, unique to the for-profit sector that will require some unique solutions. we have seen some progress on this front, as i said. i've met with some of them, they have expressed a determination to reform and to do right by their students. and in addition the department of education took steps that are beginning to have real impacts. in april president obama issued an executive order to ensure our veterans are not the subject of deceptive and misleading recruiting and help soldiers and

veterans make better decisions where to use their g.i. bill dollars. last month kentucky attorney general jack conway led a settlement with quinn street, one of the companies engaged in some of the most egregiously misleading recruiting efforts targeted at veterans. but these are not enough. as i said, there's an important role for for-profit sledges cledges in our increasingly knowledge-based economy. a solid record of student success is in the national interest. the challenge is to require companies to be as focused on student scoas success as they are on financial success. now, there are four things that we need to do. first, we need to know how every student enrolled in college is doing. not just first-time, full-time students. and this is a flaw in our system. the department of education only

tracks first-time full-time students. most of the students that go to our for-profit schools are not first-time, full-time students. they're part-time students. so what we need to do is to -- any student that gets a pell grant and/or stafford loan, we need to know how that student's doing and how they do later on. secondly, we need to be very clear that federal education money has to be spent on education, not on advertising, not recruiting, not lobbying. that's just common sense. i challenge anyone to stand up here and say, no, no, no, they should use taxpayer dollars to lobby here, they should use taxpayer dollars to advertise or pay recruiters. no. we have to be very clear. they can spend it on education but not advertising, recruiting

or lobbying. third, we need to make sure these schools are providing at least a basic level of student services that would give the at-risk students they enroll a fair shot at completing. if there is one thing that distinguishes good for-profit schools from the bad ones, this is it, a genuine commitment to providing a network of student supports. as i mentioned, mentoring, tutoring, employer partnerships, genuine career counseling. not just in the beginning but all the way through the program. the good schools that are doing that are turning out quality products. fourth, we have to think seriously about outcome-based thresholds, particularly for colleges that get a very high proportion of their revenues from taxpayers. we need to build on the gainful employment rule to ensure students are not being loaded up with debt that they just can't repay. i am confident that the record

that we are laying out today will make some of these reforms inevitable as we move forward. i want to also thank some of my colleagues and to note that work has already begun on legislative solutions. senator hagan is sponsoring a bill to ban the use of federal financial aid dollars for marketing. senators murray and webb are sponsoring a comprehensive legislation to better protect service members and veterans using the post-9/11 g.i. bill. senator lautenberg is sponsoring a bill to provide every veteran who receives education aid from the department of veterans affairs with counseling to help make the right choices, to create a system to track veterans' complaints of waste, fraud and abuse by these schoo schools. senators carper and durbin are sponsoring bills to address the absurdity of not counting all federal money in the restriction how much money schools can receive. one of the other things that we

picked up on as we starre starts investigation was the tremendous folk us that these for-profits were now making on veterans -- focus that these for-profits were now making on veterans, especially iraq and afghanistan veterans and active-duty personnel. reason for that is we have a 90-10 rule. which says that the for-profit schools can only get 90% of their money from the federal government. other 10% -- the other 10% has to come from someplace else, private sources. but that doesn't count military. so if you're a for-profit school and you bumped occupy th bumped0 level, you can't go out and recruit any more people. but if you recruit one military person, you can get nine more nonmilitary. so that pays for them to go after military. well, senators carper and durbin have a bill in to stop that. senator durbin is also a leader on the issue of private student loans in bankruptcy, as well as

a great partner in helping to draw attention to the experiences of students who have attended these schools. i also want to thank other members of the help committee who have been active participants at hearings. senators franken, senator merkley, senator blumenthal. i've also received a great deal of support and encouragement along the way from organizations dedicated to ensuring that students have a genuine path to success in higher education. in particular, i thank the cowns council for opportunity in education, the leadership trust, the leadership council on civil rights, institute for college access and success, campus progress, and the national association for college admissions counseling. all have been involved in helping us over the last couple of years to get the data that we need. on behalf of service members and veterans, we have had tremendous assistance from the iraq and afghanistan veterans associati association, the veterans of foreign wars, the military officers association of america,

blue star families, the vietnam veterans association, student veterans of america, the american legion, vet jobs, vets first, paralyzed veterans of america, the national association for black veterans, the national guard association, the air force sergeants association, the association of the united states navy, wounded warriors, and veterans for common sense. all have been involved. we've all -- we've gone to them and they have been so forthcoming and so helpful in helping our staff and me to understand what happening is -- what is happening. i also want to thank the witnesses at our hearings, several of whom have been subjected to unwarranted and undeserved criticism. in particular, i'd like to thank steve eismann, who provided the committee with unique expertise and insights about the industry in a way that helped policy-makers understand that these companies were much more

than just colleges. as everyone in this body knows, people with a financial stake in an industry testify before congress every day, and like mr. eismann, provide some of the most insightful and accurate information we receive. i'd also like to thank former westwood employee joshua preum, who provided a real-world view of working as a for-profit recruiter. he was willing to come forward for the sole purpose of shedding light on this industry and the criticism he has sustained speaks poorly of those who claim to believe in the valuable role that whistle-blowers play. i want to thank my staff who have pursued this investigation tirelessly and tenaciously. i want to thank my oversight team of my help committee who spearheaded the investigation, analyzed the numbers, calculated all the outcomes, interviewed students and employees, and reviewed thousands of pages of documents and prepared this

final report. that oversight team was led by beth stein. she was assisted throughout six hearings, three previous repor reports, spread sheets, shatters, megabytes of documents by elizabeth baylor, ryan mccord, most recently they were joined by kia hamandanchi and brian burrows who have dedicated many long hours to the research, writing and publication of this report. i owe tremendous thanks to the several staffers no longer with the committee but who played a critical role in -- in this investigation. bethany little, luke swathout and robin guliano. i'd like to thank both my former and current help committee staff directors, beth smith and pam smith, who have ably guided this challenging effort. our communications staffers have patiently explained the 90-10 rule, the cohort default rate,

and the fact that we don't actually know how veterans attending for-profit schools are doing to hundreds of reporters across the country and i thank justine sessions, kate frischman and liz donovan. my education policy staffers who joined this effort more recently but who will be carrying us forward in our legislative reform efforts, mildred otero, spiros posaltis, libby mazzouk, as well as kerry wafford, who played a tremendous role in outreach to groups across the country and been particular advocate on behalf of veterans impacted by the practices of the for-profit colleges. i want to thank our tremendous group of law clerks who dedicated many hours to the less glamorous task in getting this put together. aubr yes connor, joel murray, david scott, ashley crinell, lindsey dow tri, sophi e

clementhal. a thank you to the law clerks who helped write and prepare the report, lucy stein, nicholas wonder, shawn that egen, keenan buchanan, douglas duando. and to andrea jarcho who has juggled multiple roles and worn multiple hats. i want to thank eliss davis, also dan goldberg for his always sound analysis and advice. finally, i'd like to thank denise lowry and carolyn bolden on the committee staff, who spent many hours making the report as error free as humanly possible. so today we bring the help committee investigation of for-profit colleges to a close. but the record we have laid out leaves much to be done, and i look forward to continuing to work with my senate colleagues to help for-profit colleges realize their potential as a genuinely transformative force in higher education.

mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, the senator from oklahoma, senator jim inhofe, is a friend of mine, and while we have strong philosophical and political differences, we have had a very positive personal relationship since i entered the senate 5 1/2 years ago. i like senator inhofe and, on occasion, despite our political differences, we have been able to work together as members of the environment and public works committee on which we both sit. and i especially want to applaud the senator for his strong efforts on the recently passed transportation bill in which he led the effort in getting his fellow republicans to move forward on the vitally important issue of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, in this case, roads and bridges. unfortunately, mr. president,

senator inhofe has some very radical views regarding global warming and i believe he is dead wrong and dangerously wrong on this issue. not only is he wrong, but because he is the leading republican on the environment committee, his views hold great influence over other republicans in the senate, in the house, and across the country. and because many republicans follow senator inhofe's lead, it means we are making very little progress here in congress in combating what most of the scientific community sees as a global environmental crisis. i am on the floor today to ask senator inhofe to rethink his views on this enormously important issue and to ask my republican colleagues to do the same.

i am asking them to join the overwhelming majority of scientists who have studied and written about this issue in understanding that, one, global warming is real. global warming is real. two, global warming is significantly caused by human activity. three, global warming is already causing massive and costly destruction to the united states and around the world and it will only guess worse in years to come. i am also asking senator inhofe and my republican colleagues to understand that the united states, with all of our knowledge, with all of our expertise, with all of our technology can and must lead the rest of the world who must follow our efforts in cutting

back on carbon emissions and reverse global warming. and to understand that when we do this, when we transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and enter into energy efficiency and sustainable energy, when we do that over a period of years, we can create millions of good-paying jobs. mr. president, what i want to do this afternoon is nothing more than to simply quote some of the statements and assertions that senator inhofe has made and to express to you why he is dead and dangerously wrong on this vitally important issue. mr. president, on july 11, just 2 1/2 weeks ago, senator inhofe spoke on this floor, reiterating

his long-standing views on global warming. and what he said during that speech is pretty much what he has been saying for years. i read that speech, his july 11 speech, and i want to use this opportunity to comment on it. specifically, i want to discuss a number of observations in which senator inhofe is completely wrong. first and foremost, senator inhofe tells us in his speech that global science -- global warming science is wrong. first and foremost, senator inhofe tells us in a speech that global warming science is wrong. mr. inhofe states on page s-4860

of the "congressional record" dinner going to do my best to quote him as a unanimous consentla unanimous consentaccur inhofe says the following about global warming and i quote, "in 2003, i" -- senator inhofe -- "started hearing from a the although of the real scientists that it was a hoax." end of quote. senator inhofe continued, quote -- july 11, 2012 -- quote, "it is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the american people." end of quote. let me repeat again what senator inhofe said just a few weeks ago on the floor of the u.s. senate. quote -- "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the american people." end of quote. in fact, mr. president, the

title of senator inhofe's new book -- and he was kind enough to give me a copy of that book -- is called "the greatest hoax." that's the title of his book. well, mr. president, let's examine that assertion on the part of senator inhofe. united states global change research program, which was supported and expanded by president george w. bush, a conservative republican, and which includes scientists at nasa, e.p.a., the department of defense, the department of agriculture, the department of energy, the state department, the department of health, the department of transportation, commerce, and interior, what they have said -- and i quote -- "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced."

end of quote. senator inhofe has said, global warming is a hoax, but the global change research program, which brings together many departments of the united states government, they say, and i quote, "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced." understand of quote. -- end of quote. mr. president, our national academy of sciences joined with academies in brazil, canada, china, france, germany, india, italy, japan, mexico, russia, south africa, and the united kingdom. they came together to say, and i quote, "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable, end of

quote. senator inhofe, global warming is a hoax. academies of science all over the world state, and i quote, "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable." mr. president, 18 scientific professional societies, including the american geophysical union, the american chemical society, and others say -- quote -- "climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." end of quote. that's 18 scientific professional societies. senator inhofe says that global warming is a hoax, but 18

scientific professional societies say that climate change is occurring and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver" -- end of quote. mr. president, even noted climate skeptic richard mueller, who said interestingly enough, senator inhofe has si cited in s own speeches over the years, recently wrote in "the wall street journal" last year that his latest research proved -- quote -- "global warming is real." more to the point, in an op-ed published just two days ago, richard mueller, who in the past was cited by senator inhofe as a

global warming skeptic, wrote on op-ed in "the new york times" entitled "the conversion of a climate change skeptic." and, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to put this into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, this is how richard a. mueller, again, the scientist who is often quoted by senator inhofe, this is how he began his op-ed two days ago in "the new york times." quote -- richard a. mueller -- "call me a converted skeptic. three years ago i identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw down on the very existence on global warming. last year, following an intensive research effort

involving a dozen scientists, i concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. i am now going a step further. humans are almost entirely the cause." and dr. mueller continues, "my total turnaround in such a short time is the result of careful and objective analysis by the berkeley earth surface temperature project, which i founded with my daughter elizabeth. our results show that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by 2.5 degrees fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1.5 degrees over the most recent 50 years. moreover, it appears likely that

essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases." end quote, richard mueller, dr. richard mueller, op-ed "new york times," july 28, 2012 mr. president, i am not going to tell you that every single serious scientist in the world agrees with dr. mueller or agrees with me or agrees with the vast majority of scientis ss that global warming is real and primarily caused by human activity. but i will say that, according to the national academy of sciences, approximately 98% of active climate scientists who

publish peer-reviewed papers agree with the assertion that global warming is occurring and human activity is a significant driver of it. not 100% but 98%. and when we talk about scientists publishing with peer review, what we are saying is that their papers and research were reviewed and examined by other expert scientists in their field. that is the great thing about scientisscientists -- about scid peer review. the process invites criticism and invites other scientists to prove your idea is wrong. when we say 98% of active climate scientists agree about

global warming, we are talking about scientists whose work has been examined critically and found to be well-documented and correct by their peers in the field. and this is an important point to be made. there may "no" well be scientists -- there may well be vine -- there may well be scientists out there that have different view, but they may not have written peer-visa viewed articles. the important bottom line here, mr. president, is that when senator jim inhofe says that global warming is a hoax, he is dead wrong, do, to the overwhelming majority of students who have studied this issue. and i hope very much -- and i mean this sincerely, because

this is an enormously important issue -- that senator inhofe will rethink his position and that those republicans who have followed senator inhofe's lead will also rethink their position. now, mr. president, in july of 2010, in an interview with abc news, senator inhofe said -- and i quote -- "we are in a cycle now that all the scientists agree is going into a cooling period." let me repeat, because i don't want anyone to think that i made a mistake about what i said. july 2010, abc news, senator inhofe -- quote -- "we're in a cycle now that all the scientists agree is going into a cooling period." end of quote.

