[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE NEED FOR LEADERSHIP
TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE AND
PROTECT NATIONAL SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 9, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-14
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov
http://www.oversight.house.gov or
http://www.docs.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-439 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Member
Columbia Justin Amash, Michigan
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California James Comer, Kentucky
Katie Hill, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Bob Gibbs, Ohio
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Peter Welch, Vermont Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Jackie Speier, California Chip Roy, Texas
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Ro Khanna, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Susanne Sachsman Grooms, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk and Director of Operations
Russell Anello, Chief Oversight Counsel
Amish Shah, Counsel
Joshua Zucker, Assistant Clerk
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 9, 2019.................................... 1
Witnesses
Mr. John F. Kerry, Former Secretary, U.S. Department of State
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Mr. Chuck Hagel, Former Secretary of Defense and Senator
Oral Statement............................................... 11
The written statements for witnesses are available at the U.S.
House of Representatives Repository: https://docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
The documents entered into the record during this hearing are
listed below, and are available at: https://docs.house.gov.
* United Nations Report, submitted by Rouda; ref. page 4
* AAAS Report, submitted by Rouda; ref. page 4
* Letter to President Trump from 57 senior national security
officials, submitted by Mr. Hagel; ref. page 13
* Sea level rise modeling handbook from the United States
Geological Survey, submitted by Massie; ref. page 25
* The CO2 Deficit by Bonne Posma and Andrew Kenny, submitted by
Massie; ref. page 29
* Climate Change and the Syrian Civil war revisited, Elsevier,
* How Climate Change is Fueling the U.S. the U.S. Border Crisis,
The New Yorker, submitted by Ocasio-Cortez; ref. page 54
* Trump's New Climate Czar: Carbon Dioxide Has Been Treated Just
Like `Jews Under Hitler' Vanity Fair, submitted by Wasserman
Schultz; ref. page 58
* Putting the `con' in consensus; Not Only is there no 97 per
cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand
core issues, Financial Post, submitted by Grothman; ref. page
61
* Key Greenland glacier growing again after shrinking for years,
NASA study shows, Associated Press
* Greenland's fastest-shrinking glacier growing again, UPI
THE NEED FOR LEADERSHIP
TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE AND
PROTECT NATIONAL SECURITY
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Elijah Cummings
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Lynch,
Cooper, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Rouda, Hill,
Wasserman Schultz, Sarbanes, Speier, Kelly, DeSaulnier,
Plaskett, Khanna, Gomez, Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, Tlaib,
Jordan, Amash, Gosar, Massie, Meadows, Hice, Grothman, Comer,
Cloud, Gibbs, Higgins, Norman, Roy, Miller, Green, Armstrong,
and Steube.
Chairman Cummings.
[Presiding.] The committee will come to order. Without
objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the
committee at any time.
This full committee hearing is convening to review the need
for leadership to combat climate change and protect national
security. I now recognize myself for five minutes to give an
opening statement.
Today the committee is honored to have two distinguished
witnesses, former Secretary John Kerry and former Secretary of
Defense Chuck Hagel. We welcome both of you.
In addition to serving as key members of the Cabinet, both
Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel served for many years in
the U.S. Senate, and both served with great distinction. They
also served in our armed forces, and they both served with
distinction in combat.
Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel, on behalf of the
committee and on behalf of a grateful Nation, I thank you for
your service. I also thank you for joining us today to discuss
the threat that climate change poses to our country and our
national security.
Just a few weeks ago, record-breaking floods forced parts
of Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska under as much as eight
feet of water. Secretary Hagel, as you know very well, Offutt
Air Force Base is home of the U.S. Strategic Command, and
although they are used to floods, this year was nothing like
they have ever seen before.
Last September, Hurricane Florence caused massive damage to
Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. As a result, the Commandant of
the Marine Corps, General Robert Neller, warned that, and I
quote, ``One-third of the combat power of the Marine Corps is
degraded and will continue to degrade.'' One-third.
For several decades our national security leaders,
including the two distinguished men sitting at our witness
table, have been warning that we need strong and decisive
leadership to combat climate change and to plan for national
security implications we are going to face. These warnings have
come from Democratic administrations and Republican
administrations. In fact, in the most recent National Climate
Assessment issued under the Trump administration, 13 Federal
agencies, more than 300 experts from around the country,
warned, and I quote, ``The Earth is now changing faster than at
any point in the history of our modern civilization, primarily
as a result of human activities.''
The assessment found that our response to this crisis so
far has not been sufficient to avoid, and I quote,
``substantial damages to the United States economy,
environment, and human health and well-being over the coming
decades.''
In addition, earlier this year the President's Director of
National Security Dan Coats warned that climate change is
[quote]``likely to fuel competition for resources, economic
distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond.''
Director Coats also warned that heat waves, droughts, and
floods driven by climate change are, and I quote, ``increasing
the risk of social unrest, migration, and interstate tension in
countries such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, and Jordan.''
Unfortunately, instead of mobilizing efforts to fight
climate change, President Trump has attacked the science,
weakened environmental protections, and undermined United
States leadership abroad. In fact, when his administration
issued the National Climate Assessment last year, he stated,
and I quote, ``I do not believe it.''
The title of today's hearing, ``The Need for Leadership to
Combat Climate Change and Protect National Security,'' is quite
appropriate. I understand that there may be differences of
opinion on how we should respond, but there should be no
uncertainty about whether we should respond. If the President
disagrees with the Paris Accord, that is his prerogative. But
what he is proposing instead will not work.
According to press reports, he is reportedly considering
creating a White House panel to relitigate whether climate
change is real. A panel like that would be a huge step backward
for our Nation and indeed the world. The true measure of
leadership is whether we leave the world better for our
children and our grandchildren and those yet unborn than we
found it.
Each day that we fail to act on climate change, we are
risking the health and the security of future generations. For
these reasons, our committee is making climate change a top
priority for this Congress. Today the committee is making a
referral to our Subcommittee on the Environment, which is
chaired by the distinguished gentleman from California,
Representative Rouda, to launch a series of hearings that will
take advantage of our committee's unique and broad jurisdiction
over all Federal agencies as well as over the Executive Office
of the President, to identify opportunities for advancing
concrete solutions.
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and now I
yield to the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Jordan. Sorry. I
yield to the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Rouda.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Chairman Cummings, and thank you for
allowing me to give a statement and calling this very important
meeting. I also want to thank Secretary Kerry and Secretary
Hagel for testifying before our committee today and for your
decades of public service.
As chair of the Subcommittee on Environment, I appreciate
the referral of Chairman Cummings to examine one of the most
defining and imperative moral issues of our time. Climate
change poses an enormous threat to our environment, our
national security, our economy, and our long-term health.
Climate change can no longer be thought of as something that
may or may not impact us someday.
The effects of climate change are already being felt today.
Just ask the hurricane survivors in Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. You can also ask my fellow Californians where
two most recent wildfire seasons were the deadliest in the
state's history, taking the lives of more than 100 fellow
Americans and costing approximately $24 billion in damages.
I want to echo Chairman Cummings when I say that the debate
that I hope we have here today is about what we should do to
mitigate the effects of climate change over the next century,
not whether climate change is actually occurring and whether
human activity is the leading cause. The science on climate
change is settled, and we are past the point where this is an
issue of debate.
A few years ago, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science released a report showing that 97
percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is
happening and that it is being caused by humans. I want to read
one passage from the report because I want it to hit all of you
the way it hit me when I read it.
``The science linking human activities to climate change is
analogous to the science linking smoking to lung and
cardiovascular diseases. Physicians, cardiovascular scientists,
public health experts, and others all agree smoking causes
cancer.''
``And this consensus among the health community has
convinced most Americans that the health risks from smoking are
real. A similar consensus now exists among climate scientists,
a consensus that maintains that climate change is happening,
and that human activity is the cause.''
So let's let that sink in. The consensus on whether climate
change is real is equivalent to the consensus on whether
smoking causes cancer. I would wager that every single person
in this room and the overwhelming majority of Americans trust
the science on smoking, as they should. So why are there people
still contesting the science on climate change?
As Chairman Cummings points out, the Trump administration's
own officials are ringing the alarm on the serious consequences
of inaction on climate change. But it does not stop there.
There have been other calls to action that cannot be ignored.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change synthesized the work of thousands of scientists,
including the top American scientists, into its Fifth
Assessment Report. They concluded that the rate of sea level
rise today is larger than at any point in 2,000 years. Oceans
have also become 26 percent more acidic due to the influx of
carbon dioxide into the water since the Industrial Revolution.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the official
report record both a United Nations Report and the AAAS report
right here.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
[The United Nations Report and the AAS information are at:
docs.house.gov.]
Mr. Rouda. These facts are scary, and they should be. These
are clear, pronounced, historical trends. Do we think this is
just going to stop? No. It is only going to get worse, and
working families, farmers, homeowners, everyone will continue
to suffer.
This afternoon, the Subcommittee on Environment, which I
chair, will launch a series of hearings and investigations on
climate change. Through this work I will hold out a standing
invitation to all of my colleagues. Join us. Join us in
devising practical, economical solutions to combat climate
change. We know that it makes economic sense to incentivize the
development and production of alternative energy sources; to
heavily invest in electric vehicles, as General Motors has
recently done; and make infrastructure more energy efficient to
protect our air and water from pollution caused by carbon
emissions.
We may not all agree on the best policies to achieve these
goals, but I look forward to these debates over the upcoming
months and years because the best policies are forged through
respecting the diversity of American interests, listening to
farmers, auto workers, coal miners, rural and urban residents,
children and young adults, lower-income people, Republicans,
Democrats, and Independents.
But we do not have time to waste. The White House has
chosen not to lead on this issue, so it is up to us in Congress
to do so. We have a tough problem that needs solving, and we
will rise to the challenge. We must say to the world: America
will lead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Now I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished ranking member,
Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the chair.
The first three months of the 116th Congress, the
Democrats' focus has been on one thing: attacking the
President. Not addressing the emergency on the border, not
addressing the $22 trillion debt or the opioid crisis, but a
relentless pursuit and focus on the President.
Think about last week. In one week's time, the chairman of
the Ways and Means Committee says, ``I want the President's tax
returns'' for purely political reasons. The chairman of the
Judiciary Committee says to Mr. Mueller--or to the Attorney
General, ``Send us the Mueller report,'' even though the
Attorney General has said he is going to give it to us in a
matter of days. Then, of course, this committee sends letters
to the President's accountant and his bank seeking personal
business records for the last 10 years, and they did that based
solely on the testimony of Michael Cohen, who, oh, by the way,
was also in the news last week. That is right, the first
announced witness of this Congress, the first big hearing of
this committee, a guy who is going to prison for lying to
Congress, who came in front of this committee and lied to us
seven times, and we did nothing about it. And because we did
nothing about it, his lawyers send a letter to Democrats last
week and say, ``Shazam. Michael Cohen has found a new hard
drive. Can you help keep him out of prison so he can come back
in front of us and lie some more?''
I mean, you cannot make this stuff up. This is truly
unbelievable. I am not sure most Americans could name any
legislative initiative of the Democrats this Congress, with the
possible exception of one. Maybe they can name one: the Green
New Deal. And my guess is a lot of Americans could name it
because it is so radical. And if you do not believe me, just
read about the Green New Deal in the launch document, the
overview document from Thursday, February 7, at 8:30 a.m., the
document that talks about the Green New Deal.
Today's hearing, Mr. Chairman, is titled, ``Leadership to
Combat Climate Change,'' certainly a worthy objective. And I am
not a scientist, do not pretend to be one. And while I respect
each of our witnesses today and I appreciate their service to
our great country, they are not scientists either. In fact, I
do not know if there are any scientists on our committee. The
closest thing, the closest one is the gentleman from Kentucky,
Congressman Massie. He has got two engineering degrees from
MIT, has over two dozen patents, successful business owner,
probably the greenest guy in Congress, drives an electric car,
powers his home and farm with solar panels and batteries. I
hope we hear a lot from Mr. Massie. But I am not sure this
hearing is about getting truth from people like Congressman
Massie. I think it is about the Green New Deal and the
regulations, the central government planning, and the politics
that come with it.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, the Green New Deal is not new.
Not new at all. During the previous administration, the Obama
Administration, they had the Department of Energy Loan
Guarantee Program. You all remember this? Millions and millions
of taxpayer dollars went to 22 companies, average credit rating
double B minus, almost all of them went belly up. Almost all of
them went bankrupt with taxpayer money. You remember. Solyndra,
Beacon Power, Abound Solar, Fisker Automotive--all of them got
our constituents' tax dollars. All of them went bankrupt.
The Green New Deal is not new, but it is devastating. It
would be devastating to people who live in Mrs. Miller's
district in West Virginia to Mr. Comer's district in Kentucky,
hardworking miners. It would be devastating for people in Mr.
Higgins' state, oil and gas workers, Mr. Armstrong's state,
North Dakota. And I think it would be devastating for middle-
class families in all our districts all across this great
country, driving up the cost of energy which, therefore, drives
up the cost of all kinds of other goods and services.
You know what I also think is interesting, Mr. Chairman?
The Green New Deal has 91 Democrat cosponsors in the House, 13
Democrat cosponsors in the Senate. Seven Democratic
Presidential candidates have endorsed it. But when it came time
to vote on it, when they had a vote on it, zero--zero--people
supported it. You would think if everything is going to go bad
in 12 years, as people have been saying, somebody would have
voted for it. No one voted for it.
So I hope the focus today is actually on the issue that we
are supposed to be talking about and not on politics and not on
attacking the President like we have done for the first three
months of this Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman from Kentucky,
the ranking member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Ranking Member Jordan.
Today my Democratic counterparts on this committee will
argue that climate change is an imminent threat to our national
security, among other alarmist notions. Some members of this
committee have said climate change is ``our World War II.''
They have said that, ``The world is going to end in 12 years if
we do not address climate change.'' You get the picture.
And what do they propose as their solution to combat this
imminent threat? The Green New Deal. This outlandish proposal
and all proposals that resemble it are an affront to the
citizens and the economy of this Nation, particularly rural
Americans.
Coal mining is a way of life in many corners of rural
America, including my district. After more than two centuries
of commercial mining operations, Kentucky coal remains an
important component of the Commonwealth's economy and America's
energy portfolio. Kentucky was the fourth highest coal producer
in the U.S. in 2016, mining 42.9 million tons of coal. In that
same year, coal mines directly employed more than 6,600
Kentuckians, and mining directly contributed billions of
dollars to Kentucky's economy. Both the first and second
largest coal-producing counties, Union and Ohio counties, are
in my district. I am incredibly concerned about this or any
proposal that aims to eliminate this entire way of life and an
economic engine for my district and the Commonwealth of
Kentucky as part of their answer to saving the planet.
Alarmist proposals like the Green New Deal would devastate
mining communities, driving out good-paying jobs, and ship coal
production to countries like China that have much worse
environmental regulations and standards, likely increasing
global greenhouse gas emissions in the process. Coal is one of
the most reliable energy sources in the U.S. and generates base
power that prevents rolling blackouts when wind and solar fall
short in extreme weather. Our coal miners have fought hard to
keep their jobs despite excessive and burdensome regulations
and have targeted their livelihood. It is far past time that
Washington stop picking winners and losers and stop seeking to
eliminate an entire way of life.
