>> we will have opening statements limited to five minutes each followed by introduction and swearing in of witnesses followed by testimony of witnesses. i know that a ranking member sessions will be joining us late. i would like to thank him and members of the subcommittee in our witnesses for being here

today to assess faugh. -- the environmental protection agency. all of them solve contentious environmental problems during their ten years working for republican presidents. now we are banding together to bring attention to the biggest and are meant to travel climate change paper. in a new york times op-ed written last year that i would like to enter into the record without objection, these former administrator stated, we have a message that transcends political affiliation. the united states must move now on the substantive steps to curb climate change they are for in a

large choir of voices. the climate declaration as signed by more than 750 companies, including name place american brands like ebay, levi, mars, nike, starbucks, the declaration states, in part, we can not risk our kids' futures on the false hope that the vast majority of scientists are wrong leading is what we have always done, and by working together regardless of politics, we will do it again. i will enter a copy of that into the record without objection. national defense leaders have sounded the alarm that climate change is a serious national security threat. there are also scientists, an outdoorsman, faith leaders,

state and local officials, and countless others demanding action. i understand that many of my colleagues are from states that depend upon fossil fuel and have fossil fuel economy, and they want to protect jobs in those industries. i did that, and it is proper, but i also ask that they look at the other side of the ledger, the side that of tax states like ryland. our side includes costs slight damage to coastal homes, infrastructure, businesses with. it for this dying from people infestation and destroyed by unprecedented wildfire seasons,

farms ravaged by worsened strata and flooding. our side of the ledger accounts, too. do not pretend that we don't exist. recently, the epa uses clean act authority established by congress and the firm by the supreme court to propose carbon pollution standards for the country's existing power plants. as proposed, the rule will reduce carbon pollution opera writing as much as $93 billion in public benefit per year by 2030. as you can see from this chart, a recent poll found that 70 percent of the public supports federal standards to limit greenhouse gas pollution. i am not sure if it is clear, but the rate so far as republicans who overwhelmingly support power plant regulation. ..

according to measurements sea level rises up 5 inches along the alabama coast between 1966 and 2006. that is the five branches of ocean in mobile bay during storms.

in florida ground zero climate change. in october 2000 post streets and homes in hendrix isle of florida were flooded but not because of the storm. it all happened on a beautiful sunny day. it was just extreme high tides pushed into the town by sea level rise. climate change is a challenge. we have a solemn duty to solve. again i think the witnesses for joining us and the committee has much to learn from a collective experience of the former administrators as we address this american challenge and i went over by minnesota senators bidder will have annexed a minute. >> thank you mr. chairman enforcer mr. chairman enforcer that could make a nass consent requests we have at least eight empty chairs in the ram. there are plenty of folks outside many of whom have traveled a long distance to be here. we also have standing room so i would just like to make it unanimous consent request that a least 10 or 12 more folks be let in for this important discussion. >> i would be happy to allow

folks to be let in that their empty chairs are that are reserved for anyone. >> let me clarify if folks on here think the reserve sign should -. >> one of your witnesses. he will have staff with him. >> we will keep it for him. >> i want to be polite to your witness. >> i think that's permission for 10 other folks to come in. thank you. i look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses here today certainly including dr. daniel bodkin dr. joseph mason and the honorable luther strange. the signs of economic consequences and legal underpinnings of the epa's actions to advance the president's climate action plan or topics the administration does not want to discuss in detail however their unilateral actions will increase america's electricity bills, decrease families disposable income and result in real job losses for

little or no measurable impact on our ever-changing economy. on june 2 epa proposing a prisoner world targeting her country's electricity system read using a provision in the clean air act that has only been used five times in 40 years epa requires states to set performance standards that apply to the entire electricity system mandating renewable energy and rationing energy on which families and businesses rely. epa argues this rule is a gift to provide states with the flexibility. in reality though that is a complete red herring. states are first forced into achieving questionable reduction targets from a limited menu of economically damaging and legally questionable options. states are left little choice but to join or create regional cap-and-trade programs which achieves the administrations goal of making sure we all pay

more for energy. electricity prices right now in the regional greenhouse gas emissions states and california are 45% higher than in my home state of louisiana. 56% of louisiana families already, already at that lower rate spent an average of 21% of their after-tax income on energy. they simply cannot afford the higher electricity bills that one equitably result from this rule. the rule of the bill is climate change mitigation with america leading the way. unfortunately anyone who has actually read the 645 page rule finds it has no material effect on global average temperature or sea level rise. the majority of the benefits touted by epa come from double accounting reductions of other missions regulated through other measures. while this administration expects other governments to consider the global consequences

of their greenhouse gas emissions when regulated there is absolutely no reason to presume the world's biggest emitters willful ball was down this path of economic destruction. in fact much of the world is changing course. their friends in europe have adopted similar carbon constraining framework several years ago filled with government mandates and cronyism and were reported with harsh economic pain. in an effort to recover germany is lifting its ban on fracking and increasing use of coal. >> is abandoning the handouts that supported its renewable energy. instead of embracing our domestic energy resources and the bright economic light they provide and are otherwise poor economy this climate action plan moves us beyond coal and beyond natural gas with serious negative consequences.

today the american electricity system provides affordable reliable seven days a week 365 days a year families schools hospitals and businesses. the existing source rule as proposed will increase costs to all consumers significantly and as always that especially hits the poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes for no measurable effect on climate change. in reality this rule is essentially a federal takeover of the american electricity system. is everyone here really comfortable with the epa being fully completely responsible for all of those details of our electricity system? the only thing missing from the strategy is a promise from the president, if you like your affordable energy you can keep your affordable energy. we like it and they want to keep it. this rule will destroy it. thank you mr. chairman.

>> thank you senator vitter and i will turn out to the wonderful chairman of the environment and public works committee. i'm very honored to have you here today a great leader in this effort barbara boxer. thank you senator and thanks to you we are joined by an extraordinary panel and i think all of you for being here. we are looking at administrators of the epa and who were appointed by republican presidents the honorable william ruckelshaus served under president nixon and then again under president reagan. the honorable lee thomas served under president reagan. the honorable william reilly served under president george w. bush, h.w. bush and the honorable christine todd whitman served under george w. bush so i am proud that her landmark environment allows were created with an overwhelming bipartisan consensus and it saddens me more than i can ever express in words that protecting the environment at this federal level has become

an out and out war come a partisan issue. it shouldn't be that way. it wasn't when i started. in 1970 the clean air act passes senate by a vote of 73-0 pass by the house 375-1 signed by president nixon. in 1990 revisions to the clean air act passed the senate by a vote of 89-11 and by 401-20 house and signed into law by president george w. bush but in the last congress the republicans sent us over 90 antique clean-air writers and they are planning to do it now in backrooms. they are working on plans to overturn president obama's action plan to cut back on carbon pollution. we all should know that we need to take action to do smart -- reduce carbon pollution. 97% of scientists believe it is

leading to dangerous climate change that threatens their families. to say we can't have an opinion as some of my republican colleagues have done because they are not scientists and you heard them say it. speaker boehner said it. he said i'm not a scientist. i can't say whether there is climate change. all the more reason to listen to a scientist if you are not a scientist. i know we all have health problems in our families in right here in the senate. when doctors tell us we need a heart bypass or cancer treatment we have listen. we don't just say while just say while i'm on a doctor and i'm not going to listen. the four former epa administrators with us today will testify about the need to control carbon pollution to avoid the most calamitous impacts of climate change such as rising sea levels dangers heatwaves, economic disruption. the american people certainly understand this threat. you saw the pool. it's extraordinary. democrats, republicans, independents matter support the

president's plan. as someone with a 95% labor record i want to talk a minute about jobs and i want to welcome people here who work with their hands because i respect the work that you do. but i want to say two things now. one i want to put in the record the number of jobs under george w. bush and the coal industry and the number of jobs under president obama in the coal industry. more jobs under president obama so there's a lot of talk around here but a lot of times we don't get the facts so i want to put this in the record with your permission. i also want to say that i lived through all this fear-mongering about jobs. between 1970 and 2000 and we passed the clean air act amendment people were shouting, you are a job killer, you are a job killer. what have been? air pollution dropped 60% saving our families help while the u.s. gross domestic product grew 21