on july 11 on the floor of this senate, senator inhofe stated in his remarks -- and this is on page s-4860 of the congressional record -- i want everyone to make sure i am not misquoting senator inhofe; i would not do that -- s-4860, july 11, "congressional record," i quote, "we went into a warming period that went up to the turn of the century. now it is actually going down into a cooling period again." end of quote, senator inhofe, july 11, 2012. in other words, as i understand it, senator inhofe is saying that since the year 2001, we are in a cooling period. unfortunately, senator inhofe's assertion that we have entered a

cooling period could not be more incorrect. let us look at what the scientific data shows us. mr. president, the last decade was not one where our temperature got cooler; it was, in fact, the very opposite. according to nasa, the last decade was, in fact, the warmest on record, using temperature records that date to the late-1800'00's, nasa data shows that nine of the ten warmest years on record occurred since 2000. when senator inhofe says we went into a -- quote, unquote -- "cooling period."

so nasa says that the last decade was the warmest on reco record. senator inhofe says we have gone into a cooling period. but it is not just nasa making this finding. the national oceanic and at mystique ire administration, know. noa averages issued a report from 3000 sign scientists in 48 countries that confirmed that the last decade was the warmest on record. the warmest on record at a time when senator inhofe tells us we're going into a cooling period. the world meteorological association also confirms that the last decade was the warmest on record, and they found the 13 warmest years on record have all

occurred since 1997. so the american people and my republican friends are going to have to make a decision. is jim inhofe right that we're entering into a cooling period, or is nasa and the national oceanic and atmospheric administration correct in saying that the last decade was extre extremely warm and, in fact, the warmest on record? as my fellow vermonter bill mcgiven recently pointed out, globally we have seen 327 consecutive months where the temperature exceeded the global average for the 20th century. senator inhofe tells us the world is getting cooler, but the

science tells us that we have just experienced the warmest decade on record. somebody is right and somebody is wrong here, and i do not believe that senator inhofe is right. mr. president, senator inhofe stated on july 11 on page s-4862 of the "congressional record" -- quote -- "one thing we found out when we got a report from several universities, including m.i.t., is that the cost of this if we were to pass any of the bills, would have been between $300 billion and $400 billion a year." now this is not the first time that senator inhofe has asserted that the cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions is $300 billion to $400 billion a year. in an interview with fox news of february 11, 2010, senator

inhofe was asked by the fox anchor about the cost of global warming legislation, and he responded -- quote -- "it would cost between $300 billion and $400 billion a year." senator inhofe gets his estimate by looking at worst-case scenarios from an out-of-date report that looked at legislation from 2007. mr. president, the truth; however, that more recent research proves that we can take strong action to cut emissions while at the same time growing our economy and saving americans substantial sums of money on their energy bills. for example, a 2009 study from mackenzie consulting firm found that the united states can meet our 2020 targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions just through cost-effective energy efficiency efforts with a net

savings for american consumers of $700 billion. a 2010 report from the american council for an energy-efficient economy found that by doing things nationally, that many states, including the state of vermont -- my own state -- are already doing what states are doing on energy efficiency already. we could achieve substantial benefits. the study found by investing aggressively in energy efficiency in our buildings, in our schools, in our factories, in our transportation systems, we would create over 370,000 net new jobs by 2020, boost our rate of economic growth and g.d.p. and save households significant sums of money on their energy bills, all while vastly exceeding our 2020 target of

cutting greenhouse gas emissions 17% from 2005 levels. in this scenario, we could cut emissions over 30% by 2020 as we create jobs and as millions of people save money on their energy bills. to my mind, creating jobs, cutting greenhouse gas emissions and saving money on people's fuel bills is a win-win-win situation. in addition to the clear benefits from taking action, i want to point out to senator inhofe the costs and risks if we do not take action. if we do nothing. the alternative is we step back, we don't do anything. what happens? already the extreme weather that we have seen is impacting our

nation's infrastructure. an interesting article appeared just a few days ago, july 25, 2012, "new york times." and it said that -- quote -- "the nation's infrastructure are being taxed to worrisome degrees by heat, drought, and vicious storms." the article noted that on a single day in july an airplane got stuck in asphalt that softened due to 100-degree temperatures and a subway train derailed after heat caused a track to bend. it cited highways heating up and expanding beyond their design limits. it cites how power plants are having difficulty using their cooling water saucers because the water is too warm. a company executive was quoted as saying we've got the -- quote -- "storm of the century every

year now" after power was knocked off for 4.3 million people in ten states, after the june, the storm that raced from the midwest to the east coast with near-hurricane force winds. interestingly people who are not generally noted as being terribly progressive if i might say, and that is the insurance industry, what the insurance industry # has noted is that their cost for property damage from increasing extreme weather have already increased in the united states from $3 billion a year in the 1980's to $20 billion a year today. according to mark way, an official with swiss ray, a large reinsurance company -- quote -- "a warming climate will only add to this trend of increasing losses, which is why action is

needed now." that's not bill mckidden. that's mark ray, who is with swiss ray, a large reinsurance company. in a landmark study prepared for the british government by nicholas stern, former chief economist of the world bank, found that doing nothing to reverse global warming could eventually shrink the global economy by 20%. the chairman of the national intelligence council under president george w. bush testified to congress that intelligence assessments indicated that global warming could -- and i quote -- "worsen existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions. climate change could threaten domestic stability in some states, potentially contributing to conflict, particularly over

access to increasingly scarce water resources." and that is the chairman of the national intelligence council under president george w. bush. mr. president, unlike senator inhofe, most americans are seeing the evidence of global warming with their own eyes, and i want to take some time here to talk about what we are seeing. associated press reporter on july 3 -- quote -- "since at least 19 -- since at least 1988, climate scientists have warned that climate change would bring in general increased heat waves, more droughts, more sudden down pours, more widespread wildfires and worsening storms. in the united states, those extremes are happening here and now. this is the associated press july 3. so far this year, 2.1 million

acres have burned in wildfires. more than 113 million people in the u.s. were in areas under extreme heat advisorsies last friday. two-thirds of the country is experiencing drought. and earlier in june, there were floods in minnesota and florida. we saw extreme weather last year as well. in 2011, we had a record-breaking 14 weather disasters in the united states that each caused over $1 billion in damage, and one of those was hurricane irene which caused devastating flooding and loss of life in the state of vermont and other states in the northeast and midatlantic. according to fema -- and i quote -- "considered together, the

federally declared disasters of 2011 presented crises all but unprecedented in their frequency and scope. the 99 major disasters, 29 declared emergencies and 114 requests for fire management assistance touched 48 out of our 50 states." in other words, 48 states had a federally declared disaster last year. mr. president, global average surface temperature has already increased 1.3 degrees farenheit since 1900, according to to no noaa. since january 1 of 2012, cities and regions in the united states have set 40,000 records for warm

temperatures compared to just 6,000 for cold temperatures, according to noaa. in the 20th century, we set warm and cold temperature records at roughly a one-to-one ratio. in the 21st century that changed two to one in favor of heat records. this year it has jumped to seven to one. as the planet warms, we are seeing more extreme heat wave events. heat waves kill tens of thousands in europe in 2003 and russia in 2010, and a heat wave in texas and oklahoma caused severe drought and wildfires in 2011. global warming made these heat waves significantly more likely according to the latest science. leading climatologist james hanson and several of his colleagues published a report

that said -- and i quote -- "extreme heat waves such as that in texas and oklahoma in 2011 and moscow in 2010 were caused by global warming because their likelihood was negligible prior to the recent rapid global warming." another study from german researchers published by the u.s. national academy of sciences found an 80% likelihood that the russian heat wave in 2010 is attributable to global warming. and a study from noaa found the heat wave and drought in texas in 2011 was 20 times more likely to our today than 50 years ago due to the warming of the planet. mr. president, as i mentioned, this country is currently experiencing a devastating drought. the u.s. department of agriculture has designated disaster areas due to drought in