And while I could speak volumes on how American farmers and
cattlemen would also suffer from the Green New Deal, I will
just briefly touch on it for time's sake.
Farmland covers 54 percent of the total acreage in
Kentucky. With 2.2 million head of cattle, Kentucky is the
leading cattle producer east of the Mississippi River. Despite
all the progress we have made on the environmental front in
recent decades, it is amazing that some policymakers seem to
think targeting U.S. beef producers and consumers will make a
huge impact on global emissions. U.S. beef producers now have
one of the lowest carbon footprints compared to our global
counterparts. Harming our agriculture sector in the pursuit of
this irrational plan is ill-informed and misguided.
The bottom line is touting the Green New Deal as a
realistic plan for the future is short-sighted and reckless. Of
course, we all want clean water and clean soil. I as a farmer
know firsthand how important this is in producing food, feeding
our citizens, and safeguarding the well-being of our land. But
we must use caution when considering a climate change and
environmental reform deal that is rooted in socialism.
The Green New Deal paints a dark picture for rural America
and takes our country in a direction far from the one we know.
I urge this committee to truly consider the impact that radical
climate change proposals have on rural America, particularly
the mining and farming communities that feed, fuel, and clothe
all of us.
I yield back to the ranking member from Ohio.
Mr. Jordan. I yield to the gentlelady from West Virginia.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Ranking Member Jordan.
My home state of West Virginia is abundant in natural
resources. From the hills to the hollers, we are proud that the
coal, the natural gas, and oil that our state has fueled the
world and promotes a prosperous economy throughout the United
States. However, during his administration, President Obama
took drastic steps that decimated the coal industry. These
extreme anti-coal policies shuttered mines, left coal workers
without jobs, and collapsed the surrounding economies. The
machine shops, the hardware stores, clothing and grocery stores
as well as restaurants were all shuttered. The joblessness led
to great hopelessness as well as people leaving our state. If
you go to Charlotte, you will see a lot of proud West
Virginians. My state is still trying to recover from the
population losses to this day.
These policies implemented by the Obama Administration led
to hopelessness and despair and helped to give rise to the
opioid crisis. But our West Virginians are proven to be
resilient. President Trump has given our energy economy the
tools it needs to get back on track. That is why I worry about
proposals from my colleagues across the aisle. We all live on
this Earth, and we all breathe the same air. But my colleagues
from the other part of the country will never be able to
understand what the energy industry means to my state.
Legislation like the Green New Deal is a one-size-fits-all
approach that poses an imminent threat to the economy of my
state, jobs of my constituents, and the heartbeat of West
Virginia. This proposal is short-sighted and is lacking in
common sense. Simply stated, it has rebranded the war on coal,
oil, and gas, and it is a blueprint for disaster.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Now I want to welcome our former Senate colleagues, the
Honorable John Kerry and the Honorable Chuck Hagel, who both
began their service to our country in the military and
continued their service as Secretary of State and Secretary of
Defense, respectively.
I will begin by swearing you in. Would you stand, please,
and raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative. I want to thank you very much. The microphones are
very sensitive, so please speak into them directly. We really
want to hear what you have to say. Without objection, your
written statement will be made a part of the record.
With that, Secretary Kerry, you are now recognized to give
an oral presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KERRY, FORMER SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF STATE
Mr. Kerry. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank
you very much. Mr. Ranking Member Jordan, thank you very much.
It is a privilege to be here. Opening Day in Boston, we are not
doing so well, so maybe it is Okay to be here.
In keeping with the telling of the truth, I had forgotten
what fun politics is in Washington.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kerry. Mr. Chairman, thank you not only for your
leadership on climate change, but even more thank you for your
stewardship of a committee which, at its best, demands
accountability of those in positions of power on behalf of the
American people.
Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Jordan, and all the
members of the committee, thank you for inviting me and my good
friend, Secretary Hagel, Chuck. He and I have done a lot of
things together, and I think we have proved that we used to be
able to do that here in Washington. It would be great if we
could get back to bipartisan effort on these kinds of issues.
We are delighted that you saw fit to invite back not one but
two recovering Senators.
I think most on this committee would agree that there is a
long list of issues where, despite the advice and warning of
experts, Washington remains gridlocked. But at least on most of
those issues, no one can credibly deny the magnitude of the
challenge, let alone the existence of the problem.
Regrettably, the same cannot be said about climate change.
Think about it. During World War II, America would never have
tolerated leadership that denied Hitler's aggression. During
the cold war, no one in public life would have been taken
seriously if they did not offer a policy to counter the
Soviets. And after 9/11, it would have been disqualifying to
deny that al Qaeda knocked down the Twin Towers.
Facts are facts. But here we are in 2019 where too many in
positions of responsibility still call climate change a
``hoax'' and advocate policies that will only make the reality
of climate change worse.
The science has proven that we do not have time to waste
debating alternative facts, only to be forced then to invest
years trying to reestablish trust in the real ones. We are here
for our country. We are not here for our parties.
Just the other month, we learned that the White House is
planning to convene a task force, apparently working behind
closed doors--not sure why--to determine ``whether climate
change is a national security threat.'' My friends, we already
know what the outcome will be. It is a council of doubters and
deniers from what has been leaked from the White House,
convened to undo a 26-year-old factual consensus, Republican
and Democrat, liberal and conservative, that climate change is
a national security threat multiplier.
In fact, I am afraid this effort may be a scheme to pretend
that there are two sides to an issue already long since
settled. In examining the facts regarding this issue, you do
not have to accept my and Secretary Hagel's word for it. The
designation of climate change as a security issue was not
settled by President Obama's NSC, my state Department, or
Secretary Hagel's Pentagon. No. It was settled 28 years before
that by a Republican President and a team that included Jim
Baker, Dick Cheney, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, and Bob
Gates.
In 1991, the Bush Administration assessed in its National
Security Strategy that threats like climate change, which
``respect no international boundaries,'' were already
contributing to political conflict. Each of his successors
included climate change in their national security strategies.
Even after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W.
Bush's administration made room in the 2002 National Security
Strategy to warn of ``dangerous human interference with global
climate.''
There is not a scintilla of accepted science or bipartisan
military expert analysis that four consecutive administrations
were wrong. There is no event and certainly no scientifically
based event or suggestion that the proposition ought to be
reexamined. The factual basis of climate change's threat
originated not with politicians but with the national security
community, including the intelligence community.
Eleven retired military leaders constituting the Military
Advisory Board at CNA, a naval think tank in Arlington,
described climate change in 2007 ``a threat multiplier for
instability.'' Seven years later, 16 retired flag officers
representing all branches of the military implored Americans to
understand the severity of ``a salient national security
concern because time and tide wait for no one.''
Instead of convening a kangaroo court, the President might
want to talk with the educated adults he once trusted enough to
fill his top national security positions. Director of National
Intelligence Daniel Coats has reported that climate change
would increase the risk of social unrest, migration, interstate
tension in countries such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, and Jordan.
Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told the Armed Services
Committee this last year, ``Climate change is impacting
stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating
today.'' These officials were not making back-of-the-envelope
projections about a distant, dystopic future.
Climate change is already impacting national security. The
American Security Project, ASP, is an organization of security
experts, including retired admirals and generals, flag
officers, who spent their careers in service not to a President
or a party but the country above all else. It also includes
former United States Senators, both Democrat and Republican,
Governors, other public officials. The experts at ASP note that
climate change is what we call ``a ring road issue,'' meaning
that climate change affects all the other threats. It will
change disease vectors. It will drive migration. And these
changes in turn could affect state stability and harm global
security as a consequence of that.
Lieutenant General Castellaw and Brigadier General Adams of
the American Security Project know the ground truth. They
write, ``Even as our comrades on active duty in the U.S.
military forces plan for the impact of the rise in sea levels
in places like Bangladesh, the retreat of ice in the Arctic,
and extreme storms in places like the Philippines, Members of
Congress and others continue to deny the obvious.''
The truth is that climate change is real and poses
significant challenges for our Nation's security. As Secretary
of State, I visited Naval Station Norfolk. It is the biggest
naval installation in the world, and the land that houses it is
literally sinking. In fact, sea levels on the east coast are
rising twice as fast as the global average thanks to uneven
ocean temperatures and geology.
The admiral in charge of the fleet and the base commander,
Mr. Chairman, made clear what further sea level rise could mean
for Norfolk or for the U.S. Navy fleet, 20 percent of which is
home-ported nearby. Willful denial will not change the fact
that our military readiness will be degraded when the
permafrost our Alaskan bases are built on begins to thaw out.
And it does not end with military impacts. Climate change
did not lead to the rise of the terrorist group Boko Haram in
Nigeria, but the country's severe drought and the government's
inability to cope with it exacerbated the volatility that
militants then exploited to seize villages, butcher teachers,
and kidnap hundreds of innocent girls.
Climate change did not cause the tragedy of the war in
Syria. A prolonged historic drought, however, killed off such a
vast proportion of the livestock of Syria that more than a
million people were forced to migrate to Damascus and its
environs, contributing greatly to the violence in that country.
The prospect of a more arid climate throughout the Middle
East and parts of Asia will increasingly strain the most
essential resource of all: water. We have already seen tension
rise around the basins of the Nile, Central Asia's Indus River,
and the Mekong in Southeast Asia. Areas facing unrest,
instability, and weak governance are breeding grounds for
violent extremism. Climate change will only exacerbate
migration in places already enduring economic, political, and
social stress. If people think the migration on Europe today is
a challenge to the politics of Europe, wait until you have much
of the Middle East and Northern Africa knocking on Europe's
door because of the inability to grow food and live day to day
in 120-degree heat.
Mr. Chairman, the only people cheering the President's
apparent attempt to erase climate change from U.S. national
considerations live in Beijing and in Moscow. China and Russia
have for years been mapping the resource competition, military
implications, and geostrategic challenges that climate change
will present in an ever-changing, climate-impacted Arctic. What
a gift to them if we stop making our own assessments because we
have our heads buried in the sand while their eyes are on the
tundra.
Now, I know legislating on climate change is not easy. I
was charged with the responsibility in the Senate when we were
in the majority of leading the last serious bipartisan effort
with Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman when we tried to pass
legislation. I lived the difficulties. But I know we will never
get there at all if we do not listen to our generals and
admirals, our scientists and our intelligence community. We can
spend the next two years debating whether two plus two equals
five. But it would mean someday a young American in uniform is
going to be called on to go to harm's way because truth lost
out to talking heads and alternative facts.
So let us debate how to address the climate national
security threat, not whether it is real.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Secretary Hagel.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK HAGEL, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND
SENATOR
Mr. Hagel. Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Jordan,
members of this committee, thank you for inviting Secretary
Kerry and me to testify today about the threats posed by
climate change to our national security.
I am proud to be sitting next to my friend and former
Senate and Cabinet colleague, John Kerry. He has been a long-
time leader on this issue and understands it very well. John
and I have shared many conversations about climate change over
many years. We are both founding members of the American
Security Project, an organization that has led research into
the national security implications of climate change.
In my public career, both in the Senate, at the Department
of Defense, and as co-chairing the President's Intelligence
Advisory Board, preparing for climate change was an important
part of my work. In 1997, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel
resolution which laid out the conditions for Senate support for
an international agreement on carbon emissions. The Senator
Byrd referred to in the Byrd-Hagel resolution was Senator
Robert Byrd, the late Senator Robert Byrd, of coal-producing
West Virginia, who took this issue very seriously. Later that
year, I led the Senate delegation to the protocol negotiations
in Kyoto where Secretary Kerry was also a member of the
delegation.
In 2007, I led the effort to require a national
intelligence assessment of security impacts of climate change.
As Secretary of Defense, I issued the Department's first Arctic
Strategy in 2013 highlighting how the military would respond to
melting ice and other challenges, as well as the Department's
first climate adaptation road map detailing how to prepare for
climate change.
I supported the 2015 Paris Peace Climate Agreement that
Secretary Kerry negotiated because it met the requirements of
the Byrd-Hagel resolution, ensuring that all nations--all
nations--take measurable, reportable, and verifiable steps to
reduce emissions.
While climate science readily and rapidly advanced over my
decades in public service, my priorities remained the same: Any
actions to address climate change must protect America's
economy, our environment, and our national security. My views
were always informed by science.
As scientists reduced uncertainty about climate change over
the last two decades, it became clear, very clear, that the
U.S. must implement policies to address the challenge, prepare,
because climate change is threatening our economy, our
environment, and our national security.
Dating back to the George H.W. Bush Administration in 1992,
as Secretary Kerry has noted and Chairman Cummings has noted,
intelligence and national security professionals were telling
us that climate change posed a direct threat to U.S. national
security. This is 1992. This work has been informed by U.S.
scientists telling us that a melting Arctic, more frequent
droughts and floods, and extreme weather are all examples of
the changing climate in the United States and the world.
Changing weather patterns threaten our national security
through its impacts on military infrastructure, readiness,
disaster response, and the economy. We now do not need to wait
for more sophisticated climate models to project the security
consequences of climate change. We know what they are. The
impacts of climate change are clearly evident today.
As members of this committee know so well, this past year's
extreme weather has seriously affected our military readiness.
In September, Hurricane Florence decimated Camp Lejeune and
caused damage to Fort Bragg and military installations across
North Carolina, as Congressman Meadows knows so well.
A few weeks later, Hurricane Michael leveled Tyndall Air
Force Base in Florida's Panhandle, causing damage to 17
expensive F-22s and major structural damage throughout that
base. Last month, floods in my home state of Nebraska, as
Chairman Cummings noted, severely damaged the runway and
infrastructure at Offutt Air Force Base, home of U.S. Strategic
Command. As a Nebraskan, spring floods are no surprise.
However, these floods were the most extreme ever--extreme, more
extreme than anything we have seen. We saw record-setting
flooding along the Missouri, Platte, and Elkhorn rivers and
across the Midwest. Estimates of the cost of these disasters to
the military are significant. The Marines have requested $3.6
billion to rebuild North Carolina while the Air Force has
requested an initial $5 billion for Tyndall and Offutt.
While the bases may rebuild over time and with money, the
loss of training and readiness cannot be recovered. In a
February letter to the Secretary of the Navy, General Neller,
Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, wrote that because of the
damage from the storms, the combat readiness of Marine
Expeditionary Force, ``One-third of the entire combat power of
the Marine Corps has been degraded and will continue to
degrade.'' That is a powerful statement coming from the
Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.
I will close by addressing the proposal, as we know--a
proposal that may be forthcoming from the White House to
question the science behind the national security estimate on
climate change. We still do not know the details of what the
proposal before the National Security Council would do. I
noticed this morning in the Washington Post there was a
significant story about that issue. Press reports have
indicated that National Security Adviser Bolton wants to create
a panel that would reexamine whether climate change is needed
and a threat to national security--that climate change is
indeed a threat to national security.