212%. today private sector jobs increased by 80% during that same period so listen these scare tactics, they been tried before and they are just not real. look in my state and you see the number of jobs that have been created as we move to clean energy. it's very encouraging. power plants account for 40% of all carbon pollution released into the air and right now there are no limits to the amount of pollution that can be released in carbon pollution from most power plants. the president's plan -- this is what it will do. it will avoid up to 6600 premature deaths, 150,000 asthma attacks, 3300 heart attacks, 2800 hospital admissions in 490,000 no-space of schools. i ask you congress when you go home and use the tickets all the time asked them how many have

asthma or know someone with asthma. half the kids will raise their hands. why would you attack a plan that will avoid so many heart attacks, asthma tax? 150,000 asthma attacks. it is in america's dna to turn a problem into an opportunity. let's do it because i will tell you like many other jobs you cannot outsource putting a solar roof on a home. you cannot outsource putting a wind turbine into place and i want to thank senator whitehouse for his extraordinary leadership. >> i am now pleased to recognize my friend from wyoming senator brosseau. >> thank you is a chairman and as you know i'm from wyoming the most beautiful state in the nation and i want to keep it that way. i believe we have and can have a healthy environment and a healthy economy at the same time. we need to do that by striking the right balance between the

two. i believe it's irresponsible to impose costly regulations without having real environmental benefits. the cost of these climate change regulations on families communities are very real. the benefits are ill-defined, they are unknown and simply negligible. president obama's new climate regulations were at the heart of his climate action plan will harm our fragile american economy and thousands of people will lose their jobs. it will raise electricity prices threaten electricity reliability and undermined america's global competitiveness. higher energy costs will hurt low-income families with fixed income seniors the most leaving them with less to spend on food housing health care and other basic necessities. thousands of unemployed in their families will suffer many health impacts as a result of chronic unemployment electricity prices and hospital visits will necessarily skyrocket.

is it worth subjecting men in our country true granite -- dramatically lower-quality of health with a plan to essentially nationalize our electricity grid quest based on the facts i would say absolutely not. we have been told by the u.n. and the epa that climate change will cause serious impacts across the globe. to address this the president put forward his climate action plan. his plan is to pull the first to have the u.s. nationalize our electricity crude justice he is try to nationalize our health care system. national i thing our electricity grid means taking decision-making about policy at the hands of states out of the hands hands of the committees and putting it in the hands of washington bureaucrats. this will occur as epa rejects in whole or in part state energy plans for reducing carbon emissions and imposing their own federal plans under the epa's proposed regulations for existing coal-fired power plants. this will happen at a cost of

thousands of jobs and the public's health and well-being. the second part of the present plan is to have us believe that he can arrive in paris in 2015 at the u.n. climate change conference and convince the world to follow his lead. the whole plan hinges on president obama's foreign-policy prowess. his foreign-policy record is a series of empty threats, pivots, who resets, miscalculations and lead from behind failures in places like syria, russia, iran, libya and now iraq. after all those missteps a person expects americans to believe in 2015 he can draw a red line at the schaum shall essay and demand that china and india stop with fossil fuels. even if the person was able to reach an agreement like the kyoto treaty of the 1990s it was still have to be ratified by

the senate. that treaty overwhelmingly failed. the president can deliver in paris and subsequently in a pet -- senate we will be left with his domestic climate action plan. america has been told by the epa and the u.n. that climate change will cause serious impacts of the planet years into the future. the president's domestic climate action plan that they champion cannot on its own prevents these impacts from happening. according to her own u.s. secretary of state john kerry in a column he wrote in the financial times june 30 stated even as we strive to do better we recognize that no country can solve this problem alone. even if the u.s. somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions secretary kerry says it would not be enough. the rest of the world is doing too much carbon pollution.

that means the president's climate action plan on its own doesn't reduce global temperatures or prevent any of the serious impacts predicted by the u.n. or the epa. can't even make a dent. although while seniors on fixed income families and children suffer higher electricity bills, joblessness and poor health. this is all paid -- pain and little game with what the president is proposing. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator brosseau -- barrasso. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. thank you for your tireless efforts on this issue in organizing this very important hearing today. let me begin by expressing and i say this to somebody who may have the highest prolabor fat fate -- voting record in the united states congress. i delight in hearing some of my

friends express on the other side their interest about the needs of low-income people and working people and senior citizens but i would remind everybody many of these same people are folks who have fought to cut social security, medicare, medicaid, oppose raising the minimum wage opposed the jobs program we need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and put millions of people back to work, oppose lowering college debts for many struggling students in this country. the issue that we are dealing with today is of today is that the norm is important and what it really comes down to is whether as a nation the most powerful nation on earth we are going to listen to the science. when we build weapons systems that cost millions of dollars we take it for granted that the engineers know what they are talking about. when we invest in cancer

research through the national institute of health we examine believe that the doctors and scientists know what they are talking about but right now we are in a very strange moment in american history and that is while traditionally there are differences of opinion on labor issues, on health care issues, that's what happens year after year we are now at a strange moment and then as we have virtually an entire political party status rejecting basic science and the science is no longer in doubt. some 97% of scientists who have written in peer-reviewed journals say the following. climate change is real. it is significantly caused by human activity. it is already causing devastating problems in our country throughout the world. in arizona they are worrying about how phoenix and other cities are going to get water because of the terrible drought

they have seen in the southwest. australia is burning up. we have had extreme weather disturbances major storms that have cost us billions of dollars. sea levels are rising which may flood among other cities the great city of new orleans, new york city, boston but for some strange reason why we agree on science in almost every area of our life in this area we have a party that says no, climate change is not real. it is maybe a hoax. if something concocted by al gore or hollywood. i'm very proud that today and i want to thank very much the panels who are here especially the former epa ministry are appointed by republicans. i thank you so much for being here because while we can disagree on a lot of issues we should not disagree on what scientists tell us. we should not disagree when

scientists tell us we have that window of opportunity, 10 or 15 years, to turn this thing around to lead the world. sure john kerry said the rest of the world has got to go forward. he is right that someone has to lead. this country leads him by the way when we lead and transform our energy system away from fossil fuel we create millions of jobs through weatherization, their energy efficiency, through wind solar geothermal and other technologies that are out there so i very much want to thank the former republican administrators for coming here to washington to say what i think is true that intelligent republicans all over this country and i'm not a republican in my views are very different but on this issue we can at least respect science. we can respect the planet, we can transform our energy system and most importantly at the end of the day we have a moral responsibility for our children

and grandchildren so 30 years from now they can look us in the eye and they said the scientists were telling you it was going on why didn't you do something. we have got to do something and i thank you very much. >> thank you senator sanders. senator inhofe. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for holding this hearing. i think it's important for us to conduct oversight. we need to be hearing from epa and those affected by the role which includes utilities and consumers the manufactures the minors and others. we need the records were put the whole picture of this rule and we need to hear from experts on electricity reliability like ferc and nerc. during his time in office personnel bomb has pursued a systematic strategy for using the government to take over major sectors of the economy starting with obamacare and

nationalize the health care system and onto dodd-frank and making bank bailouts a permanent fixture in american society. now we have the first round of the global warming regulations which would nationalize the electricity market and force americans to live out the presidents green dream. we don't have to look any further than obama is model germany to see where that path leads her to think senator vitter covered this well. the fact that they are trying to get out from under them as they are in and here we have germany who they are cost of power has doubled and is now triple what it is here in the united states off because of the course the president is trying to put us on. administration may claim that this is unlikely that the united states because we have an abundance of cheap domestic resource natural gas and while that is true i am not naïve enough to believe that the administration would stop with coal.

