U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–557 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 114–119 

ROAD TO PARIS: EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT’S 

INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE AGENDA 

AND IMPLICATIONS FOR DOMESTIC 

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 8, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 8, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 3 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 94 

WITNESSES 

Hausker, Karl, Senior Fellow, World Resources Institute ................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Booker .............................. 37 

Ladislaw, Sarah O., Director and Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies ......................... 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Holmstead, Jeffrey R., Partner, Bracewell and Giuliani ...................................... 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Wicker .............................. 64 

Bookbinder, David, Partner, Element VI Consulting ........................................... 68 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 70 

Rabkin, Jeremy A., Professor of Law, George Mason University School of 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 74 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Congressional Record full text, Framework Convention on Climate Change, 

Senate—October 7, 1992 ...................................................................................... 113 

Center for American Progress—The Authority for U.S. Participation in the 

Paris Climate Agreement .................................................................................... 129 

Open Secrets, Lobbyist Profile Summaries for Jeffrey Holmstead, 2010–2015 . 173 

(1) 

ROAD TO PARIS: EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT’S INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE AGENDA 

AND IMPLICATIONS FOR DOMESTIC ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe (chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Capito, Crapo, Boozman, Sessions, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Cardin, Whitehouse, 

Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Now that Senator Sessions and Senator Wicker 

are here, our meeting will start. Senator Cardin, it is good to have 

you here, and I see Senator Sullivan in there. 

Well, there has been a lot of coverage regarding the United Nations Twenty-First Annual Climate Conference at the end of the 

year. We have heard how the President has pledged the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent compared to the 

2005 levels by 2025, and how he is going to lead other countries 

in openness, transparency and accountability. 

You know, we have been here before. I remember so well, Copenhagen, I think it was about 5 years ago in Copenhagen, they all 

went over there, Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Gore and 

they assured everybody that we were going to pass legislation over 

here that was going to control the emissions and all these good 

things were going to happen. 

I went over as the one man truth squad, Barbara, to let them 

know that it wasn’t going to happen and it didn’t happen. So all 

of these statements sound good in a press release, but the slightest 

level of scrutiny reveals a significant lack of authenticity, substance and merit. 

While the President is lecturing the rest of the world on the importance of credibility and transparency, he is going out of his way 

to write the U.S. Senate and the American people out of the final 

agreement. That is why we are here today, to take a closer look at 

the President’s international climate agenda and what it actually 

means for the United States. 
2 

The President may have creative legal arguments to sign onto a 

legally non-binding international agreement but he does not have 

the backing of the U.S. Senate, which significantly limits such an 

agreement’s domestic application. I carried that same message in 

2009 when I attended the Copenhagen meeting, as I mentioned 

just now. 

The President’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution— 

that is a new one, that is INDC—is not only unrealistic, but it also 

does not add up. Let’s show the chart up there, that is the white 

area that does not add up. I am sure that our witnesses will be addressing this. 

According to a recent analysis by the U.S. Chamber of the Presidents INDC, it is about 33 percent short of meeting stated targets. 

Mr. Bookbinder, who has done his own analysis, and I appreciate 

your being here, Mr. Bookbinder, I recall when you were our witness before. You were a witness for Senator Boxer, now you are one 

of our witnesses. He has done his own analysis and has found even 

a greater gap. I am looking forward to his thorough breakdown. 

Additional studies are forthcoming showing similar results. 

The Administration has yet to describe how the 26 to 28 percent 

of greenhouse gas reductions would be achieved. In fact the Administration’s own deputy director for climate policy remains unable 

and unwilling to answer this basic question. 

Further concerning is that a large portion of the INDC stated 

targets depend on the successful implementation of the President’s 

so-called Clean Power Plan. This proposal not only faces significant 

obstacles at the State level, there are 32 States now on record opposing it, but it would also increase the price of electricity, depress 

local economies and cost $479 billion and ship American jobs overseas. It is also on legal treacherous ground especially in the wake 

of the two recent Supreme Court decisions, UARG v. EPA and 

Michigan v. EPA, which was just decided last week. 

The remaining portions of the INDC rely on an exaggerated 

stretch of current and future regulatory actions without consideration for inevitable legal challenges and delays, which I can assure 

you would take place. Even the very notion that the President’s domestic and international climate agendas are about protecting the 

environment lack credibility. His EPA did not even bother to access 

the minuscule environmental benefits associated with the Clean 

Power Plan and its supposed core domestic climate policy. The 

international climate negotiators have already admitted that while 

they are not entirely clear on what actions will need to limit the 

temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius, they are sure that the 

Paris agreement will not be enough. 

The Paris agreement will be the 21st such agreement that is 

under the United Nations, and it is a pretty expensive one. They 

eat well and drink well but nothing ever happens. I thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to your testimony. 

Senator Boxer. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

There has been a lot of coverage regarding the UN’s climate conference at the end 

of this year. We’ve heard how the President has pledged the U.S. to reduce green-
3 

house gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent compared to the 2005 level by 2025 and 

how he is going to lead other countries in ‘‘openness, transparency and accountability.’’ 

All of these statements sound good in a press release, but the slightest level of 

scrutiny reveals a significant lack in authenticity, substance and merit. And while 

the President is lecturing the rest of the world on the importance of credibility and 

transparency, he is going out of his way to write the U.S. Senate and the American 

people out of a final agreement. That is why we are here today—to take a closer 

look at the President’s international climate agenda and what it actually means for 

the U.S. 

The President may have creative legal arguments to sign on to a ‘‘legally nonbinding’’ international agreement, but he does not have the backing of the U.S. Senate, which significantly limits such an agreement’s domestic application. I carried 

that same message in 2009 when I attended the UN’s COP–15 in Copenhagen, and 

it remains true. 

The President’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) is not only 

unrealistic, but also does not add up. According to a recent analysis by the U.S. 

Chamber, the President’s INDC is about 33 percent short of meeting the stated targets. Mr. Bookbinder, who has done his own analysis, has found an even greater 

gap, and I am looking forward to his thorough breakdown. Additional studies are 

forthcoming showing similar results. 

The Administration has yet to describe how the 26–28 percent of greenhouse gas 

reductions would be achieved. In fact, the Administration’s own Deputy Director for 

Climate Policy remains unable and unwilling to answer this basic question. 

Further concerning is that a large portion of the INDC ’s stated targets depend 

upon the successful implementation of the President’s so-called Clean Power Plan. 

This proposal not only faces significant obstacles at the State level—32 States oppose the $479 billion Federal takeover that would increase the price of electricity, 

depress local economies and ship American jobs overseas—but is also on legally 

treacherous ground especially in the wake of two recent Supreme Court decisions— 

UARG v. EPA and Michigan v. EPA decided just last week. The remaining portions 

of the INDC rely on an exaggerated stretch of current and future regulatory actions 

without consideration for inevitable legal challenges and delays. 

Even the very notion that the President’s domestic and international climate 

agendas are about protecting the environment lack credibility. His EPA did not even 

bother to assess the minuscule environmental benefits associated with the Clean 

Power Plan—his supposed core domestic climate policy—and the international climate negotiators have already admitted that while they aren’t entirely clear on 

what actions will be needed to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius, 

they are sure that the Paris agreement will not be enough. 

I thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to their testimony. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The impacts of dangerous climate change are all around us. Just 

ask the people living in Texas who have had to face extreme weather rainfall events, record flooding. Or Californians who have had to 

deal with the crippling drought or New Yorkers who have suffered 

through Superstorm Sandy. Or those in Hawaii who are having to 

choose between saving their beachfront condominiums or losing 

their beach and their coral reefs. I saw that with my own eyes. 

Fortunately, the Obama administration has taken serious steps 

to address this growing crisis by reducing dangerous carbon pollution. The U.S. has committed to cutting our carbon pollution by 26 

percent to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. I believe this is 

achievable, because the President’s Climate Action Plan contains 

the tools that are necessary to get the job done, even without Congress. 

We have a decades-long record of success in our landmark environmental laws. We have withstood moves in this Committee and 
4 

on the Senate floor to disassemble those landmark laws, such as 

the Clean Air Act. 

Now, my colleague was right: we failed to pass cap and trade. 

The highest level we got was 56 votes, we needed 60. The bottom 

line is we have the Clean Air Act. The opponents of doing anything 

under the Clean Air Act took the case to the Supreme Court. It 

took 8 years. The Supreme Court found very clearly that carbon 

pollution is covered under the Clean Air Act. 

So the Obama administration has taken significant steps under 

the Clean Air Act. They have included establishing new fuel economy and carbon standards for cars and heavy duty trucks which 

has been embraced by Detroit. We have seen a rebirth of the automobile industry. We see that the power plant sector, we are moving 

toward cleaning that up. We have fights on our hands, I predict we 

will win those fights. The U.S. has always been a leader. We don’t 

sit back and let other countries lead the way. And we are. 

Climate change is a global problem. Two weeks ago, the G7 

agreed to work with all countries to reduce carbon emissions by up 

to 70 percent by 2050. Action by the Obama administration 

prompted China to make its first-ever commitment to reduce carbon pollution. Already coal use is down in China by 8 percent just 

this year. 

The EU has pledged to reduce carbon pollution, and developing 

countries such as Mexico and South Korea have come forward with 

their first-ever commitments to control their carbon pollution. Already, countries covering over 60 percent of global carbon emissions have agreed to take action to cut carbon, and other countries 

will join the effort. 

There are huge benefits when we undertake cutting carbon. The 

recent study by the EPA shows us 57,000 fewer deaths per year 

from poor air quality, with economic benefits valued at $930 billion, 

12,000 fewer deaths per year from extreme heat and temperature 

changes, $180 billion per year in avoided damages from water 

shortages, $3 billion per year avoided damages from poor water 

quality, $11 billion a year avoided losses in our ag sector, 40 to 59 

percent fewer severe and extreme droughts and almost 8 million 

fewer acres burned each year from wildfires. 

This is something we have to do. And it breaks my heart that 

the party in control of this Committee doesn’t believe in any of this 

and is trying to fight it. But the American people see it clearly. So 

this Congress is out of step with the American people. 

The economy today will be made stronger if we take these steps. 

We see as a result of the Obama Plan 470,000 additional green jobs 

compared to the status quo. 

In California, I think I can speak to this. We are on a path to 

cut our carbon pollution by 80 percent by 2050. That is required 

under our law at home. Very strongly supported by the California 

people. We had oil companies try to overturn it and the people said, 

sorry, we are sticking with it. During the first year and a half of 

my State’s cap and trade program we added 491,000 jobs, a growth 

of 3.3 percent which outpaces national growth. 

I welcome the witnesses today. I feel stronger than ever the 

President is on the right path. This Committee is on the wrong 

path. 
5 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The impacts of dangerous climate change are a daily reality that we simply cannot ignore. Just ask people living in Texas, who have had to face extreme weather 

rainfall events and record flooding, or Californians who have had to deal with a 

crippling drought, or New Yorkers who suffered through Superstorm Sandy. 

Fortunately, the Obama administration has taken serious steps to address this 

growing crisis by reducing dangerous carbon pollution. The U.S. has committed to 

cutting our carbon pollution by 26 percent to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. 

This target level, known as an ‘‘intended nationally determined contribution’’ 

(INDC), is an achievable goal because the President’s Climate Action Plan contains 

the tools necessary to get the job done. We have a decades-long record of success 

of our landmark environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act which has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court. 

The Obama administration has already taken significant steps toward reaching 

this target, including establishing new fuel economy and carbon standards for cars 

and heavy duty trucks, proposing to cut carbon pollution 30 percent from our power 

sector, and reducing carbon pollution from Federal operations by 40 percent in 2025. 