If this panel were created in good faith, transparent,
open, under the legal requirements of a Federal Advisory
Committee, I am confident that the weight of scientific
evidence and present-day realities would confirm what I and
other national security leaders have found: Climate change is a
real and present threat to our national security, which most
likely will get worse.
There needs to be a dedicated effort to address this
threat, and, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Jordan, I appreciate very
much you bringing this committee together on this subject
because it is only through the committee work in the Congress
where we forge a bipartisan consensus to move forward and
prepare for what we know is impending and is real.
This year, the Pentagon delivered a congressionally
mandated report on the vulnerable of our military
installations. The report found that 67 percent of the
installations assessed currently face threats from flooding.
Sixty-seven percent. Fifty-four percent currently face threats
from drought, and 46 percent face threats from wildfires. Those
percentages jump higher when future vulnerabilities--not just
current but future vulnerabilities are taken into
consideration.
Unfortunately, this administration failed to comply with
congressional requirements. The report left out the Marine
Corps entirely and ignored the requirement to provide an
overview of action necessary to ensure resiliency. It did not
include any cost estimates. While the initial report remains a
valuable first step, the failure to complete the assessment and
provide future mitigation plans will severely inhibit future
readiness.
I signed a letter along with Secretary Kerry and 56 other
senior national security officials asking that the President
not dispute and undermine military and intelligent judgments on
climate change, and I ask that a copy of that letter be
included in the record.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Hagel. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jordan, and this committee,
again, I thank you for this opportunity and for your attention
to this serious matter, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much to both of you, and
thank you for recognizing the pain and turning it into a
passion to do your purpose. And I think that when we are
dancing with the angels, future generations will benefit from
your work.
Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel, in February, there
were a number of press reports regarding a White House memo
showing that the President may be seeking to create a committee
within the NSC to challenge previous Government reports on the
dangers of climate change.
The memo specifically challenges the finding that climate
change is a national security threat.
Last month the two of you led a group of 58 senior national
security professionals in writing to President Trump about this
committee. You wrote, and I quote, ``We are deeply concerned by
reports that the National Security Council officials are
considering forming a committee to dispute and undermine
military and intelligence judgments on the threat posed by
climate change,'' end of quote.
You went on to write that this committee, quote, ``will
weaken our ability to respond to real threats, putting American
lives at risk,'' end of quote.
Secretary Hagel, what concerns you most about the proposed
White House panel?
Mr. Hagel. Well, the first concern I have with what I have
heard that the White House may come up with in their effort to
review the science and the seriousness of climate change on
national security is and I think was addressed very forcefully
last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee by four of
our leading generals, beginning with the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. Each laid out pretty clearly, if you go back
and look at that record, the concern they had about not
addressing this issue of climate change seriously and the
impact it is having and will continue to have, especially on
our readiness. I mentioned it in my comments that the readiness
portion, as the Commandant of the Marine Corps laid out, gets
lost in this.
We have, this country has, the only country in the world
that has responsibilities around the world for our own
interests, not the interests of NATO allies but for our
interest. We are in NATO, for example, because it is clearly in
our interest to be in NATO, not Germany or England; they are
our allies. But we had better pay attention to what our
scientists, our intelligence people, our military leaders are
saying how serious this is and the impact it is going to have,
it is having, on our readiness and our capabilities and our
national security.
Chairman Cummings. Secretary Kerry, how could a panel
undermining scientific and intelligence assessments put
American lives at risk? Secretary Kerry?
Mr. Kerry. Well, there are many ways. First of all, let me
try to be clear, if I can. I hope we can kind of try to
depoliticize this, and I ask our colleagues here to stop and
think about what is going on.
Lives are already being lost in America. We are losing
lives today. People are being killed in mudslides. People are
being killed in fires. People are being killed in floods. I
mean, you have a host of dangers already being lived out by
average Americans. There is a guy from Nebraska in the most
recent floods, a farmer who said, quote, ``It is probably over
for us,'' said a farmer from Nebraska whose farm was destroyed
by the floods, financially. How do you recover from something
like this? That is an average person in America who is already
suffering from this.
Now, in terms of military security and larger security,
every prediction that scientists made--I began this in 1988,
when Jim Hanson testified to us in the Senate. Al Gore, Tim
Wirth, Frank Lautenberg, John Warner of Virginia, Mack Mathias
of Maryland, a host of people came together and we all agreed
that we ought to listen to these guys. The science is telling
us it is happening.
In 1992 we went down to Rio, to the summit in Rio, the
global summit. George H.W. Bush, Republican, sent Bill Reilly,
the EPA director, down there to help negotiate an agreement,
and we came up with an agreement. It was voluntary. It did not
work, but there was a consensus, and all of the predictions in
the science that each year have been revised, 97 percent of the
world's scientists agreeing, they have come together and said
this is happening, it is happening now, it is happening faster
and it is happening bigger than we predicted it would. So we
are all forced to stop.
Now, in terms of the military piece of this, we have
already seen what happens with the war in Syria, the pressures
that Turkey was able to use by just turning the dial and upping
the number of migrants that would move into Europe and the
disturbance that created to the politics of France, of Britain,
of Italy, of Eastern Europe. It has had a profound negative
impact.
Imagine what happens as climate change gets worse and you
have millions of people that have to move because they cannot
eat, they cannot drink. The instability that is created will be
manna from heaven for extremists who are already exploiting the
impoverished. There are 2 billion young people between the ages
of 15 and 25. There are 1.8 billion children 15 years old or
younger living in most of those areas. Four hundred million of
them will never go to school.
Mr. Chairman, that becomes a concern of our military that
has people posted around the world in these locations fighting
terrorism, trying to protect the United States of America. The
best protection is to take away the causes of these things
before they happen. Do not allow them just to buildup and then
inundate us.
So, you know, the reason there is such concern about this
report, this analysis, is I have a copy of the executive order,
and the executive order itself says that Climate Science
Special Report claims to authoritatively link climate change to
the emission agreement--``claims.'' No, it does not claim. It
overwhelmingly proves the connection.
So if this executive order is coming in with the notion
that it is going to put a guy named William Happer, who is not
a climate scientist, who has likened, compared climate science
to Nazi propaganda, he is behind putting this together, and it
is being done in secret, we have a concern that all of the
consensus built up over 20 years with respect to military
concerns, security concerns, is now going to attempt to be
eroded by a president who has said climate change is a hoax
caused by the Chinese for the purpose of economic competitive
advantage and who has said ``I believe in clean air, immaculate
air, but I do not believe in climate change.''
So I do not trust a secret group being put together that is
already challenging in the executive order the legitimacy of
science that is beyond anybody's doubt whatsoever.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, a study from 2016 replicated the
basic assumptions of the three percent of alternative science
with respect to climate. In every single case, they found that
the assumptions and the basic analysis had an error in the
methodology and the analysis, and when corrected appropriately
to reflect the 97 percent consensus about the science, they
wound up finding the same consequences of climate change.
So this is a dangerous moment for us, Mr. Chairman, because
we spent $265 billion cleaning up after three storms two years
ago. Harvey dumped more water on Houston in five days than goes
over Niagara Falls in an entire year, a once in 50,000-year
storm now happening more frequently. In Irma, you had the first
sustained winds in a hurricane measured at over 185 miles an
hour for a full 24 hours. That has never happened before. And
the reason you have greater intensity in these storms is the
ocean is now warming 40 percent faster than ever before.
The glacier of Greenland is melting four times faster than
it was 10 years ago. Eighty-six million metric tons of ice fall
off every day, floats out to sea to melt. That 85 million
metric tons a day is equal to the entire water demand of
greater New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut for an entire
year.
We are living with insanity. We are on a kind of merry-go-
round with acceptance of non-science that is preventing us from
doing what every other nation in the world is currently trying
to do.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Ms. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Over the last two centuries we have seen a massive boom in
the world's economic output. For comparison, according to CapX,
in 1820 over 90 percent of the world's population lived on less
than $2 a day; and in 2015, less than 10 percent of the people
lived on less than $1.90 a day.
This boom is not just because of microchips and the
Internet. It is, in part, because people have access to energy.
From powering homes, schools, and workplaces, access to
affordable energy helps lift a society out of poverty and put
it on a path to prosperity. Quality of life directly correlates
with access to affordable energy. That is why, when I hear my
colleagues talk about our energy industry, they must recognize
that dismantling coal, oil, and natural gas would not just
destroy these jobs and families, it would make our energy less
affordable and set our progress back.
As a mother and grandmother, I can understand the
importance of ensuring that our world is a better place for our
future generations. This means taking care of our environment.
Most importantly, it means taking care of our economy.
Secretary Hagel, in 2017 the United States led the world in
the reduction of climate emissions, according to the American
Enterprise Institute. The United States has made great strides
in ensuring we are cleanly utilizing our energy resources.
However, other countries in the world are not making equivalent
strides and are seemingly canceling out our efforts. Many of
the greatest culprits are signatories to multilateral
agreements, as well.
How is change possible without the help of other nations?
Mr. Hagel. Well, it is not. That is why Senator Byrd and I
wrote the resolution in 1997 the way we did. There were two
parts to that resolution. The U.S. Senate would not confirm any
treaty on climate change unless it included all nations of the
world, different percentages, but it must include all nations.
So we have to work continuously. The Paris Accords were a
good example of how you do that. You cannot force other
countries to do things that they may not want to do, but you
can encourage them, you can incentivize them with technology.
I brought a New York Times front page business section that
I think is relevant to this issue, the business section of the
New York Times yesterday. You may have seen it, a front page
story, big story: ``Big Oil Bets on Removal of Carbon
Emissions.''
Chevron and a number of the big oil companies are
investing, and they are not the only ones, and this is not the
only example, here in the United States and worldwide, in how
we reduce our carbon emissions. It is very clear that carbon
emissions hurt the environment. It is very clear something is
happening in the climate. You just heard Secretary Kerry and I
talk about some of those specifically in the national security
arena.
Mrs. Miller. I did hear you----
Mr. Hagel. But let me add one other thing. Climate is not
limited, as you know, just to the United States.
Mrs. Miller. Correct.
Mr. Hagel. Climate is worldwide. There is another face that
we have not even talked about this morning yet. It is pandemic
health problems, and----
Mrs. Miller. Well, I am more interested in talking to you
about how the other countries are not complying with----
Mr. Hagel. Well, like I said, we have to incentivize them,
we have to work with them, we have to encourage them. That is
why allies are important. That is why we built the world order
after World War II, so that the countries would not go it
alone.
Mrs. Miller. But they are not.
Another question----
Mr. Hagel. Well, that is not true. That is not true. China
actually is investing in a lot of carbon emission technologies.
In fact, they are trying to fill the vacuum that the United
States is leaving behind in this area with other countries in
carbon emissions technology. They are actually doing pretty
well with it.
Mrs. Miller. I have another question for you as well, sir.
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Mrs. Miller. Access to affordable energy is arguably the
foundation of human progress over the last century and a half,
where we have lifted more people out of poverty, fed a growing
global population, and created more prosperity for humanity
than at any other point in history. Our energy industry is here
to stay.
What steps can we take to ensure we preserve and protect
our environment while also maintaining critical employment,
growth, and affordability within our economy and energy sector?
Mr. Hagel. Well, it is what we are talking about, what we
have been doing the last 30 years. The balance of a strong
economy, cutting-edge technologies, but protecting your
environment at the same time, protecting your national security
interests, protecting your interests around the world. It is
not just one dominant dynamic of that. It is a world that
balances them all. A strong economy is, of course, the core of
that.
Mrs. Miller. Absolutely.
Mr. Hagel. But you talk about your children and your
grandchildren, if we do not protect our environment, your
grandchildren have got a pretty tough go here in 20, 30, 40, 50
years, what we leave behind. You just look around at what has
happened in 12 months in this country, around the world. I
mean, it is not just here, it is around the world.
So we have to be smart, prepared, come together with
bipartisan solutions, not fight each other on it but come
together seriously and recognize we have an issue. It is the
biggest responsibility any leader has, to leave the place
better than they found it, and I do not think we are doing it
right now.
Mrs. Miller. Absolutely.
Chairman Cummings. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. Kerry. Could I just add one thing that is important?
Chairman Cummings. One answer to the question.
Mr. Kerry. Well, I think it is important to the discussion
here, if I can, just quickly, because I have been down in the
mines in West Virginia. I have enormous respect. I understand
completely what Congresswoman Miller is struggling with in
terms of the folks she represents and the jobs they need.
We all want an economy that is going to grow. You are
absolutely correct that poverty has come down. When I went to
college, severe poverty was over 50 percent. Now it is below 10
percent. People have been brought in out of poverty.
The problem is--and it is a problem for all of us on the
planet--that we have been doing this in a way that is simply
not sustainable. There is no country in the world living
sustainably today, and our grandchildren, our kids are all
going to face this challenge as we go forward. Oil and gas are
going to continue to be used for whatever number of years to
come. That we knew as we were working on the legislation we
worked on in the Senate.
But the truth is, Congresswoman, solar today is cheaper
than coal. It is. And the marketplace has made its decision. In
America, it is not the Congress who has decided that coal
plants are closing. It is the market. There is not an American
bank that will finance a new coal-fired power plant in America.
It is also not happening in many other parts of the world.
People are transitioning to use gas as the bridge fuel for the
base load of their power sector, but they are building
incredible amounts--in fact, China, investments in renewables
was the largest it has ever been about two years ago, and China
accounted for 45 percent of all solar photovoltaic investment,
and Europe is leading in offshore wind.
I want America to lead in those things. I want your people
in West Virginia to be the ones who are building those turbines
and selling those blades. Why is that not happening? Because we
are not in the game. And that is what I think is so frustrating
for many of us.
The greatest marketplace the world has ever seen is the
energy market, 4 to 5 billion users. It is going up to 9
billion users in the next 30 years. And if the United States
does not get into that market in a whole way, we are going to
cede it to these other countries that are currently replacing
us. There are jobs there, plenty of jobs.
Chairman Cummings. Mrs. Maloney?
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Chairman, what we need is strong
leadership to combat the crisis of climate change, and I thank
both of our panelists for pointing that out and for pointing
out that this is an American challenge, it is a bipartisan
challenge. If there was anything that we should be agreeing on,
it is to work together to combat this.
But what we have instead is a White House which is
considering a new panel to deny that climate change really
exists.
So what we need is reality. We need efforts to attack
climate change, not politicize it. As Secretary Kerry pointed
out in his testimony, the Administration's own leaders, their
own generals, their own scientists, know the risks from climate
change are real and that our efforts to address it are terribly
inadequate.
So, as you said in your testimony, Secretary Kerry, facts
are facts, and the facts are real. It is here.
My question to both of you, starting with Secretary Kerry,
is what do we need to do to get ready? Climate change is here;
everyone knows it. People may want to deny it, but it is here.
How do we work together to protect our people, protect our
planet?
Mr. Kerry. Congresswoman Maloney, I think that the key is
to come together in a bipartisan way to move forward. I think
we got up to about 55 votes in the Senate at one point, until
certain industry folks started to attack one of the senators on
the other side of the aisle, by the way, our colleague, Lindsay
Graham. So we have to get away from that by coming together
around a plan that will unite Americans, which will create
jobs, which will phase in at an appropriate rate. But there are
several things that we can do.
