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

99–902 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–245 

BUSINESS MEETING 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

AUGUST 5, 2015 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

AUGUST 5, 2015 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 2 

Prepared statement, August 5, 2015, 2 p.m. .................................................. 112 

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

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 133 

LEGISLATION 

Text of S. 1324, the Affordable Reliable Electricity Now Act of 2015 ................. 21 

Text of the amendment #4 offered by Senator Markey ........................................ 36 

Text of the amendment #1 offered by Senators Gillibrand and Markey ............ 45 

Text of the amendment #1 offered by Senator Merkley ....................................... 61 

Text of the amendment #2 offered by Senator Whitehouse ................................. 95 

Text of the amendment #6 offered by Senator Markey ........................................ 100 

Text of the amendment #1 offered by Senator Whitehouse ................................. 106 

Text of S. 1500, the Sensible Environmental Protection Act of 2015 .................. 114 

Text of H.R. 2131, to designate a Federal building and courthouse in South 

Carolina as the J. Waties Waring Judicial Center ............................................ 119 

Text of S. 1523, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes ...................... 121 

S. 1707, to designate a Federal building in Arkansas as the Jacob Trieber 

Federal Building, United States Post Office, and United States Court 

House .................................................................................................................... 125 

H.R. 2559, to designate the PFC Milton A. Lee Medal of Honor Memorial 

Highway in the State of Texas ............................................................................ 127 

Committee Resolutions: 

Alteration, 1800 F Street Building, Presidential Transition Team, Washington, DC ..................................................................................................... 129 

Design, Federal Bureau of Investigation, San Juan, PR .............................. 130 

Design, Jacob K. Javits Federal Office Building, New York, NY ................. 131 

Replacement lease, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, 

DC .................................................................................................................. 132 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Articles: 

The Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2014, The Myth of the Climate Change 

‘97%’ ............................................................................................................... 68 

The New York Times, January 30, 2015, Most Republicans Say They 

Back Climate Action, Poll Finds .................................................................. 77 

The Wall Street Journal, June 18, 2014, Obama Carbon Rule Backed 

by Most Americans—WSJ/NBC Poll ........................................................... 80 

Letters: 

American Sustainable Business Council ........................................................ 4 

American Lung Association et al. ................................................................... 6 

Public Citizen et al. .......................................................................................... 8 

Adirondack Mountain Club et al. .................................................................... 11 

California Association of Sanitation Agencies ................................................ 14 

Earthjustice et al. ............................................................................................. 17 

American Association for the Advancement of Science et al. ....................... 57 
Page

IV 

Who Opposes Efforts to Undermine Clean Water Act Permitting for Direct 

Pesticide Applications? ........................................................................................ 16 

Gallup Poll—March 12, 2015 .................................................................................. 73 

Memo from Public Policy Polling ............................................................................ 82 

NRDC Fact Sheet, July 2013 .................................................................................. 90 
(1) 

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room 406, 

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

committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Vitter, Barrasso, Capito, Crapo, 

Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Boxer, Carper, 

Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, and Markey. 

Senator INHOFE. Our meeting will come to order. 

We are going to start by recognizing Senator Boxer for a special 

presentation. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a very special 

presentation. 

Before we get into the difficult arguments that await us, I 

thought I would take a minute to mark the fact that we worked 

so well together on a transportation bill that was very difficult to 

put together. 

When it got to the floor, we had to make more changes, and it 

took a lot of work on the part of the staff, but I have to say, Mr. 

Chairman, it was your leadership in marking up the bill here first 

and working with us and all of us to get a 20 to 0 vote that I think 

should be marked today by a special gift that we have bought for 

you, if you would accept that. 

Senator INHOFE. I will accept it. 

Senator BOXER. It is not a trick. I think you will like it. 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, I will. Oh, my goodness. 

Senator BOXER. See all those bridges on there? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. It is a towel with a lot of bridges. They are the 

ones that are structurally deficient, and we are going to fix them. 

Senator INHOFE. It reminds me of my gift to you. 

Senator BOXER. Never mind that. 

Senator INHOFE. It was a coffee cup that when global warming 

took place, it spilled coffee. 

Senator BOXER. I would call that a trick gift. This is a real gift. 

Senator INHOFE. It is very nice. Thank you. 

We are going to start with opening statements. She may change 

her mind. 
2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Even with the controversial nature of the items 

on this morning’s markup, I would like to note every bill on the 

markup agenda has bipartisan support. 

President Obama announced his new regulations on power plants 

on Monday, making a bad deal even worse. These regulations are 

the product of backroom sue and settle tactics with radical environmental lobbying organizations. 

Thirty-two States, including my State of Oklahoma, already oppose them, and 15 of the States have already legally challenged 

them, including my State of Oklahoma. The States will continue to 

challenge them. 

At least 43 States will experience electricity price spikes due to 

them according to testimony before this committee. They will actually increase global CO2 emissions, sending American jobs and investment overseas to high polluting countries. As they leave the 

United States, they go to countries where there are no regulations 

and obviously would have the effect of increasing not decreasing 

CO2 emissions. 

They were characterized by Obama’s own constitutional law professor in a hearing we held. He said, ‘‘Burning the Constitution of 

the United States should not be a part of the national energy policy.’’ 

According to testimony before this committee from the former Sierra Club General Counsel, they rest on dubious legal grounds. According to testimony by the National Black Chamber of Commerce 

also before this committee, they will ‘‘increase Black poverty by 23 

percent, Hispanic poverty by 26 percent and result in 7 million job 

losses for African-Americans and nearly 12 million for Hispanics by 

2035. They rely even less on natural gas and give only marginal 

credit for new nuclear capacity.’’ Finally, according to EPA officials 

in two hearings before this committee, all of them will not affect 

global CO2 levels. 

This is not a good deal for the American people. I thank Senator 

Capito for drafting S. 1324, the Affordable Reliable Energy Now 

Act of 2015, to address these problems. Her bill sends the EPA 

back to the drawing board and provides a host of new requirements 

that will ensure future proposals actually improve the environment 

in a balanced and healthy way. 

Her bill increases transparency, protects the role of States and 

provides certainty to the regulated community. Finally, it protects 

energy consumers from industrial manufacturers to the kitchen 

table from unnecessary costs and unjustified price increases. 

Additionally, the markup agenda includes measures to reauthorize the grant making estuary program and address duplicative regulatory requirements concerning pesticide use. We are actually siding with the EPA on this one. 

Finally, the agenda includes a measure to continue the use of 

Pittman-Robertson interest payments as additional funds for conservation efforts, names courthouses and a segment of the interstate in Texas after accomplished Americans. 
3 

The agenda considers four GSA resolutions which will save Americans well over $100 million and eliminate tens of millions in 

cost from potential and current leases. 

Everything on the agenda has bipartisan support. 

We have votes starting at 10:30 a.m., so we are going to rush 

through and see how far we can get by 10:45 a.m. Who knows, we 

might be able to finish. 

Senator Boxer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. I doubt that, but I would say we are here today 

to consider several bills. Most of them are noncontroversial. Two of 

them, I believe I do speak for my side. By the way, they may be 

bipartisan but not in this committee, not in this committee. 

Two of these bills, S. 1324 and S. 1500, are extremely harmful 

to the people we represent. S. 1324 blocks the President’s Clean 

Power Plan and allows States to opt out of complying with any future plan. The bill creates giant loopholes, making it nearly impossible to take any meaningful action to address climate change and 

reduce harmful carbon pollution which hurts our families. 

We know if we turn away from the President’s Clean Power Plan 

we not only move toward the most devastating impacts of climate 

change. We are already seeing them. My State has never had such 

raging wildfires, which I see the Senators from Oregon, Washington and California all predicted, due to climate change. We have 

droughts which were all predicted due to climate change. 

Those who deny it and try to stop our progress, as this one bill 

does, are on the wrong side of history and will have to answer to 

future generations if their view prevails, which I hope it does not. 

It will on this committee, there is no doubt about that. 

Why would we want to do something that would mean up to 

90,000 more asthma attacks, 1,700 more heart attacks, 3,600 more 

premature deaths and 300,000 more missed days at school and 

work? Why would we want to do that in the Environment Committee? 

We have letters in opposition to this bill from dozens and dozens 

of public health, business, environmental and religious groups. I 

ask unanimous consent for these groups to be put in the record 

against the Capito bill. These are groups you would want on your 

side, American public health, religious organizations, all opposed to 

that bill. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

Senator BOXER. Thanks. 

The second controversial bill, S. 1500, would end the requirement 

that you need to get a Clean Water Act permit if you are spraying 

pesticides into a body of water. Just think about it. 

The sole purpose of a pesticide is to kill something, whether it 

is an insect or a weed. When pesticides get into bodies of water 

where our children swim and waterways that provide drinking 

water to our families, we are exposing people to substances known 

to be toxic. Pesticides have been linked to a wide range of damaging health impacts including irritation of the skin and eyes, damage to the nervous system and other harm to pregnant women, infants and children. 

Pesticides can also be human carcinogens. The negative effects 

on the environment, including fisheries, have been well documented. Over a billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in 

the United States. The U.S. Geological Survey found that 61 percent of agricultural streams and 90 percent of urban streams are 

contaminated with one or more pesticides. 

Pesticide pollution is a problem. What is the answer? Just spray 

away, that is what my Republican friends say, spray away, and do 

not worry about getting a clean water permit. 

The Clean Water Act permit has been in place since 2011. No 

one has complained that it has stopped the use of pesticides but 

it ensures that pesticides are used in a responsible way that reduces contamination of our streams, rivers and lakes. 

Why on earth do you need to repeal this public health safeguard? 

I do not know what we are here for. Honestly, I wonder. 

The answer is we should not do this. That is why a broad range 

of groups, including Republican basic supporters, commercial fishermen, public health and environmental organizations have written 

in opposition to this legislation to exempt pesticides from the Clean 

Water Act. 

I ask unanimous consent to place these letters into the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 

Senator BOXER. In closing, it shocks me that this committee, the 

Environment and Public Works Committee, on public works we 

work as a team, but on the environment, we go back into our corners. It is hard for me to see this committee, which was led by Republicans and Democrats who believed that protecting the environment is our charge, could lead the charge against a clean and 

healthy environment. It does not make any sense. 

These bills will be reported today. We know we do not have the 

votes to stop you and they are not bipartisan in this committee, but 

I know there will be strong opposition on the floor of the Senate. 

I hope they never see the light of day. 

Senator INHOFE. On that happy note, we have good news, and 

that is the vote has been moved to 2 o’clock so we will be able to 

stay here until the bitter end. 

As a reminder, a quorum of 11 would be needed to report legislation. A quorum of 7 is needed for amendments. Let us try to hang 

around. 

As usual, I will ask members to seek recognition on each amendment as they come up. We will hear the amendments, and there 

are quite a few as I understand. 

We will start with S. 1324, the ARENA Act. I will recognize Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to begin by saying I know there are passions on both 

sides of this issue. I think the passion I have on my side of this 

issue is just as heartfelt, sincere and driven by the people I represent every day. I thank you for holding the hearing. 

This bill is bipartisan. It has 35 co-sponsors, including Leader 

McConnell and all my fellow Republicans on this committee. 

The ARENA Act is strongly supported by the Partnership for A 

Better Energy Future, whose members include: the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the American 

Farm Bureau Association, the National Mining Association and the 

Home Boaters Association. 

The ARENA Act is not just supported by businesses. We also 

have strong support in the labor community. There are letters of 

support I would like to submit for the record from the United 

Mineworkers of America, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and the Utility Workers Union. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

As we all know, on Monday, President Obama and his Environmental Protection Agency announced their final clean power grab. 

It proposes benchmarks that are more stringent and less attainable. 

We used my State of West Virginia as an example. Our emissions rate under the proposed rule was to drop approximately 20 

percent. The final rule requires our rate to drop by nearly 37 percent, a drop that is almost twice as severe. 

In my view, this is why we need the ARENA Act now more than 

ever. I am going to explain four basic tenets of the ARENA Act, 

and we will move to consideration. 
20 

First, for new power plants, the bill prevents EPA from mandating use of unproven technology. The President talks about CCS 

and uses an example of CCS that is not economical or technologically feasible. 

Before EPA can set a technologically based standard for new 

power plants, I think the standard must first be achieved for at 

least 1 year at six different power facilities throughout the country. 

Under ARENA, the best current technologies set the standard for 

new coal plants, cleaner, more efficient and less emissions. 

Second, for existing power plants, the bill delays implementation 

of the rule pending final judicial review. States should not have to 

begin implementing these costly and burdensome plans until an 

unappealable judicial decision has been reached. In June, we saw 

under the MATS ruling, the Supreme Court came back and said 

the EPA did not make careful consideration of the cost. 

Third, the bill allows States to opt out to protect ratepayers and 

electricity reliability. States should not be required to implement a 

State or Federal plan that the State’s Governor determines would 

negatively impact economic growth, the reliability of the electricity 

system or electricity ratepayers. 

Fourth, the bill holds EPA accountable by requiring that the 

agency issue State-specific model plans demonstrating how each 

State will meet the required greenhouse gas emissions reductions 

under this rule. Before States can make major and costly changes 

to meet EPA’s proposed targets, EPA should map out a suggested 

route for each State to reach those targets. 

I urge support of this legislation and look forward to the markup. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The text of S. 1324 follows:] 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Does any Senator seek recognition for amendments to the bill? 

Senator Markey. 

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

Without question, we are about to begin a historic debate. The 

President has laid out what is necessary in order to protect our 

planet, in order to protect the health of those who live on our planet, and those who live in the United States of America. 

It is a plan which tries to put in place the preventative measures 

that are going to be necessary because we know that climate 

change impacts our economy, our national security and the public 

health of our citizens, parents, pediatricians, Presidents and Popes, 

of the risks that we face from climate change. They agree that now 

is the time for action. 

The negative health impacts of climate change are numerous 

from heat waves. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Markey, which amendment are you addressing now? 

Senator MARKEY. Right now, I am addressing Amendment No. 4. 

Senator INHOFE. Amendment No. 4, Markey No. 4. 

Senator MARKEY. The negative health impacts of climate change 

are numerous heat waves and extreme storms to expanding ranges 

of dangerous diseases and longer allergy seasons. The risks to our 

health from pumping carbon pollution into the air are well known. 

This bill would eliminate EPA’s ability to address carbon pollution through the Clean Power Plan or essentially any action in the 

future. It would eliminate EPA’s ability to protect public health 

from reducing carbon pollution from power plants and that is unacceptable. 

That is why eight leading medical and health organizations sent 

a letter yesterday opposing this bill because it would put lives at 

risk by delaying and blocking critical clean air protections. 

The groups who sent the letter include the American Lung Association and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation. All of these groups 

are concerned about the health of those who live in our country. 

In June at the legislative hearing we had on this bill, we heard 

testimony from Dr. Mary Rice. She testified as a doctor, as a Harvard medical researcher who specializes in the health impacts and 

as the mother of a child with asthma. 

From both a personal and professional perspective, she warned 

of the health risks of climate change. We should heed the Hippocratic oath of doctors and do no more harm to our climate and to 

the health of today’s children and future generations. 

My amendment is very simple. It would prevent this Polluter 

Protection Plan from coming into effect until a National Carbon 

Pollution Program is in place that achieves the same health benefits as the Clean Power Plan. 

This Polluter Protection Plan will not apply until we have something that avoids, here are the numbers, 3,600 premature deaths 

per year, 1,700 heart attacks per year, 90,000 asthma attacks per 

year, 300,000 missed work and school days per year. 

To put a fine point on it, if you do not like the Clean Power Plan, 

then what is your plan to cut carbon pollution and address the negative health impacts of climate change? What is your plan to avoid 
35 

the asthma, the deaths and the missed work days? What is your 

plan? Put your plan out here so that we can hear what you are 

going to do. 

The medical community has identified the relationship between 

the pollution that goes up into the air and the negative consequences especially for children in our society. What is your plan? 

When is it going to be out here? Who is going to make that plan 

on your side? When do you begin to be the leaders in protecting the 

health of the children in our country? 

That is what our amendment calls for in this first vote. This plan 

stays in place until you have a plan that accomplishes the very 

same goals to protect the public health in our country. You cannot 

deny the scientific correlation between this pollution and the impacts on the health in our country. What is your plan? 

Mr. Chairman, I ask for an aye vote on this first amendment. 

[The text of Markey Amendment No. 4 follows:] 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Senator INHOFE. I would only observe, Senator Markey, that Dr. 

Janet McCabe has testified several times before this committee 

about the nature of the double counting, and there have not been 

reductions. However, they are due to other pollutants as opposed 

to this. 

Senator Capito, did you want to respond? 

Senator CAPITO. I think certainly the health of our children is 

upmost in all of our minds. To think we would not want to have 

policies that move forward to keep our children healthy is a smokescreen of some sort. 

I would say when I look at what the employment numbers will 

be in our State, the thousands of jobs we have already lost that are 

plunging people into deep poverty, poverty is a contributor to ill 

health all across the country for our children. 

I think there are costs and benefits to everything. I think in this 

case it is more cost than benefit in terms of keeping people working, keeping families together, keeping people insured that have insurance through their employer, all those things that help keep 

children healthier. 

I think there are lots of things we can do to eliminate asthma 

and other lung diseases around the country. We have looked at 

eliminating other particulates. I think that has done some good 

work. 

I would oppose the gentleman’s amendment. I think it is more 

cost and less effect. 

Senator INHOFE. Others who want to be heard? 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

If my friend is sincere about wanting to reduce health problems, 

she should support Senator Markey. He says your bill is fine, but 

not now because it does not address the facts. 

Maybe my friend, and I know she cares about kids as much as 

I do, needs to follow the leadership of people who spend their life 

every day protecting kids. They wrote to us. They do not like your 

bill, and they urge us to oppose it. 

They are the Allergy and Asthma Network, the American Lung 

Association, the American Public Health Association, the American 

Thoracic Society which deals with heart issues, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Health Care Without Harm, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the National 

Environmental Health Association, the Trust for America’s Health. 

I could go on for pages and pages. 

The fact is the experts are telling us that your bill poses terrible 

health impacts for our children and our families. You can say poverty is worse. You know what, poverty is terrible. That is why a 

lot of us who worked on moving to clean energy have worked to 

make sure that coal miners get the help they need in transitioning. 

If you look at my State, the biggest job growth is in clean energy. 

Guess what, those are great paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. 

They are safe for the workers. They do not have to breathe in coal 

dust and all the rest, so get with it. 

I think Senator Markey had a brilliant speech on the floor, and 

Senators Whitehouse and Schatz. One of the things they said is if 

we had this attitude about moving forward, moving to new and in-
40 

novative technologies, we would not have the cell phone, we would 

not have the computer, and we would not even have the automobile. We would still be driving around with a horse and buggy. 

The time for clean energy is now. The health impacts of some of 

the old energy are serious. I think your bill drags us backward. I 

hope that we will support Senator Markey’s amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Others who want to be heard? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. President of what? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You are the Presiding Officer or the Chairman of the committee right now, Mr. Chairman. 

I would ask that we not consider the health concerns that folks 

on my side of the aisle have about this measure which would delay 

the implementation of the plan and therefore create worse health 

conditions as a smokescreen. I do not think that is fair, and I do 

not think it is accurate. 

Rhode Island has been a downwind State from the coal polluters 

for a long, long time. Just last week we had another bad air day. 

It was a bad air day in which infants, seniors and people with 

breathing conditions were urged to stay indoors, and people were 

urged to avoid vigorous outdoor activity. 

That is what happened in my State. There is nothing we can do 

about it. That happened in my State because the pollution from 

these coal power plants goes up into the air, and it bakes in the 

heat, so the carbon does make a difference because it does warm 

the planet. That is undisputable, I think. In that, it becomes ozone 

and then ozone creates asthma. 

Our health officials are very clear in Rhode Island that this 

ozone problem is actually putting kids in the hospital. That is no 

smokescreen. That is a very legitimate concern that I have about 

this. 

My experience, to address another point, is that this is going to 

be economically harmful. In my experience, because Rhode Island 

is a participant in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, is that 

it actually has been good for our economy. 

Objective reports have come out and said it has strengthened the 

New England economy to participate in the Regional Greenhouse 

Gas Initiative. We have the numbers for job growth, economic 

growth and utility costs are down. 

From my experience, the threat this is going to be an economic 

harm that is going to cause poverty runs exactly contrary to the 

experience we have had in the Northeast of implementing a cap 

and trade program, of bringing those revenues back into the State 

and of allowing them to lower utility costs by investing in efficiency 

which is hard to otherwise invest in. 

I will make one last point. On the floor yesterday, I used the 

chart of the electric power mix of the State of Kentucky. Do you 

know what it looks like? It is virtually a 100 percent wall of coal. 

If you look at the solar and the wind proportion of it, it is so 

small across the very tippy top of the line, a tiny little green line, 

you actually have to use a magnifying glass to see it. They say the 

sun shines bright on my old Kentucky home; where is the solar? 
41 

Iowa, which has two Republican Senators, gets 30 percent of its 

power from wind. Kentucky has wind. The issue here is not that 

it is difficult to do; the issue here is that some States have not even 

tried. 

I cannot tell you how hurtful it is when I have Rhode Island kids 

going to the emergency room because of asthma, when I have 

Rhode Island coastlines seeing 10 inches of sea level rise, when I 

have Rhode Island’s fishing industry being disrupted by the warming of Narragansett Bay 3 to 4 degrees, completely disrupting the 

winter flounder fishing which was important to our fishermen, 

from States that have not even tried, when all the evidence about 

what happens when you try is that it is good for your economy, I 

find these arguments hard to take. 

We feel the health effects. We are the downwind States. We are 

the coastal States. It is really happening to us. I urge a no vote. 

Please, nobody even tried. 

I respect the proponent of this legislation. I respect her view that 

we are sincere in our views, but there was zero effort to try to accommodate any of our views. This is a pure partisan effort in this 

committee to simply roll us. 

I know we are going to get rolled, but do not pretend that any 

effort was made to substantively try to address the real health concerns we see in Rhode Island, the real ocean concerns that we see 

in Rhode Island and the real climate concerns that we see in Rhode 

Island. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

The Chair would observe that the total percentage of the mix 

when you combine air, wind and solar, it is only 5 percent after all 

the subsidies that are out there and the public input. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity on 

the Markey amendment for my support, my opposition to the underlying bill and to make my comments on the Markey amendment. 

I agree completely with Senator Markey in regard to the Clean 

Power Plan as being critically important to the health of our constituents. The dollar values of the health savings alone should 

cause all of us to understand how important clean air is to the 

health of our children and our families. 

The number of additional health care visits and the number of 

work days lost by parents have all been documented, and there is 

no question about the health risks involved if we do not move forward with the power plant rules. 

I also want to add to Senator Whitehouse’s statement. Maryland 

has gone through this. We have set up a plan to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020 compared to our 2006 

levels. As Senator Whitehouse said, you can go by example of 

States that have moved forward on these plans. We are about 40 

percent to that level, by the way. 

At the same time that we have moved forward on reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions, we have shown a very positive effect on 

our economy and documented savings to the consumers. Our utility 

costs have actually been savings, not additional costs. 
42 

The examples in the Northeast of the States that have taken action have seen positive to our economies, produced cleaner air and 

have also added to an important national security issue. We have 

heard from our military people the effect climate change is having 

on our national security. This is a win-win-win situation if you just 

allow us to go forward. 

I would hope Congress would want to be a positive partner with 

the Administration in helping to achieve the goals of reducing our 

greenhouse gas emissions and much more reliance on alternative 

renewable energy sources. Instead, this bill moves us in the wrong 

direction. 

For that reason, I strongly support Senator Markey’s efforts and 

will oppose the bill. 

I will yield to my colleague. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

The Senator from West Virginia said that my amendment is a 

smokescreen. It is a smokescreen. It is intended to screen off the 

lungs of the children in America from the smoke coming out of 

these polluting utilities. 

On the other hand, the bill that we have here today is a screen 

to protect polluters’ profits so that they can continue to send their 

smoke up into the sky. This is really what the debate is all about, 

who is really trying to protect with a screen of lungs of the children. 

Once again, I ask for an aye vote. I thank the Senator for yielding. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Gillibrand, did you want to be heard 

before we go to a vote on the Markey amendment? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. No, I would like to be heard after the vote. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Is there a motion on the amendment? 

Senator MARKEY. Motion. 

Senator BOXER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. There is a motion and a second. 

Senator MARKEY. I request a roll call. 

Senator INHOFE. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 
43 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9 and the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there other amendments that want to be heard? 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I would like to call up my amendment, 

Gillibrand-Markey No. 1 to S. 1324. 

Obviously climate change is real, it is here, and humans have a 

very significant role to play in it. Despite the overwhelming science 

showing that climate change poses a real threat to our communities, the majority in the Senate continues to oppose doing anything meaningful to stop climate change or to reduce our carbon 

emissions. 

The truth is that New York does not have that luxury. Two and 

a half years ago, Superstorm Sandy devastated large parts of the 

East Coast including my home State of New York. Superstorm 

Sandy resulted in the deaths of 117 people in the United States 

and caused more than $60 billion in damages. 

That storm came just a year after two other devastating storms, 

Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, which also ravaged the 

Northeast. In just over 2 years, we had three major tropical storms 

in New York, three of these storms in 2 years. Think about that. 

The storm of the century is becoming the storm of the year. 

New York has over 1,800 miles of shoreline, and the coastal 

water has risen at least one foot since 1900. Our shoreline is home 

to more than half of all New Yorkers. If we do not act soon, we 

could see additional sea level rise of 4 feet by the year 2100. 

We have the responsibility as a committee to act. We have the 

responsibility to act against the increased frequency and heightened intensity of flood damage and storm surge damage not only 

to our communities and our infrastructure but to the critical ecosystems that buffer against floods and protect our drinking water. 

We have to act against increased erosion of beaches and shoreline, against inundation of low lying areas by rising sea levels, and 
44 

we need to protect ourselves from saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers that serve our communities as our drinking water. 

My amendment looks to protect the 39 percent of Americans who 

live in coastal shoreline counties by ensuring this legislation will 

not be implemented if the EPA Administrator, the Commerce Secretary and the Interior Secretary determine it will contribute to an 

increase in sea level rise and coastal erosion. 

We have a fundamental responsibility in this committee to protect our communities from the harm caused by human made climate change. This amendment would ensure that nothing we do 

going forward will accelerate the rise of sea level on America’s 

coasts. 

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I request a roll 

call. 

[The text of Gillibrand-Markey Amendment No. 1 follows:] 
45 
46 
47 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

I would just observe that talking about climate change, we have 

had a lot of committees to do that and that is not what we are 

doing today. We have under consideration several pieces of legislation and GSAs. Now we are on the Capito amendment. 

Do others want to be heard on the Gillibrand amendment? 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. 

Some of you come to our States during the course of the year, 

and some of you come especially during the summer. We are 

blessed with I think more five star beaches than any State in 

America. One of them is called Rehoboth, which literally translates 

in the Bible to mean room for all. We think that would include everyone in this room and beyond. 

When you drive north from Rehoboth maybe 20 miles or so, you 

come to a place called Prime Hook Beach. Prime Hook Beach is 

right next door to the Prime Hook Natural Wildlife Refuge, a beautiful, large piece of land with all kinds of national treasures, fish 

and wildlife. 

It used to be you could get to Prime Hook Beach by driving north 

from Rehoboth up the coast. You could also come from the inland 

part of our State. There is a road called Pine Hook Beach Road. 

You can get off State Road 1 in the central part of the State and 

head east toward the Delaware Bay and drive right along Prime 

Hook National Wildlife Refuge, and you get to the water, end up 

right at the water’s edge. That is the Delaware Bay. 

It used to be you did not get right to the water. You would actually get to a parking lot. People would park their cars, trucks or 

boats and then fish, go clamming, whatever they wanted to do for 

recreation. At the end of the day, they would go back to the parking lot, get their vehicles and boats, head out and go home. 

Today, when you get to where the parking lot used to be, there 

is not a parking lot. It is just water. The reason it is just water 

is, the parking lot is down there but it is under the water, but it 

is water. It is the Delaware Bay. 

Someone showed me a photograph a couple years ago standing 

on Prime Hook at the parking lot, looking out in the Delaware Bay. 

As you looked east toward New Jersey at about 1 or 2 o’clock was 

a concrete bunker sticking up out of the water. This was in 1947, 

the year I was born. 

Today, if you look out at the water, the bunker is not there anymore. It used to be about 500 feet west of the dune line inland. 

Today, it is under water. You cannot see it. You just cannot see it 

at all. 

Senator Boxer and I like to trade music lyrics. One I have used 

to describe this sensation is looking out where the bunker used to 

be, 500 feet inland to the west, and looking out there knowing it 

is somewhere under water reminds me of the old Steven Sills song, 

‘‘Something is happening here, just what it is ain’t exactly clear.’’ 

For us in Delaware, we are the lowest lying State in America, 

think about that. We are the lowest lying State in America. Our 

economy is strong in a couple different ways. One of the three or 

four pillars our economy stands on is tourism. A big reason why 
48 

people come to Delaware is because we have these five star beaches. 

The way things are going, if we are not careful, we will have 

those five star beaches but they will be under water too, just like 

our concrete bunker and just like that parking lot. 

I would say for us in the State of Delaware, this is real. It is a 

matter of great concern for us. I hope as we consider this issue and 

this vote on the Gillibrand amendment, we will keep that in mind. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a motion on the Gillibrand amendment? 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

I rise in support of the Gillibrand amendment just to say this 

that the rise in sea level is undeniable. It is measurable. It is not 

something that is complicated. We know it is going on. 

We each know how grateful we feel that Superstorm Sandy did 

not hit our State because if it had, it would have caused catastrophic damage in our States as it did to New Jersey. 

The sum and case on this issue is the suit that was brought by 

the State of Massachusetts versus the EPA. It is called Massachusetts v. EPA. That is the Supreme Court decision in 2007 that set 

us on this course. 

At question in that Supreme Court decision was the question of 

whether or not there was an increasing and dangerous increase in 

the erosion of the shoreline of Massachusetts. The Supreme Court 

ruled that there was and that the EPA had a responsibility to do 

something to reduce the likelihood that there would be an increase 

in the danger. That is why we are here. 

We are here because we know it is happening. We know it is 

happening in Massachusetts, but we know it is happening in every 

coastal State in our country. 

The Gillibrand amendment just says again, to the Republicans, 

what is your plan to keep the sea from rising? What is your plan 

to ensure that the sea does not continue to warm dangerously? 

What is your plan? We do not see that plan unless you deny the 

seas are rising, unless you deny the ocean is warming because that 

is scientifically inaccurate. 

We need to hear your science or your plan to deal with the 

science we are presenting. I urge an aye vote. 

Senator WICKER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. I will be happy to defer to Senator Merkley. 

Senator INHOFE. We are going back and forth. 

Senator WICKER. Clearly we are going to have a long debate 

about this in the committee and on the floor. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me interrupt you. We have had this debate 

before. We had Dr. Judith Curry from Georgia who testified. 

Senator WICKER. I was going to speak about Dr. Curry. 

Let me say this. Senator Vitter was here and has left, but I recall a statement he made some 2 years ago at a hearing of this 

committee when Senator Boxer was Chairman. The title of the 

hearing was Climate Change, It Is Happening Now. 
49 

As Ranking Member, Senator Vitter pointed out indeed climate 

change is happening now and has always been happening. I do not 

think any member of this committee on either side of the dais 

would argue that the climate is not changing. 

The point that Senator Vitter made and that I would make is 

that the climate has always changed. There is a reason why the island of Greenland is named Greenland because at one point, it was 

green, and people had farms there. Humankind settled there and 

grew a crop. The climate changed, and we cannot farm in Greenland anymore. 

I would simply say there is a great body of science that will tell 

us, if we will listen, that climate has always been changing and 

will always change because there are influences beyond the control 

of humans. We might as well accept that. There are some things 

Congress cannot do. 

The fact is sea level has been rising for the past several thousand 

years. That is a fact, and it can hardly be disputed. 

As the Chairman mentioned, Dr. Judith Curry came before the 

EPW Committee 2 years ago for a hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan. She discussed sea level rise, testifying that data 

does not support the IPCC’s conclusion that man has substantially 

contributed to the global mean sea level rise since 1970. 

I do not think Dr. Curry would dispute the fact that there are 

parts of the parking lot in Senator Carper’s State that cannot be 

seen anymore, but she came before this committee as a scientist 

and a scholarly witness saying there are other reasons that cannot 

be controlled by Congress or by humankind. 

Dr. Curry also pointed out that sea level rise was greater between 1904 and 1953 than between 1954 and 2003. As we have 

gotten more industrialized, as we have emitted more carbon dioxide 

into the atmosphere, actually sea level rise has slowed, since 1954 

according to Dr. Curry. 

Let me say a couple more things. We have been having storms 

and hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico since 

time immemorial. I think there are a lot of scientists who believe 

that mankind is contributing to climate change who would seriously come before this committee and say it is wrong to say we can 

blame Superstorm Sandy on that. The jury is far from out on that, 

even among people who believe completely and wholeheartedly that 

carbon dioxide is causing this. 

I have one other final point to my friend from Massachusetts. He 

and I have been at this business together for a long time. This legislation has nothing to do with smoke. If we are honest, the President’s regulation, the EPA’s regulation we are talking about has 

nothing to do with soot or particulate emissions or smoke. 

If Senators want to sit down with me and devise a plan to do an 

even better job than we have already done of cutting down on soot, 

smog and smoke, then I am happy to join this. This regulation is 

about CO2, not about the smudgy kind of carbon that messes up 

your clothes and you see coming out of automobiles. 

This is about a colorless, tasteless, necessary part of the atmosphere called carbon dioxide. We can have a debate, my friends 

across the aisle disagree with me vehemently about this, about 

what CO2, carbon dioxide, is doing to the atmosphere, but please 
50 

do not say this is about smoke, soot or smog or something that 

causes the air to look hazy as they have in Beijing and other 

places. 

We have done such a good job in the United States of cutting 

back on that and pretty much conquering that. 

This is about carbon dioxide, a tasteless, odorless gas that is essential in photosynthesis. I would just like to point that out. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

You have just heard a lecture, and it is just not true. I am going 

to put into the record my rebuttal to that. I have on these charts 

the facts about what has happened to the climate, not that we have 

seen a slowing of carbon and the rest. Let us just see the facts. 

The scientists warned there would be more heavy precipitation 

and flooding events. Let us look at Texas. In 2015, areas of Texas 

got 11 inches of rain in 24 hours. The Blanco River rose 33 feet in 

3 hours. It broke the 1929 record by over 7 feet. 

In Boston, the National Weather Service data finds an all time 

record for snow within a 14- to 20- and 30-day period. 

In the Arctic, decreasing polar sea ice, Arctic sea ice area has declined 40 percent since 1978 and thinned more than 50 percent. 

Average summer temperatures are now higher than any century in 

more than 44,000 years. It has lost 40 cubic miles of ice every year 

since 1994. 

Volume loss from the Antarctic ice shelves is accelerating. The 

ice shelf, twice the size of Hawaii, is at imminent risk of collapse 

posing major sea level threat. 

Rising sea levels, which my colleagues have talked about, since 

the 1990s, sea levels have risen even more rapidly than thought 

and threaten our coastal communities. Sea level rise over the past 

century is unmatched by any period in the last 6,000 years. 

Who said this? It is not one scientist. It is groups of scientists. 

Hot extremes are more frequent, NOAA, NASA; hottest year on 

record, 2014, 2015, first half of year, hottest on record. In 2014, 

California records hottest year on record by over 4 degrees; that’s 

NOAA. 

In 2014, Australia, towns 320 miles northwest of Sydney hit 118 

degrees. In June, India temperatures reached 118 degrees with the 

death toll reaching 1,800 people. 

Areas affected by drought, California drought the worst in 1,200 

years. Increase in bigger wildfires, the U.S. has seven times more 

wildfires over the size of 10,000 acres as compared to the 1970s. 

Arizona and New Mexico suffer largest wildfires in recorded history. 

Hurricanes, Hurricane Sandy strength, as indicated by barometric pressure just before landfall, set a record. Typhoon Haiyan 

was one of the strongest tropical cyclones. In Vanuatu, Tropical Cyclone Pam was the strongest tropical cyclone. 

What are we talking about that things are getting worse? It is 

just belied by the very facts around us. That is why the polls are 

showing increasingly that the deniers and people who say, carbon 

is no problem, it is not a pollutant, the co-benefits of reducing car-
51 

bon is what has been measured, measured in fewer asthma attacks, fewer heart attacks and fewer missed days of school. 

The reason we are taking all this time, Mr. Chairman, is because 

you have 1 day after the announcement of this plan to come forward with essentially a repeal. The arguments being made just do 

not match the facts. 

I yield to Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. I thank the Senator from California very much. 

Senator INHOFE. I think you should operate through the Chair. 

If you seek recognition, I would be glad to recognize you. 

Let me just observe we have had hearings on all of this. I can 

come up with my book of science on this. It is divided. We all know 

that. We know that. You speak of it as a fact. You speak of it as 

now the public is aware. Let me tell you what Gallup says. 

Gallup said 3 years ago that climate change or global warming, 

let us get back to the origins of this, was either the No. 1 or No. 

2 concern. Today, it is number 30 out of 31. It is nearly last in 

terms of the environmental concerns, so it is just not factual. 

It does not really matter for the purpose of this committee hearing, however. We have a bill before us, and we have an amendment. We need to act on the amendment. Everyone wants to campaign, and everyone wants to tell their story. 

If it is really just your wish to stall this so we do not have the 

hearing, then go ahead and say it. 

You are recognized. 

Senator MARKEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

First of all, this is the most important debate we are going to 

have in this committee in 2015 and 2016, so I am not trying to 

drag out anything. We are just trying to give the proper respect to 

this issue which it deserves. 

We are not going to do anything more important in 2 years; this 

is it. This is the most important issue of our time. We are having 

a big debate here, but I think it is only a reflection of how important it is. 

Let me just say, one, on the issue of what we are doing with the 

Clean Power Plan on the issue of disease, the Clean Power Plan 

reduces SO2, sulfur, by 90 percent between now and 2030, a 90 percent reduction. 

What does that relate to? That is soot which is tiny particulates 

that can go into people’s lungs. That is heart disease. 

It also reduces nitrogen oxide by 72 percent. What is that? That 

is smog and that is asthma. That is 72 percent. That is what this 

plan does in addition to reducing CO2 by 32 percent by the year 

2030. 

On the issue of Greenland, yes, Greenland is 1,000 miles long, 

pretty much from here down to Miami and about 300 or 400 miles 

wide. At its densest, it has an ice block which is 10 Empire State 

Buildings high. 

At this point of the year, in Greenland, the warm weather 

throughout the spring and into the summer creates huge lakes of 

the melting ice. As the summer goes on, there is an eddying effect, 

creating moulins that go all the way down to the bottom of those 

ice blocks as they are being measured now at 3 and 4 on the Richter scale and ice quakes. As the summer goes on, that water flows 
52 

down to the bottom of the ice and continues to liquefy that ice as 

it moves closer to the land. 

In the North Atlantic, for Senator Gillibrand, Senator 

Whitehouse, Senator Cardin or Senator Carper, or I, it is like a 

glass of water that is already filled. It is filled to the top. If you 

put an ice cube into that, the water flows over and has no place 

to go. 

It is not like the ice in the Arctic where there is no land and it 

melts. This is different. That is what Iceland is all about; that is 

what Alaska is all about. It is what the Antarctic is all about. It 

is putting the ice cube into the water. What we are seeing is this 

increase in sea level. 

Senator INHOFE. The Chair is going to interrupt you. I am very 

sorry, and I do not like to do this, but we have had hearings on 

all of this. I could answer everything that you have just asserted, 

and there is another side to it. 

However, we have legislation before this committee. We have 

several bills, GSA, things that really have a timing where we have 

to get to it. We are not getting anywhere. 

If anyone would like to talk specifically or make one short statement about the Gillibrand amendment, we will recognize that person. 

Senator Merkley. 

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

One of the things we can recognize here is that many members 

on this side of the dais are sea States. We have ocean fronts. I believe that is everyone except for perhaps Bernie Sanders. On the 

opposite side of the dais, we have primarily non-sea States. 

What we are hearing in part is a very clear difference between 

the experience in our home States. Certainly, Oregon is an ocean 

State. 

This bill says when it is certified that the proposed legislation 

will not have further impact in damaging our States, it can go into 

effect. I very much appreciate this because this is something we 

should all be able to agree on. If the ideas being presented in this 

particular bill will not further hurt our States, then the path is 

clear, but if it is going to further hurt our States, then we are exercising our very profound concern for the direct impact. 

It has been noted how higher sea level is already occurring in 

ways that are causing beach erosion, it means storm surges are 

that much higher and certainly the erosion of the coastal area is 

a very significant concern in my home State of Oregon as it is to 

Washington State to the north and to California to the south. 

There is also another issue here, which is saltwater intrusion 

into the freshwater supplies for our communities. We can stand 

back and say, how expensive is it to counter all of this? What kind 

of economic damage is going to be done? 

It costs an incredible amount to build seawalls. For every inch 

of additional seawall, that is a very expensive enterprise. Quite 

frankly, a storm can take those out. Even if you have a seawall, 

that does not stop saltwater intrusion into the groundwater. 

Now, where is your water going to come from, where are you 

going to pipe it from? What about your main street? Senator 

Whitehouse could tell us about standing on a sidewalk down in 
53 

Florida and at regular high tide when that sidewalk in the past 

would have been dry but now it is under water. What does that 

mean for reconstructing entire towns to keep it above water as it 

continues to grow? 

There are vast economic consequences associated with this issue. 

I think this is a reasonable proposal that we do not implement a 

plan that will cause further damage. 

Senator INHOFE. The Chair is going to cut off the debate at this 

time. 

Senator Gillibrand, what do you want to do with your amendment? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I would like to call a vote, but I just want 

to close with one point. 

We have talked a lot about economic damage and what happens 

on a sunny day. Let me describe for 1 minute what happens during 

the storms. 

When Superstorm Sandy hit New York, a 10-foot wall of water 

came into communities. A mother holding two children lost her 

handle on her kids and they drowned. This is not an issue about 

money; this is an issue about lives lost. We have to care about the 

whole country. 

What you are hearing in this debate is your States are not affected; our States are deeply affected. Please consider the whole 

country when you write legislation. I know we tend to vote our interests, I know we tend to vote our States, but this is not just 

about money. 

This is about lives, children taken out of the hands of their mother because the storm surge was 10 feet high and seniors who could 

not get out of their homes in time who drowned in their beds. This 

is serious. 

I want you to consider what happens in other parts of the country. It is meaningful. This is not an esoteric debate; it is not a debate about numbers. It is a debate about lives. If you believe our 

decisions have consequences, please consider all the consequences. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Capito, did you want to respond? This 

is your bill. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes, I want to respond to the amendment. It is 

my understanding that in the Clean Power Plan, we really do not 

have a measuring device from the White House that tells us how 

much the coast is not going to rise or how much the temperature 

is not going to rise. 

Actually, in my bill in Section 4(b), I am asking for reporting, 

specific reporting, so maybe we can put some of these arguments 

to rest on the factualness. It provides that the EPA Administrator 

must conduct modeling regarding the impacts of the proposed rule 

on each of the climate indicators used by the Administrator in developing the proposed rule. We are asking for the facts from the 

Administrator on all of the different metrics we are talking about 

here. 

I would respond to the Senator from Massachusetts. He said 

Congress should have this debate. Right, Congress should have this 

debate. This has been a regulation that has been developed by the 

Administration. 
54 

They say everyone commented, 4 million people commented, yet 

they do not come to one of the most deeply economically affected 

States, so yes, we should have this debate. This should be debated 

on the floor of both the House and the Senate, but that is not the 

way it is set up right now. 

I think this is an opportunity to have debate in the committee, 

but in the end, the Administration’s regulatory prerogative, which 

the Supreme Court said in June on the MATS rule, they had overreached their authority and had not considered the costs in the 

MATS rule. That is a fact. 

All I am asking for here, I know it is a big ask, is to say let us 

wait until it works its way through the legalities, let us look at the 

impacts, have them model the impacts to the environment and talk 

about the cost benefits. Let us maybe find a better way to go to 

reach the health challenges, reach the economic challenges and 

reach the environmental challenges. 

I was looking at a chart. In West Virginia, from 2000 to 2011, 

CO2 emissions are down 16 percent in my State. In the State of 

Maryland, they are down 17.4 percent. In the State of California, 

they are down 8.2 percent. In the State of Massachusetts, they are 

down 18.8 percent. 

We are getting there without this large overreach that is going 

to cause a lot of harm. It is not about money. It is about families, 

too, where I live. I understand I do not live on the coast, and you 

live on the coast. I think that is a great point that we need to be 

made. There is equal passion on both sides. 

I would oppose the gentlelady’s amendment. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard for less than a 

minute? 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. At the conclusion of the 1 minute for Senator 

Boxer, the Chair is going to cut off debate and ask Senator 

Gillibrand if she wants to move her amendment. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. May I make a parliamentary inquiry? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, you may. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I have been in the Senate for 9 years. I 

have sat through quite lengthy committee speeches by members on 

the other side. I have never been in a committee in which debate 

has been cut off by the Chairman. I do not know what the rule is 

under which that takes place. This is the first for me in 9 years. 

Senator INHOFE. I think the Chairman has the authority to do 

that. A very good friend of mine said at one time, elections have 

consequences. At that time, the Chairman was on the other side of 

most of the issues we are discussing, and we did shorten our 

amendments. 

We have had countless hearings on the subject we are talking 

about right now. I do not want to be rude, I think you know that, 

but there has to be conclusion. 

If you do not want to vote on any of these bills on the agenda, 

you can keep talking if we do not cut off debate, but the Chairman 

has that authority. I am using it. If you have never seen it before, 

you have seen it now. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. 
55 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

The Chairman has the right but the committee has the right now 

to be here. 

Senator INHOFE. I fully agree. 

Senator BOXER. Let me say, if anyone feels that it is not being 

done fairly, I am just making the point, it is freedom of each colleague to do what they wish. The Chairman has the right, and the 

colleagues have the right to respond. 

I just need to say to my friend from West Virginia, the Clean Air 

Act requires this Administration to act. All you have to do is read 

it and read Massachusetts v. EPA. It was very clear that once an 

endangerment finding is made, that endangerment finding was actually made by the Bush administration which was able to get a 

whistleblower to send over the endangerment finding. 

Once that endangerment finding is made, people are going to die 

from the heat, people are going to die from the storms, and the 

emotion you heard from my colleague from New York, you know 

that is from the heart. I know you know it is from the heart. 

This is real to a lot of people. This is not something that is debated about the future. She saw it in her State. I am living it in 

my State with 23 wildfires and a dead firefighter visiting from another State, bless his heart, who died. This is real to us. 

That is why we are acting this way with strong views and feelings, as is my friend. 

I am going to conclude. Under the Clean Air Act, this Administration must act. If they do not act, they will be hauled to court. 

The endangerment finding is out there. Power plants are causing 

a huge amount of the problem. This is a way forward. I hope my 

friend understands that. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I move the amendment and request a roll 

call vote. 

Senator INHOFE. You move it. Is there a second? 

Senator BOXER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. A roll call has been requested. The Clerk 

will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. No. 
56 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, may I be recorded as aye 

in person? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, you are so recorded. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9 and the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there other amendments that want to be heard? 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. This will be Merkley Amendment No. 1. 

We have had some discussion about whether or not human activity is contributing to global warming. If it is human activity, it is 

within our reach to modify our activities. If it is not, as has been 

asserted here today, then we are in a different world. 

I present here today, and that it be filed in the record by unanimous consent, a letter from 18 scientific organizations. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced letter follows:] 
57 
58 
59 
60 

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

The letter reads like this: ‘‘Observations throughout the world 

make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that greenhouse gases emitted by 

human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are 

based on multiple, independent lines of evidence and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast 

body of peer-reviewed science. 

‘‘Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change 

will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy 

and the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal States, greater threats of extreme weather and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban 

heat waves, western wildfires and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. 

‘‘The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase 

substantially in the coming decades. If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases 

must be dramatically reduced.’’ 

This is from 18 scientific associations: the American Association 

for the Advancement of Science; the American Chemical Society, 

not a group you would necessarily expect to be on this list; the 

American Geophysical Union; the American Institute of Biological 

Sciences; the American Meteorological Society; the American Society of Agronomy; the American Society of Plant Biologists; the 

American Statistical Association; the Association of Ecosystem Research Centers; the Botanical Society of America; the Crop Science 

Center; the Society of America; the Ecological Society; the Natural 

Science Collections Alliance; the Organization of Biological Field 

Stations; the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; the 

Society of Systematic Biologists; the Soil Science Study of America; 

and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. 

In addition, there are many other groups that have weighed in 

on this fundamental proposition. Those groups include the American Medical Association, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 

the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, and we could go on with another 200 

across the world. 

The point is that basically every major scientific organization in 

the United States and those throughout the world are asserting a 

clear set of observations that human activity has a direct impact, 

and that direct impact is the warming of the planet. The warming 

of the planet is going to cause a lot of problems for us. 

My amendment simply states, as a finding of this body, that Congress should take under due consideration the advice from leading 

scientific institutions in the United States that global warming is 

real and due to human activity. 

I certainly would ask for your support for this. 

[The text of Merkley Amendment No. 1 follows:] 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 

Senator INHOFE. The Chair would observe that we have had 

hearings on this. The scientific community is divided. We talked 

about Richard Lindzen from MIT, Judith Curry from the Georgia 

Institute of Technology, Roger Pielke from the University of Colorado, Willie Soon from Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, to name a few. 

Again, this is Merkley Amendment No. 1. Are there others who 

want to be heard? 

What do you want to do with your amendment, Senator Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. I would like to enable my colleagues to share 

their thoughts on it. 

Senator INHOFE. I have asked for those who want to be heard. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

I thank the gentleman from Oregon for making this very important amendment. 

I would just add that there is a good reason why we are here. 

There is a good reason why we are talking about regulations. It is 

this. 

We really tried to work on this issue from a legislative perspective. Back in 2009, we began a legislative process to deal with the 

danger of climate change. We passed legislation in the House of 

Representatives in June 2009. 

We said, at the time, to those who deny climate change or do not 

want anything to be done about it, there was going to be a choice. 

The choice was going to be legislation or regulation. You had to 

pick which direction you wanted to go in. 

If we worked in a legislative format, then there would be the give 

and take of a process like this. If that was rejected, then the course 

of action was going to be regulation from an Administration that 

said it was committed to working from a regulatory perspective. 

The legislative approach was rejected by the Republicans, just rejected, even though that bill, Waxman-Markey, had $200 billion in 

it for carbon capture and sequestration. Can I say that again? For 

the coal industry, we built in $200 billion for the coal industry for 

carbon capture and sequestration. 

The Republican side said, no, we do not want any legislation. 

Fine, that is your choice, but we also said to them, simultaneously, 

the only alternative is regulation. That is where we are today. 

That was the choice of the climate deniers or those who do not 

want any legislation to pass at all or for anything to be done about 

it because there is no alternative that has ever been presented by 

the other side. That is why we are here. 

We are here because of a choice made by the Republican side of 

the aisle. We should be debating legislation, not legislation to stop 

the regulation but legislation to do something about climate 

change. That has not been forthcoming from the Republican side 

thus far. That is why we are in this debate. 

The only sentiment that we hear from the Republican side is 

that they do not want to do anything. I think Senator Merkley’s 

amendment once again highlights the danger of going forward in 

the scientific consensus that has been developed, not only in our 

country, but around the world. 
66 

Every single National Academy of Sciences of every single country in the world agrees that humans are causing a substantial part 

of the dangers of global warming and we have a responsibility to 

do something about it. 

Senator INHOFE. We have debated this many, many times. The 

Chair feels you are wrong on that, and you understand. You and 

I know the issue very well. It is debatable. We have had hearings 

on this. Science is mixed on this. 

Senator Merkley, what do you want to do with your amendment? 

Senator BOXER. May I be heard? 

Senator INHOFE. You guys can be heard. The Chair is going to 

take the prerogative and make a statement here. 

If you do not want to continue with this hearing, I would observe 

that Senator Whitehouse has an amendment. You have an amendment on the other two. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I have an amendment on the other two. 

Senator INHOFE. We have other issues and other bills we are considering. You have a bill, as I recall, don’t you, Senator 

Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I do. 

Senator INHOFE. If you just want to stop everything, we can do 

that. The Chair could have the prerogative of being real nasty and 

limiting debate on each one of these. I am not going to do that. I 

am fully aware if you want to stop this hearing, you can stop it just 

by stalling and by using your time. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond to that. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, go ahead. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I have absolutely no desire to stop the 

hearing. I would like to have this be a full, thorough airing of the 

issues raised by this legislation. That is what mark ups are ordinarily for. 

I do not think when you look at the effects on Rhode Island of 

what we are talking about here, the last one, Mr. Chairman, was 

on sea level rise. Here is a photo of Carpenter’s Beach in Rhode 

Island where people’s homes were blown to smithereens and 

thrown into the ocean by Sandy. These are people who had their 

houses along that shore all their lives. 

One lady was there as a little kid. She remembers her yard, the 

road beyond her yard, the parking lot beyond the road and the long 

run down to the water where in the summer sun the sand would 

get so hot that she had to hop across the sand. 

Now she is a grandmother. That was one of the houses that went 

into the water. All of that is gone. 

This is an issue that is important to our States, Mr. Chairman. 

I do not think one morning’s debate on an issue of this importance 

to our State is frankly asking too much. 

If you look back in history in the Senate, when we worked on 

real legislation in committee, often that committee work went on 

for days, for weeks. I hope one morning is not too much for this 

committee to devote to an issue that means so much to us. 

Senator INHOFE. Again, the Chair observes we have had many, 

many hearings on this. This is a markup. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
67 

I would like to vote on this because I think this is a vote the 

American people deserve. Let me comment for a minute on something you said. 

Scientists are divided. You are right; 97 percent of them say, climate change is real and human activity is the primary cause. The 

others, most of whom work for the oil companies, say it is not happening. 

I just want to close my comments with this. If we went to the 

doctor, all of us know, and the doctor said you have serious cancer, 

you need an immediate operation, male or female, whoever we are, 

or if it happened to one of our loved ones, we would say this is 

crazy, I want a second opinion, and you got one. 

That doctor said the same thing and you got another one. You 

went to 10 doctors and 9 of them said immediate surgery. One 

says, I do not think this is really happening. You are going to listen 

to the nine. 

All this stuff about I am not a scientist, which thank the Lord, 

we did not hear that today, that was the old saw. Of course we are 

not. Maybe a couple of us are, but not many. That is why we need 

to listen to 97 percent of the scientists and discount the ones who 

work for the oil companies. That would leave about 1 percent. This 

is serious. 

I want to commend my friend. I want this vote on the record. I 

want to know if our colleagues believe that climate change is happening and human activity is the primary cause. If they vote no, 

they are siding with 3 percent of the scientists versus 97 percent. 

They are siding against the American people. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Without objection, I am going to put into the record an article 

written by scientists called The Myth of Climate Change, 97 Percent. It was in the Wall Street Journal. 

[The referenced article follows:] 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

Senator INHOFE. Also, fortunately the people out there are a lot 

smarter than people think they are. Without objection, I want to 

introduce into the record the poll I referred to a minute ago. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
73 
74 

Senator INHOFE. The Gallup Poll dated March 12, 2015, shows 

that of the 15 greatest concerns of American people, dead last is 

climate change. 

Senator Merkley, do you want to move? 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes, I will close my comments if no one wants 

to speak. Do you want to speak? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I wanted to make a point to Senator 

Merkley’s amendment. Senator Merkley’s amendment says the following: ‘‘Congress should take under due consideration advice from 

the leading scientific institutions in the United States.’’ 

I agree with our Ranking Member that the scientific debate on 

the core principles of climate change is essentially over at this 

point. There are always strays that can be found around the margins, and clearly the majority side in this committee has made a 

very persistent effort to try to round up those strays and make 

them look like they are creating a real division in the science. 

One scientist does not a consensus make. If you want to look at 

the consensus, I think it is worth looking for the consensus of the 

scientific entities that we all support, the ones that we pay for. 

That suggests, first of all, many of the members here have the good 

fortune, Rhode Island does not have this good fortune, to have a 

national lab in their home State. 

If you asked the national labs, none of them have any doubt that 

climate change is real and it is happening. I have been to some of 

them. I have reviewed the materials they put out. They are studying what is happening to us a result of climate change. That is our 

national labs. 

Look at NOAA, we trust NOAA for the weather. NOAA is absolutely clear that climate change is happening, that the science is 

real and that the dispute is not meaningful scientifically, not from 

the point of view of making intelligent, prudent risk decisions for 

the American public. 

NASA could not be more clear on this. They run satellites that 

actually do a lot of the measuring of the changes that are actually 

happening on the surface of the world. 

We can deny that NASA’s science is real or we can say that 

NASA’s scientists are in on a hoax, but the fact of the matter is 

they have a rover driving around on Mars. That is an amazing 

human accomplishment. They just shot by Pluto and took pictures 

of Pluto. These are pretty serious scientists. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Whitehouse, I appreciate the fact you 

have a lot of passion on this issue, but I also appreciate the fact 

we have had many hearings on this. There are many scientists on 

both sides, I understand that, but that is not the issue here. We 

have the Merkley amendment. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. I also will observe that the minority can very 

well take all the time they want. I could stop it, but I am trying 

to be fair. We have been on this now for a couple hours. We are 

still on the first bill. We have seven we are considering today along 

with GSA reports. 

You can probably stay with this and stop this hearing, but I am 

going to try my best to continue the hearing and get to the other 

bills for consideration. 
75 

We have the Merkley amendment before us. Is there a motion on 

the Merkley amendment? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Does that mean the Chair has rescinded 

my recognition because I had the floor a minute ago, and I was 

commenting on this particular amendment? 

Senator INHOFE. All right, continue. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

The other group I think is worth listening to on this is the 

United States Navy. We pay for them. They keep bases all around 

the country and see what is happening. I think the focus is important on the leading scientific institutions because as Senator 

Merkley pointed out, leading scientific institutions are unanimous. 

I would add that all you have to do is go to home State universities, and you will find it is the same. There is a thing called 

Google that we have all discovered around here. If you go to the 

University of Mississippi Web site, the Senator from Mississippi 

talked about sea level rise a minute ago, and search within that 

Web site for sea level rise climate change, you see some pretty significant work at the University of Mississippi on the connection between sea level and climate change. 

The Gulf Coast is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and 

coastal storms. ‘‘Sea level rise is arguably the most critical component of climate change affecting Virginia today.’’ That is an Ole 

Miss publication. 

I think if we start listening to the scientific institutions, particularly our home State universities, including the University of Oklahoma, Mr. Chairman. Berrien Moore is the Dean at your university. He has participated in this and understands this. 

I think we will have a much better focus than if we are grabbing 

strays, many of whom have financial connections to the polluting 

industry and trying to pretend that they create a legitimate alternative debate. 

I yield back my time, and I appreciate the Chairman’s courtesy. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you have a motion? 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes. When I opened my statement, I described 

the background, but I want to explain why it is so important to me. 

In my home State, we have our rural resources under direct attack by changing climate. If you look at the forests, we have not 

only the vast growth of the pine beetle, but we have a fire season 

that has increased by 60 days in 40 years. That is a day and a half 

for every year. 

Our State is, on average, aflame more and more each year. I 

know that California is having the same experience. This has a 

huge impact on our rural communities and our logging and timber 

communities. 

We have also a huge impact on our fishing world. Right now 

there is a die off of hundreds of thousands of sockeye salmon as 

they are going from the Columbia to the Snake River because the 

average temperature is 6 degrees higher than it usually is. The fish 

cannot tolerate it. 

We have very, very small streams coming out of the Cascades because the glaciers and snow pack have disappeared from the Cascades, the result being that if you care about fishing for trout, you 

have very warm, very small streams. That is not healthy. 
76 

If you care about the shellfish industry, the increasing acidity of 

the Pacific Ocean is affecting our shellfish and reproduction of our 

oysters. If you care about farming, our entire Klamath agricultural 

basin is in drought and has been in three of the worse ever 

droughts in a period of about a decade and a half. 

My point is that, it is not just sea level rise. It is affecting timber, farming, fishing, and shellfish. This is profoundly important. 

It is why I want us to listen to the advice of the leading scientific 

institutions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you have a motion? 

Senator MERKLEY. My motion is to adopt Merkley Amendment 

No. 1. 

Senator BOXER. I would like to put something in the record. I 

will take me 25 seconds. It is in answer to your poll. This is a series of polls. The top one is Stanford. 

A Stanford poll in January of this year found 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say if nothing is done 

to reduce emissions, global warming will be a serious problem, and 

the Federal Government should be doing a substantial amount to 

combat climate change. That is why I support the Merkley amendment. 

May I put this in the record? 

Senator INHOFE. We will make that a part of the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 

Senator INHOFE. I assume you want a vote. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes, please, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9 and the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. The amendment fails. 

At this point, I would like to recognize, for a change, one of the 

Republicans, to make a comment. Senator Barrasso, do you have 

a comment to make about the proceeding? 

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

To the point of the Senator from Massachusetts who said, where 

is your plan, under Lisa Murkowski, Chairman of the Energy Committee, we just passed a bipartisan energy bill, clean energy bill. 

Your colleague from Massachusetts voted for it. It passed 18 to 4. 
87 

It was the first time an energy bill has come forward in a long 

time. It was a Republican-led committee that has done that, 18 to 

4. Two Republicans voted against it and two Democrats voted 

against it. 

It is focused on clean energy and energy legislation which will actually help our economy and help our country because we all want 

reliable, clean and affordable energy. People say science is science, 

but I say math is math. 

The emissions in this country have been on the downturn for the 

last 10 years. We have a lot fewer emissions now than we had 10 

years ago. Emissions have been going down. U.S. emissions are 

only 15 percent of global emissions. The rest of the world puts out 

85 percent of the emissions. You could turn off the United States 

tomorrow, and it is not going to change what is happening globally 

with increasing emissions. 

The math is the math in terms of renewable energy. Only 4 percent is from wind, and 1 percent is from solar. The biggest problem 

in getting the wind from where the wind blows to where the people 

live who want that electricity is the environmentalists who are 

blocking the building of the transmission lines to carry that energy. 

We have incredible wind capacity in Wyoming. The transmission 

lines have been blocked by environmentalists. I say science is 

science, and math is math. The numbers say 32 States oppose what 

the President has just come out with because they realize the impact on the reliability of energy, the affordability of energy and jobs 

in their communities. 

You talk about healthy forests. We have environmentalists who 

are blocking healthy forest initiatives which would actually go in 

there and clean out dead trees and make it less likely that a forest 

fire would occur. 

These places are tinderboxes ready to go up. The efforts to make 

things better are being blocked. Now the President comes out with 

his initiative which I believe is a national energy tax. To me, this 

is regulation without representation. 

The attacks on affordable energy are huge. You say how does 

this impact the average person? How many families are looking forward to paying higher electricity bills under these proposals because that is what is going to happen. 

You will have more people out of work. It will hurt the most vulnerable. Yet in terms of the big picture, it is not going to help the 

environment. The costs are real; the impacts are unproven. 

The President seems to always exaggerate the benefits and ignore the costs. That is why I put out this report, Red Tape Making 

Americans Sick. EPA rules cost Americans their jobs and their 

health. 

When we hear about getting people from the known institutions 

here, we had someone from Johns Hopkins University to testify 

that the unemployment rate is well established as a risk factor for 

elevated illness and mortality rates, with influences on mental 

health, suicide, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, spouse abuse, unemployment and an important risk factor of heart disease, all of this when 

you put a community out of work. 

We have a headline here from the Gillette, Wyoming, newspaper, 

State Could Lose Up to 11,000 Coal Jobs If Obama Plan Takes Ef-
88 

fect. Eleven thousand coal jobs are good jobs. People want these 

jobs. As people sometimes retire, they try to get their children to 

have these jobs. They have very safe working conditions, pay a lot 

of attention to safety and provide affordable energy all across the 

country. 

I would say, Mr. Chairman, I am here in support of my friend 

from West Virginia and her legislation, Affordable Reliable Energy 

Now. I am going to continue to vote against these amendments 

that come forward that would weaken her proposal. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the time to 

speak. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. The Chair is going to respond. 

I think maybe the only thing you did not address was the fact 

that the Director of the EPA appointed first by President Obama 

agreed with what you just said, the fact that if we do these things 

unilaterally in the United States, it is not going to have an effect 

to reduce emissions worldwide. 

In fact, it could increase them because as we chase our manufacturing base to other countries where they have no restrictions, we 

could actually increase worldwide CO2. I am going to ask how many amendments want to be heard. You 

have two, Senator Whitehouse has two. How many do you have? 

Senator MERKLEY. I have two more. 

Senator INHOFE. Two. Senator Markey, do you have amendments 

to be heard? 

Senator MARKEY. Yes, I do. 

Senator INHOFE. How many? 

Senator MARKEY. I have three more amendments that are pending, but I think Senator Whitehouse is ahead of me. 

Senator INHOFE. I know that. I am trying to figure out what to 

do. 

Senator MARKEY. I will cut it down to just one additional amendment. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I will not offer my amendment 

until this gets to the floor, if it gets to the floor. I do want to respond in just one brief moment to the speech by my friend from 

Wyoming. 

I come from a State that has probably the strongest carbon rules 

in the nation, a cap-and-trade system that was demeaned, all kinds 

of charges were made of how electricity prices were going up and 

jobs were going down and poverty was going up. 

I am going to put in the record a fact sheet. California households pay the ninth lowest electricity bills in the country, lower 

than Oklahoma. Under California’s climate program, we receive a 

twice a year climate credit. 

California’s household monthly energy bills are far cheaper than 

Oklahoma. In 2013, the Energy Information Administration found 

California’s monthly residential electricity bill average $90 compared to Oklahoma’s monthly bill of $110. 

California’s overall monthly energy bills are among the cheapest 

in the country. California created a budget surplus with cap-andtrade. We went from a terrible deficit, and we are now in a surplus 

with the leadership of our Governor and our legislature. 
89 

California’s rate of job growth is better than the country during 

cap-and-trade. We are a leader in green jobs, in solar jobs and 

wind. On some days, 50 percent of our energy comes from the sun. 

For people to say that this is one scary future, take a look at the 

State that is doing it, 40 million people strong. The oil companies 

came in and tried to get us to repeal our laws, and we beat them 

back. It is real, and that is why I oppose what my friend is trying 

to do in West Virginia, to take us back. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, I am going to enter one thing 

into the record that refutes everything Senator Boxer just said 

about California. 

Senator BOXER. Let us put it next to mine and people can judge. 

Senator INHOFE. That is fine. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 

Senator INHOFE. By your word, we are going to have five more 

amendments. I would like to ask, if there is going to be objection, 

if we can confine our remarks on these amendments and discuss 

the amendments to 7 minutes. Would that be reasonable? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Per amendment? 

Senator INHOFE. Per amendment. What amendments of the five 

are left? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. There are very few of us at this point 

here. Again, this morning does not seem to me, Mr. Chairman, to 

be an inordinate amount of time to dedicate to an issue of this 

magnitude. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Do you have an amendment you would like 

to offer? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I do. I do not think this would weaken the 

bill but understanding, no matter which side you are coming from, 

it would, I think, help establish that we either are or are not working off a common predicate of facts. 

Senator INHOFE. Which amendment is it? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My amendment is Whitehouse Amendment No. 2. 

Senator INHOFE. Whitehouse Amendment No. 2. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is not the least bit uncommon, Mr. 

Chairman, for legislation to come through the Senate with findings. 

It is actually quite common for findings of fact and congressional 

findings to precede a piece of legislation that explain the rationale 

for the legislation. 

This would not change the substance of Senator Capito’s legislation in any way. It would put on the front a findings section expressing the sense of the Senate that one, climate change is real 

and not a hoax; two, human activity contributes significantly to climate change; and three, the Federal Government—for the record I 

will say that means broadly whether you want that to be Congress, 

the President or administrative agencies, I mean broadly the Federal Government not a specific agency—has a responsibility to act. 

I think that is the virtually unanimous consensus of everybody 

not affiliated with the fossil fuel industry who has taken a serious 

look at this question. It is certainly the strong sense of the American electric, and it is a very strong sense in my home State of 

Rhode Island. 

I do not think it affects the bill in any way. I hope that it can 

get a strong bipartisan vote in favor. 

[The text of Whitehouse Amendment No. 2 follows:] 
95 
96 
97 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

You have heard the explanation of the amendment. Those in 

favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[Chorus of noes.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. May I have a roll call vote? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, of course. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Unless there is anyone who wishes to 

make a comment on it, I move the amendment and ask for a roll 

call vote, if not. 

Senator BOXER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9 and the nays are 11. 
98 

Senator INHOFE. The amendment fails. 

Other amendments? We are down to four now. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I have Markey Amendment No. 6 at the desk. 

Senator INHOFE. You are recognized. 

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

We have heard a lot about job loss in the coal industry which has 

been a fact for the last 30 to 40 years. A lot of that just has to do 

with innovation, has to do with automation. There are huge vehicles that now come in and can dig out tons and tons of coal which 

have put tens of thousands of coal miners out of business. It is automation. It is new technology. It is innovation. 

There are some that wanted to stop that so we did not have that 

progress in coal country, but it is just the way it is. That is what 

has been killing coal jobs, combined with the incredible increase in 

the use of natural gas as a way of generating electricity in our 

country. That is the war on coal. The war on coal is natural gas. 

It is cleaner, and in most parts of the country, less expensive. Economics 101 moves utilities toward natural gas. Economics 101 

moves the coal industry toward larger vehicles that dig out more 

coal with less use of human beings. That is what has been happening. 

If I felt there was a sincere effort to seek a level playing field 

in the creation of new jobs and new energy industries, that would 

be one thing, but that does not exist. The Republicans oppose the 

extension of the wind tax break. That is off the books now because 

of the Republican Party. 

What is wind in the United States of America? By the end of 

next year, even without the tax break, it is essentially 80,000 

megawatts, it is 80,000 jobs in America which will start to slowly 

but surely go right down because there is no plan by the Republicans to put a tax break on the books for wind. 

How about solar? Solar, in the United States, installed only 79 

megawatts in the year 2005; last year, 7,000 megawatts, 100 times 

more; this year, 8,000 megawatts; and next year, 12,000 

megawatts. In other words, there will be double the amount of 

solar in 2 years as was produced from the beginning of time until 

the end of 2014. 

That is moving fast, but the tax break for solar expires next year. 

What do we hear from the Republican Party about how much they 

are willing to keep the tax breaks for solar and the tax breaks for 

wind on the books? 

By the way, by the end of next year, 210,000 jobs in the solar 

industry will exist. Between wind and solar, there will be 300,000 

jobs. There are only 80,000 coal miners in America. This is the fast 

growth, job creating sector of the American economy creating jobs 

10 times faster than any other sector in our economy. That is 

where we are. 

By the end of next year, combined, there will be 120,000 

megawatts of wind and solar in America, but the tax breaks will 

have expired if the Republicans do not step up with their plan. 

They say, well, it is only 5 percent of all electricity now coming 
99 

from the renewable sector. Yes, that is up pretty much from zero 

in 2005. 

It is moving. It is like the deployment of cellular phones. You did 

not have one in your pocket in 1994. In 1996, all of a sudden, you 

did. 

If you are basically going to be interpreting how fast things 

change, whether or not you had an iPhone 5 years ago and whether 

or not you have one today, you are not looking at the right way of 

looking at innovation and how quickly it is adopted after it is introduced into our economy. 

My amendment says the polluter protection plan we are debating 

here today does not go into effect if the EPA Administrator and the 

Secretary of Energy determine that it would have a negative impact on clean energy jobs being created in our country. 

On one side, there has been an inexorable decline, the coal industry, not this year, not last year, because there is no energy plan, 

there is no plan on the books to reduce greenhouse gases right now. 

It has been going down, but it has been going down without Congress having acted, but there has been a dramatic increase in clean 

energy jobs. 

That is really the heart of my amendment. It says, let us keep 

innovation going. Let us be moving from this old 19th century technology, not by saying anything other than we are going to keep the 

incentives on the book for clean energy as well, a level playing 

field. 

The old tax breaks stay on the books; the coal tax breaks stay 

on the books. What goes away is the wind and solar. That is the 

unlevel playing field that we have seen for 100 years in this country. 

Finally, during the Obama administration, we have seen it unleashed. What is happening is now called a threat, not to our economy, however, because of prices collapsing in renewable energy, 

and the dramatic increase in the number of jobs that have been 

created. 

My amendment says this bill cannot go into effect until the EPA 

and the Department of Energy determine how many jobs will be 

lost by this bill. I urge an aye vote. 

[The text of Markey Amendment No. 6 follows:] 
100 
101 
102 
103 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. You do have a 

minute left. 

Senator Capito, would you like to respond? 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. I was just going to say that in the bill I encourage Governors of each State to analyze the impacts of those 

clean energy jobs and other jobs that are created and sustained by 

the coal or natural gas industry. I think it is repetitive. I do not 

think we need it. 

The other thing I would say briefly on wind is we have 333 windmills in my State. That is not easy to get those permitted and put 

into effect. 

I would also say that 32 State Governors have been opposition 

to this. We passed a bipartisan energy bill last week that addresses 

a lot of the renewable issues. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Markey moves his bill. Is there a second? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 
104 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9 and the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. The amendment fails. 

I would observe we are down to seven people. If we lose one more 

person, we will not be able to vote on amendments. We are also 

down to three more amendments. Do you have an amendment you 

would like to offer? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I do, Mr. Chairman. I would like to call up 

Whitehouse Amendment No. 1. 

Senator INHOFE. Whitehouse Amendment No. 1, you are recognized. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Whitehouse Amendment No. 1 is similar 

to the health amendment that Senator Markey offered earlier. It 

requires a similar alternative method of getting to the point before 

the Capito legislation would go into effect, although this is not focused on the health aspect. It is focused on the oceans aspect. Let 

me explain why that is. 

Our friends have said that the climate is always changing, and 

therefore climate change is not significant. Yes, the climate is always changing in geologic time. We have never seen anything in 

the history of our planet, of human beings on it at least, where we 

have seen a change as rapid as we have in terms of the carbon pollution of our atmosphere. 

We have been on the earth for about 200,000 years as a species. 

If you measure back 800,000 years through air trapped in ice and 

other ways they have of actually measuring this, they see the carbon concentration in the atmosphere has been going up and down 

and up and down fairly regularly between about 175 and 300 ppm. 

That is the whole history of our species on the planet until the 

Industrial Revolution. Suddenly, it breaks out. Now, for the first 

time ever, measurements are over 400 ppm in the atmosphere. 

That has a lot of climate effects that we see, but it also has some 

very important ocean effects. You can go to a lab and raise the concentration of CO2 in a container with saltwater and see the pH 

drop of the saltwater. It will acidify. 

That is why Senator Merkley’s oyster farmers got wiped out 

when heavily acidic ocean water came in. The water was so acidic 

that the young oysters could not make their shells. We are starting 

to see that in the Northeast. 

It is a very big deal for Alaska because of what it is doing to 

something called the tetrapod, a very important sea snail called the 

sea butterfly, that is a huge part of the salmon diet. The sea is becoming so acidic that the shells are not being able to be made in 

the same way. It is very powerful scientific work and undisputed 

on that subject. 

You can argue up and down about climate, but you cannot argue 

about acidification. That is happening, and it is directly related to 

the carbon concentration. 

What happens also is because of the climate piece, the oceans 

warm, and we measure that. This is not theory. We measure that 
105 

with thermometers. It is not complicated. Children can do it. All 

you have to do is keep track, and you can see the trend. 

The oceans are warming, and that really affects our fishermen. 

Winter flounder fishery is basically gone. Fishermen come in to say 

to me, Sheldon, it is getting weird out there. Sheldon, this is not 

my grandfather’s ocean any longer. 

The lobster is moving to cooler waters. We are seeing things people have not seen before that our fishermen have to contend with. 

The third piece of that is when the ocean warms, it expands. 

That is called the Law of Thermal Expansion. I doubt anybody on 

this committee would dare to quarrel with that. 

As this massive ocean warms, it lifts and rises. That is why at 

Naval Station Newport, they measure 10 inches of sea level rise 

since the 1930s. If you do not trust me, trust the Navy. They have 

given briefings on what goes on at their ports because their ports 

exist at the intersection of sea and land. 

If you cannot trust the United States Navy on this, if you cannot 

trust companies like Wal-Mart on this, I do not know who you can 

listen to. These things are really happening. There are the influences on climate that are beyond the control of humans; this is an 

influence that is not beyond the control of humans. 

It is happening so much faster, so much more rapidly and blowing us out of the traditional limits that the influences beyond 

human control have kept us in, that we really need to pay attention to this. 

This is really important to my State. We are seeing all of these 

things. We are seeing the acidification begin to happen. Every third 

grade class in your States that has an aquarium takes a pH test 

of the aquarium to make sure it is good for the fish. 

The testing on this is really not much different than that. It is 

simple, it is undeniable and you can replicate it in a lab. Every national lab agrees with it. NOAA agrees with it. You really are not 

going to find anyone respectable who disagrees with that, because 

it is impossible to disagree with. 

The warming is measured by NASA satellites. I know your side 

wants to defund the NASA satellites so that they cannot tell us 

what is happening any longer because it is inconvenient for certain 

special interests, but that is a dumb way to go. 

We should actually be listening to NASA, not trying to defund 

the information they give us. When that happens and the temperatures warm, the sea level rise is inevitable. 

Please, if you have a genuine interest in this, go to Google and 

look up Rhode Island hurricane of 1938. Take a look at some of the 

pictures of what happened. Go to the American Experience clip on 

NPR—it is an hour long—on what happened in Rhode Island and 

nearby with the hurricane of 1938. 

Then think to yourself what is going to happen to Rhode Island 

when that next big one comes and there are 10 more inches of sea 

level to be thrown like a hammer against our shores, plus whatever 

extent it gets stacked by sea level rise. 

Please accept how important this is to us and how very real the 

science is behind this, virtually undisputed on the oceans front. 

Thank you. 

[The text of Whitehouse Amendment No. 1 follows:] 
106 
107 
108 

Senator MARKEY. Will you yield? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is the Chairman’s prerogative I believe, 

but yes, of course, I will. I yield back. 

Senator MARKEY. The Senator from Rhode Island represents the 

Ocean State. I represent the Bay State. What do we have right 

above us? We have Greenland. Again, Greenland with an ice block 

at its peak that is 2 miles high and it is melting. 

There was a block of ice that broke off the size of Manhattan 

from Greenland and went into the ocean just a couple years ago. 

The year before, a block of ice broke off Greenland four times the 

size of Manhattan and went into the ocean. 

This is the Atlantic Ocean where Senator Whitehouse, Senator 

Gillibrand and I represent. If the ice starts breaking off Greenland 

and goes into the ocean, there is no place to go, and it results in 

flooding, higher temperatures, more water hitting our coastline. 

That is the phenomenon. That is what is happening to us. That is 

what Massachusetts v. EPA decided in its decision. 

I ask for an aye vote on Senator Whitehouse’s amendment just 

so you can protect us against this ice going into the water and endangering our coastlines. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I move the amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second to the Whitehouse motion? 

Senator BOXER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 
109 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker. 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9 and the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. The amendment fails. 

We are down to two amendments. I appreciate the cooperation of 

everyone. 

Senator Boxer, do you have an amendment? We are down to two 

amendments. We are running out of people. We do not have the 

small quorum of seven to pass. It looks like people are leaving. 

Senator BOXER. Let me just say publicly what I told you privately. 

I think this has been a really good and fair debate. We are ready 

to vote on this, but as I told the Chairman, what is very disturbing 

to our side is the fact that the other bill you have on here, which 

would say for the first time since I believe 2011, if you spray pesticides on water, you do not have to get a Clean Water Act permit. 

We have not had a single hearing on that bill, not one hearing. 

You are marking up today, and we know what is going to happen. 

It is not right. 

I made a suggestion to my friend, and he is my dear friend, that 

we reschedule that plus a Democratic bill and then move on with 

the rest of the agenda. He has made some commitments, and he 

cannot join me. 

I am very sorry to say that we are not going to have a quorum 

here. My recommendation is that we put that markup off, that we 

take a Democratic bill so we pair, and that we have a hearing on 

that really important bill that would expose our kids and grandkids 

and our families to pesticides in water and allow willy nilly spraying. 

It is not right to do that without a hearing. It is not right, so 

I cannot give you a quorum because it is just unfair. 

I am happy to give you a quorum for my friend from West Virginia. I think this has been a terrific hearing. I think it has been 

emotional and difficult, but we got through it. You are right, we 

have had many hearings on that. If we could put that off until we 

get back, I think that would be fine. Otherwise, we are not going 

to give you the quorum, but you can get the quorum with all your 

members, to my understanding. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me just observe that in the last Congress 

when the Republicans were a minority, Senator Boxer had S. 2963, 

a bill to address discharge limits from large and small vessels reported through committee on a party line vote with no hearing. 

This was actually a controversial bill among the coastal State 

Senators and will be argued again in this Congress. This has happened before. We have posted our agenda. We have that bill to take 

up. It is Senator Carper’s bill. 
110 

I would observe this. Right now, we are ready for a vote but we 

do not have 11 people here for a majority. I think there is an effort 

right now to get 11 people so we can at least get the Capito vote 

taken care of. 

If you will bear with me and stay here for that, if the Democrats 

choose to walk out and not consider other amendments, there is 

very little we can do. There is nothing we can do about it, but I 

would like to hear from Senator Crapo since we are talking about 

his amendment. Do you have any thoughts while we are waiting 

for a quorum? 

Senator CRAPO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to respond briefly to Senator Boxer. I hope we can 

move to the legislation that I have brought today. The legislation 

is bipartisan legislation. I just wanted to correct one statement 

that Senator Boxer made. 

She said that if this legislation passes, there will be no protection 

for the application of pesticides. There already is a full regime 

under FIFRA for the application of pesticides. This question is 

whether to add a duplicate system to the process. 

It is the result of the court case that, on a bipartisan basis we 

have agreement, creates an unnecessary, burdensome, expensive 

and duplicate system of regulation. Even the EPA has said it does 

not need to have this duplicate regulation. 

I just had to clarify that this legislation does not eliminate the 

regulation of pesticides. It simplifies it to one system which is the 

system that EPA itself has said we need to utilize. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Crapo. 

Senator Fischer has arrived. We are talking about your bill. Let 

me bring you up to date on where we are. 

We are waiting for a quorum to come down so we can have the 

vote, final passage and send to the floor the Capito bill. We are 

starting to gain some members now. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, could I be heard on your comment about our bill that we did without a hearing? 

Senator INHOFE. You can be heard on that but first, with respect 

to Senator Fischer, if she has something to say about the bill that 

apparently is going to be boycotted by the minority. 

Senator Fischer. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I just have to say in due respect 

as the Ranking Member here, all I wanted to do is make a point 

of clarification because you said that we did something without a 

hearing. The fact is you withheld a quorum. You withheld a 

quorum, and we are going to withhold a quorum. I am going to 

leave because I do not want to be the only one. 

I just want to say putting people in danger is the wrong thing 

to do. If you do not have a hearing, what does that tell you? This 

whole notion that EPA is behind this does not make any sense to 

me. They have not told me that in any way, shape or form. 

This has been in place since 2011 and has not caused any problems to my knowledge. I am going to be leaving now, urging you, 

Mr. Chairman, that we will come back if you will put this off, and 

we will put off another Democratic deal. You withheld a quorum 

when I did that once, and we are going to do exactly what you did. 
111 

Senator INHOFE. OK. All right, Senator Boxer, I think we know 

where we are on this. I would still like to make an attempt while 

we are voting today, it is my understanding we will have votes, 

that we can have an off the floor vote on the final passage of the 

Capito bill in this committee. 

We are going to make an effort to do that. However, since we 

have now been boycotted by the minority, we will have to postpone 

the rest of this hearing until probably after the recess. 

Technically, we are going to recess until the call of the Chair. 

Hopefully, we will be able to handle that from the floor during the 

vote. 

We are now in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the committee was recessed subject 

to the call of the Chair.] 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 

Æ