The U.S. has always been a leader among other nations, and we are leading the 

way to address dangerous climate change. We know that we must cut harmful air 

pollution to protect the health and welfare of the American people, and our resolve 

has brought other countries to the table to make their own domestic commitments 

to reduce carbon pollution. 

Climate change is a global problem, and we are seeing progress on the international level. Two weeks ago, the G7 agreed to work with all countries to reduce 

carbon emissions by up to 70 percent by 2050. 

Action by the Obama administration prompted China to make its first-ever commitment to reduce carbon pollution—and already, coal use is down by 8 percent in 

China this year. 

The E.U. has also pledged to reduce carbon pollution significantly, and developing 

countries, such as Mexico and South Korea, have come forward with their first ever 

commitments to control their carbon pollution. Already, countries covering over 60 

percent of global carbon emissions have agreed to take action to cut carbon pollution, and other countries will soon join this effort before heading to Paris later this 

year. 

Taking action globally to address the threat of climate change will not only help 

us avoid the worst impacts, but it will provide enormous health and economic benefits to the U.S. A recent peer-reviewed study by the EPA analyzes in detail the benefits of global action on climate change. According to this study, by the end of the 

century there will be: 

• 57,000 fewer deaths per year from poor air quality, with economic benefits valued at $930 billion; 

• 12,000 fewer deaths per year from extreme heat and temperature changes; 

• $180 billion per year in avoided damages from water shortages; 

• $3 billion per year avoided damages from poor water quality; 

• $11 billion per year avoided losses in our agricultural sector; 

• 40–59 percent fewer severe and extreme droughts; and 

• Almost 8 million fewer acres burned each year from wildfires. 

While taking action to reduce our carbon pollution avoids these significant impacts in the future, it is also good for our economy today. A recent report by the 

New Climate Institute found that the policies in the U.S. INDC will result in the 

creation of 470,000 additional green jobs, compared to the status quo. 

We have seen this type of success in my home State of California. California is 

on a path to cut its carbon pollution by 80 percent by 2050, as required under our 

greenhouse gas emissions law, A.B. 32. During the first year and half of my State’s 

cap and trade program, California added 491,000 jobs—a growth of almost 3.3 percent, which outpaces the national growth rate of 2.5 percent. 

I welcome the witnesses today and look forward to a discussion on how the 

Obama administration’s actions to reduce dangerous carbon pollution are leading 

the world to address the climate crisis. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

We do have a very distinguished panel of Karl Hausker, Senior 

Fellow at the World Resource Institute; Sarah Ladislaw, Director 
6 

and Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program, Center 

for Strategic and International Studies; Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell and Giuliani; David Bookbinder, and I am real 

pleased, David Bookbinder was here before but he is here as a majority witness today. He has testified here before. And Jeremy 

Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. 

We will start with you. Your entire statement will be part of the 

record, try to keep your remarks to right around 5 minutes. Mr. 

Hausker. 

STATEMENT OF KARL HAUSKER, SENIOR FELLOW, WORLD 

RESOURCES INSTITUTE 

Mr. HAUSKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. 

My name is Karl Hausker, and I am a Senior Fellow at the 

World Resources Institute. WRI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan environmental think tank that goes beyond research to provide practical solutions to the world’s most urgent environmental and developmental challenges. Thank you for the opportunity to serve on 

this panel. 

The main message in both my oral and written testimony is this: 

the U.S. can meet the Administration’s 2025 emissions reduction 

target while maintaining economic growth and employment. 

My testimony has four key themes. First, a growing body of evidence shows that economic growth can go hand in hand with efforts to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases. Recent experience 

at the national and State levels demonstrates that we can achieve 

both. What Senator Boxer referred to in California is a perfect example of that. 

However, the policies often necessary to unlock these essential 

economic win-win opportunities have market barriers and hamper 

investment on what are otherwise beneficial activities. So good 

policies can unlock the win-win opportunities for the economy and 

the environment. 

So we can achieve a prosperous low carbon future by harnessing 

key drivers of economic growth including more efficient use of energy and natural resources, smart infrastructure investments and 

technological innovation. These low-carbon solutions often create 

net economic benefits. For instance, we know that increased efficiency pays off. 

Let me give three examples. With strengthened CAFE and GHG 

standards, drivers will save on average a net of $3,400 to $5,000 

over the life of light duty vehicles made in 2025 compared to those 

made in 2016. 

Another example: Federal appliance efficiency standards put in 

place over the past 25 years have resulted in $370 billion in cumulative utility bill savings. Finally, States with energy efficiency targets and programs in place are generally saving customers $2 for 

every $1 invested. 

Let me turn to my second theme. The U.S. emissions reduction 

target announced in March is ambitious, but it is achievable. We 

can meet this target using existing Federal laws combined with actions by the States. Well designed policies can accelerate recent 

market and technology trends in renewable energy, energy effi-
7 

ciency, alternative vehicles and in other areas, combining to reduce 

emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels. 

WRI’s recent report delivering on the U.S. climate commitment 

shows several pathways to get there. However, U.S. and global efforts to combat climate change can’t stop in 2025. Deeper reductions will be needed in the decades ahead to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. 

Therefore, it is incumbent on this Congress to play a constructive 

role in efforts to reduce emissions in the years ahead. This can and 

should be done in a cost effective manner such as by establishing 

an economy-wide price on carbon. 

Third, we can achieve the U.S. 2025 target while generating multiple co-benefits and maintaining economic growth. The proposed 

Clean Power Plan, a key policy for meeting the target, will result 

in reduced exposure to particulates and to ozone pollution. EPA estimates these air pollution co-benefits alone are worth $25 billion 

to $62 billion per year. 

And the economy is projected to keep on growing. The Energy Information Administration projects the macroeconomic impacts of 

the proposed Clean Power Plan will be very small, approximately 

a tenth of a percentage point decrease in GDP in 2030. This in the 

context of economy projected to grow from $17 trillion to $24 trillion in 2030. Similarly, the EIA is projected net employment impacts are essentially zero. 

Fourth, U.S. leadership is essential to the global efforts to limit 

warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Failure 

to meet that goal will increase economic, social and environmental 

risks for the United States and for all nations. We can’t simply ask, 

how much does it cost to avoid climate change. We must also ask, 

what does it cost our country if we don’t avoid climate change? If 

nations fail to combat climate change, the U.S. will suffer billions 

of dollars in damage to agriculture, forestry, fisheries, coastal inland flooding damages, along with heat-driven increases in electricity bills, among multiple other impacts. 

So our country has a choice. It can show international leadership 

and bring the same spirit of competition, ingenuity and innovation 

to the climate challenge that it has brought to other problems. Or 

we can be left behind as other countries develop the solutions, capture the markets for the fuels, technologies and processes that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

In closing, the target is ambitious and achievable, fully compatible with economic growth and employment. Thanks, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hausker follows:] 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Hausker. Ms. Ladislaw. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH O. LADISLAW, DIRECTOR AND SENIOR 

FELLOW, ENERGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM, 

CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 

Ms. LADISLAW. Good morning, members of the Committee. Thank 

you very much for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Sarah Ladislaw, and I direct the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization in 

Washington, DC. My remarks today represent my own personal 

views and not those of CSIS as an institution. 

The Obama administration came into office in 2009 with a goal 

to reestablish the United States as leader in the fight against global climate change. Climate leadership under the Obama administration has two primary goals. One, lead by example through domestic action; and two, create a durable international framework 

that is able to mobilize and coordinate global efforts. These two 

goals are interdependent, because no single country acting alone 

can effectively deal with the challenges of global climate change 

and because the global community will not mobilize without leadership from major economies. 

I plan to make three points about the Obama administration’s 

actions to address climate change in the context of these ongoing 

international negotiations. One, U.S. actions are in line with the 

actions of other major economies. Two, ambition plays a key role 

in the negotiations, and it is important to understand that. Three, 

more action will be necessary to meet global targets. 

First, some people have criticized the Obama administration for 

pursuing emissions reduction policies. They argue that other countries are not taking similar measures and that acting alone will 

hurt U.S. economic competitiveness. In reality, climate change policies and regulations are spreading around the world. 

According to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel’s Fifth Assessment report, as of 2012, two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions are covered by some sort of national policy or strategy compared to 45 percent in 2007. 

As of yesterday, 18 formal pledges, covering 46 countries, well 

over 55 percent of global emissions, were submitted in advance of 

the climate negotiations in Paris and more submissions are expected by October. In this regard the United States is acting in line 

with and not contrary to the global trend with regard to mitigation 

activity. 

The question of whether the actions taken by the United States 

are comparable to the efforts of other countries is inherently difficult to assess. Take for example two of the major parties in the 

negotiations, China and the United States, two of the world’s largest emitters with different economies, different political structures 

and different approaches to climate change. 

The U.S. commitment to reduce emissions from 2005 levels is arguably more stringent than the Chinese goal to peak emissions. 

But the Chinese target to increase fossil fuel resources in the energy mix is arguably more ambitious than the corresponding U.S. 

goal. Exact comparability is difficult to assess, but both countries’ 
40 

cumulative targets represent an increase in ambition from the 

business as usual future. 

Second, several analyses have suggested that the United States 

will be unable to meet its 2025 emission reduction target under the 

actions announced thus far. While this point has been used to criticize the Administration’s goal, it is not clear that having a 

stretched target is negative in the context of international negotiations. 

All countries want to see that other countries are working hard 

to meet their emission reduction pledges. It signals a level of ambition that entices participation from certain countries as well as 

more ambitious action from others. For example, the idea that the 

United States and China are committed to emissions controls despite having a potentially hard time meeting those targets, whether 

that is true or not, can catalyze additional action by other countries. 

Third, according to the International Energy Agency analysis, 

current pledges would be consistent with an average temperature 

increase of 2.6 degree Celsius by 2100 and 3.5 degree Celsius by 

2200. Clearly, additional action will be required if the standing 

global target is to be achieved. 

This begs the question, if the negotiations fail to yield emission 

reduction pledges on the order of the 2 degree target, how can they 

possibly be considered a success? As the IEA states in their report, 

the Paris outcome will be successful if it is viewed as the foundation upon which to build a future action. 

According to the IEA, the new international negotiating process 

will be less about big deliverables and big agreements but instead 

about creating a virtuous cycle of strengthening mitigation ambition over time. From a U.S. domestic standpoint, if the goals of this 

negotiation are achieved, the United States and other major 

emitters will eventually have to take additional domestic action to 

reduce emission further. 

The Obama administration has sought to take a leadership role 

in the realm of international climate action. The Administration’s 

agenda has grounded in domestic action with an eye toward building long-term sustainable strategy for achieving deep emission reductions and preparing the United States and other countries to 

cope with the impacts of a change in climate. 

The key question for this Congress, the next Administration and 

Congress as well as the partners at the State and local level in industry and in civil society is how to ensure that the policies being 

put into place today are the ones that most effectively address the 

challenge of global climate change and serve the long-term interest 

of the Country in light of this ongoing challenge. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ladislaw follows:] 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you Ms. Ladislaw. Mr. Holmstead. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY R. HOLMSTEAD, PARTNER, 

BRACEWELL AND GIULIANI 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. Thanks to all of you for inviting me to participate this morning. My name is Jeff Holmstead. I am currently a 

partner at the law firm of Bracewell and Giuliani. But I spent 

much of my career in the Federal Government, in the White House 

during the deliberations over the 1990 amendments to the Clean 

Air Act and then as the Head of the EPA Air Office from 2001 to 

2005. 