One of the most important things we could do--Congressman
Jordan, Mr. Ranking Member, you were referring earlier to the
companies that failed. It is true, some companies failed that
were invested in. But what is going to win this battle is
something called mission innovation, which China has signed up
to, India has signed up to, 23 nations plus the EU. So there
are 27, still 28 today, depending on what Britain does, but 27
other countries.
All of them are contributing now to consortia efforts to
push the technology curve, because in the end it is probably
going to be battery storage or increased mileage at a cheaper
rate, hydrogen as a fuel that can be taken up to scale. We
should be pushing the curve of discovery. That is in the
American DNA. If we did that, there is also a Republican
proposal.
Former Secretary Jim Baker, former Secretary George
Schultz, who was also Secretary of the Treasury, both believe
that America needs to have carbon pricing, and they have
suggested a methodology by which we could price carbon, which
would let the marketplace begin to decide where the winners and
losers are. That is a good old-fashioned laissez faire economic
way of making decisions.
We could do that, I believe, in a joint way. We need to
include, I think--some people disagree with this, but maybe
fourth-generation modular nuclear is going to be a component of
the overall mix. Let communities decide for themselves whether
that is the way to go.
But I think if we could come together around a few basic
steps like this, there are huge gains to be made in reducing
emissions through efficiencies, buildings, how we are managing
our industry, all of our transportation. Every one of these
sectors is ripe for us to be able to make progress without
hurting our economy; in fact, helping our economy by creating
millions of jobs.
If we did infrastructure around this, a new grid for
America, a smart grid, you would have, for every billion
dollars of infrastructure investment, 27,000 to 35,000 jobs
created. That is what we ought to be doing.
Mrs. Maloney. Secretary Hagel.
Mr. Hagel. Thank you. Secretary Kerry laid it out pretty
clearly. I would just summarize. I think you have about five
components to this, and Secretary Kerry really listed them.
But first is U.S. political leadership, political
leadership here in the United States, in the Congress, in the
White House, working together on forming policy.
Market is the second piece of that. The marketplace will
always win, just as John has noted regarding coal. It is just
not efficient anymore, or it is not the cheapest form of energy
anymore. It is the marketplace. Focus on the marketplace. Open
the marketplace up.
Technology. Technology always drives everything. Focus on
the technology. It is out there. It is happening.
As was noted in this business piece in the New York Times,
allies and alliances. We have to work with all of our partners
and people all over the world because this is a global issue.
Those are the components, to answer your question.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, welcome back to
Washington. Thank you for your service in Congress and the
administration, and especially in Vietnam.
I want to focus my time on the Green New Deal and how it
will affect the agriculture industry. I am a farmer and former
Kentucky Commissioner of Agriculture. The agriculture industry
is the lifeblood of rural communities that I represent and
that, honestly, the Green New Deal stands to decimate those
rural communities.
The U.S. agriculture industry supports more than 21 million
jobs. That is 11 percent of all the jobs in the United States,
and that is according to the American Farm Bureau.
Land is needed for the Green New Deal. Land is needed to
build tracks for the high-speed rail, to build solar plants,
solar panels, windmills, and the proposal calls for the
government to seize this land, this farmland.
The elimination of farmland in order to build these
projects will not only cost U.S. jobs but also put our food
supply in jeopardy, not to mention that it is not fair to hard-
working family farmers.
Authors of the Green New Deal plan to pay for the bill, and
I quote, ``the same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank
bailout, all our current wars, by the Federal Reserve extending
credit, by creating new public banks that extend credit, by the
government taking an equity stake in projects,'' end quote.
Secretary Kerry, my question to you is, printing a lot of
new money and opening a whole bunch of new public banks is a
real way to pay for this Green New Deal project proposal?
Mr. Kerry. Well, let me begin by saying, Congressman, there
are a lot of different proposals about how to proceed. I do not
know that any of them are coming from your party or your side
of the aisle. Do you have a plan to deal with climate change? I
think you said you are not sure of the science.
But my focus is on how we are going to move forward. We all
have some differences with one piece of legislation or another.
But in proposing what she has proposed, together with Senator
Markey, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez has, in fact, offered more
leadership in one day or in one week than President Trump has
in his lifetime on this subject.
So we are talking about it, and my question is where is
your proposal? Did you have any hearings on it in the last few
years? Mostly on Benghazi, if I recall, when I was up here.
So I think what we ought to do is stop the politics and get
down to really serving the people of West Virginia and the
people of Kentucky.
Mr. Comer. And that is what we are doing here today, and we
are glad you are here to talk about it. But my next question--
--
Mr. Kerry. Well, you asked me about the focus----
Mr. Comer [continuing]. revolves around how to pay for it.
Mr. Kerry. Well, there are all kinds of ways. I mean, look
at what Secretary Schultz and Secretary Baker, both
Republicans, as practiced in American politics as any two
people alive today, and they believe deeply--Professor Schultz,
George Schultz is at Stanford at the Hoover Institute, and he
says we have to price carbon, and that will let the market
move.
I do not know why your party--I think it is an American
Enterprise Institute concept that first came about. But at any
rate, let's debate it, let's put it on the floor, let's really
discuss it. Even better----
Mr. Comer. And let me add, to the Senate's credit--I do not
brag on the Senate very often--they did put the vote on the
floor, and as Ranking Member Jordan mentioned, not a single
Democrat voted for the bill, not a single one.
Mr. Kerry. Congressman, you know as well as I do--that is
why I said I am reminded today about the fun I am missing. I
mean, come on, we have all seen those votes. We all know what
those are. That is a political vote, and people chose to vote
present because it was a meaningless vote. In effect, it was
politics.
I think what is really important is if the committee came
together and said, hey folks, let's kill the politics for the
next two months and come up with a piece of legislation that
puts infrastructure----
Mr. Comer. My time is running out here. But you talk about
theater----
Mr. Kerry. Well, America's time is running out.
Mr. Comer [continuing]. and we were just talking about it,
your party knows there is no way to pay for this, for one.
Mr. Kerry. That is not true. There are any number of ways
to pay for it.
Mr. Comer. Well, how do we pay for it?
Mr. Kerry. There are so many different ways to pay for it.
If we sat down--I served on the super-committee, and I formed
an alliance with former Congressman David Camp and with Fred
Upton, and we had a way of putting together a proposal that we
thought was terrific which would have helped solve the
entitlement problem for the long term----
Mr. Comer. Like how?
Mr. Kerry. Well, I will tell you what happened: Politics
got in the way. The chairman would not even let two of his own
members, Republican Party, put it up or take it seriously, and
we never got to the issue of tax reform, which we thought was
the tradeoff. So we had a grand bargain potential of solving
entitlements for the long term, having tax reform and
expediting it, and we never could get there because of the
politics of it.
So I have to tell you, this is prisoner of not sitting down
to find a creative way to deal with this. We have a looming
deficit issue, a lot of challenges coming at us. We are going
to have to find some kind of revenue to deal with the
priorities of our country because we are not rebuilding America
today. We are not putting money into infrastructure, and there
are any number of ways to fund that.
Mr. Comer. And it is estimated to cost between $51 trillion
and $92 trillion----
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Rouda?
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am utterly disappointed. I was hoping this would be a
bipartisan discussion about climate change, and what I am
hearing from the other side is, no, we do not believe in
climate change; or, no, we do not believe it is a national
security threat; no, we do not need to do anything about it;
no, let other countries do something about it; or, no, we
should not do anything because other countries are not doing
anything about it.
It is time to step up and not be the Party of No or Members
of Congress that simply say no. We have to be looking for
solutions that impact every generation, our children, our
grandchildren, and future generations. It is time to step up.
Let's talk about national threat. You would think from the
other side that we do not have a national threat when it comes
to climate change.
Secretary Hagel, it is known quite well that the Department
of Defense has been making preparations for installations
across the world for our military installations to address
climate change; is that correct?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Mr. Rouda. And that is not because they do not think this
is a non-factor. It is one of the number-one threats to our
national security, as identified by the Department of Defense;
correct?
Mr. Hagel. Correct.
Mr. Rouda. In fact, there are some estimates that there
will be approximately 200 million climate change refugees by
the year 2050. I will point out that that is 31 years from now.
Is that an assessment that is consistent with some of the
modeling you have seen from the Department of Defense and other
agencies?
Mr. Hagel. Well, I have not been there for a couple of
years, but it sounds reasonable, and it sounds like the
numbers, when I was Secretary of Defense, that we were looking
at as we were projecting out.
As you know, the Defense Department works off projections
into the future, whether it is buying new platforms, new
planes, whatever, almost in 10-year projections. So this threat
of climate change is one that the Pentagon has always seen as a
future threat but also real right now.
Mr. Rouda. And the reason is because as we raise the
ambient temperature in the earth's atmosphere, where we have
built our homes, our farms, and our cities are going to be in
the wrong place because we are changing the weather patterns;
right?
Mr. Hagel. That is right.
Mr. Rouda. So this is an infrastructure issue well beyond
the widening of the local highways. This is a massive issue of
200 million climate change refugees, the greatest migration of
humankind since World War II; correct?
Mr. Hagel. Correct. John pointed out, if you recall, I
think, in his opening statement that he had visited, while he
was Secretary of State, Norfolk, where the Atlantic fleet is.
That is our largest fleet. And that is a very good example of
the vulnerability that we have there. That is a huge asset for
our national security, and they are projecting now to have to
reassemble, restructure, replace, and probably remove some
areas before the climate change dynamic----
Mr. Rouda. So we can put to rest the debate as to whether
this is a national security threat. Climate change is a
national security threat.
Mr. Hagel. Clearly. It clearly is.
Mr. Rouda. So let's turn to the economics of it, because I
completely disagree with the Ranking Member of the
Environmental Subcommittee that we cannot address this through
economic means or what it is going to cost. That is exactly how
the energy companies exist today, through economic incentives.
And while I agree with the Ranking Member that there have been
times when we have made investments in clean energies that have
not come to fruition, the reality is that for every $80 we
spend supporting fossil fuels, we spend $1 on renewable fuels.
Secretary Kerry, do you believe that if we had economic
parity under the tax code for renewables versus fossil fuels
that you would see a greater utilization of fossil fuels?
Mr. Kerry. Clearly, we do not. We have a balance, in fact,
against them.
Mr. Rouda. Exactly, which is why you talked about carbon
dividend, and also ideas of cap and trade, which would provide
the appropriate economic incentives so that energy companies
could be leading us even faster than they are now in adopting
renewable energies; right?
Mr. Kerry. Correct.
Mr. Rouda. So when we look at renewable energies today,
representing two-thirds of all new energy coming from
renewables, and we have only seen two-tenths of 1 percent from
coal, it is clear that we have an opportunity through
appropriate economic incentives to have the change in behavior
we want to see in addressing climate change.
Mr. Kerry. Well, I might mention, Congresswoman Miller is
not here right now, but I would just point out that for West
Virginia and other coal-producing places, the reason the United
States did well bringing emissions down two years ago, in 2017,
we had 75 percent of the new electricity that came online in
the United States came from solar, 75 percent. Do you know what
coal was? 0.2 percent.
So the market is making the decision right now, and coal
has never, in fact, included the genuine costs because it does
not factor in black lung, it does not factor in particulates in
the air and the cost--the largest cost of children's
hospitalization in America in the summer is asthma, is
environmentally induced asthma. We spend $55 billion a year on
that.
So when you start putting in the real costs, there is such
a differential in choice here, and that is what we ought to be
putting to the American people.
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Amash?
Mr. Amash. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Amash.
Mr. Chairman, there is not a single climate denier in this
room. The climate was different yesterday, it was different
10,000 years ago, and it is going to be different 10,000 years
from now, whether there is a human on this planet or a
domesticated animal. There is not a climate denier in this
room.
But I think there are some photosynthesis deniers. I think
there are some natural climate deniers. I noticed in Secretary
Kerry's testimony here--it is three pages, single spaced--it
does not even mention the words ``anthropogenic'' or
``manmade.'' I think it is an attempt to conflate manmade
climate change with climate change, the natural climate change
that is occurring.
Let me read the sentence here from your testimony, Mr.
Kerry. ``In fact, sea levels on the East Coast are rising twice
as fast as the global average''--wow, how does that happen?--
``thanks to uneven ocean temperatures and geology.'' Well, what
are we going to do to stop geology? Can you explain how that
works, Secretary Kerry? How does the average global sea level
differ from the sea level on the East Coast?
Mr. Kerry. The temperature of the water itself and the
geology of the water, that it is able to be higher in one place
and lower in another, and those are anomalies.
But on the climate change denier thing----
Mr. Massie. Let me go to this next. You said that it is
sinking. You said it is sinking in the sentence before that,
that the land is sinking. You cannot change that. That is
geological. That is on a geological time scale.
What is the rate of sea level change? Let's go with global
average. What is the rate of sea level change? Short answer,
please. Use any units you prefer.
Mr. Kerry. It is in centimeters, presented in centimeters
on an annual basis.
Mr. Massie. Okay, that is close. That is close.
Mr. Kerry. Wait. But they are predicting--whoa, whoa, whoa.
But you have to----
Mr. Massie. It is millimeters. Let's set the record
straight.
Mr. Kerry. Congressman, if you do not want the genuine
truth here, I swore to tell the truth, so let's listen to the
truth.
Mr. Massie. Okay, go for it.
Mr. Kerry. The truth is that what is happening is there is
anthropogenic major contribution, which all of the 97 percent
of the scientists have agreed on mankind is contributing to and
making the increase.
Mr. Massie. There are 100 different models, and they all
disagree. Which one----
Mr. Kerry. No. There are different models, that is correct,
and sometimes there are differences in the 97 percent about
what model is more correct or less correct. But they do not
disagree on the fundamental contribution of human beings to
what is happening today. And the fact is that no one can
predict with absolute certainty what the rate of the melt-off
of the Greenland ice sheet will be. If the Greenland ice sheet
melts completely, which is entirely possible now--there are
scientists who assert--there is an entire river. I have been up
on that glacier. I looked down through a hole 100 feet deep.
You see an entire river rushing unbelievably fast underneath
it. People are afraid that that river is going to act like a
slide and take a whole portion of that ice sheet one day. We
lost a portion of the West Antarctic ice sheet just in the last
years the size of the state of Rhode Island, and another one is
about to break off. It is going to melt.
Mr. Massie. Okay. This is the House, not the Senate. We get
five minutes, so you cannot filibuster.
Mr. Kerry. But, Congressman, the one thing you need to
understand is----
Mr. Massie. Let me finish and set the record straight. You
said it was in centimeters per year. It is millimeters per
year, the highest claims that I have seen. It may be three,
four, five millimeters per year. Are you aware of what the sea
level change has been in the last 15,000 years, the average, in
millimeters per year?
Mr. Kerry. No, not the average.
Mr. Massie. It is about seven millimeters a year. It was
100 meters lower 15,000 years ago.
