S. HRG. 113–771 

CLIMATE CHANGE: THE NEED TO ACT NOW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 18, 2014 

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

( 

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

CLIMATE CHANGE: THE NEED TO ACT NOW 

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

98–181 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–771 

CLIMATE CHANGE: THE NEED TO ACT NOW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR 

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 18, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Senate 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 THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana(ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 18, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 1 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 12 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 13 

Barrasso, Hon. John U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming ........................... 18 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 20 

Inhofe, Hon. James U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ........................... 21 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .................... 37 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ......................... 39 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................. 40 

Sessions Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the state of Alabama ............................... 41 

Booker, Hon. Corey, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........................ 43 

WITNESSES 

Ruckelshaus, William D., Strategic Advisor, Madrona Venture Group and 

Former Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...................... 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 53 

Response to an additional question from Senator Sessions .......................... 53 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 53 

Whitman, Christine Todd, President, The Whitman Strategy Group; Former 

Governor, State of New Jersey; and Former Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 88 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 97 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Booker .......................................................................................... 97 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 98 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 109 

Reilly, William K., Senior Advisor, TPG Capital; Chairman Emeritus, 

Climateworks Foundation; and Former Administrator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 110 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 112 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 116 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter ................................ 116 

Thomas, Lee M., Former Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................................... 129 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 131 

Botkin, Daniel, Professor Emeritus of Biology, University of California, Santa 

Barbara ................................................................................................................. 133 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 136 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 168 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 169 

Strange, Hon. Luther, Attorney General, State of Alabama ................................ 173 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 175 

Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter .............................. 183 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sessions ............................ 184 

Page

IV 

Joseph, Mason, R., Hermann Moyse, Jr./Louisiana Bankers Association Endowed Professor of Banking, Louisiana State University and Senior Fellow, 

The Wharton School ............................................................................................. 186 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 188 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 207 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 209 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 211 

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS 

William J. Haun; The Clean Air Act as an Obstacle to the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Anticipated Attempt to Regulate Greenhuse Gas Emissions from Existing Power Plants ....................................................................... 252 

Paul C. Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels; Global Science Report ........... 268 

Thinkprogress; The Progress Report, Here Come the Kochs ............................... 284 

Politico Kochs Launch New Super PAC for Midterm Fight ................................. 286 

Letter; Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General Re: EPA’s Asserted Authority 

Under Section 11(d) of the Clean Air Act to Regulate CO2 Emissions from 

Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants ...................................................................... 289 

National Journal; The New Energy Paradigm, Coal Country’s Decline Has 

a Long History ...................................................................................................... 298 

Letter; Nine Governors to President Barack Obama ............................................ 300 

(1) 

CLIMATE CHANGE: THE NEED TO ACT NOW 

Wednesday, June 18, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Whitehouse, Cardin, Sanders, Markey, 

Gillibrand, Booker, Sessions, Barrasso, Crapo, Boozman, Inhofe 

and Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The hearing of the EPW Subcommittee on 

Clean Air and Nuclear Safety will come to order. 

We will have opening statements from the members limited to 5 

minutes each followed by introduction and swearing of the witnesses, followed by the testimony of the witnesses. I know that 

Ranking Member Sessions will be joining us later. I would like to 

thank him and members of the subcommittee and our witnesses for 

being here today to discuss the need to act on carbon pollution and 

climate change. 

We are privileged to have before our subcommittee four former 

Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency. All of 

them solved contentious environmental problems during their tenures working for Republican presidents. Now they are banding together to bring attention to the biggest environmental threat of all, 

climate change. 

In a New York Times op-ed written last year, that I would like 

to enter into the record, without objection, these former Administrators stated, ‘‘We have a message that transcends political affiliation. The United States must move now on substantive steps to 

curb climate change at home and internationally.’’ 

[The referenced information follows:] 

2 


98181.167
3 


98181.168
4 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. They are four in a large choir of voices 

singing the same tune on this issue. Major corporations are concerned about climate change and have already started reducing 

their own emissions. The BICEP climate declaration is signed by 

more than 750 companies, including nameplate American brands 

like eBay, Gap, Levi, L’Oreal, Mars, Nike and Starbucks. 

The declaration states, in part, ‘‘We cannot risk our kids’ futures 

on the false hope that the vast majority of scientists are wrong. 

Leading is what we have always done and by working together, regardless of politics, we will do it again.’’ I will enter a copy of that 

declaration into the record, without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

5 


98181.169
6 


98181.170
7 


98181.171
8 


98181.172
9 


98181.173
10 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. National defense leaders have sounded the 

alarm that climate change is a serious national security threat. 

There are also scientists, outdoorsmen, faith leaders, State and 

local officials and countless others demanding action. 

I understand that many of my colleagues are from States that 

depend on fossil fuels and have fossil fuel economies. They want to 

protect jobs in those industries. I get that and it is proper, but I 

also ask that they look at the other side of the ledger, the side of 

the ledger that affects States like Rhode Island. 

Our side of the ledger includes costs like damage to coastal 

homes, infrastructure and businesses from rising seas, erosion and 

storm surge, hospitalizations and missed school and work days for 

the families of kids suffering from asthma attacks triggered by 

smog, forests dying from beetle infestations and destroyed by unprecedented wildfire seasons, farms ravaged by worsened drought 

and flooding. Our side of the ledger counts too. Do not pretend we 

do not exist. 

Recently, the EPA used its Clean Air authority as an established 

by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court to propose carbon 

pollution standards for the Country’s existing power plants. As proposed, the rule will reduce carbon pollution while providing as 

much as $93 billion in public benefit per year by 2030. 

As you can see from this chart, a recent Washington Post, ABC 

News poll, found that 70 percent of the public supports Federal 

standards to limit greenhouse gas pollution. I am not sure if it is 

clear but the rightmost bar is Republicans who overwhelmingly 

support power plant regulations. 

Just this morning, the Wall Street Journal and an NBC news released polling data saying two-thirds of Americans support President Obama’s new climate rule and more than half said the U.S. 

should address global warming even if it means higher electric 

bills. 

The effects of climate change are apparent across our Country. 

At the Newport tide gauge, sea level is up almost 10 inches since 

the 1930’s. What do you think will happen when a hurricane as 

powerful as the devastating hurricane of 1938 rolls into the shores 

of Rhode Island on seas that are 10 inches higher? 

Louisiana is losing a football field of wetlands every hour due in 

part to sea level rise. According to measurements at NOAA’s Dolphin Island Station, sea level rise is up five inches along the Alabama coast between 1966 and 2006. That is five more inches of 

ocean to batter Mobile Bay during storms. 

Then there is Florida, ground zero for climate change. In October 

2012, streets and homes in Hendricks Isle, Florida were flooded but 

not because of a storm. It all happened on a beautiful, sunny day. 

It was just extreme high tides pushed into the town by sea level 

rise. Climate change is a challenge we have a solemn duty to solve. 

Again, I thank the witnesses for joining us. The committee has 

much to learn from the collective experience of the former Administrators as we address this American challenge. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:] 

11 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

I’d like to thank Ranking Member Sessions, members of the subcommittee, and 

our witnesses for being here today to discuss the need to act on climate change. 

We are privileged to have before our subcommittee today four former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

All of them solved contentious environmental problems during their tenures working for Republican presidents. Now they’re banding together to bring attention to 

the biggest environmental threat of all—climate change. In a New York Times oped written last year that I’d like to enter into the record, these former administrators stated, ‘‘[W]e have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United 

States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and 

internationally.’’ 

They are four in a large choir of voices singing the same tune on this issue. Major 

corporations, are concerned about climate change and have already started reducing 

their own emissions. The BICEP Climate Declaration is signed by more than 750 

companies, including nameplate American corporations like eBay, Gap, Levi’s, 

L’Oreal, Mars, Nike, and Starbucks. It states, in part, ‘‘We cannot risk our kids’ futures on the false hope that the vast majority of scientists are wrong—Leading is 

what we’ve always done. And by working together, regardless of politics, we’ll do 

it again.’’ I will enter a copy of the declaration into the record. The defense community has sounded the alarm that climate change is a serious national security 

threat. There are also scientists, outdoorsmen, faith leaders, State and local officials, 

and countless others demanding action. 

I understand that many of my colleagues are from states that depend on fossil 

fuels, and they want to protect jobs in those industries. But I also ask that they 

look at the side of the ledger that affects states like Rhode Island. Our side of the 

ledger includes costs like damage to coastal homes, infrastructure, and businesses 

from rising seas, erosion, and storm surge; hospitalizations and missed school and 

work days for the families of kids suffering from asthma attacks triggered by smog; 

forests dying from beetle infestations and destroyed by unprecedented wildfire seasons; farms ravaged by worsened drought and flooding. Our side of the ledger 

counts, too. 

Recently, the EPA used its Clean Air Act authority, as established by Congress 

and affirmed by the Supreme Court, to propose carbon pollution standards for the 

country’s existing power plants. As proposed, the rule will reduce carbon pollution 

while providing as much at $93 billion in public health and climate benefits per year 

by 2030. As you can see from this chart, a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 

found that 70 percent of the public supports Federal standards to limit greenhouse 

gas pollution. 

Chart 

And just this morning, the Wall Street Journal and NBC-News released polling 

data saying two-thirds of Americans support President Obama’s new climate rule 

and more than half say the U.S. should address global warming even if it means 

higher electricity bills. 

The effects of climate change are apparent across our country. At the Newport 

tide gauge, sea level is up almost ten inches since the 1930’s. What do you think 

will happen when a hurricane as powerful as the devastating hurricane of 1938 rolls 

into the shores of Rhode Island on seas that are ten inches higher? [Hurricane 1938 

photo]. Louisiana is losing a football field of wetlands every hour due in part to sea 

level rise. According to measurements at NOAA’s Dauphin Island station, sea level 

has risen approximately five inches along the Alabama coast between 1966 and 

2006. In addition to eroding the coastline, that’s five more inches of ocean that batter Mobile Bay during storms. And then there is Florida, ground zero for climate 

change. In October 2012, streets and homes in Hendrick’s Isle, FL, were flooded— 

but not because of a storm. It all happened on a beautiful sunny day. It was just 

extreme high tides, pushed into the town by sea-level rise. 

Climate change is a challenge that can and must be solved. Again I thank the 

witnesses for joining us. The committee has much to learn from the collective experience of the four former administrators as we address this urgent threat. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I went over by a minute so Senator Vitter 

will have an extra minute. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I start, if I could make a unanimous consent request, we 

have at least eight empty chairs in the room. There are plenty of 

folks outside, many of whom have traveled a long distance to be 

12 

here. We also have standing room, so I would make the unanimous 

consent request that at least 10 or 12 more folks be let in for this 

important discussion. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I would be happy to allow folks to be let 

into the extent that there are empty chairs that are not reserved 

for anyone. We will let the committee staff sort that out. 

Senator VITTER. Let me clarify. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. One of the people who is not here is one 

of your witnesses. 

Senator VITTER. We will keep the seat for him. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I assume that he has staff with him, so I 

want to be polite to your witness. 

Senator VITTER. I think that is permission for about 10 other 

folks to come in. Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses here today, 

certainly including Dr. Daniel Botkin, Dr. Joseph Mason and Hon. 

Luther Strange. 

The science and economic consequences and legal underpinnings 

of the EPA’s actions to advance the President’s climate action plan 

are topics the Administration does not want to discuss in detail. 

However, their unilateral actions will increase America’s electricity bills, decrease family disposable income and result in real 

job losses for little or no measurable impact on our ever changing 

climate. 

On June 2, EPA proposed an unprecedented rule targeting our 

Country’s electricity system. Using a provision in the Clean Air Act 

that has only been used five times in 40 years, EPA requires States 

to set performance standards that apply to the entire electricity 

system, mandating renewable energy and rationing energy on 

which families and businesses rely. 

EPA argues that this rule is a gift to States that provides States 

with flexibility. In reality, that is a complete red herring. States 

are forced into achieving questionable emission reduction targets 

from a limited menu of economically damaging and legally questionable options. 

States are left little choice but to join or create regional cap and 

trade programs which achieves the Administration’s goal of making 

sure we all pay more for energy. 

Electricity prices right now in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative States and California are 45 percent higher than in my 

home State of Louisiana. Fifty-six percent of Louisiana families already spend at that lower rate an average of 21 percent of their 

after tax income on energy. They simply cannot afford the higher 

electricity bills that will inevitably result from this rule. 

The rule is billed as climate change mitigation with America 

leading the way. Unfortunately, anyone who has actually read the 

645 page rule finds it has no material effect on global average temperature or sea level rise. The major of the benefits touted by EPA 

come from double accounting reductions of other emissions already 

regulated through other measures. 

13 

While this Administration expects other governments to consider 

the global consequences of their greenhouse emissions when regulating, there is absolutely no reason to presume the world’s biggest 

emitters will follow us down this path of economic destruction. 

In fact, much of the world is changing course. Our friends in Europe have adopted similar carbon constraining frameworks several 

years ago, filled with government mandates and cronyism and were 

rewarded with harsh economic pain. 

In an effort to recover, Germany is lifting its ban on fracking and 

increasing the use of coal. Spain is abandoning the handouts that 

supported its renewable energy program. Instead of embracing our 

domestic energy resources and the bright economic light they provide in our otherwise poor economy, this climate action plan moves 

us beyond coal and beyond natural gas with serious negative consequences. 

Today, the American electricity system provides affordable, reliable power, 7 days a week, 365 days a year to families, schools, 

hospitals and businesses. The existing source rule as proposed will 

increase costs to all consumers significantly. As always, that especially hits the poor, the elderly and those on fixed incomes for no 

measurable effect on climate change. 

In reality, this rule is essentially a Federal takeover of the American electricity system. Is everyone here really comfortable with the 

EPA being fully, completely responsible for all of those details of 

our electricity system? 