the energy secretary recently said natural gas power plants will soon lead carbon sequestration technology to comply with global warming rules. that would put them out of business and i would like to suggest to the group that's here it's not just cool, its oil, gas, coal and even nuclear that's under attack. first up on the electricity take over welfare force americans to use less electricity at higher prices. the motive for this agenda is clear. tom stier and i'm going to assess the made a part of that record. tom stier is a california millionaire dennis promised the $100 million into the midterm elections to help senate democrats get elected if they make global warming and national issue. this is not me saying this. this is tom stier. i don't have $180 million to give away. he doesn't this means enough to him and i do us this be made a

part of the record. >> reserving the right to object. reserving the right to object. >> that's are right. >> i would like to enter into the record the fact that koch brothers representing the fossil fuel industry will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this campaign. >> by the way be the timer off for a minute. at the greatest respect for senator sanders. we are totally different on her philosophies and i understand that but we have respect for each other and we have honest debates and this is just one of them but i think it's very important to keep in mind there's a guy that's out there. >> the timer is back on and both will be answered into the record. >> very good, thank you. so anyway now we have had the global warming slumber parties on the senate floor that the reason guys like tom's tire have

to go to such lengths to make a political issue is because the american people don't want anything to do with it. poll after poll shows more americans learn about the impact of greenhouse gas regulations that the less they care. a gallup poll that just came out used to list global warming is number one and number two and you remember ms.-- when you're in a job. the most important issue is the economy. we know previously the previous versions of cap-and-trade are estimated to cost between three and $400 billion figure which amounts to $3000 for every family that files a federal tax return and we have to keep in mind even if this were right even if they were able to do this and passes it would not reduce as one of the member said

a minute ago, would not reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. lisa jackson the director of the pa appointed by barack obama made that statement. she said it would not reduce. the problem is in china, india mexico and other places so the $3000 per family would be something that would not achieve the benefits that the other side seem to think of it. this version is going to have a semi-intact. the chamber of commerce estimated one final construction of the rule would cost $51 billion in lost gdp each year. heritage foundation estimated it would decrease household income by $1200 a year. these are the facts that they are not talking about the points from the other side. let's keep in mind also they are trying to do this or regulation that obama is because he couldn't do it through legislation. we have had countless bills introduced to do the very same

thing for legislation. each time they are defeated by a larger margin and so i think if for no other reason it's been rejected by the house and the senate. it's very significant and how should we through regulation try to do something that elected members of this body have rejected over and over again? thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator inhofe and we turn now to senator cardin. >> thank you senator whitehouse. i thank you for your extraordinary leadership on this issue. you have been incredibly helpful to this country in the leadership that you have taken particularly your comments before the united states senate. i first want to start by thanking our panelist today for what you have done to improve the public health or the people of this nation. you have put public health first and that is what congress intended when it passed the clean air act and the clean water act. it was done by bipartisan votes.

the clean air act was enacted in 1970 with bipartisan support by members of congress, house and the senate and signed into law by president nixon. so you have given us the bipartisan and nonpartisan foundation for us to have clean water, clean air and now we need to move forward in that tradition and unfortunately we have not. and i hope that we can get back to the same type of spirit that inspired you to use your talent at the epa as we move forward to advancing the public health of the people of this country. seven years ago when i was first elected to the senate would have bipartisan members in the senate working together on climate change legislation. i hope we can get back to that day to get that bipartisan coalition together. quite frankly the solution is one in which we will answer every members concerns or eds,

many of us, most of us are concerned about the environmental public health threat that climate change poses. i have the honor of representing the state of maryland and their greatest natural resources of the chesapeake bay and they are doing a lot. we have asked our farmers to do a lot and our municipal governments have done a lot. we have worked together in the public and private sector but a large part of a problem deals with climate change, rising sea levels the loss of seagrasses and therefore climate change effects quality of life for the people of maryland. the scientific information in our apartment is pretty clear and public health as we have pointed out. 97% of the scientific documents that have been published indicate that we have a serious threat that we need to do something about and take action. by way of example if i went to a

doctor and 97% of the opinion was that i had pneumonia and unless i took certain action i was risking my health, i would take action as would every person in this country. so it is clear that the overwhelming evidence is that we need to take action in order to reserve the public health not just of america but globally and the future health of our climate. but the good news here we don't really have to get into the debate with the other 3% because the solution to the problem of climate change not only leaves a cleaner environment and a safer circumstance for global climate, it also helps our economy. i just point to the maryland experience mr. chairman. we passed some of the toughest environmental laws for power plants and we created jobs. we can say the number of jobs that were created. clean energy creates more jobs

than the fossil fuel industry so for those who are saying well maybe this is untrue we certainly want to do it for economic growth in this country. it also helps us with national security. you talk about that and we have made progress and we are now more energy secure than we were a few years ago because we have invested in cleaner energy sources to help support america's security, economy and our environment. i can point also to the fact that from our security point of view many of our facilities, military for silagy's are located off the coast. maryland we are proud of the naval academy and the pax river indian head. all those affected by increased sea level increases so it's in our national security interest to do this. the bottom line is the united states needs to exercise leadership. personal palm is doing that on his climate action agenda and by regulating what power plants are

doing. we have seen our president provide the leadership that has made a huge difference. it's now time for congress to step up and join the president so that america can be a leader in dealing with this global problem that affects the security of our country and affects the future of our country. >> thank you senator cardin. artist and was ranking member in our friend senator sessions has arrived that he has allowed us to keep the existing order so i will recognize senator boozman. >> thank you blood very much m mr. chairman. one topic that we are hearing a lot about today is the 97% consensus on climate change. it's important to ask where is 97% number come from and what does that mean? many scientists question the level of certainty behind the specific climate change scenarios.

others have shown gaps in our knowledge of climate sensitivity. others have asked questions version durability of climate models and a scientist you raise any of these issues who would still be counted as the 97%. too often anybody who raises the question or disagrees with the left-wing's political position is called out as opposing views held by 97% of the published climate scientists as we are hearing today. this is clearly not true so again what does this number mean? the statistic comes from a 2013 scientific review of scientific literature published between 1991 and 2011. this review found among extracts on anthropogenic global warming 97.1% endorse the senate's position that humans are causing global warming so basically if anyone who agrees that's a

pretty broad definition. policymakers who disagreed with government left-wing climate policies might still actually agree that the 97% consensus. scientists who question important elements of climate science are included in the number. for example last year this committee received testimony from a climatologist to give you an idea of where he stands. dr. smith published a book entitled the great global warming blender how global warming bad science pandering politicians in bad science. given his outspoken position on climate challenge dr. spencer's comments on the 97% statistics are not with ap he testified in a quote the fact that it believably some of the recent warming is human caused claim to

support the global warming consensus. the 97% study is innocuous and probably includes all of that global warming skeptics and noaa who are actively working in the field and quote. in short the 97% statistic is a misleading tactic used to marginalize people who are concerned about hard-working americans into all pain no gain energy of policies that for country and it won't change the global climate. i'm not a scientist but i'm enough, tristan i spent much of my life working with the scientific community. i was a zoology major and i said before there is nothing scientific about discrediting people who present conflicting evidence and ask reasonable questions. politicians are science referees cutting off debate when it suits one side and no one has a

monopoly on the facts. the bottom line is this. we must ask whether these upon an assertion policies are worth lost jobs lower take-home pay higher gas and electricity prices higher food prices and so on. the person once said his climate policies would make the cost of electricity necessarily skyrocket and i believe it. let's remember the pain will last for decades and that falls hardest on low-income families while driving our industries hurting american workers and creating factories that in a far more than we would. i believe in american leadership that we are fooling ourselves if we believe that china russia indio vietnam etc. etc. are going to follow the presence lead-in shutdown of power plants. with that i think are witnesses for being here and look forward to your testimony. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator boozman and i will certain send -- turn to senator gillibrand.

