[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 91 (Thursday, June 12, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5344-H5350]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend a few moments this 
afternoon reflecting on the recent order that is being promulgated by 
President Obama and the EPA dealing with the goals for carbon emission.
  Now, even before the President's announcement of the carbon goals 
last week, the spin machine was in full battle mode. There was a full-
throated expression of outrage for the apologists for pollution. Those 
who are profiting from what we are doing now and who are investing the 
least amount of change are making dire predictions that sound eerily 
familiar.
  The reason they sound familiar is that we have, in fact, heard them 
before. There was similar gloom and doom that greeted the Federal 
Government during the first Bush administration that was, if you will 
forgive the phrase--hold onto your hats--a cap-and-trade program to 
deal with acid rain. There were claims that it was unworkable, that it 
would be expensive, that it would create far more problems than it 
would solve; frankly, we just couldn't afford to move ahead, that we 
should instead continue the same approach we had for years, the same 
approach that resulted in minimal progress and contributed to acid rain 
damage to our waterways, to our forests, and to the health of our 
people. But the Bush administration argued against the naysayers in 
that by setting a framework requiring limits to be met and giving 
flexibility to the States' utilities on how it would be achieved, we 
would make progress for relatively minor costs, and it would be worth 
it.
  Almost 25 years later, the verdict is in. It has been a remarkable 
success. The program didn't require massive bureaucracy or a huge, 
unmanageable cost. We have, in fact, dramatically reduced acid rain. We 
have promoted investment in new technology. Our lakes and forests are 
healthier, and so are our people. The cleanup was achieved in the 
regular course of business, changing the incentives and the signals 
that were sent.
  This success, with bipartisan support, may be one of the reasons 
that, as we moved into the new century, the

[[Page H5345]]

2000s, there was initially broad, bipartisan interest in reducing 
carbon pollution. In fact, the situation we faced in the United States 
then was much like the situation I encountered in meeting with British 
members of Parliament 6 years ago on their approach to climate change.
  Now, they acknowledged that there were differences between the three 
parties in Parliament about the details of what they were planning, 
about the best approach going forward. Some favored a more command and 
control, and others were dealing with incentives or taxation or a 
combination, but they were engaged in a debate about the details of how 
to achieve the objective of reducing carbon emissions, not the wisdom 
of doing it, not challenging the climate science.
  Maybe this was because Great Britain is an island nation that really 
couldn't afford to be indifferent to shifting weather patterns, rising 
sea levels, the impacts of storm, disaster, and crop patterns.