1,369 counties and 31 states this year. the price of corn has increased 50% in the last three months. soybean prices are up 25% since june. this is because 78% of the corn crop and 77% of soybean production are in drought-affected areas. this is not the first time we have seen devastating droughts spike food prices in recent years. severe drought in russia in 2010 led that country to ban exports of grain which contributed to a near doubling in wheat prices over a two-month period in that year. the worst drought in china in 60 years occurred last year, in 2011, affecting 12 million acres of wheat and contributing, along with floods in australia and the drought in russia, to record food prices. some commentators cited the record food prices caused by these extreme weather events as contributing to unrest.

when food prices go up, there is often instability in countries around the world, including the middle east and africa. mr. president, sea levels have already risen seven inches globally according to e.p.a. we have seen during the last three summers record-low levels of arctic sea ice. and we know from nasa's satellites that antarctica is losing 24 cubic miles of ice every year. in glacier national park in this country, we had 150 glaciers when it was formed in 1910. but today only 25 remain. some studies predict sea level rise of five feet or more by the end of this century. but even if sea levels rose three feet, cities like miami, new orleans, charleston, south carolina; oakland, california, and others could find themselves

partially under water. mr. president, the average annual acreage consumed by wildfires in the united states more than doubled during the last decade compared with the previous four decades. last year in texas, wildfires destroyed 2,700 homes. this year in colorado, the most destructive wildfire in that state's history destroyed 350 homes. wildfires in colorado this year caused tens of thousands to evacuate their homes. in new mexico, we saw the largest wildfire in that state's history. this year burn more than 170,000 acres. that broke the previous record which was set just last year when a fire burned more than 150,000 acres. mr. president, last year, floods along the mississippi river caused $2 billion in damage.

floods in north dakota displaced 11,000 people from their homes. record floods in australia in 2011 caused its state of queensland to conduct the largest evacuation in its history. floods in pakistan in 2010 killed 2000 people and left 1/5 of that nuclear armed nation under water for weeks. that is the kind of potentially destabilizing extreme weather events the folks at the department of defense and the c.i.a. worry about. i could unfortunately, mr. president, go on and on. the bad news is if we do nothing, the science is clear that temperatures will continue to increase, sea levels will continue to rise and extreme weather will become more frequent and more devastating. the good news is -- and it is

very good news -- is that we now have the technology, we have the knowledge, we have the knowhow to cut emissions today through energy efficiency and through moving toward such sustainable and renewable technologies as solar, wind, geothermal and biomass. mr. president, it is time for congress to get serious about global warming and to work to transform our energy system to sustainable energy, and that starts by beginning to understand that global warming is real and that if we do not address it now, it will only get worse and bring more danger to this country and to our planet.

mr. inhofe: would the senator yield for a unanimous consent request? mr. sanders: yeah. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that at the conclusion of the remarks of my friend from vermont that i be recognized as if in morning business for such time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, i am glad to see my friend from oklahoma down here on the floor. i want to conclude by reading a review of senator inhofe's book which is called "the greatest hoax" by a gentleman named j.c. moore. this review by j.c. moore was published in "the tulsa world" which is, i suspect, the largest newspaper in the state of oklahoma. j.c. moore is a native oklahoman -- and that's the same state, of course, that senator

inhofe represents -- and a ph.d. ph.d. who taught chemistry and physics. he is a member of the american geophysical union. this is what mr. moore wrote. he said that, and i quote -- "in our claims, he is winning in his fight to debunk global warming." end of quote. after discussing the scientific consensus among climate scientists and major scientific institutions all over the world, moore writes, and i quote -- "inhofe's greatest adversary is nature itself, as research shows the climate is changing in response to human activities. the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. the temperature of the earth is rising. the oceans are becoming more acidic. glaciers and polar ice caps are melting. sea levels are rising. the probability of severe weather events is increasing.

and weather-related natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more costly. it is time we examine more closely who is actually winning by ignoring science." end of quote. and that is, as i understand it, from a review of senator inhofe's book "the greatest hoax" by a gentleman named j.c. moore in "the tulsa world." mr. president, there is much, much more to be said on this issue, and there is much more to be said because here on the floor of the senate we are saying virtually nothing. and i might say, mr. president, that we look pretty dumb to the rest of the world by ignoring what many scientists believe is the major environmental crisis

of our time, which if we don't get a handle on will have profound impacts on the well-being of this country and countries throughout this world. so i say to my friend, senator inhofe -- and he is my friend. i see him here on the floor. i say i hope very much that you will rethink your position. i hope that those republicans, republicans who are following your lead will rethink their position, because, mr. president, nothing less than the future of our planet is at stake. and with that, mr. president, i am happy to yield the floor to my friend, senator inhofe of oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, first of all, something that my friend from vermont said just a minute

ago will surprise a lot of people. that is that we are -- are friends. it's kind of strange. people don't understand they can be violently opposed to each other in this body and yet be very close friends. my friend from vermont is of a different philosophy than i am, and i think we all -- that's the nice thing about both the house and the senate. you have people with different philosophies believing different things. somewhere in the midst of this thing, the truth does ultimately kind of come out. most of the time i'd say i think we probably agree with that. so one thing i like about my friend from vermont is that he really believes, he's willing to stand up and fight for something that he believes. i'm not going to suggest that there are hypocrites in this body, i wouldn't say that at all, but when you look around the political scene, you say people who will say things that might somehow ingratiate a block of people who are wanting to have support. maybe it's for a next election,

maybe it's for a cause. but that's not the case of my friend from vermont because he believes in his heart everything that he says. i would much prefer -- i sometimes talk to young people who come in as interns. i said, you know, there are varying philosophies in the united states senate and the house, and that is you have extreme liberals who believe the country -- our country should have a greater involvement in the decisions that we make. we have conservatives like i am who believe that we have too much government in our lives as it is. this is just a basic difference. but i say to them, even though i'm on the conservative side, i would rather be you a far outspoken liberal extremist than be in the mushy middle and not stand for anything. my friend from vermont is not in the mushy middle. he stands for somethingand i love him for it. it was not too long ago that another friend in his office who is his press secretary, we're very close friends. he said something -- i don't want to misquote him. he said you ought to give a --