>> thank you on the need to act for climate change. and really should listen to continue to raise the urgency of this issue. madam chairman i'm deeply grateful for your leadership and your continued focus on how important this is for families in our country. climate change is real. it is here in humans have a role to play in it. that much is clear and while that might be easy for some to continue to deny the existence of climate change we simply don't have that luxury in new york. in my state we are seeing the effects of a changing climate every single day. two and half years ago superstorm sandy devastated our coastal newark as well as new jersey connecticut rhode island and its effects were long felt on the entire coast. that was just two years after two other devastating storms, hurricane irene and tropical storm league which cut a path of destruction across the northeast.

these major storms in new york over a two-year. not. that is a huge issue that we have to face. the storm of the century is simply becoming the storm of the year and it's not just the storms themselves that are causing distraction. >> levels rise and are threatening greater storm surge effects meaning homes that were thought to be safe for centuries are now at great risk of flooding. those that deny climate change is real often talk about the potential costs of reducing carbon emissions but we must pay those costs -- way those costs against the costs of inaction. in action on climate change will cost the federal government and our taxpayers billions and billions and billions of dolla dollars. we have already seen superstorm sandy costs more than $60 billion. in action on climate change also cost homeowners in coastal

communities through flood insurance premiums have gone up the sea levels rising causing greater flooding. famous flood maps released a year ago shows -- 100 year floodplain. that's 45%. all of new york city is now having to be contemplated. it also has real cost to my state and the people who lived there when the storm strike. rebuilding a home or a business is very expensive. suffering the loss of a child or family member because of a sto storm, you don't recover from it. these are real cost. these half insurmountable losses and effects of nafta realized that if the effect of the change in our climate. we have to address this issue head-on. if we addressed the issue

head-on we will save lives. we will lower costs. we will protect homes and communities and we will protect businesses. we also know that for the economy when we look to reducing our carbon emissions we also gain greater innovation and business opportunity in clean energy. in fact the recent report by the environment of the northeast showed that states that do participate in regional greenhouse gas initiative have seen carbon pollution reduced by 18% and their economies have actually grown a 8.8%. the report also showed since the launch of rggi new york's electricity prices have gone down by 6%. so i am confident that we are some of greatest entrepreneurs and innovators in the world can solve this problem and do it in a way that can save all-americans costs. the real and clear issue with

regard to climate change is that it's a threat that we have to take seriously as a nation. we can't wait for other countries who are even bigger polluters to take leadership. we can't wait for them to go first. we have to leave. it's who we are. we as americans are always in the forefront of real reform and change and great innovation. thank you senator senator whitehouse again to holding this hearing. it is so important for my state and our country. it's a great opportunity for us to show new creation of jobs and new innovation and i think we need to take it head-on. >> thank you senator gillibrand and i now turn to her distinguished ranking member senator sessions. >> thank you senator whitehouse. you have given a lot of time and effort to these issues. i am pleased to have our guests with us former epa administrators. we have indeed made a lot of

progress in our country since the environmental protection agency was started by mr. ruckelshaus several years ago and we appreciate your leadership in that regard. it's great to have attorney general luther strange my able successor as attorney general of the state of alabama and in charge of environmental responsibilities for the state in dr. mason is great to have you and it's great to have you with us and it will be a great hearing today. we have had agreement on a number of issues that we have to celebrate. we have agreement at one point i thought that we would expand nuclear power. it's no co2 and other pollutants in the atmosphere that we are not making much progress they are. they have four plants in the last two years due to close in 2019 and only two are under construction. how do we get clean energy at a

reasonable cost and with that on more nuclear-powered seems to me. so i would say we have had agreement on ethanol although i wonder now whether my votes are ideas were as positive as we got at the time on ethanol. people disagree on the wisdom of ethanol. we have had some good legislation and maybe some overreaching but some good legislation on efficiency. we can agree on how to make our automobiles and plants in buildings more energy-efficient. but we are concerned about her dramatic economic costs, the cost that would fall on the backs of many people sitting in our audience today a huge portion of our energy, coal and other production of energy that will be adversely impacted by

the presence regulations. we have to ask some tough questions about that and i think we will. it's been mentioned that we have had some storms. i would note that hurricane sandy was not a hurricane. by the time it hit sure it was a tropical storm. we are not seeing injuries as with hurricanes. in fact it's been 3100 days since we have had a category 3 hurricane in america. that is a remarkable time in maybe one of the longest ever in the ipcc's assessment report released last year said quote current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century. we don't have more jobs and they don't have more floods according to the data he is valuing so i

say it's right and just that members that represent the people of the united states and the workers of the united states and the people who pay electricity bills and pay their gas bills to go to work every day we represent them to back and we have to ask ourselves are we doing something to this economy that's not good for us and how can we make positive gains together without damaging our economy? i would note just for the record here and my colleagues need to know that our economy is struggling. we are not doing well. since 2009 median household income has fallen by 2000 $300. since 2009, 7.2 million people have left the workforce both in the first quarter of this year was negative 1% and one out of every six men 25 to 54 is not

working today. these are statistics that ought to cause us concern. we have found that many of the regulations are ineffective. united states action which has been improving with co2 emissions and we are containing the growth of co2 more than most countries in the world will be insignificant in the total world impact. so i hope that this committee hearing will be positive and we can find some common ground and we can work together. co2 is not the kind of pollutants and ms. whitman and i was going to say gentlemen but that's not correct, that you thought the particulates the mercury. co2 is not the same kind of pollutant.

it's just not a man to be careful that we don't hammer this economy attempting to achieve something we have little ability to achieve. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator sessions and for a final statement senator booker of new jersey. >> i appreciate this opportunity and i want to thank ranking member sessions and chairman whitehouse. want to particularly thank you are having the right kind of panel assembled here which are republican appointed presidentially appointed epa leaders including my former governor who i'm proud and happy to see today. i hope you got myself a message last night that i'm extraordinarily pleased because it says clearly that this is not a left-right issue. this is not an issue of politics. this is an issue of facts and to have republican presidentially appointed epa heads come out as they did in their joint editorial and say clearly we have a problem and what frustrates me to no end is that

this is nothing new. when people tell the truth of environmental problems that we have the capacity to do something about and to hear the same story over and over again. i would like to chairman whitehouse put this into the record. it's a wonderful article going back and tracing through what everyone used to say about what would happen to the economy if we did certain things. i have a chart which i will put into the vector but it shows the upper side of our economy and in 1972 clean water act came out everybody said the economy would be destroyed and would cost us jobs. quite the contrary. our economy increased and it's helped to push our economy forward. the endangered species act came out everyone said the economy would be destroyed. quite the contrary. the american economy has continued to surge. 1987 launch of protocol to protect the ozone layer providing said the economy would be destroyed and jobs would be

the cause cost. in fact quite the contrary if i can do when that when we do standup republicans and democrats can work together to address real environmental issues pointed out not just by scientists but also by the republican president we accomplish great things. the 1990 clean air act amendments done under the bush administration and happy that the horrible william reilly is here which addressed our acid rain issues had tremendous collateral benefits. it avoided more than 160,000 premature deaths. the life of humanity cannot be quantified numerically but the health and safety of our resident should be a number one mission. prevent a 130,000 heart attacks and millions of cases of respiratory problems acute bronchitis and asthma attacks were helped by this coalition under a republican person with a

republican appointed epa head. prepended 13 million lost workdays improving worker productivity and kept kids healthy in school avoiding 3.2 million lost school days. this is what we can do when they open up and see the facts that again we are going to hear from republicans that we will talk about today and to me this is the concern. i do not understand what senator joel brand said. the truth is we are seeing climate change right now. i cannot speak to tornadoes. i don't see any of them in new jersey but i can't speak to the extreme heat problems we are having across the country which is real, which is measurable and unequivocal. but that is doing is causing us to have severe impacts on our nation and our nations economy. i see it with what's happening in atlantic city with the oceans rising which is not an opinion. it's a fact and measurable. we are likely to see on the new

jersey shore of the ocean rise 1.5 feet by 205153.5 tbytes -- but i'm especially concerned about the health concerns. epa's relation of power plants will bring its immediate health benefits but it's estimated in its first year it for noble takes effect 100,000 asthma attacks and 2100 heart attacks can be prevented. to me that's real and it's unfortunate that marginalize folks often poor people are the ones that feel the impact of us doing doing nothing but mostly african-american children are twice as likely to be hospitalized for asthma. i don't need the statistics. i see it in school systems across the state of new jersey and therefore times more likely to die of asthma. latinos are 30% more likely to be hospitalized by asthma. by doing the right thing it will not hurt the economy that we can help to improve the economy. if stacy is these regulations as