                              {time}  1230

  Maybe it was that the British parliamentary system made it harder for 
the leaders of government and the parties in opposition to insulate 
themselves from day-to-day debate, debate that is largely unknown here 
in this Chamber on an ongoing basis.
  Maybe it was because the British Government itself had been involved 
in such sweeping research and planning. Remember, Sir Nicholas Stern 
had a seminal report on climate that was widely acknowledged and 
respected, that served as a prod for action.
  During the 2000 election, President Bush, then-Governor Bush, said he 
would move to limit carbon pollution. During a period shortly 
thereafter, then-Governor Romney of Massachusetts was one of the 
leaders in the regional greenhouse gas initiative of the Northeast 
States that started the limited cap-and-trade program, that put a price 
on carbon, and used those monies to improve energy efficiency and 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  It has been relatively successful, despite the massive recession and 
the Tea Party heat that caused Presidential candidate Romney to 
repudiate what he helped put in place, and New Jersey Governor Chris 
Christie pulled back.
  In 2008, the Presidential nominee for the Republicans was Senator 
John McCain, who had been involved, on a bipartisan basis, with 
legislation to restrict greenhouse gases. And at this point, Senator 
McCain was not a climate-denier; he was a believer that our government 
and our economy were not helpless in the face of threats from human 
impact on climate change and weather instability, let alone spreading 
doubt about the scientific consensus.
  We are coming to the floor this afternoon debating, discussing 
impacts on climate, the need for modest steps proposed by the 
administration, restating some facts, and broadening the conversation.
  I would like to turn, if I could, to my colleague from Maryland, 
Congressman Sarbanes, to add his voice. The Congressman has been deeply 
concerned with the environment, with climate, with energy, playing a 
key role on the Commerce Committee. I welcome him to this conversation.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for pulling 
us together this afternoon to talk about this important development 
that the EPA has taken to address climate change, to reduce pollution 
across the country.
  I want to start by thanking the EPA. I mean, a lot of people are 
piling on right now, critics of this action, and saying this is going 
to cost jobs and it is too disruptive and so forth. I have a completely 
different perspective, and I wanted to mention a couple of things along 
those lines.
  First of all, this is an important step to take, just from a health 
perspective. In other words, there are many ways you can come at it. 
You can look at it in terms of climate change, which is kind of a slow-
moving crisis, and I will speak to that in a minute, but it is 
accelerating.
  But if you just look at it in terms of protecting the health of the 
American people, frankly, and beyond, but let's talk about America's 
interests here. If you cut down on these carbon emissions, particularly 
from coal plants, you are going to be promoting clean air. You are 
going to be promoting clean water.
  The Chesapeake Bay, which I hold very dear, representing the Third 
District in Maryland, and having parts of the Third District which 
touch the Bay, and many tributaries and rivers and waterways that lead 
into the Bay from across the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the Chesapeake 
Bay, the pollution that comes into the water often is from air deposits 
that come into the water because of this carbon pollution that we have.
  So whether you are talking about breathing clean air, which we all 
want for ourselves and for our children and for our grandchildren, or 
drinking clean water and having clean water and high water quality, 
this is a very, very important step to take, this notion of now setting 
a goal to cut by 30 percent the carbon emissions from power plants 
across the country.
  But let's look at it through the lens of climate change, which my 
colleague has already raised. We are seeing the effects of climate 
change, as I mentioned, accelerating every single day.
  So, obviously, there is a warming going on of the planet, generally 
speaking, and the scientific support for that being connected to the 
activities of humankind is pretty incontrovertible. We have the 
opportunity in the Energy and Commerce Committee to get a lot of 
testimony on that front.
  We are seeing violent weather events across the country which are 
having a tremendous impact on communities, damaging those communities, 
harming, actually producing harm to individuals, but also having a 
terrific impact on economic productivity across the country.
  So the average American out there, I mean, everyday citizens, when 
they look at this issue, the great majority of them are saying, we need 
to do something about this. We can't just sit on our hands. In fact, 
there is recent polling that indicates that 70 percent of Americans 
favor stronger limits on the amount of carbon that is emitted by power 
plants.
  Well, okay. That is exactly what the EPA is doing here. It is taking 
action to reduce the carbon emissions from power plants. The EPA is 
listening to the American people. The Obama administration is listening 
to what the American people are saying, day in and day out, about the 
action that we need to take.
  Unfortunately, this Congress, the leadership in this House, in 
particular, has not, apparently, heard the cry of the American people 
when it comes to doing something about climate change.
  So I congratulate the EPA for taking these measures because this is 
what the American people want to see, and it is going to have a 
tremendous positive impact.
  On climate change per se, 80 percent of Americans think the U.S. 
should take action to address climate disruption, 80 percent of 
Americans. So those are like commonsense people getting up in the 
morning, going outside, getting their newspaper, opening the newspaper 
and seeing that there have been violent storms here, or that there is a 
drought happening here, or that the water supply is in danger there, 
all connected back to what is happening with the climate and affecting 
their communities.
  So they are saying, okay, the commonsense thing for us to do is to 
take some considered and reasonable and rational steps to try to 
address one clear cause of climate change and pollution, and that is 
the carbon emissions from power plants.
  Thank you to the EPA for taking this initiative and responding to 
what the American people are saying.
  Before I hand it back, I do want to touch, though, on what I think is 
part of the problem here, why it is that the EPA is the one that is 
having to step up here and take the initiative, and why we are not 
taking more initiative right here in Congress.
  I think it is because the machinery here has sort of gotten gummed up 
by the influence that some of these polluters have. There was a report 
recently issued that indicated or estimated, I guess, that the fossil 
fuel industry is getting a 5,900 percent return on the investment it is 
making here in Washington through campaign contributions and lobbying 
expenditures.

  That estimate comes from looking at some of the taxpayer subsidies 
that continue to flow to that industry, even

[[Page H5346]]

