meet with french president macron. he returns to washington friday. back here in washington, the house climate crisis committee is holding a hearing recently to examine new policy ideas for combating climate change. we join that event in progress. >> more than 300,000 coastal homes worth a total value of almost $120 billion that are expected to face chronic flooding in the next 30 years. when the sea rise -- when the seas rise, so does the cost to american families on our coast. when brutsal heat waves hit our communities, people get sick and agricultural crops and animals suffer. if we fail to take action, the cost of extreme heat and poor air quality from the climate crisis could add up to $167 billion a year. and we could lose another $155 billion a year simply from days when it's too hot for people to work outside, according to the national climate assessment.

and then there are the disasters. the number of billion-dollar weather disasters in the united states is more than doubled in recent years. in 2017, we set a record with more than $300 billion worth of damage. in 2018, it was close behind with nearly $100 billion. many of these disasters are worse because of the climate crisis. including wildfires, dramatic swings in rainfall and coastal storm surge. when these disasters happen, we have a moral obligation to help. it's frustrating that so many americans in puerto rico and florida and across the country are still waiting for help in the aftermath of disasters. because solving the climate crisis also requires a commitment to climate justice. that means correcting the injustices that leave so many people, especially people of color, vulnerable to flooding, hae

heat waves and wildfires. these are daunting problems, but the good news is we have solutions. we can protect our communities from the climate crisis while we cut the car bobon pollution thas causing the climate to change. energy efficiency and smarter grids help keep power flowing and air conditioning moving during dangerous heat waves. that saves lives. and when we restore wetlands on our coast, those trees and plants can absorb the devastating power of coastal storms. and they absorb something else as they grow. carbon. an increasingly farmers are adjusting their practices to increase soil health which makes farms more resilient to the impacts of extreme weather and increases carbon stored in the soil. as we continue our work, we are looking for solutions to the climate crisis that provide multiple benefits that reduce carbon pollution, that protect communities and produce good jobs.

the cost of the climate crisis are already adding up, and it's time that we invest in climate solutions instead. but it's more than just dollars. it's about leaving our children a cleaner, safer and healthier world. the millions of young people who are joining climate strikes tomorrow, fridays for the future, never lived in a normal climate, and they know it. that's why they're demanding climate action now because we need to start baking the climate crisis into every decision we make. on energy, on transportation, on agriculture, and infrastructure. the climate crisis is here, and we need to act like it. this is personal. this is happening to our neighbors. this is happening to all of us. when disasters happen, we should put the policies of the day or the politics of the day aside. come together and solve problems. our expert witnesses will recommend policies to do so. because we need to come together

and take climate action now. we're all in this together. at this time, i yield five minutes to the ranking member graves for an opening statement. >> thank you madam chair. and i want to thank all the witnesses for taking the time to be here today and for the appropria preparation of your testimony. i asked the chair to focus on this topic first. and there's a very good reason for that. as we heard during the last hearing, when congressman palmer asked a question of some of our witnesses, he basically said, what happens if we cut all emissions from the united states today. are we still going to see this momentum continue moving forward in terms of temperature changes and seas rising. and the answer was yes. i'm doing this from memory so it's an excellent chance i'm going to get this somewhat wrong but i think you then went on to ask if, what happens if all countries cut emissions?

would we see a stopping of this sea rise increase in temperature changes, and i think the answer was no. what that means is that there is effectively nothing we can do right now, based on our current understanding of science and technology. there's nothing we can do to stop this momentum of temperatures changing and seas rising -- in the immediate term. and i want to distinguish that. i'm not saying long term. in the immediate term. so if things are changing, if we are -- if we have this momentum built up and seas rising, temperatures changing, and as the chair just covered, we're seeing these disasters occurring. they're occurring for a few reasons in terms of cost. because of development, because in the coastal counties, parishes and burroughs we represent, that only represents 10% of the land of the united states, it's where a large

percent average our population lives. more people want to live on the water where we're seeing the sea rise and storm damage. this is the area to focus and there is zero reason this should be a remotely partisan issue. and that's why we did work, and i think we're able to make unprecedented advances in the last congress in helping to move toward an adaptation or mitigation type strategy. number one, we actually incentivized parishes, counties and states to be proactive, to lean forward. and they will get a reduced cost share on disasters. number two, between some of the funds through the corps of engineers and through hud, and i want to make note, hud who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag to get this money out on the streerkts we have provided record levels of funding for flood mitigation through the corps of engineers and through hud. i'm going to beat hud again. we appropriated this money in february of last year and they

haven't figured out how to write the federal register guidance on how the states can use these funds. it's inexcusable. we were able to look at this $100 billion backlock of water resource projects and enable to carry out some expedited feet ares to move those projects forward. we were able to define a res resiliency standard whereby we can -- we're not building back it how things were. we're building for the future. providing additional flexibility in this authority in the aftermath of disasters. more flexibility in how you build back. a lot of advancements and many others, but some really important progress. now the other thing that's really important because i want to emphasize once again, i'm not saying that just if we adapt we just stop and say, okay, we're done. we do need to make sure that we expand the access and portfolio of clean energy solutions and opportunities for our citizens.

we do need to continue on this trajectory of reducing emissions in the united states. and while many people like to demonize this country, both americans and people from other countries, like to demonize the united states and once again, going to go on a victory lap and say that the united states since 2000 has had the greatest absolute reduction of emissions in the world. period. so we need to recognize we're doing a pretty good job and can continue on this trajectory without wrecking the u.s. economy. and we can make progress in terms of energy options for our citizens. and we can help to bend this curve of growing emissions we're seeing around the world to ensure that we can provide a future for these next generations that is sustainable, that is resilient. i yield back. >> without objection, members who wish to enter opening

statements into the record may have five business days to do so. now i want to welcome our witness witnesses. first we have dr. noah diffenbough from stanford university. he studies the climate system, including the processes by which climate change could impact agriculture, water resources and human health. he served as a lead author for working group 2 of the intergovernmental panel on climate change and has provided testimony and scientific expertise to federal and state policymakers. dr. rachel cleetus is the policy director with the climate and energy program at the union of concerned scientists. her research focused on the risks and cost of climate impacts. she's an expert on policies to promote climate resilience. she has co-authored numerous reports, including the recent union of concerned scientists report under water rising seas, chronic floods and the

implications for u.s. coastal real estate. mr. keith hodges represents the 98th district in the virginia state house of delegates where he has worked on flooding and coastal resiliency and has produced legislation on those. mr. hodges is a life-long resident of the 98th district of virginia and was elected in 2011. mr. matt russell is the executive director of iowa interfaith power and light as well as a fifth generation iowa farmer. he is a leader and expert on sustainable agriculture and finding solutions to climate change. prior to joining iowa interfaith power and light, he worked at the drake university agricultural law center focusing on issues concerning retail agriculture, conservation, climate change, rural development and federal farm policy. without objection, the witnesses' written statements may be made part of the record. with that, dr. diffenbough.

you are now recognized. >> thank you. thank you chairwoman castor and ranking member graves and the committee for the invitation to testify. my name is noah. i'm a professor and senior fellow at stanford university. i'm appearing today in my personal capacity. the subject of today's hearing is creating a climate resilient america. the good news for our country is that although climate change is already impacting americans, there are many opportunities for us to become more resilient. and in doing so build a more vibrant, secure and equitable nation. my testimony will focus on the scientific evidence for the changing risks posed by global warming. you've already heard testimony summarizing the ipcc reports and the national climate assessment. so i'd like to start by summarizing an assessment that my colleagues and i recently published evaluating the scientific evidence from the perspective of ipa's endangerment finding. as you know, epa issued the

endangerment finding for greenhouse gases in 2009. this followed the 2007 supreme court ruling that epa must regulate greenhouse gases under the clean air act if those gases are found to endanger the public health and welfare, end quote. the finding evaluated risks in eight areas. public health, air quality, food production and agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea level rise in coastal areas, energy infrastructure and settlements and ecosystems and wildlife. drawing on more than 280 studies, our multidisciplinary team found not only was the evidence for endangerment strong in 2009 but also that the evidence has increased in all eight areas of the original finding. we also found that there is now strong evidence of entirely new kinds of impacts that weren't featured in the finding. these include ocean