The only thing missing from this strategy is an empty promise 

from the President. If you like your affordable energy, you can keep 

your affordable energy. We like it, we want to keep it. This rule 

will destroy it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Vitter. 

I will turn now to the wonderful Chairman of the Environment 

and Public Works Committee, who I am very honored to have here 

today, a great leader in this effort, Barbara Boxer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Thanks to your work, we are joined by an extraordinary panel. 

I thank all of you for being here. 

We are looking at four former Administrators of the EPA—this 

is really historic—who were appointed by Republican Presidents. 

The Honorable William Ruckelshaus served as the first EPA Administrator under President Nixon and then again under President 

Reagan. The Honorable Lee Thomas served under President 

Reagan. The Honorable William Reilly served under President 

George H.W. Bush. The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman served 

under President George W. Bush. 

I am proud of our landmark environmental laws we created with 

an overwhelming bipartisan consensus. It saddens me more than I 

can ever express in words that protecting the environment at this 

Federal level has become an out and out war, a partisan issue. It 

should not be that way; it wasn’t when I started. 

14 

In 1970, the Clean Air Act passed the Senate by a vote of 73 to 

0, passed by the House by a vote of 375 to 1, was signed by President Nixon. In 1990, revisions to the Clean Air Act passed the Senate by a vote of 89 to 11, by 401 to 21 in the House and was signed 

into law by President George H.W. Bush. 

In the last Congress, the Republicans sent us over 90 anti-clean 

air riders. They are planning to do it now in the back rooms. They 

are working on plans to overturn President Obama’s action plan to 

cut back on carbon pollution. 

We all should know that we need to take action to reduce harmful carbon pollution—97 percent of the scientists agree it is leading 

to dangerous climate change that threatens our families. To say we 

cannot have an opinion, as some of my Republican colleagues have 

done because they are not scientists—you heard them say it. 

Speaker Boehner said it. He said, I am not a scientist. I can’t say 

whether there is climate change. All the more reason to listen to 

a scientist if you are not a scientist. 

We all have health problems in our families and right here in the 

Senate. When doctors tell us we need a heart bypass or cancer 

treatment, we listen. We don’t just say, I am not a doctor, I am not 

going to listen. 

The four former EPA Administrators with us today will testify 

about the need to control carbon pollution to avoid the most calamitous impacts of climate change such as rising sea levels, dangerous 

heat waves and economic disruption. 

The American people certainly understand this threat. You saw 

the poll. It is extraordinary. Democrats, Republicans and independents support the President’s plan. 

As someone with a 95 percent labor record, I want to talk a 

minute about jobs. I want to welcome the people here who work 

with their hands because I respect the work that you do, but I 

want to say two things now. 

One, I want to put in the record the number of jobs in the coal 

industry under George W. Bush, the number of jobs in the coal industry under President Obama and there are more jobs under 

President Obama. There is a lot of talk around here but a lot of 

times we don’t look at the facts, so I will put this in the record with 

your permission. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

15 


98181.219
16 


98181.220
17 


98181.221
18 

Senator BOXER. I also want to say that I lived through all this 

fear mongering about jobs. Between 1970 and 2011, in 1970, we 

passed the Clean Air Act amendments. People were shouting, you 

are a job killer, you are a job killer. What happened? Air pollution 

dropped 68 percent saving our families’ health while the U.S. gross 

domestic product grew 212 percent. Private sector jobs increased by 

88 percent during that same period. 

These scare tactics have been tried before and they are just not 

real. When you look in my State and see the number of jobs that 

have been created as we moved to clean energy, it is very, very encouraging. 

Power plants account for 40 percent of all carbon pollution released into the air. Right now there are no limits to the amount 

of pollution that can be released, carbon pollution, from those 

power plants. 

This is what the President’s plan will do. It will avoid up to 6,600 

premature deaths, 150,000 asthma attacks, 3,300 heart attacks, 

2,800 hospital admissions and 490,000 missed days at school and 

work. 

I ask you, colleagues, when you go home, you speak to kids all 

the time. Ask them how many have asthma or know someone with 

asthma. Half the kids will raise their hands. Why would you attack 

a plan that will avoid so many heart attacks, asthma attacks, 

150,000 asthma attacks? 

It is in America’s DNA to turn a problem into an opportunity. 

Let us do it because I will tell you like many other jobs, you cannot 

outsource putting a solar roof on a home, you cannot outsource putting a wind turbine in place. 

I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his extraordinary leadership. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am now pleased to recognize my friend 

from Wyoming, the distinguished Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

As you know, I am from Wyoming, the most beautiful State in 

the Nation and I want to keep it that way. I believe we have and 

can have a healthy environment and a health economy at the same 

time. We need to do that by striking the right balance between the 

two. 

I believe it is irresponsible to impose costly regulations without 

having real environmental benefits. The cost of these climate 

change regulations on families and on communities is very real. 

The benefits are ill defined. They are unknown or are simply negligible. 

President Obama’s new climate regulations, which are at the 

heart of his climate action plan, will harm our fragile American 

economy, thousands of people will lose their jobs, it will raise electricity prices threaten electricity reliability and undermine America’s global competitiveness. 

Higher energy costs will hurt low income families and fixed income seniors the most, leaving them with less to spend on food, 

housing, health care and other basic necessities. The thousands of 

19 

unemployed and their families will suffer negative health impacts 

as a result of chronic unemployment. Electricity prices and hospital 

visits will necessarily sky rocket. 

Is it worth subjecting many in our Country to a dramatically 

lower quality of life and health for this plan to essentially nationalize our electricity grid? Based on the facts, I would say absolutely 

not. 

We have been told by the U.N. and the EPA that climate change 

will cause serious impacts across the globe. To address this, the 

President put forward his Climate Action Plan. This plan is twofold: first, to have the U.S. nationalize our electricity grid just as 

he has tried to nationalize our healthcare system. 

Nationalizing our electricity grid means taking decisionmaking 

about electricity policy out of the hands of the States, out of the 

hands of the communities and putting it in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. 

This will occur as EPA rejects in whole or in part State energy 

plans for reducing carbon emissions and imposing their own Federal plans under the EPA’s proposed new regulations for existing 

coal-fired power plants. This will happen at a cost of thousands of 

jobs and the public’s health and well being. 

The second part of the President’s plan is to have us believe that 

he can arrive in Paris in 2015 at the U.N. Climate Change Conference and convince the world to follow his lead. The whole plan 

hinges on President Obama’s foreign policy prowess. His foreign 

policy record is a series of empty threats, pivots, resets, missed calculations and lead from behind failures in places like Syria, Russia, 

Iran, Libya and now Iraq. 

After all those missteps, the President expects Americans to believe that in 2015, he can draw a red line along the ChampsElyseesys and demand that China and India stop burning fossil 

fuels. Even if the President was able to reach an agreement like 

the Kyoto treaty of the 1990’s, it would still have to be ratified by 

the Senate. The treaty in the 1990’s overwhelmingly failed in the 

Senate. 

If the President cannot deliver in Paris and subsequently in the 

Senate, we will be left with his domestic climate action plan. 

Americans have been told by the EPA and the U.N. that climate 

change will cause serious impacts to the planet years into the future. The President’s domestic climate action plan they champion 

cannot, on its own, prevent these impacts from happening. 

According to our own U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, in a 

column he wrote in the Financial Times on June 3, he stated, 

‘‘Even as we strive to do better, we recognize that no country can 

solve this problem alone.’’ Even if the U.S. somehow eliminated all 

our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, Secretary Kerry says, ‘‘It 

would not be enough. The rest of the world is spewing too much 

carbon pollution.’’ 

That means that the President’s climate action plan, on its own, 

doesn’t reduce global temperatures or prevent any of the serious 

impacts predicted by the U.N. or the EPA. It can’t even make a 

dent, all the while seniors on fixed incomes, families and children 

suffer high electricity bills, joblessness and poor health. 

20 

This is all pain and little gain with what the President is proposing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Thanks to the kindness of Senator Cardin, Senator Sanders will 

be recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for your tireless efforts on this issue and for organizing this 

very important hearing today. 

I say this as somebody who may have the highest pro-labor voting record in the U.S. Congress, my delight in hearing some of my 

friends on the other side express their interest about the needs of 

low income people, working people and senior citizens. 

I would remind everyone that many of these same people are 

folks who have fought to cut social security, Medicare, Medicaid, 

opposed raising the minimum wage, opposed the kind of jobs program we need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and put millions of people back work and opposed lowering college debts for 

many struggling students in this Country. 

The issue we are dealing with today is of enormous importance. 

It really comes down to whether as a Nation, as the most powerful 

nation on earth, we are going to listen to the science. When we 

build weapons systems that cost billions of dollars, we take it for 

granted that the engineers know what they are talking about. 

When we invest in cancer research through the National Institutes 

of Health, we assume and believe that the doctors and scientists 

know what they are talking about. 

Right now, we are in a very strange moment in American history. That is why traditionally there are differences of opinion on 

labor issues, on health care issues and that is what happens year 

after year. We are now in a very strange moment and that is we 

have virtually an entire political party that is rejecting basic 

science and the science is no longer in doubt. 

Some 97 percent of scientists who have written in peer-reviewed 

journals say the following. Climate change is real, it is significantly 

caused by human activity, and it is already causing devastating 

problems in our Country and throughout the world. 

Yesterday, the newspapers reported that in Arizona, they are 

worrying about how Phoenix and other cities are going to get water 

because of the terrible drought we have seen in the southwest. 

Australia is burning up. We have had extreme weather disturbances, major storms that have cost us billions and billions of dollars. Sea levels are rising which may flood among other cities, the 

great city of New Orleans, New York City and Boston. 

For some strange reason, while we agree on science in almost 

every area of our life, in this area we have a party that says, no, 

climate change is not real; it is maybe a hoax, something concocted 

by Al Gore or Hollywood. 

I am very proud today and want to thank the panelists who are 

here very much, especially the former EPA Administrators who 

were appointed by Republicans. I thank you so much for being here 

21 

because while we can disagree on a million issues, we should not 

disagree on what scientists tell us. We should not disagree when 

scientists tell us that we have a window of opportunity, 10 or 15 

years, to turn this thing around, to lead the world. 

John Kerry said the rest of the world has to go forward. He is 

right but somebody has got to lead. This Country leads. By the 

way, when we lead in transforming our energy system away from 

fossil fuel, we create millions of jobs through weatherization, 

through energy efficiency, through wind and solar, geothermal and 

other technologies that are out there. 

I very much want to thank the former Republican Administrators for coming to Washington to say what I think is true nationally, that intelligent Republicans all over this Country—I am not 

a Republican, my views are very different—but on this issue we 

can at least respect science, we can respect the planet, we can 

transform our energy system and most importantly, maybe at the 

end of the day, we have a moral responsibility for our children and 

grandchildren so that 30 years from now, they do not look us in 

the eye and say, all the scientists told you what was going on, why 

didn’t you do something. We have to do something. 

I thank you all very much for being here this morning. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Sanders. 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding the hearing. 

While I think it is important for us to conduct oversight over the 

ESPS rule, we need to be hearing from Gina McCarthy and Janet 

McCabe and from those who would be affected by the rule which 

includes the utilities, the consumers, the manufacturers, the miners and others. 

We need the record to reflect the whole picture of this rule. We 

need to hear from the experts on electricity reliability like FERC 

and NERC. 

During his time in office, President Obama has pursued a systematic strategy for using the government to take over major sectors of the economy. He started with Obamacare, nationalizing the 

healthcare system. He went on to Dodd-Frank, making bank bailouts a permanent fixture in American society. 

Now we have the first round of global warming regulations which 

would nationalize the electricity market and force Americans to 

live out the President’s green dream. We don’t have to look any further to see Obama’s marvel in Germany to see where the path 

leads. 

I think Senator Vitter covered this pretty well. The fact that they 

are now trying to get out from under the mess they are in. Germany’s cost per kilowatt hour has doubled and is now triple what 

it is here in the United States, all because of the course the President has tried to put us on. 

The Administration may claim that this is unlikely because the 

United States has an abundance of cheap, domestic sources of natural gas. While that is true, I am not naive enough to believe that 

22 

the Administration will stop with coal. In fact, Energy Secretary 

Ernest Monis recently said that natural gas power plants will soon 

need carbon capture sequestration technology and saw it on them 

to comply with global warming rules. That would put them out of 

business. 

It is not just coal. It is oil, gas, coal and even nuclear that is 

under attack. Ultimately, President Obama’s electricity takeover 

will force Americans to use less and less electricity at higher and 

higher prices. The motive is clear. 

I am going to ask that this be made a part of the record. Tom Steyer is a California billionaire who has promised to pump $100 

million into the elections to help Senate Democrats get elected if 

they make global warming a national issue. This isn’t me saying this; this is Tom Steyer. I don’t have $100 

million to give away, he does and this means enough to him. I do 

ask this be made a part of the record. 

Senator SANDERS. Reserving the right to object. 

Senator INHOFE. That is fine. 

Senator SANDERS. I would also like to enter into the record the 

fact that the Koch Brothers representing the fossil fuel industry 

will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this campaign trying 

to defeat Democrats. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you object to having this a part of the 

record? 

Senator SANDERS. So long as mine is able to be entered, I have 

no objection. 

Senator INHOFE. Sure, you can enter it. That is fine. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. By the way, I have the greatest respect for Senator Sanders. We are totally different on our philosophies, I understand that, but we have respect for each other. We have had honest 

debates and this is just one of them. 

I think it is very important that we keep in mind there is a guy 

out there. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The timer will go back on and both documents will be admitted into the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

23 


98181.235
24 


98181.236
25 


98181.237
26 


98181.238
27 


98181.239
28 


98181.240
29 


98181.241
30 


98181.242
31 


98181.243
32 


98181.244
33 


98181.245
34 


98181.246
35 


98181.247
36 

Senator INHOFE. Very good. Thank you. 