my boss would like to have a copy of your book. i said not only will i give him a copy, i will autograph it for him, but with one commitment. that is, he's got to read it. he kept that commitment. i can tell by the things that he has said here today. let me kind of go over a few things that were said, and i think it's interesting. this dr. richard mueller, i can't recall too much about him but i do know that he was listed among scientists who were skeptics. now, for the benefit of people who may not know the terminology, i refer to an alarmist as someone who really thinks there is great alarm because something is happening, the end of the world's coming because of global warming. skeptics are those like myself who don't believe that. he apparently has changed from a skeptic to an alarmist. i will say this, if you go to my web site, epw.senate.gov, you will see over the years, starting probably, let's see, 12 years ago, i started naming

scientists who are calling me and making statements saying that the ipcc -- now, that's united nations. that's what we're talking about here. the united nations came out and they -- they came out with a preconceived notion of the thanks -- things that they wanted to believe, a preconceived conclusion. when they did this, the scientists who were included in the process were scientists who agreed with them. so i -- when i questioned it by standing on the floor -- and i don't remember the date of this. my friend from vermont may remember that. i made statements about two or three scientists who had called me. after that, the phone was ringing off the hook. let's keep in mind, there are a lot of scientists out there. we listed in the web site, we got up to over a thousand scientists who declared that they were -- they were skeptics about this whole thing. so i could take some gratitude or feelings about the fact that

the only scientist who was on the skeptic list who has changed to alarmist is just one, that's one out of a thousand. my friend was talking about the national academy of scientists. i think it's kind of interesting because let's remember, it was the national academy of scientists who back in the 1975 came out with a report warning of a coming ice age. now, we're all going to die, keep that in mind, whether it's global warming or another ice age, we're going to die. that's the national academy of science's same group. they -- according to a lot of people, they have turned themselves into an advocacy group, m.i.t.'s dr. richard linson, he was a former u.n. ipcc reviewer. he was talking about ralph ciceroni, who was the head of the n.a.s., the president. he said the head of the n.a.s. is saying regardless of the

evidence, the answer is predetermined. if government wants carbon control, that's the answer and that's what the n.a.s. will provide. controlling carbon is a bureaucratic stream. you control carbon, you control life. so we have had a lot of different varying interpretations of available science over the years. i can recall one of my first introductions to this -- of course this came way back during the kyoto convention. some people have forgotten that the kyoto was a convention that was going to give us -- get everyone to get together under the leadership of the united nations and we're all going to reduce our carbon, and they had this big meeting down there. i always remember this. this is the famous al gore meeting that was down in -- called the earth summit of 1992. and so they came out with this thing down there that this is going to happen, the united nations said it is, and so they thought everything was fine, everyone believed it. it was shortly after that that i

remember hearing someone talk about -- and you can go back and look at this, mr. president. this is not something i am just saying. there were some statements that were made in the 30-year period, let's take the 30-year period from 1895-1925. that's 30 years. during that time, everyone feared that another ice age was coming, and they talked about another ice age and the world is coming to an end, they provided all this documentation during that 30-year period that that is what was happening. well, anyway from 1925-1945, that 20-year period was a global warming. in fact, that's the first time you ever heard global warming was in that 20-year period that was from 1925-1945. so the world was going to come to an end again. it was going to be during that period of time due to global warming. then came the 30-year period from 1945-1975. is my math right this?

1975. and during that time, they said another -- it's a cold spell. that's when all these companies on the senate floor here -- the senator is right from vermont. i have given probably 30 talks, well in excess of an hour each, talking about these things, and during that time, i remember holding up the cover of "time" magazine who talked about how another ice age is coming. then i held up a cover of the "time" magazine just 20 years later and they said no, it's global warming and they had the last polar bear stepping on the last cube of ice and we're all going to die. anyway, so we went through this period between 1945 and 1975, clearly it was they declared a period of another ice age. then 1975 to the turn of the century, that was another 35, 30-year period of time when it was global warming. we have gone back and forth. here's the interesting thing about that. the assertion is always made that we're having catastrophic

global warming, it's because of man made gases, co2, anthropogenic gases, methane, and yet the greatest surge in the history, in the history of co2 came right after world war ii starting in 1945. that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling period. so when you look at these things, sometimes -- and by the way, the only disagreement i would have with my friend from vermont is that he's quoted me as saying some things. actually i try to recognize unlike al gore, i'm not an expert, i'm not a scientist but i read what the scientists say. i get my phone calls, i look at it and i try to apply logic to it and i come to my conclusions. so that's what we -- that's what has been happening over the last -- it's been now 12 years, i guess, since all this started. i would like to mention a couple other things that were said.

for example, just on the -- the idea of the science -- here it is right here. as far as scientists are concerned, i can remember quoting from the harvard smithsonian study, the study examined results of more than 240 peer reviewed -- the term used by my friend from vermont vermont -- the harvard smithsonian study, the study examined the results of more than 240 peer reviewed papers published by thousands of researchers over the past four decades. the study covers a multitude of geophysical and biological climate indicators. i'm quoting now, they came to the conclusion that climate change is not real, that science is not accurate. then we have another former president of the national academy of scientists. dr. fred sites.

he said there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. again, he was a former chairman of the national academy of scientists. then we had -- wasn't long ago a study was done by george mason university, one my friend from vermont may not have seen because it's called to my attention, i had missed it somehow in the media. it was a survey of 430 weather casters by the university, and it found that only 19% of the weather forecasters believed that climate is changing and if so, that it's due to manmade gases. that's only 19%. that means that you know, what is it 81% of them think that it's not.

dr. robert laughlin, a nobel prize winning stanford physicist, this is -- i enjoy this one, mr. president. he said -- quote -- "please keep calm, the earth will heal itself, climate is beyond our power to control. the earth doesn't care about governments and legislation, climate change is a matter of geologic time, something the earth on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself, it's happening. ." i think it's arrogant people thinking with we can change this thing and i would recall one of the statements made by my good friend that we have all these other -- we must provide the linda tripp. we have watched these great big annual parties the united nations has in these exotic places around the world. i can going to a few of them. i remember one in milan, italy, it would have been 2003. and i went in there and they this had wanted posters on all the telephone poles with my

picture and quoted me, that's when i first came out with the hoax statement. but these big parties, it's kind of interesting. i've only gone to three of them but they have people invite read from all over the world and the only price you pay to come to this thing is that you believe that catastrophic global warming is taking place and it's the fault of bad old man. an throwanthropogenic gases. anyway, the last one was an interesting one. not the last one, that was in copien pagan. in copien pagan, i'm going -- cone hagan, -- copenhagen there, nancy pelosi and others had been there, five different people, to assure the other countries, keep in mind, 192 countries, they assured them we were going to pass some type of cap-and-trade legislation.