Mr. Kerry. But we did not have 7 billion people on the
planet back then.
Mr. Massie. I ask unanimous consent----
Chairman Cummings. You want to put it in, go ahead.
Mr. Massie [continuing]. to submit for the record the Sea-
Level Rise Modeling Handbook from the USGS.
[The Sea Level Rise Modeling Handbook referred to is
available at: docs.house.gov.]
Mr. Massie. Also, I want to ask you about CO2 as well,
because----
Mr. Kerry. Do you want an answer to it? Because I would
like to answer the one we were just talking about.
Mr. Massie. I have 45 seconds, but I think I might get some
more time later.
I want to ask you, since we were talking about
anthropogenic, what has been the anthropogenic effect on the
climate? How has that affected crop yields in the United States
over the last 50 years per acre?
Mr. Kerry. How has that affected what?
Mr. Massie. How as it affected our crop yields in the
United States? You spent two of your three pages talking about
the Middle East and all over the globe. I want to know how has
increased CO2 levels affected crop yields in the United States
over the last 50 years.
Mr. Kerry. Well, you have different crops affected by
different things. You have had GMO, as you know. You have had
an incredible amount of fertilizer advancement, chemical
advancement. As a result of much of that, we have runoff into
the Gulf of Mexico through the Missouri, down to the
Mississippi, the Ohio River, et cetera, which has now created a
dead zone so massive that you have nothing that lives there
because of the nitrate overload. So, yes, we have better crop
yield, but we have other downstream problems.
Mr. Massie. Would you----
Mr. Kerry. Let me just finish. The fact is that we are
increasingly witnessing impact on crops. We have migration of
forests. We have migration of different fauna that grow or do
not grow in different places. We have insects that now stay
alive, like the pine-beetle that is destroying millions of
acres of trees--Montana, Wyoming, Canada. You are losing trees
because they do not die now because it does not get as cold as
it used to in the cycle.
So there is all kinds of impact on crops yet to be
determined. We do not have all the answers, but we are seeing
negative impact even as we have grown our ability to be able to
produce food.
Mr. Massie. For the record, it is a positive impact on
plant growth when you get higher CO2 levels.
Mr. Kerry. Yes, but here is the problem. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will say it is always troubling when politicians
interpose themselves for science and for empirical-based
policymaking when we do not like the conclusions we come up
with on our own. I am not sure we are the best people in the
world to do that. In fact, I am sure we are not.
Secretary Kerry, you were interrupted. I think you wanted
to talk about what would be the consequences of global sea
level rise if the entire ice sheet on Greenland were to melt.
What would be that impact, sir?
Mr. Kerry. Thank you, Congressman.
Look, let's be factual here and clear, because I want to
cover both sides appropriately. CO2 has a positive impact on
certain plants, of course. Plants thrive on CO2. But what good
does it do to have the plants thriving on CO2 if they are being
destroyed in a mudslide or a fire, a forest fire or a flood?
There are balances. There are counter-balances to the other
side of the amount of CO2 we produce.
Ninety-seven percent, or I think most scientists agree that
CO2 is now being added at a rate that is having a profound
impact on climate change. It is the fundamental cause, not the
only cause. There are other greenhouse gases. It is the
principal cause, and it is the most long-lasting.
So if the Greenland ice sheet were to melt in its entirety,
you could have several feet of sea level rise, not millimeters.
So you can mock the millimeters today, but if you ignore the
cycle of what is happening and what that predicts is going to
happen, you are putting Americans in danger, property trillions
of dollars of damage. It is estimated that if we have the 0.5
degrees of increased temperature over the course of the next 12
years, it will cost all of us about $54 trillion. If we go up
to the two degrees Centigrade, the cost is estimated to be $69
trillion. These are analyses that are available to people to
make their judgments----
Mr. Connolly. And you were Secretary of State, Secretary
Kerry, and you saw the IPCC report, which represented a global
consensus about the threat from global warming. Were you
convinced in reading that report and presumably the kind of
intelligence you had available to you during your tenure?
Mr. Kerry. Congressman, I was convinced prior to reading
the report because we started the hearings in 1988, and before
the report came out there were many of us who were already
working on this. But, yes, the report confirmed it, and there
is ample peer-reviewed science, literally thousands of reports
that have been done which have peer reviewed the judgments, the
assumptions, the analysis, and that is why you have 97 percent
agreement at this point in time, and more than 195 countries
all working in concert to try to live by the Paris goals and
hopefully surpass the Paris goals.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Hagel, you were Secretary of Defense. Was climate
change just some kind of abstract, theoretical decision at the
Pentagon?
Mr. Hagel. Congressman, it was not. Again, I go back to
what John Kerry has noted, and Chairman Cummings, to the George
H.W. Bush Administration. That administration really laid out
in 1991 and 1992 the threats of climate change, especially for
national security.
I might point out for those of you who do not recall, Dick
Cheney was the Secretary of Defense during that time, and he
enthusiastically embraced that, what their intelligence people
had laid out. So you could maybe go back even before 1992 with
the Pentagon, but certainly in 1992 and forward, the Pentagon
has looked at potential of climate change as a threat to our
national security.
Mr. Connolly. And I believe, Mr. Secretary, if I can
squeeze this in, there was a study of 80-something military
installations of ours around the world, and 70-something of
them were determined to be under threat, in part because of
global climate change.
Mr. Hagel. That is correct. I noted that in my opening
statement. It was an assessment done at the direction of
Congress, and it was released I think earlier this year.
Mr. Connolly. So that is contemporaneous documentation?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank both Secretaries for being here
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kerry, I want to read part of your statement back
to you: ``Instead of convening a kangaroo court, the President
might want to talk with the educated adults he once trusted to
fill his top national security positions.'' It sounds like you
are questioning the credentials of the President's advisers
currently. But I do not think we should question your
credentials today. Isn't it true you have a science degree from
Yale? What is that?
Mr. Kerry. Bachelor of Arts degree.
Mr. Massie. Is it a political science degree?
Mr. Kerry. Yes, political science.
Mr. Massie. So how do you get a----
Mr. Kerry. To my regret.
Mr. Massie [continuing]. Bachelor of Arts in a science?
Mr. Kerry. Well, it is liberal arts education and degree.
It is a Bachelor.
Mr. Massie. Okay, so it is not really science. So I think
it is somewhat appropriate that somebody with a pseudoscience
degree is here pushing pseudoscience in front of our committee
today.
I want to ask you----
Mr. Kerry. Are you serious? I mean, this is really
seriously happening here?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Massie. You know what? It is serious, you are calling
the President's Cabinet a ``kangaroo court.'' Is that serious?
Mr. Kerry. I am not calling his Cabinet a ``kangaroo
court.'' I am calling this committee that he is putting
together a ``kangaroo committee.''
Mr. Massie. Are you saying that he does not have educated
adults there now?
Mr. Kerry. I do not know who it has yet because it is
secret.
Mr. Massie. Well, you said it in your testimony.
Mr. Kerry. Why would he have to have a secret analysis of
climate change?
Mr. Massie. Let's get back to the----
Mr. Kerry. Why does the President need to keep it secret?
Mr. Massie [continuing]. science of it. Let's get back to
the science of it.
Mr. Kerry. But it is not science. You are not quoting
science.
Mr. Massie. Well, you are the science expert. You got the
political science degree.
Look, let me ask you this: What is the consensus on parts
per million of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Mr. Kerry. About 4-0-6, 406 today.
Mr. Massie. Okay, 406. Are you aware----
Mr. Kerry. Three-hundred-fifty being the level that
scientists have said is dangerous.
Mr. Massie. Okay. Are you aware--350 is dangerous, wow. Are
you aware that since mammals have walked the planet, the
average has been over 1,000 parts per million?
Mr. Kerry. Yes, but we were not walking the planet. Let me
just share with you that we now know that definitively at no
point during at least the past 800,000 years has atmosphere CO2
been as high as it is today. When I was in the South Pole--I
was not on the South Pole. When I was in McMurdo, we could not
get to the South Pole because of the weather, but I was given a
vial of air which said on it, ``Cleanest air in the world.'' It
was 401.6 parts per million. That is 50 parts per million
already over what scientists say is acceptable.
Mr. Massie. The reason you chose 800,000 years ago is
because for 200 million years before that, it was greater than
it is today, and I am going to submit for the record----
Mr. Kerry. Yes, but there were not human beings--I mean,
that was a different world, folks. We did not have 7 billion
people yet.
Mr. Massie. Well, so how did it get to 2,000 parts per
million if we humans were not here?
Mr. Kerry. Because there were all kinds of geologic events
happening on Earth which spewed up----
Mr. Massie. Did geology stop when we got on the planet?
Mr. Kerry. Mr. Chairman, I--this I just not a serious
conversation.
Mr. Massie. Your testimony is not serious.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Massie. I agree. When you cannot answer the question,
that is the best answer you got----
Mr. Kerry. I did answer.
Mr. Massie. I submit for the record an article called ``The
CO2 Deficit.''
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Massie. Thank you.
[The article, "The CO2 Deficit", is available at:
docs.house.gov.]
Mr. Massie. Secretary Kerry, you avoided my colleague's
question about how do you pay for it, but I want to ask: What
is your solution to comply with the Paris Accord requirements?
Like what would you do?
Mr. Kerry. I beg to differ with you. I did not avoid the
question. I said there are many ways to pay for it----
Mr. Massie. He just asked for one.
Mr. Kerry. I did. I talked about the carbon pricing is one
way to pay for change. There are all kinds of other things we
could do. One would be to not give a trillion dollars worth of
tax benefits to the top 1 percent of Americans. I am one of
them. I did not deserve to get that tax cut--nobody did in this
country--at the expense of average folks who cannot make ends
meet. So that would be a fair way to start.
Mr. Massie. You do not want to politicize this, but you
just played the one-percent card.
Mr. Kerry. No, I actually played a moral judgment about
what is appropriate in building a civil society. That is what I
did.
Mr. Massie. What my colleague Mr. Comer from Kentucky knows
is----
Mr. Kerry. That is a----
Mr. Massie [continuing]. that this will fall on the poorest
of the poor. It is regressive----
Mr. Kerry. No, you are wrong. You are absolutely----
Mr. Massie [continuing]. when you base the price of energy
in Kentucky or Massachusetts or Pennsylvania or France or
wherever----
Mr. Kerry. Congressman, that is absolutely----
Mr. Massie [continuing]. whichever house you are staying
in.
Mr. Kerry. That is absolutely incorrect that it would fall
on the poorest people because if you do it right, which has not
been done here for a little while, if you look at the tax
legislation, there are all kinds of ways to make sure that
people at the bottom end and people struggling to get into the
middle class can be rewarded. And that is not what has
happened.
Mr. Massie. So soak the rich----
Mr. Kerry. If you look at the distribution, we have the
most unequal distribution of income in America that we have had
since the 1920's when we did not have an income tax. We have a
country in which 51 percent of America's income is going to 1
percent of Americans. That is not a sustainable political
equation.
Mr. Massie. We have a country--you want to use 1920's as--
--
Mr. Kerry. People need to stop and think about that.
Mr. Massie [continuing]. the benchmark----
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Massie [continuing]. people of this country are far
better.
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Secretary Kerry and
Secretary Hagel, for joining us.
Secretary Kerry, you mentioned that solar is now cheaper
than coal and, in fact, the solar industry has doubled the
number of jobs in the coal industry, 350,000 versus 175,000. As
chair of the bipartisan congressional Solar Caucus, I want to
thank you for making the point with regard to the decreasing
costs of solar power.
I want to turn to this panel that the White House is
convening. The person who is reportedly spearheading the White
House Climate Change Panel, Climate Security Panel, is called
William Happer, who has a long history of downplaying and
denying climate change.
In 2010, Dr. Happer testified before the House Select
Committee on Energy and Global Warming, and he said the
following: ``The warming will be small compared to the natural
fluctuations in the Earth's temperature,'' and that the warming
and increased CO2 will be good for mankind. Do you agree with
Dr. Happer that this increased CO2 will be good for mankind?
Mr. Kerry. No. Clearly, I do not. I think it is similar to
the argument that was just being made. No. The problem we have
today is that greenhouse gases--I mean, this is basic science.
Why is it called a ``greenhouse''? Because it behaves like a
greenhouse. The heat is contained within the Earth's atmosphere
and trapped, and as these gases gather in the atmosphere, they
are what is responsible for the continual warming. It is sort
of basic scientific fact. And the result is the amount of
carbon--the estimates by scientists are, I forget the exact
number of gigatons, but we are going to have to get massive
giga-tonnage of CO2 out of the atmosphere. We are going to have
to reduce it to a net zero, net carbon, no carbon, low carbon
economy by about, let's say, 2050 is the accepted level. And
between now and then, we have plenty of time to make the
changes if we are smart and committed to making those changes.
But the amount of CO2 we have today is accelerating, and,
unfortunately, China, even as they are moving rapidly into the
solar market, and even as they have closed some old coal-fired
power plants, are geared up to bring 250 megawatts of coal-
fired power online. India, the same.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Secretary Kerry, I know that Mr. Massie
has a science degree. I have a B.S. in mechanical engineering.
Of course, I practice the B.S. part now on Capitol Hill. But
Dr. Happer recently compared climate science to Nazi
propaganda. He said, ``This is George Orwell. The Germans are
the master race,'' referring to climate change. ``The Jews are
the scum of the Earth. It is that kind of propaganda.'' Those
were Dr. Happer's words. In a 2014 interview, Dr. Happer said,
and I quote, ``The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like
the demonization of poor Jews under Hitler. Carbon dioxide is
actually a benefit to the world, and so were the Jews.''
Do you have a comment on Dr. Happer's comments?
Mr. Kerry. I think I have already commented on his
comments. I said it earlier. I think what we really ought to
try to focus on is the bigger issue here. Why after 20 years of
consensus, Republican and Democrat alike, why after generals
and admirals and guys who have laid their lives on the line for
their entire life for our country and have made the judgment
already, Republican and Democrat alike have acted on this, why
suddenly should we have a secret effort within the White House,
led by somebody like Mr. Happer, or being put together by him,
at least, that is geared to reevaluate something where there is
no legitimate call for that reevaluation? That is really the
issue.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Secretary Hagel, what is your comment
or thought about why this would be a secretive panel? What
purpose would secluding these people in closed proceedings have
with regard to this issue on the part of the White House?
Mr. Hagel. Well, one would have to suspect the motive
behind the effort to put together this panel. If the motive was
transparent, clear, try to find out what we should do in this
country about this issue based on science, based on facts,
based on what we do know today, then why wouldn't you do it
transparently? Why wouldn't you open it up and involve
everybody and want others' opinion?
So I would answer your question that way. I do not know
what is behind it.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. What are they hiding? Right.
Mr. Hagel. But I think anytime it is that closed, it is
always--it brings about a certain amount of suspicion as to
what is the motive behind it. And as you have noted Mr.
