    [Senate Hearing 114-119]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-119

     ROAD TO PARIS: EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE AGENDA
               AND IMPLICATIONS FOR DOMESTIC ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JULY 8, 2015

                                   __________

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

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     97-557 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2015
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    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 20402-001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                      JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana              BARBARA BOXER, California
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MIKE CRAPO, Idaho                    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska

                     Ryan Jackson, Majority Staff Director
                   Bettina Poirier, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                  JULY 8, 2015
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...     1
    Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California...     3
    Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama,
      prepared statement.............................................    94

                                   WITNESSES

    Hausker, Karl, Senior Fellow, World Resources Institute..........     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Booker........    37
    Ladislaw, Sarah O., Director and Senior Fellow, Energy and
      National Security Program, Center for Strategic and
      International Studies..........................................    39
        Prepared statement...........................................    41
    Holmstead, Jeffrey R., Partner, Bracewell and Giuliani...........    51
        Prepared statement...........................................    53
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Wicker........    64
    Bookbinder, David, Partner, Element VI Consulting................    68
        Prepared statement...........................................    70
    Rabkin, Jeremy A., Professor of Law, George Mason University
      School of Law..................................................    74
        Prepared statement...........................................    76

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Congressional Record full text, Framework Convention on Climate
      Change, Senate--October 7, 1992................................   113
    Center for American Progress--The Authority for U.S.
      Participation in the Paris Climate Agreement...................   129
    Open Secrets, Lobbyist Profile Summaries for Jeffrey Holmstead,
      2010-2015......................................................   173

     ROAD TO PARIS: EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE AGENDA
               AND IMPLICATIONS FOR DOMESTIC ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2015

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe
    (chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Capito, Crapo, Boozman,
    Sessions, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Cardin,
    Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, and Markey.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Inhofe. Now that Senator Sessions and Senator
    Wicker are here, our meeting will start. Senator Cardin, it is
    good to have you here, and I see Senator Sullivan in there.
        Well, there has been a lot of coverage regarding the United
    Nations Twenty-First Annual Climate Conference at the end of
    the year. We have heard how the President has pledged the U.S.
    to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent compared
    to the 2005 levels by 2025, and how he is going to lead other
    countries in openness, transparency and accountability.
        You know, we have been here before. I remember so well,
    Copenhagen, I think it was about 5 years ago in Copenhagen,
    they all went over there, Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, John Kerry,
    Al Gore and they assured everybody that we were going to pass
    legislation over here that was going to control the emissions
    and all these good things were going to happen.
        I went over as the one man truth squad, Barbara, to let
    them know that it wasn't going to happen and it didn't happen.
    So all of these statements sound good in a press release, but
    the slightest level of scrutiny reveals a significant lack of
    authenticity, substance and merit.
        While the President is lecturing the rest of the world on
    the importance of credibility and transparency, he is going out
    of his way to write the U.S. Senate and the American people out
    of the final agreement. That is why we are here today, to take
    a closer look at the President's international climate agenda
    and what it actually means for the United States.
        The President may have creative legal arguments to sign
    onto a legally non-binding international agreement but he does
    not have the backing of the U.S. Senate, which significantly
    limits such an agreement's domestic application. I carried that
    same message in 2009 when I attended the Copenhagen meeting, as
    I mentioned just now.
        The President's Intended Nationally Determined
    Contribution--that is a new one, that is INDC--is not only
    unrealistic, but it also does not add up. Let's show the chart
    up there, that is the white area that does not add up. I am
    sure that our witnesses will be addressing this.
        According to a recent analysis by the U.S. Chamber of the
    Presidents INDC, it is about 33 percent short of meeting stated
    targets. Mr. Bookbinder, who has done his own analysis, and I
    appreciate your being here, Mr. Bookbinder, I recall when you
    were our witness before. You were a witness for Senator Boxer,
    now you are one of our witnesses. He has done his own analysis
    and has found even a greater gap. I am looking forward to his
    thorough breakdown. Additional studies are forthcoming showing
    similar results.
        The Administration has yet to describe how the 26 to 28
    percent of greenhouse gas reductions would be achieved. In fact
    the Administration's own deputy director for climate policy
    remains unable and unwilling to answer this basic question.
        Further concerning is that a large portion of the INDC
    stated targets depend on the successful implementation of the
    President's so-called Clean Power Plan. This proposal not only
    faces significant obstacles at the State level, there are 32
    States now on record opposing it, but it would also increase
    the price of electricity, depress local economies and cost $479
    billion and ship American jobs overseas. It is also on legal
    treacherous ground especially in the wake of the two recent
    Supreme Court decisions, UARG v. EPA and Michigan v. EPA, which
    was just decided last week.
        The remaining portions of the INDC rely on an exaggerated
    stretch of current and future regulatory actions without
    consideration for inevitable legal challenges and delays, which
    I can assure you would take place. Even the very notion that
    the President's domestic and international climate agendas are
    about protecting the environment lack credibility. His EPA did
    not even bother to access the minuscule environmental benefits
    associated with the Clean Power Plan and its supposed core
    domestic climate policy. The international climate negotiators
    have already admitted that while they are not entirely clear on
    what actions will need to limit the temperature increases to 2
    degrees Celsius, they are sure that the Paris agreement will
    not be enough.
        The Paris agreement will be the 21st such agreement that is
    under the United Nations, and it is a pretty expensive one.
    They eat well and drink well but nothing ever happens. I thank
    the witnesses for being here and look forward to your
    testimony.
        Senator Boxer.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

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

        There has been a lot of coverage regarding the UN's climate
    conference at the end of this year. We've heard how the
    President has pledged the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions by 26 to 28 percent compared to the 2005 level by
    2025 and how he is going to lead other countries in ``openness,
    transparency and accountability.''
        All of these statements sound good in a press release, but
    the slightest level of scrutiny reveals a significant lack in
    authenticity, substance and merit. And while the President is
    lecturing the rest of the world on the importance of
    credibility and transparency, he is going out of his way to
    write the U.S. Senate and the American people out of a final
    agreement. That is why we are here today--to take a closer look
    at the President's international climate agenda and what it
    actually means for the U.S.
        The President may have creative legal arguments to sign on
    to a ``legally nonbinding'' international agreement, but he
    does not have the backing of the U.S. Senate, which
    significantly limits such an agreement's domestic application.
    I carried that same message in 2009 when I attended the UN's
    COP-15 in Copenhagen, and it remains true.
        The President's Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
    (INDC) is not only unrealistic, but also does not add up.
    According to a recent analysis by the U.S. Chamber, the
    President's INDC is about 33 percent short of meeting the
    stated targets. Mr. Bookbinder, who has done his own analysis,
    has found an even greater gap, and I am looking forward to his
    thorough breakdown. Additional studies are forthcoming showing
    similar results.
        The Administration has yet to describe how the 26-28
    percent of greenhouse gas reductions would be achieved. In
    fact, the Administration's own Deputy Director for Climate
    Policy remains unable and unwilling to answer this basic
    question.
        Further concerning is that a large portion of the INDC 's
    stated targets depend upon the successful implementation of the
    President's so-called Clean Power Plan. This proposal not only
    faces significant obstacles at the State level--32 States
    oppose the $479 billion Federal takeover that would increase
    the price of electricity, depress local economies and ship
    American jobs overseas--but is also on legally treacherous
    ground especially in the wake of two recent Supreme Court
    decisions--UARG v. EPA and Michigan v. EPA decided just last
    week. The remaining portions of the INDC rely on an exaggerated
    stretch of current and future regulatory actions without
    consideration for inevitable legal challenges and delays.
        Even the very notion that the President's domestic and
    international climate agendas are about protecting the
    environment lack credibility. His EPA did not even bother to
    assess the minuscule environmental benefits associated with the
    Clean Power Plan--his supposed core domestic climate policy--
    and the international climate negotiators have already admitted
    that while they aren't entirely clear on what actions will be
    needed to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius,
    they are sure that the Paris agreement will not be enough.
        I thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to
    their testimony.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Senator Boxer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        The impacts of dangerous climate change are all around us.
    Just ask the people living in Texas who have had to face
    extreme weather rainfall events, record flooding. Or
    Californians who have had to deal with the crippling drought or
    New Yorkers who have suffered through Superstorm Sandy. Or
    those in Hawaii who are having to choose between saving their
    beachfront condominiums or losing their beach and their coral
    reefs. I saw that with my own eyes.
        Fortunately, the Obama administration has taken serious
    steps to address this growing crisis by reducing dangerous
    carbon pollution. The U.S. has committed to cutting our carbon
    pollution by 26 percent to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
    I believe this is achievable, because the President's Climate
    Action Plan contains the tools that are necessary to get the
    job done, even without Congress.
        We have a decades-long record of success in our landmark
    environmental laws. We have withstood moves in this Committee
    and on the Senate floor to disassemble those landmark laws,
    such as the Clean Air Act.
        Now, my colleague was right: we failed to pass cap and
    trade. The highest level we got was 56 votes, we needed 60. The
    bottom line is we have the Clean Air Act. The opponents of
    doing anything under the Clean Air Act took the case to the
    Supreme Court. It took 8 years. The Supreme Court found very
    clearly that carbon pollution is covered under the Clean Air
    Act.
        So the Obama administration has taken significant steps
    under the Clean Air Act. They have included establishing new
    fuel economy and carbon standards for cars and heavy duty
    trucks which has been embraced by Detroit. We have seen a
    rebirth of the automobile industry. We see that the power plant
    sector, we are moving toward cleaning that up. We have fights
    on our hands, I predict we will win those fights. The U.S. has
    always been a leader. We don't sit back and let other countries
    lead the way. And we are.
        Climate change is a global problem. Two weeks ago, the G7
    agreed to work with all countries to reduce carbon emissions by
    up to 70 percent by 2050. Action by the Obama administration
    prompted China to make its first-ever commitment to reduce
    carbon pollution. Already coal use is down in China by 8
    percent just this year.
        The EU has pledged to reduce carbon pollution, and
    developing countries such as Mexico and South Korea have come
    forward with their first-ever commitments to control their
    carbon pollution. Already, countries covering over 60 percent
    of global carbon emissions have agreed to take action to cut
    carbon, and other countries will join the effort.
        There are huge benefits when we undertake cutting carbon.
    The recent study by the EPA shows us 57,000 fewer deaths per
    year from poor air quality, with economic benefits valued at
    $930 billion, 12,000 fewer deaths per year from extreme heat
    and temperature changes, $180 billion per year in avoided
    damages from water shortages, $3 billion per year avoided
    damages from poor water quality, $11 billion a year avoided
    losses in our ag sector, 40 to 59 percent fewer severe and
    extreme droughts and almost 8 million fewer acres burned each
    year from wildfires.
        This is something we have to do. And it breaks my heart
    that the party in control of this Committee doesn't believe in
    any of this and is trying to fight it. But the American people
    see it clearly. So this Congress is out of step with the
    American people.
        The economy today will be made stronger if we take these
    steps. We see as a result of the Obama Plan 470,000 additional
    green jobs compared to the status quo.
        In California, I think I can speak to this. We are on a
    path to cut our carbon pollution by 80 percent by 2050. That is
    required under our law at home. Very strongly supported by the
    California people. We had oil companies try to overturn it and
    the people said, sorry, we are sticking with it. During the
    first year and a half of my State's cap and trade program we
    added 491,000 jobs, a growth of 3.3 percent which outpaces
    national growth.
        I welcome the witnesses today. I feel stronger than ever
    the President is on the right path. This Committee is on the
    wrong path.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]