so i went over and right before i went over as what i self-described, i don't mean it in an arrogant way, as a self-proclaimed one-man truth squad, wipt over to tell them the truth, that it wasn't going to happen. but right before it happened, you talk about poetic justice say to my friend from vermont, right before that happened, was the -- was a hearing that we had with the director of the keystone, lisa jackson whom i love dearly, one of my three favorite liberals that i often talk about and she came out and she said -- i looked at her and i said, you know, i'm going to copenhagen tomorrow and i have a feeling when i leave, you are going to have a declaration that will -- will declare it's a hazard and all this and give the bureaucracies justification to do through regulations what they could not do through

legislation. and i saw a smile on her face and i said in the event you make that finding, it has to be based on science. what science do you think it would be based on? she said prime 345eur8 the ipcc. the ipcc is an intergovernmental panel on climate change. it was started by the united nations. and, by the way, i would not mention my book, however, i checked before i came down and i find out somebody mentioned the the my book, "the greatest hoax" it's okay for me to mention it. i see other my friend from vermont nodding agreement. in the book i want people to read the longest chapter which is the chapter on the united nations. it goes back and tells what the motives were for this, goes actually back to 1972, in the midst of an ice age at that time if you remember. it talks about the meeting that was going to be held in the earth summit of 1992 and what the motivation is and then it goes forward from there.

well, here's what's having. -- interesting. i was goinggoing to mention in the hearing we'll bothing attending tomorrow that when they had the earth summit plus 20, that was just a month ago, that was in reowe dejan areh heo, that -- rio de janeiro, that george bush was president of the united states and he went down even though he didn't really agree with what was going on. in this case, president obama didn't even go down. it's been conspicuous. i was glad to see my friend from vermont coming to the floor and talking about an issue that hasn't been talked about now for years. i'm glad it's coming up again. i'm glad people realize the cost it's going to be to the american people. by the way, the $300 billion to $400 billion originated from a study done by scientists from the -- i'm sorry, economists from the wharton school. later on m.i.t. and several universities said that's the range, $300 billion to $400 billion, is what it would cost.

that's between ben pretty much agreed to. i'm sure there is a dissenting ewe view but it's the first time i've heard on the floor of the senate a denial of that assertion that was made. everyone knows that we -- it would cost. i eab reb the mccain-lieberman bill and senator lieberman said it will cost billions of dollars, no question about it. cap-and-trade is going to cost billions of dollars. the question is, you know, what is, you know, what you gain from it. well, you know, that's a pretty good question. getting back to lisa jackson, i asked the question, you know, this is -- in a live hearing. i think the senator from vermont may have been there. it was live on tv. i said the assertion has been made that global warming that if we pass something, we're going to be able to stop this horrible thing going on right now. let me ask you for the record, live on tv in a committee hearing, if we are to pass the cap-and-trade bill, i think the cap-and-trade was the marquee bill at that time. cap-and-trade is cap-and-trade.

they're pretty much the same. if we were to pass it would it lower worldwide emissions of co2? she said no, it wouldn't. this is the obama appointed director of the environmental protection agency. no, it wouldn't because the problem isn't here. the problem isn't countries like -- i don't remember what countries she named, probably china, india, mexico, could be other countries. i'm not sure. but nonetheless she said no, it really wouldn't do that. what you're talking about is this tax on the american people of $300 billion to $400 billion. i remember and i think the senator from vermont remembers this also. way back in 1993 that was during the clinton-gore campaign or for -- the first clinton-gore administration, the clinton-gore tax increase of 1993. that was an increase of, gosh, marginal rates, death tax, capital gains and huge, the largest i believe in three decades at that time. that was a $32 billion tax

increase. this would be a tax increase ten times that great. i know people, their heads swim when they hear these 234u78s. you know what i do, in oklahoma, i get the number of families who file a tax return and then i do the math every time something comes up. in the case of that increase of the $300 billion to $400 billion, we're talking about a $3,000 tax increase for each family in my state of oklahoma that files a tax return. and so, fine. they want to do that, they can try to do it but let's say that something goodwill come from it when the director of the e.p.a. herself said no, it's going to reduce that. so the other thing, too, my friend from vermont mentioned was the -- yeah, it is kind of funny, during the remarks of my friend from vermont, my wife called me from oklahoma. and said do you think i should call in and say today it's 109 degrees? i said no, that wouldn't be a

good idea. let me say it. so it is true that now and then we have some very hot summers and the -- in the case of my state of oklahoma, it's hot almost every summer. we've had a lot of heat. however, the people who try to say, well, that's proof that global warming is taking place, are the same ones back when we had the most severe winter two years ago when my kids built the famous igloo, that was one of the most severe winters. in fact, all the -- the airports were closed at that time. it was kind of funny. i've got 20 kids and grandkids. one family is headed up by jimmy and molly rapier, she is a professor at the university of arkansas. she has a little girl we helped find in ethiopia, she was just a few days old when we found her, not very good shape and nursed her back to health and

molly my daughter who had three boys, they adopted this little ethiopian girl. she is 12, reads at college level and every year i have the african dinner in february. she has been the key note speaker of that. anyway, two years ago in february she had given her keynote speech and they have were getting ready to leave and go back home and they couldn't get out because all the airports were closed. what do you do with a family of six? you build an igloo. this wasn't just an igloo the kids built. it slept four people. i crawled in it. right next 0 the library of congress and on top of it a sign saying al gore's new home. anyway, they were talking about that single weather event at that time, or some were, not me, i know better than to do that, saying this is, you know, -- can't, global warming can't take place because we've had the most severe winters. anyway, a lot of people try to use -- and i don't claim blame them for doing it, the idea that it's hot out there,

therefore this must be global warming. i would suggest that -- let me -- oh, yeah, the one weather event. robert pelke jr. at the university of colorado is quoted, i'm quoting now, over the long run there is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change. judith curry, the chair of the georgia technology university said i've been completely unconvinced by any of the arguments that that attribute a single extreme weather event or a cluster of extreme events or statistics of extreme weather events to anthropogenic forcing. miles allen, the head of the climate dynamics group, oxford oceanic department said this is his quote now, he said when al gore said that scientists now have clear proof that climate change is directly responsible for the extreme and devastating

floods, storms and droughts, my heart sank. i was on the other day, on the show with rachel medow. she is one of my three favorite -- let me declare today i have four favorite liberals and you're one of them. you just graduated today i say to my friend from vermont. anyway, i've been on her show and i was doing it because they're on the other side of knees issues but her own guy called bill nie the science guy said one is wrong to try to abrib trib beaut anthropogenic or climate to a weather event. there is a big difference between weather and climate. you have an awful lot of people that are talking about that. my good friend from vermont mentioned that -- talked about the global cooling predictions. let me correct him in saying thaty say that, i said that quoting scientists. i try to do that. i don't want anyone to think i know that much about science because i don't.