acidification, interpersonal violence, national security and economic well-being. economic well-being represents a particular area of increased understanding. recent analysis shows that should global warming continue along the current trajectory, the majority of u.s. counties are likely to suffer economic damages arising from impacts in areas such as labor productivity, agricultural yields and coastal damage. integrating across these sectors suggests that each one-degree celsius of warming is likely to result in damages exceeding 1% of u.s. gdp. with poorer counties suffering the most. further, in my research with professor marshall burke, also at stanford, we found that holding global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius could reduce cumulative economic damages in the united states by $6 trillion relative to the two-degree sea target. across the country, we're already experiencing rising

economic costs from extreme events. in my home state of california, we've experienced a remarkably costly series of extremes over the past seven years from drought and heat waves to flooding and mud slides to wildfires and smoke plumes. these events have caused billions of dollars in damage, killed tens of millions of trees, cost tens of thousands of jobs, left thousands of residents without running water and claimed hundreds of lives. and many other parts of the country have experienced similar impacts. one reason that the evidence for endangerment has increased over the past decade is we've made tremendous strides in understanding the influence of global warming on individual extremes. my research shows that global warming has already increased the odds of record-setting hot and wet events for around 75% of north america. and record-setting dry spells for more than 50% of north america. the influence of global warming has also been detected in many specific events from the

extremely hot, dry summer that devastated crops in the midwest in 2012 to the prolonged california drought to the storm surge flooding during hurricane sandy and the record-setting rainfall delivered to houston by hurricane harvey. in the aftermath of these extremes, we are seeing inspiring examples of how communities, companies and state and local governments can work together to build climate resilience. in california, the state's climate efforts offered a road map that integrates mitigation, adaptation and, quote, an integral commitment to remedying past injustice. in california and across the country, we are seeing examples of how to simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions, sustain economic growth, address environmental injustice and invest in climate resilience for all citizens. i applaud the committee for working to create a climate resilient america, and i'm happy to answer any questions.

>> thank you very much. dr. cleetus? >> thank you. good morning, and thank you, chairwoman castor, ranking member graves and members of the select committee. thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify here today. my name is rachel cleetus. i'm the policy directored in lead economist for the climate and energy program at the union of concerned scientists. i'd like to start today with research that we released last year on the impacts of worsening tidal flooding on coastal property in the united states. what our study showed is that by the end of the century, approximately 2.5 million u.s. coastal homes and commercial properties currently worth more than a trillion dollars would be at risk from chronic flooding. and by 2045, within the lifetime of the typical mortgage issued today, about 325,000 coastal properties worth $136 billion are at risk. the properties at risk by 2045 contribute nearly $1.5 billion to today's property tax base.

and those numbers jump to $12 billion by 2100. states with the most homes include florida, with 1 million homes at risk by the end of the century, new jersey with 250,000 and new york with 143,000. and the declining value of these homes while it will be devastating for individual homeowners also has broad implications for other parts of our economy, including the affected communities, lenders, investors and taxpayers. and we know that communities that have fewer resources to begin with will be the hardest hit. these include communities in louisiana, north carolina, new jersey and maryland that our research shows will be highly exposed to chronic flooding and have higher than average poverty rates. it's also developed an interactive mapping tool that allows you to explore the risks in your congressional districts, and we have fact sheets to go along with that. our research points to a choice we face. if the global community adheres

to the primary goal of the paris agreement of keeping warming to below 2 degrees celsius and if land-based ice lost is limited, the u.s. could avoid up to 85% of these coastal property losses. ucs has explored military installations along the eastern gulf coast. in the absence of preventive measures, these sites, including bases in virginia, georgia and florida face major risks. by 2015, most of the installations we analyzed will see more than ten times the number of floods they experienced today. by 2100, eight bases are at risk of losing 25% to 50% of their land to rising seas. four installations, naval air station key west, joint base langley, and paris island are at risk of losing between 75% and 95% of their land by the end of the century. as dr. difenbaugh pointed out, scientists have linked the rainfall to warmer air and

oceans caused by climate change. we did analysis in the wake of that storm showing that more than 650 energy and industrial facilities may have been exposed to hurricane harvey's floodwaters. in the houston area, low-income communities of color have long been exposed to toxic chemicals as local environmental justice groups have pointed out. and we saw floodwaters contaminated with toxic chemicals and potent bacteria, compromised industrial facilities, toxins released into the air, all of which magnify the public health burden. climate change is making heavy rains heavier and more frequent in many parts of the country with human alteration of the land including engineering of rivers and increased construction and flood plains. many parts of the u.s. are at greater risk of destructive and costly floods. this spring alone has brought terrible flooding to parts of the country including louisiana, texas, the midwest and all along the mississippi and missouri rivers.

noaa data confirmed the u.s. has just experienced the westest 12 months on record. climate projections show these conditions are likely to grow worse in many parts of the country in the decades ahead. the fourth national climate assessment highlights many ways through which climate change going to contribute to worsening health risks, including through supreme heat, wildfires, and other events which can contribute to poor equality, heat-related illnesses, water and bacterial-born diseases associated with stress and trauma. and socio economic and environmental factors can exacerbate the vulnerability of specific populations including the elderly, very young, outdoor workers and athletes, many tribal communities and communities of color and people who live in poverty. these grave risks require an urgent response from the federal, state and local policymakers and private sector

to better protect communities and build resilience. these risks need to be better communicated and taken into account in our policies and programs, everything from fema and hud programs to what's happening at the local level in terms of building codes and zoning codes. we need to make sure that our robust expeditious funding of disaster assistance flows quickly to hard-hit communities in a way that builds resilient. we need bold and visionary leadership and sources for investments and coordination, governance, stakeholder engagement. in our nation's resilience efforts, they must prioritize the needs of those disproportion atly exposed to the risks. we must make deep cuts in heat trapping emissions and contribute to global efforts to limit climate change. every fraction of a degree we can avoid matters in terms of the climate impacts we'll face. adaptation is costly and there are limits to how much change we can adapt to.

investing in low and zero carbon options, it will help address climate change and deliver tremendous near-term public health and economic benefits. in closing, i'm here as a climate expert and as a mom. i have two young children, aged 11 and 13. and like many of you with young people in your lifves, i'm acutely aware that choices we make, choices that you in congress are to make will be consequential to their future. we'll make it prosper without fear of runaway climate change. thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you. mr. hodges, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. good morning, chairwoman castor, ranking member graves and member of the select committee. i represent the 98th district in the virginia house of delegates located in the heart of virginia's rural coastal region. i also have the distinct pleasure of serving as the co-chair for the virginia

general assembly joint commission on coastal flooding and serve as a member of the general assembly state water commission. i'm here today to paint a picture. a picture of the real impacts coastal flooding is having on our rural, suburban and urban areas of the commonwealth. my constituents are already feeling the impacts. one of the smallest localities in my district, matthews county, has just 9,000 people but has already suffered $65 million loss of land value directory and indirectly due to flooding. the loss of land impacts not only the property owners but means less tax revenue is available for critical public services such as police, fire and schools. i will also outline the challenges we face in mitigating the effect on water. the government regulations that stand between property owners and their ability to protect themselves. and the innovative solutions being developed to address it. solutions that ultimately could

be applied in any coastal region in the nation. we can all agree the commonwealth's signature quart quality protection, the chesapeake preservation act was needed and is the responsible for the significant improvements that have made, over time, to clean up our moft important water ways on the east coast. a large portion of the preservation act regulated the repairing areas where the tidal wetlands and upland areas converge. it was written to protect the natural spaces around the waterways, preventing overdevelopment and protecting water quality. that was on paper. but in reality, a great deal of those areas are people's yards. it's where people's lives are. it's where they grill out. it's their homes. it's their sense of place. that's where we're seeing the flooding. and that's where we're seeing layer upon layer of additional government regulations. there is a disconnect between

where the laws are, laws that prevents any sort rev zilliency efforts being done and where the people live. it's important to note here that many of these laws were intended to manage water running off from a higher elevation, the land. and into the lower elevation, the sea. it never realized that we could be facing water coming from a lower elevation to a higher elevation, bringing the river into people's yards. doesn't make it right. it doesn't make it wrong. it's just reality. we've identified 23 laws and regulations that protect water quality while well intended, they're also holding us back. and the commonwealth of virginia, we have been studying ways to both adhere to the spirit of the preservation act and other regulations and the goal to maintain water quality while also helping property owners protect their homes, localities protect their tax base and promote resiliency.