I kind of feel like we are talking about different issues up here 

today. And I guess I have just a different view of what it means 

to make a commitment in the international community. I guess I 

am puzzled by the assertion that the President shows leadership 

by making promises that he has no way of keeping. 

Last November, the Administration announced it had reached 

this landmark deal with China. They made a very specific commitment, 26 to 28 percent reduction. Then in March, the Administration made the same commitment to the rest of the international 

community in its official statement for the Paris Climate Change 

Conference. The Administration has said repeatedly that it will 

meet this commitment by taking actions under current law and 

that no action from Congress is needed. 

As you may remember, when the Administration announced this 

agreement with China, senior officials took to the airwaves to tout 

it. Mostly, they talked about what a great achievement it was that 

they had persuaded China to agree to increase its emissions only 

for the next 15 years. 

But they also explained how they had come with their very specific 26 to 28 percent pledge. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy 

stated that ‘‘the entire target was based on a thorough interagency 

review of the available tools in each of the agencies. The ones that 

are outlined in the Climate Action Plan, but also other tools and 

initiatives that could be teed up and brought to fruition very quickly.’’ 

White House senior advisor John Podesta wrote on the official 

White House blog that the 26 to 28 percent numbers were ‘‘grounded in an intensive analysis of what actions can be taken under existing law.’’ 

Given these very specific targets, I assumed that there was a 

document that tallied up the emissions reductions that would be 

achieved by all the things that had been identified by this thorough 

interagency process and this intensive analysis. But many people, 

including a researcher from the Congressional Research Service, 

have asked the Administration for such a document or for any 

other evidence that this extensive analysis ever took place. 

But the Administration has never provided anything like this. In 

fact they won’t even say whether such a document exists. As you 

heard from others, a number of people have looked at this and said 

all the things they are talking about are not nearly enough to meet 

the 26 percent reduction that the Administration has promised to 

achieve. 
52 

Now, it is possible that the Administration does have a plan that 

includes additional actions they have not yet announced. Perhaps 

the agricultural sector, given it is the section with the largest emissions that have not yet been regulated. But it now seems more likely that the Administration simply does not have a plan for achieving even a 26 percent reduction by 2025. 

In my view, this is troubling. When the President or the State 

Department makes a commitment on behalf of the United States, 

this is not something that should be taken lightly. I think most 

Americans would be concerned to learn that the President has 

made a commitment to the international community that he does 

not intend to meet. 

Various officials in the Administration have said that climate 

change is a legacy issue for the President. Under our constitutional 

system, when a President wants this type of legacy he and his Administration normally work for legislation to accomplish it. But 

this Administration has never done this type of work. To be sure, 

the President has called on Congress to pass climate change legislation. But the Administration has never made a serious effort to 

engage Congress or stakeholders on the difficult issues involved. 

It is useful to contrast the Obama administration’s approach to 

climate change legislation to the approach taken by the first Bush 

administration when President George H.W. Bush called for a fundamental overhaul of the Clean Air Act. That approach led to the 

1990 amendments, the last major environmental statute to be 

passed by Congress. 

President Bush did not just call on Congress to pass legislation. 

His Administration developed a detailed legislative proposal and 

submitted it to Congress. Then, while the relevant congressional 

committees were working on the legislation, the Bush administration did not just stand back and hope for the best. At least five senior White House officials were involved in the legislative effort on 

almost a daily basis for more than a year, meeting with Members 

of Congress and congressional staffers and with industry and environmental groups and often hammering out specific compromises. 

Even though the Obama administration has said it views climate 

change as a legacy issue, it is has never done any of these things. 

I do not pretend that the 1990 amendments represent an ideal 

piece of legislation. There is much to criticize about those amendments. But the process that led to the amendments was instructive. It shows what an Administration can do even when Congress 

is controlled by the opposing party to get legislation through Congress when such legislation is actually a priority for the President. 

In my view, it is a shame that the Obama administration has not 

made this type of effort when it comes to climate change and has 

instead pursued an ill-advised regulatory approach that simply will 

not meet the commitment that they have made to the international 

community. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holmstead follows:] 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Holmstead. 

Mr. Bookbinder. Welcome back. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BOOKBINDER, PARTNER, ELEMENT VI 

CONSULTING 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member Boxer. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the United States commitment to the Paris climate process. My name is David Bookbinder. I am a Partner in Element VI Consulting and adjunct fellow at the Niskanen Center here in Washington. 

Chairman Inhofe, you mentioned that I have testified here previously as a witness, asked by Senator Boxer. I think it is a bit of 

sad commentary that we have to point out that someone can be a 

witness for both a Republican Chairman and a Democratic Chairman. I think that is a sad that this is seen as something extraordinary. 

In order to make sure that I had the right format for my testimony, I actually looked at the testimony that I gave back in 2007. 

The first sentence in that testimony bears repeating today. It was, 

‘‘Let me begin acknowledging that climate change, a problem that 

affects every aspect of our environment and whose solution will affect every aspect of our economy, is best addressed by tailor-made 

legislation.’’ Seven years later, those words are even more true. 

First, as predicted, we have seen enormous amounts of Federal 

and State regulation and subsidies dealing with the climate issue. 

That is a second best solution. Everyone, everyone agrees that regulation and subsidies are not the optimal way to deal with climate 

change. 

Second, 7 years later, the effects of climate change are all the 

more apparent. The science is, if anything even more certain, and 

the effects are growing and are becoming worse every day. Action 

is something we need to take. 

So custom made Federal climate legislation, preferably in the 

form of a carbon tax would be the most useful thing Congress can 

do in order to make an effective international agreement possible. 

That international agreement is the only way we are going to deal 

with climate change. 

And now that I have lectured you as to your responsibilities, I 

am going to talk about what the Administration has proposed, 

which is the Paris commitment. 

What is the fuss? This is arithmetic, it is nothing but arithmetic. 

The INDC submission lists a series of regulatory measures and 

says we can get 26 percent from below 2005 by 2025. All I did was 

take a look at each of those measures, take the maximum amount 

of emissions reductions from each of those measures as described 

either by EPA or by the Department of Energy or to the best of 

my ability and my partners’ ability. 

By the way, speaking of bipartisanship, I was the former Chief 

Climate Counsel of Sierra Club. My partner was the former Director of Climate Policy at ExxonMobil. And we have yet to have a 

policy disagreement. 

So we went down this list of measures and we looked at the 

numbers. We added them up and we did the exact same thing that 
69 

Karl Hausker did at WRI, that I understand the Chamber did, that 

other groups have done. We all came up with the same result. We 

all say that these listed measures get us between 68, 70, 75 percent 

of what we need, depending on how you treat those numbers. The 

fact that all that all these different analyses come up with the 

same range tells you that you should have some confidence in that. 

I want to emphasize that this should come as no surprise to you 

and what is more, this is no surprise to anybody. We are not the 

only ones who can do the numbers. I promise you the rest of the 

world can look at the same regulatory measures and can do the 

numbers just as well as we can. The Chinese, the EU, the Indians, 

the developing countries, they all have very sophisticated people 

who understand U.S. regulatory measures. They are all going to 

come up with the same answer. 

No one has disagreed with these analysis. If I have left out any 

regulatory measures or my numbers are wrong, I would deeply appreciate somebody pointing that out to me, and I would be delighted to go back and work through them and see if we can get 

to a more accurate figure. So far no one has done that. But I welcome, I welcome anyone coming forward and saying, no, you are 

wrong about X, Y or Z, in which case I would absolutely, after discussing it with them, come up with a better number. 

And that is all I have to say right now. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bookbinder follows:] 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Bookbinder. Professor Rabkin. 

STATEMENT OF JEREMY A. RABKIN, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 

Mr. RABKIN. I am Jeremy Rabkin. I teach at the George Mason 

Law School. 

I should start by saying I am not an expert on climate science. 

I am not even a specialist in environmental law. I have written 

about international law and foreign relations law. The issue that 

I want to put in focus here is, can we undertake a response to the 

climate challenge through the President acting on his own. 

A lot of people who are advocating for this say, oh, yes, we do 

this all the time. The President signs agreements on his own, it is 

true. But they are very specialized, very limited in their effect, or 

else they have been authorized by Congress. If this were a normal 

thing to do, you have to ask yourself, why didn’t President Clinton 

think of this? Because President Clinton negotiated the Kyoto protocol, saw that he didn’t have the votes in the Senate. He didn’t 

say, never mind, I don’t need the Senate, I will just do it because 

I am President and that is what matters. 

Let us remind ourselves that Vice President Gore was right 

there, he was actually the one who went to Kyoto. Gore was very 

committed to this. He didn’t say, no record of him even in private 

telling President Clinton, you can do this on your own, don’t worry 

about it. 

Now we have the successor protocol which seems to be basically 

the same thing but with more ambitious goals and we are told, last 

time we needed the Senate, we don’t need the Senate, we don’t 

need anyone, the President can do this on his own. That is a pretty 

astonishing thing and I think the Senate needs to look hard at that 

and ask itself, going forward, does it really want to let the President make these kinds of commitments. 

So I briefly want to discuss two follow-on issues that arise. It is 

said, well, it is OK for the President to do this, because he has all 

kinds of domestic legislation which he can rely on. I think the answer to that is maybe or maybe not. We will see. But I think it 

is pretty likely going forward that the EPA and others will say, 

this domestic legislation has to be interpreted in the light of commitments that the President has made to foreign governments. 

That is also disturbing because what it means is, when you enact 

legislation, that is just the starting point. The President then gets 

to bargain with foreign governments about what that legislation is 

supposed to mean. I think that is very disturbing. 

The final thing I want to talk about is what it means to have 

a political commitment. We are told it is not a treaty, it is not even 

really an agreement. Much of it would be a political commitment 

meaning the President has promised. 

Why does that bind the United States? I think there are two possibilities. Either it is just talk and so it is meaningless, or actually 

the President thinks and other people think we are kind of on the 

line because we have made this promise. It is true and it is fair 

enough to remind ourselves that Presidents in the past have made 

political commitments. President Nixon went to China, and his 

first visit there in 1972 he issued with Chairman Mao the Shang-
75 

hai Communique saying, going forward, we promise each other our 

relations are going to be governed by these principles. There are a 

number of examples of political commitments like that. 

I believe without exception they dealt with diplomatic relations, 

things we would do out in the world. They were very vague and 

there was no kind of implementation machinery. What we are 

doing here is something that doesn’t fit that pattern at all. What 

we are doing here is exactly what we did previously by treaty. We 

are saying let’s have a very elaborate international agreement 

which is a very precise commitment about how much we will do in 

how many years. We will have implementing machinery. We will 

have regular conferences. 

It is all the aspects of a treaty, not just a political statement, not 

just a political framework. All the aspects of a treaty except for the 

Senate. 

If you think that, yes, the President can make that kind of political commitment and then the Congress is obliged to follow 

through, I have two questions for you. First, the President has 

been saying for years he wants to do something about immigration 

reform. Why can’t he make a political commitment to the President 

of Mexico saying, we are going to change American immigration 

law in the following ways? I will draw on existing legislation to the 

extent that I think I can. And then the Congress has to follow 

through and do the rest because I have committed the United 

States. How do you feel about that? I don’t see that it is different. 

Or another example, Canada has much stricter gun control than 

we do. What if the President makes a political commitment to the 

Prime Minister of Canada, we both agree that there have to be 

tighter gun controls on both sides of the border, especially our side 

in America. So I am going to use existing authority to the extent 

I think I can and beyond that, Congress is obligated because I 

promised. 