We have had the global warming parties on the Senate floor and 

all of that is going on but the reason guys like Tom Steyer have 

to go to such lengths to make the political issue is because the 

American people don’t want anything to do with it. 

He talks about polls. Poll after poll show more and more Americans learn about the impact of greenhouse gas regulations, the 

more effect it will have on the economy, the less they care. The 

Gallup poll that just came out used to list global warming as No. 

1 and two. You remember that Christine back when you had that 

job. Now it is number 14 out of 15 of the major concerns. The people have caught on to this. 

The most important issue is the economy. We know that the previous version of cap and trade are estimated to cost between $300 

billion to $400 billion a year which amounts to about $3,000 for 

every family that files a Federal tax return. Then we have to keep 

in mind even if this was right, even if they were able to do this 

and pass this, it would not reduce, as one of the members said a 

moment ago, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Lisa Jackson, the Director of EPA appointed by Barack Obama, 

made that statement and said, no, it would not reduce because this 

isn’t where the problem is. It is in China, it is in India, Mexico and 

other places. 

The $3,000 per family would be something that would not 

achieve the benefits that the other side seems to think are there. 

This version is going to have a similar impact. The Chamber of 

Commerce estimated one final construct of the rule would cause 

$51 billion in lost GDP each year. The Heritage Foundation estimated it would decrease household income by $1,200 a year. 

These are the facts but they are not talking about the points we 

hear from the other side. Keep in mind also they are trying to do 

this through regulation, Obama is, because he couldn’t do it 

through legislation. We have had countless bills introduced to do 

the very same thing through legislation. Each time they are introduced, they are defeated by a larger margin. 

I think if for no other reason, the mere fact that it has been rejected by the House and the Senate is very significant. Why should 

we through regulation try to do something that the elected members of this body have rejected over and over again? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Today we are joined by four former Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency who were appointed by Republican Presidents: the Honorable William 

Ruckelshaus served as the first EPA Administrator under President Richard Nixon 

and then again under President Ronald Reagan; the Honorable Lee Thomas also 

served under President Reagan; the Honorable William Reilly served under President George H. W. Bush, and the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman served under 

President George W. Bush. 

I am proud that our landmark environmental laws were created with an overwhelming bipartisan consensus, and it saddens me that protecting the environment 

at the Federal level has become a partisan issue. 

In 1970, the Clean Air Act passed the Senate by a vote of 73–0, passed the House 

by 375–1, and was signed into law by President Nixon. 

37 

In 1990, revisions to the Clean Air Act passed the Senate by a vote of 89–11and 

by 401–21 in the House, and were signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. 

But in the last Congress the Republicans then sent us over 90 anti-Clean Air riders. 

We should all know we must take action to reduce harmful carbon pollution, 

which 97 percent of scientists agree is leading to dangerous climate change that 

threatens our families. To say we can’t have an opinion because we are not scientists makes no sense to me. All the more reason to listen to the scientists. 

The four former EPA Administrators with us today will testify about the need to 

control carbon pollution so we can avoid the most calamitous impacts of climate 

change—such as rising sea levels, dangerous heat waves, and economic disruption. 

The American people understand the threats posed by climate change, and they 

want action. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC poll, a bipartisan majority 

of the American people want Federal limits on carbon pollution. Approximately 70 

percent say the Federal Government should require limits to carbon pollution from 

existing power plants, and 70 percent (57 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of 

Independents, and 79 percent of Democrats) support requiring states to limit the 

amount of carbon pollution within their borders. 

Power plants account for nearly 40 percent of all carbon pollution released into 

the air. Unlike other pollutants, right now there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that can be released into the air for power plants. 

The President’s carbon pollution reduction plan will avoid up to 6,600 premature 

deaths, 150,000 asthma attacks, 3,300 heart attacks, 2,800 hospital admissions, and 

490,000 missed days at school and work. 

It is in America’s DNA to turn a problem into an opportunity, and that is what 

we have done by being a pioneer in the green technology industry. These new carbon pollution standards are no different. Landmark environmental laws have bolstered an environmental technology and services sector that employs an estimated 

3.4 million people, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And many of these 

jobs, like installing solar roofs and wind turbines cannot be outsourced. 

I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for putting together this marvelous panel. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

We turn now to Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I thank you for 

your extraordinary leadership on this issue. You have been incredibly helpful to this Country in the leadership you have taken, particularly in your comments on the floor of the U.S. Senate. 

I want to start by thanking our panelists today for what you 

have done to improve the public health for the people in this Nation. You have put public health first and that is what Congress 

intended when it passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water 

Act. It was done by bipartisan votes. 

The Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970 with bipartisan support 

by the Members of Congress in both the House and the Senate and 

signed into law by President Nixon. You have given us the bipartisan or nonpartisan foundation for us to have clean water and 

clean air. Now we need to move forward in that tradition. Unfortunately, we have not. 

I hope we can get back to the same type of spirit that inspired 

you to use your talent at the EPA as we move forward to advance 

the public health of the people of this Country. 

Seven years ago when I was first elected to the Senate, we had 

bipartisan members in the Senate working together on climate 

change legislation. I hope we can get back to that day and get that 

bipartisan coalition together. 

Quite frankly, the solution is one which will answer every member’s concerns. Yes, many of us, most of us, are concerned about 

38 

the environmental public health threat that climate change poses. 

I have the honor of representing the State of Maryland. Our greatest natural resource is the Chesapeake Bay. 

We are doing a lot. We have asked our farmers to do a lot. We 

have asked our developers to do a lot. Our municipal governments 

have done a lot. We have worked together in the public and private 

sector. A large part of the problem deals with climate change, rising sea levels nad the loss of sea grasses. Therefore, climate change 

affects the quality of life for the people of Maryland. 

The scientific information on our environment is pretty clear on 

public health. As pointed out, 97 percent of the published scientific 

documents indicate we have a serious threat that we can do something about and we need to take action. 

By way of example, if I went to a doctor and 97 percent of the 

opinion was that I had pneumonia and unless I took certain action, 

I was risking my health, I would take action, as would every person in this Country. 

It is clear that the overwhelming evidence is that we need to 

take action and move to preserve the public health, not just of 

America, but globally and the future health of our climate. 

The good news is we don’t really have to get into debate with the 

other 3 percent because the solution to the problem of climate 

change not means a cleaner environment and a safer circumstance 

for global climate, it also helps our economy. 

I would just point to the Maryland experience. We passed some 

of the toughest environmental laws for our power plants and it created jobs. We can show you the number of jobs that were created. 

Clean energy creates more jobs than the fossil fuel industry. 

There are those saying maybe this is not true, you certainly want 

to do it for our economic growth in this Country. It also helps us 

with national security. We have talked about that. We have made 

progress and are now more energy secure than we were a few years 

ago because we have invested in cleaner energy sources to help 

support America’s security, economy and our environment. 

I can also point to the fact that from our security point of view, 

many of our military facilities are located on the coast. In Maryland, we are very proud of the Naval Academy, PAX River, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Indian Head. All those are threatened by 

sea level increases. It is in our national security interest to do this. 

The bottom line is the United States needs to exercise leadership. President Obama is doing that by his climate action agenda 

and by regulating what power plants are doing. We have seen our 

President provide the leadership that has made a huge difference. 

It is now time for Congress to step up and join the President so 

America can be a leader in dealing with this global problem that 

affects the security of our Country and affects the future of our 

globe. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Our distinguished Ranking Member and my friend, Senator Sessions, but he has allowed us to keep the existing order so I will recognize Senator Boozman. 

39 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It is good to see the miners here. It is important that you are 

here. 

One topic we are hearing a lot about today is the 97 percent consensus among scientists on climate change. It is important to ask, 

where does this 97 percent number come from and what does it 

mean? 

Many scientists question the level of certainty behind the specific 

climate change scenarios. Others have shown gaps in our knowledge of climate sensitivity. Others have raised questions regarding 

the reliability of climate models and yet scientists who raise any 

of these issues can still be counted as the 97 percent. 

Too often anybody who raises a question or disagrees with the 

left wing political position is called out as opposing views held by 

97 percent of the published climate scientists as we are hearing 

today. 

This is clearly not true. Again, what does this number mean? 

The statistic comes from a 2013 review of scientific literature published between 1991 and 2011. This review found that among abstracts expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming, 97.1 

percent endorsed the consensus position that humans were causing 

global warming. 

Basically, if anyone agrees with human activity’s influence on the 

climate, that is a pretty broad definition. 

Policymakers who disagree with the expensive big government 

left wing climate policies might still actually agree with the 97 percent consensus. Scientists who question important elements of current climate scientists are included in the number. 

For example, last year, this committee received testimony from 

the climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer. To give you an idea of where he 

stands, Dr. Spencer published a book entitled, ‘‘The Great Global 

Warming Blunder, How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad 

Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt 

the Poor.’’ 

Given his outspoken position on climate policy, Dr. Spencer’s 

comments on the 97 percent statistics are noteworthy. He testified 

‘‘The fact that I believe at least some of recent warming is human 

caused makes me in the 97 percent of researchers who recently 

claimed to support the global warming consensus. The 97 percent 

statement therefore is innocuous since it probably includes all of 

the global skeptics I know who are actively working in the field.’’ 

In short, like the offensive term deniers, the 97 percent statistic 

is a misleading tactic used to marginalize people who are concerned 

about hardworking Americans and impose an all pain, no gain energy policy that is bad for our Country and will not change the 

global climate. 

I am not a scientist but I am an optometrist. I spent much of my 

life working with the scientific community. I was a zoology major. 

I have said before that there is nothing scientific about discrediting 

people who present conflicting evidence and ask reasonable questions. 

40 

Politicians aren’t science referees cutting off debate when it suits 

one side and no one has a monopoly on the facts. The bottom line 

is we must ask whether these Obama administration policies are 

worth the lost jobs, lower take home pay, higher gas and electricity 

prices, higher food prices and so on. 

The President once said that his climate policies would make the 

cost of electricity necessarily skyrocket and I believe him. Let us 

remember that the pain will last for decades and falls hardest on 

low income families. We are driving our industries overseas, hurting American workers and creating foreign factories that emit far 

more than we would. 

I believe in American leadership but we are fooling ourselves if 

we believe that China, Russia, India, Vietnam and so forth are 

going to follow the President’s lead and shut down their power 

plants. 

With that said, I thank our witnesses for being here and look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

I will now turn to Senator Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for 

chairing this hearing today on the need to act on climate change 

and for your leadership in the Senate to continue to raise the urgency of this issue. 

Madam Chairwoman, I am deeply grateful for your leadership 

and your continued focus on how important this is for our families 

and our Country. 

Climate change is real, it is here and humans have a role to play 

in it. That much is clear. While it might be easy for some to continue to deny the existence of climate change, we simply do not 

have that luxury in New York. 

In my State, we are seeing the effects of a changing climate 

every single day. Two and a half years ago, Superstorm Sandy devastated coastal New York as well as New Jersey, Connecticut, 

Rhode Island and its effects were long felt on the entire Atlantic 

coast. 

That was just 2 years after two other devastating storms, Hurricane Irene and tropical storm Lee, which cut a path of destruction 

all across the northeast. These major tropical storms in New York 

over a 2-year period is a huge issue we have to face. 

The storm of the century is simply becoming the storm of the 

year. It is not just the storms themselves that are causing the destruction. Sea levels rise and are threatening greater storm surge 

effects, meaning that homes thought to be safe for centuries are 

now at grave risk of flooding. 

Those who deny that climate change is real often talk about the 

potential costs of reducing carbon emissions, but we must weigh 

those costs against the cost of inaction. Inaction on climate change 

will cost the Federal Government and our taxpayers billions and 

billions and billions of dollars. 

41 

We have already seen Superstorm Sandy cost more than $60 billion. In action on climate change also cost homeowners who live in 

coastal communities. Their flood insurance premiums have gone up 

with sea levels rising, it is causing greater flooding and FEMA’s 

flood maps were released a year ago show an expansion of New 

York City’s 100 year flood plain by 15 square miles. That is 45 percent. All of New York City is now having to be contemplated. 

It also has real cost to my State and the people who live there 

when these storms strike. Rebuilding a home or a business is very 

expensive. Suffering the loss of a child or a family member because 

of a storm, you don’t recover from it. These are real costs. These 

have insurmountable losses and effects. 

We have to realize that is the effect of the change in our climate. 

We have to address the issue head on. If we address the issue head 

on, we will save lives, we will lower costs, we will protect families’ 

homes and communities and we will protect businesses. 

We also know for the economy, when we look to reducing our carbon emissions, we also gain greater innovation and business opportunities in clean energy. In fact, a recent report by the Environment Northeast showed that States that do participate in regional 

greenhouse gas initiatives have seen carbon pollution reduced by 

18 percent and their economies have actually grown by 8.8 percent. 

The report also showed that since the launch of RGGI, New 

York’s electricity prices have actually gone down. They have gone 

down by 6 percent. I am confident that we, this Nation, and some 

of the greatest entrepreneurs and innovators in the world can solve 

this problem and do it in the way that can save all Americans 

costs. 

The real and clear issue with regard to climate change is that it 

is a threat we have to take seriously as a Nation. We cannot wait 

for other countries who are even bigger polluters to take leadership. We cannot wait for them to go first. We have to lead. It is 

who we are. We, as Americans, are always in the forefront of real 

reform and change and great innovation. 

Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, again for holding this hearing. 

It is so important for my State and our Country. It is a great opportunity for us to show new creation of jobs and new innovation. 

I think we need to take it head on. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

I now turn to our distinguished Ranking Member and my friend, 

Senator Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

I know these are important issues to you and you have spent a 

lot of time and effort in mastering these issues. 

I am pleased to have our guests with us, the former EPA Administrators. We have indeed made a lot of progress in our Country 

since the Environmental Protection Agency was started several 

years ago. We appreciate your leadership in that regard. 

It is great to have Attorney General Luther Strange, my able 

successor as Attorney General of the State of Alabama. Attorney 

Generals have environmental responsibilities for their States. 