an opportunity to make investments its estimates begin seeing $275 million invested in retrofitting buildings. this creates jobs and spurs the economy. it's the kind of jobs that can't be outsourced. $1 trillion in energy savings over 10 years. i'm excited about the opportunity this presents. i feel the urgency when it comes to the health safety and long-term economic well-being of our nation. we must act and we must act now. i end with a simple conclusion that the choice between action wise and endorsed by republican epa leaders goes to the very evidence that they understand the truth of the matter as well as united states. the only thing necessary for evil to be iced tramp in the sport good people do nothing. the senator booker think out the opportunity to hear from our wonderful panel. i will introduce the panel as a

group right now and then we will go from witness to witness. the honorable william ruckelshaus within our grilled epa to minister to president nixon and was later brought put back as the administrator under president reagan. he banned the use of the pesticide ddt. the honorable lee thomas served under president reagan was instrumental in the negotiation and ratification of the montréal protocol to phase out substances that deplete the ozone layer. governor christine todd whitman served two terms as governor of new jersey before serving as epa mr. turn to george w. bush. she oversaw standards that reduce diesel air pollution. the honorable william william reilly. must render under president george h.w. bush were to amend the clean air act to control acid rain. dr. daniel bodkin is professor emeritus at the university of

california santa barbara. i welcome my colleague here attorney general and dr. joseph mason is the hermon moose junior louisiana bankers association professor banking at louisiana state university and senior fellow at the school so i welcome the panel and it will begin with the honorable dr. ruckelshaus. >> thank you senator whitehouse and senator sessions and members of the subcommittee for convening this hearing on a matter of enormous importance for our future. i'm pleased to be here and reassure at least some of you that i'm still alive. several months ago after talking with one another the former epa administrator sitting in front of you were convinced by the overwhelming verdict of scientists that the earth is warming and that we humans are the only controllable

contributor to this phenomenon. given those facts we signed op-ed piece that america gets serious about reducing the world's climate rather than sitting back and avoiding the consequences. newer parts of the last several months have made a neat more urgent. hard to believe there is any question to that. the ivc international panel on climate change report validates in the strongest terms the science of climate change and the projected impacts. the national climate assessment documents impacts occurring here in this country right now and report from the cna corporation which is made up of retired military officers highlights the national security and military readiness concerns due to climate change. we have as epa demonstrators served four presidents over four decades. we have successfully wrestled with it for a few public health and of our mental problems.

while contentious including severe automobile and industrial air pollution widespread water pollution and the unacceptable effects of pesticides would like ddt. we have made progress. with that automobile admissions for example by 95% and greatly improved air quality while the number of cars has doubled. the hole in the ozone layer and acid rain are under control. in herons at all of these problems are uncertain science and powerful economic interests resisting controls. the same is true of climate change. in all cases cited the solutions to problems did not result in predicted economic and social calamity. scientific uncertainty are at the resistance is not mean that nothing should be done unless we are willing to suffer the consequences of inaction. we believe there is legitimate scientific debate over the

effects of climate change but no legitimate debate over the effect of the earth's warming poor man's contribution. the models of the world's leading scientists predict rising seas throughout flooded and more severe and frequent storms. those are the projections and conditions of these models. we are seeing impacts already traces the ocean absorbs 25 to 30% of the carbon from stationary sources we thought the ocean with our friend. it was keeping significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. but our friend is paying a penalty. the carbon from the burning of fossil fuels is causing the acidity of the ocean to rise and is already threatening shellfish coral reefs and other ocean species. the culprit is the same carbon that originated from fossil fuels contribute into planetary warming and i was the co-chairman of the committee in my home state of washington

appointed by the governor to look at the impacts of ocean acidification on puget sound. it directly threatened the shellfish industry in puget sound that contributes $275 million a year to the state's economy. finding out that the nature of the problem wasn't taking steps to both adapt to it and to try to reduce the amount of carbon in puget sound has begun to have a beneficial effect. we also know that if america does not get serious about our responsibility to do with this problem nothing much will happen in the rest of the world. no action is a choice. it's a choice that means we leave to chance the future we want and opt out of the solution to a problem that we are a big prop -- part of. we like to speak of american exceptionalism and we want to be truly exceptional with should begin the difficult task of

leading the world away from the unacceptable effects of our increasing appetite for fossil fuels before it's too late. this is an extremely complex problem and the solutions are not straightforward. we believe this is the scuse for complacency are not stepping up to our responsibility. >> thank you very much mr. ruckelshaus. governor whitman. could you turn your microphone on? i think you need to hit the button. .. that are still taking place. the issue has been settled. n.e epa does veth twice. that but i believe should not be put to rest.lieve shou now given that fact, the agency has decided properly y view that

it should act now to reduce carbon emissions improve the quality of our air protect the health of our people and is part of an effort to address global climate change. the united states climate change is not just environmental issue or an economic issue. climate change also has very real implications for our national security and those concerns must be an important part of any discussion that takes place. .. repair it. we should know that when one is contribute to a problem, one has an obligation to be part of the solution of tha of the problem. that's what the epa is trying to do. there is of course honest disagreement about aspects of the agency's power plant proposal including whether or not it may be stretching its

legal authority to far in some parts of the proposed rule. i'm sure that epa will be made aware of all concerns during the comment period. my hope, however, is that the bo primary focus will be on thetan substance of the proposed ruleat thatnot epa's broad authority to promulgate i t. it isear that being said, it's clear that the clean air act as it nowac ai stands is an imperfect tool unique challenges that climate change presents. congressional action and leaders would be a preferable approach, but since congress has declined to act, the epa must. that is the law. actual -- since president nixon created the -- epa in 1970 it has sought to carry out its mandate a balanced way. environment protection and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive goals. the epa has not always been able to reach a state of perfect delivery, i think we will all agree to that.

it has, however, consistently struck a reasonable balance that out protect the environment and economy. from 1980 until 2012 the total emissions in the united states of six common air pollutant stop 67 percent. at the same time population grew by 38%. energy consumption increased by 27 percent, and gdp more than doubled in cost in dollars. more people consuming more energy emitted much less pollution without sacrificing economic growth. that is clear evidence of the balance that epa has been able to strike in the past. further reductions are both achievable and affordable. mr. chairman, my hope is that congress will at long last to acknowledge that climate change is real, humans are contributing to it, and the potential consequences of inaction are far greater than the projected cost of action.

we have specific and scientific consensus on this issue. what we need is a political consensus. the two parties were able to rally around a common purpose in the early days of the environmental movement of policy-making. it is urgent that they do so again. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, governor christine todd whitman. we now turn to mr. william reilly. welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman, as members of the subcommittee. thank you for convening this session on one of the critical challenges our country faces. it is critical to appear with a few of my predecessors and governor whitman who appeared after arrest. after i was nominated my first briefing was on climate by president of the national academy of sciences followed soon by briefings on epa reports on climate effects of policy options commissioned by administrator thomas. incidently 11 national academies

of science since that time have formally reflected upon studies, climate, science, and have concluded that humans are affecting the climate and greenhouse gases or changing it. at that time climate science was a matter of computer modeling coupled with the reid, notably the greenhouse effect which explains why the earth's atmosphere is hospitable to life. at that time the concern was efficient to prompted the then secretary of state jim baker on is for statement on the topic test simulate policy of no regrets. we will consider those measures that address current priorities and also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. the 1987 montreal protocol which lee thomas help negotiate is an example of the kind of thinking -- and that was 25 years ago. today models are far more reliable and are buttressed by literally thousands of credible scientific studies documented -- documenting changes under way.

