the 1930s, or pesticide use in the -- in the '50s and '60s. and wetlands destruction in the '70s and '80s. but these women and men found the will and the way to work with congress and others to address those challenges. today i'm really proud of my country and my colleagues in public service. it was in 1990 i was a staff member, committee staff member in the house of representatives. worked with the house merchant marine and fisheries committee, the house science committee and others and this committee in the senate to enact the global climate change research program act. and then a few years ago we worked with our state colleagues and other partners to develop the national fish, wildlife and plants adaptation strategy. and just recently we saw the most recent national climate

assessment, and then yesterday the epa proposing acceptable and effective regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and so i feel like our country finally has the information and the wherewithal and is finding the will to address this great challenge. and hunting and fishing are vital components of the nation's economy especially in many rural areas. in 2011 americans spent $145 billion on wildlife related recreation, nearly 1% of the nation's gross domestic product. and the changing climate system is affecting hunters and anglers today. and it is darkening the prospect for hunters and anglers tomorrow. shorter winters and earlier springs are disrupting delicate water fowl migrations that have evolved over eons.

drought and water scarcity are increasing, jeopardizing populations of native fish and aquatic species. in dozens of watersheds, rising water temperatures are reducing habitat and altering breeding and spawning opportunities for many species of fish. milder winters are increasing the prevalence of parasites and disease that can have decimating effects on big game and forest habitat while enabling invasive species to spread into new areas and displace native wildlife. in oregon and across the pacific northwest, climate change poses a major threat to salmon, a vital element of the region's economy and culture. a study published in 2013 concludes that coastal coho salmon, a federally listed species, faces a significant climate driven risk to future sustainability. the scale and intensity of these current and future climate change impacts pose a serious threat to america's hunting and

fishing traditions, and in turn to the benefits they provide to wildlife and people. faced by these threats, the administration is taking significant steps to ensure forward thinking and effective conservation of fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats. this includes strategic planning through the president's climate action plan, the national fish, wildlife and plant adaptation strategy, as i mentioned before, which we developed in cooperation with our state colleagues and tribal colleagues. our survival and quality of life as a species is inexorably linked to the health of ecosystems which also provide clean air, clean water, food, shelter and employment for the world's human population. how and whether we choose to respond here and now will determine the kind of world we leave to our descendants, including whether we pass them a world that has a place for the great traditions of angling and

hunting that we are able to practice today. mr. chairman, i want to thank you and the subcommittee for holding this hearing, and calling attention to this important and pressing issue. >> thank you. we'll now have five-minute periods for questions, comment, and just to summarize, what you're seeing from your expertise within the fish and wildlife service are effects on the ground right now. >> there's no doubt, senator, that we're seeing the effects of changing migration patterns in our water fowl. we're seeing changing -- increasing parasitism and decreasing reproductive rates in big game species like moose in the southern extent of their range. we're seeing rising water temperatures, which reduces the habitat quality and availability for cold water fishes.

and so there's no doubt that we are seeing these impacts across the board. >> so let me just take a couple pieces out. let me start with the diseases related to big game. one of our senators from new hampshire was showing a picture recently of a moose with clumps on its back and pointed out that those big lumps, if you will, big black lumps were actually big infestations of ticks that it wasn't warm enough -- that it was not cold enough to kill them, and they were carrying them year round, and that this was resulting in both disease and continuous loss of blood, if you will, to the ticks. and thus an impact on the moose populations. is that one of the most prominent examples of impact on big game or what else are we seeing? >> we're definitely seeing that so we have a refuge in northern minnesota. agassi national wildlife refuge.

we've seen a 98% in the moose population at agacy refuge. we've seen a severe reduction in moose population throughout the state of minnesota. they're no longer hunting moose in minnesota. the reason is because the rising average temperature in the summertime places physiological stress on the animal so they're not reproducing the way that they used to. plus, we're seeing that these pests, like ticks in new hampshire, which are able to have multiple generations now during the spring, the summer, the fall, and fewer of them are being killed off by severe winters, and so the animals are besieged by pests, which put further physiological stress on the animals. and so, throughout the southern range of moose, we're seeing declines in the population. so in states like new hampshire, decline in the population. that represents a lost

opportunity for the american sportsman. >> so when you said 98% loss, 49 out of 50 moose that were there before are gone, that's pretty dramatic collapse. is that over just a few years? and have we seen that in earlier periods of just a -- maybe a few years of variation in temperatures that the moose population crashed and then resurged? have we ever see anything like this before? >> we've not seen anything like this before, and we've always had, you know, warm spells where you would have a summer or two consecutively where you would then have a depression in the population. they would rebound then as weather returned to a normal pattern. but what we're seeing now is that steadily rising temperature in the summertime so that the mean temperature in the summer is now putting physiological stress on the animals which is affecting their reproduction. >> let me turn to your comments about migration patterns for water fowl and specifically ducks.

what is causing the ducks to modify their direction? are the pools they would land in disappearing? what's going on? >> migratory birds like water fowl have a delicate and refined migration pattern that has evolved over eons, so what we're seeing -- put yourself in the -- look at it from the perspective of a hand mallard who's leaving her wintering grounds in yazoo national wildlife refuge in mississippi and is heading toward the american prairie. she is stopping along the way, feeding and resting. she has a very narrow window when she gets to the prairies. she's looking for a place to -- a small pothole or wetland to make a nest. in prehistoric times if that

didn't exist in south dakota, she would go to north dakota and then she would go to saskatchewan and she would fly until she found that habitat. what we're doing is human development. we're constraining the habitat. so we have agricultural development. we have oil and gas. energy development that's constraining her availability of habitat, so now she's much more restricted in terms of where she can go. so she -- if she doesn't make that decision in about a two-week window of time, she's not going to have a successful nesting season. and so, what we're seeing is birds are leaving later. they're migrating later in the spring. they're migrating -- or earlier in the spring they're migrating later in the fall. so their basic pattern is changing because of their response to weather, we believe. and then the habitat availability for her is shrinking.

and the -- what the climate assessment tells us is that wet areas will get wetter and dry areas will get drier, and so as wildlife managers, we're now looking at a more complicated picture. how do we put that -- that habitat on the ground for that hen mallard? and what we have to do is be able to look into the future because we're not just responsible for today's water fowl hunters. we're responsible for tomorrow's water fowl hunters. we have to be able to think about habitat 10 and 20 and 30 years from now. so we need to recognize that the climate is changing, that that -- the habitat needs of water fowl are going to change. their migratory patterns are going to change. we need to understand that better so that we can provide the opportunity for hunters in the future. >> thank you very much for your testimony. appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

in absentia, thank you to mr. tester for coming. we do appear occasionally on crossfire and enjoy trying to match wits. i'm sorry senator tester is experiencing hailstorms, increased hailstorms. i think he made a very telling statement, though, when he said, i don't know what's going on. i'm not sure what's going on. but i know that scientists of goodwill disagree about what's going on. and i would say to you, dr. ashe and mr. chairman, gail and i have lived on 521 magnolia drive, tupelo, mississippi, for over 32 years. the lady that built the house before us planted st. augustine

grass over 50 years ago. and for the first time this winter i experienced winter kill of my st. augustine grass. now, i don't know what's going on. but the fact of the matter is i can play anecdotes all day. i'll just say that if somehow the cold and the ice and the winter got to my st. augustine hasn't happened in 50 years on magnolia drive. i don't know what that proves, except that we can give anecdotes that don't have really much to do with science. let's talk about these -- the migration of the ducks, mr. ashe. it's my understanding that because of the increased demand

for corn used in ethanol production we're seeing a reduction of available breeding grounds in the midwest wetlands and grassland for ducks in mississippi and louisiana flyways. so don't you think there is an impact caused by the renewable fuel standards on hunting and hunting species, and don't you think this is an unforeseen consequence of congress interjecting itself into the markets? >> senator, thank you. i would say we are seeing what ducks unlimited and others are calling a crisis in the prairies. we certainly, if you think about the states of north dakota and south dakota, which are really the heart of water fowl production for the united states

of america, we have energy development in the balken oil fields squeezing from the west and we have agricultural development squeezing from the east, and so there is no doubt that we are seeing widespread and unprecedented conversion of habitat that is -- >> and if i can interject, because that clock is ticking. part of that reduction in habitat is putting more of the land into corn to -- to respond to this public policy decision that the federal government has made. that is a fact, is it not? >> certainly a part of the demand is related to use for ethanol. but the market is a global market for corn and soybean, and the global market is what is driving the demand for that commodity. what's important for us to realize is that climate change lies over that. so as we are trying to maintain

and now restore and protect habitat for migrating water fowl, we have the increasing complexity associated with changing climate and the disruption of their migratory behavior. and so if you think again about that hen mallard as she's migrating, if the temperatures are warmer. think about you and me. if we were making a journey of some 2,000 miles and the temperature is now a degree and a half warmer than she was evolved to tolerate. and the prospect now is for temperatures to rise throughout the end of the century. so she, from a thermodynamic standpoint, she not only has to make that trip with habitat, but she's going to have to make that trip in a hotter world. it's a strenuous endeavor. migration is a strenuous and risky endeavor for any species.

and now we are increasing the stress on that animal to make that trip. she's got to make it every year. she's got a tight time schedule. she has demanding food and energy requirements and we are making that journey harder for her. >> i realize, mr. director, this is not a climate issue, but i'm merely trying to point out that you're concerned about the migration of ducks, as am i, as are people in mississippi, particularly along the river counties and delta counties. i would submit to you there is a lot more to it than increasing of temperatures by one degree or 1.5 degrees. i'm going to want to take a second round with this witness, mr. chairman, so i'll yield back to you, but i'd like to take a second round.

>> thank you. are you going to be able to stay with us for the second panel? >> yes. >> terrific. >> why don't you go ahead and take your second five minutes. >> okay. let me ask you this, mr. director. do you dismiss altogether the scientific evidence senator sessions mentioned this morning that global temperatures have flatlined for the last 15 years? do you dismiss that as being inaccurate? >> i do, sir. >> we just have -- you have a disagreement with the scientists who have flatly stated that we basically have flatlined -- >> there is no scientific disagreement. if what people are doing is they're taking 1998, which was a high year for temperature, and then they're looking from 1998 to 2013 and they are saying there is no rise in temperature.

you can't look at a temperature record that does go up and down. you can't pick one year out of 150-year database and say, well, if i use 1995 which was a particularly warm year and compare all the succeeding years to that there has been no increase in temperature. if you look at the complete temperature record, there's no doubt that temperatures have risen during the course of the last decade. the last decade is the warmest decade on record. when you look objectively and completely at the scientific record, there is no disagreement. the national climate assessment reflects that science, that large consensus body of science.

>> do you acknowledge that the earth's climate has been changing up and down for tens of thousands of years? >> millions of years. >> millions of years. okay. and that has been irrespective of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere, is that correct? >> carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has changed over time, and has been correlated with -- by looking at the carbon dating record has been correlated with increasing and decreasing temperatures. what we are seeing now, and which science clearly points to is that human-based emissions of greenhouse gasses are driving concentrations in the atmosphere that have not been seen for hundreds of thousands of years. >> are you suggesting that every time over the last million years the temperature has gone up it's

been due to carbon dioxide? are you testifying -- >> i can't say every time but what scientists have confirmed looking back into the paleontologic record, the ice age -- warm periods and cold periods have been associated with elevated and decreased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. >> let me ask you about forest management. you won't be here during panel two. dr. david south in his prepared testimony says policymakers who halt active forest management and kill green harvesting jobs in favor of a hands-off approach contribute to the buildup of fuels in the forest. this eventually increases the risk of catastrophic wildfires. also james wood on panel two will say because of past

management of fire suppression, the worst neighbor a timberland owner can have is a national forest. how would you respond to that? basically in a nutshell, the argument is by refusing to allow the underbrush, there is this buildup of fuels and this intensifies forest fires. how do you respond to that? do they have a point? >> a would not say the u.s. forest service is a poor neighbor. i don't think they have a point about that. i would say that the buildup of fuels in our nation's forest, public and private, has been a challenge for us. whether it's a national forest, bureau of land management lands. national wildlife refuge,

national park, state park or state wildlife management area, fire management is a challenge for any land manager. i would say the greatest need in that regard is funding for preventative management. in this year's budget, the president has proposed a so-called fire fix that allows us to begin to treat fires like other natural disasters. and gives us more flexibility to do what you're calling for is to do printive management of our nation's forests. >> part of that would be removing the fallen trees and the underbrush that amounts to fuel for forest fires? >> in some cases. as a wildlife manager, sometimes dead fall and understory is a good thing for wildlife management, but in some cases, managing forests, as senator merkley knows in the pacific northwest, we are working together with our state and

federal colleagues on ecological forestry which involves many of the principles you're speaking of, which is get in, do thinning, do understory management. i think good, improved forest management is an important aspect of our adaptation to changing climate. it's an important aspect of wildlife management and providing the habitat that our game species are going to need in the future. i agree with you that that is an important adaptation for us to take. and we need better capacity to do that in knowing what we now know about climate change and what the future is going to look like. >> the chair has agreed to indulge me on one other question. there is a strategic plan to responding to climate change that includes increased data collection, initiatives to increase awareness and habitat conservation programs.

how much money and how many employees is this going to take? and will this negatively impact other fish and wildlife service programs? >> i'm not sure what strategy you're talking about, sir. >> let me ask you, does fish and wildlife service have a strategic plan for responding to climate change? >> we do have a climate change strategic plan, and as i mentioned before, one of the outgrowths of that plan is the national fish, wildlife and plants adaptation strategy. it identifies a number of common sense steps that we can take. >> my question is about the cost of this and whether employees will be taken away from other programs and placed into this initiative? >> no.

because they're basically synonymous with good management, as you have identified with forest management. what we need to do is we need to provide our managers, our federal and state and tribal managers with the tools they need to do better forest management, better range management with the scientific information they need. it will cost -- it will take additional capacity to do this, but it needs to be done. >> where is that additional capacity going to come from? >> well, i think as the president has provided in specific context of fire management, as i said, the president has provided in this year's budget that 30% of the funds for suppression should come from the disaster funding ceiling. that will free up dollars for us to do more preventive management for fire. i think we know, we have common sense approaches to find and build the capacity that you're

talking about. i think the president has proposed one such step in his 2015 budget. >> thank you. i'll take my five-minute turn then. i would like to say that that forest service plan makes a lot of sense because what we've had with the large fires has been complete depletion of the forest service and trying to restore the funds for every other function they have other than fighting fires. that's not treating emergencies as emergencies and a huge disruptive factor in the ordinary work force. that's a terrific proposal. i commend the forest service for it. you mention in your testimony some of the migrations that are occurring. specifically, you mention the pacific, i think it's called the brandt, and that it has migrated a long -- its range has changed dramatically. can you explain what's going on there?

>> sure. pacific brandt is a small goose. pacific brandt have ranged their breeding grounds in the arctic and migrate historically down to mexico, winter in mexico, or summer in mexico. what we are seeing increasingly of brandt are staying in alaska throughout the breeding season. so what that creates is a potential that will have a disruption, will have a severe weather event and the birds will not have migrated and will take a big population reduction. these changes in migratory patterns put more uncertainty into the game for wildlife managers. so if we are facing more uncertainty, the way we typically deal with that is we reduce opportunity. so i think that's the restriction that we are looking at. >> my impression is we are

seeing this in studies of lots of species. some of my colleagues talked about the migrating lobster, so on and so forth. so this is not just one particular -- lots of ocean species are things that are changing? >> across the board we are seeing changes in the blooming of flowers, the green-up in alaska tundra in the springtime. we are seeing changes in migratory patterns as we talked about. we are seeing changes in habitat availability for cold water fish. while one study in 2012 of cold water fishes estimates that by 2100 we could see a reduction of 50% in habitat availability for cold water fishes, trout, salmon, a loss of as much as 6.5 million angler days, and as much as $6.5 billion in economic activity.

so these changes are not inconsequential for sportsmen and women. >> thank you. i want to take a look at the chart on the surface temperature issue that was just raised. so this chart shows change in surface temperature from 1970 through 2013. it basically shows that there's about a 0.6 degrees celsius change in just that 44-year period. one can draw kind of impressions about this. i have another chart here that has a line that simply represents kind of the rising direction of temperature, but i wanted to specifically emphasize the second chart which shows that rising temperature is a series of steps. because a number of folks have commented and said, well look, this last bar is flat and it's

flat over a period of approximately 10, 12 years. and therefore, nothing to worry about. but when you see this chart going backwards, we see a series of periods where the average temperature keeps increasing by steps, if you will. is there any reason to think that if we are looking at this chart ten years from now, that we will see a new step that is lower than the step we're at now? is there any reason to think no issue here, that this trend is not going to continue? >> i'm not aware of any scientific study that predicts a decline in temperature from this point forward. your observation, as i was saying in response to senator wicker's statement, you look at the long-term temperature record, it's unequivocal temperatures are rising and the predictions are for temperatures to rise and the rate of

temperature increase to rise in the future. >> thank you very much for your testimony. appreciate it very much. bringing the expertise of your agency to bear on these broad trends that we're experiencing. >> thank you, senator. >> mr. chairman, i wonder if there is any reason to believe that if we raise electricity rates on american farmers and ranchers by double digits that line is going to change one way or the other? >> is that something you want to speculate on? >> i think i've already speculated. >> i will note i'll have entered in the record an analysis looking at future power costs. it actually anticipates a reduction. but that's maybe for another hearing or another debate and discussion.

let's turn to our second panel, if they could come forward. welcome. it's great to have you all. i'm happy to have our second panel of witnesses. we have a diverse group including three individuals that will talk about how climate change is impacting their area of expertise and two minority witnesses who will present their perceptions as climate change skeptics. i'll go ahead and introduce everyone now. then we'll proceed with the testimony. our first witness is jim walls, which i'm particularly delighted to have you here, from oregon. jim serves as executive director ever lake county resources

initiative, an organization dedicated to preserving national forest, expanding the use of renewable energy in rural communities. he's worked to foster more collaborative approaches to forest management, as well as working to make and attract more biomass, geothermal, hydro, solar energy products to lake county. second witness is clay polke, he is fourth generation wheat farmer and cattle rancher in oklahoma and serves as the state association executive director of the oklahoma association of conservation districts. clay served in the oklahoma house of representatives from 1994 through 2004. welcome. our third witness is daniel cohen. commercial fisherman and owner of atlantic cape fisheries, a scallop marketing company based in new jersey but does business on both coasts.

david south is a retired professor of forestry at auburn where he also earned his ph.d. in forestry. mr. south served as director for the southern forest nursery management cooperative. and is it legates? david legates, our final witness is a joint associate professor of geography at the university of delaware. he is also the former director of the center for climatic research at the university of delaware. welcome, everyone. and mr. walls if you could kick off the testimony, the show is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman and fellow members. it's a privilege to be here and an honor. as said, my name is jim walls. i run a small nonprofit in lake county, oregon, concentrating on federal forest lands and renewable energies. we are 78% government land-owned in our county.

that's over 8,500 square miles so it's big. it's bigger than some eastern states. within that, like many communities with forest over the past three decades, we suffered high unemployment, poverty rates due to policies on our national forests. we look at renewable energy as a way to change our economy and bring new green jobs to the forefront. when discussing climate change on forests, i can't separate the actions of past forest management and impacts of climate change. they are both in the same. and treatments will have the both same effects. that is as we underthin, take the understory and remove it and remove that amount so there is -- they are more back to a natural stand condition that was pre-european, that was also the strategy we need to use for climate change. so they are intertwined. in our case, i would like to

point out that over the past decade, what has that meant in our forest? well, in ten years, the first fire was the winter rim tool box fire. we lost 100,000 acres. then we had a beetle kill of over 350,000 acres. then in 2012 we had the berry point fire, 93,000 acres. in less than a decade, we have now lost 24% of the fremont national forest. if we keep this rate up, because fires are getting more intense, insects are getting more intense because of the warmer climate change. if we keep this up, we will lose in three decades our whole forest. i think that is a real and severe threat to us. it is not only a threat to our industry in timber, it's a threat to our agricultural industry, too. we average 10% to 20% moisture during the winter. our summers are hot and dry normally.

without that snow pack, we don't have agriculture. we don't have irrigational water. all you have to do is look to our neighbors the klamath basin this year and what's going to happen there. even in lake county, we are going to see reduced irrigation rates because of the drought. droughts we have never seen of this sphere before. i think to debate the climate change, long-term, short-term, all that, i personally say it's here and the risk is way too high just to ignore the few that you might be right that it's not happening. i hope we don't go there. by using renewable energy, i feel we can offset that. we developed a plan in lake county, all the ones we have done an economic analysis and feasibility study on, we will offset 93% of the fossil fuel emissions in a decade out of lake county, and we will do it economically so. so as we go forward with this debate, i would hope that we

look at the things like that that make economic sense. can renewables compete with hydro? no. can it compete with coal and industry? solar is there. cost of a panel now is very cheap. it's reducing all the time. wind is there. as we invest in these more and more of them will become competitive at other rates throughout the country. and it's a way to turn our jobs around. i ask one thing is to change the definition, which senator merkley co-sponsored with senator wyden on on renewable energy. biomass out of our federal lands is not considered renewable energy sources. we have two companies looking to locate in lake county. we only have supply for one so hopefully one of those will make it. that is the cellulosic jet fuel company and biomass energy production company. with that definition, they do not want to invest because it's

not considered renewable. so please do change that, senate bill 536. get that passed so we change that definition. it does not make sense to me. the other thing i would like to say is we need to increase the scale of getting treatments. i mentioned and senator rucker, you said my full testimony about the worst neighbor is the forest service. it's not because we don't know what to do, it's the time and the amount we are getting done. we need to increase that rather than treating 3,000 to 4,000 acres of land that is overstocked that we would be treating 20,000 acres a year and get to 100,000 acres and not just doing small acres projects at a time. we don't want to skip any environmental rules. we want it to be ecologically sound and economically as well. as we move on, i hope you'll also look with the fire spending was mentioned.

we cannot get ahead of this or achieve our goals with those acres if we don't deal with fire borrowing that occurs every year. and as these fires get more intense and hotter, we need to look at that. senate bill 1875, i hope you endorse that bill and we get that through because it's far cheaper to treat the forestland than it is to suppress fire. and they're increasing. another thing that climate change has done in the thicker forest is that it keeps the snow from hitting the ground. we get large amounts of evaporation rate in those thicker forests. so our snow pack is reduced. so i do see by implementing and doing common sense things today, such as renewable energy, we can make some big impact. after that, let's debate the more challenging stuff. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. pope? >> chairman merkley, ranking member wicker and members of the committee. thank you for the chance to speak about climate change

and the challenges facing climate change. first, let me say we've always had wild weather on the southern plains. i think oklahoma native will rogers said if you don't like the weather in oklahoma, wait a minute, it will change. what's different is the frequency and strength of the weather events that we're seeing. basically our crazy weather has been put on steroids. the drought we've been suffering through the last five years is a perfect example and it's had a drastic impact on agriculture. in oklahoma alone, we've seen a reduction in the cattle herd by over 10%. by the first of this year, the cattle inventory shrunk to its lowest level since 1951 and over 80% of these reductions happened in two states -- oklahoma and texas. but the effects of the drought aren't just limited to livestock. we may be looking at the fourth gleer a row where the cotton acres will be abandoned. as bad as the cotton situation is, the real story is wheat. this year's wheat harvest is expected to be the lowest since 1957. it's estimated the amount of wheat harvested in 2014 will be 40% of what was cut in 2013 and that crop was 30% below what was

cut in 2012. this drop in production isn't just due to the drought. a late season freeze also took its toll on oklahoma's wheat crop. late season freezes aren't anything new, but what is new, though, is the frequency. this is the third time in five years that a late freeze has impacted oklahoma's wheat crop. clearly we have a problem. the question is, what do we do about it? well, the secret, senators, in my opinion, is in the soil. improving the health of our soil is the key to helping agriculture both mitigate and adapt to climate change. our farm ground has lost between 60% to 80% of the organic matter that was present in the soil at initial plow-up. this is important because it's organic matter that feeds the microbial community of bugs, bacteria and fungus beneath the soil that form our first and best line of defense against climate change. every 1% increase of organic matter can triple that soil's water holding capacity. that equals on average to an additional 25,000 gallons of water available per acre for growing crops. by converting the no till cropping systems that also incorporate cover crops, we can greatly increase the

infiltration of water in our farm ground while reducing the amount of moisture lost to evaporation when that land is tilled exposed to the sun. this helps farms better weather the droughts being exacerbated by climate change. this increase in soil moisture also helps restore balance to the overall water cycle, which increases stream flow. making more water available for humans and wildlife. by using no till, but can also greatly reduce soil erosion while at the same time reducing runoff from agricultural land. this not only protects the soil, it also reduces pollution in our streams and rivers. in addition, that same 1% increase in organic matter can on average make available up to $700 worth of additional nutrients per acre for growing crops. by improving the health of our soil, we can help plants more effectively absorb the nutrients available in the ground helping us increase yields and feed an ever-growing planet. we do all this, we're also lowering carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. no till can sequester on average roughly half a metric ton of carbon per acre per year. we all know plants breathe in

carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. that carbon dioxide is then stored in the form of organic matter. you help agriculture adapt to climate change while you improve water quality, improve wildlife habitat and increase yields and sequester carbon dioxide in the soil. this is something we need to do. through the farm bill conservation programs, usda has the ability to help producers do it. unfortunately as budget tightened, financial assistance through these programs and funding for technical assistance continues to shrink. during the dust bowl it was determined it was in the public's interest to keep the farm ground of the southern plains in production. through the partnership of the federal and state governments and local conservation districts the tide of dust was turned back. they have the ability to discuss climate change. even with these resources researchers need to determine what technologies are best suited to help them adapt to climate change. usda started this research.

they hold great promise but will go unrealized if they aren't provided with the resources to do their job. we can't lose sight of the fact the floods will come again. droughts and floods have a tendency to come together. headac take the hammond flood. it occurred during the dust bowl. oklahoma alone has over 2100 of these structures. when this work takes place, many of these could be made into reservoirs for nearby communities to help with water shortages n the flash floods made worse by climate change. funding was authorized to do this work. nrcs rules state it can only be used to repair existing structures to their current size. this doesn't have to be the case. a change in rules would allow federal funds to be made available to help several of our communities with new water sources. when you look at the opportunities outlined in the original flood control act, water quality and quantity, flood mitigation and wildlife enhancement you see this program as another tool that usda already has that can help our

country better adapt to climate change. i would reiterate southern plains agricult surfacing serious charges. the food news is usda has tools to cope with this challenge and there's a path forward. the question is, will we take it? thank you for allowing me to speak today. i'd be thehappy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to address the committee as you evaluate the impact of climate change on our environment and likelihood for next generations. the fishing ag kulriculture of united states, especially the shellfish industry is susceptible to increases in ocean temperature and acidification. it has already been significantly impacted and is the harbinger of human use of fossil fuels and co2 increases

in our atmosphere. i am daniel cohen, president of the atlantic capes fisheries. we operate vessels on the east coast and west coast with facilities in new jersey, maryland, rhode island, massachusetts and pacific northwest. we are focused on scallops, clams, crab and squid. i spent a considerable amount of my time raising over $1 million a year with the mid-atlantic fisheries management council and primary science in conjunction with rutgers university and cornell university. about 15 years ago, recognizing that the wild harvests of commercial fishermen such as ourselves will be capped to make certain we had sustainable harvests for the future, and with the sustainable capped harvests there would not be enough fish protein for a growing world population with 6 billion, now 7 billion and soon to be 9 billion. the industry is looking more and

more towards agriculture to meet those rising needs. i'm going to use examples today that are not anecdotes, but actually what's happened to industry and then backed up with scientific research determining what is actually happening. i will do that with four examples that are really just examples. we can talk more about others. these are all -- these examples are having -- are coming from three sources. one, changes slowly over time, bottom temperature change of the ocean. two is rising ocean acidity from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere going into the ocean as co2 sink. raising the level of ocean. changes in ocean currents which scientists describe as changes in bottom temperature. four examples, we serve clam fisheries on the east coast, oyster hatcheries in oregon, the fluke fishery in north carolina

and scallop fishery in british columbia. the surf clam fishery was historically centered off the coast of virginia up to the center of new jersey. new jersey landed over 50% of the surf clams for the entire country and surf clams are the number one ingredient in clam chowder, which was, i think, the number one soup served in restaurants in the country. also enjoyed as fried and breaded clam strips. as outlined in the written evidence i've given, in addition, bottom temperature rise was first identified after a fisheries survey determined the die off of clams off of virginia. rutgers and vims scientists determined it was due to bottom temperature changes. cooler waters in new england saw greater spawning off new england. clam plants shut in virginia, maryland and new jersey and new plants opened in massachusetts and rhode island, showing a shift in the population of the clams due to bottom temperature rise documented by rutgers. and therefore, a change in jobs. in the pacific northwest, we've

seen large ociean acidification. our written testimony is from oregon state university documenting over $110 million worth of losses to the hatchery industry alone. now they are having to buffer all their water. the way you buffer yourself scientists determined it was due to bottom temperature changes. cooler waters in new england saw greater spawning off new england. clam plants shut in virginia, maryland and new jersey and new plants opened in massachusetts and rhode island, showing a shift in the population of the clams due to bottom temperature rise documented by rutgers. and therefore, a change in jobs. in the pacific northwest, we've seen large oceanification. in the mid 2000s they discovered the problem of ocean acidity. 90% of all the scallops being raised offshore, three-year classes were killed. my company alone sustained a $10 million loss. scientists are continually researching this right now. they believe the highest levels of ocean acidification weaken the animals and become more endemic disease. in terms of the fluke fishery, you have evident in my written testimony, mostly documented by an article that is being released today by the daily climate, that is documenting work in noaa,

documenting temperature changes in the east coast affecting the migration and distribution of the fluke fishery. the fluke fishery is completely rebuilt, but because the of good management practices by mid-atlantic council, but because the distribution of those fluke are slowly moving north where they traditionally are fished off north carolina are now being fished off new york and further north. therefore, there is a user conflict state by state allocation of the fluke fishery and recreational commercial conflict. all the consequence of change in distribution due to documented bottom temperature change. i conclude by saying i believe that it is irrefutable that climate change is happening. leaders of the east coast fishing industry along with myself have formed a company called fishermen's energy to try similar to what was testified here, to propose to try to adapt, and we proposed the bill to offshore wind farms. these are an example we must shape to be agents of change rather than victims of change. i would be happy to answer questions whenever you'd like.

>> thank you, mr. cohen. mr. south or dr. south. >> it is a privilege to provide you with my views of forest and wildfires. foresters know there are many examples how human activity affects total number and size of wildfires. policymakers who halt active forest management and kill green harvesting jobs really end up contributing to the buildup of fuels in the forest. this eventually increases the risk of catastrophic wildfires. to attribute this human-caused increase in fire risk to carbon dioxide emissions is simply unscientific. in today's world of climate alarmism, accuracy doesn't seem to matter. i am therefore not surprised to see many journalists spreading the idea that carbon emissions cause large wildfires. there is a well-known point there is a well-known poem called the serenity prayer, god

grant me the serenity to september the things i cannot change, courage to change the things i can and the wisdom to know the difference. now that i'm 65, i realize that i can't change the behavior of the media. i can't change the weather. early in my career, i gave up trying to change the media and make them correct their mistakes about forest management. now i just concentrate on my colleagues, trying to get them to do a better job of just sticking to the facts. i'll leave the guesses of the future to others. untrue claims about the underlying cause of wildfires can spread like wildfire. the false statement that wildfires in 2012 burned a record 9.2 million acres in the u.s. is cited in numerous articles and is found in more than 2,000 websites.

you can see looking at the graph wildfires in the '30s burned more about four times that rate. wildfire in 2012 was certainly an issue of concern, but those who push an agenda really need to exaggerate the claims in order to fool the public. this graph shows carbon emissions rising over the -- since 1926. if we cherry-pick data from 1926 to 1970, we get a negative relationship between carbon dioxide and fire size. however, if we cherry pick data from 1985 to the current year, we get a positive relationship. now, neither of these relationships proves anything about the effects of carbon dioxide on wildfires. since during dry season, human activity is the overwhelming factor that determines both the number and size of wildfires.

in the 48 states there have been about ten extreme mega fires. next. eight of these fires occurred during cool decades. these data suggest that extremely large mega fires were four times more common before 1940, back when with carbon dioxide concentrations were less than 310 parts per million. looks to me like we cannot reasonably say that manmade global warming causes extremely large wildfires. seven years ago, this committee conducting a hearing about climate change and wildfires wasn't even mentioned in that meeting, but hurricanes, droughts were mentioned a number of times.

i'm pleased to provide you with my forestry views because unlike hurricanes, droughts and the polar vortex, we can actually promote forestry practices that will reduce the risk of wildfires. unfortunately some of our national forest management policies have in my view, contributed to increasing the risk of wildfires. i am certain attempts to legislate a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have no effect on reducing the size of wildfires or on the frequency of droughts. in contrast, allowing forest management practices to create economically lasting forestry jobs in the private sector might reduce the fuel loads of dense forests. in years when demand for renewable resources are high, increasing the number of thinnings and harvesting jobs might actually have a real impact on reducing wildfires. thank you for this opportunity to address the subcommittee.

>> thank you very much, dr. south. dr. legates. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senators. carbon dioxide is plant food and more of it can be a positive. if global water temperature would rise for any reason, the length of growing season would be increased, amount and diversity of crops would be enhanced. the big problem with is limiting factor for agriculture and much of the water is water availability. soil moisture in a warmer world depends on a complicated interaction of changes including precipitation and increases in water demand. globally we've seen drought frequencies have not changed over the past 60 years. the percentage of the united states in moderate or extreme drought has not changed in 112 years, a pattern noted by the climate change science program and ipcc. regionally droughts have not become more intense, historical record does not warrant a claim global warming will negatively impact agriculture. dire forecasts of extreme

drought arise from climate model simulations, which are only as good as their ability to simulate precipitation. most models overestimate rainfall, but underestimate rainfall intensity. models may appear correct in the aggregate, they don't get the process correct. how can models make accurate estimates when they cannot simulate correctly the mechanisms that drive precipitation? evaporative demand is driven by temperature, models overestimated the air temperature rise since 1979 by almost one degree fahrenheit. if precipitation air temperature are not models properly, how can they be relied pun to prepare farmers for uncertain future. climate changes because climate always changed. droughts that happened in the past and are likely to occur again with similar frequencies and intensity. thus i believe preparation for their return is a better strategy than trying in vain to mitigate them through draconian carbon dioxide emission

policies, such as those proposed only yesterday. however, i've become increasingly concerned how this scientific debate is being corrupted. in my 2003 testimony regarding the hockey stick, lamented that a healthy debate was being compromised. editors at two journals was harassed. one was threatened with a organized boycott by scientists over a paper it had published. the senior editor barred two scientists from publication in the journal because of their position on climate change. without a hearing and without an accusation of fraud or plagiarism. i would like to report things have become better. they haven't. in 2009, climategate should light on how the process was being subverted. in my case learned that i had been denied publication of an important paper due to solely a conclusion between another scientist and editor. over the years, i applied for several federal grants including nasa and u.s. department of agriculture, the latter having nothing to do with climate change. it's not that i received bad reviews. indeed, i received no reviews at all.

program officers refused to respond by e-mail or telephone. their behavior appears related to an article in the academy of science, which often used as a blacklist to target, quote, researchers unconvinced of global warming. several years ago i and two colleagues at delaware received foias related to materials related to climate change. university general council said he would review my documents, regarding of how or where they were produced. he indicated that foia did not apply to them. in essence, i will be treated differently simply because he can treat me that way. so i sought legal counsel. the dean informed me i could not hire my own lawyer and the college would no longer support me. i was removed as delaware state climatologist as codirector of a environmental network i spent a decade to develop, faculty advisor to student groups.

and from all departmental responsibilities. legal counsel agreed to treat us equally. this never occurred. he never went through materials for anyone else. i alone was targeted and lied to. even the faculty union told me that foia matters did not fall win their bailiwick. according to the ceo of the university none of my research ee-mails fall under the foia laws. they violate terms of the federal arbitration case. there is nothing in my record which i am embarrassed. i tell you this story not because i seek sympathy, but there are many other cases where the victim cannot speak out. the so-called war on science is only a diversion. the real war is being waged in the halls of academia. and within the granting agencies. a healthy scientific discussion is being subverted for political and personal gain. scientists who deviate from the anthropo againic global warming playbook are the global warming playbook are

harassed, have articles, grants and proposals rejected without review, treated more harshly than their peers and removed from positions of power and influence. union scientists quickly learn to toe the party line or remain silent, thus they lose their career before it begins. i leave you with this view -- the loser is independent thinking and good policymaking, because all require rational thought to be effective. thank you. thank you very much for all your testimony. we'll have five-minute periods. i believe the order after i ask my questions will go to senator sessions, senator vitter. senator wicker said he will defer to his colleagues. i didn't see you come in, senator whitehouse. so let me check on the order. what's our -- we'll go back and forth between ds and rs. thank you. ah, thank you. i wanted to start. mr. wells, in lake county, i've been struck

when i visit there. it's obviously a rural economy, rural part. of the state of oregon, and a lot of emphasis on renewable energy. i believe a stated goal of the county is to try to replace virtually all the fossil fuels burned with renewable sources. is part of the factor driving that conversation lake county a general observation by folks about the impact of carbon dioxide on, as you were putting it, on the force? >> in the beginning, which had been ten years ago when we started working on this, it became clear after when we started to analyze it and did a paper on it, we could offset 93%. my board approved this past week we will go public with all our finding and try and develop a plan to use renewables to offset all carbon emissions. we grew into that as we learned

more of the economic benefits of renewable energy. we said what is that going to do to climate change and carbon dioxide emissions? like i said in my testimony what we have on the drawing table today would offset 93, to get to 100 is not that difficult from there. we are well on that road. i think we can be 100% offset within ten years. >> great. thank you. i was looking at the national climate assessment and summary and it notes that climate change is exacerbating major factors that lead to wildfire, heat, drought and dead trees. it outweighed other factors determining the burn area from 1916 to 2003, including exacerbation of bark beetle outbreaks. which normally die in cold weather. more wildfires as change continues. then i saw there is a 2011

report that estimates if you increase the temperature 1.8 degrees fahrenheit, that you, which is approximately 1 degrees celsius, that you would quadruple the amount of acreage burned. if you look at the forest issues, if i understand your testimony correctly, you are seeing both the impacts of human management of the forest as a factor, but also the overlay of these climate factors? >> exactly. as i mentioned, it's impacted our no -- snowpack dramatically. if you look at the climate forest vista to the south of us, they had six sites that were several percent snow pack. >> drier conditions. >> and the beetle kill. beetle kill gets into the pine lodgepole pine naturally. it's never been at the size that it is today. that's because we don't have the cold temperatures and they get to live year after year because of the warmer temperatures and they are not being killed. and 350,000 acres is abnormal. nobody's ever seen that. i think throughout the whole

west into canada was over 4 million acres beetle kill, somewhere in that neighborhood. >> thank you very much. mr. pope, turning to the farming side, one of the things you mentioned were changes in the wheat farming. are you arguing that the changes in wheat are being impacted by changing temperatures? >> yeah. when you look at the situation on the southern plains, clearly the drought over the last years had a huge impact. i think when you look at the situation as far as precipitation, clearly with wheat, wheat is a resilient crop. depends when you get the rain and when the rains come. the challenge is the rain patterns we've been seeing, the way things are changing. put into that effects of the late season freezes, the droughts. clearly, we are seeing an impact on the wheat crop from the changes in the climate we are experiencing right now. i think there are some things we can do to help adapt to that situation. i hope we can do some things to move forward a little bit as far

as improving the soil health to make our farms more resilient to droughts, freezes to sudden flooding events, heavy rain events. that's a challenge in front of us to make sure we've got those tools to do that job. >> thank you. in the 45 seconds i have left, i -- oysters, i read a recent report about oysters in the chesapeake declining because of acidity. but a secondary impact is the oysters filter the chesapeake, possibly offsetting efforts to clean up the check apeek bay. you're seeing? >> first, oysters are specifically a great benefit for the environment. and they they are filter feeders and they do clean. one of the things why in the chesapeake bay they are trying to bring them back because they need to clean the bay up. in the chesapeake, similar to what's happening in the pacific

northwest, we have rising levels of pco2, partial pressure of co2 in the ocean and rising acidity. in the pacific northwest, we are able to document it because it's mostly hatchery base. there is hatchery base, you can control what's happening and identify. it's harder in the wild environment to determine what's happening and see whether or not a spawning event is taking place, again with, it's not really spawning but with baby larvae have a hard time setting up their shell. they can't get set the calcium in the shell because of the acidity. if you use tums in your stomach, it's really calcium that you're buffering. did that answer your question? >> thank you. i would ask more but my time expires. i'll ask everyone to keep their questions in five minutes. maybe the answer will go over since we have a number of folks who want to jump into this. i believe senator sessions, you're next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. legates, the time we can

intimidate people who present scientific papers that disagree with the current idea that's in fashion needs to be over. we need to challenge that. i'm not going to rest easy about it myself. i know the president, and i've challenged this, twice said the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even ten years ago. he said that twice. do any of you gentlemen support that statement? do you have any science that would back that up? mr. ashe doesn't because i asked him about it. so we have no -- we do not need to tolerate the president of the united states falsely asserting the status of climate in america.

and we need to be able to allow scientists to present contrary views without being intimidated by the politically correct crowd. i feel strongly about it and we are going to keep working on that. the u.s. climate change science program said, quote, in may of 2008, a tendency toward severity of drought over the latter half of the 20th century, a decrease in the severity in duration of drought. if i think about that kingston trio song, mr. pope, texas you could substitute oklahoma for texas, they're riding in africa, they're starving in spain, the whole world is full of strife and texas needs rain. so we have a lot of drought in the '30s, did we not in oklahoma? more than you have today? during the dust bowl times? >> if i could answer, it's drier now than it was in the 1930s. the drought in 1950s is a drought of record in oklahoma.

the drought of the 1930s is actually the third worst, the would than that we are in right now is worse than the one we had in the '50s and '30s. >> you think it's more severe in the '30s? >> yes, it is. if it hadn't been with the conservation practices on the land right now, i feel very confident, very confident in telling you we would be experiencing the challenges that we saw in the 1930s as far as wind erosion. >> that is not the trend across the country, apparently. dr. south, thank you for your statement and data you submitted with it. you have a chart that indicates rainfall in forest lands in different regions of the country have increased over 100 years ago.

is that the way i read that? northeast? indicates other areas have increases also? as a matter of fact, every one of the regions seems to show -- you indicate other regions had reductions. >> no change in the west. there is a slight decrease in the southwest. >> where the droughts are severe now. you have 4% increase in the northeast? >> minus 0.2 inch in 100 years. >> in the southwest? >> in the southwest. >> yeah. so overall, we are not seeing a decline in rainfall, it appears to me, throughout the country as a whole. dr. south, isn't it true that we had a resurgence of game in alabama? >> certain species, that's correct. >> isn't it true that many forests are being managed far better than in the past? >> better is a value term. from a forestry perspective, i

would say yes. >> lands that were once row cropped and broken up every year, marginal lands, highly erodible lands are now in timber, are they not? >> yes. >> from an environmental and co2 point of view, is that increase in timberlands in the southeast, that i know about, that's positive, would you not say, for co2 and the environment? >> from a mathematics perspective, yes. >> so instead of having land -- is my time up? the way we managed timber, you would plant an open field being harvested every year, trees grow for 15 years, they're thinned, the trees then grow faster because there is a thinning, then they are harvested 15 years, 30 years, 50 years and replanted. i would say that's a renewable resource, would you not?

>> definitely. >> would you oppose the idea that we shouldn't treat wood as a renewable resource like we do corn? would you oppose the idea some are raising that we shouldn't use wood for renewable energy or other resources like pellets? >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator whitehouse. >> i appreciate that planting trees helps reduce carbon, but it hardly offsets the coal plant next door that's putting out tens of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide. the 50 worst carbon plants in the country put out more carbon that korea, and korea is a pretty industrialized country. and we are seeing these effects in new england. senator sessions was pleased to bring up that there is actually additional rain falling in the northeast. not only is there additional

rain falling in the northeast, just as the climate projections expect, but it is falling in more powerful rain bursts, just as the climate experts predicted. people can quibble and quarrel at the far remote fringes of the scientific debate, but tell that to our fishermen? i mean, well a very nice guy, chris brown, head of the rhode island fisher men's association, i'll echo what you said, chris

is a fisherman. he grew up on the ocean, hi dad and granddad were, this is his life. >> it was commonplace haddock, last year i caught only two. regularly caught now in rhode island are the species of kroeker, grouper, cobia, drum, and tarpon. my grandfather never saw any of these in his entire life. as another fisherman said to me, sheldon, it's getting weird out there. it's not just rhode island waters. i traveled through the south atlantic over the break. they told me that off charleston, they're catching

snook. snook is a fish you used to go down to ft. lauderdale to catch. now they're catching snook off charleston, and it's working its way up. redfish are being caught north of cape cod. in case the warming oceans and moving around of the fisheries and all that upheaval isn't enough, against rhode island shores, the oceans are 10 inches higher than in the 1930s sooner or later, another hurricane will come and give us a punch. i ask my colleagues, if you're genuinely interested in this issue, spend ten minutes for my sake on google looking at the images of what happened to my state in the hurricane of 1938. and then imagine what happens when that 10 inches that is there now and wasn't then of additional sea level gets stacked up further by storm surge and thrown against our shores.

it is a potential catastrophe. the idea that i'm supposed to overlook this is preposterous. the idea that my side of the ledger doesn't count and the only side that counts is jobs in the coal industry, or jobs in the oil an gas industry, is equalitily preposterous, the science out there has become spectacularly clear, even though there remains a fringe. but it's not a fringe that any rational person would put a bet on in their real lives in any other circumstance. so i'll conclude by thanking senator americaly for this program. i want to thank senator cohen -- witness cohen for his testimony about thinks fisheries. we're way past the debate on whether this is real. this is happening in people's lives now in ways that are unprecedented, and we have got to get responsible about doing something about it. i thank the chairman.

>> thank you very much, senator whitehouse. senator vitter? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to our witnesses. first of all, i'm sorry i came too late for the first panel featuring director ashe. on february 25, when he was last before the committee, i asked him some questions, important questions, i think, regarding the consultation under the endangered species act with regard to epa's new proposals regarding existing power plants. his job is about endangered and threatened species, and understanding impacts on that. clearly these new regulations have the potential for major impacts on that. i asked him if he and epa were consulting under the law because of that. he didn't know. he didn't have answers. i asked him to follow up.

he has not followed up. i sent a letter to him and administrator mccarthy regarding this mandated consultation on march 6th. i have gotten no response. to i'll continue following up, but that is his job. this is a major set of regulations, and we do expect answers about their responsibility for consultation. now, in terms of questions, dr. south, i share your concern that every weather item in the news, it seems, is sort of held up as a newest example of the impact of climate change, with no real science behind that assertion. and this is also true of wildfires. just recently, for instance, the democratic majority leader harry reid claimed the global warning

was the cause of increased wildfires, pure and simple. you testified about that. if can you go back and underscore, what do you think the science, the historical record lays out in terms of any trends over time regarding wildfires, number one, and number two, what do you think are the leading causes of any trends that do exist? >> well, first of all, those who claim that co2 causes additional wildfires are not making scientific statements. instead of being easily fooled by journalists. wildfires have typically been associated with droughts, and with forest conditions that are -- make wildfires more probable. the chart that i showed, showing

a lot of wildfires in the '30s and the -- before we started having really active wildfire fighting forces gives you an idea of how cyclic it can be. the downward trend there is caused by humans. our activity is trying to fight the fires. the urban sprawl that has caused people to -- or has resulted in people building houses in the forest has, in my view, and others, taken manpower away from fighting fires and into protecting homes. this can increase the size of the wildfire that they happen to be working on. so spending more time on

fighting -- or preventing houses from catching fire, and taking the time away from attacking the front, causes the size of the fire to be larger. >> and also, in this area, what are your thoughts about current management of our forests and that factor regarding wildfires? >> well, we have -- the general view of the public -- we're starting to let the public manage our forest instead of letting foresters, and when the public causes litigation, delays, thinning practices, delays, fire fuel wood reductions activities, we get a buildup of fuels and increased

risk of wildfires so by enacting policies that lock up wilderness areas, decreases harvesting rates. we used to harvest about 12 cubic board feet out of a national forest and that's dropped to nothing, so the national forests are getting bigger. this is all cause for more climatic -- i mean more catastrophic wildfires when they do occur. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator vitter. senator wicke ewicker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have not today, nor have i ever in a committee hearing insulted the integrity of

witnesses on the other side of an issue, and we have come perilously close to that in this committee today. it's been suggested by my friend from rhode island that dr. south and dr. legates are part of a fringe, and to me this -- this is the very kind of public intimidation and insulting rhetoric that professor legates has talked about, having experienced it at the university of delaware, and i take exception to it. now, dr. legates, you were a signatory of the oregon petition, are you not? >> yes, sir. >> that oregon petition says there's no convincing scientific

evidence that human release of carbon dioxide methane or greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere. i assume this is something that you and some fringe scientists from oregon got together and signed. is that correct? >> no, i believe there's some 30-some thousand people. >> would you describe these people? many are scientists ph.d.s, other disciplines, people who are connectwood climate change and doing research in various areas associated with it. >> well, i just have to say, i appreciate someone standing up and challenging the conventional wisdom. you know, martin luther king did that. and so i appreciate some people who are willing to hold up their hand and say, wait a minute, i've got some data here that i would like to suggest is a

contrary position. >> i wouldn't put myself quite in that category. >> well, but it is -- it is an important issue, i agree with that. >> i have to say i admire you for standing up, and dr. south also for standing up and saying, you have a right to be heard, and a right to be listened to, and a right not to be insulted by being called a part of a lunatic fringe. now, you've concluded that droughts in the united states are more frequent and more intense during colder periods. is that correct? >> that's what the -- that's what the data is indicating. when we look at droughts over the last 2,000 years, they tend to become more intense and more frequent when the temperatures have become colder. >> dr. south, you -- you've offered a couple of bets to your scientists over time, is that

correct? >> yes, sir. >> i believe five years ago you offered to bet on an ice-free arctic in the summer of 2013. when the bbc journalist wrote a 2007 article entitled arctic summers ice-free by 2013, and several ice experts declined to bet with you. is that correct? >> that's correct. if they had bet with you, they would have lost that bet. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and you currently are offering a bet on sea level rise. would you tell the committee about that? >> yes. i'm looking for someone who would be willing to bet $1,000 on the sea level increase for the year 2024 in charleston, south carolina. >> and -- >> the rate currently is around 3.15 millimeters. i don't know how they do that to the nearest hundredth of a millimeter, but you can do it mathematically. i don't know how you do it

science tickly. scientifically. i will bet the rate ten years from now is not over 7 millimeters. the 7 millimeters -- if 7 millimeter rate starts now and goes to the year 2100, it would equal about a two-foot increase. many people are talking about a 14 millimeter being equivalent to a four-foot increase. so i'm essentially betting that for the next ten years it will be not increasing at a rate that will equal a two-foot increase by the year 2100. but i'm not going to be living that long, so i can't win that bet. >> would this bet apply to your heirs and assigns? i don't know, you're looking

pretty healthy. >> well, yes, yes, it would. >> thank you very much. we've a good hearing, and there are people watching this, and there will be people late at night, mr. chairman, watching this hearing that are suffering from insomnia, and perhaps someone will take dr. south up on his bet. thank you. >> thank you very much to all of our witnesses. i appreciate you bringing your expertise to bear. we have heard today that climate change is having impacts on the ground right now, that it's not an abstract theory, it's not about models, decades or multiple decades into the future, that the changes in the ground right now are real and measurable, and they are affecting americans' livelihoods in farming, in hunting, in fishing, and in forestry. these are real jobs, and real impact on this generation, and the next. we've heard about bark beetle

infestations. we've heard about my graze of fish. we've heard about the impact on intensifying wildfires, the impact of magnified droughts, the impact of more acidic oceans in the pacific, their impact on oyster reproduction, and i just have to wonder about if baby oysters are having trouble forming a shell, how many other shellfish impacts are there their going to be problematic for the food chain in our oceans, and our fisheries so these things are real at this moment, and they confront us with evidence that must not be ignored. certainly this is in the context of debate at this moment about specific measures that we might take to limit carbon dioxide,

including that from coal-fired plans, and the cost of ignoring climate change will continue to increase. the costs are real, the costs are tangible, they will affect jobs. they affect our rural resources. with this challenge in mind, i really appreciate the testimony before this committee today. members of the committee will have two weeks from today to submit additional written questions to the witnesses. i would certainly ask if you see such questions, you will respond and we'll make sure the answers are circulated. with that, the meeting is adjourned. a look at the supreme court here, where earlier the justices issued a 5-4 ruling that this

should -- this was the hobby lobby case. we've been soliciting your reaction to the verdict, asking you what your thoughts are. log on to facebook.com/cspan to leave your thoughts. here are just a couple. lisa writing -- corporations are not people. i hope people stop shopping there and show them they can't discriminate against women because of religious belief. meanwhile, diane holds a different view, saying it's wonderful. the supreme court made the right decision. congrats, hobby lobby. love it. again, share your thoughts on today's supreme court decision on our facebook page. the raptly growing e-cigarette industry has caught the attention of regulators and congress, and later today, c-span will air portions from recent hearings, where -- at those same hearings. republicans said regulators should be mindful of the

e-cigarettes potential as a smoking cessation tool. here's a brief look. timplgts >> i think this whole thing is knock more than it's all about the money. i think it's uncreative. i think it's nasty. it's like pornography, in my mind. what to pick between one and the other? in fact, maybe what you're doing is much more dangerous. i'm ashamed of you. i don't know how you go to sleep at night. i don't know what gets you to work in the morning, except the color green, of dollars. i've never said anything like that before, but i've never in my 30 years on this committee have i ever heard testimony such

as given by you, and by you, sir, what i want to do is send you to the middle east, because you can say we can get good people together and settle everything. you should go to the middle east and settle that, and then come back and talk to us more realistically, but for you two, you're what's wrong with this country. and the profit motive is good, but only if it's aimed at something which is for the general benefit of the public, and that could be stretched a little bit. because the public likes to be entertained. i can't say professional basketball is necessary for the existence of democrat sick in america, but people like it, so let's go ahead. but i think in your case, you don't have that leeway. it's simply a matter of the dollars, the money that you rake in.

the 256% increase in two years in advertising, and then you say it's only for the adults, not for the children, when everything else that's coming out in this hearing says otherwise. i think it's dreadful. >> that's a portion of recent hearings looking into e-cigarettes. join us at 7:00 p.m. eastern for more, when we'll explore proposed fda regulations with a.p. reporter michael felberbaum. we'll also take your phone calls and posts. that's at 7:00 p.m. on our companion network c-span. with live coverage of the u.s. house on the here on c-span3, we complement that coverage by showing you the most rely vannant congressional hearings, and then on weekend c-span3 is the home to american historic tv with programs that tell our nation's story,

including the civil wars '150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, tour museums and sites. history bookshelf, with the best-san antonio americbes best-known writers. lectures in history with top college professors, and our new series, "real america" feature archival and educational films. c-span3, created by the exact tv industry and funded by your local capable/satellite provider. earlier this month, the senate homeland security and governmental affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations looked into high-frequency trading practices in the u.s. storm. more specifically, is the hearing addressed conflicts of interest in the stock market and

their impact on consumer confidence. senator carl levin of michigan chairs the 2:45 minute event with senator john mccain of arizona serving as the ranking member. >> good morning, everybody. most americans' image of the u.s. stock market is shaped by a single room, the trading floor of the new york stock exchange, where traders await a ceremonial bell to kick off the day's activity, then trade shares worth millions on scraps of paper. in reality most shares are traded not on a floor in manhattan, but in racks of computer servers in new jersey. trades happen not at the speed of a human scribbling on paper,

but in the milliseconds it takes for an order to travel through fiber opt sick cables. and increasingly the money made on stock markets comes not from thoroughly assessing companies for their investment potential, but for exploiting infinitesimal advantages at unfathomable speed. we are in the era of high-speed trading. i am troubled, as are many, by some of its hallmarks. it is an era of market instability. as we saw in the 2010 flash crash. which this subcommittee and the senate banks committee explored in a joint hearing, and in several market disruptions since that flash crash. it is an era in this stock market players buy the right to locate their trading computers

closer and closer to the computers of stock exchanges, conferring a minuscule speed advantage yielding massive profits. it is an era in which millions of trade orders are placed and then canceled in a single second. raising the question of whether much of what we call the market is in fact an illusion. many, including this senator, question whether the rise of high-speed trading is overall a good thing for markets and investors. but without question this era has seen a rise of conflicts of interest. these conflicts will be my focus today. other senators may focus on this or other aspects. new technology should not erase enduring values. financial markets cannot survive on technology alone. they require a much older

concept -- trust, and trust is eroding. conflicts of interest damage investors in markets, first by depriving investors of the certainly that their brokers are placing the interest of their clients first and foremost. and second, by feeding a growing belief that the markets are simply not fair. in fact, polling shows that roughly two thirds of americans believe the stock market unfairly benefits some at the expense of others. this distrust may be a factor in the fact that just over half of americans, according to a gallup survey earlier this year owns stock or -- which is down from more than two thirds of americans who owned stocks or mutual funds in 2002. that lack of faith, if allowed to fester and grow, will undermine a very important public purpose of stock

markets -- to efficiently raise capital so that businesses may grow, create new jobs, and add to america's prosperity. in previous hearings and investigations, this subcommittee has shown that our financial markets have become plagued by conflicts of interest. we have uncovered investment banks, willing to create securities based on junk assets, tote -- tout them to their clients and making a fortune at the expense of their clients. we have seen credit rating agencies assign artificially high ratings to securities in order to keep or gain business. now, with that history in mind, those who argue that the conflicts that we will explore at this hearing are manageable or acceptable have a mighty high burden of proof. which seems to your average

investor to be a simple stock market trade is usually a complicated series of transactions. involving multiple parties and increasing order times and arrangements. there are retail brokers there are wholesale brokers, who buy orders from retail brokers, and dozens of trading venues where shares are bought and sold. including dark pools, which are essentially private exchanges run by financial institutions. as that complex structure has emerged, so have a number of conflicts of interests. i will focus on two.

the first oy curse which wholesale broker to execute trades. the second occurs when a broker acting on behalf of either a retail client or an institutional investor that manages pension funds and retirement accounts chooses a trading venue, often a public exchange, to execute a trade. at both of these decision points, the party making the decision should only be influence influenced by the best interest of the investors. that's what the law requires. but there's another factor in play. at both decision points, the current structure gives brokers an incentive to place their own interests ahead of the interests of their clients, and here's how. the first conflict, which is illustrated in that chart,

occurs when retail brokers receive payments from wholesale brokers this form of money can add up to untold millions. almost every retail broker -- rather than passing them on to clients. the reasons that wholesale brothers are willing to pay for order flow are complex. one big one is that wholesale brokers can fill many of those orders out of their own invite torrie and profit from the trade. the second conflict shown on the second chart arising when a broker decides to use a public trading ven you are, and then chooses which venue it will send orders to for excuse.

what's known as the maker/taker incentive, to choose the trading venue based on the broker's financial interest rather than the client. mak maker/taker can be complicated, but here's a simplified explanation, when a broker makes an offer on an exchange to buy or sell a stock at a certain price, the broker is classified as a maker, and most exchanges will pay the broker a rebate when that offer to buy or sell is accepted. a broker who accepts a maker's offer to buy or sell is called a taker, and will generally pay a fee to the trading venue. the important thing to remember is that brokers by maximizing maker rebates and by avoiding

taker fees can add millions of dollars to their bottom line, giving them a powerful incentive to send the order to to the trading venue that is in their best interests, even if it is not in their clients' best interest. it is significant that earlier this year speculation that regulators were considering restrictions on payment for order flow sent shares of some brokerage firms significantly lower. obviously there is a lot of money at stake in preserving these conflicts of interest. even if firms disclose these payments, disclosure does not excuse them from their legal and ethical object gaze to clients. the legal obligation is to provide clients with what is

known as best execution. whether they are meeting that obligation is a subjective judgment. the outcome of this subjective judgment affects the way that tens of millions of trades are executed. now, some who profit in these payments argue that seeking this revenue does not interfere with their obligation to seek best execution. however, one of our witnesses today, professor robert battalion of the university of notre dame has done research indicating when given a choice, four leading retail brokers sent their orders to the markets, offering the biggest rebates at every opportunity. the research further suggests that exchanges offers the highest rebates do not in fact offer the best execution for clients.

these brokers argue they can -- while provides clients with best execution. while they make a subjective judgment as to which trading venue provides best execution on tens of millions of trades a year, that subjective judgment always just happens to also result in the biggest payment to brokers. i find it hard to believe that this is a coincidence. many market participants are worried about the conflicts of interest embedded in the current market structure. in addition to professor batallio, today's first panel will include brandly katsuyama, the president and ceo of iex and

prominent wall street advocate for market reform. the second panel will include four witnesses. they are thomas farley of the whose corporate owners have described conflicts as having a, quote, corrosive impact, a corrosive impact, close quote, on stock markets. the next person on the second panel is joseph raderman of bats global markets, which operates exchanges that compete with the new york stock exchange and has a different view. the third witness on the second panel is joseph brennan, of vanguard group. a major mutual fund company that has expressed concerns about these conflicts. the fourth witness in the second panel is steven quirk of td ameritrade. a retail broker that derives significant revenue from payment for order flow, from wholesale

brokers, and from rebates that they receive from exchanges. the duty of lawmakers and financial regulators is to look out for the interests of investors and the wider public. there is significant evident that these conflicts can damage retirement savings, pension holdings, and other investments on which americans rely. even americans without a single share of stock or a mutual fund account have something at stake, because stock markets exist to foster investment growth, and job creation. conflicts of interest jeopardize that vital function. americans don't shy from innovation or technology. indeed we embrace them. but americans are understandably suspicious when technology can

be turned against them and their family's financial interests. they are rightly concerned when technology and innovation are used to undermine basic enduring principles such as trust and duty to a client. our goal is to advance the protection of investors and our free markets by promoting those enduring values. i want to thank senator mccain and his staff for their close cooperation in this matter as has always been the case in all matters. senator mccain. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think this is a very important hearing. i appreciate the hard work that you and your excellent staff have done on it. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. when michael lewis's book flash boys came out, the public knew very little about high frequency trading.

important questions were raised. is the stock market rigged by unethical high-speed traders with faster access to market information, advanced technology, and sophisticated trading algorithms? is high frequency trading adding costs for other traders without contributing any real value to the market? will stock markets face another flash crash like in 2010 when the dow jones temporarily lost $1 trillion in market value in 20 minutes. these concerns about high frequency trading have fuelled suspicions that wall street may well have become the ultimate insiders game, where the average investor can no longer meaningfully participate. consumers see firms that can make trades in fractions of a second using cutting-edge

technology and wonder if the stock exchanges are still a place where their interests matter. hopefully this hearing will shed light on the high frequency trading practices used on wall street, and help restore confidence in our financial system. the subcommittee involved many industry participants, academic researchers, and key financial regulators. while the problems facing the market are complex, we can address them with a few commonsense solutions. for example, one of the most predatory high frequency trading practices depends on the unintended consequences of the s.e.c.'s regulatory national market system, or reg nms. that regulation essentially mandated that investment firms must buy or sell stocks at the best price available. while that might sound like a reasonable requirement. high frequency trading firms can take advantage of the rule by putting out offers to buy or

sell small amounts of stock at attractive prices. when a large investor, seeking to make a big order, accepts the high frequency trading firm's offer because it's the best price available, the high frequency trader can predict that the large investor will have to go to another exchange to purchase the rest of his order. the high frequency trader can then race ahead of that investor to the other exchanges, buy up all available shares, and sell them to the large investor at a higher price. changing reg nms so that investment firms are no longer legally required to take the high frequency trader's bait is an early, clear, first step to cleaning up the worst high frequency trading practices. another key tactic used by high frequency trading firms is co-location. this practice involves trading firms literally renting space

for their computers in the same room as the computers that run the stock exchanges, so that they can receive market information directly from the exchanges' computers as fast as possible. the investors that don't buy this direct connection to the exchanges receive market data via a government established system using out-of-date technology called the securities information processor, that compiles market data much more slowly. but as experts told the subcommittee, there's no reason why public data feeds like the securities information processor can't be improved so that they're effectively as fast as private data feeds acquired through co-location. updating the technology and the securities information processor is another helpful measure that can be quickly adopted to shore up consumer confidence in the market. in addition to high frequency trades "flash boys" also described how stock exchanges often pay rebates, as senator levin pointed out, to stock brokers to entice them to trade

on those exchanges. those rebates, as again senator levin pointed out, called maker taker payments, create an appearance conflict -- an apparent conflict of interest for the stock brokers, who must choose between sending their client's orders to exchanges offering a high rebate, or to exchanges that would fill the orders as quickly as possible. while many trading firms argue that those payments spur more market activity, and reduce costs for consumers, some experts have argued that these benefits are minimal, and that investors are harmed by their broker's conflict of interest. the subcommittee has found that there is a lack of publicly available data regarding maker taker payments. leading to difficulties in determining whether the payments actually have an adverse effect on the market. a logical first step would be to have more transparency in the payments allowing neutral researchers to study the issue

in greater detail. i hope this hearing will educate the public about high frequency trading and broker conflicts of interests and i hope that has a result of this hearing and the information that we will obtain from our expert witnesses, that action will be taken to restore confidence, which has clearly been eroded in recent months, especially since the publication of michael lewis' book. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator johnson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank you for holding this hearing. very interesting getting prepared for it. both chairman levin and senator mccain mentioned the word complex. there's no doubt about what's

happening in terms of trading is highly complex. from my standpoint having been an individual investor, i think the primary solution is in increases competition and transparency so we really understand what's happening. because it is complex it's difficult to fully understand. i'm hoping this hearing will really lay out the reality of the situation. again as an individual investor who's bought stocks for literally decades, the competition has increased in the marketplace. i used to have pay hundreds of dollars to buy 100 shares of stock. now i pay about $10. so i really do hope that this hearing conveys exactly what is happening in the marketplace, what benefits have come to consumers over the years, what dangers may be out there. but the bottom line is this hearing should be about restoring confidence. i don't think it restores

confidence if you try and create a state of fear. and set up strawman in terms of the boogiemen out there trying to game the system. the best way to ensure confidence, the best way to ensure best price, is through maximum competition, and transparency of the marketplace. i'm hoping that's certainly what this hearing reveals, and again i just want to thank all the witnesses. i'm looking forward to the testimony. >> thank you, senator johnson. we'll now call our first panel of witnesses for this morning's hearing. professor robert battalio, professor of finance at the mendoza college of business at the university of notre dame. in notre dame, indiana, and bradley katsuyama, president and ceo of the iex group in new york. i appreciate both of you being with us this morning. woo look forward to your testimony. all witnesses who testify before this subcommittee are required to be sworn. at this time i would both of you to please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but