It is really worth asking yourselves, how that is different. I don’t 

see how that is different. So I think going forward if the Senate 

shrugs its shoulders and says the President can commit us on this 

very complicated, costly, elaborate, ambitious climate agreement, 

maybe he can do it on many, many other things and is that really 

the way you want to be governed. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rabkin follows:] 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, Mr. Rabkin. Those are 

some new thoughts we haven’t heard before. 

We are going to have 5-minute rounds. We are going to ask our 

colleagues to adhere to the clock here because we have an excellent 

turnout and we want to get to everyone here. So let us start with 

you, Mr. Bookbinder. 

While I do not agree with some of the conclusions you have, I do 

agree that you have put together a study—put that chart back up, 

will you, that 30 percent chart—that shows the way we are trying 

to do this now doesn’t seem to work. Now, you are on the same side 

as the White House in terms of your philosophy on global warming 

and all this. I am sure you have talked to them about this chart, 

about the gap that is there, this approximately a 30 percent gap 

which I think everyone agrees is there. 

Were you not able to get information that you needed? 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Chairman Inhofe, I have not talked to the 

White House about this. I have made public statements on blog 

posts, I have responded to e-mail inquiries, I have talked on the 

phone to people. I have had no communication with the Administration or any officials concerning this analysis. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me ask you, then. Why would the President 

come out with INDC that doesn’t work mathematically? 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. I think you would have to ask the President 

or Secretary Kerry. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Holmstead, on this same chart giving the 

30 percent gap, what concerns me, and it concerns a lot of people 

from my State which is a rural State, which is an agricultural 

State. Where would you go to make up, what are the possibilities 

of where you would go to make up the gap? 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. Well, if you look at the major sectors that emit 

greenhouse gases, most of them are now regulated or soon will be 

under various regulatory programs that the Administration has either adopted or promised to adopt. 

The biggest remaining sector that is not regulated is the agricultural sector. And they have a voluntary program. There is a history 

that sometimes voluntary programs become regulatory programs. 

And so if they are serious about filling in that 30 percent gap, you 

might anticipate that they would do such things as mandating 

changes in the way that conservation tillage is done, restricting nitrogen fertilizer, mandating different treatment of manure waste 

and other such things. 

Senator INHOFE. Crop insurance to emissions or something like 

that? 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. Who knows? But if you are looking for where 

you might get those emission reductions, I think that is really 

where you would have to start. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that, because I look at this, we 

have studied in our Committee to see where would you go, were 

that to be desired. My farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma understand this. They understand that the greatest problem they are facing is nothing that we normally face in the Ag Bill but it is overregulation by the EPA. And they are afraid of that. 

Professor Rabkin, if the President signs a unilateral political 

agreement, let’s say he figured a way to do that in Paris. And I 
89 

know something about this, I mentioned the Copenhagen agreement, when I went over. Those 191 countries assumed since they 

had the Vice President, they had the whole group that I mentioned 

to you over there assuring them, including Obama, that once those 

people agreed, it doesn’t take legislation. They probably still assume that today. 

Now, if they were to figure out a way to do this without coming 

for ratification to Congress, and I might remind everyone here, I 

know you are aware of this, but it is worth bringing up again, the 

Clinton-Gore Administration never did bring this for ratification to 

Congress. Because they knew it would not be ratified. 

Now, if they are able to do something without ratification, without Congress’s input, wouldn’t the next Administration be in the 

same position to undo anything that was done? 

Mr. RABKIN. The next Administration could certainly say they 

made a political commitment, we repudiate it. That was their commitment, you shouldn’t have trusted them. Of course, that is an 

awkward thing to do because it does undermine the credibility of 

American Presidents. So I think it is lamentable that President 

Obama is putting his successor in that position, either repudiate 

my extra-Constitutional commitment or else undermine American 

credibility. 

But of course they will be tempted to say, maybe they will be 

under a lot of pressure to say, I as Obama’s successor cannot be 

committed by his unilateral posturing. 

Senator INHOFE. Very good. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks. 

Mr. Rabkin, are you aware that 94 percent of our treaties are executive, done by the executive? Are you aware of that? 

Mr. RABKIN. I am very aware of that. 

Senator BOXER. Good. Because you didn’t seem to, you were so 

outraged. Now, are you aware that in 1992, Congress ratified the 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change? Totally bipartisan. Are you aware of that? 

Mr. RABKIN. Very aware of that. 

Senator BOXER. Are you aware that these negotiations are based 

on that ratified treaty? 

Mr. RABKIN. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. So whoa, whoa, whoa. Then, your comments, sir, 

just make no sense at all. You speak as if this is a rogue President. 

Now the fact of the matter is not only do we have that vote, but 

we also have the Clean Air Act. Do you know how many times the 

Supreme Court has upheld that Clean Air Act? And how many decisions there have been that said greenhouse gas emissions are covered? Do you know how many cases there have been? 

Mr. RABKIN. About greenhouse gas emissions? Probably single 

digits. 

Senator BOXER. There are three, that is right, and the Supreme 

Court has spoken. So the fact is the Clean Air Act governs here, 

you have the treaty that governs here, you have a President who 

is carrying out the Clean Air Act. And frankly, sir, if he didn’t he 

would be hauled into court. 

So I just have to say that your outrage doesn’t match the law. 
90 

Mr. RABKIN. OK, so we agree on certain facts. That is what the 

initial colloquy was, do you know this, do you know this, yes, I 

know it, I know it, I know it. Now let me explain to you why I 

wouldn’t say I am outraged, but I am very concerned and let me 

explain to you why. 

Senator BOXER. But, sir, you already did in your—— 

Mr. RABKIN. Oh, no, no, no you are raising challenges and you 

have to let me answer. 

Senator BOXER. I have the time if Senator Inhofe wants to give 

you more time. Your entire presentation was bashing this Administration without mentioning once that the Supreme Court upheld 

this law and that we have a convention that was ratified by Congress. So I am going to move on because I only have 3 minutes left. 

Mr. Bookbinder, I want to talk to you about something. 

Senator WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we extend Senator Boxer’s time, so that the gentleman could answer the question 

and she could still have the remaining 2 minutes and 32 seconds 

to ask what she wants. 

Senator INHOFE. A good suggestion, Senator Wicker from Mississippi, that is exactly what we are going to do. Because he wants 

to respond and we are going to give him time, if necessary my time 

on a second round. Go ahead, Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. OK, can I go back to 2:32 because I was interrupted? 

Senator INHOFE. Sure. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. Bookbinder, you have come a long way in my direction since 

the last time I saw you. You are calling for a carbon tax. And that 

is where I am at. I think it is the simplest way and it is a way 

to put a price on carbon that is fair. 

And you point out that your partner, his background is with 

Exxon and I was going to ask you about that. You say you have 

never had a disagreement with him? Does he agree with you that 

a carbon tax is the right way to proceed here? 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Yes, he does. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is really newsworthy. Let’s get that in 

the record, that ExxonMobil believes we should fight climate 

change with a carbon tax. 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Excuse me, Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. A former employee of Exxon. 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Yes. Please do not—— 

Senator BOXER. I am sorry. You are right. A former employee 

who spent how many years with Exxon? 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Decades. 

Senator BOXER. Decades with Exxon. This is progress, folks, and 

I hope that would be the news coming out of here. 

Now, Mr. Bookbinder, I also reread your testimony and I appreciate the fact that you are not backing off from what you said. So 

I am just going to read certain things. 

You said severe heat waves are projected to intensify in magnitude and duration over the portions of the U.S. where these 

events are already occur, with likely increases in mortality and 

morbidity, especially among the elderly, young and frail. Do you 

still believe that? 
91 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. I assume you are reading from my previous 

testimony? 

Senator BOXER. Correct. 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Yes, I still believe those things. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Do you also agree now that climate change 

is also expected to facilitate the spread of invasive species and disrupt ecosystems? 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Yes, I do. 

Senator BOXER. Do you also agree that climate change is expected to lead to increases in ozone pollution, with associated risks 

in respiratory infection and aggravation of asthma? 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Yes, I do. 

Senator BOXER. Now, what you say in this in the very beginning 

is worth repeating. You point out that the best way to approach 

fighting climate change is through specific legislation. I couldn’t 

agree with you more. I agree that the carbon tax, cap and trade, 

the things I have been fighting for. 

But you said in the absence of such legislation the Clean Air Act 

will still enable us to get the job done. Do you still agree with that? 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. It depends really on what you mean by the job. 

Senator BOXER. They are your words, not mine. 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. I understand that. Senator, aside from that 

first paragraph that I cribbed, I haven’t looked at that testimony 

since I gave it. 

The Clean Air Act will reduce carbon dioxide emissions, there is 

no doubt about it. That is why I advocated successfully to bring the 

Massachusetts case. It is simply not as efficient a means. 

Senator BOXER. I agree. 

Mr. Hausker, does your analysis indicate that the U.S. target of 

reducing carbon pollution in the range of 26 to 28 percent by 2025 

is achievable? 

Mr. HAUSKER. Yes, I want to emphasize very strongly that it is 

achievable and I want to say I disagree strongly with Mr. Bookbinder’s characterization of the WRI report as consistent with what 

he did in showing that there is a gap or that there are missing 

tons. I am happy to expand on that if you like. 

Senator BOXER. My time has run out. I so appreciate the time, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. Now, I am going to take the Chair’s prerogative and give Mr. Rabkin a chance to respond as he was so anxiously trying to do a just a moment ago. 

Mr. RABKIN. Thank you. 

So on the first point, 94 percent of our agreements are executive 

agreements, that is true. But almost all of them are either authorized by Congress like the trade agreements. 

Senator BOXER. So is this one. 

Mr. RABKIN. No, this—— 

Senator BOXER. Yes, in 1992. 

Mr. RABKIN. So you want to say the Framework Convention on 

climate change authorized the President to do anything that he 

wanted later on. And my simple answer to that is, if that is true 

why didn’t anyone tell President Clinton? Why didn’t President 

Clinton say, oh, Kyoto doesn’t have to be a treaty, I was authorized 

by the 1992 Framework Convention. Al Gore, so enthused about 
92 

the subject, why didn’t he say, Mr. President, you don’t need a 

treaty, don’t bother with the Senate, you can do this inherently. So 

that seems to mean not at all convincing. 

And I do want to go back and say apart from things that are implementing treaties, there are a number of executive agreements 

which are implementing treaties. Almost all of them are extremely 

narrow and technical, which is not what this is. This is a very big, 

ambitious thing. 

The last point that you raised, which I think you were most substantive, don’t we have the Clean Air Act and hasn’t the Supreme 

Court said that is relevant to it? Yes, we do and yes, they have said 

it. It matters a lot when you get down to it. What is it that we 

think we are achieving in regard to climate change? 

It is one thing to say we actually have a treaty which Congress 

has considered in some form. Maybe not two-thirds of the Senate 

but some congressional participation. That is one thing. 

It is another thing to say, oh, you know, the President has made 

a deal so that Clean Air Act now needs to read this. And on particular issues there could be billions of dollars at stake. You are 

really making the Clean Air Act into a kind of blank check for the 

President and whatever people he happens to make agreements 

with. I think that is a real problem. 

Just a last thing. We have this case, Michigan v. EPA. And it 

is about mercury and there is actually an international convention 

on mercury. Some amicus brief said, hey, what about the international convention on mercury. Neither the Government nor the 

Supreme Court brought it up. I think that is because on both sides 

they thought, that is really dicey, let’s not go there. I do not think 

it is at all settled that as long as the President has made a promise 

you can reinterpret domestic statutes accordingly. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Professor, for that clarification. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

panelists, for your testimony. We are dealing with some important 

issues. 