Happer's background and comments, it is not very enlightening
or it is not very likely that they would choose to open this up
and make this a very transparent process for the good of the
cause and for what the objective should be.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you both
for being here, and I do truly respect your service to this
country and also your ability to do these hearings well. So
with that being started, I actually have a national--I want to
bring it back to national security because I think there is
part of a conversation on climate change we do not.
But just before that, I do want to just say that if we are
going to say things like stopping the politics and all of that
and then also infer that it is the free market that ended up
causing most of the coal industry's problems, without at least
recognizing that there was a combination of unrealistic Federal
regulation, tax credits, and allowing primacy on an electric
grid that was neither designed nor prepared for that, it seems
to be a little disingenuous, particularly when it was not that
long ago where we had a Presidential candidate that said she
was going to put coal workers and coal miners out of business.
But that being said, I am from North Dakota, and I think
one of the things for national security is due to technical
advances in the oil and gas industry, one of the best parts
about it is we produce it at home. We are closest as we have
ever been in this country's history to being food and energy
secure. And I would just say in recent events we have seen that
happen because we have become less reliant on Middle Eastern
oil. I mean, just two different events that have happened in
the very recent past, whether it is the problems in Venezuela
or even earlier this week designating Iran's Revolutionary
Guard as a terrorism activity.
Now, I know there has been some fluctuation in the oil
market, but not that long ago, 20 years ago, these types of
events would have caused an incredible spike in oil prices,
throwing our economy into issues.
But I want to go to wind and solar because I support it
all. I really do. I believe in an all-of-the-above energy
policy. But one of the things I think we forget to talk about
is we think wind turbines blow or the sun shines and then all
of a sudden houses are powered and our cars drive. But there is
a big middle part in the middle of this, and that is rare-earth
metals, and this has to be a conversation regarding national
security because, whether it is lithium, cobalt--I cannot say
some of them because I definitely have a B.S. in B.S.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Armstrong. But, I mean, rare-earth metals, they are
actually relatively common, but they are extremely labor-
intensive to separate them from a rock, and it requires
chemical cocktails that produce tremendous amounts of waste and
leak acids, heavy metals, and radioactive elements into the
water and the environment. But I think more importantly from a
national security standpoint, China controls about 90 percent
of the rare-earth metal environment, and we know, regardless of
where we are at on all of this, they do not have the Federal
regulatory environment we do, nor do the other developing
countries.
As we transition to more batteries, whether it is large-
scale storage batteries for solar, large-scale batteries for
wind, car batteries, as we move to more electric, market
pressures that are going to create processing--or incentives
for processing plants in countries that, again, have none of
our environmental incentives to keep--I do not want to export
pollution, and I think we have to be considering to have that
conversation. And the supply chain and disruption in the supply
chain has to be a conversation if we are talking about
transitioning into these things.
A single Tesla uses about 15 pounds worth of lithium, and
current production of these, again, is in China, and there is
no separating the Chinese Government from Chinese business. And
it was not that long ago when Japan detained a Chinese fishing
captain, and China enacted a de facto ban on exporting rare-
earth metals to Japan, and it took about 48 hours for Japan to
return the Chinese fishing captain, because as we move to
this--and so what are the national security implications, I
mean, as we transition and do all of this in relying on China
for--and other developing countries, I mean, and there are some
human rights issues in the Congo and a lot of different issues.
But we do not talk about that part of this conversation at all.
I have not heard it mentioned in the media. I have not heard it
mentioned in any of the rhetoric, what I would call
``inflammatory rhetoric,'' what I would call ``reasonable
rhetoric.'' But we are not having this conversation because we
are as close to energy secure as we have ever been. And as we
transition here, we will not be. I mean, we have these metals
here, but that mining conversation will be a bigger one. But
how do we deal with that issue? That would be my question.
Sorry, I am only giving you 20 seconds, but I think this is
an important issue that we need to continue to talk about.
Mr. Kerry. Well, Congressman, you have absolutely put your
finger on a critical issue, and we do not talk about it enough,
and it is serious. And it is one that I came across in the
course of the time that I was privileged to serve as Secretary.
China has indeed cornered that market. But also, frankly, one
of the reasons why we need to be paying attention to what is
happening with climate change in the Arctic, because as the
Arctic is opening up, there are a lot of people up there now--
the Chinese included, and the Russians, who are mapping
extraction possibilities. As you well know, Russia dropped a
flag on the North Pole. It was kind of a tease, but the message
of it is, ``We are here, and we are playing for the long
term.'' We are not sufficiently on that, nor are we
sufficiently geared up to think about what we have to be doing
with respect to China and Russia now in terms of 5G and quantum
computing and the whole issue of technology ``security,'' is
the word I will use rather than--I think, you know, America has
always been technologically secure in that regard. It is
technology that has given us this energy incredible boost that
we have today. That is why I am so optimistic, frankly, about
our capacity to deal with the issue we are all talking about
here today.
America has DNA built on discovery, breaking barriers,
moving forward, and that is why I think it is so critical that
mission innovation and our technology partnership with the
private sector--remember, in Paris, most of the Fortune 500
companies were there supporting the endeavor. All of the big
oil companies were there supporting the Paris agreement. And
all of the big oil companies are currently investing in
alternative and renewable and sustainable energy.
So this is good for, you know, everybody, if we could come
together around the notion of how we are going to protect
ourselves on these rare minerals, which are critical.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We are in a civilizational emergency. Senator Kerry,
Secretary Kerry, you make the powerful point that we have
actually had decades of scientific consensus about the
anthropogenic causes and the dangerous dynamics of climate
change, and we have also had a bipartisan political consensus
endorsing the scientific consensus that has suddenly been
ripped apart by the anti-scientific outbursts and outlook of
President Trump and his administration and the pseudoscientific
dogmas of climate change deniers, obfuscators, and industry
propagandists.
These deniers are undermining our ability to act
forcefully, comprehensively, and in unity to address the forest
fires that are out of control, the hurricanes of unprecedented
velocity, the record drought and record flooding, the rise in
the ocean levels, the vanishing of glaciers and so on. And it
is troubling to me that we have to waste our time simply going
back to basics to prove what should be obvious.
I would like to ask both of the witnesses this question:
Secretary Kerry, starting with you, if 97 percent of the
doctors told you that you had cancer and needed to start
treatment immediately, would you accept their judgment and
start treatment? Or would you say that they have not convinced
everybody yet and hold out for years or more debate on the
subject?
Mr. Kerry. Well, unfortunately, I can answer that in real
terms. I was told by one doctor I had cancer, and I did the
treatment. If 97 doctors told me, I would redouble my efforts
in 100,000 ways. But I think it is a measurement of the--it is
not just the percentage. It is really measuring what they are
saying to you and what the foundation of their analysis is. And
it is there for everybody to judge. You just have to take the
time to read it and make those judgments.
Mr. Raskin. And just to twist the hypothetical a little
bit, Secretary Hagel, let me come to you. If 97 percent of the
scientists told you not to drink the water in the Cannon House
Office Building because it is not potable and it would be a
danger to you, which, unfortunately, is the truth, would you
follow their advice? Or would you say, ``Well, three percent
are still holding out and disagree, and so I am going to
continue to drink the water''?
Mr. Hagel. Well, actually, I drank the Cannon House Office
water for five years in the 1970's, so I am still here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Raskin. I take it you do not want some today.
Mr. Hagel. Well, I would hope it is better, but----
Mr. Raskin. I can give you some from the cooler in my
office.
Mr. Hagel. Thank you.
Mr. Raskin. President Trump has called climate change--
against the vast majority of the scientific evidence and the
weight of authority, he has called it an ``expensive hoax,''
``nonsense,'' and ``B.S.'' Secretary Hagel, how do you respond
to the President calling climate change ``fake news''?
Mr. Hagel. Well, the President says a lot of things, and I
do not know why he says that, as you have quoted. But the facts
are different. I know he sometimes has difficulty with facts,
but the facts are clearly different than what he says. Whether
he believes it or not, I do not know. I assume he does.
But to have the first President of the United States in our
modern history essentially say those things, disputing
scientists, his own intelligence people, military people,
people who have been at this a long time, is really troubling
because it sends a message not only to the United States but to
the world that we are abdicating our responsibilities here in
this country and around the world on one of the most vital
subjects and topics that we are dealing with today, certainly
we will be dealing with in the future.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I appreciate that point very much, and I
wonder, Secretary Kerry, if you would care to elaborate on just
this point. What is the message sent to the rest of the world?
Does it undermine and squander America's moral leadership to
have the President denying the existence of climate change? And
does it give cover to countries that want to opt out of
participation in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Mr. Kerry. I very much appreciate the question, and I
particularly want to address it to our friends here in the
Republican Party, some of whom have questioned the science to
date. And let me just say this: One hundred and ninety-six
countries came together, their presidents, their prime
ministers, their finance ministers, their environment
ministers, all of them came to an agreement that this is
happening and that we have to move.
Up until Paris, China was opposed to us. China did not move
at all. In fact, Copenhagen four years earlier, the meeting
failed because China led the G-77 to say, ``Wait a minute. We
are a developing country. You are the developed countries. You
are the guys who caused this. Why should we have to do
anything?'' So we got nothing done.
Now, President Obama authorized me to go to China, and I
went and met with President Xi, and we negotiated about how to
approach the Paris, and he agreed finally that he was ready to
move and do something about climate. Why did he move? He moved
because his Governors and his mayors were complaining that the
citizens were complaining to them about the quality of the
water, the quality of the air, you could not breathe in Beijing
or other cities, and they were feeling the impact of climate
change. So China joined the United States, leading the world to
Paris, where all of these people responsible for their
governments made the decision to move forward.
I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle,
when I was on the aisle, if I am wrong, Al Gore is wrong, all
of those ministers and presidents are wrong, and every country
that joined this--Iran--and we do this the right way, the worst
thing that will happen is we have cleaner air, we are
healthier, we have less cancer, less pollution, we are energy
independent, we are clean in our energy, we are living up to
our environmental responsibility, we pass on a better Earth to
the next generation. That is if we are wrong, because all those
good things will come out of the investments we are talking
about.
What if you are wrong, if you are a denier? Catastrophe. If
we continue down this road with every scientist telling us what
is going to happen in 12 years with a 0.5 degree increase, and
we are already seeing the consequences, catastrophe. History is
going to judge what side of this people come down on, and it is
already moving at a rate fast enough that it is making some of
those conclusions right now.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for your service to your country, and
as has been stated by my colleagues and each of you gentlemen
today, what we hope to do in this committee is reach a
reasonable accord regarding the reality of climate change and
how it impacts our planet and our Nation. We are
representatives of the American citizenry, and, thus, we are
responsible to the citizens we serve. And yet America is, in my
opinion, the leader of the free world and, thus, we have
challenges on a global setting. And on that stage, we should be
leaders regarding climate change and the reality thereof.
And let me just say that the geological record is clear.
The Earth's climate changes, and I believe that the debate here
is the percentage to which mankind may have some impact upon
that. The decisions that we make in this body affect America.
Climate change is not restricted to the Earth. According to
NASA, Mars also undergoes large variations over thousands of
years that result in ``substantial shifts in the planet's
climate, including ice ages.''
The Scientific American publication regarding the Sun's
cyclical change, studies indicate that sunspot activity overall
has doubled in the last century, resulting in the Sun shining
brighter here on Earth by a small percentage than it did 100
years ago.
The solar wind, according to NASA, emanates from the Sun
and influences galactic rays that may in turn affect
atmospheric phenomena on Earth, such as cloud cover. Scientists
admit they have much to learn about this. It is this body that
does not admit that there is much to learn. In statements I
hear from my colleagues that the science is settled and mankind
is responsible, well, I do not believe mankind is responsible
for climate change on Mars. I do not believe mankind is
responsible for cyclical climate change in the Sun's impact
upon our Earth.
What I am frightened of is the unintended consequences of
bad legislation or international agreements that we have
witnessed. I will not criticize my colleague from New York for
her enthusiasm and her creativity regarding the Green New Deal.
I shall just suggest that it would be very bad legislation and
it would impact Americans we are sworn to serve. CO2 emissions
in the United States have decreased markedly while emissions of
China and India and other nations are increasing.
You mentioned, Senator Kerry, that the oil and ga industry
is one of the major investors in renewables and recapture
technology. They have discovered, of course, over the course of
doing business that clean, efficient, safe business is good
business. We should be encouraging the American model of the
fossil fuel energy industry not regulating it out of business.
We should certainly not send this business to nations that have
virtually zero standards compared to American standards.
Secretary Hagel, in your opinion, would bills like the
Green New Deal--and, again, I say this respectfully to my
colleague from New York, but by her own memo, it would attempt
to de-commission every nuclear plant in 10 years and replace
every building in the U.S. Would that in any way encourage
China or India to regulate their own industries, Secretary?
Mr. Hagel. Thank you. Well, first, I have not read the
Green New Deal proposal totally. I have read in the papers
their----
Mr. Higgins. Would anything we do in America impact what
decisions are made in China regarding regulating their own
fossil fuel industries and expansion?
Mr. Hagel. Well, there is no question that what America
does has an effect on other countries, certainly. And
marketplace regulations----
Mr. Higgins. You think that American legislation would
cause China and India to change their legislation?
Mr. Hagel. Well, wherever----
Mr. Higgins. Why not just take our business?
Mr. Hagel. Wherever you are driving this, I am not here to
testify for the Green New Deal or defend it. That is not my
role here this morning. I have not even read it in total. What
I am here to talk about--and we have been talking about it--in
answer to your question, generally the way the world works, as
you know, America has been the leader in the world in every
respect since World War II. Everybody emulates us, follows us
in some way. We dominate the world still.
Now, that is changing. It is shifting. Generations,
technology have an effect on all of that. But this issue of
climate change is one that has a futuristic dynamic to it,
clearly, not just because of the impacts and consequences of
climate change, but for our leadership in the world and how
China will respond.
Mr. Higgins. Pardon me, Mr. Secretary, but my time has
expired. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask a yes or no question of
the gentleman.
Is American industry leading the world in clean evolution
of the fossil fuel industry?
Mr. Hagel. China is doing very well, but I think America is
still the leader in the world.
Mr. Higgins. I yield back. Thank you for your indulgence.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Secretary Hagel, is climate change and its attendant
effects from rising sea levels, intensifying temperatures and
so on, currently contributing to the following global crises:
the destruction or damage done to U.S. military bases
domestically and across the world?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Is it contributing to the erosion of a
healthy environment for our military veterans and current
servicemembers?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Is climate change contributing to
increased disease factors, including the exacerbation of global
outbreaks?
Mr. Hagel. Yes, and I mentioned that in my comments.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Is it contributing to increased
migration patterns as referenced by Secretary Kerry in his
opening statement? Is it contributing to increased migration
patterns in Europe and the United States?
Mr. Hagel. Clearly, in the Pacific, too.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And is it also contributing to increased
social instability throughout the world?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you for establishing that. I know
you both have already spoken to it, but with the debate over
what is already factually established, sometimes we have to
reassert these things.
Mr. Hagel. By the way, Congresswoman, this issue of climate
change is what, as you know, has been referred to often as a
``threat multiplier.'' It multiplies and multiplies threats and
more threats, and we have got to anticipate that, and we factor
that in whatever we are going to do about it.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. Thank you, Secretary Hagel.