though this is an industry that makes over $100 billion in profits 
every year. But the influence is also found, not just in sort of that 
corporate welfare that that industry is taking out of this Congress, 
but it is seen in the way in which our efforts to try to address 
climate change, to try to address the issues of promoting clean air and 
clean water, keep getting stopped by certain industries. So we need to 
look at reforms on that front.
  What do we do to lift up the voices of everyday Americans in a world 
where money is speech? How do everyday people and people of modest 
means have speech in that environment and push back on those influences 
so that we can actually process their will here in Congress?
  Then let me just close with this observation, because it goes to the 
argument that is made that somehow this is going to harm us 
economically as a country, to put those goals in place and begin to cut 
these emissions.
  My colleague pointed to the sky is falling narrative at the time when 
we were going to do something about acid rain. And people said, 
industries aren't going to be able to handle this. It is going to cause 
parts of the industry to shut down. Americans are going to lose their 
jobs.
  What happened?
  The country, America, stepped up to the challenge and found its way 
to new opportunities. And I hear a lot of times from industry who say, 
well, you know, putting these measures in place, particularly when 
maybe peer nations aren't doing as much on that front as they could, it 
is going to put us at a competitive disadvantage. We need to have a 
level playing field and so forth.
  I get that, but sometimes it makes sense to push us to go find a new 
playing field. And I think that is what the EPA is helping us do. It is 
expressing what the American people want to see. Go innovate, go figure 
out a way to do these things differently. Find, create a new energy 
portfolio that makes sense from a health and safety standpoint, makes 
sense in terms of combating climate change, but also will create 
tremendous new economic opportunities and generate millions of new jobs 
across the country.
  So these things are not mutually exclusive. Economic productivity and 
innovation are not mutually exclusive with doing the right thing with 
the environment. In fact, if you look back with a clear eye, 
historically, you will see that when we push ourselves to do the right 
thing for the environmental reasons, for the health and safety reasons, 
we often get ourselves to a place of increased economic productivity 
and innovation.
  In closing, and I thank my colleague for giving me a few minutes here 
today to talk on the topic, I want to thank the EPA for carrying out--
listening to what the American people are saying about the steps we 
need to take to address climate change, to address our health and the 
environment out there, and taking this very, very important step that I 
think is going to be productive and positive for the American people. 
Thank you.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman joining us and 
his observations, in particular, the thought that the sky is falling 
rhetoric is not necessarily born out.
  I am reminded that 3 years ago one of the operators of perhaps the 
dirtiest coal-powered plant in the country, in Homer City, 
Pennsylvania, warned that there would be immediate and devastating 
consequences from the Obama administration's push to clean up pollution 
from coal.
  It was facing the requirement to cut sulfur dioxide pollution by 80 
percent in less than a year, and it sought to block the rule. They were 
unsuccessful. In fact, it was the recent regulation that the EPA's--
excuse me--the Supreme Court upholding the EPA's rule in this case was 
initiated by the Homer City generating station that precipitated all of 
this.
  But today, the Homer City power plant is now a model. It hasn't been 
shut down. There haven't been devastating consequences for that 
community. It has been able to adopt new regulations, set them in 
place. It has dramatically reduced its emissions, and it is operating 
successfully.
  The EPA estimates that about 30 percent of the coal-powered units in 
the United States are operating without scrubbers. Remember, our friend 
from Maryland talked about the immediate health benefits, not just 
environmental. The pollution control equipment is not only for sulfur 
dioxide but mercury.

                              {time}  1245

  It is inexcusable that there are plants still operating without these 
minimal protections.
  Mr. Speaker, we are joined by one of my colleagues who is also from 
Maryland, Congressman John Delaney. One of the things I appreciate 
about the perspective that Mr. Delaney brings to Congress--being a 
relatively new Member, but having pursued a successful business 
career--is that he is often taking an approach from an economic 
perspective that deals with some of these elements.
  One of the reasons I am pleased that the EPA is moving forward is 
that this is an economic solution that can have a huge difference, not 
just improving the environment, but new technologies and doing so in a 
cost-effective way.
  So we are pleased to have Mr. Delaney here, and I yield to him for 
any comments that he may have about the situation.
  Mr. DELANEY. I thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue, 
for organizing our discussion here today, and for his leadership on so 
many other important issues here in the Congress, and I like the way he 
introduced this next segment of our discussions around economic policy 
because I will spend a little bit of time on that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to start by talking about probabilities and 
severities--because I think it is important to think about that when we 
are thinking about climate change--and then move into some market-based 
solutions that I think work very well with some of the EPA's recent 
guidance, which I am very supportive of.
  Let's start with the view of what experts think of this issue. It is 
estimated that 97 percent of the serious climate scientists in the 
world believe that climate change is occurring and that human behavior 
is contributing to this.
  A friend of mine had a very good analogy for this when he said: If 
you took your child to 100 physicians and 97 of those physicians said 
that your child had a condition that needed to be treated, would you 
wait to get the last three? Or would you act on the advice of 97 
percent of the physicians?
  That is effectively what we have with respect to the advice that 
serious climate scientists have with respect to the two questions as to 
whether is climate change happening and is human behavior contributing 
to it.
  Secondly, there is a body of work around what are the consequences if 
climate change were to continue, and it is similarly overwhelming in 
terms of the view that, if it were to occur, the costs, both moral--
right, in terms of the stewardship of our planet, but we will put that 
aside for a second--and financial, are very significant.
  If you look at the United States, if you look at costs associated 
with weather--extreme weather along our coasts, extreme weather in the 
Midwest, droughts in the west, fires that are being caused from that, 
disruption in people's lives, costs to the Federal Government, these 
are very, very significant costs.
  That is not even counting the geopolitical costs associated with 
continued climate change. A very large percentage of the poor people in 
the world live at or below sea level. The effect that rising tides will 
have in disrupting their lives, we should understand will have a very 
significant geopolitical implication.
  So let's think about the probabilities and severities. There is some 
chance--I view it very small, but some chance--that 97 percent of 
climate scientists are wrong, that, in fact, nothing is happening. I 
view that as a 10 percent probability.
  So whatever we do, the changes in our behavior have to be measured 
against the 10 percent of the probability. There is an overwhelming 
likelihood that the scientists are right. That is why 97 percent of 
them agree.
  The fact that they are in accord on this issue would make me think, 
from a probability-weighted basis, that there is an 80 percent 
probability that they are right.
  Then there is probably a 10 percent probability that they are wrong 
the