it started with looking at legislation and regulations and more holistic and innovative way. we found ways to help property owners, residential and commercial, installing living shore lines, proven to help water quality, resiliency and providing the funding and insurance to bring them to reality. we're building shorelines that are bigger, that are wider and that are taller. we've addressed storm water legislation and equalized the cost for developers building in rural versus urban areas. we've created ways through the virginia waterway maintenance fund to give localities more ways to use dredge materials for resiliency efforts. we're look ing at how to ensure nature-based flood mitigation strategies. and we are fighting the flood with a new campaign set to launch this year where we bring together the consumer need for solutions with the marketplace. we're connecting them together and making it cheaper for property owners to protect

themselves. perhaps most innovatively, we're also leveraging intellectual capital around the area. we have funded a project to study ways to harness and focus that intellectual capital. water goes everywhere. it doesn't discriminate whether you're rural, suburban or urban. we have opted to look at it as an asset, not a liability. we're looking at it as a relationship versus something that's detrimental. we are reframing the way we approach water management. when you reframe the way you approach water management, you can come at it from a more holistic economic perspect pitch you can create jobs and you can protect livelihoods. we're not sitting back and complaining about the problem. we're looking at it as something that's not going away. we're creating an opportunity. the opportunity requires us all to work together to address the challenges to find the solutions from here in washington, to

richmond and the localities where constituents live, where they work and where they play. thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue here today. and for helping us all see that working together will benefit us all. as they say, a rising tide lifts all ships. thank you, madam chair. >> mr. russell, you are recognized for five minutes. >> good morning. chair castor, ranking member graves, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to talk about the opportunities and challenges for american farmers in our climate crisis. i'm a fifth generation iowa farmer, executive director of the iowa interfaith power and light. and we're an organization that works with iowans to find and implement faith-based solutions to climate change. it's an honor to testify this morning on behalf of american farmers. a partial solution to the global

climate crisis is right in front of us. if we just have the courage to embrace it. this solution will also help us clean our air and water, save our soils, stabilize our rural communities and our food system. that solution is to pay farmers for environmental services when we sequester carbon. doing so will revolutionize both agriculture and environmental policy. these policies should no longer be in opposition. they should complement each other in strategic ways. costs will be pennies per meal in the short run, but actually, this is not a cost at all. it's an investment in our children and grandchildren's future. we can help solve global warming by unleashing the power of american farmers to solve problems. it's what we do regardless of where you are in america if you are a farmer on a daily basis

you solve problems. when the rain is coming and the hay is down and the bailer is broken, you're underneath it fixing it. if you're in the orchard and dealing with disease, we solve problems. the question today isn't, do you believe in climate change? the question is, do you believe in american farmers? in our ability to innovate when confronted with major challenges? by including agriculture in this hearing, it's clear this committee wants to start investing in american farmers. paying farmers to capture carbon is an effective way to slow climate change and make our farmers more resilient to extreme weather. carbon farming will also increase productative irkts build soil, improve air and water quality fd increase economic opportunity in our rural communities. we're gathering farmers in church basements to talk about climate action. these farmers are ready to help solve climate change.

they point out the current combination of public policy and markets creates a situation where farmers investing in better conservation and stewardship actually carry a greater burden of risk than farmers who are willing to short change long-term stewardship for short-term profits. in the face of these distorted policy and market signals, more and more farmers are ready to help tackle this climate crisis. last century, the population bomb was the greatest challenge facing humanity. american farmers led the revolution that helped solve this problem. our parents and grandparents partnered with researchers and agri business to increase productivity that not only delivered enough food but lowered the cost of that food. the green revolution, not only prevented a global disaster, it unleashed global growth that dramatically increased the quality and length of life for

every human all throughout the world. we're at a similar pivotal moment in history. we are facing a catastrophic crisis. american farmers can again lead the world into the future that is even more abundant than our past. we have a mountain of research, powerful technological tools and pioneering farmers across the country already starting to manage their farms to not only produce the goods the world demands but to provide the environmental services this crisis requires. to do this, we must partner with the rest of america to leverage mart public policy and develop effective markets to reward innovation on our farms. here some are things you can help -- here are some ways you can help farmers lead the next agricultural revolution. work with farmers to develop public policy that encourages farmer and market-led solutions to climate -- for climate action. american farmers, we are at our

best when we yoke smart public policy and the power of capitalism. as the world begins to put a price on carbon, let's make sure american farmers can claim some of the value of what we do on our farms when providing climate change mitigation services. embrace the opportunities climate action holds for rural development. rural america is where energy is produced and agricultural products are grown. every farmer and every part of this country can benefit from helping solve the climate crisis. rethink the politics of climate. if resources remain focused on the politics, we all lose. but if we bring the very best democratic ideas and the very best republican ideas together, our rural communities will be more resilient to extreme weather, can hold on to the value of capturing carbon and generate clean energy. everyone says we need bipartisan solutions. incent vising farmers to lead on climate action is an opportunity

to make that happen. investing in american farmers is hands down one of the fastest and most effective ways for climate action. thank you for your time. >> well, thanks to all of our witnesses for your very compelling testimony. i recognize myself for five minutes for questions. mr. russell, you've caught my attention when talking about the dual benefits of climate action when it comes to our farmers across this country. and you highlighted some ways we can reduce carbon pollution while supporting our agricultural economy. dual benefits. because we don't have time to go backwards. and we have to do these things, yes, in the short term because while america's -- we've made progress on reducing carbon pollution, unfortunately in 2018, our emissions went up. and as we've heard in our previous hearing, the u.s. and the world need to achieve net

zero carbon emissions by 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. so get a little more specific even than what you highlighted there at the end of your testimony on what we can do to encourage, incentivize farmers to help decrease pollution and how this translates to american consumers and our food system here in the united states. >> yeah, i'll try to be brief in a general overview. essentially in the fossil fuel economy, we've used fossil fuels to do amazing things and the green revolution was one of those. we've used that to force nature to do some particular things, and that was very successful. but in this new economy that we're moving into, as a response to climate change, we have to think about how we farm differently. instead of forcing nature to do particular things, we have to work with nature to come up with the benefits that we need. this doesn't mean throwing out

our agricult aural systems. it means leaning into what we already have. we have the policy tools to do this. our farmers understand this and are already trying to -- and our land grant universities are diving into this. we have to unleash the power for them to do that and signal to them we'll support this more. essentially it means taking agricultural systems and stacking a number of environmental services. really five things that farmers can do across the country. doesn't matter what kind of farm you're on. it's conservation tillage. how to till the land the least as possible. how do we have something growing all the time? cover crops. integrating livestock into our agricultural systems. managed grazing is a big piece of that. it's all kinds of integrating. pork, poultry, dairy. all the loafstock. how do we integrate that. we need to extend our crop rotations. we need to add new crops into the mix.

i think i got all four of them there. and the fifth thing then is renewable energy. and so when you stack all of those things together, it makes our rural economy, our farmers more resilient to the supreme weather because soil can hold water when it rains and have water stored when it's dry. but it also captures carbon and provides a service. so we can't do one or the other. we can, but we're not going to get the benefits. we do it at the same time and incent vise farmers and partner with the research members and scientists. we can lead this like no other place in the planet. if we don't, other farm -- other agricultural systems in other parts of the world are going to do this in the next decade. it's ours to lose if we don't. >> thank you very much. dr. cletus, the union of concerned scientists has been fantastic work on measuring the impacts of climate on our coastal communities. i'm very sensitive to this representing a coastal district in florida. and i see the cost burden going

up and up and up for the folks i represent in my state, whether it's flood insurance, property insurance, what local communities are having to do with fixing stormwater and waste water systems. the list goes on and on. but i want to shift here. one of the things we don't talk about are the rising costs related to public health due to climate. would you go into greater detail there on solutions for us moving forward. >> sure. the national climate assessment has pointed out the multiple ways in which climate change is already affecting health and will do so in the future. to take just one example, extreme heat events which are now affecting parts of the country that weren't affected before. so what's really important in this moment is, first of all, that we need to understand what the climate trends are already showing and what the risks are coming our way. we need to identify vulnerable populations. i mentioned several in my testimony, including the elderly, the very young, people