there are still many outstanding questions. the pace of change, tipping point, local impacts, methane emissions and more. climate is a complex system. we do not have a complete picture. we welcome serious, constructive teaching. that is house science advances our understanding of such complex issues. changes under way, and we can expect to see many more disruptions, storms, wild fires, pests and diseases, fever will arrive in america, storm surges that overwhelm coastal communities, heat waves and other impacts on health, water resources and food production and on other sectors of our economy. the longer we delay the more adverse the impact will be and the more expensive it will be to address them. reducing greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon

virucide, can help sendoff -- standoff more draconian impact that i increasingly believe we have a second, immediate agenda and props states, communities, and federal agencies to begin to adapt the likely changes and build up resiliency. dealing with flooding and meeting future projections for storm surges will be costly and add to growing demands on budgets. i chaired a task force on adaptation for governors schwarzenegger, and we concluded the 1100 levees in sacramento simply will i survive. climate change and associated disruption, as has been pointed out, are a global problem. absent action by china, brazil, india, and other fast-growing economies, what we do allow will loss of vice. action by the united states is not sufficient and is nonetheless necessary if we are to have credibility to negotiate

with other countries to typically follow the developed world and worry that carbon will forge their legitimate needs for economic growth. i must express disappointment that the debate between developed and developing countries tends to focus more on how much financial aid advanced nations are willing to blood rather than the substance of how much and how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in those nations. i participated for a number of years in the china sustainable energy forum. at first drop in 1990's any mention of climate change triggered a lecture about how those who caused the problems paid for fixing it globally. as china has begun to experience serious impacts and water resources, it now is a matter of self-interest that they respond and join constructively in international negotiations even as they continue to assert the national interest and development. haas -- china announced they

intend to have a cap on carbon dioxide which is obviously a response to the united states, a significant one, and a further demonstration of u.s. lead. markets the world over seat clean energy technologies, well over 1 billion people do not have electricity. for many it will be small-scale renewable technologies that will help improve the lives and offer new economic opportunities.

a fall and constructive response clneded fromon the planet will endure more disruptions.tions. i've been in such episodes inths the past, even natural causes, but you'd have to reject the greenhouse effect out right toig conclude that human activities pumping millions of tons of co2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphereg every year impact on the earth's climate. that is simply not a tenable position. for me to question is how hospitable earth remains for future generations and four civilizations as we know it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. william reilly. now we turn to former administrator thomas. welcome. >> thank you, chairman, senator sessions. >> i think you may need to turn your microphone on. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator sessions, other members of the committee for holding the hearing in giving me an opportunity to offer a perspective on climate change

based upon my experience at epa dealing with many complex environmental issues during the reagan years. i have approached the issue using a risk assessment and risk management process. this is the approach we used during my time at the epa as we addressed a range of environmental problems, whether it was assessing the impact of stratospheric ozone depletion caused by claro carbons or the impact of lead in gasoline on children's self. scientific data and analysis were the first step in evaluating the risks posed by the problem. during my six years at the epa, i dealt with many contentious issues. first, as assistant administrator two years and later as administrator over four years. i cannot remember any matter i dealt with during that time that were not controversial. some more than others. the issue of climate change is one that the epa and the global

scientific community have study and analyze for decades, whether it is the intergovernmental panel on climate change or the latest scientific evaluation that was authorized by congress, the national climate assessment. there appears to be clear evidence regarding climate change and its anthropogenic foundation. we know that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 40 percent since preindustrial times. we know that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere. we know that they have contributed to more than one-and-a-half degree fahrenheit rise in the global temperatures says the 1880's. we know global sea levels have driven by an average of 8 inches since 1870 primarily from thermal expansion caused by warmer oceans. some melting of glaciers. we know that ocean acidification has occurred.

coral reefs and marine ecosystems are being harmed, and we know communities and our country are dealing today with the effects of changing climate. in the state of florida where i live we see increasing saltwater intrusion and filch rating drinking water supply along the coast due to a sea level rise. we see coastal communities dealing with the impact of sea level rise on their drainage systems, a major part of the systems in south florida being impacted. the economic impact is undeniable, and the local governments struggled to address today's impact of climate change while trying to anticipate the increased risk in the future. on a broader scale scientific analysis points to widespread impact across our country. they range from the depleted harvest in the pacific northwest that bill mentioned due to a motion acidification or the

increased drought and wildfires in the southwest and a national climate assessment suggested with lange to climate change. given this assessment of the impact and risk posed by global warming, the epa has the responsibility given to it by congress and affirmed by the courts to address the risk management challenge. we know there are many approaches that can be taken and we also know that all of them are controversial. we know that gases that have been emitted will remain in the atmosphere for decades the centuries and recognize the solution will require long-term commitments if we are to mitigate the effects already occurring and those forthcoming. we also know many of the solutions, some of which senator sessions has mentioned such as improving energy efficiency and increasing our lives on the low

emission energy production. widespread a back -- adoption of strategies like these can supplement into national agreements to reduce emissions. in addition, a coordinated national and international approach is needed to assist states and countries, implement adaptation measures dealing with the impact of climate change already taking place today. clearly more action is needed to address the impacts while addressing -- addressing the larger issue of committing ourselves avoiding dangerous levels of future warming. the recent steps taken by the epa to. there is significant mitigation measures. and once again, the position the united states to demonstrate international on an issue of global significance and confidence. and i would suggest to the united states is not taking the position and then international

area will never come to fruition. thank you for the opportunity to present my views to the subcommittee approved -- >> thank you very much. before i go on to the next witness let me thank each of you for your service to our country in the challenging the office of -- for many years in addition to your testimony today. the return now to the doctor. >> thank you, committee chairman. i come here today as a scientist to since 1968 has practiced research on global warming and its potential as human and ecological effects. some examples in 1970i developed a computer model of forest use from then to the present about possible climate affects on forests. in the 1980's one of my graduate students at it world visitation to major climate models, and in

this new century are was the lead author on a paper analyzing methods to forecast global warming impacts on biodiversity. i published a paper comparing arctic sea ice in the 19th century with that of the end of the 20th century. i have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and it's great diversity of species, attempting to maintain an objective, intellectually honest approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor i have been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that the subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. i have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should work together as scientists instead of arguing divisive lee about emotionally based positions. i was an expert review were. i want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. however, it is my view that this is not unusual, contrary to a

characterization's by the report sees environmental changes are not capitalistic or irreversible i hope my testify will help lead to a call or more rational approach to dealing with climate change cahuenga what. two reports do not promote the kind of rational discussion that we should be having. i would like to tell you why. my biggest concern is that the ipc 200014 white house climate change assessment report presents a number of speculative and sometimes incomplete conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific credit than they deserve. the reports of scientific sounding lack established facts about the global environment. they would sooner argued the climate forecast by the global climate model is happening and will continue to happen, as you can see from the graph over here

these predictions are way off of reality. extreme over emphasis on human- induced global warming has taken our attention away from many environmental issues they used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in the 21st century. there are ten issues, and number of which have been issued, including global warming. -- the internal challenges we face in terms of the need to act now, it is on these issues we should focus with the concern of a possible global warming prioritized properly within that group. there is an implicit assumption that nature is in a steady state and of change is negative and undesirable. for all life including people. this is the opposite of reality. living things have had to adapt, and many require changes. the report gives the impression

that we are unable to deal with change. the opposite. the report for policy makers repeats the assertion that large fractures of species based increasing risk. overwhelming evidence contradicts this. overestimates of extension rates surprisingly few species became extinct during the last two and a half million years. some of the conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles cited in defense of those conclusions. the white house climate change assessment includes a table of 30 ecological assessments. climate change. i reviewed the study cited to support and found not a single one is supported by direct observation. the report states that they are declining in number citing a

support of this. these authors state the contrary . the polar bear population never has had an estimate of total abundance. simply a qualified estimate, a cross-eyed guest given the satisfied public demand. some conclusions contradict and are ignorant of valid observations. terrestrial and fresh water echoes systems suppressed a quarter of the carbon dioxide and treated to the atmosphere. i have done that for statistically valid estimates and can tell you that estimates of carbon uptake by vegetation used by ipc see are not specifically valid and overestimate carbon storage and up take as much as 300%. finally, to the ipcc report, the

use that term climate change with two meanings. i have heard that today over and over again. of course the climate is changing. it is always changing and always will. if your statement is designed to be about natural change it is a truism, something people have always known and experienced. if the meaning is known to be human cost the available data does not support the statement. thank you, mr. chairman. >> next we will hear from attorney general strange. welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator sessions, members of the committee. i am pleased to be here to share my thoughts. as the attorney general of the state of alabama, it is my sworn duty to uphold the rule of law for the almost 5 million people we have in my state, and that duty includes enforcing environmental laws that help protect our natural resources and the health of our citizens. one of the most important