Do you think that neglecting to address these threats could
contribute to the loss of American life?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And do you think that denial or even
delaying in that action could cost us American lives?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Secretary Kerry, do you think that
appointing a Federal panel that questions 26 years of
established climate science be responsible for the loss of
American life?
Mr. Kerry. It could be.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So I think what we have laid out here is
a very clear moral problem, and in terms of leadership, if we
fail to act, or even if we delay in acting, we will have blood
on our hands. I do not know if you are allowed to agree with
that, Secretary Kerry or Secretary Hagel. Would you agree with
that assessment?
Mr. Kerry. Well, if I can--here is what is happening, and
it is happening. We are not responding. No country in the world
is doing enough to be able to help the world meet the goal of
holding the Earth's temperature rise to two degrees Centigrade.
And it is absolutely certainly decided as a matter of
scientific fact, two and two is four, four and four is eight.
We can predict when the Sun and Moon will rise because we have
tables to do it with. With the same certainty, we know that
human beings are responsible for the rise of CO2 contributing
to climate change. So we have to lower it. And the fact is we
are currently on track not to hit two degrees but to hit four
to four-point-five degrees in this century.
So as long as we do nothing, Congresswoman, we are
complicit in our acts of omission and commission of what we are
doing to choose for our energy, et cetera. We are going to
contribute to people dying. We are going to contribute to
trillions of dollars of damage of property, and we will change
the face of life on this planet.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. Thank you, Secretary Kerry.
You know, I would be remiss if I did not talk or address
some of the comments made across the aisle, and while I am
incredibly flattered that the ranking member and many members
across the aisle seem to be so enamored with a non-binding
resolution presented by a freshman Congresswoman sworn in three
months ago, I think that ironically, despite that fixation, it
does not seem that they have actually read the contents of the
proposed and presented resolution. And so I would encourage
that we do not need Cliff Notes for a 14-page resolution that
was designed to be read in plain English by the American
people. So I would encourage my colleagues to actually read the
resolution presented so that they can speak to it responsibly
and respectfully.
I would also like to highlight that it is not responsible
to complain about anything that we dislike as ``socialism,''
particularly when many of our colleagues across the aisle are
more than happy to support millions and potentially billions of
dollars in Government subsidies and carveouts for the oil and
gas and fossil fuel industry. So the fact that subsidies for
fossil fuel corporations are somehow smart but subsidies for
the development of solar panels is ``socialist'' is just bad
faith and it is incorrect. And I think it is important to
support and propose the fact that we need bold action.
So I just have one final question. With any global threat
on this scale in American history, has it been met with a war-
time level scale of Government mobilization?
Chairman Cummings. The gentlelady's time has expired, but
you may answer the question. You can ask it again. He did not
hear you.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Sure. In American history, when we have
been presented with a threat on this scale, have we met that
threat, the threat on the scale of climate change, have we met
that within economic and mobilization on the scale of a war-
time level mobilization?
Mr. Kerry. Yes, we have, and we have done it with
remarkable consequence for the planet. And I believe we can and
I hope we will--we have time over the course of the next years
to make thoughtful judgments about energy policy, which is the
solution to climate change.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much, Secretary.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Witnesses, I represent the energy-rich area of eastern Ohio
that is situated in the heart of the Utica and Marcellus shale
formations. There are over a thousand million cubic feet per
square mile of natural gas, according to the experts. The shale
revolution has transformed the economy in eastern Ohio, and it
has created hundreds of jobs, and we have seen that across the
country. One of the best things we have seen in the downturn we
had back 2008 and 2009 and 2010 was the resurgence of our oil
and gas industry.
Policy proposals from the other side of the aisle want to
erase this economic growth and replace our current energy
portfolio with more expensive, less reliable alternatives.
Switching exclusively to more expensive forms of energy will
have a devastating effect on the competitiveness of our
businesses globally and cost us jobs.
My district is also heavily reliant on agriculture. Many of
the policy proposals being debated by the members opposite
among themselves are an assault on agriculture.
I come from a livestock background, and I know the
importance of how to feed this country and be environmentally
safe and provide for an economic foundation for our rural
communities with reliable and affordable energy.
Mr. Secretary, according to the think tank Progress, the
Green New Deal would reinstate the Obama Administration WOTUS
rule in its entirety. I have found this land and water grab
from the beginning--I have fought it from the beginning and
been doing everything in my power to provide certainty for
farmers, ranchers, small businesses, landowners, and even local
government.
Secretary Kerry, do you hope that the Obama
Administration's WOTUS rule will be reinstated in its entirety?
Mr. Kerry. Would you just say the question?
Mr. Gibbs. The WOTUS rule, Waters of the United States, do
you hope that will be reinstated?
Mr. Kerry. The--which be reinstated?
Mr. Gibbs. Waters of the United States, the WOTUS rule that
expands the Federal jurisdiction of waters of the United
States.
Mr. Kerry. Oh, the watershed. It would be impossible--I
mean, in principle, no, but I think you have got to look at
what particular issue is at stake here.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. I will go on because obviously you do not
know what I am talking about. Innovation and technology has
improved with oil drilling, especially from fracking and
horizontal drilling, and as we know, we have seen the emissions
of this country, carbon emissions, drop, I think it was--I had
it here a second ago--14 percent from 2005 to 2017, but China
and India have increased by 21 percent. Mr. Kerry, my
understanding is that the Green New Deal would eliminate oil
and gas exploration. Do you support that that would happen,
eliminate oil and gas exploration in the United States?
Mr. Kerry. I believe, Congressman, first of all, I think--
and I have said this many, many times--gas is going to be a
component of our energy mix for some time to come because we
have to be able to deal with baseload. And, obviously, when the
Sun is not shining, when the wind is not blowing, or the waters
are not flowing for hydro, we have got some challenges. But we
are not moving, frankly, in the way that we could be moving to
provide the alternatives rapidly because, I mean, gas gives us
a 50-percent gain over other fossil fuels in the reduction of
emissions.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. I appreciate----
Mr. Kerry. So it is a step forward.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. I want to move on.
Mr. Kerry. In the end, though----
Mr. Gibbs. I want to move on because I----
Mr. Kerry [continuing]. we need a net low-/no-carbon
economy, and we have got to begin moving toward that.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. I want to talk about--you were involved in
the Paris Climate Treaty, correct?
Mr. Kerry. Super-involved, yes.
Mr. Gibbs. Is it correct that in that agreement we would
let China increase their carbon emissions to 2030, to peak out
at 2030, and then that would be their benchmark, where ours was
immediate and there was no enforcement to put on China to cut
their carbon emissions, so that was a deal going out more than
a decade with no enforcement actions, but it was a good----
Mr. Kerry. Congressman, let me try to explain to you what
we sought to do in Paris. In the Kyoto Agreement, which Senator
Hagel has referred to, we had a mandatory reduction enforceable
mechanism. Nobody wanted it. We could not pass it because it
was not shared in the same level. And so in approaching Paris,
we came at it differently. We had each country joining to
design a plan because the theory was that if 195 or 196
countries came together, all of them simultaneously agreeing to
lower emissions and move in the same direction, the signal to
the marketplace would be extraordinary. And it was.
The next year, $358 billion was invested in alternative
renewable fuel. For the first time in history, more money went
into alternative and sustainable fuel than fossil fuel. So we
accomplished the goal, and the theory was----
Mr. Gibbs. Were some of those dollars----
Mr. Kerry. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Gibbs. Were some of those dollars a transfer of wealth
from the United States to these other countries that signed on?
Mr. Kerry. I am sorry. What?
Mr. Gibbs. Were some of those dollars a transfer of wealth
from the United States to----
Mr. Kerry. No. Actually, each--that is just the total
amount of investment that the marketplace put into alternative.
What happened in America happened in America. What happened in
Europe happened in Europe. But the point is that collectively
we were moving in the direction of trying to lower emissions,
and every country made a decision to do that.
Now, China has. China has reduced its energy intensity. It
has closed coal-fired power plants. It is a leading deployer of
solar energy at this point in time. Is it moving fast enough?
No.
Mr. Gibbs. Isn't it through they are still building coal
plants?
Mr. Kerry. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Gibbs. Isn't it true they are still building coal
plants?
Mr. Kerry. Yes, unfortunately. They are building a next
generation, which they are trying to claim is Okay, and we are
trying to tell them, no, it is not Okay. So we are still in
this struggle. But we have done better than where we were. The
point is we do not want to lose the momentum, and by having a
President who, frankly, has pulled out of Paris and not offered
leadership, we are losing that momentum. And the last meeting
of the U.N. Conference of the parties in Katowice, Poland, was
a reflection of the lack of American leadership, frankly.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Sarbanes?
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to both of
you for your incredible service to the country over decades.
And thank you for continuing your service to the country by
being here today to raise a clarion call about the impact of
climate change, particularly as it affects our national
security. Nobody is in a better position to make those
observations than the two of you.
When I am trying to figure out why political leaders are
moving in the opposite direction from where the public is
moving or where science in this case is moving or the experts
are moving, I have found it pretty useful up here to follow the
money. And I can tell you, when you look back over this issue
of climate change, you have to conclude that the position being
taken by some--and I put the President in this category--is
being driven more by campaign donors, by the fossil fuel
industry, industry front groups, than it is by any real dispute
or genuine dispute over the science that is involved here. And
I want to cite an example.
The Mercer family contributed $15 million to President
Trump's 2016 campaign, and it funds a variety of climate denial
front groups, including the Heartland Institute and the CO2
Coalition. Both of those groups have received funding from the
fossil fuel industry in the past.
Since the 2016 election, surprise, surprise, the Heartland
Institute, the CO2 Coalition, and other climate change denial
groups have been pushing the administration to create this
panel that you spoke about today that is publicly--we think
will publicly dispute the science of climate change.
The former head of the CO2 coalition is none other than,
today, already, who is now employed at the White House, and he
is the one trying to set up this panel that will deny climate
change.
Secretary Hagel, I assume you agree that the Federal
Government should be making decisions about climate change
based on facts and not based on the influence of campaign
donors or other money that comes at the system?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Secretary Kerry, do you think that a panel
that the fossil fuel industry and the President's campaign
donors have been advocating for is likely to produce meaningful
and reliable results, given what you know about how politics
works up here on the Hill and in Washington?
Mr. Kerry. No.
Mr. Sarbanes. The fossil fuel industry has funded efforts
for years to confuse and mislead the public on climate science,
but here is the interesting development. Even that industry now
I think increasingly persuaded, as you pointed to with some of
your remarks today, and certainly motivated by the economic
models that have shifted dramatically toward more renewable
energy is making sense, even that industry is beginning to
shift its position, leaving the Trump administration and the
President's position really increasingly as an outlier.
So, for example, Shell Corporation recently publicly
committed to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, as I
understand it, saying the need for urgent action in response to
climate change has become ever more obvious since the signing
of the Paris Agreement, and thank you, Secretary Kerry, for
your work on that effort. And, recently, Shell quit a major
fossil fuel lobbying group, the American Fuel and Petrochemical
Manufacturers, citing ``material misalignment on climate-
related policy positions,'' and explaining that the lobbying
group had failed to support the Paris Agreement and had
supported the Trump administration's rollback of EPA's Clean
Power Plan.
I assume, Secretary Kerry--and Secretary Hagel, if you
would like to comment as well--that it is at least encouraging
that some members of that industry are stepping up and making
the argument that we have to take dramatic action on climate
change and are moving away from some of the industry groups and
others that still seem to be captive to these other interests
and viewpoints that I think are on the wrong side of history.
Mr. Kerry. Well, I think Shell just pulled out--Shell Oil
just pulled out of one of the associations--fuel associations
that they were members of because the association itself was
taking a denier attitude on climate and Shell believes that it
is happening.
I would add also, when I was negotiating the Senate bill
back with Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman and the folks in the
Senate, we had the environment community at the table; we had
the faith-based community at the table. We had the big oil at
the table; we had the nuclear industry at the table; and we had
agreement. And I reached a point where BP, Shell, Chevron,
ExxonMobil--Rex Tillerson was there at the time--had all agreed
to accept a price on carbon. And we were about to announce it
publicly on a Monday, and on the Friday before the Monday, the
president of BP calls me and says, ``Sorry, I cannot be there.
We just had a blowout in the gulf.'' And so we had to postpone,
and during the ensuing weeks, about $800,000 was spent in one
state against one of our colleagues working hard on this to
terrify him that he should pull back, which indeed he wound up
doing, and we lost the momentum on the bill.
So, you know, the bottom line is money has a lot to do with
how it is spent, affecting the outcome and the attitudes on
this issue.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Secretary Hagel.
Mr. Hagel. But that said, all the majors are moving in the
direction that you are talking about, I noted in this paper
yesterday. But what John is talking about, there are other
examples, all of them, ExxonMobil, Chevron, all the big ones
are moving in this direction. They are not giving up their oil
resources or fracking operations. But they see where the future
is, and every time one starts to move a little closer to a new
era and buying into that future and planning for that future,
that is good.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman. Thank you. Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel,
thank you for coming. I appreciate you taking questions.
Let me just say that, you know, Secretary Kerry, you
mentioned up front that you want to get politics out of it. Yet
then you took off on our President. You took off on some of the
qualifications of his Cabinet. You took off on the tax plan or
tax reductions that this party initiated. Now, if you are going
to take politics out of it, I do not think it starts with
criticizing the President, who I think has had other things at
the top of his agenda like getting a stagnant economy back
going, like dealing with rogue countries as in North Korea,
which were a disaster prior to him coming; you know, like
dealing with facing an immigration problem now that he is
dealing with that have been kicked down the road and not
addressed.
So I think if you are going to take politics out of it,
let's have a debate, and I disagree and I think others would
disagree with both of you, in all due respect. There are
scientists out there who disagree with your findings. If we are
going to really have a discussion, let's have the Harrison
Schmitts sit down beside each one of you, who was a geologist
and Apollo 17 astronaut who disagrees with you. Let's have a
Timothy Ball, who is a climatologist. Let's have a Fritz
Vahrenholt, who has got his doctorate in chemistry. Let's have
this guy right here in Thomas Massie, who is an MIT graduate
and is an electrical engineer who has been off the grid with
his house for a long time. Let's have that debate, and other
than one station of the media, all the other stations have been
taking it as a given that climate change is real, which some
parts of it are real, but I think it is irresponsible for
anybody--and I do not criticize my colleague from the other
aisle from New York for her plan. But what I do question is
everything has a price tag. You have got to figure out how to
pay for something along with proposing what you want to do.
So I think it is irresponsible to do anything otherwise
than that, and we cannot just say at the end of the day we are
going to pay for it with higher taxes and add a thousand new
pages to the Federal Register. That is not what the country
wants to hear, and that is why, quite frankly, a lot of people
are dubious of the Green New Deal and the other things. You
have spoken of solutions. You have not put a price tag on them.