with pre-existing medical conditions, outdoor workers, homeless people, incarcerated people, first responders. we need to identify these vulnerable populations and where they are in the country and make sure that we've got early warning systems in place that our health care systems have the resources to deal with the consequences of these extreme events and the health outcomes they'll have. that means actually having a holistic picture. we're dealing with climate change you also talking about health care systems and doing these things together, mainstreaming climate resilience across the board is the call of the hour. we need better coordination from the federal to the local level. health and human services, cdc, epa, noaa. agencies work, together at the federal level helping at the local level. we've also got to understand in some of these coastal places, we will have displaced -- >> i may need you to continue when you're answering another question because i've got to recognize the ranking member for five minutes. >> sure. >> thank you. i want to thank you again for

your testimony. mr. russell, fifth generation farmer, certainly lots of history there. would you agree that over those generations with improvements in fertilizers and other techniques that there's been an increase in yield per acre of different agricultural products? >> absolutely. the green revolution. we did that. >> which has helped out the united states, but countries all over the world. and so what's your recommendation, which i think makes a lot of sense is to basically incentivize farmers to innovate, to help improve sort of the biogenic environment. the natural environment's ability to -- and hodges mentioned another sink for greenhouse gases. there's a tax provision that was included called 45q that does provide a tax credit under certain circumstances for

carbony is quecarbon y sequestration and that should also apply to farmers and to incentivize them to carry out practices that does increase the up tick of greenhouse gases or sequestration. >> i'm not extremely familiar with that tax credit, but that is exactly the type of solutions that we need for farmers to have access to. >> that's great. and i think that there is a role for incentivizing the biogenic environment, whether through farmers or finding other techniques but also recognizing that the use of fertilizers, which is very natural gas heavy, has -- there's a complementary relationship. find ways to sync while increasing yield and you get a win-win. dr. diffenbaugh, i want to make sure that i understand a few things. number one, based on earlier

opening statement and comments from previous expert witnesses, you do agree that there is momentum built up in the greenhouse gas concentrations to where if we cut all emissions from the united states today we'll still see increases in temperature and sea rise and things along those lines? >> yeah, i published a paper in 2012 running exactly that thought experiment of what if not only the u.s. but all of the oecd countries cut emissions -- >> so there's no regrets for us carrying out resiliency tftss right now. i mean, those are things that no matter what we do with our emissions profile, those are no-regrets investments in helping improve the resiliency of our coastal communities and communities all over the united states. is that accurate? >> there are two key points. resilience can be a win-win, as we've heard throughout the morning. that there are opportunities both to manage climate risks,

both by managing our greenhouse gas practice jectory and by becoming -- catching up with the climate change that's already happened and being more prepare forward the climate change that will happen in the future. >> so if you look back between 2005 and 2017, the united states has reduced emissions by somewhere just under 1 giga ton whereas during a similar period of time, and i think moving forward toward -- during a similar period of time, i need to go back and check this, china increased their emissions by i want to say four or five times what the united states reduced their by. by paris, they're expected to reduce another 5 giga tons. so the u.s. taking these aggressive efforts to cut emissions while others are increasing emissions multiple times, we're not headed in the right direction in regard to trying to head off this

mitigation challenge that we're experiencing. meaning that we're going to end up with net temperature increases, net sea rise and things along those lines if the u.s. is reducing and other countries are significantly increasing emissions. is that accurate? >> so we know because of the fundamental physics of planet earth that the basic energy balance of planet earth, in order to stabilize the global temperature that essentially requires reaching net zero emissions. as was mentioned, reaching net zero by midcentury gives about a 50% chance of staying below 2 degrees c. >> we can't just come to the united states and stop all emissions and have other countries, more than offset the emissions we're reducing by increasing their emissions and having any type of environmental -- positive environmental outcome. >> so net zero is a global requirement for the global energy balance. it's important to keep in mind

we've had about 1 degree celsius of global warming already. the u.s. has contributed about a quarter of the emissions that have led to that warming historically. and, in fact -- >> but if china is increasing fivefold what we're reducing, is -- >> but if we look at the total cumulative emissions historically -- >> right, but is there something we can do about historic emissions or can we only do things about prospective emissions? we can carry out activities like mr. russell and delegate hodges indicated ed td to sequester c. but we can't do anything about emissions already released. we have to look forward. so having china on a trajectory of quadrupling what we're reducing isn't heading in the right direction. >> so we are dealing now with the emissions that have already been released in that we are paying out year after year in the costs of climate change that is -- that we're living with

right now. and as i said in my opening statement, we have opportunities to manage those risks by simultaneously managing our emissions and increasing our resilience. >> mr. luhan, you're recognized. >> i want to thank our chair n ra and ranking member. should the united states take action to reduce emissions? >> mic. >> doctor, should the united states take action to reduce emissions? >> the question of should is a question for elected officials such as yourself. >> must the united states take action to reduce emissions? >> in order to stabilize the global temperature, the global -- >> that's not a yes or no. let's move on. i'll submit it to you in writing so we can get a thorough response. dr. cleetus, should the united states take action to reduce

emissions? >> yes, as part of the global effort. the united states and -- >> yes or no is fine. >> delegate hodges. should the united states take action to reduce emissions? >> in a market-based approach. >> is that a yes? >> yes, in a market-based approach. >> at least you qualified it but that's a yes. >> mr. russell, should the united states take action to reduce emissions? >> absolutely. i was getting lost on that last exchange of should we or shouldn't we. i think we must take action on resiliency and the united states must take immediate action to reduce emissions. the two go hand in hand. if any of you are concerned about rising sea levels, it's not just about the action we take now. it's about the actions we take forward. this is not a complicated question. and so i hope that that provides a little bit of content and context to at least where i stand on the issue. i appreciate the testimony today, and in new mexico, we're experiencing extreme weather as a result of climate change as well. for generations, summer monsoons

and winter snow pack provided water they needed to thrive, even during times of drought. this last year, we had a flood in santa fe new mexico that in santa fe, new mexico, that some described as a thousand-year episode. the year before, a flood that was described as a 500-year episode. and when we talk about the importance of resiliency, and also for all my colleagues that represent coastal communities, there weren't programs to help those families that experienced those episodes as well. i think that as we talk about resiliency and making sure they're able to work with families, that we take into considerations areas like new mexico where we sit in the high desert and are drought-prone, where wildfire may be more likely than a flood. but two years in a row of 500 and 1,000-year episodes are very

concern. to mr. russell, you said that every farmer in every part of the country should have access to these programs. does that include farmers who may be farming an acre or two? >> to be clear we're bringing farmers into basements in churches and we're leading with what's your faith calling you to respond with your farm? most of those farms are conventional, commodity and live stock farmers. 6 thou 6,000, 65,000 acres. but we have had farmers in that room that do have a couple of acres of produce. if you're managing your farm so at the end of the day or end of the year you have a net balance of like more carbon on and your farm and less emissions we as taxpayers should be paying you for those services because that's what the world is demanding. every farmer in the country is

going to be managing their own system with that metric. >> in iowa you have some of the largest farms in america. there are a lot of programs that help the largest pruders in the country where most food is produced. you also have farmers that raised in a basement or on an acre of land. should nose farmers that raise crops in their basement or in my case in new mexico, most farmers raise crops on an acre of land, should those farmers also be included in the programs as we talk about the goals associated with carbon capture and what farmers can achieve? >> right now a lot of our programs are practice based. we need to shift to a performance base. if i can show i'm delivering, i should qualify. >> i'm interpreting that as a yes. >> absolutely, sorry. >> we've only got five minutes here. doctor, does the stanford woods institute for environment have any paperers you've published on the importance of reducing

emissions in america, even though you're here in your personal capacity? >> i have published a number of papers quantifying the different impacts at different levels of emissions. >> and do any of those documents include the need to call to action in reducing emissions? >> i am unaware in my peer reviewed scientific writings or in my public op-ed writings of any time in which i have stated that -- >> i'll go back and read them. thank you, madam chair. i'll yield back. >> mr. palmer, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. just to clarify the record, we're not suggesting that the united states not reduce its carbon emissions. we're leading the world in that area. the fact of the matter is and

some of you may disagree, chairman cox not that i don't mind talking as long as i can -- >> got it. >> but all right, time change. there are also other factors that impact the weather. i mean i know you're all expert scientists but what about the shift in the magnetic poles and the potential for impacting weather? anyone want to comment on that? probably not. >> i'm happy to comment on that. >> all right. >> i mean, we've seen across the state talking to farmers over the last decade, 15 years, that, you know, we first start talking about extreme weather, we wouldn't talk about climate change, and then we came up with a lot of natural cycles to lean into.

and we're now believing increasingly those natural cycles exist but something else is happening that's radically different. and we're ready to start leaning into fixing the things we can fix. we can't fix the magnetic field but we can fix the carbon and it does have an effect on our farms. >> i think it's becoming more and more apparent natural variation is having a greater impact on climate change than carbon emissions. that doesn't mean that carbon emissions don't have an impact. they do, certainly do. but in terms of resiliency, and i thought that's what we're here to talk about and adaptation and mitigation, we need to be preparing for what we know we cannot stop. i mean, this shutdown the tampa airport not too long ago because of the shift in the magnetic fields and they're shifting at an unprecedented rate. i think it's like 30 miles per day. and you have that combined with the solar activity and our magnetic fields protect

the-earth from those cosmic raies which impact our weather as do ocean currents, changes in ocean currents. and we need to be focused on how do we protect ourselves from that. these events will cause sea level rise. we heard someone mention 500-year floods, 1,000-year floods. there's the reason we talk about it because we've had massive floods throughout the history of the world. climate has a history. so i think when you talk about this, if you put all of your focus just on reducing carbon emissions, and we don't take into account these other events that are taking place, we're going to find ourselves in a really bad place. you want to comment on that, doctor? >> yeah, so i think you may have gathered from my recent exchange with the congressman, i'm pretty conservative in my statements. and this question of whether the contribution of natural

variability, the ccontribution solar forcing, human forcing, the work of my community is extremely conservative. our high pothsis is that when an extreme event happened it was due to chance and that global warming had no role. we are extremely conservative both in terms of our intellectual framework and our statistical treatment. so our statistical treatment is beyond a reasonable doubt that's statistically, and we need very, very high confidence in order to reject the null hypothesis being that it was random chance. so it is very difficult to move us off of that position, and the reality is even with that reality of conservatism, we still find for some repeat events as i mentioned earlier more than 75% of north america, the scales have already been tipped towards record breaking

heat events, record breaking events that happened in north america, record breaking dry events. and that's even within the framework -- >> i find that interesting. you're in california, right? >> correct. and our temperature records only go back so far, but yet we only have records of evidence of major droughts that far exceed the droughts california has experienced in the last 75, 100 years. and again climate has a history. and my point is we know climate is changing. it always changes. >> so for california there have been and the broader western u.s., there have been many, many studies analyzing not only the instrumental record that goes back around a century, but these jelogic proxy records that you're mentioning.

and the california drought actually was an unprecedented event in those proxy records that we have available to us in terms of the combination of low precipitation and high temperature. >> just one last point, in terms of mitigation and adaptation, california had the opportunity to expand their reservoirs and didn't. and you've got about 40 million people using the water which really makes the drought situation difficult. i yield back. >> thank you, madam chair. doctor, i wanted to also ask you -- you talked about wildfires in california. i'm from california. i represent ventura county over the last 14 months the entire county has burned through two very significant fires, thomas fire and woolsey fire. if we do nothing, everything stays the same and we move forward. can you describe what wildfires

look like if nothing changes? >> so we have very strong evidence that global warming has already increased the risk of wildfires in the western united states. and in fact about half of the increase in area burned has been attributed to that drying of the vegetation from the rising temperature. and we certainly are seeing as you know very, very well and your constituents clearly sadly know very well, we're experiencing the impacts of that global warming that's already happened. we also have very strong evidence that if emissions continue we will continue to experience intensification of that wildfire risk. >> does that mean more fires, more frequent fires? what does that mean exactly? >> so i think we can expect a continuation of the trend in areas burned. so we're hearing very clearly from cal fire, is one, they no

longer consider to be a wildfire season. it's a year round phenomenon. two, they're experiencing fires that expand faster and are more difficult to control. and those are key contributors to the increase in the area burned. three, because of the elevated risk across the state and across the region, our old systems of deployment, the planning, the resource allocation throughout the year and in different geographic regions is no longer durable, and we certainly saw that very tragically this last autumn season where having both those severe fires in both northern california and southern california simultaneously that late in the year made it, frankly, impossible to contain those fires until they were very, very large. so i think that we have very strong evidence at a minimum we can expect continuation of the

recent trends which have been very steep. and our current research is focused on understanding whether there could be processes that accelerate those trends even further. >> thank you. there, you talked about in your testimony with regards to coastal flooding will exasperate income inequality. if you could talk a little bit more about that. >> our research is showing there's a lot of coastal property at risk because of flooding. there's a lot of things in the way including the critical infrastructure people depend on. for many people their home is their single biggest asset. and this matters more for low income or fixed income folks if they lose property. it has a tremendous effect on the ability to fund local services people depend on, emergency services, social services. so there's a spiraling effect as properties get affected and other things -- domino effects

start to play in. and in some places like coastal louisiana and maryland, many people are going to be displaced by this flooding. they already are being displaced as land gets lost. so especially for low income folks, communities of color that have had historic burdens this means the effect will be even more magnified on them. >> i have a very large naval base in my district, it's coastal. very important to our national security. could you speak to impacts on national security? >> absolutely. our research is showing that there are a lot of military installations around the country that are at risk from flooding. and we know the u.s. military takes those threats seriously. they understand that both here in the u.s. and around the world their mission critical readiness depends on preparing for these impacts. for example naval station norfolk is doing a lot to help prepare for these impacts. we've seen reports from dod on

climate resilience. they're also investing heavily in renewable energy. and the communities surrounding the bases are also being affected, and we've seen that with the hurricanes we've seen with michael and florence last year. terrible hurricanes, terrible impacts on u.s. and military installations. >> thank you, madam chair. i yield back. >> mr. griffith, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much and appreciate our witnesses being here today. gel dt hodges good to see you, and greetings from congress to the oldest legislative body to have continuously met and have been elected in the world, the virginia house of delegates. and while virginia hasn't always gotten it right, and there's certainly some really large bad things we've done, one of the things we did was to bring elected representative government to the new world.

and would you please tell the members of the committee exactly how old is the virginia legislator? >> well, actually it dates back to the house of burgess, and let's see 1689 i believe. >> 1619, so 400-year celebration. >> that's right across the river, too. >> of course it's an interesting or matthews county and glens is an interesting area. there was a book written recently about the men who fought in world war ii because they all knew the water so well because the roads weren't as good as the waterway tuesday get around. you talked about regulations that were affecting the ability of virginia to respond to the water rise and the increased water rising. can you give us some more detail on that because you only had five minutes.

>> we've identified 23 laws and regulations the past 50 years going back to the clean water act, septic. all of these programs had a well intended purpose. protect our waterways, protect our water quality. but what we've found over the years we didn't intend for sea level rise and things changing. and everything that we're working on flooding and chairing that flood commission, those barriers are in place to get results. we can study everything, but unless you can get that wall that government has put in place, government is here looking at solutions today but also government is our largest barrier. >> so are you saying, delegate, that in order to protect some of these areas from flooding you need to build a wall but first you have to teardown the wall of regulation that prevents you from protecting land being flooded? >> yes, sir. >> so are you asking us to do a

comprehensive review of the laws to make sure what we thought was going to be water flowing into the waterways is now water flowing onto the land and make sure we haven't created improper barriers that would prevent you as a state legislator from protecting the people in your district? >> yes, sir. i'd like to say if we had an eraser and could start from scratch how would you build this program that still protects water quality, protects our property owners and looks at long-term effects of the flooding? all these laws and regulations are in decline, and unfortunately our government seem to think it's solid and creates a huge barrier in permitting process and headaches for landowners. and we have to find a way to teardown that wall and build a comprehensive review. >> so no matter why the seas are rising, they are rising and you want to make sure you can protect your people you represent in the coast of virginia. >> yes, sir, definitely.

number one priority. >> and one of the big concern and we've heard several of the folks already mention that a lot of the pollutants we're worried about coming in the future are coming from overseas, and we all share the air. in fact, there's a wonderful stu study nasa did. they followed a sandstorm from the middle of the gobi desert and it took ten days to the get to the eastern shore of virginia. so what they're doing with carbon emissions in asia only takes ten days to get to the united states. and so if we are not careful we're going to ship all of our jobs off to asia because we've said you can't do anything here. and we're going to end up with the air pollution and the co2 gays, isn't that correct? >> yes, sir, yes, sir. >> and so we need to look at things in creative ways that, you know, mr. russell brought up

the farming and some organic farming folks in my district say a lot of the practices they use help capture more carbon than the industrialized farming. i think that's probably true and we should find ways to it courage that. >> and if i may we are actually at a market based approach. chairing the river base commission we have been able to quantify the value of forestry and a water quality initiative, and forestry also helps protect with flooding. to a market based approach, unable to get it to the marketplace until we've come up with a solution. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. mccckeacham you're

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i hope you'll take a moment to come to the house floor and see -- only those of us who served in the virginia legislator can understand what we're talking about, but i hope you'll take a moment to do that. on a more serious note to the extent you have identified regulations that are not allowing you to or us in virginia to combat sea level rise i invite you to send moo my office suggested changes. and i mean this seriously. get your executive director to jot down some notes and maybe let's take a peek at it and copy morgan on it, too. mr. russell, i'd like to ask you -- i know we've gone over this a couple of times with different members, but i think we're all struggling for us to try to see -- for you to put

clothes on this notion of paying farmers to sequester carbon. i think it's a great idea. sounds great. i'm a big believer in creation care. i invite you to share with us with more specificity what that looks like. are we talking a tax credit, literally a payment? what does it look like to you at least? >> well, thank you for the question. we have the most robust tool kit in this country around agriculture than any other place on the planet, any other country. the history of our land grants, usda programs. we already have the tools in place so how do we complement good public policy that creates incensives with markets? and so in terms of capturing

carbon, right now we have in our farm programs a lot of practice based programs. if you do this, check, you get a cost share. but in the future we are going -- it looks like the signals are there's going to be a monetization of carbon. there's going to be some kind of markets. congratulations to california for already moving in that direction and for inviting farmers to participate in that market. that's where we're headed. so how do we position american farmers to leave that and then participate in it? so when secretary northy left iowa as secretary of agriculture and went to become under-secretary of programs i was talking with him and talking about this opportunity, and he said how can we pilot something like this in the farm bill? so an example would be if i can show on my whole farm that i'm essentially a negative carbon balance? i'm pulling more carbon out than i'm releasing, then can i get a

higher property insurance subsidy? nor in other words, can taxpayers reward me? collectively and creatively when we put farmers in that position helping understand policy, what we can do is the same kind of transformation that happened with horses and tractors. that farm bet on horses in the future and they were wrong. we went to tractors. right now when we keep everything the same we are betting on horses when the future is telling us we're headed to tractors. and tractors are monetized carbon, carbon markets, paying people for solutions to solve this problem and to representative palmer's point, excellent. i agree 100%, we can't just do resiliency and carbon count, we have to do both together. and the fortunate thing for

agriculture is when we capture carbon, we actually become more resilient. it is a twofer, and we have the tools in our farm programs already to adjust and develop. and we have farmers who are so capable solving problems if we invite them into doing this in the next decade we can -- it's not a transformation of agriculture that throws out everything we've got. it's a transformation of agriculture that builds on everything we've got. when we increase the matter in our soils we go from 200 bushel corn, to 300 bushel of corn with half the added nitrogen, that's the future. that's the promise. >> thank you. madam chair, i yield back. >> thank you. ms. miller, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you all for being here today. mr. russell, in 1992 we bought a farm. in 1994 we bought five female and one bull american bison.

i as a legislator learned how to deal with chicken litter, as a farmer i learned how to deal with buffalo litter. and i agree with many of the things you say because farmers do solve problems. one of the problems was when the government thought multiflora roses would be a wonderful fence, and they have been a terrible thing to deal with. delegate hodges, welcome. from the other virginia. i represent west virginia, and we are geographically challenged in an entirely different way than you are. our folks as they moved west settled along the rivers. some of them did go to the top of the mountains but most of the population was along the rivers, and we've had to deal with a lot of flooding. dr. cleatus, i'm a mother and a grandmother and very concerned with our climate and the environment that we give to our children and our grand children.

the policies and programs you talk about make us realize this issue is multipronged. it isn't just one area, it encompasses many people, many areas. and i know what bad policy and what unintended consequences can do to devastate whole communities. doctor, i recently read an article in "the new york times" that states that china and their northern province is releasing cfc 11, which is really bad for the ozone. and from the montreal protocol all of that was supposed to be finished maybe mid-century there would be nothing left, and this is really bad thing for our climate. so i want you to know we are dealing with many different types of problems as some of the other congress people have mentioned in dealing with the

ozone and with our environments. so i just want people to realize that things are happening out there in the world that directly affect all of us. but we're here to talk about resilience. and so i want to talk about what happened in my area recently. we've been having a lot of flooding. in 2016 it devastated several different counties in my district. there were three schools in my district which totally were destroyed. the flood damage was terrible. the impact on these three schools, when you think about schools in rural america they are year community, they are the center of everything that happens. it's not only a place of learning but it's a community hub. and it's now 2019 and we are still trying to find out what went wrong and review the assessment needed to replace

these schools. this incident has illuminated the fact that our communities need to be equipped to handle disasters and to do once they receive the federal astins, that's where the slip is between the cup and the lip. last year president trump signed the disaster recover reform act, dura, which enacted many provisions to help build up our capacity for any catastrophic event. this is an action. it's not just talk. delegate hodges, given your position on the state level, how can we belter equip our states, counties and cities to better utilize disaster funding and help prepare for the next disaster? >> thank you for the question. and as an answer to that and as congressman griffith had asked, the regulatory burdens actually tie our hands to be able to utilize these funds sometimes. they're not always used in the most effective way. we actually have created a

living revolving limit program. that helps to build living shorelines and incentivize landowners to do that. we've created a program to improve our failed systems that are contaminating our waters when flooded. but i do believe the funding challenge is real. we need to better utilize those funds. >> but you're saying to me with those answers is it really is the state and the counties that best know how to handle. >> they do. and from the top down is not the solution. it needs to come from the bottom up. and as you've said each area of the country is different and how we're dealing with flooding. so we're the ones that know best how to utilize those funds to get them to our home owners, our farmers and utilize them in the best way. so it really should come from the ground up. but the regulations and laws have gone from the top down. so we need to look at tearing

down those walls. the pie is only so big, there's only so much money and we need to better utilize those funds and get them into the right hands. >> thank you. i yield back my time. >> thank you, chair. appreciate everyone's testimony today. it reinforced the fact we know well in southern california where i live, and that's our sea levs are rising. and that means serious consequences for our public health, our communities and our property. in my district we're seeing decades old structures falling in the pacific ocean. things like basketball courts and parking lots and public restrooms that are no longer able to operate. and that might sound trivial, but this is just the beginning of much worse to come based on much of the research that you've done. u.s. geological survey last year projected higher levels of climate change in my

communities, in orange and san diego counties over the next century. a lot of the best work being done in this area is being done at the scripps institute university. and researchers at scripps have created a network that measures wave characteristics, tide heights, water levels, and its used to do wave modeling and predictions as well as flood forecasting. using that network, the folks at scripps can predict when the city of imperial beach is going to be the greatest risk. and if you've heard about imperial beach they've had significant concerns about flooding. dr. cleatus, i wanted to ask you a question. i certainly share your belief we need to cap warming in order to limit sea level rise. but do you see a benefit in expanding the types of things that imperial beach and the scripps institute are working on

perhaps to other cities to be able to forecast flooding? and do you think it could help us avoid some of the costs of climate change that you outline in your testimony? >> absolutely. i think this kind of scientific data and research is critical to help local communities understand the risk that are coming their way and the kind of measures that will work and the kinds that may not work in light of the risks that are coming. so absolutely sharing that information, cities and towns are often the laboratory of innovation in the space, and i fully encourage that kind of sharing. >> i wanted to turn to a different topic, which is one you've probably be hearing about in the news, infrastructure. i think we probably hear what a great infrastructure bill, but we seem to be moving further away from you. i think it's important with you here we talk about how to build sustainable infrastructure and thinking about climate change.