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

        The impacts of dangerous climate change are a daily reality
    that we simply cannot ignore. Just ask people living in Texas,
    who have had to face extreme weather rainfall events and record
    flooding, or Californians who have had to deal with a crippling
    drought, or New Yorkers who suffered through Superstorm Sandy.
        Fortunately, the Obama administration has taken serious
    steps to address this growing crisis by reducing dangerous
    carbon pollution. The U.S. has committed to cutting our carbon
    pollution by 26 percent to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
    This target level, known as an ``intended nationally determined
    contribution'' (INDC), is an achievable goal because the
    President's Climate Action Plan contains the tools necessary to
    get the job done. We have a decades-long record of success of
    our landmark environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act
    which has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.
        The Obama administration has already taken significant
    steps toward reaching this target, including establishing new
    fuel economy and carbon standards for cars and heavy duty
    trucks, proposing to cut carbon pollution 30 percent from our
    power sector, and reducing carbon pollution from Federal
    operations by 40 percent in 2025.
        The U.S. has always been a leader among other nations, and
    we are leading the way to address dangerous climate change. We
    know that we must cut harmful air pollution to protect the
    health and welfare of the American people, and our resolve has
    brought other countries to the table to make their own domestic
    commitments to reduce carbon pollution.
        Climate change is a global problem, and we are seeing
    progress on the international level. Two weeks ago, the G7
    agreed to work with all countries to reduce carbon emissions by
    up to 70 percent by 2050.
        Action by the Obama administration prompted China to make
    its first-ever commitment to reduce carbon pollution--and
    already, coal use is down by 8 percent in China this year.
        The E.U. has also pledged to reduce carbon pollution
    significantly, and developing countries, such as Mexico and
    South Korea, have come forward with their first ever
    commitments to control their carbon pollution. Already,
    countries covering over 60 percent of global carbon emissions
    have agreed to take action to cut carbon pollution, and other
    countries will soon join this effort before heading to Paris
    later this year.
        Taking action globally to address the threat of climate
    change will not only help us avoid the worst impacts, but it
    will provide enormous health and economic benefits to the U.S.
    A recent peer-reviewed study by the EPA analyzes in detail the
    benefits of global action on climate change. According to this
    study, by the end of the century there will be:
         57,000 fewer deaths per year from poor air quality, with
    economic benefits valued at $930 billion;
         12,000 fewer deaths per year from extreme heat and
    temperature changes;
         $180 billion per year in avoided damages from water
    shortages;
         $3 billion per year avoided damages from poor water
    quality;
         $11 billion per year avoided losses in our agricultural
    sector;
         40-59 percent fewer severe and extreme droughts; and
         Almost 8 million fewer acres burned each year from
    wildfires.
        While taking action to reduce our carbon pollution avoids
    these significant impacts in the future, it is also good for
    our economy today. A recent report by the New Climate Institute
    found that the policies in the U.S. INDC will result in the
    creation of 470,000 additional green jobs, compared to the
    status quo.
        We have seen this type of success in my home State of
    California. California is on a path to cut its carbon pollution
    by 80 percent by 2050, as required under our greenhouse gas
    emissions law, A.B. 32. During the first year and half of my
    State's cap and trade program, California added 491,000 jobs--a
    growth of almost 3.3 percent, which outpaces the national
    growth rate of 2.5 percent.
        I welcome the witnesses today and look forward to a
    discussion on how the Obama administration's actions to reduce
    dangerous carbon pollution are leading the world to address the
    climate crisis.

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
        We do have a very distinguished panel of Karl Hausker,
    Senior Fellow at the World Resource Institute; Sarah Ladislaw,
    Director and Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security
    Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies;
    Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell and Giuliani; David
    Bookbinder, and I am real pleased, David Bookbinder was here
    before but he is here as a majority witness today. He has
    testified here before. And Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law,
    George Mason University School of Law.
        We will start with you. Your entire statement will be part
    of the record, try to keep your remarks to right around 5
    minutes. Mr. Hausker.

       STATEMENT OF KARL HAUSKER, SENIOR FELLOW, WORLD RESOURCES
                               INSTITUTE

        Mr. Hausker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
        My name is Karl Hausker, and I am a Senior Fellow at the
    World Resources Institute. WRI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
    environmental think tank that goes beyond research to provide
    practical solutions to the world's most urgent environmental
    and developmental challenges. Thank you for the opportunity to
    serve on this panel.
        The main message in both my oral and written testimony is
    this: the U.S. can meet the Administration's 2025 emissions
    reduction target while maintaining economic growth and
    employment.
        My testimony has four key themes. First, a growing body of
    evidence shows that economic growth can go hand in hand with
    efforts to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases. Recent
    experience at the national and State levels demonstrates that
    we can achieve both. What Senator Boxer referred to in
    California is a perfect example of that.
        However, the policies often necessary to unlock these
    essential economic win-win opportunities have market barriers
    and hamper investment on what are otherwise beneficial
    activities. So good policies can unlock the win-win
    opportunities for the economy and the environment.
        So we can achieve a prosperous low carbon future by
    harnessing key drivers of economic growth including more
    efficient use of energy and natural resources, smart
    infrastructure investments and technological innovation. These
    low-carbon solutions often create net economic benefits. For
    instance, we know that increased efficiency pays off.
        Let me give three examples. With strengthened CAFE and GHG
    standards, drivers will save on average a net of $3,400 to
    $5,000 over the life of light duty vehicles made in 2025
    compared to those made in 2016.
        Another example: Federal appliance efficiency standards put
    in place over the past 25 years have resulted in $370 billion
    in cumulative utility bill savings. Finally, States with energy
    efficiency targets and programs in place are generally saving
    customers $2 for every $1 invested.
        Let me turn to my second theme. The U.S. emissions
    reduction target announced in March is ambitious, but it is
    achievable. We can meet this target using existing Federal laws
    combined with actions by the States. Well designed policies can
    accelerate recent market and technology trends in renewable
    energy, energy efficiency, alternative vehicles and in other
    areas, combining to reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent below
    2005 levels.
        WRI's recent report delivering on the U.S. climate
    commitment shows several pathways to get there. However, U.S.
    and global efforts to combat climate change can't stop in 2025.
    Deeper reductions will be needed in the decades ahead to avoid
    the worst impacts of climate change.
        Therefore, it is incumbent on this Congress to play a
    constructive role in efforts to reduce emissions in the years
    ahead. This can and should be done in a cost effective manner
    such as by establishing an economy-wide price on carbon.
        Third, we can achieve the U.S. 2025 target while generating
    multiple co-benefits and maintaining economic growth. The
    proposed Clean Power Plan, a key policy for meeting the target,
    will result in reduced exposure to particulates and to ozone
    pollution. EPA estimates these air pollution co-benefits alone
    are worth $25 billion to $62 billion per year.
        And the economy is projected to keep on growing. The Energy
    Information Administration projects the macroeconomic impacts
    of the proposed Clean Power Plan will be very small,
    approximately a tenth of a percentage point decrease in GDP in
    2030. This in the context of economy projected to grow from $17
    trillion to $24 trillion in 2030. Similarly, the EIA is
    projected net employment impacts are essentially zero.
        Fourth, U.S. leadership is essential to the global efforts
    to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial
    levels. Failure to meet that goal will increase economic,
    social and environmental risks for the United States and for
    all nations. We can't simply ask, how much does it cost to
    avoid climate change. We must also ask, what does it cost our
    country if we don't avoid climate change? If nations fail to
    combat climate change, the U.S. will suffer billions of dollars
    in damage to agriculture, forestry, fisheries, coastal inland
    flooding damages, along with heat-driven increases in
    electricity bills, among multiple other impacts.
        So our country has a choice. It can show international
    leadership and bring the same spirit of competition, ingenuity
    and innovation to the climate challenge that it has brought to
    other problems. Or we can be left behind as other countries
    develop the solutions, capture the markets for the fuels,
    technologies and processes that reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions.
        In closing, the target is ambitious and achievable, fully
    compatible with economic growth and employment. Thanks, and I
    look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hausker follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

      STATEMENT OF SARAH O. LADISLAW, DIRECTOR AND SENIOR FELLOW,
    ENERGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND
                         INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

        Ms. Ladislaw. Good morning, members of the Committee. Thank
    you very much for the opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Sarah Ladislaw, and I direct the Energy and
    National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and
    International Studies. CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit
    organization in Washington, DC. My remarks today represent my
    own personal views and not those of CSIS as an institution.
        The Obama administration came into office in 2009 with a
    goal to reestablish the United States as leader in the fight
    against global climate change. Climate leadership under the
    Obama administration has two primary goals. One, lead by
    example through domestic action; and two, create a durable
    international framework that is able to mobilize and coordinate
    global efforts. These two goals are interdependent, because no
    single country acting alone can effectively deal with the
    challenges of global climate change and because the global
    community will not mobilize without leadership from major
    economies.
        I plan to make three points about the Obama
    administration's actions to address climate change in the
    context of these ongoing international negotiations. One, U.S.
    actions are in line with the actions of other major economies.
    Two, ambition plays a key role in the negotiations, and it is
    important to understand that. Three, more action will be
    necessary to meet global targets.
        First, some people have criticized the Obama administration
    for pursuing emissions reduction policies. They argue that
    other countries are not taking similar measures and that acting
    alone will hurt U.S. economic competitiveness. In reality,
    climate change policies and regulations are spreading around
    the world.
        According to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel's Fifth
    Assessment report, as of 2012, two-thirds of global greenhouse
    gas emissions are covered by some sort of national policy or
    strategy compared to 45 percent in 2007.
        As of yesterday, 18 formal pledges, covering 46 countries,
    well over 55 percent of global emissions, were submitted in
    advance of the climate negotiations in Paris and more
    submissions are expected by October. In this regard the United
    States is acting in line with and not contrary to the global
    trend with regard to mitigation activity.
        The question of whether the actions taken by the United
    States are comparable to the efforts of other countries is
    inherently difficult to assess. Take for example two of the
    major parties in the negotiations, China and the United States,
    two of the world's largest emitters with different economies,
    different political structures and different approaches to
    climate change.
        The U.S. commitment to reduce emissions from 2005 levels is
    arguably more stringent than the Chinese goal to peak
    emissions. But the Chinese target to increase fossil fuel
    resources in the energy mix is arguably more ambitious than the
    corresponding U.S. goal. Exact comparability is difficult to
    assess, but both countries' cumulative targets represent an
    increase in ambition from the business as usual future.
        Second, several analyses have suggested that the United
    States will be unable to meet its 2025 emission reduction
    target under the actions announced thus far. While this point
    has been used to criticize the Administration's goal, it is not
    clear that having a stretched target is negative in the context
    of international negotiations.
        All countries want to see that other countries are working
    hard to meet their emission reduction pledges. It signals a
    level of ambition that entices participation from certain
    countries as well as more ambitious action from others. For
    example, the idea that the United States and China are
    committed to emissions controls despite having a potentially
    hard time meeting those targets, whether that is true or not,
    can catalyze additional action by other countries.
        Third, according to the International Energy Agency
    analysis, current pledges would be consistent with an average
    temperature increase of 2.6 degree Celsius by 2100 and 3.5
    degree Celsius by 2200. Clearly, additional action will be
    required if the standing global target is to be achieved.
        This begs the question, if the negotiations fail to yield
    emission reduction pledges on the order of the 2 degree target,
    how can they possibly be considered a success? As the IEA
    states in their report, the Paris outcome will be successful if
    it is viewed as the foundation upon which to build a future
    action.
        According to the IEA, the new international negotiating
    process will be less about big deliverables and big agreements
    but instead about creating a virtuous cycle of strengthening
    mitigation ambition over time. From a U.S. domestic standpoint,
    if the goals of this negotiation are achieved, the United
    States and other major emitters will eventually have to take
    additional domestic action to reduce emission further.
        The Obama administration has sought to take a leadership
    role in the realm of international climate action. The
    Administration's agenda has grounded in domestic action with an
    eye toward building long-term sustainable strategy for
    achieving deep emission reductions and preparing the United
    States and other countries to cope with the impacts of a change
    in climate.
        The key question for this Congress, the next Administration
    and Congress as well as the partners at the State and local
    level in industry and in civil society is how to ensure that
    the policies being put into place today are the ones that most
    effectively address the challenge of global climate change and
    serve the long-term interest of the Country in light of this
    ongoing challenge.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Ladislaw follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