42 

Dr. Mason, it is great to have you and Dr. Botkin, it is wonderful 

to have you with us. I think it will be a good hearing today. 

We have had some agreement on a number of issues that we 

ought to celebrate. We had agreement at one point, I thought, that 

we would expand nuclear power, which emits no CO2 and other 

pollutants into the atmosphere but we are not making much 

progress there. We have lost four plants in the last few years. A 

fifth is due to close, I believe, in 2019 and only two are under construction. 

How do we get clean energy at a reasonable cost without more 

nuclear power, it seems to me? We have had some agreement on 

ethanol though I wonder now whether my votes or my ideas were 

quite as positive as we thought at the time on ethanol. Good people 

disagree on the wisdom of ethanol. 

We have had some good legislation and maybe some over reaching but some good legislation on efficiency. We can agree on how 

to make our automobiles, our plants and our buildings more energy 

efficient but we are concerned about the dramatic economic costs, 

the costs that would fall on the backs of many of the people sitting 

in our audience today who produce that huge portion of our energy, 

coal, and other energy production that will be adversely impacted 

by the President’s regulations. 

We have to ask some tough questions about that. I think we will. 

It has been mentioned that we have had some storms. I would 

note that hurricane Sandy was not a hurricane. By the time it hit 

shore, it was a tropical storm. We are not seeing increases in hurricanes. In fact, it has been 3,100 days since we have had a Category 

3 hurricane in America. That is a remarkable time and maybe one 

of the longest ever. 

IPCC’s fifth climate assessment report released last year said, 

‘‘Current data sets indicate no significant observed trends in global 

tropical cyclone frequency over the past century. Dr. Pilkey testified here that we don’t have more tornadoes, we don’t have more 

droughts and we don’t have more floods, according to the data he 

has evaluated. 

I just say that it is right and just that members who represent 

the people of the United States, the workers of the United States, 

the people who pay electricity bills and pay their gas bills to go to 

work every day, we represent them too. 

We have to ask ourselves are we doing something to this economy that is not good for us and how can we make positive gains 

together without damaging our economy. I would note, just for the 

record, that our colleagues need to know that our economy is struggling. We are not doing well. 

Since 2009, median household income has fallen by $2,300. Since 

2009, 7.2 million people have left the work force. Growth in the 

first quarter of this year was negative 1 percent. One out of every 

six men 25 to 54 is not working today. These are statistics that 

ought to cause us concern. 

We have found that many of the regulations are ineffective. The 

United States’ actions which have been improving with CO2 emissions and we are containing the growth of CO2 more than most 

countries in the world, will be insignificant in the total world impact. 

43 

I hope that this committee hearing will be positive and we can 

find some common ground and work together but CO2 is not the 

kind of pollutant, Ms. Whitman and gentlemen, that you fought effectively—NOx, SOx, particulates, and mercury. CO2 is not that 

same kind of pollutant, it just isn’t, and we have to be careful that 

we don’t hammer this economy attempting to achieve something we 

have very little ability to achieve. 

Thank you, Mr.Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

For our final statement, we have Senator Booker of New Jersey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COREY BOOKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. I appreciate this opportunity. I want to thank 

Ranking Member Sessions and Chairman Whitehouse. 

I want to particularly thank you for having the right kind of 

panel assembled here which are Republican Presidential-appointed 

EPA leaders, including my former Governor, who I am proud and 

happy to see today. I hope you got my cell phone message last 

night. 

I am extraordinarily pleased because it clearly says that this is 

not a left-right issue. This is not an issue of politics, this is an 

issue of facts. To have Republican Presidentially appointed EPA 

heads come out, as they did in their joint editorial, and clearly say, 

we have a problem. 

It frustrates me to no end that this is nothing new. When people 

tell the truth of an environmental problem that we have the capacity to do something about, you hear the same story over and over 

again. 

Chairman Whitehouse, I would like to put into the record an article going back and tracing what everyone used to say about what 

would happen to the economy if we did certain things. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

44 


98181.265
45 


98181.266
46 

Senator BOOKER. It just shows the upward slant of our economy. 

When the 1972 Clean Water Act came out, everyone said the economy would be destroyed, it would cost us jobs—quite the contrary, 

our economy increased. It helped to push our economy forward. 

When the Endangered Species Act came out, everyone said the 

economy would be destroyed, it was going to have horrible effects. 

Quite to the contrary, the American economy continued to surge. 

In 1987, the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, everyone said, the economy would be destroyed and jobs would be the 

cost. In fact, quite the contrary, when we do stand up, Republicans 

and Democrats, and work together to address real environmental 

issues pointed out not just by scientists, but also by Republican 

presidents, we accomplish great things. 

The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments done under the Bush administration—I am happy that Hon. William Reilly is here—which 

addressed our acid rain issues, had tremendous collateral benefits. 

It avoided more than 160,000 premature deaths. The life of humanity cannot be quantified numerically but, dear God, the health and 

safety of all residents should be your No. 1 mission. 

It prevented 140,000 heart attacks, acute myocardial infarctions, 

and millions and millions of cases of respiratory problems, acute 

bronchitis and asthma were helped by this Republican and Democrat coalition under a Republican President with a Republican-appointed EPA head. It prevented 13 million lost work days, improving worker productivity and kept kids healthy in school, avoiding 

3.2 lost school days. 

This is what we can do when we open and see the facts that Republicans that will talk about today. To me, this is the concern. I 

do not need to reState what Senator Gillibrand said. The actual 

truth is, we are seeing climate change right now. I cannot speak 

to tornadoes, I don’t see any of them in New Jersey, but I can 

speak to the extreme heat problems we are having all across the 

Country which is real, measurable and unequivocal. 

That is causing severe impacts on our Nation and our Nation’s 

economy. I am worried about what is happening in Atlantic City 

with the oceans rising. It is not an opinion, it is a fact and it is 

measurable. We are likely to see on the New Jersey shore the 

ocean rise 1.5 feet by 2050 and 3.5 feet by 2100. 

I am especially concerned about the health concerns. EPA’s regulation of power plants will bring us immediate health benefits. It 

is estimated that in the first year of the new rules taking effect 

that 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks can be prevented. To me that is real. 

It is unfortunate that marginalized folks, often poor people, are 

the ones who feel the impact of us doing nothing most. African 

American children are twice as likely to be hospitalized for asthma. 

I do not need to see the statistics; I see it in school systems across 

the State of New Jersey. They are four times more likely to die of 

asthma. Latinos are 30 percent more likely to be hospitalized for 

asthma. 

The beautiful thing about this is by doing the right thing, we not 

only will not hurt the economy, but we can actually help to improve 

the economy. If States use these regulations and the opportunity 

47 

to make investments, it is estimated we could be seeing upwards 

of $279 billion invested in retrofitting buildings. 

This creates jobs and spurs the economy. These are the kinds of 

jobs that cannot be outsourced. The investment can yield more 

than $1 trillion of energy savings over 10 years. 

I am excited about the opportunity this presents. I feel the urgency when it comes to the health and safety and the long term 

economic well being of our Nation. We must act and we must act 

now. 

I end with the simple conclusion that the choice between action 

that is wise and endorsed by Republican-appointed EPA leaders 

goes to the very evidence that they understand the truth of the 

matter that is true of humanity as well as the United States that 

the only thing necessary for evil to be triumphant is for good people to do nothing. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

We now have the opportunity to hear from our wonderful panel. 

I will introduce the panel as a group right now and then we will 

go from witness to witness. 

The Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus was the inaugural EPA 

Administrator under President Nixon and was later brought back 

as EPA Administrator under President Reagan. He banned the use 

of the pesticide DDT. 

The Honorable Lee M. Thomas served under President Reagan 

and was instrumental in the negotiation and ratification of the 

Montreal Protocol to phaseout substances that deplete the ozone 

layer. 

Governor Christine Todd Whitman served two terms as Governor 

of New Jersey before serving as EPA Administrator under George 

W. Bush. She oversaw implementation of standards that significantly reduced diesel air pollution. 

The Honorable William K. Reilly, EPA Administrator under 

President George H.W. Bush worked to amend the Clean Air Act, 

as already mentioned, to control acid rain. 

Dr. Daniel Botkin is Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. 

The Honorable Luther Strange is Alabama’s Attorney General. 

As the former Attorney General of Rhode Island, I particularly welcome a colleague here. 

Dr. Joseph R. Mason is the Hermann Moyse Jr./Louisiana Bankers Association Endowed Professor of Banking at Louisiana State 

University and Senior Fellow, The Wharton School. 

I welcome our panel. We will begin with Hon. William Ruckelshaus. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, STRATEGIC ADVISOR, MADRONA VENTURE GROUP AND FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Sessions and other members of the subcommittee for convening this 

hearing on a matter of enormous importance for our future. 

I am pleased to be here and reassure at least of you that I am 

still alive. 

48 

Several months ago after talking with one another, the four 

former EPA Administrators sitting in front of you found we were 

convinced by the overwhelming verdict of scientists that the earth 

was warming and that we humans were the only controllable contributor to this phenomenon. 

Given those facts, we all signed an op-ed piece that America get 

serious about reducing our contribution to changing the world’s climate rather than simply sitting back and accepting the avoidable 

consequences. 

If anything, new reports in the last several months have made 

the need to act even more urgent. It is hard to believe that there 

is any question of that. The International Panel on Climate Change 

report validates in the strongest terms the science of climate 

change and projected impacts. 

The National Climate Assessment documents impacts occurring 

here in this Country right now. A report from the CMA Corporation, made up of retired military officers, highlights the national 

security and military readiness concerns due to climate change. 

We have, as EPA Administrators, served four Presidents over 

four decades. We have successfully wrestled with a variety of public 

health and environmental problems, all contentious, including severe automobile, industrial and air pollution, widespread water pollution and the unacceptable effects of pesticides like DDT. 

We have made progress. We cut our automobile emissions, for example, by 95 percent and greatly improved air quality while the 

number of cars has doubled. The hole in the ozone layer and acid 

rain are under control. 

Inherent in all of these problems was uncertain science and powerful economic interests resisting controls. The same is true of climate change. In all cases cited, the solutions to the problems did 

not result in the predicted economic and social calamity. Scientific 

uncertainty or the inevitable industry resistance does not mean 

that nothing should be done unless we are willing to suffer the consequences of inaction. 

We believe there is legitimate scientific debate over the pace and 

effects of climate change but no legitimate debate over the effect 

of the earth’s warming or man’s contribution. The models of the 

world’s leading scientists predict rising seas, drought, floods, 

wildfires and more severe and frequent storms. Those are the projections and predictions of these models. 

We are seeing impacts already. Since the ocean absorbs 25–30 

percent of the carbon from stationary or mobile sources, we thought 

the ocean was our friend. It was, keeping significant amounts of 

carbon from the atmosphere. Our friend is paying a penalty. 

The carbon from the burning of fossil fuels is causing the acidity 

of the ocean to rise and is already threatening shellfish, coral reefs 

and other ocean species. The culprit is the same carbon that originated from fossil fuels that is contributing to planetary warming. 

I was the co-chairman of a committee in my home State of Washington appointed by the Governor to look at the impacts of ocean 

acidification on Puget Sound which directly threatened the shellfish industry in Puget Sound that contributes $275 million a year 

to the State’s economy. 

49 

To find out what the nature of the problem was and taking steps 

to both adapt to it and try to reduce the amount of carbon in Puget 

Sound has begun to have some beneficial effect. 

We also know that if America does not get serious about our responsibility to deal with this problem, nothing much will happen 

in the rest of the world. No action is a choice. It is a choice that 

means we leave to chance the kind of future we want and opt out 

of the solution to a problem that we are a big part of. 

We like to speak of American exceptionalism. If we want to be 

truly exceptional, then we should begin the difficult task of leading 

the world away from the unacceptable effects of our increasing appetites for fossil fuels before it is too late. 

This is an extremely complex problem whose solutions are not 

straightforward. We believe this is no excuse for the complacency 

or not stepping up to our responsibility. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruckelshaus follows:] 

50 


98181.001
51 


98181.002
52 


98181.003
53 


98181.004
54 


98181.005
55 


98181.006
56 


98181.007
57 


98181.008
58 


98181.009
59 


98181.010
60 


98181.011
61 


98181.012
62 


98181.013
63 


98181.014
64 


98181.015
65 


98181.016
66 


98181.017
67 


98181.018
68 


98181.019
69 


98181.020
70 


98181.021
71 


98181.022
72 


98181.023
73 


98181.024
74 


98181.025
75 


98181.026
76 


98181.027
77 


98181.028
78 


98181.029
79 


98181.030
80 


98181.031
81 


98181.032
82 


98181.033
83 


98181.034
84 


98181.035
85 


98181.036
86 


98181.037
87 


98181.038
88 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Mr. Ruckelshaus. 

Governor Whitman. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, PRESIDENT, THE 

WHITMAN STRATEGY GROUP; FORMER GOVERNOR, STATE 

OF NEW JERSEY; AND FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. WHITMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Sessions for holding this hearing and allowing us this 

opportunity. 

I have to begin by expressing my frustration with the discussion 

about whether or not the Environmental Protection Agency has the 

legal authority to regulate carbon emissions that is still taking 

place in some quarters. 

The issue has been settled. EPA does have the authority. The 

law says so, the Supreme Court has said so twice. That matter, I 

believe, should now be put to rest. Given that fact, the agency has 

decided, properly in my view, that it should act now to reduce carbon emissions to improve the quality of our air, protect the health 

of our people and as part of an international effort to address global climate change. 

To the United States, climate change is not just an environmental issue or an economic issue. Climate change also has very 

real implications for our national security. Those concerns must be 

an important part of any discussion that takes place. 

We all know that the earth’s climate is changing. We also know 

that human activity, although not solely responsible and we should 

freely acknowledge that, is both contributing to that change and increasing the risks that we will push the environment beyond the 

point at which we can repair it. 

We should know that when one is contributing to a problem, one 

has an obligation to be a part of the solution of that problem. That 

is what the EPA is trying to do. 

There is, of course, honest disagreement about aspects of the 

agency’s power plant proposal, including whether or not it may be 

stretching its legal authority a bit too far in some parts of the proposed rule. I am sure, however, that EPA will be made aware of 

all concerns during the comment period. 

My hope, however, is that the primary focus will be on the substance of the proposed rule and not EPA’s broad authority to promulgate it. That being said, it is clear that the Clean Air Act, as 

it now stands, is an imperfect tool to address the unique challenges 

that climate change presents. congressional action and leadership 

would be a preferable approach, but since Congress has declined to 

act, EPA must. That is the law. Action will not come without cost, 

but since President Nixon created the EPA in 1970, it has sought 

to carry out its mandate in a balanced way. 

Environmental protection and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive goals. EPA has not always been able to reach a State 

of perfect equilibrium. I think we will all agree to that. It has, however, consistently struck a reasonable balance that protects both 

the health of the environment and the health of the economy. 

From 1980 to 2012, the total emissions in the United States of 

six common air pollutants dropped 67 percent. At the same time, 

89 

our population grew by 38 percent. Our energy consumption increased by 27 percent and our GDP more than doubled in constant 

dollars. 

More people consuming more energy emitted much less pollution 

without sacrificing economic growth. That is clear evidence of the 

balance that EPA has been able to strike in the past. If the past 

is prologue, further reductions are both achievable and affordable. 

Mr. Chairman, my hope is that Congress will at long last acknowledge that climate change is real, that humans are contributing to it, and that the potential consequences of inaction are far 

greater than the projected costs of action. 

We have specific and scientific consensus on this issue. What we 

need is political consensus. The two parties were able to rally 

around a common purpose in the early days of the modern environmental policymaking. It is urgent that they do so again. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Whitman follows:] 

90 


98181.039
91 


98181.040
92 


98181.041
93 


98181.042
94 


98181.043
95 


98181.044
96 


98181.045
97 


98181.046
98 


98181.047
99 


98181.048
100 


98181.049
101 


98181.050
102 


98181.051
103 


98181.052
104 


98181.053
105 


98181.054
106 


98181.055
107 


98181.056
108 


98181.057
109 


98181.058
110 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Governor Whitman. 

We now turn to Mr. William Reilly. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM K. REILLY, SENIOR ADVISOR, TPG 

CAPITAL; CHAIRMAN EMERITUS, CLIMATEWORKS FOUNDATION; AND FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. REILLY. Thank, Mr. Chairman, Senator Sessions and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for convening this session on one of the critical challenges our Country faces. It is a privilege to appear with two of my 

predecessors and Governor Whitman who served after us. 

After I was nominated in 1988, my first briefing on climate was 

by Frank Press, president of the National Academy of Sciences, followed soon by briefings on EPA’s reports on climate effects and policy options commissioned by Administrator Thomas. 

Incidentally, 11 National Academy of Science since that time 

have formally reflected upon and studied climate science and have 

concluded that humans are affecting the climate and greenhouse 

gases are changing it. 

At that time, climate science was a matter of computer modeling, 

coupled with theory, notably the greenhouse effect, which explains 

why the earth’s atmosphere is hospitable to life. At that time, the 

concern was sufficient to prompt then Secretary of State Jim Baker 

in his first statement on the topic to signal a policy of no regrets. 

We will consider those measures, he said, that address current priorities that also help reduce gas emissions. 

The 1987 Montreal Protocol, which Lee Thomas helped negotiate, 

is an example of this kind of thinking. That was 25 years ago. 

Today, the models are far more reliable and they are buttressed by 

literally thousands of credible scientific studies documenting 

changes underway. 

I listened to Senator Boozman. There are still many outstanding 

questions, the pace of change, tipping points, local impacts, fugitive 

methane emissions and more. The earth’s climate is a complex system. We do not have a complete picture. We welcome serious, constructive critiques that examine gaps, anomalies and uncertainties. 

That is how science advances our understanding of such complex 

issues. 

Change is underway. We can expect to see many more disruptions, more intense storms, more wildfires, the spread of pests and 

diseases, dengue fever will arrive in America, storm surges that 

overwhelm coastal communities, heat waves and other impacts on 

our health, on water resources, on food production and on other 

sectors of our economy. 

The longer we delay, the more adverse the impacts will be and 

the more expensive will be to address them. Reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide, can help fend off more 

draconian impacts later this century. 

I increasingly believe we have a second, immediate agenda, 

namely to prompt States, communities and our Federal agencies to 

begin to adapt to likely changes and to buildup resiliency. Dealing 

with flooding and meeting future projections from storm surges will 

111 

be costly and add to growing demands on Federal, State and local 

budgets. 

I chaired a task force on adaptation for Governor 

Schwarzenegger . We concluded that the 1,100 levees in the Sacramento Basin simply will not survive anticipated sea level rise. 

Climate change and associated disruptions, as has been pointed 

out, are a global problem. Absent action by China, Brazil, India 

and other fast growing economies, what we do alone will not suffice. 

Action by the United States, if not sufficient, is nonetheless necessary if we are to have credibility to negotiate with other countries who typically fault the developed world for causing the problem and worry that carbon constraints will thwart their legitimate 

needs for economic growth. 

I must express some disappointment that the debate between developed and developing countries has tended to focus more on how 

much financial aid advanced nations are willing to provide rather 

than on the substance of how much and how to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions in those nations. 

I participated for a number of years in the China Sustainable 

Energy Forum. At first, throughout the 1990’s, any mention of climate change triggered a lecture about how those who caused the 

problem should pay for fixing it globally. 

As China has begun to experience serious impacts, especially in 

water resources, it now is a matter of self interest that they respond and join constructively in international negotiations, even as 

they continue to assert the national interest in development. 

China announced 1 day after the announcement by EPA of its 

new carbon rule that they intend to build a cap on carbon dioxide. 

This is obviously a response to the United States, a significant one, 

and it is further demonstration of U.S. leadership. 

Markets the world over seek clean energy technologies. Well over 

a billion people do not have electricity. For many, it will be small 

scale, renewable technologies that will help improve their lives and 

offer new economic opportunities. 

Technology and innovation are a comparative advantage for our 

Country that will help control what we can and help find ways to 

replace the most serious contributors to the climate challenge. 

This is an enormous opportunity for U.S. entrepreneurs and exporters, even as we deploy more clean energy at home. While the 

President has taken many important steps, a full and constructive 

response is needed from Congress. 

In closing, I have little doubt that the planet will endure major 

climate disruptions. There have been many such episodes in the 

past due to natural causes, but you would have to reject the greenhouse effect out right to conclude that human activities pumping 

millions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year are having little or no impact on the earth’s climate. 

That is simply not a tenable position. For me, the question is 

how hospitable this earth remains for future generations and for 

civilization as we know it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reilly follows:] 

112 


98181.059
113 


98181.060
114 


98181.061
115 


98181.062
116 


98181.063
117 


98181.064
118 


98181.065
119 


98181.066
120 


98181.067
121 


98181.068
122 


98181.069
123 


98181.070
124 


98181.071
125 


98181.072
126 


98181.073
127 


98181.074
128 


98181.075
129 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Mr. Reilly. 

We now turn to former Administrator Thomas. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF LEE M. THOMAS, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank, Mr. Chairman, Senator Sessions and members of the subcommittee for holding the hearing and giving me an 

opportunity to offer a perspective on climate change based upon my 

experience at EPA dealing with many complex environmental 

issues during the Reagan years. 

I have approached the issue using a risk assessment and risk 

management process. This is the approach we used during my time 

at EPA as we addressed a range of environmental problems. 

Whether it was assessing the impact of stratospheric ozone depletion caused by chlorofluorocarbons or the impact of lead and 

gasoline on children’s health, scientific data and analysis was the 

first step in evaluating the risk posed by the problem. 

During my 6 years at EPA, I dealt with many contentious issues, 

first, as Assistant Administrator for 2 years and later as Administrator for a little over 4 years. I cannot remember any other matters I dealt with during that 6 year period of time that were not 

controversial—some more than others. 

The issue of climate change is one that the EPA and the global 

scientific community have studied and analyzed for decades, 

whether it is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or 

the latest scientific valuation that was authorized by Congress, the 

National Climate Assessment. 

There appears to be clear evidence regarding climate change and 

its anthropogenic foundation. We know that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 40 percent since 

pre-industrial times. 

We know that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are 

warming the atmosphere. We know they have contributed to a 

more than 1–1/2 degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures 

since the 1880’s. 

We know global sea level has risen by an average of 8 inches 

since 1870, primarily from thermal expansion caused by warmer 

oceans and some melting of glaciers on the Greenland and West 

Antarctic ice sheets. 

We know that ocean acidification is occurring, harming our coral 

reefs and marine ecosystems and we know that communities in our 

Country are dealing today with the effects of changing climate. 

In the State of Florida where I live, we see increasing salt water 

intrusion infiltrating our drinking water supply along the coast due 

to sea level rise. We see coastal communities dealing with the impact of sea level rise on their drainage systems. A major part of the 

systems in south Florida are being impacted. 

The economic impact is undeniable and the local governments 

struggle to address today’s impacts of climate change while trying 

to anticipate the increased risk in the future is real. 

On a broader scale, scientific analysis of the issue points to widespread impacts across our Country. They range from the depleted 

shellfish harvest in the Pacific Northwest that Bill mentioned due 

to ocean acidification or to increased drought and wildfires in the 

130 

southwest the National Climate Assessment Report suggested were 

linked to climate change. 

Given this assessment of the impacts and risks posed by global 

warming, EPA has the responsibility given to it by Congress and 

affirmed by the courts to address the risk management challenge. 

We know there are many approaches that can be taken and we also 

know that all of them are controversial. 

We know the gases we have emitted will remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries and recognize that the solution will 

require a long term commitment if we are to mitigate both the effects already occurring and those forthcoming. 

We also know what many of the solutions are, some of which, 

Senator Sessions, you mentioned such as improving energy efficiency and increasing our reliance on low emission energy production. Widespread adoption of strategies like these can supplement 

an international agreement to reduced emissions. 

In addition, a coordinated national and international approach is 

needed to assist States and countries in implementing adaptation 

measures dealing with the impacts of climate change already taking place today. 

Clearly more action is needed to address the impacts today while 

addressing the larger issue of committing ourselves to avoiding 

dangerous levels of future warming. The recent steps taken by the 

EPA to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are significant mitigation 

measures and once again position the U.S. to demonstrate international leadership on an issue of global significance and consequence. 

I would suggest if the United States is not taking the leadership 

position that international agreement will never come to fruition. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present my views to the 

subcommittee on what I consider a critically important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:] 

131 


98181.076
132 


98181.077
133 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas. 

Before I go on to the next witness, let me thank each of you for 

your service to our Country in a challenging office over many years 

and for your testimony today. 

We now turn now to Dr. Botkin. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL BOTKIN, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF 

BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA 

Mr. BOTKIN. Thank, Mr. Chairman. 

I come here today as a scientist who since 1968 has published 

research on the possibility of human-induced global warming and 

its potential human and ecological effects. 

In 1970, I developed a computer model of forest use from then 

to the present to forecast possible climate change effects on forests 

and their endangered species. In the 1980’s, one of my graduate 

students added world vegetation to a major climate model. 

In this new century, I was the lead author on a paper analyzing 

methods to forecast global warming impacts on biodiversity and 

published a paper comparing Arctic sea ice extent in the 19th century with that of the end of the 20th century. 

I have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment 

and its great diversity of species, attempting to maintain an objective, intellectually honest approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavors. 

I have been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this 

subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. 

I have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should 

work together as scientists instead of arguing divisively about preconceived, emotionally based positions. 

I was an expert reviewer of both the IPCC and the White House 

National Climate Assessment. I want to State up front that we 

have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of 

influences. 

However, it is my view that this is not unusual and contrary to 

the characterizations by the two reports, these environmental 

changes are not apocalyptic or irreversible. I hope my testimony 

here will help lead to a calmer, more rational approach to dealing 

with climate change and with other major environmental problems. 

The two reports do not promote the kind of rational discussion 

we should be having. I would like to tell you why. 

My biggest concern is that the IPCC 2014 and White House Climate Change Assessment Reports present a number of speculative, 

sometimes incomplete conclusions embedded in language that gives 

them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are scientific sounding rather than based on clearly settled facts. 

Established facts about the global environment exists less often 

in science than laymen usually thing. The two reports assume and 

argue that the climate warming forecast by the global climate 

model is happening and will continue to happen and grow worse. 

As you can see from Christine’s graph over here, currently these 

predictions are way off the reality. 

The extreme overemphasis on human induced global warming 

has taken our attention away from many environmental issues that 

used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in 

134 

the 21st Century. By my count, there are ten issues, a number of 

which have been mentioned here today, including global warming. 

A singular focus on climate change as the driver of the other 

nine obscures the best solutions to this full suite of environmental 

challenges we face. In terms of the need to act now, it is on these 

issues that we should focus with the concern over possible global 

warming prioritized properly within that group. 

There is an implicit assumption in both reports that nature is in 

steady State, that all change is negative and undesirable for all 

life, including people. This is the opposite of the reality. The environment has always changed. Living things have had to adapt to 

these changes and many require change. 

The report gives the impression that living things are fragile and 

rigid, unable to deal with change. The opposite is the case. Life is 

persistent, adaptable and adjustable. In particular, the IPCC report 

for policymakers repeats the assertion of previous IPCC reports 

that large fractions of species face increased extinction risks. Overwhelming evidence contradicts this assertion. 

The models making these forecasts use incorrect assumptions 

leading to over estimates of extinction rates. Surprisingly few species became extinct during the past 2.5 million years, a period encompassing several ice ages and warm periods. 