[[Page H5347]]

other way, that they are seriously underestimating the effects of 
climate change, and it could accelerate, and the consequences are 
actually much greater than we had believed.
  So if you add up all of those probabilities and multiply them by the 
severities, you come to a view that this could be one of the central 
generational challenges of this era, in terms of addressing this issue 
from a both moral and economic perspective.
  I think my colleague from Maryland framed it well when he talked 
about the economic opportunities because I think we have been presented 
with a false choice. The choice has been act on this issue, act against 
the advice of 97 percent of the climate scientists, or, you know, ruin 
our economy if we do that; and that is the choice we have been 
presented with.
  That is fundamentally not the right choice because, if you have a 
view that the evidence will continue to mount, you have to assume that, 
ultimately, humans--both in the United States and around the world--
will react to this issue. That is the logical assumption.
  If that logical assumption turns out to be true, then we should 
assume that, in 25 to 50 years, the way this world--and this country in 
particular--but the way this world produces energy, distributes energy, 
utilizes energy, and conserves energy will be very, very different than 
it is today.
  As a businessperson, I look at that, and I say big, big opportunity. 
It is a big opportunity to be the leader in energy production, energy 
distribution, energy conservation, and energy utilization.
  So there is a concept in business known as the first mover advantage. 
The person who reacts first gets the best technology, gets the best 
experts, gets the best insights, and that is what I believe, as a 
matter of economics, this Nation should be doing.
  As someone who believes the power of markets is very significant to 
change behavior--in fact, I believe there are only two things that 
really change human behavior: one is their faith, and the other is 
financial incentives.
  We have an opportunity, I believe, as it relates to climate change to 
not only get the faith community behind this issue--which I believe 
they will, the faith community cares deeply about the stewardship of 
the planet, God's greatest gift to us. I believe in the future, we will 
see the faith community--and it is already there, to a very significant 
extent--getting behind this more.
  I also think there are things that we can do in terms of creating the 
right financial incentives to change the behavior. I believe things 
like a carbon tax, where you create a market-based solution and you tax 
something that we fundamentally shouldn't like--carbon--in exchange for 
taxing things we should like--like human beings and profits--is a 
better scenario for our country going forward, which is why, in 
combination with the new EPA regulations, we are introducing something 
called the State's Choice Act.
  What the State's Choice Act does is require the Federal Government to 
give every State in this country another option. It is not a 
requirement. It is an option, and if the State decides to put in place 
a carbon tax, where they tax something we shouldn't like today--and I 
am sure we definitely will not like in the future, which is carbon 
emissions--and they can take the revenues from that carbon tax and 
deploy them against any priority they have, including lowering other 
taxes in their State, if a State puts in place a carbon tax, then they 
are deemed in compliance with the EPA regulations.