so what types of projects and programs would you like to see in a discussion of a climate change resilient infrastructure bill? >> so, the first thing is we have to make sure that the infrastructure we're building is going taking into account these projections we're seeing extreme precipitation, heat and these other extreme events. get some twofers out of this. renewable energy, energy storage, other things that cut emissions and also help keep the grid online and secure during extreme weather events. >> i appreciate that question and i would point you to the california state climate state infrastructure working group ab 2800, and our report that was released last summer. a couple of highlights. one is creating climate safe

infrastructure starts with an acknowledgement that the climate is changing. and there were many engineers on that working group, and a lot of the discussion was focused on the ways in which the historical data no longer accurately predict the frequency of extreme events. we've heard already about 1,000-year events and 500-year events happening in quick succession and that's because of the stationary of the climate. so acknowledging those changes and updating the way in which planning is done is critical. and then i would echo the point about win-wins between resilience and emissions. one proposal that a colleague of my mine at stanford as made in an op-ed in the los angeles times with regard to wildfires, one of the big risks of wildfires as you know are the electric lines and pg&e has been in the news a lot about that.

so my colleague, dr. wara, has proposed having solar and storage -- battery storage and solar capability as a way of providing electricity when those lines are decommissioned. so this will provide both resilience by reducing the wildfire risk but obtaining electricity to those vulnerable populations. >> i'd love to follow up with you so that they can get that study. >> mr. carter, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair, and thank all of you for being here. interesting discussion today and appreciate all of you. delegate hodges, thank you for being here. appreciate you coming and testifying. you know in another life i was a mayor and i remember when i was a mayor, you know, there are all

these projects you want to do and you just can't afford to do them. and it's challenging. in fact, we had the mayor of los angeles here yesterday that we met with to talk about these specific issues and even he expressed, you know, the frustration with not being aible to do all the projects he wanted to do. but i wanted to mention a project that's being done down in georgia. in fact it's being led by georgia tech, the georgia institute of technology. it's a program that installs censors, and let me back up for just a second. i represent the entire coast of georgia. over 100 miles of pristine coastline. so rising sea levels are important to us and we're concerned. but the program at georgia tech, they've installed censors that help the coastal areas to pinpoint the specific areas that might be impacted and that we need to build up resiliency and roads, bridges, and this is a great program and i just wanted

to ask you, delegate hodges, how important do you think it is we use metrics that can help us show these type of events and the impact that they could have? >> sure. actually, thank you, congressman, for the question. metrics is very important, and it's important to have the seens a a science and the data. just a very small lowering of the land can have a tremendous effect on sea levels. so the metrics are very important and sciences are very important. and i'm fortunate to have the virginia in my district. >> how do you think the government can help with this? >> funding and any access and also as i mentioned earlier to

get out of the way. the permitting process is number one. the funding for dredging is no longer there from the federal government. we've identified a backlog of the permitting with dredging, and we've kind of streamlined that into the legislation but there's still a problem of having access to those dredge spoils. >> and speaking of which the university of georgia, my alma mater and where i graduated from pharmacy school at, they've got a project that is a very interesting project as well. and they're using -- and it's -- they're working in congination wi with the core of engineers and i'm very proud of that. but it uses natural materials like dredge spoils to build up natural materials. and for example they're building wetlands. i've always said, look, we've got to do all these things.

and we do in order to address this situation, but do you think this is something, this example of using like dredge spoils, i mean common sense things like this, is this something the federal government out to be able to pursue? >> dredge spores can be of assistance and living shorelines, they can be used which not only helps water quality but resiliency in flooding. we're working to incentivize landowners with tax relief at the local levels, but we need to build them better. and these natural assets are also assets. >> and this is such an important issue for us because we've got a third of all the world's marshland right on the georgia coast. so making sure we protect that marshland is extremely important. thank you, delegate hodges. i wanted to ask before i go, mr.

russell, i thought it was in your testimony you mentioned using smart public policy combined with capitalism. and i found that to be quite interesting and quite encouraging to be quite honest with you. i just wanted to ask you do you agree that private investment and robust markets are necessary to improve resiliency for us? >> absolutely. our wind energy in iowa is a perfect example of smart public policy. and shout out to senator grassley, standing up granddaddy of those tax credits and defending them still. smart public policy and markets built on top of it. we have an industry in our state, we're going to be 40% of our one calculation of our energy electricity renewable from wind. absolutely, that is the key to the future. >> thank you very much, and i yield back. >> mr. huffman, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. and i'm once again reminded how nice it would be to take this

committee on the road to california so that we could educate our colleagues across the aisle and continue to hear assertions about what's going on in california, things that have many pinocchios attached to them. i know we've got work to do. thank you, doctor, for pointing out the five-year drought california recently came through is actually not consistent with anything we've experienced in modern history and even going back to the proxy record, whether you want to look at tree rings or any other proxy records. this was different. it was deep, it was hot and it was climate change related. and the other assertion that we heard, of course, is california has not been expanding water storage. factually incorrect. california has expanded water storage as well as investment in all sorts of other water resiliency strategy, which is why we came through that drought of record without our economy skipping a beat, including the agricultural economy.

so i think this committee could learn a thing or two about resiliency. california is not perfect, but this board of california bashing at some point needs to give way to some fact based conversation. i enjoy the conversation about these twofers that several of our witnesses and my colleagues have referred to. and so i wanted to follow up on that a little bit. dr. cleatus, in your research have you identified other examples that we haven't talked about, of strategies that can be twofers, that can provide resiliency while also drawing down greenhouse gas emissions at the same time? >> i think there are tremendous opportunities across the economy. i work on the power sector in particular, and in that sector there's no question investing in energy efficiency, low carbon energy, wibld storage not only helps us get affordable energy, low carb energy but will build

rezimian resiliency to extreme heat coming our way. so, for example, having these in public housing, upgrading our public housing to have energy efficiency, weatherization investments, investments in cooling because of the extreme heat coming our way that's putting people at risk. >> and let me ask you, mr. russell, about your testimony on this subject. you talked about some ways in which agriculture can be part of the solution. talk a little bit more about how climate smart farming practice like planting cover crops, crop rotation, no till farming can help sequester carbon as we mitigate for climate change? and also the question i had as i was listening to your testimony is i know that right now the agricultural sector is a part of the problem in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. we have a lot of chemical

inputs, et cetera. do those smart farming practices actually reduce chemical inputs in other beneficial ways? >> i'll try to be brief and i promise i'll be brief. essentially when we look at managing living systems to develop the services needed that human needs, that's what agriculture is. historically it's been food, and now going forward it's going to be less about food. still about food but a lot of other things. and we've seen that over the last few decades, bio fuels and other things and now climate services. bottom line as we lean into that what we do is we increase the biological activity in the soil. the green revolution created productivity but it didn't pay attention to the biaeology of t soil. and when you do that wrosh you get that carbon out of the atmosphere, through the plants, through the roots and store it working in the soil.

so that's kind of how that happens. the result of that is you increase organic matter tremendously, which holds more water when it's raining, has more water stored when it's dry. so we get carbon sequesttration, and we get more resiliency, so that's happened and that's the 2fer happening at the same time. we have not managed our agricultural systems. we don't have agricultural industry invested in that bottle, but we know farmers are able to develop that model. and so it's disruptive but not necessarily disruptive to rural communities and farmers in the same way it's disruptive in general. >> i thank you for that. and finally delegate hodges, i was intrigued by the number of strategies you talked about. those sound like great strategy, but i do think we know we have to be careful about how we do

coastal resiliency strategies, and i would just note the virginia institute of marine science you referred to coupled with virginia tech did a study on at least a prior version of your bill and found some unintended consequences that still needs some more work. so i want to urge you to keep working on it. i would grateful for your statement you would support -- if the existing market based strategies aren't good enough i hope you'll find some you can put forward and support because we've got to work on greenhouse gas reduction and not just resiliency. with that i yield back. >> we are going to try to finish before votes, but we'll -- so if you all can be brief, thank you. >> thank you, chair caster. mr. russell, in your work with religious leaders and people of faiths in iowa, do you ever come across the argument that as a species our moral behavior should be predicated on other

people being moral first? >> i would say no. >> thank you. dr. cleatus, you mentioned in your tome i think you said that $136 billion of property is at risk from coastal flooding. and that's of course a small fraction of the total economic loss from some of the wildfires and droughts, expansion of tropical diseases, crop failures. if we fail to get all the way to net zero but we make a meaningful reduction in carbon can we assume we'll avoid some of those economic losses? we have to reach net zero by mid-century to really limit some of these losses. and the burden will fall to our children and grandchildren. >> i'm not asking the moral question. i'm just asking do we save that money only if we get to zero, sore do we save a portion of that money -- >> every fraction matters. so we've got to go all in mitigation and adaptation right

now. >> thank you. i would conclude from the two comments we have both a moral obgagds and an economic incentive to reduce co2 as quickly as we can. and i hope all of my colleagues would stop with this nonsensical argument we have to wait for china. and specifically on the flooding issue, if we eliminated co2 emissions today, how much sea level rise is already baked into the system? >> unfortunately we have a couple of sea level rises already baked in, and what's really worrisome is we're starting to see land based ice sheets are getting more and more unstable. and that land base ice once it starts to go, cutting emissions will unfortunately not be able to cut that feedback loop. so this is the moment to really dig in and cut emissions as fast as possible. >> so if we're looking at a couple of feet, talk to me about the major population centers and

the united states below that sea level rise? >> everywhere along the eastern gulf coast, boston, new york city, miami, all around the eastern gulf coast. and many, many small communities that are not in the headlines but are going to be hit really, really hard with this. >> so i sit on the financial services committee and we recently had fed chairman powell before us. does the frad reserve consider the exposure banks have with 30-year mortgages in these communities, and the answer was essentially no. we are somewhat unique in that, and chair caster, i'd like unanimous consent to enter into the record avoiding the storm climate change into the financial system it's reported by the bank of england. >> without objection. >> the bank of england has asked their banking system to factor this in. you spoke a bit about that. can you speak a bit about what we should be doing on the other

committees here to try to make sure we evaluate those risks to our financial system? >> the private sector and financial sector have a huge role to play. and when we did this research we actually reached out to a number of private sector actors, and what we heard from all of them yes, the signs are real, and no the market is not pricing it accurately right now. the risk is flying under the radar and unfortunately this is very, very risky for coastal communities. because should the markets start to price the risk it will be very harsh especially on low income and fixed income folks. absolutely i think there's a responsibility from the federal government to ensure our economic system including our banking system is taking these risks into account. >> last thing and again this is from our pursue on the financial services committee the flood insurance program is up for renewal. you mentioned some common sense reforms. we have to decide that pretty quickly. can you help us understand a couple of those reforms you'd like to see on the flood

insurance program? >> we need better mapping to accurately assess these risks. we need to ensure we're investing ahead of time. so flood mitigation measures including voluntary home buy outs, we have to do this equitably so we're not hitting low and fixed income folks. we have to get more people insured because these events are getting worse. >> when you mention voluntary home buy outs help me understand, because what should we do with that land once we've got it bought out? >> turn it over to green space. developing in these risky areas is only increasing the risk of people, property and the taxpayer. >> thank you. i yield back to balance my time. >> thank you, madam chair. in september of 2013, the state of colorado experienced what is known as a 100-year flood. over the course of one week an entire year's worth of rain fell

over colorado's entire front range. over 18,000 people were evacuated from their communities. they returned to find thousands of homes and hundreds of bridges destroyed. in total the flood cost more than $1 billion in damages and tragically claimed more lives. despite this disaster colorado has worked tory place the affected roads and communities. it's important to know as we rebuilt, ultimately resiliency was not a choice. it was a necessity. the increase in extreme weather events means our communities must be quick to respond, repair. and my district is taking action on developing climate resiliency. so it's why i believe today's topic is so important. i appreciate the witnesses and their testimony. we absolutely need to have infrastructure in place to address the impacts of climate change, and we must do it soon. but i would be remiss if i did not agree and associate myself

with the remarks from my colleague from california, representative hoffman, which is to say all of this work means nothing if we don't take real concrete action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. if we don't 100-year events like the catastrophic flooding in my state could become much more common. i want to ask you, dr. cleatus, in your testimony you emphasized local communities the ability to respond to climate change. i represent northern colorado, and we have a number of communities that have developed these plans i believe per capita, the front range. and yet there are many communities elsewhere in the state that have not. i am wondering if you could perhaps offer a bit more detail in terms of why you believe these plans are so important and how congress and the federal

government could help incentivize and motivate local communities to step forward. >> we need action from the federal to the local. so we need federal resources and know how and data and capacity building. the local communities understand best how adaptation is going to work in their geographies and environments and the risks coming their way. for example, the wildfire risks coming and getting worse in the areas of colorado that you describe. and those affect forestry, affect water sheds. they have all kinds of effects. in the seasons after them you start getting flooding events in the landscapes. so we need to have more and more communities in power that have the resources and tools and know how to develop these plans and develop them in a well resourced way and be able to take action to protect themselves. so we're really looking now for the federal government to step up with their resources so communities can do this better in an inclusive way that includes a wide variety of perspectives.

>> thank you, dr. cleatus. and finally, mr. russell, thank you for your testimony. there are exciting things happening back in my district on regenerative agriculture and so forth. i want to go back to a comment you made with respect to it burgeoning growing wind industry in your state, the home state of iowa. and i believe you attributed that in part to the private sector. i also am curious if you believe there are any government investments that played a significant and substantive role in the wind industry becoming what it is in the state of iowa. >> absolutely. i mean, you first have the renewable portfolio standard as a starter and then the tax credits and then continuing. so that's the foundation of good smart public policy, and then we've grown a tremendous economy on top of it. and that's really the future

being presented to us, a future of abundance if we're using smart policy to move in and capitalism to get the future we need, which is clean renewable energy and managing living systems. >> thank you, dr. russell. and with that i guess i would only hope our colleagues on this committee from both sides of the aisle, we could join together to help build and refine and expand the foundation that you've just described. i think that is the role of this committee and ultimately the congress from a federal policymaking standpoint. so with that i would yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. for a uc request. >> the chair asks unanimous consent to submit two articles into the record. the first is from science advances, unprecedented climate events, aspirational targets and national commitments. and the other is from hthe hill titled paris agreement, goals could save trillions and avoid climate damages. i think i was asking the

question the wrong way to the doctor, so i appreciate a few of the pieces i was able to identify. thank you. >> with that objection, i also ask unanimous consent to add a statement for the record for representative bobby scott from virginia. wi without objection so order. without objection all members will have ten business days in which to submit additional written questions for our witnesses. i ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as possible. we are adjourned. >> president trump is in europe this week, and earlier today he met with queen elizabeth in london. the president continues his trip tomorrow when he'll meet with prime minister theresa may who

recently announced she would be stepping down on june 7th. that's this coming friday. on wednesday, a d-day ceremony in portsmith, one of the major staging points in the invasion of france. and in the afternoon the president will meet with the irish prime minister. president trump will be in france on thursday attending a d-day ceremony in normandy and meeting with french president macron. he returns to washington friday. and join us tonight when former u.s. ambassador to the united nations nikki haley delivers the keynote address at the susan b. anthony gala. you can see that tonight. it starts at 8:35 eastern on c-span 2, online at c-span.org. or you can listen with the free c-span radio app. tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators, the host of the internet history podcast,

brian mcculla talks about his book, how the internet happened from net scape to the i phone. >> it is the story of products and companies we would all be familiar with from aol to napster to facebook to the iphone. all of the things that have come together over the last 25 years to have made the modern reality where the internet and technology has infiltrated basically every crevice of modern life. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. the reviews are in for c-span's the presidents book. kirkus reviews calls it a milestone. and from the new york journal of books the president makes a fast and grossing read. and with graduations and father's day fast approaching c-span's the presidents makes a

great gift. read how noted presidential historians make the best and worth executives from george washington to barack obama. explain the challenges they faced and the hardcover, at c-span.org/the president. the role of intellectual property in the pricing of prescription drugs, witnesses include pharmaceutical executives, academic scholars, and state healthcare officials, it is just over two hours. coming to order, i apologize for being late, today we have five witnesses, and we are going to talk about an issue that i think is very relevant to the times in