matters i am involved with as attorney general, serving as the coordinating council for the gulf states oil spill litigation alabama coastline was covered in oil in the economy was shut down for months as a result. so i understand firsthand man-made environmental disasters and the importance of sensible and effective in carmen regulations. with that said, my comments reflected continuing concern with this administration's approach to end firmer regulations. the fans of this proposal will be that the states of flexibility. providing states with a narrow range of costly policy choices which most states did not choose for themselves does not provide flexibility and produces the same outcome, higher electricity prices and decrease legislation. repeating over and over again north flexibility is not an adequate defense or answer to low-income consumers in my state

or any other state who were asked why they must pay more to reduce co2 emissions when those reductions cannot and will not impact the global climate. indeed, to prevent impact such as those, congress took care to limit epa authority under section 111d. given the enormous burdens that would be imposed by the epa guidelines it may be obvious that epa has simply disregarded the limits of the law. these limits are not questionable or controversial but expressed in clear elements of the clean air act. first, the clean air act reveals regulating sources if they are regulating under section 112 of the act. the existing units are regulated under section 112. the clean air act also proved to

five based on emission productions that cannot be achieved at individual facilities but instead rely on reactions that require actions by an entire system. epa proposed emission guidelines for the embrace of a system-wide approach to regulation. third, the epa has improperly attempted to implement the statutory delegation of authority to states, and in doing so the proposal not only reject state discretion but jettisons decades of on question of precedent establishing state jurisdiction over electricity markets. in conclusion, the state of alabama vigorously opposes the epa proposed mandate to lead effectively restructure the structure as it has disastrous consequences. those consequences moreover what all stem from a patent lee on lawful implementation of the clean air act. they seek to expand the scope in

an unprecedented manner and would do so at the expense of state authority that is expressly identified and preserved in the clean air act and in the unquestionable jurisdiction of states over intrastate markets and would do all of these things for no discernible benefit given the increased conditions of tried and devolved economies. there is no rationale to support such legislation. >> and now, finally, dr. mason. please proceed. >> good morning and thank you for inviting me to testify here today on this crucially important topic. my research specialty has been market failures and crises. i began studying captain trade markets in 2005 as a system became a reality. i did so because of the preternatural bush among lawmakers to embark upon captain trade solutions despite widespread consensus among economists that cap and trade

does not suit carbon emissions. with respect to german boxers medical analogy earlier i don't disagree with the diagnosis your bill with the proposed treatment you are all presupposing the treatment was known. it is not. in recent history no system, not the eu, are gdi, or california initiative has placed carbon levels prohibitive to emissions. they hover at $5, $11, and between those two. it is widely viewed that prices in excess of $30 are necessary. the reason epa proposal seems to be an attempt to specify quantity goals instead of price goals. there are two problems with this. first, to control quantity one has to be in control of what one targets. the u.s. federal reserve learn this years ago when it had to move away from targeting money supply. it really had no effectiveness.

in carbon markets the common policy of carbon permit fund ability has always rendered this quantity targeting unworkable. in a series of famous cases the eu high court ruled that the states have sovereignty over the amount to permits issued. one famous case when invalid permits infiltrated lunettes the exchange had to close for three days while the permits could be isolated and slotbacks could be arranged for them to be removed from the market. second, as an economist it does not matter which side of the price quantity coin you looked at. the effects of the same. quantity will go down only if price goes up, and when real price goes up output declines and unemployment increases. corporations already forgo billions in investment due to unanticipated carbon prices. and states in which they operate will feel the effects. it is important to remember that those are not just oil and gas companies but companies like walt disney and walmart.

in preparing for this hearing i addressed to the state epa goals a number of important variables. most importantly the regression shows that states with lag the economy is coming of the grim recession have tougher goals to me than others. certainly there are simple adjustments that can be made to mitigate the effects of carbon policy upon economic growth if we think for a moment. no government has yet accepted the lower economic growth necessary to meaningfully curb carbon emissions. officials know prices should go up but cannot bear the feet. in fact, in march 2014 they you can't -- u.k. announced the government would freeze a tax on carbon emissions as part of a broad plan to cut consumer energy bills. while his party backs carbon conform consumer costs have become a campaign. it a similar issue is growing in

germany, which has subsidized renewable growth, and voters are not happy. by far the worst effects of carbon markets have been the regulatory arbitraged, fraud, and theft. if we are not ready to deal with the existing corporate fraud and bribery, tax fraud, investor fraud, counterfeiting, money-laundering, hacking, and fishing on carbon markets that have troubled established markets in recent years we should not be discussing implementation in the largest economy in the world. denying the failure of existing policy risks raising prices without reducing output. you in climate talks broke down this week over this simple economic fact. extending my analogy with central banking members of congress should remember the national monetary commission studied functions are on the world for seven years before concluding upon the design of the u.s. federal reserve system. let's take our time now in

researching existing carbon abatement mechanisms before emulating demonstrably failed schemes around the world enriching financial industry interest groups at the cost of our economy while continuing to allow carmen to grow as a national and global problem. thank you. >> thank you, dr. mason. let me begin with a question that is prompted by the testimony by administrator william ruckelshaus. mr. william ruckelshaus, you described a number of environmental improvements that took place on your watch, and you mentioned that inherent in all was powerful economic interests resisting control, to use your phrase, and you said that in all of the cases cited the solutions to the problems did not result in the predicted

economic and social calamity. now, each of you have had the first hand experience of having to make decisions that were surrounded by fears and anxieties about, perhaps, dire consequences of your decision. each of you has made that decision and each of you have seen the consequences that they played out in the aftermath. my question to each of you, starting with mr. william ruckelshaus, whose testimony probably foretells is entered -- but to each of you, how did the worst fears and assumptions of bad outcomes from environmental regulations turn out in reality as the rules were applied in your own experience? mr. william ruckelshaus. >> mr. chairman, let me mention one example. the congress in 1970 passed the

clean air act which provided that in the law itself that by 1975 the cars would be 95 percent improved. the three main pollutants and law, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and mono dioxide. the claim was that this was impossible to do by 1975. i think they probably were right about that. an overly ambitious goal set by the congress. as an administrator, i was authorized to give a 1-year extension from the meeting of the 1975 goals. we had extensive hearings, and we decided in the first instance not to grant an extension and in the second instance an extension was granted. by 1976 the use of a catalyst, most of the automobile companies were on the way toward achieving standards as required by the statute.

the claims during those hearings and the passage of the loss were all that the industry was born to collapse, ford motor company predicted they would have to shut down their whole company if this law passed. are there was another flexibility and the law. where they needed to achieve the standards, and once they saw that the rule was serious and that we were going to pursue as vigorously as we could the achievement of the requirements into law, they began to focus on reducing cost. and the motivation of trying to resist the regulation, resist the law that was passed by the congress changed from one of claiming the end was near to one of let's see if we can't do this and do it in a cost-effective way. and they did do it in a cost-effective way and we

achieved the standards. there were some leeway granted by the congress after the original law, and today we have almost three times as many cars on the road. and the emissions from automobiles are 95 percent reduced. >> in my remaining minute let me ask you to fill in. if we have a second round i will ask you to come back and fill and. >> the best example i can give is when we were working on increasing the efficiency of air conditioners. it was absolutely impossible to take it. this was going to kill the industry. we went ahead and found one company that said, no, we can do this. they did it. they started producing and had more highly efficient air conditioners. now everyone has exceeded those rules. about 23%.

the ingenuity in the american system cap-and-trade. the minute that they knew that this was real and was going to happen, not only did we see a loss in jobs or dollars, we saw whole industry achieve levels that we did not think or possible. >> my time has expired. let me return to my distinguished ranking member. >> thank you. >> row, we have certainly made great progress on that . american water is so much cleaner than it has been, and we see situations in china. we know that we are proud of what we have accomplished. however, i would say co2 is a different kettle of fish. it is not a pollutants in any normal definition of it. although, governor christine todd whitman, i will acknowledge they ruled otherwise based on ipcc data.