       STATEMENT OF JEFFREY R. HOLMSTEAD, PARTNER, BRACEWELL AND
                                GIULIANI

        Mr. Holmstead. Thanks to all of you for inviting me to
    participate this morning. My name is Jeff Holmstead. I am
    currently a partner at the law firm of Bracewell and Giuliani.
    But I spent much of my career in the Federal Government, in the
    White House during the deliberations over the 1990 amendments
    to the Clean Air Act and then as the Head of the EPA Air Office
    from 2001 to 2005.
        I kind of feel like we are talking about different issues
    up here today. And I guess I have just a different view of what
    it means to make a commitment in the international community. I
    guess I am puzzled by the assertion that the President shows
    leadership by making promises that he has no way of keeping.
        Last November, the Administration announced it had reached
    this landmark deal with China. They made a very specific
    commitment, 26 to 28 percent reduction. Then in March, the
    Administration made the same commitment to the rest of the
    international community in its official statement for the Paris
    Climate Change Conference. The Administration has said
    repeatedly that it will meet this commitment by taking actions
    under current law and that no action from Congress is needed.
        As you may remember, when the Administration announced this
    agreement with China, senior officials took to the airwaves to
    tout it. Mostly, they talked about what a great achievement it
    was that they had persuaded China to agree to increase its
    emissions only for the next 15 years.
        But they also explained how they had come with their very
    specific 26 to 28 percent pledge. EPA Administrator Gina
    McCarthy stated that ``the entire target was based on a
    thorough interagency review of the available tools in each of
    the agencies. The ones that are outlined in the Climate Action
    Plan, but also other tools and initiatives that could be teed
    up and brought to fruition very quickly.''
        White House senior advisor John Podesta wrote on the
    official White House blog that the 26 to 28 percent numbers
    were ``grounded in an intensive analysis of what actions can be
    taken under existing law.''
        Given these very specific targets, I assumed that there was
    a document that tallied up the emissions reductions that would
    be achieved by all the things that had been identified by this
    thorough interagency process and this intensive analysis. But
    many people, including a researcher from the Congressional
    Research Service, have asked the Administration for such a
    document or for any other evidence that this extensive analysis
    ever took place.
        But the Administration has never provided anything like
    this. In fact they won't even say whether such a document
    exists. As you heard from others, a number of people have
    looked at this and said all the things they are talking about
    are not nearly enough to meet the 26 percent reduction that the
    Administration has promised to achieve.
        Now, it is possible that the Administration does have a
    plan that includes additional actions they have not yet
    announced. Perhaps the agricultural sector, given it is the
    section with the largest emissions that have not yet been
    regulated. But it now seems more likely that the Administration
    simply does not have a plan for achieving even a 26 percent
    reduction by 2025.
        In my view, this is troubling. When the President or the
    State Department makes a commitment on behalf of the United
    States, this is not something that should be taken lightly. I
    think most Americans would be concerned to learn that the
    President has made a commitment to the international community
    that he does not intend to meet.
        Various officials in the Administration have said that
    climate change is a legacy issue for the President. Under our
    constitutional system, when a President wants this type of
    legacy he and his Administration normally work for legislation
    to accomplish it. But this Administration has never done this
    type of work. To be sure, the President has called on Congress
    to pass climate change legislation. But the Administration has
    never made a serious effort to engage Congress or stakeholders
    on the difficult issues involved.
        It is useful to contrast the Obama administration's
    approach to climate change legislation to the approach taken by
    the first Bush administration when President George H.W. Bush
    called for a fundamental overhaul of the Clean Air Act. That
    approach led to the 1990 amendments, the last major
    environmental statute to be passed by Congress.
        President Bush did not just call on Congress to pass
    legislation. His Administration developed a detailed
    legislative proposal and submitted it to Congress. Then, while
    the relevant congressional committees were working on the
    legislation, the Bush administration did not just stand back
    and hope for the best. At least five senior White House
    officials were involved in the legislative effort on almost a
    daily basis for more than a year, meeting with Members of
    Congress and congressional staffers and with industry and
    environmental groups and often hammering out specific
    compromises.
        Even though the Obama administration has said it views
    climate change as a legacy issue, it is has never done any of
    these things.
        I do not pretend that the 1990 amendments represent an
    ideal piece of legislation. There is much to criticize about
    those amendments. But the process that led to the amendments
    was instructive. It shows what an Administration can do even
    when Congress is controlled by the opposing party to get
    legislation through Congress when such legislation is actually
    a priority for the President.
        In my view, it is a shame that the Obama administration has
    not made this type of effort when it comes to climate change
    and has instead pursued an ill-advised regulatory approach that
    simply will not meet the commitment that they have made to the
    international community.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Holmstead follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Holmstead.
        Mr. Bookbinder. Welcome back.

     STATEMENT OF DAVID BOOKBINDER, PARTNER, ELEMENT VI CONSULTING

        Mr. Bookbinder. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
    Ranking Member Boxer.
        Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the United States
    commitment to the Paris climate process. My name is David
    Bookbinder. I am a Partner in Element VI Consulting and adjunct
    fellow at the Niskanen Center here in Washington.
        Chairman Inhofe, you mentioned that I have testified here
    previously as a witness, asked by Senator Boxer. I think it is
    a bit of sad commentary that we have to point out that someone
    can be a witness for both a Republican Chairman and a
    Democratic Chairman. I think that is a sad that this is seen as
    something extraordinary.
        In order to make sure that I had the right format for my
    testimony, I actually looked at the testimony that I gave back
    in 2007. The first sentence in that testimony bears repeating
    today. It was, ``Let me begin acknowledging that climate
    change, a problem that affects every aspect of our environment
    and whose solution will affect every aspect of our economy, is
    best addressed by tailor-made legislation.'' Seven years later,
    those words are even more true.
        First, as predicted, we have seen enormous amounts of
    Federal and State regulation and subsidies dealing with the
    climate issue. That is a second best solution. Everyone,
    everyone agrees that regulation and subsidies are not the
    optimal way to deal with climate change.
        Second, 7 years later, the effects of climate change are
    all the more apparent. The science is, if anything even more
    certain, and the effects are growing and are becoming worse
    every day. Action is something we need to take.
        So custom made Federal climate legislation, preferably in
    the form of a carbon tax would be the most useful thing
    Congress can do in order to make an effective international
    agreement possible. That international agreement is the only
    way we are going to deal with climate change.
        And now that I have lectured you as to your
    responsibilities, I am going to talk about what the
    Administration has proposed, which is the Paris commitment.
        What is the fuss? This is arithmetic, it is nothing but
    arithmetic. The INDC submission lists a series of regulatory
    measures and says we can get 26 percent from below 2005 by
    2025. All I did was take a look at each of those measures, take
    the maximum amount of emissions reductions from each of those
    measures as described either by EPA or by the Department of
    Energy or to the best of my ability and my partners' ability.
        By the way, speaking of bipartisanship, I was the former
    Chief Climate Counsel of Sierra Club. My partner was the former
    Director of Climate Policy at ExxonMobil. And we have yet to
    have a policy disagreement.
        So we went down this list of measures and we looked at the
    numbers. We added them up and we did the exact same thing that
    Karl Hausker did at WRI, that I understand the Chamber did,
    that other groups have done. We all came up with the same
    result. We all say that these listed measures get us between
    68, 70, 75 percent of what we need, depending on how you treat
    those numbers. The fact that all that all these different
    analyses come up with the same range tells you that you should
    have some confidence in that.
        I want to emphasize that this should come as no surprise to
    you and what is more, this is no surprise to anybody. We are
    not the only ones who can do the numbers. I promise you the
    rest of the world can look at the same regulatory measures and
    can do the numbers just as well as we can. The Chinese, the EU,
    the Indians, the developing countries, they all have very
    sophisticated people who understand U.S. regulatory measures.
    They are all going to come up with the same answer.
        No one has disagreed with these analysis. If I have left
    out any regulatory measures or my numbers are wrong, I would
    deeply appreciate somebody pointing that out to me, and I would
    be delighted to go back and work through them and see if we can
    get to a more accurate figure. So far no one has done that. But
    I welcome, I welcome anyone coming forward and saying, no, you
    are wrong about X, Y or Z, in which case I would absolutely,
    after discussing it with them, come up with a better number.
        And that is all I have to say right now.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bookbinder follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

     STATEMENT OF JEREMY A. RABKIN, PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGE MASON
                        UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

        Mr. Rabkin. I am Jeremy Rabkin. I teach at the George Mason
    Law School.
        I should start by saying I am not an expert on climate
    science. I am not even a specialist in environmental law. I
    have written about international law and foreign relations law.
    The issue that I want to put in focus here is, can we undertake
    a response to the climate challenge through the President
    acting on his own.
        A lot of people who are advocating for this say, oh, yes,
    we do this all the time. The President signs agreements on his
    own, it is true. But they are very specialized, very limited in
    their effect, or else they have been authorized by Congress. If
    this were a normal thing to do, you have to ask yourself, why
    didn't President Clinton think of this? Because President
    Clinton negotiated the Kyoto protocol, saw that he didn't have
    the votes in the Senate. He didn't say, never mind, I don't
    need the Senate, I will just do it because I am President and
    that is what matters.
        Let us remind ourselves that Vice President Gore was right
    there, he was actually the one who went to Kyoto. Gore was very
    committed to this. He didn't say, no record of him even in
    private telling President Clinton, you can do this on your own,
    don't worry about it.
        Now we have the successor protocol which seems to be
    basically the same thing but with more ambitious goals and we
    are told, last time we needed the Senate, we don't need the
    Senate, we don't need anyone, the President can do this on his
    own. That is a pretty astonishing thing and I think the Senate
    needs to look hard at that and ask itself, going forward, does
    it really want to let the President make these kinds of
    commitments.
        So I briefly want to discuss two follow-on issues that
    arise. It is said, well, it is OK for the President to do this,
    because he has all kinds of domestic legislation which he can
    rely on. I think the answer to that is maybe or maybe not. We
    will see. But I think it is pretty likely going forward that
    the EPA and others will say, this domestic legislation has to
    be interpreted in the light of commitments that the President
    has made to foreign governments. That is also disturbing
    because what it means is, when you enact legislation, that is
    just the starting point. The President then gets to bargain
    with foreign governments about what that legislation is
    supposed to mean. I think that is very disturbing.
        The final thing I want to talk about is what it means to
    have a political commitment. We are told it is not a treaty, it
    is not even really an agreement. Much of it would be a
    political commitment meaning the President has promised.
        Why does that bind the United States? I think there are two
    possibilities. Either it is just talk and so it is meaningless,
    or actually the President thinks and other people think we are
    kind of on the line because we have made this promise. It is
    true and it is fair enough to remind ourselves that Presidents
    in the past have made political commitments. President Nixon
    went to China, and his first visit there in 1972 he issued with
    Chairman Mao the Shanghai Communique saying, going forward, we
    promise each other our relations are going to be governed by
    these principles. There are a number of examples of political
    commitments like that.
        I believe without exception they dealt with diplomatic
    relations, things we would do out in the world. They were very
    vague and there was no kind of implementation machinery. What
    we are doing here is something that doesn't fit that pattern at
    all. What we are doing here is exactly what we did previously
    by treaty. We are saying let's have a very elaborate
    international agreement which is a very precise commitment
    about how much we will do in how many years. We will have
    implementing machinery. We will have regular conferences.
        It is all the aspects of a treaty, not just a political
    statement, not just a political framework. All the aspects of a
    treaty except for the Senate.
        If you think that, yes, the President can make that kind of
    political commitment and then the Congress is obliged to follow
    through, I have two questions for you. First, the President has
    been saying for years he wants to do something about
    immigration reform. Why can't he make a political commitment to
    the President of Mexico saying, we are going to change American
    immigration law in the following ways? I will draw on existing
    legislation to the extent that I think I can. And then the
    Congress has to follow through and do the rest because I have
    committed the United States. How do you feel about that? I
    don't see that it is different.
        Or another example, Canada has much stricter gun control
    than we do. What if the President makes a political commitment
    to the Prime Minister of Canada, we both agree that there have
    to be tighter gun controls on both sides of the border,
    especially our side in America. So I am going to use existing
    authority to the extent I think I can and beyond that, Congress
    is obligated because I promised.
        It is really worth asking yourselves, how that is
    different. I don't see how that is different. So I think going
    forward if the Senate shrugs its shoulders and says the
    President can commit us on this very complicated, costly,
    elaborate, ambitious climate agreement, maybe he can do it on
    many, many other things and is that really the way you want to
    be governed.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rabkin follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Mr. Rabkin. Those are
    some new thoughts we haven't heard before.
        We are going to have 5-minute rounds. We are going to ask
    our colleagues to adhere to the clock here because we have an
    excellent turnout and we want to get to everyone here. So let
    us start with you, Mr. Bookbinder.
        While I do not agree with some of the conclusions you have,
    I do agree that you have put together a study--put that chart
    back up, will you, that 30 percent chart--that shows the way we
    are trying to do this now doesn't seem to work. Now, you are on
    the same side as the White House in terms of your philosophy on
    global warming and all this. I am sure you have talked to them
    about this chart, about the gap that is there, this
    approximately a 30 percent gap which I think everyone agrees is
    there.
        Were you not able to get information that you needed?
        Mr. Bookbinder. Chairman Inhofe, I have not talked to the
    White House about this. I have made public statements on blog
    posts, I have responded to e-mail inquiries, I have talked on
    the phone to people. I have had no communication with the
    Administration or any officials concerning this analysis.
        Senator Inhofe. Let me ask you, then. Why would the
    President come out with INDC that doesn't work mathematically?
        Mr. Bookbinder. I think you would have to ask the President
    or Secretary Kerry.
        Senator Inhofe. Mr. Holmstead, on this same chart giving
    the 30 percent gap, what concerns me, and it concerns a lot of
    people from my State which is a rural State, which is an
    agricultural State. Where would you go to make up, what are the
    possibilities of where you would go to make up the gap?
        Mr. Holmstead. Well, if you look at the major sectors that
    emit greenhouse gases, most of them are now regulated or soon
    will be under various regulatory programs that the
    Administration has either adopted or promised to adopt.
        The biggest remaining sector that is not regulated is the
    agricultural sector. And they have a voluntary program. There
    is a history that sometimes voluntary programs become
    regulatory programs. And so if they are serious about filling
    in that 30 percent gap, you might anticipate that they would do
    such things as mandating changes in the way that conservation
    tillage is done, restricting nitrogen fertilizer, mandating
    different treatment of manure waste and other such things.
        Senator Inhofe. Crop insurance to emissions or something
    like that?
        Mr. Holmstead. Who knows? But if you are looking for where
    you might get those emission reductions, I think that is really
    where you would have to start.
        Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that, because I look at this,
    we have studied in our Committee to see where would you go,
    were that to be desired. My farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma
    understand this. They understand that the greatest problem they
    are facing is nothing that we normally face in the Ag Bill but
    it is overregulation by the EPA. And they are afraid of that.
        Professor Rabkin, if the President signs a unilateral
    political agreement, let's say he figured a way to do that in
    Paris. And I know something about this, I mentioned the
    Copenhagen agreement, when I went over. Those 191 countries
    assumed since they had the Vice President, they had the whole
    group that I mentioned to you over there assuring them,
    including Obama, that once those people agreed, it doesn't take
    legislation. They probably still assume that today.
        Now, if they were to figure out a way to do this without
    coming for ratification to Congress, and I might remind
    everyone here, I know you are aware of this, but it is worth
    bringing up again, the Clinton-Gore Administration never did
    bring this for ratification to Congress. Because they knew it
    would not be ratified.
        Now, if they are able to do something without ratification,
    without Congress's input, wouldn't the next Administration be
    in the same position to undo anything that was done?
        Mr. Rabkin. The next Administration could certainly say
    they made a political commitment, we repudiate it. That was
    their commitment, you shouldn't have trusted them. Of course,
    that is an awkward thing to do because it does undermine the
    credibility of American Presidents. So I think it is lamentable
    that President Obama is putting his successor in that position,
    either repudiate my extra-Constitutional commitment or else
    undermine American credibility.
        But of course they will be tempted to say, maybe they will
    be under a lot of pressure to say, I as Obama's successor
    cannot be committed by his unilateral posturing.
        Senator Inhofe. Very good. Senator Boxer.
        Senator Boxer. Thanks.
        Mr. Rabkin, are you aware that 94 percent of our treaties
    are executive, done by the executive? Are you aware of that?
        Mr. Rabkin. I am very aware of that.
        Senator Boxer. Good. Because you didn't seem to, you were
    so outraged. Now, are you aware that in 1992, Congress ratified
    the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?
    Totally bipartisan. Are you aware of that?
        Mr. Rabkin. Very aware of that.
        Senator Boxer. Are you aware that these negotiations are
    based on that ratified treaty?
        Mr. Rabkin. Yes.
        Senator Boxer. So whoa, whoa, whoa. Then, your comments,
    sir, just make no sense at all. You speak as if this is a rogue
    President.
        Now the fact of the matter is not only do we have that
    vote, but we also have the Clean Air Act. Do you know how many
    times the Supreme Court has upheld that Clean Air Act? And how
    many decisions there have been that said greenhouse gas
    emissions are covered? Do you know how many cases there have
    been?
        Mr. Rabkin. About greenhouse gas emissions? Probably single
    digits.
        Senator Boxer. There are three, that is right, and the
    Supreme Court has spoken. So the fact is the Clean Air Act
    governs here, you have the treaty that governs here, you have a
    President who is carrying out the Clean Air Act. And frankly,
    sir, if he didn't he would be hauled into court.
        So I just have to say that your outrage doesn't match the
    law.
        Mr. Rabkin. OK, so we agree on certain facts. That is what
    the initial colloquy was, do you know this, do you know this,
    yes, I know it, I know it, I know it. Now let me explain to you
    why I wouldn't say I am outraged, but I am very concerned and
    let me explain to you why.
        Senator Boxer. But, sir, you already did in your----
        Mr. Rabkin. Oh, no, no, no you are raising challenges and
    you have to let me answer.
        Senator Boxer. I have the time if Senator Inhofe wants to
    give you more time. Your entire presentation was bashing this
    Administration without mentioning once that the Supreme Court
    upheld this law and that we have a convention that was ratified
    by Congress. So I am going to move on because I only have 3
    minutes left. Mr. Bookbinder, I want to talk to you about
    something.
        Senator Wicker. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we extend
    Senator Boxer's time, so that the gentleman could answer the
    question and she could still have the remaining 2 minutes and
    32 seconds to ask what she wants.
        Senator Inhofe. A good suggestion, Senator Wicker from
    Mississippi, that is exactly what we are going to do. Because
    he wants to respond and we are going to give him time, if
    necessary my time on a second round. Go ahead, Senator Boxer.
        Senator Boxer. OK, can I go back to 2:32 because I was
    interrupted?
        Senator Inhofe. Sure.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you.
        Mr. Bookbinder, you have come a long way in my direction
    since the last time I saw you. You are calling for a carbon
    tax. And that is where I am at. I think it is the simplest way
    and it is a way to put a price on carbon that is fair.
        And you point out that your partner, his background is with
    Exxon and I was going to ask you about that. You say you have
    never had a disagreement with him? Does he agree with you that
    a carbon tax is the right way to proceed here?
        Mr. Bookbinder. Yes, he does.
        Senator Boxer. Well, that is really newsworthy. Let's get
    that in the record, that ExxonMobil believes we should fight
    climate change with a carbon tax.
        Mr. Bookbinder. Excuse me, Senator Boxer.
        Senator Boxer. A former employee of Exxon.
        Mr. Bookbinder. Yes. Please do not----
        Senator Boxer. I am sorry. You are right. A former employee
    who spent how many years with Exxon?
        Mr. Bookbinder. Decades.
        Senator Boxer. Decades with Exxon. This is progress, folks,
    and I hope that would be the news coming out of here.
        Now, Mr. Bookbinder, I also reread your testimony and I
    appreciate the fact that you are not backing off from what you
    said. So I am just going to read certain things.
        You said severe heat waves are projected to intensify in
    magnitude and duration over the portions of the U.S. where
    these events are already occur, with likely increases in
    mortality and morbidity, especially among the elderly, young
    and frail. Do you still believe that?
        Mr. Bookbinder. I assume you are reading from my previous
    testimony?
        Senator Boxer. Correct.
        Mr. Bookbinder. Yes, I still believe those things.
        Senator Boxer. OK. Do you also agree now that climate
    change is also expected to facilitate the spread of invasive
    species and disrupt ecosystems?
        Mr. Bookbinder. Yes, I do.
        Senator Boxer. Do you also agree that climate change is
    expected to lead to increases in ozone pollution, with
    associated risks in respiratory infection and aggravation of
    asthma?
        Mr. Bookbinder. Yes, I do.
        Senator Boxer. Now, what you say in this in the very
    beginning is worth repeating. You point out that the best way
    to approach fighting climate change is through specific
    legislation. I couldn't agree with you more. I agree that the
    carbon tax, cap and trade, the things I have been fighting for.
        But you said in the absence of such legislation the Clean
    Air Act will still enable us to get the job done. Do you still
    agree with that?
        Mr. Bookbinder. It depends really on what you mean by the
    job.
        Senator Boxer. They are your words, not mine.
        Mr. Bookbinder. I understand that. Senator, aside from that
    first paragraph that I cribbed, I haven't looked at that
    testimony since I gave it.
        The Clean Air Act will reduce carbon dioxide emissions,
    there is no doubt about it. That is why I advocated
    successfully to bring the Massachusetts case. It is simply not
    as efficient a means.
        Senator Boxer. I agree.
        Mr. Hausker, does your analysis indicate that the U.S.
    target of reducing carbon pollution in the range of 26 to 28
    percent by 2025 is achievable?
        Mr. Hausker. Yes, I want to emphasize very strongly that it
    is achievable and I want to say I disagree strongly with Mr.
    Bookbinder's characterization of the WRI report as consistent
    with what he did in showing that there is a gap or that there
    are missing tons. I am happy to expand on that if you like.
        Senator Boxer. My time has run out. I so appreciate the
    time, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes. Now, I am going to take the Chair's
    prerogative and give Mr. Rabkin a chance to respond as he was
    so anxiously trying to do a just a moment ago.
        Mr. Rabkin. Thank you.
        So on the first point, 94 percent of our agreements are
    executive agreements, that is true. But almost all of them are
    either authorized by Congress like the trade agreements.
        Senator Boxer. So is this one.
        Mr. Rabkin. No, this----
        Senator Boxer. Yes, in 1992.
        Mr. Rabkin. So you want to say the Framework Convention on
    climate change authorized the President to do anything that he
    wanted later on. And my simple answer to that is, if that is
    true why didn't anyone tell President Clinton? Why didn't
    President Clinton say, oh, Kyoto doesn't have to be a treaty, I
    was authorized by the 1992 Framework Convention. Al Gore, so
    enthused about the subject, why didn't he say, Mr. President,
    you don't need a treaty, don't bother with the Senate, you can
    do this inherently. So that seems to mean not at all
    convincing.
        And I do want to go back and say apart from things that are
    implementing treaties, there are a number of executive
    agreements which are implementing treaties. Almost all of them
    are extremely narrow and technical, which is not what this is.
    This is a very big, ambitious thing.
        The last point that you raised, which I think you were most
    substantive, don't we have the Clean Air Act and hasn't the
    Supreme Court said that is relevant to it? Yes, we do and yes,
    they have said it. It matters a lot when you get down to it.
    What is it that we think we are achieving in regard to climate
    change?
        It is one thing to say we actually have a treaty which
    Congress has considered in some form. Maybe not two-thirds of
    the Senate but some congressional participation. That is one
    thing.
        It is another thing to say, oh, you know, the President has
    made a deal so that Clean Air Act now needs to read this. And
    on particular issues there could be billions of dollars at
    stake. You are really making the Clean Air Act into a kind of
    blank check for the President and whatever people he happens to
    make agreements with. I think that is a real problem.
        Just a last thing. We have this case, Michigan v. EPA. And
    it is about mercury and there is actually an international
    convention on mercury. Some amicus brief said, hey, what about
    the international convention on mercury. Neither the Government
    nor the Supreme Court brought it up. I think that is because on
    both sides they thought, that is really dicey, let's not go
    there. I do not think it is at all settled that as long as the
    President has made a promise you can reinterpret domestic
    statutes accordingly.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Professor, for that
    clarification. Senator Sessions.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    panelists, for your testimony. We are dealing with some
    important issues.
        I just would say this. The American people are getting
    frustrated, that we have individuals executing policies that
    affect their everyday life, driving up the cost of their whole
    existence based on legal theories that are so tenuous that it
    is almost breathtaking in its thinness.
        For example, the Clean Air Act was passed with no thought
    whatsoever that we would be controlling CO2, an
    odorless, tasteless gas that is a plant food. And now we have a
    5 to 4 decision in the Supreme Court, five members of the Court
    now saying that EPA can regulate your backyard barbeque, your
    lawnmower or any other item that emits any CO2. It
    is a breathtaking thing.
        Congress has never voted for it, Congress will not vote for
    it. American people do not favor it. In a poll I saw recently
    of 18 important issues listed, global warming was 18th.
        So here we are, a group of elitists in this country,
    through the thinnest of legal arguments, imposing huge costs on
    the American economy. I am worried about it. I don't think this
    is democracy in action, and we have to be careful about how
    this all occurs.
        Mr. Rabkin, it seems to me that Congress, in resisting a
    President's overreach, could do something like Senator Cotton
    did with regard to Iran, write a letter and make sure that
    people who sign on with the United States know that is not
    binding on the United States. Is that a legitimate response?
        Mr. Rabkin. I think it is a really good idea. Because one
    of the things that we are going to be told is, oh, you are
    undermining trust in America if you don't follow through on
    what the President has promised. What you are proposing is to
    warn people, don't rely on what the President is saying, he is
    speaking for himself.
        Senator Sessions. That is exactly what is going to happen,
    colleagues, on the trade, the motion authority. If the
    President comes back with a bad treaty and somebody says, oh,
    we shouldn't adopt it, he is going to say, well, you authorized
    me to negotiate it. And now I negotiated it and you are going
    embarrass the United States before the whole world and we are
    going to be a renegade nation, et cetera.
        Mr. Rabkin. Could I just say, it is bad to disappoint
    foreigners. It is also bad to disappoint Americans and if you
    are elected by Americans maybe you should take the American
    reaction more seriously.
        Senator Sessions. Exactly. Well, as lawyers we know who we
    represent. Our duty is to our constituents who voted for us.
    Now, with regard to what the other action would be we could
    pass legislation. But as a practical matter, any legislation
    that were to be passed is subject to a Presidential veto, is
    that correct, Mr. Rabkin?
        Mr. Rabkin. Yes, what happened with Kyoto was the Senate
    passed a nonbinding resolution. So it wasn't subject to a veto.
    But that was registering how much opposition there was to the
    impending Kyoto deal. I believe that is why President Clinton
    backed off from submitting it, because of the resolution.
        Senator Sessions. Well, I believe it was 97 to nothing,
    that resolution rejecting the Kyoto requirements.
        Mr. Rabkin. Right.
        Senator Sessions. Yet now we have a President signing a new
    one that would go even further than Kyoto, and there is no
    public support or congressional support that would ratify that
    in any way.
        Mr. Rabkin. I think you have described this exactly.
        Senator Sessions. Senator Boxer talked to you about these
    treaties that we have signed. But if it is signed by the
    President and not ratified by Congress, it is not a treaty, is
    it?
        Mr. Rabkin. The word treaty is usually reserved for things
    that are ratified by the Senate.
        Senator Sessions. Now, with regard to another response the
    American people might have, what else could Congress do to
    represent their constituents if the President commits us to
    something that is not appropriate? It seems to me that the
    power of the purse remains maybe the only realistic option. Can
    Congress use the power of the purse to rein in a President who
    is spending to carry out programs that the people don't agree
    with?
        Mr. Rabkin. That is why they have the power of the purse.
        Senator Sessions. So the power of the purse is essentially,
    Congress has no duty, does it, to fund any program that it
    believes is inimical to the interest of the constituents they
    represent?
        Mr. Rabkin. Well, this is what we will be arguing about.
    The President will say, I have made a political commitment and
    you have to support me because we will be embarrassed. And the
    Congress will have to consider that.
        Senator Sessions. Well, I appreciate your testimony. This
    is a matter of real concern, and I have come to see more and
    more that the classical powers of Congress are being eroded.
    And it is not just the power of the Congress, it is the
    American people's power, their ability to control the people
    who control them. So now we are going to have somebody in some
    entity in some foreign country that is going to be directing
    us.
        Mr. Rabkin. I would just like to add one word to what you
    said, which is Constitution. We have certain background
    assumptions about how our Government is supposed to work. That
    is why we have a Constitution and what this is fundamentally
    about is saying, ah, that is old-fashioned, forget that. That
    didn't work for Clinton. We are moving forward with something
    different in which the President gets to commit us. That is a
    real change in our Constitution.
        Senator Sessions. A grave concern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Sessions follows:]

                       Statement of Hon. Jeff Sessions,
                     U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama

        Today's hearing, ``Road to Paris: Examining the President's
    International Climate Agenda and Implications for Domestic
    Environmental Policy,'' highlights a disturbing trend: we are
    dealing with an Administration that seeks to impose its will by
    any means possible, whether through unauthorized administrative
    fiat or international negotiations which usurp the Senate's
    advice and consent role provided by the Constitution. In the
    case of climate regulations, President Obama has committed the
    United States to achieving 26 percent to 28 percent reduction
    in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, compared to a 2005
    baseline--this commitment was made through the submission of an
    ``Intended Nationally Determined Contribution'' to the United
    Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In other words,
    despite repeated instances in which Congress has blocked
    climate change legislation, this Administration has decided to
    willfully ignore the legislative branch and unilaterally pursue
    crippling emissions reductions in an international forum, at
    great cost to the American people and to our system of
    government.
        The consequences of the President's international climate
    change agenda cannot be overstated. In his written testimony
    for today's hearing, Professor Jeremy Rabkin provides the
    following:
        ``The danger down the road is that this approach to
    committing the United States won't be seen as exceptional but
    as a general precedent for how our country coordinates its law
    with international standards in the era of global governance .
    . . We cannot go very far down that road before the idea that
    we are governed by law starts to look like a fable for school
    children. Our own elected Congress will share its legislative
    powers and responsibilities with the world at large--as the
    President (or his officials) borrow the authority of
    congressional enactments for purposes not endorsed and perhaps
    not even clearly contemplated by the enacting Congress.''
        The President's international climate agenda represents yet
    another grave threat to American sovereignty and our
    constitutional republic. I am reminded of the numerous issues
    that have been expressed regarding the President's negotiations
    with Iran, and in particular Senator Cotton's concise open
    letter to Iranian leaders reminding them of the unique
    governmental structure contained in the Constitution. In that
    letter, I joined Senator Cotton and several of my colleagues in
    observing that the next President could revoke an executive
    agreement with Iran ``with the stroke of a pen,'' and future
    Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
        In the context of current and future climate negotiations,
    international parties should likewise be aware that the
    President is not a king, and any agreement reached by the
    President is of limited effect without congressional approval.
    Moreover, just as a future President could revoke an executive
    agreement with Iran ``with the stroke of a pen,'' so too could
    a future President withdraw from any international climate deal
    lacking congressional approval.

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
        Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Interesting discussion, thank you all for your testimony.
        Does anyone here disagree that climate change is a real
    challenge that we need to be engaged in addressing?
        [No response.]
        Senator Merkley. Anyone here disagree that human activity
    and burning of fossil fuels is a contributor to the challenge?
        [No response.]
        Senator Merkley. Well, thank you. I think that is the
    foundation for this discussion. I don't want us to get lost in
    losing our perspective on the forest, if you will, while we are
    looking at the individual trees.
        I can certainly convey that in my home State of Oregon,
    climate change is very evident in a number of ways. Our fire
    season has increased by something close to 60 days over a few
    decades, far more forest being burned. We have a much bigger
    problem in the west with pine beetle, with warmer winters not
    killing the pine beetles as they have in the past.
        We have a big challenge to our shellfish industry,
    specifically our oysters, because of the acidification of the
    Pacific Ocean, which is tied to the same carbon dioxide that is
    causing climate change. We have a significant problem with loss
    of snowpack in the Cascades, which is resulting in warmer
    streams.
        My rural communities care a lot about their fishing.
    Streams are not as good when they are small and when they are
    warm as when they are cold and when they are deep. They care a
    lot about their forests and they care a lot about their
    farming. And we have a massive drought that is tied in as well.
        So in terms of the impact of this on rural America, it is
    massive. And it is manifested in farming, in fishing and
    forestry, all in my home State. So I have been struck by how
    important this conversation is as one that has direct impacts
    on the ground right now. We don't have to look at 50 years out
    or 100 years out.
        Now, it is important that this be an international
    conversation. Pollution of the air or seas is a tragedy of the
    commons, if you will. In that sense, China has committed to
    producing as much new renewable energy between now and 2030
    that is equal to all the electricity produced in the United
    States today. In fact, currently the U.S. produces about 1,000
    gigawatts of electricity, all forms, including fossil fuels.
    China has committed to produce about 1,400 gigawatts of
    renewable non-fossil fuel energy by 2030.
        So we are not talking about measures that they are
    committed to doing after 2030. We are talking about things they
    are doing between now and 2030. That is a massive deployment of
    renewable effort.
        India has been a little slower to come around. But they
    have committed to increasing their solar capacity by 100
    gigawatts by 2022, just 7 years from now, and to work toward a
    more global HFC phase-down. Brazil has announced that it has a
    goal of 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources,
    and pledging to restore 12 million hectares of forest, about
    the size of England, by 2030. So many nations are working
    together to take this on.
        The U.S. has often been in the forefront of bringing the
    world together to take on world challenges. Certainly that is
    true of disease and taking on the pandemics of AIDS and
    tuberculosis and malaria. It certainly should be the case here.
        I do feel that this it is important to place this
    conversation into that context. The exact nature of agreements
    that occur later this year in terms of setting goals and
    pledging the U.S. to work toward those goals, you can argue as
    lawyers over the fine print. But let's not lose perspective on
    the fact that this is about a major challenge to the world that
    is having impact in our home States every single day on our
    rural resources and more to come.
        Dr. Hausker, I wanted to, you touched briefly in your
    written testimony on the interaction between climate policies
    and international businesses. Why is it that we are seeing
    companies like Starbucks, eBay, Nike, Ikea, Sprint lobbying for
    action on climate change when, according to some of my
    colleagues, climate change will do harm to the economy?
        Mr. Hausker. That is a very good question. You have pointed
    out the fact that more and more corporations, both U.S. and
    multinationals, are pressing for climate action by governments.
    They are also taking internal steps to reduce their own
    greenhouse gases.
        I might add in that context, we talked about Exxon a short
    time ago. Exxon Corporation recognizes the problem of climate
    change and they have adopted an internal price on carbon to
    guide their investments. Many other companies have done that as
    well.
        So the business community is taking this increasingly
    seriously and taking internal steps as well as advocating sound
    public policy.
        Senator Merkley. I think it goes to the heart of
    demonstrating that businesses' boards that are committed to
    profits see that climate change can be enormously harmful to
    our future economy. Thank you, my time is up. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Merkley. Senator
    Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    panelists' coming in and already having a very important
    discussion.
        I always think it is important to begin these sessions by
    making it clear that we all care about clean air, clean water.
    I think sometimes my colleagues on the other side try to claim
    a little bit of the high ground, that they care more about it.
    They don't care more about it. My State probably has the
    cleanest air, cleanest water, certainly in the United States,
    maybe in the world. It is largely because of local actions, not
    the EPA, I guarantee you. Alaskans care more about the
    environment than officials here in the EPA in Washington do in
    our State.
        But we also have significant concerns about what we call in
    Alaska Federal overreach. That is usually in the form of an
    agency taking regulatory action without statutory or
    constitutional authority. Big concerns. They usually take the
    action because it is not popular in the Congress, so they can't
    get it through, so they take it anyway. At least in Alaska, the
    EPA is considered the poster child of an agency that conducts
    Federal overreach on a very regular basis.
        So legally, I think that the EPA is a rogue agency. But I
    think importantly, you don't have to take the word of members
    of the Senate or members of the public. We are seeing this more
    broadly.
        The Supreme Court, we talked about Supreme Court opinions,
    in the last two terms, in terms of the UARG v. EPA, Michigan v.
    EPA, the Supreme Court has come out and said the EPA has
    violated the law or the Constitution. It is increasingly
    conservative and liberal commentators who are starting to hold
    this view that the EPA is out of control legally.
        You may have seen Laurence Tribe, well respected liberal
    Harvard law professor who testified in front of Congress
    recently on the EPA's CO2 regs, saying ``The EPA
    possesses only the authority granted by Congress, and its rule
    is attempting to exercise lawmaking power that belongs to
    Congress. Burning the Constitution should not become part of
    our national energy policy.'' That is Laurence Tribe.
        I think this should be a concern of every Member of
    Congress. And yet the EPA just kind of continues. This should
    be a concern of every member of this Committee when we have an
    agency that doesn't respect the law of the land. We were
    talking about outrage before. I am outraged. We should all be
    outraged, Democrats, Republicans, that an agency regularly
    violates the law.
        My biggest concern is they just power through and keeping
    doing it. There was a Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday,
    Mr. Chairman, that I would like to submit for the record,
    called Stopping EPA Uber Alles. Essentially what the Wall
    Street Journal was saying is that the EPA, even when it gets
    struck down by the Supreme Court, it takes 5 or 6 years to have
    that happen, they just keep powering through anyway, ignoring
    the law.
        Senator Inhofe. Without objection, that will be made a part
    of the record.
        [The referenced information follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        So I would just like to ask a few questions, Mr. Holmstead,
    Professor Rabkin, Mr. Bookbinder, others, do you believe, like
    the Supreme Court, like Laurence Tribe, that the EPA legally is
    a rogue agency?
        Mr. Rabkin. Laurence Tribe was one of my teachers. I never
    disagree with him, especially when he is right.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        Mr. Bookbinder. That is an incredibly loaded question,
    Senator.
        Senator Sullivan. Just a yes or no, or you can defer.
        Mr. Bookbinder. I would say, and this is from someone who
    sued EPA frequently in the past, no, I don't believe it is a
    rogue agency.
        Mr. Holmstead. I am quite confident that EPA does not let
    statutory intent get in the way of what it wants to do.
        Senator Sullivan. I would take that as a yes.
        Mr. Holmstead. We have seen that most prominently in the
    Clean Power Plan.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask another question. With the
    executive agreement with China, does anyone on the panel
    believe that that somehow grants authority for the EPA, and I
    am not talking about the Clean Air Act, the President executes
    an executive agreement with China, does that give the EPA even
    the smallest legal authority to start implementing domestic
    legal commitments on U.S. companies? An executive agreement.
    And I am not referring to the Clean Air Act, just that
    agreement.
        Do they have any authority to anything legally,
    domestically here in the United States based on that agreement?
        Mr. Rabkin. It is a really good question. My answer would
    be no, I am not sure what their answer is.
        Senator Sullivan. Any other panelists want to respond to
    that?
        Ms. Ladislaw. No, but I am not entirely sure it is
    necessary for the Administration to accomplish what they want
    to.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is
    up.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you. Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much
    appreciate your holding this hearing, The Road to Paris. Paris,
    to me, is going to be an important moment in our global
    commitment on the problems of climate change.
        It is interesting, a good deal of the discussion here seems
    to be the role between the executive and legislative branch,
    rather than dealing with the underlying problem of how America
    needs to respond to the global climate change challenge. I
    don't see any disagreement that climate change is real, that we
    could do something to mitigate it, that there are health risks,
    that there are economic risks, there are security risks to the
    United States in regards to global climate change. If we don't
    take aggressive steps, the world depends upon U.S. leadership.
        There seems to be more fight as to whether Congress needs
    to take action or the executive action. I would hope both would
    take action.
        I serve as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign
    Relations Committee. I am frequently in international meetings
    when climate change comes up. And I must tell you, President
    Obama is getting good reviews internationally. The U.S.
    Congress is not.
        I think the international community would welcome the
    ability of the United States to speak with a more united voice
    and would welcome Congress taking affirmative steps by
    legislation to deal with the climate change issue. We have
    tried, Mr. Chairman, we have tried. Senator Boxer has taken a
    real leadership role. I was here with she worked with Senator
    Warner of Virginia and Senator Lieberman, and we came close.
    Senator Markey, who is not here right now, took an incredible
    leadership role on the House side in past legislation.
        The challenge is that we need to put a price on carbon. We
    have to put a price on pollution. It is unlikely that will
    happen. I think we all understand the realities of the politics
    of this Congress. But the United States has an opportunity and
    President Obama is taking advantage of that to show world
    leadership, to make a difference not only for the United States
    security and health and economy but for the global security,
    health and economy.
        So Mr. Hausker, I want to ask you a question if I might.
    What action would you think Congress could take that could be
    most helpful to achieving the goal President Obama has laid out
    for us to meet as we go into the Paris meetings?
        Mr. Hausker. I would certainly wish that Congress would be
    supportive of achieving the target that President Obama has set
    forth. It is an ambitious but achievable target. It can be done
    using existing Federal authority, supplemented by actions by
    the States.
        And in the longer term, I would hope that Congress would do
    what you pointed to, which is put a price on carbon, which
    could be done in a variety of ways. There is WRI research and
    research by other think tanks and academics pointing to the
    multiple benefits of putting a price on carbon and the ways it
    could be constructed to promote economic growth.
        So I think there is a short-term mission to advance the
    agreement that we hope will be concluded in Paris into 2025 and
    then the longer term agenda of putting the right press signals
    in place that can help this country as well as help the globe
    toward the decarbonization in the decades ahead necessary to
    solve this problem.
        Senator Cardin. Senator Whitehouse is here, who has been
    one of the real leaders on this issue on the price of carbon
    and dealing with energizing the private sector to develop ways
    in which we can meet our economic challenges, recognizing there
    is a price of carbon. We can show it directly in regards to
    what it does to our environment, what it does to our health.
    There is clearly a price.
        By recognizing that, the private sector then comes up with
    ways in which we can reduce our carbon and help our economy and
    do it in the most cost effective way. That is what many of us
    have been trying to do. We thought that it is a sensible bridge
    between the Democrats and Republicans to energize the private
    sector.
        What I really think the tragedy is here is that we don't
    have to get into a philosophical debate here. It seems to me
    the same solutions help our economy, help our security and help
    our environment. So all of us want to do all three. I am not
    sure why we are having this tough philosophical debate about
    recognizing the dangers of carbon emissions and having our
    vibrant economy figure out ways that we can again lead the
    world in innovation and dealing with the underlying problems.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator. Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It was mentioned before that maybe we shouldn't forget
    about the forest, and we are looking at the trees. Well, I
    would say the purpose of this hearing is to look at the trees.
    We are looking at the road to Paris. As Senator Cardin said, we
    tend to get into philosophical discussions here on climate
    change and where we are on that. But I would like to get back
    to where the hearing is focused.
        My friend from Oregon was talking about rural America and
    the effects that climate change has on rural America. Well, I
    am a cattle rancher. I live in a county in Nebraska with less
    than one person per square mile. So I think I can speak about
    rural America. I think I can focus on maybe some of the effects
    that the road to Paris will have on rural America and have on
    agriculture.
        I happen to know where my friend from South Dakota lives.
    He lives 2 hours north of me in Pierre, South Dakota. He can
    speak to rural America as well. Basically, we live in the
    middle of nowhere or the center of the cosmos, one or the
    other.
        Mr. Holmstead, you had spoken earlier about the regulations
    that are out there, the known regulations, the issue that we
    would have with those and the effects that they would have on
    families and businesses. And you had kind of gotten started
    into where the unknown regulations would come from that you
    believe would need to be imposed on families in order to meet
    those targets of 26 to 28 percent in reductions.
        You mentioned the agriculture sector. That is the economic
    engine of Nebraska. It is an economic engine for this country.
    This road to Paris would have an effect on families, on the
    economy and they are unknown. They are unknown regulations.
        Can you let us know what you think some of those
    regulations would be and the impacts that they would have?
        Mr. Holmstead. My point, as you know, was that the sector
    that, according to EPA, emits greenhouse gases that are not
    really regulated is agriculture. I am probably not the right
    person to predict exactly what those would be. But what I would
    say is, if you look at the things that the environmental
    community is calling for in terms of tighter controls on animal
    manure, in terms of changes in the way that we plant crops, in
    terms of changes in the way we do grazing and all these sorts
    of things, changes in the way that fertilizer is used, these
    are the things you can imagine.
        Again, my point is, if they really are serious about
    meeting their commitment, they almost have to do those things.
    So it is either they are not serious about meeting their
    commitment or we can anticipate perhaps a greater regulatory
    burden on rural America.
        Senator Fischer. Mr. Bookbinder, you stated in your
    testimony that the reduction target submitted by the President
    would also be attributed to unknown regulatory measures. Those
    are going to add costs to families and businesses. Do you have
    any idea what some of those unknowns would be, what the
    Administration needs to be looking at in order to meet those
    requirements that they have set out for the American people?
        Mr. Bookbinder. Senator, let me make sure I understand your
    question. You are asking, am I aware of what the regulatory
    measures the Administration is contemplating to make up what I
    call the gap, I have no idea what the Administration is
    contemplating. None.
        Senator Fischer. Do you have suggestions or any ideas on
    where the Administration might be looking?
        Mr. Bookbinder. No client has come to me to ask me to try
    and figure out where those missing tons have come from. If they
    did, I would be delighted to think about it. But my job so far
    was to say, hey, there is just a missing bunch of tons here.
        Senator Fischer. I guess I am not going to pay you then, to
    give me an answer. Is that correct?
        Mr. Bookbinder. I certainly don't want to add to the
    deficit.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        Mr. Holmstead, do you think that existing U.S. law,
    particularly the Clean Air Act, authorizes the President to
    achieve the carbon reductions that are promised in this
    international carbon commitment?
        Mr. Holmstead. No, I don't see how the Clean Air Act can be
    used to get the reductions that they have promised. Again, if I
    can just point out, the Clean Air Act hasn't changed really
    since 1990. So if the Clinton administration believed that it
    could have achieved these reductions under the Clean Air Act,
    you would think it would have done something.
        So what we are seeing is an incredibly creative use of the
    Clean Air Act in ways that I think the courts are almost
    certainly going to strike down.
        Senator Fischer. So more lawsuits in the future. Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. Senator Markey.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
        This is a very important hearing. It kind of calls into
    question the can-do capacity of the United States in order to
    meet big challenges. Can we do it? We know the threat is there.
    Do we have the capacity to do it?
        Well, back in 2005, the annual U.S. carbon pollution was
    the second highest level ever, just slightly lower than the
    peak of 2007. Back then in 2005, fuel economy standards for the
    United States were 27.5 miles per gallon.
        We passed a new law. The President implemented the law. For
    model year 2016, the average is going to be 34 miles per
    gallon. No one had that on the books in 2007. But we passed a
    law. And that is dramatically reducing emissions, and it is
    going up to 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025. We can do
    it.
        Same thing is true for the price of natural gas. It was
    $7.33 per 1,000 cubic feet in 2005. And that price has
    plummeted. No one had that on the books that through new
    fracking technology we would see such a dramatic reduction in
    natural gas prices that would substitute natural gas for coal,
    reducing right there by 50 percent the amount of emissions that
    were coming out.
        No one had that on the books. Technology and innovation
    made the difference.
        In 2005, we connected a mere 79 megawatts of solar for the
    whole year and about 2,400 megawatts of wind. That is 2005. In
    2014, we added 7,000 megawatts of solar up from 79 megawatts in
    2005. We expect to add 11,000 megawatts of wind just this year.
    That is not on the books in 2005.
        This is innovation. This is America saying, there is a
    problem, we are going to solve it.
        So if we can make those kinds of changes, then the sky is
    the limit if we have a sense of American can-do.
        In New England, New York, Delaware, Maryland, we
    implemented a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. From 2007
    until today, we have reduced our greenhouse gases across those
    nine States by 40 percent. In Massachusetts, we saw an increase
    in our gross domestic product by 29 percent at the same time.
        We can do it. We can do it. We have to believe in
    innovation.
        So let me come to you, Dr. Hausker. From your perspective,
    what do these changes in the last 8, 9, 10 years mean in terms
    of what is possible in the future, from your perspective?
        Mr. Hausker. Senator Markey, I think you offered some great
    examples of the power of innovation, the power of ingenuity and
    the way American business can rise to challenges and produce
    not only jobs and economic growth, but fewer greenhouse gas
    emissions.
        The kind of things driving some of the changes that you
    cited is we are in the middle of a clean energy revolution.
    Over the last 5 years, we have seen the cost of wind power
    decrease by 58 percent. We have seen the cost of solar PV
    decrease by 78 percent. That is innovation, that is achieving
    economies of scale and those trends can continue also with
    supportive public policies and can lead to the kind of
    decarbonization of the economy as we continue to grow and
    provide jobs.
        We have seen that across vehicles, power generation, HFC
    reduction technologies, across the board we are seeing the
    innovation that can deliver on the kinds of reduction targets
    the Obama administration is set.
        Senator Markey. But again, we have to drive the innovation.
    When the Wright brothers were taking that first flight in 1903,
    at Kitty Hawk, even they would not have envisioned the role an
    airplane would play in World War I, just 14 years later. They
    could never have imagined. But because of the commitment of
    innovation, because of the American can-do, it revolutionized
    the rest of the world.
        Dr. Hausker, your analysis found that the United States
    could meet the President's proposed targets with existing
    authority. Mr. Bookbinder's testimony finds an emissions gap.
    Can you tell us why your arithmetic adds up?
        Mr. Hausker. Yes, thank you. Here is how, I have reviewed
    Mr. Bookbinder's analysis, and here is how I can explain why he
    has one set of conclusions and the WRI analysis has a different
    set of conclusions.
        I think I understand what you did, Mr. Bookbinder. You have
    looked at rules that have been finalized or rules that are in
    near-finalized state across some different end uses and sectors
    and added up their emissions reductions as projected for 2025
    and compared that to the target.
        What is final or near final doesn't add up yet. The WRI
    analysis, which I would be happy to put into the record, looks
    beyond what is just finalized and near-finalized. We look at
    the potential across the economy for the use of existing
    Federal authority to reduce emissions.
        So that looks beyond some of the categories you looked at.
    We also looked at industry, at aviation, at some reductions in
    the trace greenhouse gases like PFC and SF6. We also looked at
    deeper gains from energy efficiency, deeper gains from the
    reductions.
        Senator Markey. Mr. Hausker, I hear you are being gaveled.
    I thank you. I agree with you. I would just say this, Wright
    brothers, Elon Musk, that kind of innovation if we keep the
    rules in place. We will solve this problem. We just have to
    believe in ourselves.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Markey. Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    thank the panelists, too. This is a very interesting
    discussion. I don't know if the panelists know, I come from
    West Virginia, which is heavily impacted by the Clean Power
    Plan. We have had heavy impacts to this point with the MATS
    ruling.
        I would like to stick on the legal parameters to begin
    with, at an agreement that could be reached in Paris. My
    colleague from Massachusetts was touting the fact of more
    efficiencies in cars. One of the quotes he used was, we passed
    a law, we, being Congress, passed a law and forced that. So I
    think that is the crux of the argument, for me, especially
    after the decision of the Supreme Court last week.
        So Mr. Holmstead, the Administration is relying on the
    Clean Power Plan to deliver a substantial share of 26 to 28
    percent reduction. But we know that the Clean Power Plan is
    going to be on shaky legal ground. We don't know when this is
    going to be settled. It could be overturned in whole or in part
    just as the Supreme Court rejected EPA's Mercury Rule last
    week, by not considering economic impact. We keep trying to get
    the EPA to come to West Virginia to look at the economic
    impacts of their regulations, and we have yet to achieve that.
        So what are the domestic legal implications of a Paris
    agreement that commits the U.S. to a level of emission
    requirements that the courts could later then determine were
    faulty EPA interpretations of the Clean Air Act? How would you
    see that?
        Mr. Holmstead. I don't understand how the President's
    pledge can change domestic law. And Professor Rabkin may know
    more than I do about these issues, but I thought a lot about
    what would happen, what kind of a lawsuit would somebody bring.
    I think the answer is that there is nothing like that.
        That is why, again, I think it is a problem to have the
    President, no matter what you think about climate change, why
    should the President be out making commitments on behalf of the
    country that he has no way of meeting? That is my real problem.
        So I don't see how he can change domestic law by making
    that kind of a unilateral agreement.
        Senator Capito. Would you agree, Professor Rabkin? You have
    pretty much addressed this issue.
        Mr. Rabkin. So there is this canon of construction that you
    should avoid interpreting a statute in a way that puts it in
    conflict with international law. If there were a treaty that
    had been ratified by the Senate, I think it would be a
    plausible argument which might move some justices or some
    judges on an appellate panel to say, let's avoid the conflict
    with a treaty.
        I think it is really a big stretch to say, let's avoid a
    conflict with a President's political commitment because he
    promised. That is really allowing the President to rewrite
    statutes, just because he has foreign friends. I don't think
    that can work.
        Senator Capito. Mr. Bookbinder, let me ask you a question.
    The system of pledging review that Paris is based on seems to
    confer, gives a lot of flexibility on developing nations, but
    more hard commitments by industrial nations like the United
    States, both in terms of emission reductions and possible
    financial obligations.
        I have already spoken about my State and what we see in
    terms of what kinds of impacts this could have, the Clean Power
    Plan and further agreements could have on a State such as ours.
    We are so heavily reliant on coal. We have a lot of it as a
    resource, we have a lot of natural gas. We are happy about
    that.
        Are there any safeguards that are being considered to
    protect American industries, consumers, workers? We already
    know the cost of our power is going to go up and the cost of
    energy is going to go up. What kinds of parameters in an
    agreement are to be considered as you look at us as an
    industrialized nation in contract to the developing nations?
        Mr. Bookbinder. Senator, you are going to hear words from
    me that you rarely hear in Washington, which is, I don't know.
    I know almost nothing about the Paris process. I will defer to
    people who do.
        I simply looked at the U.S. commitment and added up the
    numbers. I think Dr. Hausker and I have a slight difference. He
    said I looked at measures. I looked at every one of the
    measures that Secretary of State Kerry put in the INDC. So I
    simply took the measures that the Secretary of State put in the
    INDC and added them up. If there are others, then there are
    others. He didn't put them in the INDC.
        Senator Capito. Mr. Holmstead, do you have any reaction to
    that? Or is that something, in terms of developing nations
    commitments and industrialized nations, are we looking at what
    kind of advantage or disadvantage that would play and how it
    might impact us?
        Mr. Holmstead. I don't think there is any explicit
    consideration of that in Paris.
        Senator Capito. It sounds like a Supreme Court decision to
    me.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, let me thank Mr. Hausker for bringing up the
    value of the price on carbons, since I have a bill to exactly
    that effect, that appears to comport with at least the general
    principles that most of the Republican study groups that have
    looked at this issue require, i.e., that the money go back to
    the American people and not be used to fund any growth in
    Government.
        Let me just sort to set a baseline for the hearing ask each
    witness to answer the following question. That is, if you
    believe that climate change, man-made, through carbon
    emissions, is a serious problem that merits the sincere
    attention of Congress. Mr. Hausker.
        Mr. Hausker. I completely agree with that statement.
        Senator Whitehouse. Ms. Ladislaw.
        Ms. Ladislaw. I agree.
        Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Holmstead.
        Mr. Holmstead. I agree.
        Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Bookbinder.
        Mr. Bookbinder. I agree, and I want to add one thing.
        Senator Whitehouse. Let me finish what I have asked first.
    Mr. Rabkin.
        Mr. Rabkin. Sure.
        Senator Whitehouse. I could hear through the hearing, and I
    have heard a lot of my colleagues talk about their concern that
    the gap would be an opening to regulate agriculture in
    different ways. I would simply urge my Republican colleagues
    who are concerned about that to talk to big American
    corporations like Cargill, which are heavily, heavily invested
    in agriculture. Big American companies like Mars that depend on
    agriculture for their product lines.
        I think you will find that they are urging the agricultural
    sector to move in this direction on their own. This isn't some
    plan that just got hatched in the White House. Because they
    understand that climate change is real. We on a bipartisan
    basis have done things like approve funding for biodigesters in
    the Agriculture Bill to help reduce the methane. That is a
    pretty simple way of addressing the manure from ginormous feed
    lots that put out tons and tons of manure.
        So it is not as if there are not ways that we can address
    this in a bipartisan fashion. There are ways we already are
    beginning to address this in a bipartisan fashion and ways in
    which the corporate community, particular big American
    corporations, are leading us on this.
        I hope that we can address the question of regulatory
    burden in this Committee, but I don't think that we can address
    the question of regulatory burden in the context of a Committee
    that refuses to acknowledge that climate change is real. I am
    glad that all the witnesses get it. I doubt if we polled the
    Republican side of this Committee you get the same answers.
        It is unfortunate, because I think it is hard to address a
    problem that people are busy denying is a real problem. I
    particularly note what I consider to be the baleful effect of
    the Citizens United decision. We actually had a lot of good,
    bipartisan work going on climate change until the Citizens
    United decision came along.
        In this Committee, John Warner was the Republican co-author
    of Warner-Lieberman. Senator Cantwell and Senator Collins got
    together to do a very significant cap and dividend bill back in
    the cap and trade era. Senators like Senator Flake have written
    articles saying that a carbon tax would be the way to go as
    long as, again, back to the original requirement, it is revenue
    neutral, the money goes back to the American people.
        Senator Kirk, back in the day, voted for the Waxman-Markey
    bill. Senator McCain campaigned vigorously for President as the
    Republican nominee on doing something about climate change.
        So there is a steady, steady heartbeat of Republican
    activity until Citizens United happened in January 2010. After
    that, it has been like the EKG flat-lined. I think there is a
    direct correlation between the fossil fuel industry taking
    advantage of the bullying and manipulating power that Citizens
    United gave it to perform exactly those tasks and trying to
    bring the Republican party in Congress to heel. Unfortunately,
    I think they succeeded in doing so.
        Fortunately, the American people have a very different
    point of view. There is going to be a big accountability moment
    in November 2016, when the Republican party has to take what is
    presently its theory about carbon change, which is either it is
    not real or people don't have anything to do with it or I don't
    want to talk about it and vet that before the American voters.
    I don't think that is going to be a very healthy moment for
    that particular set of political theories.
        So I hope we can continue to work together on this. But I
    do think that Citizens United has had a really, really
    unfortunate effect on this conversation. My time is over, so I
    will yield.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you. Senator Boozman, thank you for
    your patience.
        Senator Boozman. Not much choice on who to recognize.
        Senator Inhofe. That is right.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Boozman. Thank you very much, and thank all of you
    for being here.
        As Senator Markey said, we can and should be very proud of
    the innovations we have made and the ability of America's can-
    do spirit. The other side of that, though, is that we are a
    Nation of laws. We have checks and balances in place. There is
    a proper way to do things. So I guess the real question is,
    does the President have the authority to go overseas and strike
    an agreement that is very, very far reaching.
        In listening to the panel today, and you have done an
    excellent job, really representing both sides, but anybody who
    has listened today, anybody who has read the literature, there
    is profound disagreement as to whether or not this 26 to 28
    percent can be reached and what it would take to do that.
        Mr. Holmstead, in the course of studying, being a part of
    the Clean Air Act for many, many years, how long under the
    current scenario that we are doing, how long would it actually
    take to get to a goal like that?
        Mr. Holmstead. The single biggest thing that the
    Administration has promised to do is something called the Clean
    Power Plan. And their assertion is that that can achieve a
    significant reduction. It is maybe half of what the President
    would need to get to 26 percent.
        I have been dealing with the Clean Air Act for 25 years. I
    just don't think the courts are going to uphold that. It is so
    far beyond what the statute says. So if you take that away, you
    are looking at things that could improve the efficiency of a
    lot of different things, cars we already have, we could do
    other things. But I don't see how you get to 26 to 28 percent.
    And I can tell you we can't get there by 2025.
        Senator Boozman. But even with that, if the courts did
    uphold it, you still have a huge problem in doing something
    different even getting to the 26 to 28 percent.
        Mr. Holmstead. Yes.
        Senator Boozman. That would take decades.
        Mr. Holmstead. I want to point out there, is not such a
    disagreement between Mr. Bookbinder and Mr. Hausker. They both
    have said that what the Administration has announced is not
    enough to get you there. Mr. Hausker believes there are many
    other things that they and States can do.
        Senator Boozman. Exactly.
        Mr. Holmstead. But the EPA doesn't have that authority, in
    my view.
        Senator Boozman. So in the case of the international
    climate agreement proposed by the President, does anyone
    disagree that it won't drive up the cost of food, fuel and
    electricity for American families and have an impact on
    domestic policies ranging from agriculture to energy to
    transportation if we were able to do this 26 to 28 percent
    reduction?
        Mr. Hausker. The analysis that we have performed and the
    analysis of other groups that we have reviewed indicate that
    the U.S. can maintain economic growth, that it can maintain job
    creation.
        Senator Boozman. I don't mean to interrupt, but you don't
    disagree that it is going to drive up the cost of food, fuel,
    electricity for American families and have a significant impact
    on domestic policies to achieve the 26 to 28 percent?
        Mr. Hausker. I can't make any broad, sweeping statements.
    The impacts are going to vary by sector. If we look at
    electricity, for instance, and we look at the impacts, the
    projected impacts of the Clean Power Plan, we find that
    although the price of electricity may go up, the efficiency
    programs that would accompany it would actually decrease demand
    and that average residential bills would be constant or could
    actually decline.
        So things interplay in different ways.
        Senator Boozman. But you would acknowledge this is a big
    deal? To reach a 26 to 28 percent reduction, you are going to
    have far reaching things.
        Mr. Hausker. We call it ambitious. It requires a lot of
    action. It requires a lot of operation.
        Senator Boozman. And the question is, does the President
    have the unilateral authority to do that? And that is really
    kind of where we are.
        Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Ladislaw. I just wanted to say, it is kind of a strange
    conversation we are having about what authority the President
    needs to make that kind of a commitment, whether it is a
    domestic or an international authority. I think that it is
    important to keep in mind that the Administration has said if
    they come back with an agreement that they believe legally
    requires State pass through Congress, they will take it that
    route.
        So the idea here that we know what the agreement looks like
    and therefore can justify what kind of authority it requires,
    we won't really know until we get the outcome from Paris. There
    is some speculation about those things, but we don't really
    know the answer to that question.
        Mr. Bookbinder. I would like to take a shot at answering
    that question. The Congress, your predecessors have created
    this system. Congress wrote a Clean Air Act that says EPA shall
    regulate a pollutant that is anticipated to endanger human
    health and welfare. EPA has determined, quite reasonably, that
    carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases do endanger human
    health and welfare. At which point the Clean Air Act, as
    written by your predecessors, says EPA must regulate.
        Now, the point I am making is that as a result of that,
    Congress has already put a price on carbon. The regulatory
    costs, which are mandated by the Clean Air Act, are a price on
    carbon. What some in the White House and other people who
    propose a carbon tax is a more economically efficient price. So
    you are either going to be stuck with an inefficient or
    regulatory price or an efficient carbon tax price. Those are
    your choices.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I
    would say is if you can't sell it to the Congress, if you can't
    sell it to the American public, then again, it probably
    shouldn't be done in this manner. Thank you very much.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boozman. That is a very
    good point.
        I am going to do something, and it is within the power of
    the chair to do it. Senator Boxer wants a full 5 minutes to
    respond to everything. While she was the chairman, I never made
    that request.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Inhofe. However, I am going to allow her to do
    that, and no one else coming in, they have now had their chance
    to come down. So we are through hearing from other members.
        We will acknowledge Senator Boxer for 5 minutes, then I
    will acknowledge myself for perhaps an equal amount of time.
    Then it is over, you guys.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you.
        I am not going to ask any questions. I am just going to
    thank the panel. All of you were terrific. Mr. Bookbinder, you
    spoke for me in your last comments. You are so right, there is
    a price on carbon. It is not the most efficient way. If we
    could come together around a carbon tax. I also think the
    international oil companies would come into that place, we
    would be far better served.
        What I want to do in these couple of minutes is just give
    kind of a closing argument about why I think the President has
    this authority. I agree with Senator Boozman. We are a Nation
    of laws. So I will take you back to 1992, October 7th, when the
    Senate, by unanimous consent, passed the U.N. Framework
    Convention on Climate, under which this President and the next
    one has the authority to move forward with executive agreements
    as long as they don't violate our laws, such as the Clean Air
    Act and our fuel economy and all that. That is his intention.
        I also wanted to speak to Senator Fischer's point, the
    point that she made as a rancher. You probably know I am not a
    rancher, I am not a farmer, I was born in Brooklyn, New York.
    There used to be farms in Brooklyn, but not when I was born. I
    am not that old.
        I represent a State, along with Senator Feinstein, that has
    the largest ag production in terms of revenue. We are No. 1. If
    we move toward an agreement and toward doing what we have to do
    with very catastrophic climate change, we will save, in our
    Nation, $11 billion a year out through 2050, in avoiding these
    damages to the climate which is going to adversely impact
    agriculture.
        So it is because I represent this State that I fervently
    believe California is on track and the President is on track.
    Frankly, the Congress is off track.
        Then I think it is very important, Senator Sullivan
    mentioned Larry Tribe. I love Larry Tribe. But I think he sold
    out in this particular case. It is OK. He took a lot of money
    from Peabody Coal and he is presenting their arguments. He has
    lost so far. Let's be clear. The courts have ruled against him
    so far. I am sure he is doing a great job but that is where it
    is at this point.
        I wanted to say to Mr. Holmstead, thank you for your
    Government service. You were there at EPA for a period of time.
    When you were asked if you felt the EPA was a rogue agency, you
    gave kind of an answer that I sensed was leaning yes at this
    point.
        When I look back at your service and your time there, your
    refusal and the refusal of the Bush administration to admit
    that climate was covered in the Clean Air Act led us to
    Massachusetts v. EPA, in which your side lost and my side won.
    Now, the point there is, maybe EPA was a rogue agency at that
    time when you were there. Because clearly when you read the
    case, honest to God, it says, any pollutant that adversely
    impacts the climate.
        I am not a lawyer. I am married to one, my father was one,
    my son is one. So maybe by osmosis I am one. But all you have
    to do is read the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration wasted
    8 precious long years. It is really worth noting.
        Now, Senator Sessions makes a really good point. He says,
    shouldn't we use the power of the purse. And the people here
    who agree with Senator Sessions, that this is the wrong way to
    go, say yes, use the power of the purse. And he made the point,
    we shouldn't have to go against our constituents.
        Let me show you the recent poll, in January 2015. Eighty-
    three percent of Americans, including 61 percent of
    Republicans, say if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global
    warming will be a serious problem in the future. Seventy some
    percent of Americans say the Federal Government should be doing
    a substantial amount to combat climate change. That is a
    Stanford poll. There is also a Wall Street Journal poll that
    has similar findings.
        So I am saying to my friends on the other side, you are on
    the wrong side of the people and you are on the wrong side of
    history because of the way this thing is going.
        Finally, I will close with a comment that was made by
    Christie Todd Whitman, former EPA Administrator under George W.
    Bush. She appeared here on June 18th, 2014: ``I have to begin
    by expressing my frustration with the discussion about whether
    or not the EPA has the legal authority to regulate carbon
    emissions that is still taking place in some quarters. The
    issue has been settled.'' She is right. Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
        First of all, this hearing today is not a science hearing.
    The questions that were asked of you, I am sure it was
    difficult to answer them. You didn't come here with that
    perspective. You came here for the what are we going to do
    about Paris and what about this 21st meeting that is coming up,
    what power does the President have to do these things that he
    seems to think he can do without any ratification by Congress.
        I would suggest, I want to clarify a couple of things.
    Senator Boxer used the statement that 56 percent of the people
    in Congress would adopt something that would be any type of cap
    and trade or a similar kind of restriction. That is not exactly
    true, because that was on a majority, a vote on a motion to
    proceed. I have many times, and every Senator up here has many
    times voted to proceed to something to hear it without
    supporting it.
        The specific votes, the highest one it ever got was 48
    percent. And that was the Warner-Lieberman vote, and then 38
    percent and 43 percent.
        Now, no useful purpose would be used, because I hear the
    same things over and over again. I have stood on the floor. I
    was down there during the time that right after Tom Steyer put
    in his $75 million to elect people that wanted to revive the
    old global warming argument. I went down there and listened and
    I heard the same things that have been rebuked many times
    before. They keep coming up.
        We heard it from three of the members over here today. They
    talked about, oh, the weather consequences, the serious
    consequences, droughts, and in fact that the severe drought,
    that 34 percent covered 80 percent of the country compared to
    25 percent in 2011. We have all these statements that were
    made.
        In fact, Professor Rabkin, your university, George Mason,
    did a study of all the meteorologists, not all of them, but a
    sampling of meteorologists. They reported that 63 percent of
    the weather forecasters, those are meteorologists on TV,
    believe that any global warming that occurs is a result of
    natural variation and not human activities.
        Here is a good one here. Dr. Martin Hertzberg, he is one I
    knew personally, a very proud liberal Democrat, retired naval
    meteorologist with a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, also declared
    his dissent of warming fears. He said ``As a scientists and a
    lifelong liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of
    the anecdotal fear-mongering claptrap about human-caused global
    warming to be a disservice to science.'' Continuing, he said
    ``The global warming alarmists don't even bother with data. All
    they have are half-baked computer models.'' He goes on and on.
        Then there is Richard Lindzen. I remember him very well,
    because he testified here before this Committee. He said that
    regulating carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you regulate
    carbon, you regulate life. I am sure some of you remember that.
        He is one who has been with MIT. Same thing with sea level
    and some of the other arguments.
        But I do want to mention this. The most recent poll that
    Gallup came out with, they sent a list, and these are the 25--I
    will make this a part of the record--national concerns of
    Americans. Dead last on that list is climate change.
        I know people want to believe it, people want to believe
    the world is coming to an end. Quite frankly, confession is
    good for the soul. I recall when I first was exposed to this,
    and everyone said it was true, so I assumed it was until they
    came out, it was MIT and some other groups, came out and said
    how much it would cost if we were to pass the cap and trade
    type of legislation that came originally from McCain and
    Lieberman. The range has been between $300 billion and $400
    billion a year. That has not really changed.
        So I did the math in the State of Oklahoma. Each family in
    my State of Oklahoma that files a Federal tax return would end
    up paying about $3,000 a year.
        By the admission of President Obama's first director, Lisa
    Jackson, of the EPA, when asked the question when she was
    sitting at the table right where you are sitting today, if we
    were to pass some type of a cap and trade legislation, either
    by legislation or regulation, would this have the effect of
    lowering CO2 emissions nationwide, she said, no, it
    wouldn't. The reason was because this isn't where the problem
    is. It is in China and India and other places.
        By the way, I know all this talk about what China is going
    to do, they haven't committed to anything. The President came
    back and he talked about this great achievement that he made.
    They didn't commit to anything at all.
        Now they say, well, we are going to increase our emissions
    of CO2 between now and 2025, then we are going to
    start decreasing it. That is a deal? It is really not.
        So I only want to say that we have had the science hearing.
    It is a controversial subject. And I am glad that we are having
    this hearing today. I personally, as I said in my opening
    statement, went to Copenhagen and was at that time, this was
    after all the leadership, as perceived by the other 191
    countries, were all on one side. I said no, what they are
    telling you isn't true. We are not going to be passing cap and
    trade as they told you. This was 2009. And of course, that
    didn't happen.
        We will continue to look at this. We are concerned about
    any issue that comes before this Committee, and we are
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]