  So it is providing States with an option--not a requirement, an 
option--to put in place a mechanism--a market-based mechanism in lieu 
of a regulatory framework.
  Environmentalists believe a carbon tax is the best solution because 
they understand that financial incentives change behavior most 
significantly. Business broadly believes this is the right solution 
because it is a market-based approach.
  In fact, the largest energy company in the world, ExxonMobil 
Corporation, disclosed something last year that I viewed as very 
consequential, that they will begin, in their financial assumptions--so 
in other words, when ExxonMobil projects the future and their business 
against those projections, they are assuming that, at some point, there 
will be a social cost of carbon imposed through some form of taxing 
system.
  What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that ExxonMobil is, today, making 
business decisions based on the fact that that will happen. Most major 
corporations, most of the Fortune 500 is doing the same thing. They see 
where this is going.
  I believe that, when government and the private sector work well 
together, we get the best outcomes. So when you see policymakers and 
people who care about climate change saying their carbon tax approach 
is the right answer and when you see the overwhelming majority of the 
Fortune 500 believing a carbon tax is the right answer, I think we 
should be embracing market-based solutions, which is what we are trying 
to do with this State's Choice Act.
  We applaud the actions of the EPA. This is a serious problem for the 
reasons I discussed earlier, and I think their actions, particularly in 
the absence of other actions coming out of Congress, are the right 
answer.
  We believe this is a great opportunity to also start the conversation 
around market-based solutions, which is why we would like to give every 
State in this country the option to pursue a market-based solution in 
exchange for a regulatory solution.
  This is an incredibly important topic. Again, I want to thank my 
colleague for organizing us here today and giving me the opportunity to 
comment on my views on this.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Congressman.
  I must say, I appreciated your observations. I personally am 
intrigued with your State's Choice Act. I look forward to exploring 
that further with you. I am absolutely convinced that, in the course of 
the next decade, this country will be moving to a broader carbon tax.
  It is a key to ultimately controlling emissions. It is a way to 
reform our tax system. It is a way to simplify the equation, and what 
you proposed, I think, is an intriguing way to accelerate that 
conversation. I look forward to continuing it with you.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been certain concerns that have been raised 
in terms of some of the horror stories. People feel it is just too much 
hard work, too much risk with being able to move forward with reducing 
carbon emissions.
  I must reflect on my own personal experience on this, and then I will 
turn to my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Moran. From his 
perspective, he has a great deal to offer on this, and I appreciate his 
environmental leadership.
  Over 20 years ago, I was a member of the Portland City Council, and 
we were involved then with work to deal with carbon pollution. In fact, 
Portland became the first city in the United States to make a 
commitment to reduce its carbon emissions. Our plan was to reduce these 
emissions. We had committed to making a reduction of 40 percent by 2030 
and 80 percent by 2050.
  It was fascinating to watch as we moved forward with aggressive work, 
with energy efficiency, with transportation, bicycles, light rail, 
streetcar, building design and planning, having a comprehensive effort 
to tie these pieces together, to change how we did business to meet the 
carbon objective.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that it is working. As of 2012, our 
greenhouse gas emissions are 11 percent below the 1990 levels, even 
though our population has grown 30 percent over that time. It means, on 
a per-person basis, it has been reduced by a third. Emissions from 
homes are down 13 percent and are down 16 percent in commercial, 
industrial, and multifamily sectors.
  Now, Portland--anybody who has visited it in the last 20 years--is 
not impoverished. It is not a place that people are fleeing. Indeed, we 
are finding that the cohort of well-educated, young professionals--the 
20-to 34-year-olds are actually increasing in the city of Portland, 
while the quality of life has been maintained.
  During that same period of time, jobs are up 18 percent, and some of 
the best-paying jobs are in those areas that deal with innovation, with 
energy efficiency, with design, with transportation.
  So this, from my experience in my hometown, having been involved with

[[Page H5348]]

it now for a quarter of a century, it is not only within our capacity, 
but doing it can actually improve the economy and the quality of life.
  There is another critical area that we need to address, and that is 
why I am so pleased that Congressman Moran is here. He is a senior 
Member, the dean of the Virginia delegation--who, sadly, has decided 
that he may move on and retire after this Congress, after a long and 
distinguished career.
  One of the areas in which Congressman Moran is a powerful and 
respected voice is in the area of national security, and I am pleased 
that he is with us here this afternoon and perhaps can have some 
observations about what this means to the future security of our 
country, not just in terms of the environment.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for giving me the 
opportunity to join my distinguished colleagues, but particularly you, 
my very good friend, Mr. Blumenauer. I just cannot thank you enough on 
behalf of this country for your leadership on this issue.
  This is an important opportunity to discuss the President's proposed 
standard to limit carbon pollution because, just last week, 
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy announced 
proposed regulations that would reduce carbon pollution by 30 percent, 
below 2005 levels, basically below what they were a decade ago.
  So that is going to help many States who have already made 
substantial progress, such as Oregon, toward that objective. That is a 
baseline that most scientists believe is absolutely necessary to 
prevent irreversible climate change.