a prominent russian scientist, absumez said we should fear a deep temperature drop, not global warming. global warming had natural origin, co2 is not guilty. the second thing, u.n. fears more global cooling comth. this is ipcc. this is the united nations, the same people that in my opinion, i do say this, attributing, trying to profit from this thing, they said when i say that let me clarify that. because when the -- the united nations comes up with something that is not in the best interests of this country, i have often said we ought to correct this and i've written letters signed by members of this senate and before that, the house when i was in the house saying you guys are going to have to -- to come to the

meeting and talk about this because that -- it's going to be a serious problem. when you talk about all these things going on, it's something that is not actually taking place. they said and i'm quoting now, this would be paleoclimate scientist bob carter, james cook from the university of australia who has testified before the committee on e.p.w., i was there, he noted on june 18 of 2007 -- quote -- "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the intergovernmental panel on climate change so that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. oddly, this is an eight-year long temperature stability has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million of atmospheric co2." again, these are scientists and i know there are scientists with

varying views but there are sure are a lot of them here. the -- just months before copenhagen thing took place -- by the way, i kind of enjoyed that trip to copenhagen because when i got over there, this -- again, this was the meeting where they invite all the people who believe in global warming and make all these countries, 192 countries, believe that if they'll go along with this, they'll get great rewards for -- for declaring that -- for doing something about -- about global warming. so anyway, i enjoyed that very much because i was able to go over and show the people what the really truth was in this country. but when andrew revkin just before copenhagen -- that was september 23 of 2009 -- "the new york times" acknowledged -- quote -- "the world leaders who met at the united nations to discuss climate change are faced with an intricate challenge, building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures

have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop for the next few years." i look at some of the things -- incidentally, i kind of wish i had known that my good friend from -- from -- was going to -- from vermont was going to be talking about this because i would have been delighted to join in and get a little bit better prepared. but i would say this, the cost. when you say you're going -- where this cost comes from, the $300 billion to $400 billion, the kyoto protocol in cap-and-trade costs, kyoto would cost -- and this is from the wharton econometrics forecast that i mentioned a moment ago. kyoto would cost 2.4 million jobs and reduce g.d.p. by 2.4% and reduce the amount expenditure on primary and secondary education.

-- reduce it by an amount of the total expenditure spent on primary and secondary education. the -- oh, yeah, let's talk about polar bears. i'm not sure my friend mentioned the polar bears so i'll skip that part. anyway, let me just say this, that it's become something that has been somewhat of a religion to talk about the -- what's happening and the world's come to an end. and i would just suggest that they're not winning that battle. in march of 2010, the gallup poll, americans ranked global warming dead last, eight out of eight environmental issues. that wasn't true ten years ago. ten years ago, it was number one, and everyone thought that and more people sit back and look at that time and study it. they decide well, maybe it's not true after all. in march of 2010, rasmussen, 72% of american voters don't believe global warming is a very serious problem. rasmussen poll at the same time. only the democrat base, 35%, now

think climate change is manmade. the warmist, global warmingist robert sokolo laments, "we are losing the argument with the public big time. i think the arguments of the activists, myself included, have lost the american middle." in a way i'm kind of pleased that it's coming back up to -- and surfacing now, and i -- i thank my good friend -- and he is my good friend. people don't understand -- they really don't understand what the senate's all about. because the house wasn't that way when i was in the house. but the senate, you can love someone and just disagree with them fill s philosophically ande out and talk about it. and i know -- i have no doubt in my mind that my friend from vermont is sincere in what he believes. and, you know, i believe he'd say that he knows that i'm sincere with what i believe. and that's what makes this a great body. but i would just say this. it is popular to say the world's coming to an end. and when we look historically, i could go back and talk about

what's happened over the years, over the centuries, really, in going through these periods of time. and it's always that the world is coming to an end. well, i'm here to announce, and i feel very good being able to do it, with the -- with 20 kids and grandkids, i'm happy to tell them all right now the world's not coming to an end and global warming, we're going through a cycle, we've gone through these cycles before, and every time we go through -- i have a -- part of my book here that i talk about the historical things that people are saying -- were saying back during that period of time i mentioned between 1895 and 1930 about how the world's coming to an end, the same thing from 1930 to the end of the -- of the war. and then, of course, getting into the little ice age. all these things that were taking place, the little ice age from 1945 -- not little ice age but this cooling period. the cooling period that started in 1945 and lasted for 30 years was the time in our history where we had the greatest

increase in carbon in the air. greatest use of -- of that. so it's just inconsistent with what reality was. so i would say to my good frie friend, i know i have no doubt in my mind that the senator from vermont is sincere in what he says. and while he and i are ranked at the -- at the extreme sides of the -- of the philosophical philosophy -- philosophical pendulum, i would say i know he's second-degree. i would say also this is a tough world we're in right now. when we're looking at the problems we have in this country, the problems we're having in the world, and the costs that it takes, i am very thankful that the -- those who are trying to pass the cap-and-trade, all the way from the kyoto treaty, which was never brought to the senate, never brought because they knew they weren't going to be able to pass it, up until -- up until the time when that end, about the -- 2009, i would say that a lot of activists were out there but i think people have now realized, just look at the

patterns. it gets cold, it gets warmer, it gets colder, it gets warmer. god is still up there and i think that will continue in the future. and i thank the -- the chair, and i yield the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i have talked for a long time on this issue so i don't want to make a great speech here and continue speaking at great length. i do want to say a few things. first of all, i want to thank senator inhofe for his kind words and let me respond in the same way. he and i philosophically and politically come from very, very different places. i have never doubted for one moment the honesty or the sincerity from the senator from oklahoma. he is saying what he believes. he has the courage to get up here and say it and i appreciate that. we are good friends and i hope we will continue to be good friends. and i thank, frankly -- and i think, frankly, it does the senate and it does this country good when people here, very differences of opinion on

an issue that i consider to be of enormous consequence. so what i would say to my friend, i hope, in fact, this is the beginning of a resuffragencf discussion about this issue, and i look forward to engaging in that discussion with my friend from oklahoma. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

mr. sanders: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. franken: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. officer withouthe presiding offt objection. the clerk will report the following nomination. the clerk: nomination: robertette bacharach of oklahoma to be united states circuit judge.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be one hour of debate equally divide i had and controlled in the usual form. mr. franken: mr. president? i ask that all time of the quorum be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. franken: i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. grassley: mr. president, i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. officer without objection, so ordered. mr. grassley: for the last few weeks, it's been a routine practice here in the senate that we vote on consensus district court nominees most mondays. we've done so quite a number of times this congress and we could have done so again tonight. instead shall the majority leader has decided to pursue another course. rather than confirm what would have been the 155th judge tonight, the majority will instead engage in political activity, make no mistake, it's pure and simple, a political posturing situation and it is unfortunate.

it is well-known that the practice and tradition of the national is to stop confirming circuit nominees in the closing months of a presidential election year. that is what we have done during the last number of presidential election years. i think that started in 1980, i believe. so that would be 20-32 years. in fact, today is july 30. if you go back, that number of years to find a presidential election year when we approved a circuit court judge this late. of course the rationale has been this that this close to an election, whoever wins that election should be the win one to pick these lifetime nominees who will run our judiciary system. now, it is true that there were some votes in relation to circuit nominations in july during the last two election years. the only problem, of course, is

that those were cloture votes on outstanding nominees the democrats were filibustering. for example, in july 2004 -- remember, that's a presidential election year -- cloture votes were held on four outstanding circuit nominees the democrats were filibustering. those included estrada, nominated to the d.c. circuit; richard griffin, nominated to the circuit court; david m mckague, nominated to the sixth circuit, and harold siyed, also nominated to the sixth circuit. i would note at the time the sixth circuit alone had a 25% vacancy rate, and every one of those vacancies were designated as judicial emergencies. that, of course, didn't matter to the other side, despite the