I just would say this. The American people are getting frustrated, that we have individuals executing policies that affect their 

everyday life, driving up the cost of their whole existence based on 

legal theories that are so tenuous that it is almost breathtaking in 

its thinness. 

For example, the Clean Air Act was passed with no thought 

whatsoever that we would be controlling CO2, an odorless, tasteless 

gas that is a plant food. And now we have a 5 to 4 decision in the 

Supreme Court, five members of the Court now saying that EPA 

can regulate your backyard barbeque, your lawnmower or any 

other item that emits any CO2. It is a breathtaking thing. 

Congress has never voted for it, Congress will not vote for it. 

American people do not favor it. In a poll I saw recently of 18 important issues listed, global warming was 18th. 

So here we are, a group of elitists in this country, through the 

thinnest of legal arguments, imposing huge costs on the American 

economy. I am worried about it. I don’t think this is democracy in 

action, and we have to be careful about how this all occurs. 
93 

Mr. Rabkin, it seems to me that Congress, in resisting a President’s overreach, could do something like Senator Cotton did with 

regard to Iran, write a letter and make sure that people who sign 

on with the United States know that is not binding on the United 

States. Is that a legitimate response? 

Mr. RABKIN. I think it is a really good idea. Because one of the 

things that we are going to be told is, oh, you are undermining 

trust in America if you don’t follow through on what the President 

has promised. What you are proposing is to warn people, don’t rely 

on what the President is saying, he is speaking for himself. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is exactly what is going to happen, colleagues, on the trade, the motion authority. If the President comes 

back with a bad treaty and somebody says, oh, we shouldn’t adopt 

it, he is going to say, well, you authorized me to negotiate it. And 

now I negotiated it and you are going embarrass the United States 

before the whole world and we are going to be a renegade nation, 

et cetera. 

Mr. RABKIN. Could I just say, it is bad to disappoint foreigners. 

It is also bad to disappoint Americans and if you are elected by 

Americans maybe you should take the American reaction more seriously. 

Senator SESSIONS. Exactly. Well, as lawyers we know who we 

represent. Our duty is to our constituents who voted for us. Now, 

with regard to what the other action would be we could pass legislation. But as a practical matter, any legislation that were to be 

passed is subject to a Presidential veto, is that correct, Mr. Rabkin? 

Mr. RABKIN. Yes, what happened with Kyoto was the Senate 

passed a nonbinding resolution. So it wasn’t subject to a veto. But 

that was registering how much opposition there was to the impending Kyoto deal. I believe that is why President Clinton backed off 

from submitting it, because of the resolution. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I believe it was 97 to nothing, that resolution rejecting the Kyoto requirements. 

Mr. RABKIN. Right. 

Senator SESSIONS. Yet now we have a President signing a new 

one that would go even further than Kyoto, and there is no public 

support or congressional support that would ratify that in any way. 

Mr. RABKIN. I think you have described this exactly. 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Boxer talked to you about these treaties that we have signed. But if it is signed by the President and 

not ratified by Congress, it is not a treaty, is it? 

Mr. RABKIN. The word treaty is usually reserved for things that 

are ratified by the Senate. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, with regard to another response the 

American people might have, what else could Congress do to represent their constituents if the President commits us to something 

that is not appropriate? It seems to me that the power of the purse 

remains maybe the only realistic option. Can Congress use the 

power of the purse to rein in a President who is spending to carry 

out programs that the people don’t agree with? 

Mr. RABKIN. That is why they have the power of the purse. 

Senator SESSIONS. So the power of the purse is essentially, Congress has no duty, does it, to fund any program that it believes is 

inimical to the interest of the constituents they represent? 
94 

Mr. RABKIN. Well, this is what we will be arguing about. The 

President will say, I have made a political commitment and you 

have to support me because we will be embarrassed. And the Congress will have to consider that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I appreciate your testimony. This is a 

matter of real concern, and I have come to see more and more that 

the classical powers of Congress are being eroded. And it is not just 

the power of the Congress, it is the American people’s power, their 

ability to control the people who control them. So now we are going 

to have somebody in some entity in some foreign country that is 

going to be directing us. 

Mr. RABKIN. I would just like to add one word to what you said, 

which is Constitution. We have certain background assumptions 

about how our Government is supposed to work. That is why we 

have a Constitution and what this is fundamentally about is saying, ah, that is old-fashioned, forget that. That didn’t work for Clinton. We are moving forward with something different in which the 

President gets to commit us. That is a real change in our Constitution. 

Senator SESSIONS. A grave concern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Sessions follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Today’s hearing, ‘‘Road to Paris: Examining the President’s International Climate 

Agenda and Implications for Domestic Environmental Policy,’’ highlights a disturbing trend: we are dealing with an Administration that seeks to impose its will 

by any means possible, whether through unauthorized administrative fiat or international negotiations which usurp the Senate’s advice and consent role provided by 

the Constitution. In the case of climate regulations, President Obama has committed the United States to achieving 26 percent to 28 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, compared to a 2005 baseline—this commitment was 

made through the submission of an ‘‘Intended Nationally Determined Contribution’’ 

to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In other words, 

despite repeated instances in which Congress has blocked climate change legislation, this Administration has decided to willfully ignore the legislative branch and 

unilaterally pursue crippling emissions reductions in an international forum, at 

great cost to the American people and to our system of government. 

The consequences of the President’s international climate change agenda cannot 

be overstated. In his written testimony for today’s hearing, Professor Jeremy Rabkin 

provides the following: 

‘‘The danger down the road is that this approach to committing the United States 

won’t be seen as exceptional but as a general precedent for how our country coordinates its law with international standards in the era of global governance . . . We 

cannot go very far down that road before the idea that we are governed by law 

starts to look like a fable for school children. Our own elected Congress will share 

its legislative powers and responsibilities with the world at large—as the President 

(or his officials) borrow the authority of congressional enactments for purposes not 

endorsed and perhaps not even clearly contemplated by the enacting Congress.’’ 

The President’s international climate agenda represents yet another grave threat 

to American sovereignty and our constitutional republic. I am reminded of the numerous issues that have been expressed regarding the President’s negotiations with 

Iran, and in particular Senator Cotton’s concise open letter to Iranian leaders reminding them of the unique governmental structure contained in the Constitution. 

In that letter, I joined Senator Cotton and several of my colleagues in observing that 

the next President could revoke an executive agreement with Iran ‘‘with the stroke 

of a pen,’’ and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any 

time. 

In the context of current and future climate negotiations, international parties 

should likewise be aware that the President is not a king, and any agreement 

reached by the President is of limited effect without congressional approval. Moreover, just as a future President could revoke an executive agreement with Iran 
95 

‘‘with the stroke of a pen,’’ so too could a future President withdraw from any international climate deal lacking congressional approval. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Interesting 

discussion, thank you all for your testimony. 

Does anyone here disagree that climate change is a real challenge that we need to be engaged in addressing? 

[No response.] 

Senator MERKLEY. Anyone here disagree that human activity 

and burning of fossil fuels is a contributor to the challenge? 

[No response.] 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, thank you. I think that is the foundation for this discussion. I don’t want us to get lost in losing our perspective on the forest, if you will, while we are looking at the individual trees. 

I can certainly convey that in my home State of Oregon, climate 

change is very evident in a number of ways. Our fire season has 

increased by something close to 60 days over a few decades, far 

more forest being burned. We have a much bigger problem in the 

west with pine beetle, with warmer winters not killing the pine 

beetles as they have in the past. 

We have a big challenge to our shellfish industry, specifically our 

oysters, because of the acidification of the Pacific Ocean, which is 

tied to the same carbon dioxide that is causing climate change. We 

have a significant problem with loss of snowpack in the Cascades, 

which is resulting in warmer streams. 

My rural communities care a lot about their fishing. Streams are 

not as good when they are small and when they are warm as when 

they are cold and when they are deep. They care a lot about their 

forests and they care a lot about their farming. And we have a 

massive drought that is tied in as well. 

So in terms of the impact of this on rural America, it is massive. 

And it is manifested in farming, in fishing and forestry, all in my 

home State. So I have been struck by how important this conversation is as one that has direct impacts on the ground right now. We 

don’t have to look at 50 years out or 100 years out. 

Now, it is important that this be an international conversation. 

Pollution of the air or seas is a tragedy of the commons, if you will. 

In that sense, China has committed to producing as much new renewable energy between now and 2030 that is equal to all the electricity produced in the United States today. In fact, currently the 

U.S. produces about 1,000 gigawatts of electricity, all forms, including fossil fuels. China has committed to produce about 1,400 

gigawatts of renewable non-fossil fuel energy by 2030. 

So we are not talking about measures that they are committed 

to doing after 2030. We are talking about things they are doing between now and 2030. That is a massive deployment of renewable 

effort. 

India has been a little slower to come around. But they have 

committed to increasing their solar capacity by 100 gigawatts by 

2022, just 7 years from now, and to work toward a more global 

HFC phase-down. Brazil has announced that it has a goal of 20 

percent of its electricity from renewable sources, and pledging to 
96 

restore 12 million hectares of forest, about the size of England, by 

2030. So many nations are working together to take this on. 

The U.S. has often been in the forefront of bringing the world together to take on world challenges. Certainly that is true of disease 

and taking on the pandemics of AIDS and tuberculosis and malaria. It certainly should be the case here. 

I do feel that this it is important to place this conversation into 

that context. The exact nature of agreements that occur later this 

year in terms of setting goals and pledging the U.S. to work toward 

those goals, you can argue as lawyers over the fine print. But let’s 

not lose perspective on the fact that this is about a major challenge 

to the world that is having impact in our home States every single 

day on our rural resources and more to come. 

Dr. Hausker, I wanted to, you touched briefly in your written testimony on the interaction between climate policies and international businesses. Why is it that we are seeing companies like 

Starbucks, eBay, Nike, Ikea, Sprint lobbying for action on climate 

change when, according to some of my colleagues, climate change 

will do harm to the economy? 

Mr. HAUSKER. That is a very good question. You have pointed 

out the fact that more and more corporations, both U.S. and multinationals, are pressing for climate action by governments. They are 

also taking internal steps to reduce their own greenhouse gases. 

I might add in that context, we talked about Exxon a short time 

ago. Exxon Corporation recognizes the problem of climate change 

and they have adopted an internal price on carbon to guide their 

investments. Many other companies have done that as well. 

So the business community is taking this increasingly seriously 

and taking internal steps as well as advocating sound public policy. 

Senator MERKLEY. I think it goes to the heart of demonstrating 

that businesses’ boards that are committed to profits see that climate change can be enormously harmful to our future economy. 

Thank you, my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Merkley. Senator Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

panelists’ coming in and already having a very important discussion. 

I always think it is important to begin these sessions by making 

it clear that we all care about clean air, clean water. I think sometimes my colleagues on the other side try to claim a little bit of the 

high ground, that they care more about it. They don’t care more 

about it. My State probably has the cleanest air, cleanest water, 

certainly in the United States, maybe in the world. It is largely because of local actions, not the EPA, I guarantee you. Alaskans care 

more about the environment than officials here in the EPA in 

Washington do in our State. 

But we also have significant concerns about what we call in Alaska Federal overreach. That is usually in the form of an agency taking regulatory action without statutory or constitutional authority. 

Big concerns. They usually take the action because it is not popular 

in the Congress, so they can’t get it through, so they take it anyway. At least in Alaska, the EPA is considered the poster child of 

an agency that conducts Federal overreach on a very regular basis. 
97 

So legally, I think that the EPA is a rogue agency. But I think 

importantly, you don’t have to take the word of members of the 

Senate or members of the public. We are seeing this more broadly. 