mr. chairman, i would offer the letter from mccarthy from west virginia and regarding epa asserted the authority under section 111 d of the premier act to regulate co2 existing coal-fired power plants and a white paper from 17 attorney general and one senior and vermeil regulator to another state regarding the authority of states under section 111 d of the clean air act to determine standards as applied to individual sources. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> the president on november 14th 2012 said the temperatures are around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted, even ten years ago. and then on may 209th last

year we said that the climate is warming faster than anyone anticipated five or ten years ago. so i would ask each of our former administrators if any of you agree that that is an accurate statement on the climate? if you do raise your hand. thank you. the record reflect no one raised their hands. attorney general, one of the things that -- about what you mentioned, this is difficult when we have assertions' repeated that are established by the facts. the same is true about hurricanes. you can't help the number of category three, four, five hurricanes each year. this is not a matter of dispute.

we do not have more. they acknowledged it. we have a president and officials repeating that and the justification to hammer the coal industry and others driving up costs in the country. so attorney general strange, i have here a question that i wanted to ask of you, and i appreciate your appearance and your fine lead in the state. epa epa administrators today say that we need to act now. would you also say it is important we act according to the law, and do you believe the epa proposed existing power plant guidelines are consistent with the law? >> thank you, senator. i appreciate this opportunity again. that is why i am here.

my concern is that whatever decision the epa makes and whenever policy it decides to implement that it follows the law. i think that they fail to do this. i appreciate you introducing into the record a letter from my colleague, the attorney general of west virginia which goes into a great deal of the legal infirmities of this proposal as well as the letters by several other agees and bipartisan groups and attorneys general around the country. our goal is to make sure whenever the epa comes up with, it follows the law and respect the state role in achieving the type of regulation the country decides it wants to have. that is the lane -- in the end, that is the reason i am here today. >> our staff has done a study on the federalism aspects of the epa, the clean air act establishing itself, a cooperative federalism between state and epa. do you think the proposed

existing power plant guidelines adhere to the clean air act process? >> i do not think so, senator. in a nutshell, i think what the epa is attempting to do in this case is regulate at the federal level removing almost all the discretion that would normally reside at the state. in my experience -- maybe your experience as attorney general, regulators like to regulate, and it is an important role that we attorneys general ploy to ensure that when they decide to regulate that they stay within the bounds of the party. oftentimes if you are a regulator and see a problem or perceived problem you want to regulate and are naturally trying to exert on as much authority as you think is there and perhaps more. we think that is what is occurring in this case. that is why it is important to me and attorney general across the country. >> we turn now to chairman boxer. >> thank you so much. i will go rapid-fire.

dr. mason, when you talk you so remind me of the alarms we heard in the 70's and 90's over the clean air act. the state's undergoing a boon in clean energy jobs. i am here to say, i am going to send you some of the statistics that the hon. christine todd whitman put out because i want to know if you think there are incorrect. from 1980-2012 the total emissions in the u.s. of six common air pollutants dropped by 67 percent, population grew by 38 percent, energy consumption increased 47%, gdp more than doubled. and i checked. jobs increased 88%. i am going to send that to you for commentary. again, we have always heard this every time there is an initiative and it turns out to be completely wrong.

alarmists are wrong. now, i also want to ask our four hon. epa folks to just tell me if they agree with this. that is, senator sessions and i have -- he is my friend, and we respect each other. we have a disagreement on carbon. he says this is not a pollutant that hurts you. there is an endangerment finding started under george w. bush and completed under barack obama. then there was a national climate assessment which was required by law. republicans voted for that 100- 100-0. in this particular assessment it calls out the dangers of carbon pollution and says it will increase overall. asthma will increase, household admissions -- to "it directly,

climate change is expected to harm human health by increasing ground level ozone. they specifically cite more carbon pollution as increasing global temperatures, increasing premature death and worsen the ozone particle pollution. is there any one of the four of you that has a problem with that analysis? okay. let the record show that they agree with that analysis. now, i want to talk to my friend from alabama. i want to ask you this question. i have great respect for your office and opinion, but isn't it true that alabama lost all recent major clean air act cases alabama lost its recent challenge to epa cross state air pollution rule in the supreme court. alabama lost its recent challenge to mercury and toxic air rules in the d.c. circuit, the white versus dahlia case, lost a challenge to the epa

endangerment finding in the case of coalition for responsible regulation. isn't that a fact? >> i do not doubt what you are saying, senator. again not recall. >> you don't recall losing the case? >> i do, and i think you're right. yes ma'am. >> okay. i think that is important. let me ask a question to mr. mr. thomas. i know you have talked about the impact in your home state of florida, but you are already seeing. i had the privilege of going in a helicopter over the miami region, and it is just -- when you see how much is there it takes your breath away. i wonder if you could talk about how local communities in the state of florida are joining together to address the growing impact of climate change, and to many of these local actions have bipartisan support? let me just ask mr. thomas.

i only have 58 seconds left. >> senator, particularly in the south florida area, miami area, six counties have basically come together specifically to work on an adaptation measures dealing with the problems already being phased. as i indicated, salt water intrusion, the drainage systems, how to, in fact, deal with today's problems. average sea level rise about 8 inches has a significant impact. you are talking about areas that up because of their level above sea level but because of the terrain and the subsurface, the limestone subsurface causes a significant issue. so we see local government struggling with the issue, spending significant amounts of money, and my sense is, that is

going to be an expanding issue and problem, particularly in the south florida area in the near term. i met with a group in the miami area including scientists who participated in the ipcc process , and their concern is what is happening today and how it will be exaggerated over the next ten years. they're not talking long-term. >> let me close by letting everyone know, when it comes to environment we have differences. when it comes to preparing we have come together. i wanted to mention that we have taken steps for our coastal states and the sacramento issue that you mentioned. >> senator. >> it is not in order. you are recognized.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. well, as always, i am frustrated at some of the cartoonish nature of the assertions going after straw man instead of having a detailed, serious discussion. i think the senator's comments and explanation of the 97 percent figure really goes to that. 97 percent believe in this consensus about climate change, however it is defined that virtually all of the republican members of this committee would be among the 97%. i hope that we can get beyond going after straw man having the sort of cartoonish conversations with that theme of science, real science, discipline, let me start there. of all of our panel's with graduate advanced degrees?

okay. so let me ask you, you know, in my opinion one of the areas with cartoonish climbs and outlandish claims is about severe weather multiplying every day. in fact, what is the historical record about the severity and frequency overall of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods? >> that's fine. you are on now. >> as you have in past testimony , the analysis shows that these have not increased in terms of major storms. and so the specific question, there has not been an increase in tornadoes and major storms according to his analysis. >> i . that out because it is one of the most common rallying

cries about this cartoonish debate. also, let's talk about real science. we have here obviously a huge issue, which is, whenever we do, what is the rest of the world doing? these posters illustrate what is being done, but there are other countries that are a major factory. so with this in mind, will the epa rules as currently constructed have a significant effect on global average temperatures or sea level rise? >> well, the analysis, that type of analysis shows that if the united states ask alone it will have a very insignificant effect, but it does leave open whether this is supposed to be a leadership to action or a scientific effective, but in terms of united states acting alone it will have a very minor effect.

>> okay, thank you. thank you. >> could i make a comment about sea level rise? >> sure. go ahead very briefly to my time is limited. >> okay. >> go ahead spent most of the comments were about sea level rise. now, it's well known to geologists, oceanographers that the sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age at 12,500 years ago, and the average estimated rate and measured rate has been a foot a century. that is natural background. now, the mentioned specifically by one of the senators was that it risen 10 inches in one place since 1930. well, actually that's pretty, that's within that natural background spin doctor, i don't need to cut you off but this is all my limited time. we can try to come back -- >> i just want to say this is complete a natural. >> let's go on to the other big impact that we can measure, which is economic impact. dr. mason, this isn't a

theoretical discussion. europe has basically been living this in the last 10 plus years, and is in the process of essentially reversing. "new york times" quote europe facing economic pain may ease climate rules. bloomberg little -- "bloomberg news," replacing low-cost nuclear. the guardian quote soaring energy and housing costs turns to food banks. a "new york times," renewable energy in spain is taking a beating. .. >> i think you have to acknowledge that in terms of the treatment in this medical analogy hydrocarbon policy has been the equivalent of medieval bloodletting. it has not worked. it is not