Some of the reports’ conclusions are the opposite of those given 

in articles cited in defense of those conclusions. The White House 

Climate Change Assessment includes a table of 30 different ecological effects resulting from climate change. 

I reviewed the studies cited to support this table and found not 

a single one of the 30 is supported by direct observations. 

The IPCC Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that 7 of 19 subpopulations of polar bears are declining in number, citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson but these authors State the contrary, that the decline is an illusion. 

On May 22, Vongraven stated that the polar bear population size 

never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, 

but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. 

Some conclusions contradict and are ignorant of the best statistically valid observations. For example, the IPCC Report says that 

terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems have sequestered about a 

quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere by human 

activities in the past three decades. 

I have done the first statistically valid estimates of carbon storage and uptake for any large area of the earth and can tell you 

that estimates of carbon uptake like vegetation used by IPCC are 

not statistically valid and over estimate carbon storage and uptake 

by as much as 300 percent. 

Finally, the IPCC Report uses the term ‘‘climate change’’ with 

two meanings, natural and human induced. I have heard that 

today over and over again. They are not distinguished in the text 

and therefore are confusing. 

Of course the climate is changing. It has always changed and it 

always will change. If the statement is assumed to be about natural change, then it is a truism, something people have always 

known and experienced. If the meaning is taken to be human 

caused, then the available data do not support the statements. 

135 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Botkin follows:] 

136 


98181.078
137 


98181.079
138 


98181.080
139 


98181.081
140 


98181.082
141 


98181.083
142 


98181.084
143 


98181.085
144 


98181.086
145 


98181.087
146 


98181.088
147 


98181.089
148 


98181.090
149 


98181.091
150 


98181.092
151 


98181.093
152 


98181.094
153 


98181.095
154 


98181.096
155 


98181.097
156 


98181.098
157 


98181.099
158 


98181.100
159 


98181.101
160 


98181.102
161 


98181.103
162 


98181.104
163 


98181.105
164 


98181.106
165 


98181.107
166 


98181.108
167 


98181.109
168 


98181.110
169 


98181.111
170 


98181.112
171 


98181.113
172 


98181.114
173 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Next, we will hear from Attorney General 

Strange. Welcome, Attorney General. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LUTHER STRANGE, ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA 

Mr. STRANGE. Thank, Mr. Chairman, Senator Sessions and members of the committee for having me here today. I am pleased to 

be here to share my thoughts. 

As the Attorney General of Alabama, it is my sworn duty to uphold the rule of law for the almost 5 million people that we have 

in my State. That duty includes enforcing the environmental laws 

that help protect our natural resources and the health of our citizens. 

One of the most important matters I am involved with now as 

attorney general is serving as the coordinating counsel for the Gulf 

States in the historic BP oil spill litigation. Alabama’s coastline 

was covered in oil and our economy was shut down for months as 

a result of the spill. 

I understand firsthand manmade environmental disasters and 

the importance of sensible and effective environmental regulations. 

With that said, my comments today reflect a continuing concern 

with this Administration’s approach to environmental regulation. 

The defense of this proposal will be that the States have ‘‘flexibility.’’ Providing the States with a narrow range of costly policy 

choices, which most of the States did not choose for themselves, 

does not provide any actual flexibility and still produces the same 

outcome—higher electricity prices and decreased generation. 

Repeating over and over again the word ‘‘flexibility’’ is not an 

adequate defense or an adequate answer to the low income consumers in my State or any other State, for that matter, who will 

ask why they must pay more to reduce CO2 emissions when those 

reductions cannot and will not impact the global climate. 

Congress did not intend for the Clean Air Act, Section 111(d) to 

have such a far reaching consequence for the American people. Indeed, to prevent impacts such as those that will flow from EPA’s 

proposed emission guidelines, Congress took care to limit EPA’s authority under Section 111(d). 

Given the enormous burdens that would be imposed by EPA’s 

proposed guidelines, however, it may be obvious that EPA has simply disregarded the limits of the law. These limits, moreover, are 

not questionable or controversial. They are expressed in clear elements of the Clean Air Act. 

First, the Clean Air Act forbids regulating sources under Section 

111(d) if they are regulated under Section 112 of the Act. Existing 

electric utility generating units are regulated under Section 112. 

Second, the Clean Air Act also forbids Section 111(d) regulations 

based on emission reductions that cannot be achieved at individual 

facilities but instead rely on reductions that require actions by an 

entire system. EPA’s proposed emission guidelines fully embrace a 

system-wide approach to regulation. 

Third, EPA has improperly attempted to limit Section 111(d)’s 

express statutory delegation of authority to the States and in doing 

so, EPA’s proposal not only rejects State discretion under the Clean 

174 

Air Act, but jettisons decades of unquestioned precedent establishing State jurisdiction over electricity markets. 

In conclusion, the State of Alabama vigorously opposes EPA’s 

proposed mandate to effectively restructure the electric sector as it 

would have disastrous consequences for electric reliability and the 

economy. Those consequences, moreover, would all stem from a 

patently unlawful application of the Clean Air Act. 

EPA’s proposal seeks to expand the scope of Section 111(d) in an 

unprecedented manner. It would do so at the expense of State authority that is expressly identified and preserved in the Clean Air 

Act and in the unquestionable jurisdiction of States over intraState 

electricity markets. 

Finally, it would do all these things for no discernible benefit, 

given the increased emissions of China and other developing economies. There is no rationale that can support such regulation and 

this committee should ensure that it is halted. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Strange follows:] 

175 


98181.115
176 


98181.116
177 


98181.117
178 


98181.118
179 


98181.119
180 


98181.120
181 


98181.121
182 


98181.122
183 


98181.123
184 


98181.124
185 


98181.125
186 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Now, finally, we have Dr. Mason. Please 

proceed, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH R. MASON, HERMANN MOYSE, JR./ 

LOUISIANA BANKERS ASSOCIATION ENDOWED PROFESSOR 

OF BANKING, LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND SENIOR 

FELLOW, THE WHARTON SCHOOL 

Mr. MASON. Good morning and thank you for inviting me to testify here today on this crucially important topic. 

My research specialty throughout my career has been market 

failures and crises. I began studying cap and trade markets in 2005 

as the EU system became a reality and quickly began to fail. 

I did so because of the preternatural push among lawmakers to 

embark upon cap and trade solutions despite widespread consensus 

among economists that cap and trade does not suit carbon emissions. 

With respect to Chairman Boxer’s earlier medical analogy, I do 

not disagree with the diagnosis here but with the proposed treatment. You are all presupposing that the treatment is known. It is 

not. 

In recent history, no system, not the EU, the RGGI or the California Initiative has priced carbon at levels prohibitive to emissions. Prices currently hover at just $5 on the RGGI, $11 in California and between those two levels in the EU. It is widely viewed 

that prices in excess of $30 are necessary to cut emissions. 

The recent EPA proposal seems to be merely an attempt to specify quantity goals instead of price goals. There are two problems 

with this approach. 

First, to control quantity, one has to actually be in control of the 

thing one targets. The U.S. Federal Reserve wanted this years ago 

when it had to move away from targeting the money supply because so many near money substitutes existed that it really had no 

effectiveness just monitoring cash and checking account balances. 

In carbon markets, the common policy of carbon permit 

fungibility has always rendered this quantity targeting unworkable. In a series of famous cases, the EU high court ruled that EU 

member states have sovereignty over the amount of permits they 

issue. 

In one famous case in 2010 when invalid permits infiltrated 

BlueNext, the exchange had to close for 3 days while the permits 

could be isolated and swapbacks could be arranged for them to be 

removed from the market. 

Second, as an economist, it does not matter which side of the 

price quantity coin you look at, the effects are the same. Quantity 

will go down only if price goes up. When real prices go up, output 

declines and unemployment increases. 

Corporations already forego billions of dollars of investment due 

to anticipated carbon prices and States in which those corporations 

operate will feel the effects of this new policy. It is important to 

remember, however, those are not just oil and gas companies but 

companies like Walt Disney and Wal-Mart. 

In preparing for this hearing, I regressed the State EPA goals 

normalized for each State’s percent of power from coal in 2013 on 

a number of very important variables. Perhaps most importantly, 

187 

the regression shows that States with lagging economies coming 

out of the great recession have tougher goals to meet than others. 

Certainly there are simple adjustments that can be made to mitigate the effects of carbon policy upon economic growth if we just 

think about those for a moment. 

No government has yet accepted the lower economic growth necessary to meaningfully curb carbon emissions. Officials know prices 

should go up but cannot bear the political heat of restricting permits to achieve that goal. 

In fact, in March 2014, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, 

George Osborne, announced the government would freeze attacks 

on carbon emissions as part of a broad plan to cut consumer energy 

bills. While his party backs carbon reform, consumer energy costs 

have become a campaign plank for the opposition which vowed to 

freeze energy prices if they win in mid–2015. 

A similar issue is growing in Germany which is subsidized renewables growth with a mandatory household surcharge on electricity and voters are not happy. 

By far, the worst effects of carbon markets have been the regulatory arbitrage fraud and theft that have occurred on such systems. If we are not ready to deal with the existing corporate fraud 

and bribery, tax fraud, investor fraud, counterfeiting, money laundering, hacking and phishing on carbon markets that have troubled 

established markets in recent years, we should not be discussing 

their implementation in the largest economy in the world. 

Denying the failure of existing carbon policy risks raising energy 

prices without reducing carbon output. U.N. climate talks on carbon broke down this week over this simple economic fact. 

Extending my analogy with central banking, Members of Congress should remember that the National Monetary Commission 

studied central bank functions around the world for 7 years before 

concluding upon the design of the U.S. Federal Reserve system. 

Let us take our time now and research existing carbon abatement mechanisms before emulating demonstratively failed schemes 

around the world, enriching financial industry interest groups at 

the cost of our economy while continuing to allow carbon to grow 

as a national and global problem. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mason follows:] 

188 


98181.126
189 


98181.127
190 


98181.128
191 


98181.129
192 


98181.130
193 


98181.131
194 


98181.132
195 


98181.133
196 


98181.134
197 


98181.135
198 


98181.136
199 


98181.137
200 


98181.138
201 


98181.139
202 


98181.140
203 


98181.141
204 


98181.142
205 


98181.143
206 


98181.144
207 


98181.145
208 


98181.146
209 


98181.147
210 


98181.148
211 


98181.149
212 


98181.150
213 


98181.151
214 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Mason. 

Let me begin with a question prompted by Administrator 

Ruckelshaus’ testimony. Mr. Ruckelshaus, you described a number 

of environmental improvements that took place on our watch. You 

mentioned that inherent in all was powerful economic interests resisting controls, to use your phrase. 

You said that in all of the cases cited, the solutions to the problems did not result in the predicted economic and social calamity. 

Each of you has had the firsthand experience of having to make 

decisions that were surrounded by fears and anxieties about perhaps dire consequences of your decision. Each of you has made that 

decision, each has seen the consequences as they played out in the 

aftermath. 

My question to each of you, starting with Mr. Ruckelshaus whose 

testimony I think probably foretells his answer, how did the worst 

fears and assumptions of bad outcomes from environmental regulations turn out in reality as the rules were applied in your own experience? Mr. Ruckelshaus? 

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Let me mention just one example. The Congress, in 1970, passed the Clean Air Act which provided that in the 

law itself by 1975, the cars would be 95 percent improved in three 

named pollutants in the law—hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and 

nitrogen oxide. 

The claim of the automobile companies was that this was impossible to do by 1975. I think they probably were right about that. 

It was an overly ambitious goal set by the Congress. 

As Administrator, I was authorized to give them a 1-year extension from the meeting of those 1975 goals if the facts warranted. 

We had extensive hearings and decided, in the first instance, not 

to grant an extension and in the second instance, an extension was 

granted. 

By 1976, with the use of the catalyst, most of the automobile 

companies were on the way to achieving the standards as required 

by the statute. 

The claims during those hearings and during the passage of the 

laws were that the industry was going to collapse. Ford Motor 

Company predicted they would have to shut down their whole company if this law passed. 

There was enough flexibility in the law, enough chance to give 

them the kind of leeway they needed to achieve the standards. 

Once they saw the rule was serious and we were going to pursue 

as vigorously as we could the achievement of the requirements 

under the law in the rule, then they began to focus on reducing the 

cost. 

The motivation of trying to resist the regulation, resist the law 

that was passed by the Congress, changed from one of claiming the 

end was near to one of let us see if we can do this and do it in 

a cost effective way. 

They did do it in a cost effective way and we achieve the standards finally. It was later than they expected. There was some leeway granted by the Congress after the original law. 

We have almost three times as many cars on the road today and 

the emissions from the automobiles are 95 percent reduced. 

215 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In my remaining minute, let me ask you 

to fill in and if we have a second round, I will come back and finish 

the question with the others but I am running out of time. 

Ms. WHITMAN. Probably the best example I can give is when we 

were working on increasing the efficiency of air conditioners. We 

were being sued by everyone, including the DOE, saying it was absolutely impossible, that this was going to kill the industry. 

We went ahead and found one company that said, no, we can do 

this. Carrier Air Conditioning said they could do it. They did it and 

started producing the more highly efficient air conditioners. Now 

everyone has exceeded those rules. We took them to 11 percent; 

they are now talking about 23 percent ratings. 

The ingenuity in the American system kicked in. The minute 

they knew this was real, it was going to happen not only did we 

not see a loss in jobs or loss in dollars, we saw this whole industry 

achieve new levels that we did not think were possible. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. With my time expired, let me turn to my 

distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

We certainly have made some great progress in the air in America and the water is so much cleaner than it has been. When we 

see situations in China, we are proud of what we have accomplished. 

However, I would say CO2 is a different kettle of fish. It is not 

particulates and NOx and SOx. It is plant food and it is not a pollutant in any normal definition of it, although Governor Whitman, 

I will acknowledge the Supreme Court by a 5–4 ruling ruled otherwise based on IPCC data. 

Mr. Chairman, I would offer the letter to Gina McCarthy from 

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrissey regarding EPA’s 

asserted authority under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 emissions from existing coal fired power plants and a 

white paper from 17 attorneys general and one senior environmental regulator to another State regarding the authority of States 

under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to determine standards 

as applied to individual sources. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Without objection, those documents will be 

made a part of our record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

216 


98181.224
217 


98181.225
218 


98181.226
219 


98181.227
220 


98181.228
221 


98181.229
222 


98181.230
223 


98181.231
224 


98181.232
225 


98181.190
226 


98181.191
227 


98181.192
228 


98181.193
229 


98181.194
230 


98181.195
231 


98181.196
232 


98181.197
233 


98181.198
234 


98181.199
235 


98181.200
236 


98181.201
237 


98181.202
238 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

The President, on November 14, 2012, said, ‘‘The temperature 

around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 

years ago.’’ Then on May 29, 2013, he said, ‘‘We also know that the 

climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years 

ago.’‘ 

I want to ask each of our former Administrators if any of you 

agree that is an accurate statement on the climate? If you do, raise 

your hand. Thank you. The record will reflect no one raised their 

hands. 

One of the things Dr. Botkin mentioned was this is difficult when 

we have assertions repeated that are not established by the facts. 

The same is true about hurricanes. If you count the number of Category 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 hurricanes each year, this is not a matter of 

dispute, we don’t have more. The IPCC acknowledges that. 

Yet we have the President and top officials repeating that as a 

justification to hammer the coal industry and driving up costs in 

our Country. 

Attorney General Strange, I had a question I wanted to ask of 

you. I appreciate your appearance and your fine leadership in the 

State. 

The four EPA Administrators today say we need to act now. 

Would you also say it is important that we act according to the law 

and do you believe EPA’s proposed existing power plan guidelines 

are consistent with the law? 

Mr. STRANGE. That really is why I am here, not to debate the 

science or the policy. That is a matter for the scientists and for the 

members of this committee and members of the U.S. Senate. 

My concern is whatever decision EPA makes and whatever policy 

it decides to implement that it follow the law. I think they failed 

to do that in this case. I appreciate your introducing for the record 

the letter from my colleague, Patrick Morrissey, the Attorney General of West Virginia which goes into great detail on the legal infirmities of this proposal as well as the letter from the 17 other AGs, 

bipartisan group of attorneys around the Country who feel the 

same way. 

Our role is to make sure that whatever the EPA comes up with 

that it follows the law, respects the State’s role in working to 

achieve the type of environmental regulation the Country decides 

it wants to have. That is the lane I am in, that is the oath I took 

and that is the reason I am here today. 

Senator SESSIONS. Our staff has done a study on the federalism 

aspects of EPA. The Clean Air Act establishes a cooperative federalism between States and EPA. Do you think the proposed existing power plan guidelines adhere to the Clean Air Act’s process? 

Mr. STRANGE. I do not think so, Senator. In a nutshell, I think 

what the EPA is attempting to do in this case is to regulate at the 

Federal level, removing almost all the discretion that would normally reside in the States. 

In my experience, maybe it was your experience as Attorney 

General when you preceded me, regulators like to regulate and it 

is an important role that we attorneys general play to ensure that 

when they decide to regulate, they stay within the bounds of their 

authority. 

239 

Oftentimes, if you are a regulator and see a problem or perceived 

problem, you want to regulate and at least in my experience, you 

naturally try to exert as much authority as you think is there and 

perhaps more. We think that is what is occurring in this case. 

That is why it is so important not only to me in Alabama but 

to attorneys general across the Country. 

Senator WHITESTONE. We will turn now to Senator Boxer for 

questions. Chairman Boxer, I should say in this room. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

I am going to go rapid fire. 

Dr. Mason, when you talk you so remind me of the alarmist that 

we heard both in the 1970’s and the 1990’s over the Clean Air Act. 

Coming from a State that is undergoing a boom in clean energy 

jobs, I am here to say I am going to send you some of the stats 

that Hon. Christine Todd Whitman put out because I want to know 

if you think they are incorrect. 

From 1980 to 2012, the total emissions in the U.S. of six common 

air pollutants dropped by 67 percent, our population grew by 38 

percent, our energy consumption increased by 27 percent, and our 

GDP more than doubled. I checked and this is my statistic that 

jobs increased 88 percent. 

I am going to send that to you for your commentary because 

again, we have always heard this every time there is an initiative. 

It always turns out to be completely wrong. The alarmists are 

wrong. 

I also want to ask our four EPA folks to tell me if they agree 

with this. Senator Sessions and I have a disagreement. He is my 

friend and we respect each other. We have a disagreement on carbon. He says this is not a pollutant that hurts you but there is an 

endangerment finding. It was started under George W. Bush and 

completed under Barack Obama. 

Then there as a National Climate Assessment which was required by law every 4 years. Republicans voted for that 100–0 on 

February 6, 1990. This particular assessment calls out the dangers 

of carbon pollution and says it is going to increase ozone, increase 

asthma, increase hospital admissions, quoting directly, ‘‘Climate 

change is projected to harm human health by increasing ground 

level ozone.’’ 

They specifically cite more carbon pollution as increasing global 

temperatures, increasing premature deaths and worsened ozone 

particle pollution. 

Is there any one of the four of you who has a problem with that 

analysis? Let the record show they agree with that analysis. 

I want to talk to my friend from Alabama and ask you this question. I have great respect for your office and your opinion but isn’t 

it true that Alabama lost all recent major Clean Air Act cases? 

Alabama lost its legal challenge to EPA’s CRUS, State air pollution rule in the Supreme Court. Alabama lost its legal challenge to 

EPA’s mercury and toxic air rule in the D.C. Circuit in the White 

Stallion case. Alabama lost its legal challenge to EPA’s 

endangerment finding and light duty vehicle GHG tailpipe standards in the case of Coalition for Responsible Regulation. Isn’t that 

a fact? 

240 

Mr. STRANGE. I do not doubt what you are saying, Senator. I do 

not recall. 

Senator BOXER. You do no recall losing those cases? 

Mr. STRANGE. I do and I think you are right, yes. 

Senator BOXER. I think that is important. 

Let me ask a question to Mr. Thomas. 

I know you have talked about the impacts in your home State 

of Florida that you are already seeing. I had the privilege of going 

in a helicopter over the Miami region. When you see how much 

water is there, it takes your breath away. 

I wonder if you could talk about how local communities in the 

State of Florida are joining together to address the growing impacts of climate change. Do many of these local actions have bipartisan support? 

Let me ask Mr. Thomas this. I only have 58 seconds left. 

Mr. THOMAS. Senator, particularly in the south Florida area, 

Miami area, six counties have basically come together specifically 

to work on adaptation measures dealing with the problems they 

are already facing. 

As I indicated, salt water intrusion, the drainage systems, how 

do they deal with today’s problem, an average sea level rise of 

about eight inches which has a significant impact. You are talking 

about areas that both because of their level above sea level but also 

because of the terrain and subsurface, basically the limestone and 

subsurface causes a significant issue in that part of the State. 

We see local governments struggling with the issue, spending 

significant amounts of money and my sense is that is going to be 

an expanding issue and an expanding problem, particularly in the 

south Florida area in the near term. 

I met with a group in the Miami area, including scientists who 

participated in the IPCC process. Their concern is what is happening today and how it will be exaggerated over the next 10 

years. They are not talking about long term, they are talking about 

10 years. 

Senator BOXER. Let me close by letting everyone know this. 

When it comes to environment, we have big differences. When it 

comes to preparing, we have come together and in the last WRDA 

bill, I wanted to mention that we have taken steps for our coastal 

States and also the Sacramento issue, Mr. Reilly, that you mentioned. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Vitter. 

Mr. BOTKIN. May I may a scientific comment? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is not in order. This is the time for Senators to ask questions. 

Senator Vitter, you are recognized. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I always am in these discussions, I am frustrated again, quite 

frankly at some of the cartoonist nature of the assertions, going 

after strawmen instead of having a detailed, serious discussion. I 

think Senator Boozman’s comment and explanation of the 97 percent figure really goes to that. 

Ninety-seven percent believe in this consensus about climate 

change. However, it is defined so broadly that all or virtually all 

the Republican members of this committee would be among the 97 

241 

percent. I hope we can get beyond going after strawmen and having these sorts of cartoonish conversations. 

With that theme of science, real science, real discipline in mind, 

let me start there. Of all of our panelists, who has graduate advanced degrees in the natural sciences? Dr. Botkin, let me ask you, 

in my opinion one of these areas with cartoonish claims and outlandish claims is about severe weather multiplying every day. 

In fact, what is the historical record about the severity and frequency overall of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and floods? 

Mr. BOTKIN. As you had in past testimony from Roger Pielke, Jr., 

the analysis shows that these have not increased in terms of major 

storms. If that is the specific question, there has not been an increase in tornadoes and major storms according to his analysis. 

Senator VITTER. I just point that out because that is one of the 

most common rallying cries about this cartoonish debate, severe 

weather. 

Also, let us talk about real science. We have here obviously a 

huge issue which is whatever we do, what is the rest of the world 

doing. These posters just illustrate what China is doing but there 

are other countries that are a major factor—India, Brazil and so 

forth. 

Dr. Botkin, with this in mind, will the EPA’s rule, as currently 

constructed, have a significant effect on global average temperatures or sea level rise? 

Mr. BOTKIN. The scientific analyses show that if the United 

States acts alone, it will have a very insignificant effect but that 

does leave open whether this is supposed to be a leadership action 

or a scientific effective but in terms of the United States acting 

alone, it will have a very minor effect. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

Mr. BOTKIN. May I make a comment about sea level rise? 

Senator VITTER. Go ahead but be very brief. My time is limited. 

Mr. BOTKIN. Most of the comments were about sea level rise. It 

is well known to geologists, oceanographers and glaciologists that 

the sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, 

12,500 years ago. The average estimated rate and measured rate 

has been a foot a century. That is natural background. 

It was mentioned specifically by one of the Senators was that it 

has risen ten inches in one place since 1930. Actually, that is within that natural background. 

Senator VITTER. Doctor, I do not mean to cut you off but this is 

on my limited time. 

Mr. BOTKIN. I just wanted to say that is completely natural. 

Senator VITTER. Let us go on to the other big impact we can 

measure which is economic impact. Dr. Mason, this is not a theoretical discussion. Europe has basically been living this in the last 

ten plus years and is in the process of essentially reversing course. 

A headline from The New York Times reads ‘‘Europe Facing Economic Pain May Ease Climate Rules’’; the Bloomberg News, ‘‘Coal 

Returns to German Utilities Replacing Low Cost Nuclear’’; the 

Guardian, ‘‘Soaring Energy and Housing Costs Force Poorest 

Homes to Turn to Food Banks’’; and the New York Times, ‘‘Renewable Energy in Spain Is Taking A Beating.’’ What should we observe and learn about that European experience? 

242 

Mr. MASON. I think you have to acknowledge that in terms of the 

treatment in this medical analogy, prior carbon policy has been the 

equivalent of medieval blood letting. It has not worked, it is not 

constraining emissions in world markets and there are two things 

you have to notice. 

First of all, there is already a market developed not only to argue 

against taking action with respect to carbon; there is a market developed in setting up these financial trading desks that trade carbon, that wants to lobby to undertake this option. It is a very 

strong and very large industry right now. 

There are interest groups pushing for this as a solution that, in 

fact, will not work. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to go to the EPA Administrators. Thank you all so much 

for your service over the years. 

I have a chart here of U.S. GDP since the Great Depression in 

1929. President Johnson signed the first Clean Air Act into law in 

1963. It was amended in 1970, 1977 and 1990, as indicated on the 

chart. 

I would like a quick answer from each of you. Has GDP, Mr. 

Ruckelshaus, gone up or down since each of these Clean Air Act 

laws? 

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Senator, I am not going to argue with your 

chart. It has gone up. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. Governor? 

Ms. WHITMAN. I cannot disagree with that. That is a fact. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. REILLY. The Clean Air Act amendments we were responsible 

for in 1990 were followed by ten record setting years in GDP 

growth. 

Senator MARKEY. Interesting—not a blood letting then, is that 

what you are saying? 

Mr. REILLY. No, I would not say so. 

Senator MARKEY. You would not say that. Thank you. 

Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. THOMAS. I certainly agree with your chart, it has gone up. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you think that finding new facts of dealing 

with climate change can actually create jobs in our economy by 

unleashing innovation in the marketplace to accomplish that goal, 

Mr. Ruckelshaus? 

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. There is no question. It will create jobs. It 

will also have some impact on existing employment. 

Ms. WHITMAN. I look on it as not only will it create new jobs in 

some of the renewable fields and fields we have not even talked 

about, but we have one industry already that is producing a lot of 

jobs and can produce a lot more. That is the nuclear energy industry which is a base power which releases none of these greenhouse 

gases or other regulated pollutants while producing power. 

Mr. REILLY. The 1990 amendments created an enormous number 

of jobs both in natural gas and also in western clean coal. 

Mr. THOMAS. I think without question jobs will be created. On 

the other hand, I think it will impact jobs and I think we have a 

243 

responsibility to focus on how we provide assistance to those whose 

jobs are being impacted. 

Senator MARKEY. I would like to move to another example which 

is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative across the northeast in 

terms of the impact that has had in reducing greenhouse gases and 

at the same time overlapping with an economy across the northeast 

which has continued to grow over those years. 

Since the RGGI was put in place, there has actually been a 40 

percent reduction in greenhouse gases in those States on average 

where it was put in place but in addition, it has helped to save consumers money, created jobs, generated over $750 million in economic value in the State of Massachusetts alone from 2009 to 2013. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit all of that economic data 

for the record. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

244 


98181.222
245 


98181.223
246 

Senator MARKEY. Governor Whitman, maybe you could talk 

about that issue, about the job creation aspect of this, especially 

since it seems to be a core argument here using medieval blood letting terms to describe what the impact is since the States in the 

RGGI have actually seen economic growth. 

Ms. WHITEMAN. I think it is absolutely fair to say that obviously 

there are going to be jobs that will be impacted with whatever actions we take. That has always been true. When we have an obligation to ensure that we do the best we can for those who will be impacted and find other ways of earning a living and recognize that 

this is real and people will get hurt. 

One of the things you learn as a Governor, as anybody in a position where you have to make decisions, is you cannot make a decision that has an equal impact on everyone. Some people will not 

see the same benefits as others and may see a down turn. It is your 

obligation to do what is in the best interest of the greatest number 

and do everything you can to mitigate the down side for those who 

will be negatively impacted. 

I think we have seen that time and again. We have been able 

to do that in this Country and been able to increase jobs. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Thomas, Dr. Botkin has argued for more 

direct observations of climate variables. You mentioned both sea 

level rise and an increase in heavy rainfall in your testimony. Sea 

level rise and rainfall have been measured by scientists for decades. They are not theoretical or models. 

What are the impacts of those directly observed changes on your 

own home State, Mr. Thomas? 

Mr. BOTKIN. Excuse me, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Could you please allow Mr. Thomas to answer the question he has been asked? 

Mr. THOMAS. Senator, as I indicated to Senator Boxer, clearly 

south Florida particularly is dealing today with sea level rise as it 

impacts both saltwater intrusion on our coastal areas, impacts our 

drinking water, draining systems that are critical to the overall 

well being of many of the coastal communities in south Florida. 

Today’s sea level rise is indeed an issue in our State just as it 

is in a number of other States. 

Senator MARKEY. I am the son of a milkman so I know that technological change can occur. The invention of refrigerators actually 

made obsolete delivery of milk each morning. It does not mean 

there were more milkmen that were created; it meant there was an 

absence of jobs that were created to revolutionize the way in which 

that industry operated. We have seen that from the beginning of 

time and we have to embrace it here. The job creation is obvious. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. That is pretty good. I enjoyed that. 

First of all, let me mention that we keep talking about the Clean 

Air Act amendments of 1990. I want everyone to know not only did 

I vote for them, but I was an original co-sponsor of those. 

They worked. That was dealing with real pollutants—SOx and 

NOx. It was never meant to deal with CO2. I think we all understand that. The successes were there. You could actually use that 

as an argument against going into regulating something that most 

247 

of us do not believe is a pollutant, but we will not make that argument. 

I think Senator Boozman has pretty much defused the 97 percent. We are going to hear it over and over again but he has pretty 

well answered that. 

I had a question for the three of you but I am going to skip you, 

Attorney General Strange, because Jeff already asked the question. 

I have to say this, that Scott Pruitt holds you in the highest regard 

among all the attorneys general in the United States. 

Dr. Botkin, you are the only scientist on this panel. I would like 

to ask you this. I happened to be in Copenhagen when this whole 

thing broke. Everything was predicated on the assumption that 

IPCC was going to be accurate—they were the ones who started 

this whole thing. 

I was there when Climate Gate broke. We all remember that is 

where they uncovered the IPCC had manipulated reports, covered 

up errors and made their global warming case stronger than it 

was. 

The way that was kind of covered up in our media here, we have 

kind of an alarmist bias in our media here but throughout the 

world, it was not. The UK Telegraph I think is the largest printed 

publication in the UK. It says, ‘‘The Worse Scientific Scandal of 

Our Generation.’’ The Financial Times said, ‘‘The Stink of Intellectual Corruption Is Overpowering.’’ The Guardian said, ‘‘It Is No 

Use Pretending That This Isn’t A Major Blow.’’ 

I ask you as a scientist, why do you think there are people who 

still believe that this science was generated? The reason I am asking this question is because if you go back and look at my website 

in 2002, you will see I listed not a few but hundreds of scientists 

who disagreed with the IPCC. Your comments on that? 

Mr. BOTKIN. Senator, I have asked myself this question many 

times because what I do is look at the facts and check all the facts. 

I found that the IPCC reports are not consistent and are biased. 

Are you asking me why do so many people believe that? 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. 

Mr. BOTKIN. I have puzzled about that a great deal. I can say 

that one of my favorite books is by Charles McCabe published in 

1841. 

Senator INHOFE. We are running out of time. 

Mr. BOTKIN. I do not think there is a scientific answer to why 

so many people have come to believe this. It has become a popular 

issue. All I try to do is look at the facts. I have worked very hard 

to try to determine the effects of this over my career and I feel this 

data has changed and that it is less of an effect and danger than 

we thought before. I am surprised and shocked. 

Senator VITTER. Dr. Mason, you being the only economist on this 

panel, let me ask you a question. 

Years ago when this first started, a lot of us believed it was true 

because that was what was supposed to be believed. It happened 

at that time that I chaired this committee. When I found out they 

were talking about what the cost would be, if you remember the 

Wharton Econometric Survey came out, the MIT came out, Charles 

Rivers came out, and all came to the same conclusion on the cost 

248 

of this. We were talking about the cost of cap and trade would be 

between $300-$400 billion a year. 

First, I would ask if you agreed with that analysis with them at 

that time? 

Mr. MASON. I have not run the job losses particularly, but I 

would not be surprised at all by that. 

Senator INHOFE. That is the one thing that is pretty consistent. 

We have not had a lot of people disagree with that. My question 

would be this. These bills we are talking about, the first was the 

McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003, then in 2005, the same thing, the 

Warner-Lieberman and it went on up to Senator Markey, when he 

was in the House, had a bill, all of them were talking about regulating the emissions of entities that emitted 25,000 tons or more. 

The Clean Air Act regulates 250 tons or more. 

I would ask you as an economist, if it is true that it would be between $300-$400 billion a year for the 25,000 tons or more, do 

you have any idea what it would cost the American people if they 

were able to successfully regulate this under the Clean Air Act? 

Mr. MASON. Orders of magnitude more. 

Senator INHOFE. That is a good answer. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Professor Mason, in your testimony, you address disparitive goals 

across States. Arkansas is one of the most difficult targets in the 

Country. You said there will be State level impacts that affect jobs 

and growth. Would you explain how these impacts can impact opportunities in States like Arkansas and what that will mean for 

consumers? 

Mr. MASON. Very simply, to the extent that consumers in these 

States derive energy from plants in those States, again, those consumers will pay more for their electricity. This is where things get 

wonky because you will have cross State effects. 

Will Arkansas be able to, for instance, buy emissions from other 

States to satisfy their emissions? How are we going to control that? 

What can they buy? Can they buy permits or offsets internationally 

from Hungary which defrauded investors leading to this market 

shutdown I cited or other Third World countries that have been 

known not to even bother to check validity of the permits they are 

selling on markets leading to this fraud and international problems? 

We need to deal with these details. Until we actually sit down 

and look at these and look at the job losses that are very real— 

the Fed does this at every meeting when they talk about raising 

rates. They look at job losses and look at economic output. 

I think that we need to look at this with each and every increase 

in energy cost. Just waving your hands and saying, that will be 

fine, is another story because we are getting to a level of policy implementation that is orders of magnitude greater than anything we 

have done before. 

To me from my perspective on financial crises, they arise in part 

because of problems in the market but also scale and magnitude 

relative to the economic system. We have had lots of little mini 

securitization crises since 1990. None affected the economy until 

249 

we had it happen with mortgages, a big enough product to throw 

us into recession. 

We can do this and we can put the economy at risk but I think 

we need to think about this real hard before just diving in. This 

is different. 

Senator BOOZMAN. That is why we have a Congress and congressional hearings, to go through all that theoretically and make sure 

we do it not in haste but get all the intended consequences out on 

the table. 

You mentioned it is like gravity that in order to make something 

not be used, you have to raise the price or that is a method of doing 

it. You mentioned the $30 figure. What would that do to the cost 

of utilities? 

Mr. MASON. RGGI right now is at about $5, California is at about 

$11. It is interesting and those might not have pushed back economic growth but they are not pricing carbon either. They are just 

adding to the cost of energy with no upside benefit in terms of carbon. 

Thirty dollars is definitely going to raise prices further. We have 

seen 45 percent in the northeast cited today. I would expect prices 

would go up by orders of magnitude greater than that. 

Let me just say that there has been a lot of talk today about 

leadership in terms of carbon policy. Leadership is not just grabbing this failed system out of the EU or this ineffective system out 

of RGGI or California and plopping it down nationwide. 

Leadership is really thinking more deeply about the implementation of carbon policy and coming up with something better than the 

rest of the world has put together so far, implementing it and then 

having the rest of the world follow. 

That is why I cited the National Monetary Commission with respect to the Federal Reserve. We did that. We have the best central 

bank in the world. Like or hate the details of it, we still lead in 

that throughout the world. I think we owe to our citizens to put 

together a very thoughtful approach, to put together a meaningful 

approach to carbon that can actually help the world while also pricing an economic externality that is very real. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Botkin, you would be one of the 97 percent that is talked 

about and certainly you feel like man is contributing and this and 

that but certainly you are not one that feels like the models are 

acceptable. I suspect you have many of your cohorts in the same 

camp. 

Mr. BOTKIN. I think the key thing here is that science is not a 

rule by majority method. That is the important thing. It is discovery. 

I would like to quote Jonas Saulk, the inventor of the polio vaccine. He said, ‘‘I get into dialog with nature and put the question 

to nature, not to my colleagues because that is from whence the answer must come.’‘ That is what I do. I always look at the data. 

Also, Richard Feynman, one of the great 20th Century physicists, 

said ‘‘Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.’‘ To keep saying it is a majority is not a scientific statement and is not correct. 

I have spent 50 years working on climate change in a very constructive way. What I can tell you is that since about 1990, the 

250 

data has started to move in the other direction away from an important effect by human beings. That is just what the facts show. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

My concern is certainly we need to examine the increased risk 

of this, but I can tell you there is tremendous increased risk for the 

men and women sitting back there and the hard working people of 

Arkansas if we are talking about a 45 percent or much greater 

probably in our case increase in utility prices. 

As far as jobs, we talk a lot about income disparity in this Country, what does that do to working moms, single moms and what 

does that do to people on fixed incomes? 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman. 

That will conclude the questioning. Let me just say some final 

thanks to our witnesses who are here. I appreciate particularly the 

efforts of the former Administrators. I would ask if Mr. Reilly and 

Mr. Thomas would answer my question for the record. 

The record will be kept open for an additional 2 weeks for anyone 

who wishes to add material to the record. 

I will ask unanimous consent to put in a review of the investigations that were prompted by what is called Climate Gate but I contend is more accurately called Climate Gate Gape. In my view, the 

scandal was a phony scandal that was whipped up at the expense 

of a lot of scientific work that was then reviewed I think by six different authorities, including American investigators, independent 

investigators, university investigators and British investigators, 

every one of which gave a full clean bill of health to the science. 

I think that needs to be a part of the record if members are going 

to bring up so-called Climate Gate. 

[The referenced information was not receive at time of print.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. There has been some reference to the projections by the Chamber of Commerce as to what this proposed 

EPA regulation might cost. Some of our colleagues have leapt to 

cite that report but I think it is important for the hearing that we 

also include the Washington Post analysis of their claims which 

earned four Pinocchio’s. 

Depending on how far you get from the truth, you get more 

Pinocchio’s relating back to the story of Pinocchio, the wooden doll, 

whose nose would grow when he was not being truthful. I will include the Washington Post four Pinocchio finding about that. 

There is also an organization named PolitiFact which analyzes 

claims made, the political debate and tries to do a very neutral 

analysis of their accuracy. PolitiFact ruled a false for that report. 

I think in the interest of fairness, those should be admitted. 

I will ask unanimous consent that those two documents be admitted. 

[The referenced information was not receive at time of print.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Just to wrap up, I thank the panel for your 

testimony. This is an important issue. I believe Dr. Botkin is correct in saying that actual empirical data is not confirming the projections we have seen so far and a host of other areas. I will be submitting some documents to that effect. 

251 

I think it is appropriate for Congress to ask questions. Also, I 

would just say it is unacceptable that scientists like Dr. Botkin and 

others are being adversely treated as a result of their statements 

and scientific research that sometimes contradicts the powers that 

be. 

Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You are very welcome. It is always a 

pleasure to work with my Ranking Member. However much we 

may disagree on things, he is a very courteous colleague and we 

always work well together. 

I think this was not a hearing on the science. It was a hearing 

with the experience of previous Administrators. If we were to do a 

hearing on the science, then I think we would be adding scientists 

from NOAA, NASA, and the scientists who back our United States 

defense establishment and a great establishment of scientists, 

every major scientific organization in the Country. 

Perhaps Dr. Botkin is right and they are all wrong but I am not 

sure that would be the prudent course for our Country. 

Thank you all very much. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

252 


98181.174
253 


98181.175
254 


98181.176
255 


98181.177
256 


98181.178
257 


98181.179
258 


98181.180
259 


98181.181
260 


98181.182
261 


98181.183
262 


98181.184
263 


98181.185
264 


98181.186
265 


98181.187
266 


98181.188
267 


98181.189
268 


98181.203
269 


98181.204
270 


98181.205
271 


98181.206
272 


98181.207
273 


98181.208
274 


98181.209
275 


98181.210
276 


98181.211
277 


98181.212
278 


98181.213
279 


98181.214
280 


98181.215
281 


98181.216
282 


98181.217
283 


98181.218
284 


98181.233
285 


98181.234
286 


98181.248
287 


98181.249
288 


98181.250
289 


98181.251
290 


98181.252
291 


98181.253
292 


98181.254
293 


98181.255
294 


98181.256
295 


98181.257
296 


98181.258
297 


98181.259
298 


98181.260
299 


98181.261
300 


98181.262
301 


98181.263
302 

Æ 


98181.264