The Supreme Court, we talked about Supreme Court opinions, in 

the last two terms, in terms of the UARG v. EPA, Michigan v. 

EPA, the Supreme Court has come out and said the EPA has violated the law or the Constitution. It is increasingly conservative 

and liberal commentators who are starting to hold this view that 

the EPA is out of control legally. 

You may have seen Laurence Tribe, well respected liberal Harvard law professor who testified in front of Congress recently on 

the EPA’s CO2 regs, saying ‘‘The EPA possesses only the authority 

granted by Congress, and its rule is attempting to exercise lawmaking power that belongs to Congress. Burning the Constitution 

should not become part of our national energy policy.’’ That is Laurence Tribe. 

I think this should be a concern of every Member of Congress. 

And yet the EPA just kind of continues. This should be a concern 

of every member of this Committee when we have an agency that 

doesn’t respect the law of the land. We were talking about outrage 

before. I am outraged. We should all be outraged, Democrats, Republicans, that an agency regularly violates the law. 

My biggest concern is they just power through and keeping doing 

it. There was a Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to submit for the record, called Stopping 

EPA Uber Alles. Essentially what the Wall Street Journal was saying is that the EPA, even when it gets struck down by the Supreme 

Court, it takes 5 or 6 years to have that happen, they just keep 

powering through anyway, ignoring the law. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, that will be made a part of 

the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
98 
99 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

So I would just like to ask a few questions, Mr. Holmstead, Professor Rabkin, Mr. Bookbinder, others, do you believe, like the Supreme Court, like Laurence Tribe, that the EPA legally is a rogue 

agency? 

Mr. RABKIN. Laurence Tribe was one of my teachers. I never disagree with him, especially when he is right. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. That is an incredibly loaded question, Senator. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Just a yes or no, or you can defer. 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. I would say, and this is from someone who 

sued EPA frequently in the past, no, I don’t believe it is a rogue 

agency. 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. I am quite confident that EPA does not let statutory intent get in the way of what it wants to do. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I would take that as a yes. 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. We have seen that most prominently in the 

Clean Power Plan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me ask another question. With the executive agreement with China, does anyone on the panel believe that 

that somehow grants authority for the EPA, and I am not talking 

about the Clean Air Act, the President executes an executive agreement with China, does that give the EPA even the smallest legal 

authority to start implementing domestic legal commitments on 

U.S. companies? An executive agreement. And I am not referring 

to the Clean Air Act, just that agreement. 

Do they have any authority to anything legally, domestically here 

in the United States based on that agreement? 

Mr. RABKIN. It is a really good question. My answer would be no, 

I am not sure what their answer is. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Any other panelists want to respond to that? 

Ms. LADISLAW. No, but I am not entirely sure it is necessary for 

the Administration to accomplish what they want to. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is 

up. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate your holding this hearing, The Road to Paris. Paris, to me, 

is going to be an important moment in our global commitment on 

the problems of climate change. 

It is interesting, a good deal of the discussion here seems to be 

the role between the executive and legislative branch, rather than 

dealing with the underlying problem of how America needs to respond to the global climate change challenge. I don’t see any disagreement that climate change is real, that we could do something 

to mitigate it, that there are health risks, that there are economic 

risks, there are security risks to the United States in regards to 

global climate change. If we don’t take aggressive steps, the world 

depends upon U.S. leadership. 

There seems to be more fight as to whether Congress needs to 

take action or the executive action. I would hope both would take 

action. 

I serve as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee. I am frequently in international meetings when cli-
100 

mate change comes up. And I must tell you, President Obama is 

getting good reviews internationally. The U.S. Congress is not. 

I think the international community would welcome the ability 

of the United States to speak with a more united voice and would 

welcome Congress taking affirmative steps by legislation to deal 

with the climate change issue. We have tried, Mr. Chairman, we 

have tried. Senator Boxer has taken a real leadership role. I was 

here with she worked with Senator Warner of Virginia and Senator 

Lieberman, and we came close. Senator Markey, who is not here 

right now, took an incredible leadership role on the House side in 

past legislation. 

The challenge is that we need to put a price on carbon. We have 

to put a price on pollution. It is unlikely that will happen. I think 

we all understand the realities of the politics of this Congress. But 

the United States has an opportunity and President Obama is taking advantage of that to show world leadership, to make a difference not only for the United States security and health and 

economy but for the global security, health and economy. 

So Mr. Hausker, I want to ask you a question if I might. What 

action would you think Congress could take that could be most 

helpful to achieving the goal President Obama has laid out for us 

to meet as we go into the Paris meetings? 

Mr. HAUSKER. I would certainly wish that Congress would be 

supportive of achieving the target that President Obama has set 

forth. It is an ambitious but achievable target. It can be done using 

existing Federal authority, supplemented by actions by the States. 

And in the longer term, I would hope that Congress would do 

what you pointed to, which is put a price on carbon, which could 

be done in a variety of ways. There is WRI research and research 

by other think tanks and academics pointing to the multiple benefits of putting a price on carbon and the ways it could be constructed to promote economic growth. 

So I think there is a short-term mission to advance the agreement that we hope will be concluded in Paris into 2025 and then 

the longer term agenda of putting the right press signals in place 

that can help this country as well as help the globe toward the 

decarbonization in the decades ahead necessary to solve this problem. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Whitehouse is here, who has been one 

of the real leaders on this issue on the price of carbon and dealing 

with energizing the private sector to develop ways in which we can 

meet our economic challenges, recognizing there is a price of carbon. We can show it directly in regards to what it does to our environment, what it does to our health. There is clearly a price. 

By recognizing that, the private sector then comes up with ways 

in which we can reduce our carbon and help our economy and do 

it in the most cost effective way. That is what many of us have 

been trying to do. We thought that it is a sensible bridge between 

the Democrats and Republicans to energize the private sector. 

What I really think the tragedy is here is that we don’t have to 

get into a philosophical debate here. It seems to me the same solutions help our economy, help our security and help our environment. So all of us want to do all three. I am not sure why we are 

having this tough philosophical debate about recognizing the dan-
101 

gers of carbon emissions and having our vibrant economy figure out 

ways that we can again lead the world in innovation and dealing 

with the underlying problems. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It was mentioned before that maybe we shouldn’t forget about 

the forest, and we are looking at the trees. Well, I would say the 

purpose of this hearing is to look at the trees. We are looking at 

the road to Paris. As Senator Cardin said, we tend to get into philosophical discussions here on climate change and where we are on 

that. But I would like to get back to where the hearing is focused. 

My friend from Oregon was talking about rural America and the 

effects that climate change has on rural America. Well, I am a cattle rancher. I live in a county in Nebraska with less than one person per square mile. So I think I can speak about rural America. 

I think I can focus on maybe some of the effects that the road to 

Paris will have on rural America and have on agriculture. 

I happen to know where my friend from South Dakota lives. He 

lives 2 hours north of me in Pierre, South Dakota. He can speak 

to rural America as well. Basically, we live in the middle of nowhere or the center of the cosmos, one or the other. 

Mr. Holmstead, you had spoken earlier about the regulations 

that are out there, the known regulations, the issue that we would 

have with those and the effects that they would have on families 

and businesses. And you had kind of gotten started into where the 

unknown regulations would come from that you believe would need 

to be imposed on families in order to meet those targets of 26 to 

28 percent in reductions. 

You mentioned the agriculture sector. That is the economic engine of Nebraska. It is an economic engine for this country. This 

road to Paris would have an effect on families, on the economy and 

they are unknown. They are unknown regulations. 

Can you let us know what you think some of those regulations 

would be and the impacts that they would have? 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. My point, as you know, was that the sector 

that, according to EPA, emits greenhouse gases that are not really 

regulated is agriculture. I am probably not the right person to predict exactly what those would be. But what I would say is, if you 

look at the things that the environmental community is calling for 

in terms of tighter controls on animal manure, in terms of changes 

in the way that we plant crops, in terms of changes in the way we 

do grazing and all these sorts of things, changes in the way that 

fertilizer is used, these are the things you can imagine. 

Again, my point is, if they really are serious about meeting their 

commitment, they almost have to do those things. So it is either 

they are not serious about meeting their commitment or we can anticipate perhaps a greater regulatory burden on rural America. 

Senator FISCHER. Mr. Bookbinder, you stated in your testimony 

that the reduction target submitted by the President would also be 

attributed to unknown regulatory measures. Those are going to add 

costs to families and businesses. Do you have any idea what some 

of those unknowns would be, what the Administration needs to be 
102 

looking at in order to meet those requirements that they have set 

out for the American people? 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Senator, let me make sure I understand your 

question. You are asking, am I aware of what the regulatory measures the Administration is contemplating to make up what I call 

the gap, I have no idea what the Administration is contemplating. 

None. 

Senator FISCHER. Do you have suggestions or any ideas on where 

the Administration might be looking? 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. No client has come to me to ask me to try and 

figure out where those missing tons have come from. If they did, 

I would be delighted to think about it. But my job so far was to 

say, hey, there is just a missing bunch of tons here. 

Senator FISCHER. I guess I am not going to pay you then, to give 

me an answer. Is that correct? 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. I certainly don’t want to add to the deficit. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Mr. Holmstead, do you think that existing U.S. law, particularly 

the Clean Air Act, authorizes the President to achieve the carbon 

reductions that are promised in this international carbon commitment? 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. No, I don’t see how the Clean Air Act can be 

used to get the reductions that they have promised. Again, if I can 

just point out, the Clean Air Act hasn’t changed really since 1990. 

So if the Clinton administration believed that it could have 

achieved these reductions under the Clean Air Act, you would 

think it would have done something. 

So what we are seeing is an incredibly creative use of the Clean 

Air Act in ways that I think the courts are almost certainly going 

to strike down. 

Senator FISCHER. So more lawsuits in the future. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

This is a very important hearing. It kind of calls into question 

the can-do capacity of the United States in order to meet big challenges. Can we do it? We know the threat is there. Do we have the 

capacity to do it? 

Well, back in 2005, the annual U.S. carbon pollution was the second highest level ever, just slightly lower than the peak of 2007. 

Back then in 2005, fuel economy standards for the United States 

were 27.5 miles per gallon. 

We passed a new law. The President implemented the law. For 

model year 2016, the average is going to be 34 miles per gallon. 

No one had that on the books in 2007. But we passed a law. And 

that is dramatically reducing emissions, and it is going up to 54.5 

miles per gallon by the year 2025. We can do it. 

Same thing is true for the price of natural gas. It was $7.33 per 

1,000 cubic feet in 2005. And that price has plummeted. No one 

had that on the books that through new fracking technology we 

would see such a dramatic reduction in natural gas prices that 

would substitute natural gas for coal, reducing right there by 50 

percent the amount of emissions that were coming out. 
103 

No one had that on the books. Technology and innovation made 

the difference. 

In 2005, we connected a mere 79 megawatts of solar for the 

whole year and about 2,400 megawatts of wind. That is 2005. In 

2014, we added 7,000 megawatts of solar up from 79 megawatts in 

2005. We expect to add 11,000 megawatts of wind just this year. 

That is not on the books in 2005. 

This is innovation. This is America saying, there is a problem, 

we are going to solve it. 

So if we can make those kinds of changes, then the sky is the 

limit if we have a sense of American can-do. 

In New England, New York, Delaware, Maryland, we implemented a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. From 2007 until 

today, we have reduced our greenhouse gases across those nine 

States by 40 percent. In Massachusetts, we saw an increase in our 

gross domestic product by 29 percent at the same time. 

We can do it. We can do it. We have to believe in innovation. 

So let me come to you, Dr. Hausker. From your perspective, what 

do these changes in the last 8, 9, 10 years mean in terms of what 

is possible in the future, from your perspective? 

Mr. HAUSKER. Senator Markey, I think you offered some great 

examples of the power of innovation, the power of ingenuity and 

the way American business can rise to challenges and produce not 

only jobs and economic growth, but fewer greenhouse gas emissions. 

The kind of things driving some of the changes that you cited is 

we are in the middle of a clean energy revolution. Over the last 5 

years, we have seen the cost of wind power decrease by 58 percent. 

We have seen the cost of solar PV decrease by 78 percent. That is 

innovation, that is achieving economies of scale and those trends 

can continue also with supportive public policies and can lead to 

the kind of decarbonization of the economy as we continue to grow 

and provide jobs. 

We have seen that across vehicles, power generation, HFC reduction technologies, across the board we are seeing the innovation 

that can deliver on the kinds of reduction targets the Obama administration is set. 

Senator MARKEY. But again, we have to drive the innovation. 

When the Wright brothers were taking that first flight in 1903, at 

Kitty Hawk, even they would not have envisioned the role an airplane would play in World War I, just 14 years later. They could 

never have imagined. But because of the commitment of innovation, because of the American can-do, it revolutionized the rest of 

the world. 

Dr. Hausker, your analysis found that the United States could 

meet the President’s proposed targets with existing authority. Mr. 

Bookbinder’s testimony finds an emissions gap. Can you tell us 

why your arithmetic adds up? 

Mr. HAUSKER. Yes, thank you. Here is how, I have reviewed Mr. 

Bookbinder’s analysis, and here is how I can explain why he has 

one set of conclusions and the WRI analysis has a different set of 

conclusions. 

I think I understand what you did, Mr. Bookbinder. You have 

looked at rules that have been finalized or rules that are in near- 
104 

finalized state across some different end uses and sectors and 

added up their emissions reductions as projected for 2025 and compared that to the target. 

What is final or near final doesn’t add up yet. The WRI analysis, 

which I would be happy to put into the record, looks beyond what 

is just finalized and near-finalized. We look at the potential across 

the economy for the use of existing Federal authority to reduce 

emissions. 

So that looks beyond some of the categories you looked at. We 

also looked at industry, at aviation, at some reductions in the trace 

greenhouse gases like PFC and SF6. We also looked at deeper 

gains from energy efficiency, deeper gains from the reductions. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Hausker, I hear you are being gaveled. I 

thank you. I agree with you. I would just say this, Wright brothers, 

Elon Musk, that kind of innovation if we keep the rules in place. 

We will solve this problem. We just have to believe in ourselves. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

the panelists, too. This is a very interesting discussion. I don’t 

know if the panelists know, I come from West Virginia, which is 

heavily impacted by the Clean Power Plan. We have had heavy impacts to this point with the MATS ruling. 

I would like to stick on the legal parameters to begin with, at an 

agreement that could be reached in Paris. My colleague from Massachusetts was touting the fact of more efficiencies in cars. One of 

the quotes he used was, we passed a law, we, being Congress, 

passed a law and forced that. So I think that is the crux of the argument, for me, especially after the decision of the Supreme Court 

last week. 

So Mr. Holmstead, the Administration is relying on the Clean 

Power Plan to deliver a substantial share of 26 to 28 percent reduction. But we know that the Clean Power Plan is going to be on 

shaky legal ground. We don’t know when this is going to be settled. 

It could be overturned in whole or in part just as the Supreme 

Court rejected EPA’s Mercury Rule last week, by not considering 

economic impact. We keep trying to get the EPA to come to West 

Virginia to look at the economic impacts of their regulations, and 

we have yet to achieve that. 

So what are the domestic legal implications of a Paris agreement 

that commits the U.S. to a level of emission requirements that the 

courts could later then determine were faulty EPA interpretations 

of the Clean Air Act? How would you see that? 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. I don’t understand how the President’s pledge 

can change domestic law. And Professor Rabkin may know more 

than I do about these issues, but I thought a lot about what would 

happen, what kind of a lawsuit would somebody bring. I think the 

answer is that there is nothing like that. 

That is why, again, I think it is a problem to have the President, 

no matter what you think about climate change, why should the 

President be out making commitments on behalf of the country 

that he has no way of meeting? That is my real problem. 

So I don’t see how he can change domestic law by making that 

kind of a unilateral agreement. 
105 

Senator CAPITO. Would you agree, Professor Rabkin? You have 

pretty much addressed this issue. 

Mr. RABKIN. So there is this canon of construction that you 

should avoid interpreting a statute in a way that puts it in conflict 

with international law. If there were a treaty that had been ratified by the Senate, I think it would be a plausible argument which 

might move some justices or some judges on an appellate panel to 

say, let’s avoid the conflict with a treaty. 

I think it is really a big stretch to say, let’s avoid a conflict with 

a President’s political commitment because he promised. That is 

really allowing the President to rewrite statutes, just because he 

has foreign friends. I don’t think that can work. 

Senator CAPITO. Mr. Bookbinder, let me ask you a question. The 

system of pledging review that Paris is based on seems to confer, 

gives a lot of flexibility on developing nations, but more hard commitments by industrial nations like the United States, both in 

terms of emission reductions and possible financial obligations. 

I have already spoken about my State and what we see in terms 

of what kinds of impacts this could have, the Clean Power Plan 

and further agreements could have on a State such as ours. We are 

so heavily reliant on coal. We have a lot of it as a resource, we 

have a lot of natural gas. We are happy about that. 

Are there any safeguards that are being considered to protect 

American industries, consumers, workers? We already know the 

cost of our power is going to go up and the cost of energy is going 

to go up. What kinds of parameters in an agreement are to be considered as you look at us as an industrialized nation in contract to 

the developing nations? 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. Senator, you are going to hear words from me 

that you rarely hear in Washington, which is, I don’t know. I know 

almost nothing about the Paris process. I will defer to people who 

do. 

I simply looked at the U.S. commitment and added up the numbers. I think Dr. Hausker and I have a slight difference. He said 

I looked at measures. I looked at every one of the measures that 

Secretary of State Kerry put in the INDC. So I simply took the 

measures that the Secretary of State put in the INDC and added 

them up. If there are others, then there are others. He didn’t put 

them in the INDC. 

Senator CAPITO. Mr. Holmstead, do you have any reaction to 

that? Or is that something, in terms of developing nations commitments and industrialized nations, are we looking at what kind of 

advantage or disadvantage that would play and how it might impact us? 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. I don’t think there is any explicit consideration 

of that in Paris. 

Senator CAPITO. It sounds like a Supreme Court decision to me. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me thank Mr. Hausker for bringing up the value 

of the price on carbons, since I have a bill to exactly that effect, 

that appears to comport with at least the general principles that 
106 

most of the Republican study groups that have looked at this issue 

require, i.e., that the money go back to the American people and 

not be used to fund any growth in Government. 

Let me just sort to set a baseline for the hearing ask each witness to answer the following question. That is, if you believe that 

climate change, man-made, through carbon emissions, is a serious 

problem that merits the sincere attention of Congress. Mr. 

Hausker. 

Mr. HAUSKER. I completely agree with that statement. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Ms. Ladislaw. 

Ms. LADISLAW. I agree. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Holmstead. 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. I agree. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Bookbinder. 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. I agree, and I want to add one thing. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me finish what I have asked first. Mr. 

Rabkin. 

Mr. RABKIN. Sure. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I could hear through the hearing, and I 

have heard a lot of my colleagues talk about their concern that the 

gap would be an opening to regulate agriculture in different ways. 

I would simply urge my Republican colleagues who are concerned 

about that to talk to big American corporations like Cargill, which 

are heavily, heavily invested in agriculture. Big American companies like Mars that depend on agriculture for their product lines. 

I think you will find that they are urging the agricultural sector 

to move in this direction on their own. This isn’t some plan that 

just got hatched in the White House. Because they understand that 

climate change is real. We on a bipartisan basis have done things 

like approve funding for biodigesters in the Agriculture Bill to help 

reduce the methane. That is a pretty simple way of addressing the 

manure from ginormous feed lots that put out tons and tons of manure. 

So it is not as if there are not ways that we can address this in 

a bipartisan fashion. There are ways we already are beginning to 

address this in a bipartisan fashion and ways in which the corporate community, particular big American corporations, are leading us on this. 

I hope that we can address the question of regulatory burden in 

this Committee, but I don’t think that we can address the question 

of regulatory burden in the context of a Committee that refuses to 

acknowledge that climate change is real. I am glad that all the witnesses get it. I doubt if we polled the Republican side of this Committee you get the same answers. 

It is unfortunate, because I think it is hard to address a problem 

that people are busy denying is a real problem. I particularly note 

what I consider to be the baleful effect of the Citizens United decision. We actually had a lot of good, bipartisan work going on climate change until the Citizens United decision came along. 

In this Committee, John Warner was the Republican co-author 

of Warner-Lieberman. Senator Cantwell and Senator Collins got together to do a very significant cap and dividend bill back in the cap 

and trade era. Senators like Senator Flake have written articles 

saying that a carbon tax would be the way to go as long as, again, 
107 

back to the original requirement, it is revenue neutral, the money 

goes back to the American people. 

Senator Kirk, back in the day, voted for the Waxman-Markey 

bill. Senator McCain campaigned vigorously for President as the 

Republican nominee on doing something about climate change. 

So there is a steady, steady heartbeat of Republican activity until 

Citizens United happened in January 2010. After that, it has been 

like the EKG flat-lined. I think there is a direct correlation between the fossil fuel industry taking advantage of the bullying and 

manipulating power that Citizens United gave it to perform exactly 

those tasks and trying to bring the Republican party in Congress 

to heel. Unfortunately, I think they succeeded in doing so. 

Fortunately, the American people have a very different point of 

view. There is going to be a big accountability moment in November 2016, when the Republican party has to take what is presently 

its theory about carbon change, which is either it is not real or people don’t have anything to do with it or I don’t want to talk about 

it and vet that before the American voters. I don’t think that is 

going to be a very healthy moment for that particular set of political theories. 

So I hope we can continue to work together on this. But I do 

think that Citizens United has had a really, really unfortunate effect on this conversation. My time is over, so I will yield. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Senator Boozman, thank you for 

your patience. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Not much choice on who to recognize. 

Senator INHOFE. That is right. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much, and thank all of you 

for being here. 

As Senator Markey said, we can and should be very proud of the 

innovations we have made and the ability of America’s can-do spirit. The other side of that, though, is that we are a Nation of laws. 

We have checks and balances in place. There is a proper way to 

do things. So I guess the real question is, does the President have 

the authority to go overseas and strike an agreement that is very, 

very far reaching. 

In listening to the panel today, and you have done an excellent 

job, really representing both sides, but anybody who has listened 

today, anybody who has read the literature, there is profound disagreement as to whether or not this 26 to 28 percent can be 

reached and what it would take to do that. 

Mr. Holmstead, in the course of studying, being a part of the 

Clean Air Act for many, many years, how long under the current 

scenario that we are doing, how long would it actually take to get 

to a goal like that? 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. The single biggest thing that the Administration has promised to do is something called the Clean Power Plan. 

And their assertion is that that can achieve a significant reduction. 

It is maybe half of what the President would need to get to 26 percent. 

I have been dealing with the Clean Air Act for 25 years. I just 

don’t think the courts are going to uphold that. It is so far beyond 

what the statute says. So if you take that away, you are looking 
108 

at things that could improve the efficiency of a lot of different 

things, cars we already have, we could do other things. But I don’t 

see how you get to 26 to 28 percent. And I can tell you we can’t 

get there by 2025. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But even with that, if the courts did uphold 

it, you still have a huge problem in doing something different even 

getting to the 26 to 28 percent. 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. Yes. 

Senator BOOZMAN. That would take decades. 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. I want to point out there, is not such a disagreement between Mr. Bookbinder and Mr. Hausker. They both 

have said that what the Administration has announced is not 

enough to get you there. Mr. Hausker believes there are many 

other things that they and States can do. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Exactly. 

Mr. HOLMSTEAD. But the EPA doesn’t have that authority, in my 

view. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So in the case of the international climate 

agreement proposed by the President, does anyone disagree that it 

won’t drive up the cost of food, fuel and electricity for American 

families and have an impact on domestic policies ranging from agriculture to energy to transportation if we were able to do this 26 

to 28 percent reduction? 

Mr. HAUSKER. The analysis that we have performed and the 

analysis of other groups that we have reviewed indicate that the 

U.S. can maintain economic growth, that it can maintain job creation. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I don’t mean to interrupt, but you don’t disagree that it is going to drive up the cost of food, fuel, electricity 

for American families and have a significant impact on domestic 

policies to achieve the 26 to 28 percent? 

Mr. HAUSKER. I can’t make any broad, sweeping statements. The 

impacts are going to vary by sector. If we look at electricity, for instance, and we look at the impacts, the projected impacts of the 

Clean Power Plan, we find that although the price of electricity 

may go up, the efficiency programs that would accompany it would 

actually decrease demand and that average residential bills would 

be constant or could actually decline. 

So things interplay in different ways. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But you would acknowledge this is a big deal? 

To reach a 26 to 28 percent reduction, you are going to have far 

reaching things. 

Mr. HAUSKER. We call it ambitious. It requires a lot of action. It 

requires a lot of operation. 

Senator BOOZMAN. And the question is, does the President have 

the unilateral authority to do that? And that is really kind of 

where we are. 

Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. LADISLAW. I just wanted to say, it is kind of a strange conversation we are having about what authority the President needs 

to make that kind of a commitment, whether it is a domestic or an 

international authority. I think that it is important to keep in mind 

that the Administration has said if they come back with an agree-
109 

ment that they believe legally requires State pass through Congress, they will take it that route. 

So the idea here that we know what the agreement looks like 

and therefore can justify what kind of authority it requires, we 

won’t really know until we get the outcome from Paris. There is 

some speculation about those things, but we don’t really know the 

answer to that question. 

Mr. BOOKBINDER. I would like to take a shot at answering that 

question. The Congress, your predecessors have created this system. Congress wrote a Clean Air Act that says EPA shall regulate 

a pollutant that is anticipated to endanger human health and welfare. EPA has determined, quite reasonably, that carbon dioxide 

and other greenhouse gases do endanger human health and welfare. At which point the Clean Air Act, as written by your predecessors, says EPA must regulate. 

Now, the point I am making is that as a result of that, Congress 

has already put a price on carbon. The regulatory costs, which are 

mandated by the Clean Air Act, are a price on carbon. What some 

in the White House and other people who propose a carbon tax is 

a more economically efficient price. So you are either going to be 

stuck with an inefficient or regulatory price or an efficient carbon 

tax price. Those are your choices. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I 

would say is if you can’t sell it to the Congress, if you can’t sell 

it to the American public, then again, it probably shouldn’t be done 

in this manner. Thank you very much. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boozman. That is a very 

good point. 

I am going to do something, and it is within the power of the 

chair to do it. Senator Boxer wants a full 5 minutes to respond to 

everything. While she was the chairman, I never made that request. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. However, I am going to allow her to do that, 

and no one else coming in, they have now had their chance to come 

down. So we are through hearing from other members. 

We will acknowledge Senator Boxer for 5 minutes, then I will acknowledge myself for perhaps an equal amount of time. Then it is 

over, you guys. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. 

I am not going to ask any questions. I am just going to thank 

the panel. All of you were terrific. Mr. Bookbinder, you spoke for 

me in your last comments. You are so right, there is a price on carbon. It is not the most efficient way. If we could come together 

around a carbon tax. I also think the international oil companies 

would come into that place, we would be far better served. 

What I want to do in these couple of minutes is just give kind 

of a closing argument about why I think the President has this authority. I agree with Senator Boozman. We are a Nation of laws. 

So I will take you back to 1992, October 7th, when the Senate, by 

unanimous consent, passed the U.N. Framework Convention on 

Climate, under which this President and the next one has the authority to move forward with executive agreements as long as they 
110 

don’t violate our laws, such as the Clean Air Act and our fuel economy and all that. That is his intention. 

I also wanted to speak to Senator Fischer’s point, the point that 

she made as a rancher. You probably know I am not a rancher, I 

am not a farmer, I was born in Brooklyn, New York. There used 

to be farms in Brooklyn, but not when I was born. I am not that 

old. 

I represent a State, along with Senator Feinstein, that has the 

largest ag production in terms of revenue. We are No. 1. If we 

move toward an agreement and toward doing what we have to do 

with very catastrophic climate change, we will save, in our Nation, 

$11 billion a year out through 2050, in avoiding these damages to 

the climate which is going to adversely impact agriculture. 

So it is because I represent this State that I fervently believe 

California is on track and the President is on track. Frankly, the 

Congress is off track. 

Then I think it is very important, Senator Sullivan mentioned 

Larry Tribe. I love Larry Tribe. But I think he sold out in this particular case. It is OK. He took a lot of money from Peabody Coal 

and he is presenting their arguments. He has lost so far. Let’s be 

clear. The courts have ruled against him so far. I am sure he is 

doing a great job but that is where it is at this point. 

I wanted to say to Mr. Holmstead, thank you for your Government service. You were there at EPA for a period of time. When 

you were asked if you felt the EPA was a rogue agency, you gave 

kind of an answer that I sensed was leaning yes at this point. 

When I look back at your service and your time there, your refusal and the refusal of the Bush administration to admit that climate was covered in the Clean Air Act led us to Massachusetts v. 

EPA, in which your side lost and my side won. Now, the point 

there is, maybe EPA was a rogue agency at that time when you 

were there. Because clearly when you read the case, honest to God, 

it says, any pollutant that adversely impacts the climate. 

I am not a lawyer. I am married to one, my father was one, my 

son is one. So maybe by osmosis I am one. But all you have to do 

is read the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration wasted 8 precious long years. It is really worth noting. 

Now, Senator Sessions makes a really good point. He says, 

shouldn’t we use the power of the purse. And the people here who 

agree with Senator Sessions, that this is the wrong way to go, say 

yes, use the power of the purse. And he made the point, we 

shouldn’t have to go against our constituents. 

Let me show you the recent poll, in January 2015. Eighty-three 

percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say if 

nothing is done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a serious problem in the future. Seventy some percent of Americans say 

the Federal Government should be doing a substantial amount to 

combat climate change. That is a Stanford poll. There is also a 

Wall Street Journal poll that has similar findings. 

So I am saying to my friends on the other side, you are on the 

wrong side of the people and you are on the wrong side of history 

because of the way this thing is going. 

Finally, I will close with a comment that was made by Christie 

Todd Whitman, former EPA Administrator under George W. Bush. 
111 

She appeared here on June 18th, 2014: ‘‘I have to begin by expressing my frustration with the discussion about whether or not the 

EPA has the legal authority to regulate carbon emissions that is 

still taking place in some quarters. The issue has been settled.’’ 

She is right. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

First of all, this hearing today is not a science hearing. The questions that were asked of you, I am sure it was difficult to answer 

them. You didn’t come here with that perspective. You came here 

for the what are we going to do about Paris and what about this 

21st meeting that is coming up, what power does the President 

have to do these things that he seems to think he can do without 

any ratification by Congress. 

I would suggest, I want to clarify a couple of things. Senator 

Boxer used the statement that 56 percent of the people in Congress 

would adopt something that would be any type of cap and trade or 

a similar kind of restriction. That is not exactly true, because that 

was on a majority, a vote on a motion to proceed. I have many 

times, and every Senator up here has many times voted to proceed 

to something to hear it without supporting it. 

The specific votes, the highest one it ever got was 48 percent. 

And that was the Warner-Lieberman vote, and then 38 percent and 

43 percent. 

Now, no useful purpose would be used, because I hear the same 

things over and over again. I have stood on the floor. I was down 

there during the time that right after Tom Steyer put in his $75 

million to elect people that wanted to revive the old global warming 

argument. I went down there and listened and I heard the same 

things that have been rebuked many times before. They keep coming up. 

We heard it from three of the members over here today. They 

talked about, oh, the weather consequences, the serious consequences, droughts, and in fact that the severe drought, that 34 

percent covered 80 percent of the country compared to 25 percent 

in 2011. We have all these statements that were made. 

In fact, Professor Rabkin, your university, George Mason, did a 

study of all the meteorologists, not all of them, but a sampling of 

meteorologists. They reported that 63 percent of the weather forecasters, those are meteorologists on TV, believe that any global 

warming that occurs is a result of natural variation and not human 

activities. 

Here is a good one here. Dr. Martin Hertzberg, he is one I knew 

personally, a very proud liberal Democrat, retired naval meteorologist with a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, also declared his dissent 

of warming fears. He said ‘‘As a scientists and a lifelong liberal 

Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal fearmongering claptrap about human-caused global warming to be a 

disservice to science.’’ Continuing, he said ‘‘The global warming 

alarmists don’t even bother with data. All they have are half-baked 

computer models.’’ He goes on and on. 

Then there is Richard Lindzen. I remember him very well, because he testified here before this Committee. He said that regulating carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you regulate carbon, you 

regulate life. I am sure some of you remember that. 
112 

He is one who has been with MIT. Same thing with sea level and 

some of the other arguments. 

But I do want to mention this. The most recent poll that Gallup 

came out with, they sent a list, and these are the 25—I will make 

this a part of the record—national concerns of Americans. Dead 

last on that list is climate change. 

I know people want to believe it, people want to believe the world 

is coming to an end. Quite frankly, confession is good for the soul. 

I recall when I first was exposed to this, and everyone said it was 

true, so I assumed it was until they came out, it was MIT and 

some other groups, came out and said how much it would cost if 

we were to pass the cap and trade type of legislation that came 

originally from McCain and Lieberman. The range has been between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. That has not really 

changed. 

So I did the math in the State of Oklahoma. Each family in my 

State of Oklahoma that files a Federal tax return would end up 

paying about $3,000 a year. 

By the admission of President Obama’s first director, Lisa Jackson, of the EPA, when asked the question when she was sitting at 

the table right where you are sitting today, if we were to pass some 

type of a cap and trade legislation, either by legislation or regulation, would this have the effect of lowering CO2 emissions nationwide, she said, no, it wouldn’t. The reason was because this isn’t 

where the problem is. It is in China and India and other places. 

By the way, I know all this talk about what China is going to 

do, they haven’t committed to anything. The President came back 

and he talked about this great achievement that he made. They 

didn’t commit to anything at all. 

Now they say, well, we are going to increase our emissions of 

CO2 between now and 2025, then we are going to start decreasing 

it. That is a deal? It is really not. 

So I only want to say that we have had the science hearing. It 

is a controversial subject. And I am glad that we are having this 

hearing today. I personally, as I said in my opening statement, 

went to Copenhagen and was at that time, this was after all the 

leadership, as perceived by the other 191 countries, were all on one 

side. I said no, what they are telling you isn’t true. We are not 

going to be passing cap and trade as they told you. This was 2009. 

And of course, that didn’t happen. 

We will continue to look at this. We are concerned about any 

issue that comes before this Committee, and we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 

Æ