                              {time}  1300

  The new standard relies heavily on the existing State and Federal 
Clean Air Act partnership that already exists which enables States to 
develop their own paths to reduce carbon emissions.
  States are going to have the flexibility to cut emissions based on 
what makes the most sense for their unique situation, including options 
like reducing demand to encourage production of cleaner sources of 
electricity, cap-and-trade programs, and a menu of other energy 
efficiency ideas. States can work collectively with other States to 
develop multi-State carbon reduction plans. But without this major 
course correction, our present trajectory on climate change threatens 
the future of this planet.
  As each day passes without action, the more we are destined to harm 
our environment, our country, and our loved ones. So while this plan 
may not be perfect, the current public comment period does provide an 
opportunity to improve on it. And given the inability of Congress to 
enact meaningful legislation on this or almost any of the other 
pressing issues our country confronts, I fully support the President's 
decision directing the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a 
standard for carbon emissions because it has become clear that this 
Congress will not do so.
  It is no secret that the majority who control this Chamber are in 
climate change denial. Just 2 weeks ago, the House passed an amendment 
offered by Mr. McKinley of West Virginia to the National Defense 
Authorization bill that prevents the Pentagon from using funds to 
implement climate change assessments. This is a head-in-the-sand 
amendment, essentially a way to ensure that the realities of climate 
change are ignored by our national security policymakers.
  It is an absurd notion that our military leaders should not react to 
the unequivocal fact that the planet is warming and that human 
activities are responsible. The McKinley amendment, and those who voted 
for it, remind me of the 16th century Catholic Church, Mr. Blumenauer, 
that condemned the work of a scientist by the name of Galileo who dared 
to claim that the Earth was not the center of the universe but that it, 
along with the planets, revolved around the Sun.
  Now, those who voted for the amendment--and I hate to say the number, 
it was embarrassingly large--but those who voted for the amendment were 
telling our military to irresponsibly disregard the findings of the 
scientific community that our planet is warming. But our military 
leaders, fortunately, do get it. They do understand that the climate is 
changing, and they are doing their best with limited resources to be 
prepared to respond to that changing environment.
  Climate change is a national security concern for a number of 
reasons. First and foremost, it is a catalyst for instability and 
conflict around the world. The U.S. Department of Defense's own 
Quadrennial Defense Review--this is the document that defines the 
Department's strategic objectives and potential military threats--
declared the threat of climate change is a serious national security 
vulnerability that could enable terrorist activity. The Quadrennial 
Defense Review specifically states:

       The pressures caused by climate change will influence 
     resource competition while placing additional burdens on 
     economies, societies, and governance institutions around the 
     world.

  The results will be a higher demand for American troops abroad, even 
as we struggle to deal with the devastating impacts caused by flooding 
and extreme weather events here at home.
  Climate change is also a new form of stress on our military 
readiness. The Navy, for example, estimates that 128 of its 
installations just at the Norfolk, Virginia, Naval Shipyard alone would 
be affected by a 1-meter rise in sea level which we have to anticipate. 
It recently had to spend $240 million to double-deck four of its piers 
down at the Norfolk Naval Base so that they could harden utility lines 
and make the structures more resilient to sea level rise and more 
extreme and more frequent weather events.
  Now, as an appropriator, I and my colleagues on the committee are 
dealing with the reality of climate change in Federal agency budgets. 
The effects of climate change are ratcheting up Federal expenditures. 
The 10-year average for wildland fire costs, the basis on which we 
attempt to budget for fighting wildland fires, is going up every year. 
We spent more than $800 million on wildfires just last year.
  So, our military gets it, the vast majority of the American public 
gets it, and the executive branch gets it. It seems that almost 
everyone--almost everyone--gets the fact that climate change is 
happening; that is, everyone but a majority here in the House and a 
filibuster-sufficient minority in the Senate. Perhaps they are in 
denial because their political base either chooses to be ignorant or is 
profiting from inaction.
  Perhaps it is a generational issue. I have seen a poll that a 
majority of all self-defined Republicans under the age of 34 think 
politicians who deny that climate change are either--and I am just 
quoting now, of course, these are not my words.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Of course.
  Mr. MORAN. These are the words of the majority of Republicans under 
the age of 34 that they are either ``ignorant, out of touch, or 
crazy.'' Ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. Now, we wouldn't use those 
words, but the majority of Republicans under the age of 34 do use those 
words towards those who deny that we should do something about climate 
change.
  We, along with the rest of the world, have a duty to protect our 
children and future generation from the effects of climate change. So I 
stand here with my colleagues to ensure that the Obama administration's 
effort to limit carbon pollution is not diminished or blocked by the 
Congress. For the sake of our national security, and the sake of a 
better future, the Obama administration's proposal to limit carbon 
emissions must be allowed to go forward.
  I thank you very much, my friend, and I thank you for your 
leadership. Let's hope things get better.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, I appreciate very much your being here, 
Congressman Moran, and your voice makes me think that maybe you have 
been giving diction lessons to Gina McCarthy, but it is not so much how 
she talks but what she says.
  Mr. MORAN. You are making fun of our New England accent, Mr. 
Blumenauer.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I am talking about the distinctive way in which you 
communicate as well as the power of the words, both of the 
administrator and of you. I deeply appreciate your putting numbers 
around some of these threats. The notion that we have the largest naval 
base in the world, and

[[Page H5349]]

you are saying we had to invest almost one-quarter of a billion dollars 
because it has had the greatest increase in sea level on the entire 
eastern seaboard.
  Mr. MORAN. Absolutely. We just were shown a map by naval executives, 
and I hesitate to say this because it is so scary, but the reality is 
that the entire Naval Shipyard and the Norfolk shipbuilding base which 
builds our nuclear carriers within a relatively short period of time, a 
few decades, is liable to be underwater. So we can't afford to continue 
to deny climate change, literally.

  So I appreciate your leadership, again, on this, Mr. Blumenauer, and 
we have got to continue the fight.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. It was interesting. There was a recent article in The 
Washington Post about a church on the waterfront in Norfolk. And they 
are having to vacate because this rising sea level is making it--the 
pastor of the church was quoted as saying that people shouldn't have to 
consult a tide table to figure out whether or not they can go to 
service.
  I deeply appreciate your focusing on this, the reference you make to 
the Defense Department needing to have the best information possible 
and the outrage that an amendment was approved to the defense 
authorization that would have, in effect, locked climate denial into 
that authorization.
  Mr. MORAN. Absolutely. And the executives, the folks who have been 
involved with the Navy who showed me this map of our naval shipyards, 
within my son's lifetime are going to be under water. They did say, 
well, if it is any consolation, Florida is in worse shape. Of course, 
it is no consolation that Florida is in worse shape than Virginia, but 
the reality is it is obviously not confined to Virginia; it is all 
along the low-lying coast. Unfortunately, by the time that some people 
wake up and accept it, it may very well be too late.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I just had my first two grandchildren, and I would 
like some day for these two little boys to be able to see Miami and not 
have to be snorkeling.
  Now, your reference to the defense amendment that was passed makes me 
think of what happened in North Carolina, where the legislature tried 
to mandate that the State agencies could not use the best science to 
make choices, the best information to protect the coastline.
  Well, I deeply appreciate your joining us this afternoon. I 
appreciate your leadership and look forward to continuing with you this 
conversation.
  Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there are some who claim, well, we 
really don't need to move forward with this because maybe or maybe not 
the administration's plan will work as they say. Maybe it is 
affordable, maybe it will create those jobs, it will improve air 
quality, and reduce carbon emissions. But they say that it really 
doesn't matter what the United States does. It is ironic, because some 
of the same people who are denying climate science are then turning 
around and saying, but it won't matter what we do because the Indians 
and the Chinese are building a coal emissions plant every week or two, 
and so anything that the United States does will really be drowned out, 
will lose its effect because of other events.
  Well, this argument is wrong on all counts. It is not as much as we 
need to do. I am absolutely convinced, as I stand here on the floor of 
the House today, I am absolutely convinced that over the course of the 
next 20 years we will not only implement the requirements of this 
carbon emission rule, but we will go beyond it. We will go beyond it, 
and we will find it is not only manageable, but it is the right thing 
to do.
  Even though this modest step will have some short-term pain and some 
difficulty in changing current patterns of business and politics, it is 
something we can and should do. Being able to make this pivot to start 
changing how we do business is in and of itself significant because it 
is these first steps that are going to make it possible for us to take 
other, more important, longer-term steps that will be even more 
significant.
  But it is also critical to demonstrate American leadership. Our 
failure to lead on reducing carbon emissions will encourage other 
countries that are poorer and are heavier carbon emitters on a per 
capita basis to just sit back and wait. Some of them will say, hey, you 
in the United States are the people who have created most of this 
problem. The United States has now been passed by China in terms of 
annual current carbon emissions. But in terms of total carbon in the 
atmosphere, the United States is the all-time leader and will be for 
some time.
  On a per capita basis, we are still far and away number one. 
Americans can emit three times as much carbon per person as the Chinese 
and six times more carbon per person than the Indians. So the United 
States is the greatest historic carbon emitter, and we are still 
emitting far more carbon per person. If we don't step up, being rich, 
powerful, and more technologically advanced, how is it that we are 
going to expect poorer countries where people are struggling with 
existential challenges for food and sanitation, how do we expect them 
to ever follow suit if we are afraid to lead?
  Well, I think this rule that is being promulgated is an expression 
that we are not afraid to lead. As I say, it is an important interim 
step, it sends an important signal, and it starts a broader 
conversation internationally.
  I was in Copenhagen 4 years ago and watched as the United States 
shuttled back and forth, the President trying to get people aligned, 
and dealing with the European Union. But, frankly, we are never going 
to be able to have one, large multinational organization that is going 
to put all of these pieces together. It is going to require leadership. 
It is going to require leadership from the United States, showing the 
way that we are willing to do this, and then working with not just the 
Chinese and the Indians, but the Brazilians and the Indonesians. In 
this political and economic climate, it is wildly unrealistic to expect 
that the United States is going to assume the entire burden itself, but 
it is important for us to send the signal that we are moving in the 
right direction.

                              {time}  1315

  The United States, over the course of the next 50 years, is going to 
be challenged to deal with all that we need to do; plus, as my friend 
from Virginia mentioned, we are facing serious problems in terms of 
climate change that is already underway.
  If we, in some way, could be able to drop global carbon emissions 
below the 400 parts per million that we are at now back to 350 parts 
per million, we are still going to watch the climate effects unfold. We 
are still going to watch Florida sink, with oceans rising and problems 
for its water supply.
  We are going to watch large chunks of the Arctic ice sheet collapse. 
We are going to watch parts of Greenland disappear. Ocean levels are 
going to continue to rise. This means that the United States is in a 
race to be able to deal with things to help people adapt with climate 
change and, for heaven's sake, not to give up because it is going to be 
a problem. We don't want it to accelerate. We don't want to make it 
worse.
  If we are going to be able to deal with the challenges 50 years from 
now, it is what we do in the next 5 years in communities all across 
America that is going to make a difference.
  Acting with cleaner technology, cleaner energy, and greater 
efficiency will save American families money over the next 20 years, 
compared to the current wasteful patterns. It is an opportunity for us 
to realign our economy for the economy of the future. It is an 
opportunity for us to be able to minimize the consequences of climate 
change.
  Frankly, every single use of energy has some negative consequences--
every one, but being able to use that energy for efficiently, more 
effectively, and do it sooner minimizes those negative consequences 
while we harness the economic power to change the economy.
  I want to conclude with just one observation about the way that the 
administration has proceeded. They have signaled the approach that they 
are taking going forward. They have taken goals and adjusted those 
carbon goals based on where States are now, what their energy mix is, 
and what they can do in a reasonable way in the years ahead.
  They have taken those goals and given great flexibility to the 
individual States. This is not a one-size-fits-all

[[Page H5350]]

solution. To the contrary, giving them realistic goals and giving them 
flexibility on how they are going to achieve it is a terrific way to 
harness market-based solutions and the ingenuity of the individual 
States.
  The administration, I have heard from a number of people in the 
industry, has reached out, talking to people with electric utilities, 
gas, and working in terms of large industrial users. Having those 
conversations with States, red State and blue, regardless of their 
energy mix, they have made it clear that they are encouraging people to 
take advantage of the flexibility that has been given to them.
  I think this is an ideal model for going forward, not denying the 
problem, not trying to solve it all overnight, not trying to have one 
size fits all, but to deal with a minimal standard going forward that 
sets the base, giving people a range of options to meet it, and 
inviting their ingenuity and their activity.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no issue that is more important that this 
Congress should be addressing. Sadly, you know we have not done much to 
deal with it on the floor of the House, but the administration is at 
least stepping forward to not deny climate change, but to be able to 
give people choices to meet our objectives.
  I commend the administration for the steps they have taken, and I 
hope that all Members will take the time to familiarize themselves with 
it and what their States can and should do to be able to meet that 
objective for America to exercise leadership at home and abroad--meet 
these minimal objectives and to exceed them in the years ahead.
  As we did with acid rain, we can do with carbon emission. I urge my 
colleagues to focus on how we can do this, so we can make it a great 
success story to preserve the future of our children and grandchildren. 
I appreciate the opportunity to share this discussion.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________