fact that the sixth circuit was in dire straits, the other side filibustered every one of those nominees. i don't recall too much concern from my friends on the other side of the aisle about the need to confirm those judges, even considering the fact that they were judicial emergencies. and now when our side seeks to enforce the rule the other side helps to create and perfect, all we hear are complaints. so, mr. president, if ever there was an example of crocodile tears, this is it. in 2008, the other side was at it again. once again they closed up shop on circuit nominations in june. this time it was the fourth circuit that was in dire straits. despite the fact that the fourth circuit had a 25% vacancy, the

democrats refused to process four outstanding consensus nominees. those nominees included judge robert conrad even though he had already been confirmed unanimously as a u.s. attorney and also as a district court judge. democrats refused to process judge glenn conrad, even though he had strong bipartisan home state support. steve mathews also had strong home state support, yet the democrats in the committee refused to even give him a vote. to show you the incredible lengths that the democrats were willing to go, they even tried to justify blocking the nomination of u.s. attorney rod rosenstein to the fourth circuit by claiming that he was doing such a great job as u.s. attorney that he -- that it would be wrong to promote him to a judgeship. by refusing to give these nominees a vote in committee, the democrats engaged in what

amounted to a pocket filibuster of all four of these candidates for the fourth circuit. and again, this was at a time when the fourth circuit vacancy rate was over 25%, similar to the sixth circuit vacancy rate that i just talked about in the previous presidential election year of 2004. but that didn't matter to the other side. in 2008, just like in 2004, they simply refused to process any more circuit nominees after june. at the end of the day, based on any fair and objective metric, the suggestion that we today are operating any differently than the democrats did in 2004 and 2008 is simply without merit. democrats stalled and blocked numerous highly qualified circuit nominees during those presidential election years,

including even nominees with bipartisan support. the democratic leadership has invoked repeatedly what has been called the thurmond rule to justify stalling nominees even those with bipartisan support. and now they don't want us to play by the same set of rules. the democratic leadership doesn't want us to enforce the rule that they helped establish. so let me quote from a c.r.s. report, congressional research service, report on this subject -- quote -- "the senator who most frequently has asserted the existence of a thurmond rule has been the current chairman of the judiciary committee." the c.r.s. report noted that on march 7, 2008, the chairman recalled -- quote -- "when president reagan was running for president and senator thurmond,

then in the republican minority, as ranking member of the judiciary committee instituted a policy to stall president carter's nominations, that policy known as the thurmond rule was put in when the republicans were in the minority. it is a rule that we will still follow and that it will take effect very soon. " -- end of quote. the "we" there meaning it is a rule that, we, the democrat majority still follow. again, this was in march of that presidential election year, not june or july. so that rule was very carefully laid out march 7, 2008, that they didn't intend to prove any nominees after that point.

c.r.s. went on to note the strong support the majority leader expressed for the so-called thurmond rule. according to c.r.s. -- quote -- "senator harry reid has expressed agreement with senator leahy about the existence of a thurmond rule. in april 10, 2008 floor remarks, senator reid said 'in a presidential election year, it is always very tough for judges. that is the way it has been for a long time, and that is why we have the thurmond rule and other such rules.' that "we" once again refers to why we the democrats have the rule. five days later the majority leader said -- quote -- ," y know, there is a thurmond doctrine that says after june, we will have to take a real close look at judges in a presidential election year." these quotes indicate not only

the expectation, but in fact a support for slowing down and cutting off the confirmation of judges in a presidential election year. senate republicans are invoking this practice in a more narrow fashion. and after more confirmations than democrats did in the past. setting aside the so-called leahy-thurmond rule by any objective measure, this president has been treated fairly and consistent with past senate practices. for example, with regard to the total number of confirmations, this president is well ahead of his predecessor, president bush. we have confirmed 154 of this president's district and circuit nominations. we have also confirmed two supreme court nominations during president obama's first term. when supreme court nominations are pending in the committee, all other nominations -- work on

nominations is put on hold. the last time the senate confirmed two supreme court nominees was during president bush's second term. and during that term the senate confirmed a total of only 119 district and circuit court nominees. so let me put it yet another way. under similar circumstances, we have confirmed 35 more district and circuit nominees for president obama than we did for president bush. so you can understand why we get a little bit irritated on this side of the aisle when we keep being pushed by the other side that somehow we are not treating this administration as fairly as they treated president bush. or just doing the job and doing it in the same way. during the last presidential election 2008, the senate confirmed a total of 28

judges -- 24 district and 4 circuit. this presidential election, we have already exceeded those numbers, having confirmed a total of 32 judges. so those who say that this president is being treated differently either failed to recognize history or want to ignore the facts or both. while this president has not been treated differently than previous presidents, he certainly has based differently with regard to nominations. he has been slow to send nominees to the floor, and he abuses his recess appointment authority. if president obama has gotten as many confirmations as he could have, it is because -- if president obama hasn't gotten as many confirmations as he could have, it is because he has been slow in nominating and he has abused his recess appointment power. let me take just a moment to discuss how slow the president

has been with his nominations. when president obama took office, there were 59 judicial vacancies. one year later, at the beginning of 2008, there were only 43 vacancies. so during the last year of president obama's second term when the democrats controlled the senate and during a time when they refused to process four nominees for the fourth circuit, they allowed the vacancy rate to increase by more than 37%. by mid-march 2009, when the first obama judicial nominations were sent to the senate, there were 70 judicial vacancies. over the next three months only five more circuit nominations were sent to the senate. by the end of june when the senate received its first district nomination, there were 80 vacancies accumulated by that

time. the failure or delay on so many nominations for vacancies has been the practice of this administration and it system continues to today. by the end of 2009 there were 100 vacancies with only 20 nominees. in december of 2010, more than half of the 108 vacancies had no nominees. at the beginning of this year only 36 nominees were pending for 82 vacancies. and it continues to this day that more than half of the 76 vacancies have no nominees. i just want to remind my colleagues that all of this begins with the white house. so if someone wants to complain about judicial vacancies, they should mail those complaints to 1600 pennsylvania avenue. or another way to put it, the senate cannot act on nominees that aren't sent up here from the house -- from the white house for us to act upon.

now, i also mentioned that the president could have had a few more district court nominees at the end of the last congress. our side offered to confirm quite a number of district nominees who were on the executive calendar if -- and that's a big if -- the president would provide his assurances that he wouldn't bypass the senate with recess appointments. the president refused to provide those assurances, and we found out why a couple weeks later when the president unconstitutionally bypassed the senate. i want everyone to understand this phenomenon. at the end of last congress we offered to confirm quite a few district court nominees, but the president wouldn't say yes for an answer. rather than choosing a path that led to more progress and greater number of confirmations, the president chose the path to more

confrontation and fewer nominations. the same happened last week. once again our side offered to confirm an addition court nominee, but wednesday again the other side refused to take yes for an answer. rather than choosing the path that led to cooperation on additional confirmation, the other side chose more confrontation and fewer confirmations. the other side chose confrontation and fewer nominations. they would rather waste precious time on a vote to nowhere than spend the little time we have left on getting more nominations done. so here we are again engaged in this political theater. so i'm here to urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture and uphold the leahy thurmond rule. i yield the floor and i suggest

the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: