rubio, rand paul and ted cruz address the faith and freedom coalition conference. the environmental protection agency has proposed new regulations on power plants to curb emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. a senate hearing examined the possible affects of these new rules on public health and the

economy. west virginia senator shelley moore capito chairs the subcommittee on clean air. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> welcome to the hearing. i'm going to ahead and begin. and i know senator carper is planning to be here so we'll make time for him to make his opening statement but in the interest of the panelists and others, and other senators i thought we would be best to ahead and move on. so, i want to welcome everyone to the hearing of the clean air and nuclear safety subcommittee. and the hearing is entitled the impacts of epa's proposed carbon regulations on energy costs for american businesses, rural communities and families. and a legislative hearing on my bill, s-1324, which is better known as the arena act, affordable, reliable, electricity now act.

i introduced arena in may and am proud to have more than 30 co-sponsors, including leader mcconnell and all my fellow epw republicans. i introduced arena and holding this hearing today because of the devastating impact that epa's proposed regulations will have on the families and businesses, my home state of west virginia and across the nation. i am not exaggerating when i say almost every day back home in west virginia there are new stories detailing closed plants, job loss and price increases. i have a letter here today sent to me by amars incorporated. which is a family-owned company that operates 19 magic mark stores in west virginia, virginia and eastern kentucky. the letters accompanied by a petition signed by 26,000 magic mart customers calling on epa to end the war on coal and catastrophic impact on local economies. they've been active in the region for 95 years and

according to this letter the present economic crunch is the most difficult challenge this company has faced. let me quote directly. quote, there was a time when your greatest obstacle was your competitor. but if you worked hard, took care of your customers and offered quality merchandise at a fair price, you could compete successfully. unfortunately, that is not the case now. the largest impediment we have now operating our business successfully is our own government, particularly the epa. the rulings issued by the epa have devastated our regional economy. coal provides 96% of west virginia's electricity last year and west virginia had among the lowest electricity prices in the nation. the average price was 27% below the national average. but that advantage will not survive this administration's policies. studies have projected that our electricity prices will rise from 12% to 16%. earlier this month, 450,000 west virginians learned of a 16% increase in the cost of electricity. while there are multiple factors that contributed to this, compliance with epa regulations played a significant part.

if we allow these plans to move forward, last week's rate increase will only be the tip of the iceberg. affordable energy matters. the 430,000 low and middle-income families in west virginia, which is nearly 60% of our state's household, take home an average of less than $1,900 a month and spend 17% of their after tax income on energy. these families are especially vulnerable to the price increases that result from the clean power plant. but this isn't just about the impacts on coal-producing states like west virginia. this is about impacts across the country. it's important to note that all electricity has to come from somewhere. in many states, odds are, it is being imported from a state that relies on coal. but no one is talking about that. we're going to learn in some of the panelists' testimony from reggie, which is the regional greenhouse gas initiative. one of the witnesses we'll hear from today, mr. martens, and thank you for coming, is affiliated with reggie, a

program of nine northeastern states that uses market principles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. mr. martens may not mention that the nine states consume five times more energy than they produce. and my little state of west virginia produces twice as much energy as all of the nine states in reggie combined. there are energy-producing states and energy consuming states. only 13 states produce more energy than they consume. west virginia ranks second and wyoming ranks first. and for the 10 of the 13 states that export energy, coal is critical to have a net positive result. put simply, there is no way that this massive, largely epa driven reduction in coal-fired electricity generation is going to impact only coal states. it is going to impact the majority of states, the families and businesses within them. often, the poorest and most vulnerable of our populations will bear the brunt. i look forward to hearing in greater detail from our witnesses about these impacts

and the need for clean air policies that don't overburden our states and cripple our economy. so with that, we'll just go ahead and begin our panelists, our first panelist is mr. eugene trisko. and i welcome you, mr. trisko. thank you for coming. >> thank you very much, chair capito. chair inhofe and distinguished members. i'm eugene trisko. energy economist and attorney in are private practice. i'm here today to discuss the findings of study of impacts of energy costs on american families. i've conducted these household energy cost studies periodically since 2000 for the american coalition for clean coal electricity and its predecessor organizations. the study i will summarize today, energy cost impacts on american families, estimates consumer energy costs for households in the year 2016.

the principal findings of the study are, one, some 48% of american families have pre-tax annual incomes of $50,000 or less with an average after tax income among these households of $22,732, or a take home income of less than $1,900 per month. two, the 48% of households earning less than $50,000 to vote an estimated average of 17% of their after tax incomes to residential and transportation energy. energy costs for the 29% of households earning less than $30,000 before taxes represent 23% of their after tax family incomes before accounting for any energy assistance programs. now, this 23% of income is more

than 3 times higher than the 7% of gross income paid for energy by households earning more than $50,000 per year. three, american consumers have benefitted recently from lower gasoline prices, but higher oil prices are now reducing consumer savings at the gas pump. meanwhile, residential electricity prices are continuing to rise. residential electricity represents 69% of total household utility bills. a 2011 survey of low-income households for the national energy assistance directors association reveals some of the adverse health and welfare impacts of high-energy costs. low-income households reported these responses to high energy bills. 24% went without food for at

least 1 day. 37% went without medical or dental care. 34% did not fill a prescription or took less than the full dose. 19% had someone become sick because their home was too cold. the relatively low median incomes of minority and senior households detailed in the study attached to my statement indicate that these groups are among the most vulnerable to energy price increases. recent and perspective increases in residential energy costs should be assessed in the context of the long-term declining trend of real income among american families. the u.s. census bureau reports that the real pre-tax incomes of american households have declined across all five income quintiles since 2001. measured in constant 2013 prices. the largest percentage losses of

income are in the two lowest income quintiles. in 2014, the average price of residential electricity in the u.s. was 32% above its level in 2005. compared with the 22% increase in the consumer price index. d.o.e. projects continued escalation of residential electricity prices due to the costs of compliance with environmental regulations and other factors. moreover, d.o.e., epa, nera and others project that electricity prices will increase even more because of epa's proposed clean power plant. lower income families are more vulnerable to energy costs increases than higher income families because energy represents a larger portion of their household budgets. energy costs reduce the amount of income that can be spent on food, housing, health care and other basic necessities.

fixed income seniors are among the most vulnerable to energy cost increases due to their relatively low average incomes and high per capita energy use. senior citizens and other low-income groups will bear the burden of higher energy costs imposed by epa's clean power plant but be among the least likely to invest in or to benefit from the energy efficiency programs that the proposed rule envisions. thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you very much. our next witness is paul cicio. who is president of the industrial consumer producers of america. welcome. >> thank you. chairman capito, ranking member carper, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity. the industrial energy consumers of america is a trade association whose members are

exclusively large companies who are energy-intensive trade exposed. these industries often refer to as eite consume 73% of the manufacturing sector's use of electricity and 75% of the natural gas. as a result, small changes in energy prices can add relatively large impacts to our global competitiveness. we use as a manufacturing sector 40 quads of energy. and this has basically not changed in 40 years. meanwhile, manufacturing output has increased 761%. this is a true success story. the industrial sector is the only sector of the economy whose greenhouse gas emissions are 22% below 1973 levels. these industries are very energy-efficient. ieca supports action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so long as it does not impair our competitiveness.

we must have a level playing field with our global competitors. several countries that we compete with control electric and natural gas prices to their industrials. and two of them are china and germany. they provide subsidies and practices to give them competitive advantage. if we were military, one would say that we are engaged in hand to hand combat in competitiveness. all costs of unilateral action by the united states through the clean power plan will be passed on to us, the consumer. as proposed, the clean power plan will dramatically increase the cost of power and natural gas, accomplish little to reduce the threat of of climate change and provide offshore competitors and economic advantage potentially creating industrial greenhouse gas emission leakage with harmful effect to the middle class, the economy and the environment. the epa cannot look at the clean

power plan in isolation from the significant cumulative cost that it will impose on the industrial sector either directly or indirectly through a number of recent rule makings. since 2000, the manufacturing sector is still down 4.9 million jobs. since 2010, manufacturing employment has increased 525,000 jobs. we are still in the early stages of recovery. we do fear that the clean power plan and also the ozone rule is going to threaten this recovery. in contrast, for example, china. our primary competitor has increased employment by 31% since 2000. and u.s. manufacturing trade deficits since 2002 has grown $524 billion, 70% of that is with one country, china. china's industrial greenhouse gas emissions have risen over 17% since 2008 alone.

china produces 29% more manufactured goods than we in the u.s. and emits 317% more co2. that's over three times the amount of co2 than the u.s. industrial sector. but despite our low greenhouse gas emission levels, the epa will increase our costs and will make it easier for china's carbon-intensive products to be imported. which means the clean power plan will be directly responsible for increasing global emissions. there are consequences to increasing energy costs on the industrial sector, and it's called greenhouse gas leakage. and the epa has failed to address this issue, and thus, the costs are underestimated. for example, when a state's electricity costs rise due to the clean power plan, companies with multiple manufacturing locations will shift their production to states with lower costs. along with the greenhouse gas emissions creating state winners

and losers. and when they do, it will increase the price of electricity to the remaining state rate payers, including the households. if these companies cannot be competitive, they move offshore, moving jobs and greenhouse gas emissions accomplishing nothing environmentally. one only needs to look at california. since a.b. 32 to our knowledge, there is not a single energy intensive trade exposed company that has built a new facility in california. and the same goes for the eu under the etus. california is importing their energy-intensive products and they are losing or forfeiting jobs. it is for this reason we would urge policymakers to hold offshore manufacturing competitors to at least this same carbon content standard as we in the united states. thank you. >> thank you very much. our next witness is mr. harry alford who is president and ceo

of the national black chamber of commerce. welcome. >> good afternoon, chair capito ranking member carper and distinguished members of the subcommittee. my name is harry alford. i'm president and ceo of the black chamber of commerce. the nbcc represents 2.2 million black owned businesses within the united states. i'm here to testify about the environmental protection agency's proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and the potential impacts of those proposed regulations on energy costs for american businesses, rural communities and families. in particular, i would like to focus on the potential adverse economic and employment impacts of the clean power plan on low-income groups and minorities, including individuals, families and minority businesses. while increased costs often come with increased regulation, the clean power plan, in particular, seems poised to escalate energy costs for blacks and hispanics in the united states.

according to a recent study, commissioned by the national black chamber of commerce, the clean power plan would increase black poverty by 23% and hispanic poverty by 26%. result in cumulative job losses of 7 million for blacks and nearly 12 million for hispanics in 2035. and decrease black and hispanic median household income by 455 and $550 respectfully in 2035. for these minority and low-income groups, increased energy costs have an even greater impact on their lives, jobs and businesses because a larger percentage of their incomes, revenues are spent on energy costs. what may seem like a nominal increase in energy costs to some can have a much more harmful effect on minorities and low-income groups. our members are very concerned about these potentially devastating economic impacts of the clean power plan. and we appreciate the

opportunity to highlight them for our committee. for the committee. in light of these concerns, the national black chamber of commerce undertook an effort to examine the potential economic and employment impacts of the clean power plan on minority's low-income groups. on june 11, 2015, the nbcc released a study on the threat of the epa regulations to low-income groups and minorities. the study finds that the clean power plan will inflict severe and disproportionate economic burdens on poor families, especially minorities. in particular, the rule will impose the most harm on residents of seven states with the highest concentrations of blacks and hispanics. the epa's proposed regulation or greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants is a slap in the face to poor and minority families. these communities already suffer from high unemployment and poverty rates compared to the rest of the country. yet, the epa's regressive energy

tax threatens to push minorities and low-income americans even further into poverty. i want to highlight some of the key findings of the study. epa rule increases black poverty by 23% and hispanic poverty by 26%. and 2035, job losses totaled 7 million for blacks and 12 million for hispanics. in 3035 black and hispanic median household income will be $455 and $515 less respectively. compared to whites, blacks and hispanics spend about 20% and 90% of the income on food. 10% and 5% more on housing, 40% on clothing and 50% and 10% more on utilities respectfully. the rule will especially harm residents with the highest concentrations of blacks and hispanics. arizona, california, florida, georgia, illinois, new york and

texas. the study demonstrates that the epa clean power plan would harm minorities' health by forcing tradeoffs between housing, food, energy. inability to pay energy bills is second only to the inability to pay rent as leading cause of homelessness. business groups like the nbcc are not only the entities expressing concerns about the pleen power plan. states which would be responsible for implementing the clean power plan have criticized the plan for numerous deficiencies. officials from 28 states said that the epa should withdraw its proposal citing concerns as higher energy costs, threats to reliability and lost jobs. officials from 29 states have said that epa's proposed rule goes well beyond the agency's legal authority under the clean air act and 15 states have already joined in lawsuit. the nbcc totally supports the a.r.e.n.a. act, s-3124, and we certainly encourage all members

of this committee to put the bill to vote and make it law. thank you so much. >> thank you very much. our next witness is joseph j. martens, commissioner new york state, department of environmental conservation. welcome, mr. commissioner. thank you. >> thank you. chair capito, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify this afternoon. my name is joe martens. and i'm the commissioner as dec as was already pointed out. i'm also the vice chair to the board of directors of reggie, inc. a program of nine northeastern states that uses market principles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. i thank the committee for providing me the opportunity to discuss the success that we've had in reducing carbon emissions in new york while creating jobs and keeping energy bills in check. i've spoken with many of my colleagues from other states across the country, and i've

heard many of them discuss their concerns about the rule. i recognize that each state faces different circumstances, but i think that in reggie, we have a successful model in reducing emissions while creating jobs and reducing energy bills. other states can use similar approaches to comply with the clean power plan, tailored to their own circumstances. reggie was started in 2005 by a bipartisan group of northeastern and mid-atlantic governors. it sets a declining cap on emissions and allows the market to determine efficiently where the emission reductions will occur. in addition to their participation in reggie, each of the states has aggressive energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. the reggie cap collects the cap of these efforts under a single emission cap and ensures that the carbon reductions from these programs are realized and accounted for. in proceeds from reggie allowance options helps fund many of these initiatives creating a virtuous cycle. our program has been a

resounding success. the state greatly exceeded their original 10% reduction target achieving a 40% reduction by 2012. to achieve even greater reduction, the reggie state acted to further reduce the cap to 50% below 2005 levels in 2020. we achieved this reduction in an economy that grew 8% over the period from 2005 to 2013, adjusted for inflation. in new york, we have realized economic benefits from reggie and associated programs, including creating jobs and reducing energy bills. for example, governor cuomo's new york sun program has made new york fourth in the nation for solar jobs. as of the end of 2014, we've committed more than 550 million in proceeds from the auction of reggie emission allowances to programs that will provide energy bill savings of over $1 billion or other benefits to

over 130,000 households and 2,500 businesses. beneficiaries of programs funded by reggie proceeds include low-income families and businesses. for example, two energy efficiency programs that are targeted specifically at income-eligible families are providing 100,000 low and moderate income families with more than $80 million in cumulative energy bill savings. and to those who say that reducing emissions will cause electric rates for businesses to rise, we've actually reduced industrial electricity rates while reducing carbon emissions from 50% over the national average to 13% below. we've enjoyed similar outcomes across the reggie region. an independent analysis undertaken by the highly respected analysis group concludes that the reinvestment of auction proceeds from the first three years of the program is reducing total energy bills in the reggie regions by 1.3 billion, adding 1.6 billion to the regional economy and creating an estimated 16,000 jobs. reducing emissions also provides substantial public health benefits, including saving

lives, reducing illness, health care costs and lost workdays. our experience demonstrates a group of states can reduce emissions substantially and grow the economy at the same time. therefore, instead of asking whether we can afford to reduce that pollution, a more pertinent question is whether we can afford not to act now to reduce the emissions that are causing our climate to change. in new york, we are already experiencing a destructive effects of climate-driven extreme weather. three years ago, hurricane sandy decimated many communities and tens of thousands of homes in new york and new jersey at a cost of $67 billion. over 70 lives were lost in the area struck by the storm. a year earlier, hurricanes irene and lee caused 66 deaths and 17 billion in damage. these storms disproportionately harmed low-income families and smaller businesses and communities located in low-lying areas, most vulnerable to flooding. our nation -- our choice as a nation is straightforward.

we can invest in clean energy, creating jobs as a result at little or no net cost and reap the benefits of better health, lower health costs and reduced risks of climate change. or we can ignore the science and expect more frequent storm events causing tens of billions of dollars in damages. to new york, the answer is clear. we have demonstrated that it's possible to use energy more efficiently, stimulate economic growth, provide healthier air and reduce the potential damage for climate change. that concludes my testimony. thank you. >> thank you. and our final witness is dr. mary b. rice, instructor in medicine, harvard medical school division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine. welcome. thank you. >> thank you. my name is dr. mary rice. i'm a pulmonary medical care physician. and i care for adults with lung disease. most of whom have asthma and emphysema. i also care for critically ill

adults in the critical care unit. my message is simple, climate change is becoming the worst public health crisis of modern medicine. hundreds of research studies have demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions have already changed our climate over the past several decades causing heat waves that last longer and happen more frequently, dangerous spikes in ground level ozone, increased wildfire activity, and longer, more potent pollen seasons. and these effects hurt american families. my physician colleagues and i are already seeing these health effects among our patients. the american thoracic society recently conducted a survey of our u.s. members who are doctors from all around the country caring for children and adults. and we found that the vast majority of doctors said climate change is affecting their patients today. let me describe just a few of the health effects that my colleagues and i see. consider heat waves. several doctors commented that their patients with emphysema who are already struggling to

breathe can't handle extreme heat. studies have found people with as ma and 'em if i ze ma visit their doctors more often and get hospitalized more often during heat waves. extreme heat also increases ozone to levels that are harmful to the lungs of people. not only people with as ma and 'em emphyzema but also the lungs of babies and young children. have been found to contribute to premature mortality. the hot conditions promoted by climate change favor forest fires and grassland fires which are at great cost to human health. during a heat wave in may of 2014, for example, multiple wildfires broke out simultaneously in san diego county. and that caused at least $60 million in damage. but this estimate doesn't capture the damage to the health of family who is are affected by those fires. wildfires can travel great

distances and release a mixture of toxins that are especially irritating to the lung, making it harder for people to breathe. a colleague of mine in san diego told me that he advised all his patients to stay inside and keep the air-conditioning on. is this the future we want for american families? one where it's not safe to go outside. there's no doubt that wildfires increase hospitalization for as ma in children and adults and for respiratory illness among the elderly. climate change is also bad for people with seasonal allergies. about 30% of all americans and roughly 10% of americans with asthma. warmer temperatures lengthen the pollen season because plants bloom earlier in the spring and also higher levels of carbon dioxide increase the amount of pollen produced. in the northern states of the u.s. pollen seasons have lengthened by more than two weeks today than they were in 1995. and they are also more powerful. studies have found that when

pollen levels are higher, people use more medications and visit their doctors more for allergy. emergency room visits for asthma among children and adults go up. and one of my patients who is a single mother with a teenage son, both of whom have severe asthma, called me on a weekly basis this spring because of trouble breathing. and between the missed days of school for her son and missed days of work for her, this allergy season was a disaster for her family. i'm a physician and a researcher, but my most important job is my role as a mother to three children under the age of 6. one of them, my 1-year-old son has had two emergency room visits and a hospitalization for respiratory illness. when my son develops a cough or wheeze, i'm terrified this could mean the next ambulance ride. and when he's sick, i can't go to the hospital and take care of my patients or my husband can't work. we're more fortunate than many americans, many of whom risk losing their job or struggle to pay for the next emergency room

visit when they or a loved one suffers an acute respiratory illness. my son and every american deserves clean air. i've only described a few of the threats to the health of americans from climate change. experts predict that we can avoid the most frightening scenarios if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions. an better yet, when we address climate change, we redeem immediate health benefits right here in the u.s. when we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we also reduce air pollutants that trigger heart attacks, asthma and emphysema attacks, stroke and death. as a mom, a doctor, and a representative of the american thoracic society, i favor taking firm steps to address climate change because i support clean air and a healthy future for all americans. thank you. >> thank you, doctor. i want to thank all of you all, and we'll begin the questions, and i will begin. mr. trisko, you mentioned in

your remarks about the impacts of the conservation. building block of the clean power plan and how elderly citizens and those on fixed incomes would probably be least likely to be the ones to be the beneficiaries of that or to be able to afford to make those changes. it says that energy information administration projects that consumer energy prices will go up by 4% by 2020. which seems rather low since we just had a 16% rise in our prices in west virginia. how do you see these two converging? the rising price and the really the lack of the conservation and efficiency aspects of this clean power plan for the elderly citizen and those on fixed income. >> senator, excellent questions. let me first address the observation that i offered with respect to senior citizens being least likely to benefit from the

energy efficiency aspects of a clean power plan. that observation derives from two facts. one, the payback period that is required to support major investments such as replacement of windows, replacement of heating and ventilating systems, those paybacks, payback periods typically are too long to be economically feasible for lower income senior citizens. it's also true in general for the population that american houses tend to be owned for a period of about seven years on average. if you're a homeowner looking at a let's say $10,000 window

replacement project, that's going to save a few hundred dollars a year on your energy bills, that payback period is not consistent with the period that typical homeowners expect to live in those dwellings. secondly, and i've heard this from senior utility executives, as well, that one of the difficulties in securing energy efficiency gains from lower income consumers is the quality of the housing stock. that is, the relatively poor quality of the housing stock will not support investments in fairly high cost energy efficiency upgrades. such as windows and hvac systems. certainly, lower cost options the simple things, such as better attic insulation, weather stripping and the like. those have short payback periods and they're feasible.

but the magnitude of the energy efficiency investments that epa is projecting in the clean power plan, which nera estimates to cost some $500 billion for american consumers, those investments simply will not be made. by the elderly and by lower income consumers. i hope that's responsive to your question. >> thank you. mr. alford, the energy information administration concluded the plan could reduce the gdp by $1 trillion. based on the analysis that you did and explained, could you just re-emphasize how you think that's going to impact low-income or minority citizens across the country? >> it's going to be very critical and tragic. it's going to hurt as far as 2.1 million black owned businesses we represent. their customer base is going to

wither. and i think the quality of life is going to hurt in our communities and i think people are going to start short shrifting moneys that would be used for health care or education. and i think people who would resort to crime and violence because they're poor and broke would increase. i think it would hurt our communities severely. >> thank you. and final question, very quickly, mr. trisko, part of the a.r.e.n.a. act says that we shouldn't move forward with these regulations until all the legal aspects are settled. as you know, states are challenging this, and will challenge when the final rule comes out. but if states begin to make changes, in the meantime, what kind of scenario does that present to you in terms of how states are going to be able to react not knowing whether the legal issues have been settled as yet? >> senator, you've hit upon one of the most desirable aspects of

the a.r.e.n.a. act. and let me just put it in the context of the current situation that the electric utility industry faces with respect to epa's 2011 mercury and air toxic standard rule or the mat's rule. the mats rule is currently before the supreme court. a decision is expected shortly, within a matter of days. it's possible that the supreme court decision could result in vacature of the rule. and yet utilities in order to comply with that rule already have retired dozens of power plants across the united states and are scheduled to retire even more over the course of the next year. wouldn't it be advisable as a matter of public policy before implementation of the most expensive rule ever imposed on the electric utility sector, $9.5 billion a year, to know

upfront whether the rule is legal? >> thank you. ranking member senator carper, fellow west virginian, i want to say welcome and also ask if he had can do his opening statement and do questions, which most certainly you can. so proceed. >> thanks for holding the hearing and all of our witnesses, it's great to see you, and thank you for joining us again. some of you not for the first time. ms. rice thinking about your son and just hoping he grows up to be 101 or 102 years old and has a great life. okay. one of the issues we always wrestle here with is it possible to have cleaner air, cleaner water and a stronger economy? i go back to -- i used to be governor and for much of my life, retired navy captain. for most of my life after the navy i really focus on job creation, job preservation, what do we do to foster a nurturing environment for job preservation? you go back to the -- a week in january 2009.

actually the week that barack obama and joe biden were sworn into office and our country we lost that week 628,000 people filed for unemployment insurance. think about that. one week. january 2009. 628,000 people file for unemployment insurance. and the previous six months, the last six months, 2008, we lost 206,000 jobs, in 2009, we lost another 2.5 million jobs, 5 million jobs literally in a 12-month period of time. since 2009, actually since 2010, we have adopted regulations new mercury regulations on power plant. that's one. we have adopted new carbon pollution or fuel economy standards on cars and trucks. that's two. and we've also adopted across state air pollution standards. that's three. and since 2010, we have added 762,000 manufacturing jobs. millions more other jobs.

but on three quarters of million manufacturing jobs. what leads me to believe maybe it's possible to have cleaner air and cleaner water and at the same time, actually, do better. by virtue of our economy and economic growth. so i just ask this to keep that in mind as the chairman said i was born in west virginia. coal mining town. and grew up there in virginia. and now representing state of delaware. that's the lowest lying state in the country and we see every day what the effect of climate change and global warming is. sea level rise creeps up higher and higher on the east coast of my state. so it's something that is very, very real to us. for decades for the cost of combat since coming here i've tried to work on climate compromise that would use market forces. harness market forces to reduce carbon pollution and reduce the

cost of compliance. and as part of that compromise, i work with senator verd, and a handful of other coal state senators on language that would have provided more than $10 billion in incentives to support deployment of clean coal power plants. this language along with other language intended to buffer impacts to the coal industry was included in the kerry/boxer bill which regrettably was not enacted into law. instead, coming to a compromise on climate change, congress came to a stalemate. all the while it's becoming clear that price of inaction is much greater than the price of action. the epa just released a comprehensive report that outlines the alarming truth that failure to act on climate change will result in dramatic costs. critically concern for low-lying states like florida and like delaware and others up and down the east coast. without action on climate change, we're going to need to spend billions of dollars on this century to protect our states from rising sea levels and extreme storms.

study also projects inaction on climate change could lead to extreme temperatures and cause thousands of deaths throughout the northeast and mid-atlantic regions of our country. it's clear, at least, it's clear to me that as each year passes without the action, the more severe, the more costly and perhaps irreversible the effects of climate change are becoming. and for those of us who come to states being impacted by climate change, i think the message is clear and that's we can no longer afford inaction. many states such as new york, represented here today, thank you, welcome, and delaware, have already taken action to reduce the largest emitter of carbon pollution and that's power plant emissions. we'll hear the economics of these states continue to grow at a faster rate than the states that have yet to put climate regulations into place. however, we need all states to do their fair share to protect the air we breathe and stem the tide of climate change. the epa's clean power plant attempts to do that.

and under the clean power plan, states are given their own carbon pollution targets and allowed to find the most cost effective way to find cost reductions. in fact, it sounds similar to the compromise, i tried to foist on my colleagues a number of years ago. i believe instead of undercutting the clean power plan, we should be working in good faith with the agency to find ways to improve the regulation. for example, regulation could be improved several ways. one, to ensure early action states are not penalized for being climate and efficiency leaders. number two, to ensure that all clean energy, including nuclear is treated equitably. and three, to ensure we meet our carbon reduction goals. no compromise is ever perfect. the worst thing that we could do is to do nothing while we try to find the perfect solution. must act now while the ability to mitigate the most harmful impact is within our grasp. choice between curbing climate change and growing our economy is as i've suggested many times

a false one and instead we must act on curbing climate change in order to protect the future economic prosperity of our country. all right. madame chairman, thank you for letting me give a statement and ask questions. i was delayed here today. we had a caucus lunch today. part of the lunch discussion was about the transportation bill. secured transportation bill authored by chairman inhofe, senator boxer, senator ritter, myself, and i think going to be well received and we're excited about that. and so, we had a little discussion of that before i came. so i got here a little bit late, and i apologize for that. i thought i would joke and i like to joke around a little bit. and thought i was going to come here and say i was delayed, taking a call from the pope. but i'm not catholic. and he rarely calls me. but if he did, we would talk about ash -- you know, i must say i'm impressed with this guy. i'm impressed with, one, i think he's read the new testament and has a real commitment to the

least of these in my society. when i was naked, did you clothe me, when i was sick in prison, did you come visit me? he gets that and calls on us to do the same. the other thing that he gets and those of white house are familiar with the scripture, most of you probably more than me, but the other thing that he gets is we have a moral obligation to make sure we will have a plan wet a decent quality of life and he believes and a lot of folks believe that there's a real serious problem here. and we have a moral imperative to do something about it so we can talk about all those these studies and everything but i would have us keep that thought in mind. now, a couple of questions. fifrs, i'd ask consent to have submitted for the record two items, one is a latest report of the lance it and commission on health and climate change of health and climate change policy responses to protect public health for the record. that's number one, madame chair and ask consent 0 submit the epa's recent peer reviewed report of climate change in the united states benefit of global

action to the record. >> without objection. >> thank you madame chair. okay. dr. rice, mother of three, i -- you mentioned in your testimony that many different -- the many different ways that the climate change has already impacting the health of americans. who would you say are the most vuler in to believe the affects of climate change and what will have the most to gain from reductions of carbon pollution, please? >> thank you for this question senator carper. a number of groups are especially vulnerable to the health consequences of climate change. the ones that i would identify would be the elderly because many of them already have chronic health conditions like heart and lung disease that makes them especially vulnerable to high heat and high air pollution levels and low-income

people. people who have less income have less access to air conditioning during heat waves. there have been a number of studies looking at cities which suffer the most in some ways from extreme heat because of an island effect of the buildings in the cities and the poorer neighborhoods of cities have been found to have the worst urban heat problem. and people who have low income also are the same people who are often exposed more to higher levels of air pollution to begin with. and have less access to health care and resources to help them manage climate change. >> all right. >> and there's a third group i would identify. i know i'm short on time but that's children and as ma is especially prevalent in children and at high prix for all of the issues, high heat high ozone levels air pollution from wildfire. higher pollen levels is a major consequence for american children.

>> good. thanks. one quick yes or no question if you will. study by the lancet, concluded that the impacts of climate change threatens to undermine this listen this, last half century of gains in global health. would you agree with this conclusion. just say yes or no. >> i certainly agree. it's major health problem facing the planet. >> thank you. my time expired. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. madame fischer? >> mr. cicio nebraska's public power state and 100% of our power is owned by the people of nebraska. we're going to be hit especially hard by these regulations that are proposed in the clean power plan. and we're going to see rate increases that i believe will be substantial. what do you believe will be the

impact on our increase that we're going to have in these electricity rates on business operations like manufacturing? what's going to be the impact there? going to be the impact there? >> you know, all of these companies compete globally. there's almost no exception. anymore. and as i alluded to specifically, the competition is very fierce. companies win or lose business based on a cents a pound or pennies on the ton of the product that they make. and so all of these costs are additive. and when we get to, like this clean power plan it's not just the cost of the clean power plan. there's, you know, in the embedded in those electricity rates that give your state a problem, there's already the cost of pm 2.1, 2.5. there's already the mercury rule cost.

for us industrials, there's already the industrial boilerman cost and the clean power cost and then ozone. it is a cumulative cost of doing business that our competitors don't have overseas. and it there's no way around a higher cost and loss of competitiveness and eventually it impacts jobs. >> exactly. >> and most of our jobs are middle class jobs. >> so what's the impact then on american families when we see these costs continue to increase on businesses. that has a direct cost on american families correct? and how would you say the arena act will address some of these issues? what specifically is in the proposed legislation? >> well i'd like to say from a common sense standpoint everyone in the country that has followed this, knows that this is going to be litigated 100% sure. there's no doubt about it. and we know, including the epa knows there's costs. and the epa does not want to

hurt people by higher energy costs, but this rule will. and so it is just common sense to say, let's wait till we have this settled out by the courts before states act to technically shut down as the eia report of last month said that they are not going to shut down 40000 gig watts, it's now 90,000 gig watts of coal-fired power plants prior to 2020. that will have a draw hattic increase on producing electricity costs. >> thank you. mr. alford, i think most of us in this room take our ability to have electricity for granted. but, as you mentioned, there there's a large number of americans who are balancing whether they can afford an electric bill or whether they can pay rent or whether they are able to put food on the table for their families. that's going to, as you

mentioned, lead, i think, to those hard choices that people make and send some of them to the streets when they become homeless. can you talk about more about those tough choices that low-income families have to make when they look at their electricity bills and why you think the costs that are going to be driven up through this action by epa will be so harmful? >> yes i'm a father to six. >> i think you have to turn on your microphone, sir. thank you. >> i'm a father of six. i guess i'm up to 11 grand children. but my wife and i have been the godmothers and godfather of the very extended family. and there are a lot out there who need help, and we do all we

can to connect them, connect them with some of our members who can create jobs for them, but it's an ongoing task, and it's rough out there and i have children in mobile atlanta, los angeles, and it gets worse and worse and worse. and lord knows what happens to someone who does something wrong and gets into the judicial system. they'll never have a job. unless i create a job for them. it is very rough out there. and i think we need a government that is sensitive to what's going on in these communities and to come up with some policy that builds a greater america and a more secure america. not put people on thin ice. >> well said. well said. we all, we all want clean air. we all want clean water, but we need to be aware of what these regulations will do to american families. thank you, sir. >> i've been having discussions

with the omaha black chamber of commerce too. >> good to hear. thank you. >> is that thor markly? >> thank you very much, madam chair. i wanted to follow up dr. rice. the statistics that i've seen say that 78% of african-americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired plant. and that an african-american child is more likely to go do the hospital for asthma than a white child. is there a connection between the coal-fired plants and the higher death rate for african-american children in. >> the health effects from coal-fired plants are very well documented. and it's now well-established in the scientific community that air pollution causes increases in hospitalization for asthma, asthma attacks, more medication

for, to treat the asthma symptoms. and there are also inequities in where people live and where the services are located. that's environmental injustice and communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to the emissions. if reduce the emissions, those communities stand the most to benefit, right there where the pollution is emitted. >> so to sum rye, you're saying yes there is a connection between the coal-fired power plant pollution and the illnesses and deaths that are disproportionately occurring? i think you said -- >> i don't like to answer yes or no questions. >> okay. well, it certainly sounds like you were drawing an explanation of why that is indeed the case.

the, and you ended on the note that disproportionate benefits from changing the quality of the air go to those most affected. and that would be those closest to the pollution. so public health benefits are estimated to be 55 to $93 billion per year, 15 years from now. that's compared to the estimates of $7.3 billion to $8 billion for the rule. so on the order of 8-1 or 10-1 health benefits versus cost that seems a pretty good tradeoff for an investment when you can get an eight-fold return, and it's a huge quality of life issue. would you share that opinion? >> the public health benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are tremendous. and they've been looked at in a number of different ways, including the report that you

just cited that showed that the public health benefits from mortality and other health issues far outweighed the i am membertation costs. that's just one study but there are many other studies. there was one done by jason westman, a group at unc chapel hill looking at the benefits of the better air quality from reducing greenhouse gas emissions. not even looking at all the health effects i was talking about from climate change, just the air pollution benefits that would be gained right away. and estimate thad those mortality benefits would exceed abatement costs by 2030. >> in your testimony, you noted the impact on forest fires. this particularly is a concern to us out west where we have large large ca any of rouse trees.

we have seen a huge correlation of more acres of timber burning. you were pointing out in your testimony, i believe the health impacts of that smoke and that smoke plumes can basically travel across the nation. >> yes senator could i give an example. and the wildfire from wildfire smoke can travel very far distances. so there's health effects for communities right there where the fires take place, but there's also respiratory and heart health effects in very distant places. so the wildfires that affected russia some years ago, those plumes traveled the distance from chicago to san francisco. that equivalent difference. that means that thousands and thousands of people in the regions of wildfires are experiencing health effects due to the reduced air quality. >> and since the prevailing winds go from west to east when our fires are burning out in

oregon and california and washington state, the rest of the nation is experiencing those, those impacts it's also an impact on a rural economy. because when we lose both to fire and tobeetles. and i understand that's not your expertise. i'm over my time, so thank you very much for your feedback. >> thank you. i'd like to turn it over to our chairman of our full committee, chairman inhofe. >> thank you, madam chairman. i remember in this room when we had the first appointed director of the epa, lisa jackson, was in the room, and i remember it was right, i tell you when it was. it's when my friend senator markly, it was right before during the hearing or the c.o.p. thing in copenhagen.

and i asked her the question at that time, i said, you know, if we if we were to pass the legislation that has been proposed here, let's keep in mind it started way back in 1997 when they said we passed a thing, the bird-hagel rule by 95-0 that if you come back from rio de janeiro or one of these places with a treaty that either hurts our economy or does not require the same thing from china and other countries as it does here, then we will not ratify it. and consequently, they never ratified it. and clinton never put it forward for ratification. now what she was saying at that time, i asked her the question. i asked her if we to pass either by regulation or legislation these reductions, isn't this going to, is this going to have

the, the effect of lowering co 2 emissions worldwide, her answer was no. because it only affects here in the u.s. but that's not where the problem is. it's in china, india, mexico and other places wouldn't you say that it would actually have the effect of increasing co2 worldwide emissions if we were to you knowunilaterally reduce our emissions, where are they going to go? they're going to go where they have the least restrictions. am i missing something there? >> no you are not missing anything. as a matter of fact, under the i testified before the house energy and power sub committee, and one of the key points i made is if we want to be serious about reducing global greenhouse gas emissions the single most important thing we need to do is

increase the manufacturing of products in the united states versus china, for example. >> exactly. >> we manufacture goods on average that has over less than well turn it round the other way. when china produces goods they emit 300% more co2 than we do here. so if energy cost goes up here then it's going to result in more imports of these energy-intensive products. and as a reminder 70% of our imports is from one country -- china. >> good to see you again. i had not seen what you, and i asked her to give me the printed copy of your study that you did key findings it's just fascinating. i've never seen, it concentrates on the regressive nature of this type of legislation or rules. is that, is that -- >> that's absolutely correct sir. >> i hadn't seen it done before

where it's specific like this. so this is something that we wiuel use. was this done for you by an outside group? >> roger dr. roger bessdeck whom we have been using oh we do about a study every two to three years with that group and they're very very on the money. >> thank you. appreciate that. mr. trishcoe, i think you made a vague reference to a study of decisions of middle to low income people. so i ask for a written copy. could you elaborate a little on that? i don't think you had a chance to do that in your opening statement? >> yes chair inhofe. this study that i attached to the statement is one in a long-running series if you will going back really to the time of the kyoto protocol. we wanted to know what american families spent on energy, defined as residential utilities and gasoline. and i've been updating that

study more or less on an annual basis ever since. and what we found is that as a general matter the percentage of after-tax income that american households spend on energy has more than doubled over the course of the last 10 to 15 years. now you mentioned the regress ive'veve asperkts. the study i've attached today let's look in particular at the percentage of after-tax income for energy that is spent by households with gross incomes of $30,000 or less. that's about 30% of our population. those households are spending 23% of their after-tax income on energy. >> their expendable income. >> 23% of their after-tax income goes to residential utilities

and gasoline. now that compares with an average 7% for households earning more than $50,000 a year. so it's three times greater for the low-income katzcategory of $30,000 or less. it's three times greater for those households than those households making $50,000 or more a year. >> that's almost exactly what you're saying, mr. alford, that it is regressive in that respect. >> yes, it is. and they brought up asthma. you know, and if you, if you look at the mayo clinic there's no prevention for asthma. and there's no correlation of asthma and air. asthma has been increasing, even though through the clean air act we have been good stewards in decreasing and decreasing ozone

and all the emissions, but asthma continues to rise and no one knows why, but there's this big, false projection that it's global warming causing asthma. we don't know what's causing asthma. and most of the people who have it get out of it by the time they're adults, because their lungs and their bodies are strong enough to fight it off. but i'm getting sick very sick of people saying asthma and dirty air or global warming. it's a myth. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> thank you, senator markey. >> thank you very much. dr. rice you're here from harvard medical school. people are getting sick, are they not? and they're not getting sick the way harry alford is getting sick. they're really getting sick, aren't they? and so maybe you could bring to us a little bit of your information about the increased

hospitalizations, the respiratory-related diseases, all of the things that are implicated in having this additional pollution in our atmosphere. can you talk a little bit about how it is inpacts especially children in our country. >> thank you. this is certainly an area where i feel that i have a lot to add to the discussion because i'm a lung doctor. i take care of patients with lung disease, and i also study air pollution. that when i'm not taking care of patients. and in addition to my personal observations as a doctor when i see patients come see me more often because the pollen levels are worse or the ozone levels can get high in boston on very hot days. we also have the observations of the physicians of the american thoracic society. the survey i mentioned. and the doctors completing the survey, the vast majority of them commented that they personally observed that their

patients' lung function is worse, their symptoms are worse during high-pollution days. >> there are real implications for the 12 million americans who already have respiratory illnesses, huh? >> certainly, and we can look back at the incredible success story of the clean air act. the reductions in air pollution as a result of the clear air act have been astounding, and we've really come a long way, and when we look back researchers look back at the health benefits of the clean air act they've been astounding not just for respiratory illness asthma symptom control but also mortality and heart disease. >> onmentioned your own son earlier in your testimony, who has a respiratory illness, huh? so what could, just additional pollution that we send up there, uncontrolled mean, long-term for him and for those others of millions of victims across the

country? >> so there's a variety of sources of air pollution. and one of them is the power points, power plants through the burning of greenhouse gases. there's also traffic and other things. so the reality is that if we do not do anything about greenhouse gas emissions the epa report looked at just that piece of the pie and found that ozone levels will increase predict that we actually have increases in ozone, whereas ozone levels have declined and we've experienced health benefits as a result of those gains. >> thank you for putting that out there so there's real sickness, not metaphor cal sickness that is occurring because of global warming. and you're here representing new york but you're representing one of the regional greenhouse gas

initiative states, all of new england, those six states, new york, maryland and delaware. nine states they band together and over the last several years, massachusetts has seen a 40% reduction in the green house gases we're sending up while we're seeing a 20% growth in our economy. can you talk a little bit about that virtuous cycle that seems to elude the observation of those who are critical of the ability to increase the health of individuals and the economy simultaneously? >> yes senator, thank you. as i said in my testimony, the experience has been an extraordinarily successful one. we had an independent study done by the analysis group that quantified the benefits over a three-year period from 2009 to

2011. $1.3 billion in reductions in bills over the region. $1.6 billion in extra or incremental economic activity. it's been an extraordinarily positive experience all the while, as you said the region has experienced economic growth. we've reduced bills. we've reduced bills for low and moderate-income families especially in the beauty of the approach is that -- >> say that again? you've reduced the electricity bills for low and moderate-income people? >> yes, the cumulative benefit to just new york low and moderate income bill payers has been $60 million to date. through the first quarter of this year. and those, those are going to keep those benefittings will continue on into the future because new york has specified in two of its programs income

eligible patients excuse me patients income eligible ratepayers. the beauty of the program is that states have the ability to target the revenue from the sale of those allowances to a variety of programs. so industrial customers can benefit. low and moderate-income rate payers can benefit. businesses, your average homeowners. so it has been a tremendous success story. >> and it is my understanding that under the proposed rule making that for example new jersey and pennsylvania could join our regional greenhouse gas initiative. and already plug into an existing system that is working that is lowering costs for low and moderate income lowering the amount of greenhouse gases while seeing tremendous growth in our gdp. so i think there's a reason to be very optimistic about our ability, listening to the pope's admonitions to us that we should be the global leader on this,

and we can use market forces to accomplish the goal while still enjoying tremendous economic growth and taking care of the poor and the moderate income people in our country. >> i agree with you entirely, senator, i think there's places around the country that could benefit from that model. it may not be identical to the model but certainly states cooperating makes great sense, because the efficiencies of dealing with multiple states and energy systems that cross state boundaries is obviously of great advantage to the rege states. >> i am afraid that too many people are pessimistic in general. they're not optimistic of our ability ago americans to be the global leaders, to use new technologies to protect young people and the economy at the same time and they harbor a great doubt about our country's ability to do that. but i thank the two of you for your testimony, because you point out the problems and the

solutions and you have devolved on it in a way that should give people some hope. >> i think that concludes our hearing. i want to thank the witnesses for bringing forth some very great information and facts and lots for us to think about. and appreciate all of you all taking time today to be with us. and i want to thank my ranking member, and with that we'll conclude the hearing, thank you. wednesday morning on c-span

3, the director of the office of personnel management and the opm inspector general testify about the recent data breach that compromised personal information of over 4 million federal workers. live coverage of the house oversight and government reform committee begins at 10:00 eastern. >> i'm not one of those who believes in the psychiatric examination of people, you know. i believe that most of these people, the psycho historians should be on their couch themselves rather than the psycho analyzed people they've never met. on the other hand, when i meet people, i don't judge them in terms of whether they have a firm handshake or whether they have eye contact, but what i try to do when i meet people is to listen to what they say. you don't learn anything when you are talking. you learn a great deal when they're talking. >> one of the many tragedies of richard nixon although he was

self-conscious he was not very self-aware. there are endless ironies. he did have a psychologist. he didn't want nixon to know he was analyzing him. but he went to him because he had illnesses. his head hurt and neck hurt and i couldn't sleep. and the doctor gave him mild therapy. even though he went to one he hated psychiatrists and was afraid in a way of looking at himself in a realistic way. one of the reasons he used to say i don't carry grudges. hello? richard nixon was one of the great grudge carriers of all time. he could be very unself-reflective. and this hurt him, because his lashing out at enemies of course is what destroyed him. >> author of being nixon talks about the victories and defeats

and inner turmoil of richard nixon, sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. before today's senate environment sub committee hearing on power plant emissions the chair of the whole committee, james inhofe talked about the epa's clean plan to the american heritage society. he calls it a hoax. this is an hour and is15 minutes. [ applause ] >> i want to thank all of you for coming, and i want to thank all of the people who are watching online and who will be watching on c-span. i'm very happy today to have our lead-off speaker, senator james inhofe. many of you know him and some of what i tell you here will be stuff you already know. but for those who don't senator

inhofe is an army veteran and is currently the chairman of the u.s. senate environment and public works committee and a senior member of the u.s. senate armed services committee. he's an avid pilot with over 11,000 hours of flight hours. senator inhofe became the only member of congress to fly an airplane around the world when he repeated wally post's legendary trip around world. he tells me when people ask him how old he is, he says he's old enough to fly a plane upside down. and when he can't do that anymore then he'll think about how old he is to be in the senate. but we're glad he's there and hope he stays a long time. at events and editorializing he was ranked number one saying he is an unabashed conservative and noted that he's unafraid to speak his mind. those of us who have been following him will second that. we're glad that he's unafraid to speak his mind.

in 2013, the national journal magazine ranked him among the top five most conservative members of the senate. he has been married to his wife kay for 55 years. they have 20 kids and grandkids. so don't tell him he doesn't care about the future. so please welcome senator inhofe to the podium. [ applause ] >> you guys, i have i have a little voice problem today and i have about a five-minute voice but i have a full 30 minutes here. so anyway i just wanted to share with you, yeah that's right, she was there when i was in the house, and that was 20 years ago, and she -- she was there,

yeah. she wasn't married at that time, so it was molly inhofe. go back and look it up. cute little girl. yeah. anyway, let me i was talking to the heartland institute and jim dement was there and said come tell us the same thing. can you leave if you want to. myron and i were fighting this battle back before it was popular, and i always remember the time that we went to that first -- you all are aware of these annual meetings that the u.n. has where they bring everybody in paper and everything, and the condition is they have to say they want to do something about global warming. and you remember the one in italy, milan milan, italy where they had the wanted posters up with my picture on it. and we went where they were making those things and i asked what they were going to do with the leftovers, i brought them back and used them for

fundraisers. it worked out real well. we've been involved in this thing for a long time. now this is what i want everyone to have, because i put this together for people like you. so when you go and you get in these discussions with people, you've got documentation conservatives have to be documented, i think you know that. so that is the reason for that. now confession's good for the soul. let me just mention this. back when i was first in the senate and when at that time everyone was talking about global warming and the world's coming to an end, so i assumed it must be true, until we found out that the cost of the thing. now that was actually m.i.t. and the charles rivers associates and all of them. the range is still between between $2 billion and $3 billion a year. and i started paying attention and said make sure the science is right. that's when we found out it wasn't. one speech on the senate floor

and all of a sudden the real scientists started coming out of the wood work and would come in and tell the truth about some of them had been on the ipcc and had been kicked off because they didn't buy their thing. so, so anyway, that, that was a, and i want to mention what's going on today, because senator whitehouse has now given his 100th floor speech, and if you listen to them they're all exactly the same. and i happen to like that guy. i don't blame him for being the direct beneficiary of all this money that's tom steyer money and all that bass heecause he wasn't even up for reelection at that time. there was a reason for that speech, april 18, 2012 because that was right after tom styer made his announcement that he was going to put $100 million into campaigns in the 2014 campaign cycle. well he did that.

and of course at that time it the reason, i think, that he got involved is, we're winning this thing. i mean i'll show you in a minute the documentation for that. but nonetheless anyway it's all about money. and you might remember when the cover of the national review where al gore's there with all of his -- he was speculated by the "new york times" as being the first environmental billionaire. and i think probably he was. but anyway one of the things that this gore effect was kind of funny, because every time he tried to have something something would happen. there was his global warming cruise across the northwest passage to talk about global warming, but the passage was frozen. in february of '07 he was at a house hearing on warming that was canceled after the snowstorm when he was there. pelosi in 2009 was snowed out of her global warming rally. so these things have actually

happened. and i think that even though the activists and other climate change entrepreneurs like styer committed the money, they didn't do well in the last election. now what is new about this is just three weeks ago a new tom steyer arrived his name is james faison. he said i'm a republican. i can start working on the republicans. you work on the democrats i'll work on the republicans. so he put up $175 million of his own money -- you may not have been aware of that. i guess you were. but that was when you add it together for the next that's a quarter of a billion dollars that's going to go into campaigns. so anyway that's we have found out that he has a lot of interests in solar energy that -- now the next one, i like this one. can you see that? that was really neat. that was really snowy. and so one of the pages went out

and made a snowball, the history of the united states senate that someone has thrown a snowball at the presizing officer. i had a kid in there who was a page from oklahoma. i said throw it low. it was beautiful. i enjoyed it. no one else did. but anyway, the reason i bring that up is because on this hand out, when you are challenged, and i went back and i looked out the things that they were saying, 15 years ago, the arguments that they were using they're still using today. and these arguments, you pick out any of them that you want here, and you need to have this with you because there are four things on here that will give you the wisdom and the documentation for the things that you say, for example number four here is the polar bears are disappearing. well, the fact is that there is a problem with the polar bear right now. it's called overpopulation. the '50s, there were between 5,000 and 10,000 polar bear.

today there are between 15000 and 25,000. so anyway i won't go over all of these but carry this with you, and when you hear someone on the senate floor, you'll recognize, right from this sheet, what their arguments are going to be. if you forgive me for that. you have too go back also and look at the history of this thing, because it was way back in 1997 that we did the hague-perd rule. if you come back to rio de janeiro, talking about gore now. and you have a treaty that's hard on our economy and it's not going to force the rest of the countries to do what we have to do then we're not going to ratify it. it passed 95-0. then along came john mccain. we had the mccain-lieberman bill

in 2002. he had this, it was a cap and trade bill, and that's where we used the $300 billion to $400 billion. and myron, you remember that very well. and then we beat, we won that one. and then the same thing in 2005. now it's interesting. we won those elections. among those races. but no one would join me down on the floor. it was lonely down there at that time. and so since that time, we've had a lot of veterans in the house get involved. we had markey and waxman and all of that. so and right now i belong to the most exclusive club in washington it's called united states senators who are not running for president. the, with the exception of lindsey graham they're all on our side on this issue. now this whole thing should have been over in with climate gate,

and i'm going to go back and refresh your memory on that. these parties that they have, the u.n. puts up, are every december, and the one that was in copenhagen, obama went over, nancy pelosi john kerry, barbara boxer, and hillary clinton, all five of them went over to tell the 192 countries that we're going to pass legislation that was cap and trade legislation. then i went over as one-man truth squad, and it was really fun. i remember talking in wiric's place. i went over there and said you've heard about all these people. i'm going to tell you guys, it's not going to happen. they all lied to you. and of course it didn't happen. but all 191 other countries had one thing in mind, in common. they all hated me. but nonetheless. here's the interesting thing. right before leaving you remember lisa jackson.

lisa jackson was the first appointment of an epa director by this president. and i, i really, i was the only republican who liked her. and it's because she couldn't tell a lie. you don't fit in this administration unless you can lie. so i asked her the question right before i went over to copenhagen. now this is live on tv. i said now i have a feeling that once i leave town you're going to come up with an endangerment finding to allow you to do with regulations what you can't do you don't have the votes to get done less latively, and so she kind of smiled so i knew it was true. and i said when you do you're having to have to use some kind of science behind it, what are you going to use? >> ipcc. >> well, trahat's the united nations. now it was a matter of hours after that that climate-gate came out. i have the handout and the

quotes that were made, like, on the u.k. telegraph said the worst scientific scandal of our generation, and it goes on and on. but this is a good thing to carry with you. that should have killed it right there, and we have the quotes from michael mann and others who were trying to rig this thing. and so that should have that should have actually ended it at that point. but anyway, the lisa jackson has always been, that's why she's fired. but she's, i remember one time i asked her the question, i said now, you know whether you do it through legislation or regulation, if you do this, and you do a cap and trade, is that going to have the effect of reducing co2 emissions worldwide? and she said no it wouldn't do that. and the reason is this isn't where the problem is. the problem's china. you've got to do it in india, in mexico. and if you don't do that, you could have the reverse effect.

if you chase away our manufacturing base here where do they go? they go to places like china and like india. it could have the effect of increasing and not decreasing it. that wasn't a popular response to the administration. but climate-gate should have ended right there at that time. so then along came gina mccarthy. she was a little bit more compatible with the administration. and if you if you look at the clean power plan and i know you're going to be talking about that in a minute. the clean power plan is actually worse than legislation, because legislation affects the emissions of individuals or companies that emit it 12,000 tons of co2. and if you do it by regulation that would be under the clean air act would be 250 thousand tons. so it 250 tons so it would be

more expensive than the 300 or 400. to give you an idea we now have 32 states opposing the power plant. we have 15 that have sued the epa, and we're one of them, my state of oklahoma. and we formed the intent to say no and not do it. so we're really coming out ahead on this thing in terms of public perception. and if you look also you see now that it's something that has happened only recently. even the "new york times" came out and took a shot at them saying they are using the epa illegally in their talking about the cap and trade and the water plan, you know that's another big one, too. that's not what the discussion is today but the water of the united states, you might remember, they were trying to put that thing together to have, to take the word navigable out. i agree that states should have