You have not put a detailed plan on what do we do next. And I
come from a--we are deeply interested in this. I come from
Catawba Nuclear Station. They supply 80 percent of our power in
South Carolina. There are 60 plants all over the country, and
we cannot just spout these facts and figures without having
alternate views and take them seriously.
Do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Kerry. I would be delighted to, Congressman. I
appreciate the question actually very much.
I am not taking off against the President politically. I am
disagreeing with him substantively. It has a profound impact
when the President of the United States, after America's
leadership that brought us the Paris Agreement, it is a
profound setback to pull out of that agreement, saying to the
American it places too great a burden on the United States and
on our economy.
Mr. Norman. That is your opinion.
Mr. Kerry. Well, yes, it is a substantive issue in
politics. The truth is it places no burden on America. The
agreement per se is an agreement in which each country wrote
its own plan. We wrote our plan, and we wrote our plan for
Americans, by Americans, with American help from Fortune 500
companies, including the major oil companies who supported the
Paris Agreement.
So we have a substantive difference, but the profound
impact of the President of the United States pulling away from
it and speaking the language of a denier has a profound
negative impact on our ability to meet the challenge and deal.
When the President says the planet is freezing, record low
temperatures, our global warming scientists are stuck in ice,
he is mocking it. That is a mockery statement. When he says,
``I believe in clean air, immaculate air, but I do not believe
in climate change''--he says, ``I do not believe in climate
change,'' point blank.
Mr. Norman. Mr. Secretary, let me interrupt. I have got 12
seconds. Let me just say I would welcome having you back. Let's
get some alternate views of people who can debate every single
issue that you have, and we will put a price tag----
Mr. Kerry. I would be delighted to have it happen, but let
me just say----
Mr. Norman. Mr. Chairman, I ask for us to--for you to get a
hearing set up of alternate views. Let's have these two fine
gentlemen debate on a case-by-case, issue-by-issue point, and
let's get into how we are going to pay for it.
Mr. Kerry. If you are going to have alternate scientists
in, I suggest you have John Holdren and you have, you know, Jim
Hansen and a bunch of people who have spent a lifetime on this.
But I will just tell you this, Congressman: Ninety-seven
percent is not to be sneered at. You can find people, I know
that, you can find people who will say anything in today's
world.
Mr. Norman. On both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Kerry. You can find people to say anything anywhere at
any time in this damn world we are living in today,
unfortunately, and we have lost the capacity to decide what are
the facts on which we as Americans are really deciding things.
And a democracy depends on an ability to agree on what the
facts are.
Now, two and two is four, and the fact is that 97 percent
of the scientists who have worked on this all their life say
that this is no longer an issue for debate, it is beyond doubt
that anthropogenic impact is what is responsible for the
climate change rate--not entirely. I agree with Mr. Massie. Of
course, there are natural occurrences that have an impact.
Volcanoes contribute. The clouds that come from the volcanoes
have an impact. Those enter into the models. All of this is
difficult stuff. But no one that I know of within that 97
percent--you ought to have the 97 to three and see where people
come out.
Chairman Cummings. Ms. Tlaib.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for your
incredible leadership and bipartisanship on this critical
issue.
I want to start with a quote from Emma Lockridge in my
district. She said, ``You cannot sacrifice people's lives.''
She lives near a Marathon Petroleum Oil Corporation refinery in
southwest Detroit. She said, ``At the end of the day, they are
killing us.'' She said, ``We already cannot breathe over here.
And the thought that pollution could just go up and the smell
is just too much.''
Today's hearing makes it very clear that climate change
threatens the health and security of each and every American,
but the harm done by climate change will not be distributed
equally. I welcome any of my colleagues--and I am being sincere
about this--to please come to Michigan, come to my district and
see what doing nothing looks like.
According to both the October 2008 National Climate
Assessment, climate change will have an unequal impact on poor
communities and communities of color. The assessment explains,
as you all know, Secretaries, multiple lines of evidence
demonstrate that low-income communities and some communities of
color are experiencing higher rates of exposure to adverse
environmental conditions and social conditions that can reduce
the resilience to the impacts of climate change.
The report also said, ``In urban areas, disruptions in food
supply or safety related to extreme weather or climate-related
events are expected to unequally impact those who already
experience food insecurity.''
So, Secretary Kerry, do you agree that climate change will
disproportionate harm low-income communities and communities of
color?
Mr. Kerry. Yes, absolutely, without any question. I mean,
you know, diesel trucks--it is not just climate change. Our
environmental policy does it. Where do the diesel trucks go
driving through a city? They go through the poor neighborhoods.
Look at the numbers of kids in hospitals and elsewhere
impacted. I mean, you can see this in many ways playing out.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, and, Secretary, I will tell you, one of
five children have asthma in my district. We have a Right to
Breathe Campaign to talk about these issues in a more impactful
way. And local environmental justice advocates in Detroit have
identified extreme heat and flooding as the key concerns for
the Detroit Wayne County area where my district is located, and
low-income households are at extreme risk for exposure to heat.
A study by the University of Michigan says temperatures in
Detroit homes alone were 4 degrees warmer than outside
temperatures from July to September 2016, with over 35 percent
of those home studied registered average indoor temperatures
above 80 degrees.
This trend can be expected to continue. The extent and
severity of the temperature increases will depend on the amount
of future greenhouse gas emissions, as you both know. And under
a higher emission scenario, there will be around 65 days warmer
than 90 degrees, and 23 days of those will be over 100 degrees
alone in Detroit. This is a sentencing for some of our most
vulnerable residents to death if we do not act now.
Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel, what are some of the
things that we can do to mitigate the impact of climate change
on our most vulnerable communities?
Mr. Hagel. Well, first recognize that we have a problem and
then start addressing the problem, locally, nationally,
globally. That brings us back to why we are here. What is the
role of this committee, our energy committees, our science
committees, commerce committees in the Congress of the United
States? What is the role of the Governors and the state
legislatures, city councils? And there are specific things that
can be done, and we have been talking about a high level of
things today in kind of a universe of world policy and national
security policy. But you have brought it down to the ground
level and reality, and that is where you start. But it has got
to be a collaborative effort. It has to be a cooperative effort
to recognize that we are doing harm to our communities,
especially the most vulnerable people in these----
Ms. Tlaib. I could not agree more, and I can tell you, you
know, it starts with us in this chamber to take leadership and
accepting the science is real and it is true. And I can tell
you, I think in the National Climate Assessment it explains and
talks about across the climate risk, children, older adults,
low-income communities of color are experiencing discrimination
affected by extreme weather the most, partially because--and
this is to ask all of us--they are often excluded in the
planning process. And I really truly believe that these are
front-line communities that are already experiencing what doing
nothing on climate change looks like. And they need to be at
the table. And, yes, I am here speaking on their behalf, but I
ask you both, bring them to the table as you are planning this
process, as you are doing the advocacy and educating all of us
in this chamber. Bring them here because when we do that, when
we localize what is happening now and not doing nothing,
because it is already happening across this country. Those
voices need to be in this room.
Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you both for
your service to our Nation and in the Senate as well.
Of course, as we all know here, both in the Senate and the
House, whenever we cosponsor a bill or a resolution, it is
because we support it. We would love to get a vote on it, and I
think all of us pretty much would admit that and agree to it,
although a ``present'' vote, as you mentioned earlier, was a
political statement. As a general rule, when we cosponsor
things, it is because we support it.
The Green New Deal as a resolution is important because it
sets forth a precedent, a clear choice for the American people.
It sets forth a clear choice between two parties on a very
important issue and what we believe and how best to address it.
On the one side, for example--and, by the way, we have had
92, I believe it is, Democrats in the House cosponsor the Green
New Deal; virtually everyone running for President in the
Democratic Party in the Senate has signed on to it. So this is
a statement of where the party is on the solution for the
climate issues, and they believe that we must move to a 100
percent zero emission energy position within 10 years--never
mind the fact that this could cause a potential nearly 300
percent increase in household energy bills, never mind the fact
that it would require rebuilding or upgrading over 100 million
buildings, never mind we are looking at nearly 300,000 cars and
trucks that would need to be replaced by electric vehicles,
never mind it would take half--the Government would take over
half of our economy at a cost estimated at $93 trillion. I
mean, that is the GDP of the entire world combined. A central
planning committee would have to be set up with this.
On the other side, you have groups who believe in free
market enterprise, believe in federalism, believe in
competition, capitalism, believe that the best way to address
this is to get the Federal Government out of it as much as
possible and allow the free market to do what it does best. And
I certainly hold to that.
I want to see us drive all forms of energy, an all-of-the-
above strategy to incentivize competition, to eliminate the
barriers that currently exist, and for all of this reason, when
we get back from Easter, I am going to the House floor to try
to force a vote on this. The American people need to know where
their Representatives stand on this issue, and I am putting
forth a discharge position so the American people can know. And
I hope my Democrat colleagues will not vote ``present'' but
will stand up. Fifteen in this committee have cosponsored this.
The American people need to know where their Representatives
stand on these two sides of a very important issue, and so I
would hope that we would be able to get some cosponsors or some
signers on that discharge petition.
I have got about a minute and a half, I want to go ahead
and yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, the
remainder of my time.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Hice.
The question was asked earlier, what is the worst that
could happen if the climate change alarmists are wrong? And I
think it is a right question to ask, but the conclusions were
wrong. Here is the worst thing that can happen or some of the
bad things that could happen by forcing a transition to
renewable energy too soon. We could have higher taxes, lower
crop production, higher food prices, wasted energy reserves,
and a foolish effort to deplete CO2, which is plant food, from
the atmosphere, raise energy prices on the poor. We could have
shortages and blackouts for everyone. We could spend millions
of man-hours of effort focusing on non-pollution while losing
focus on real pollution and real problems that we have to
solve, like what to do with our nuclear waste, which this body
still has not resolved.
Let me say this: I have lived for 12 years with 100 percent
solar, and I am aware of the struggles and the realities and
the technical challenges that are involved. There are
sacrifices that, frankly, not everybody wants to make. I do not
think everybody can make those sacrifices.
I agree with something Secretary Kerry said, and Mr. Hagel.
China has installed about four times as much solar panels as we
have this year in this country. They are not doing it for the
environment. It is a market thing. It is a reason--they are
doing it to be energy independent. And I hope that in this
country we could use our transition not for a force of big
government, but for a force of smaller government and more
independence from other countries.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Ms. Pressley.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Secretary Hagel and Secretary Kerry. I consider you both to be
patriots with your demonstration of bipartisan work. That is
supposed to be the work of this committee where we demonstrate
the ultimate patriotism in prioritizing the country and the
health of this planet over party politics and gamesmanship.
Just indulge me with a point of personal privilege here.
Secretary Kerry, not only do I thank you for your contributions
to our Nation, but your contributions in my life personally.
The opportunity to have worked for you for 11 years changed the
trajectory of my life, and as your former schedule and now as a
member, in hindsight I would like to say, ``I apologize.''
[Laughter.]
Ms. Pressley. But in all seriousness, bringing some levity
to a very serious topic here. Secretary Kerry, in our home
state of Massachusetts----
Mr. Kerry. I thought you works for me for 15 years.
Ms. Pressley. You might be right. But in our home state of
Massachusetts, we have seen firsthand the impacts of climate
change, from record snowfall in 2015 to four major nor'easters
last year, resulting in record flooding, and these events can
lead to very serious public health concerns, including
contaminated drinking water. The gentlelady from Michigan was
just speaking to these public health impacts.
I want to also lift up not only the increased frequency and
severity of asthma as well as the increase of the number of
insects who carry diseases like Zika and West Nile.
And so we do need to address these issues collaboratively
on the Federal, state, and municipal level, and we have to look
at them both in the macro and the micro. And since you have
already spoken to the public health impacts, I wanted to just
pick up on something in your opening statement, Secretary
Kerry, and if you could expound upon this point since
immigration has been a very contentious and polarizing issue
here. And if you could just speak to the impact on migration
and the potential for whole communities and territories to have
to migrate and what that impact would be.
Mr. Kerry. Thank you, Congresswoman Pressley. Let me just
also say, as another point of personal privilege, how proud I
am that you are here, and what an extraordinary public person
you are and how lucky I was.
There was an article, I think in--I think it was the New
York Times had an article the other day about what is happening
in Honduras where climate change is now impacting what can be
grown at certain altitudes and what is happening, and people
are abandoning lifetime-held land as a result of the inability
to grow anymore, and they are migrating. They are becoming part
of climate refugee status, which is already existent in other
parts of the world. There are many parts of the world where
people have had to move.
There is an island nation, Palau; Tommy Remengesau is the
President of that country. He has been very involved with us in
working on oceans policy, and he is literally planning for
where his people are going to move to. This is a nation that
will not exist because of sea level rise already, and it is
happening.
So this plays to what Secretary Hagel and I have both been
saying about--and as we have quoted many, many, many military
people. I mean, this is not the two of us sitting here saying
that climate change is happening, anthropogenic contribution
causing it, and it is going to have multiplier effect. You have
the Department of Defense, you have the U.S. Global Change
Research Program, the National Academy of Sciences. In fact,
every National Academy of Science in the world has agreed it is
happening and human beings are causing it. The
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, the Office of DNI,
former Secretary of Defense Mattis, I mean, you can run the
list of people. They are not crazy. They are not stupid. They
have given their life to the country. They have taken evidence
that has been measured by scientists all around the world, and
all of these nations have collectively made a decision that we
seem incapable of making collectively. And we have got to stop
and ask ourselves why that is true.
Also, I might add, with respect to immigration because it
is such a hot issue, obviously, we faced the imminent implosion
of the country of Colombia. The narcotraffickers were taking it
over, the Cali cartel, the Medellin cartel, and 13 members of
the Supreme Court were assassinated in one room in an afternoon
in Bogota. I mean, this country was going down.
So rather than sort of shut them off and say we are not
going to deal with that and just give it up as a failed state,
we put together something in a bipartisan way. Republicans and
Democrats came together; we created what was called ``Plan
Colombia.'' We put $1 billion on the table. We invested with
President Uribe. President Uribe invested in his own country,
in his own people, showed remarkable courage because we were
with him, and we changed the violence pattern of that country.
Just a couple years ago, the President of the country, Juan
Manuel Santos, won the Nobel Peace Prize for making peace with
FARC, which had been the longest-running civil war in history.
Why did this happen? Because we engaged. That is what we
need to do to deal with immigration. You have got failed state-
ism happening in Nicaragua, in El Salvador and Honduras and
Guatemala. And rather than cut them off, we should be
increasing our effort to assist them to prevent people from
being the victims of violence and give them a future. That is
the way you are far more effectively going to begin to deal
with people looking for a better life.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I am amazed you said you did not want to get
political, and then you go on a diatribe there on an issue that
is not even the subject of this particular oversight hearing.
Mr. Kerry. But it is part of climate change. It is part of
climate change. Immigration----
Mr. Meadows. The President's policy on Nicaragua and El
Salvador is part of climate change? How is that the case?
Mr. Kerry. Well----
Mr. Meadows. So, Mr. Chairman, I have not interrupted a
single person on your side of the aisle, and we get comments.
So, Mr. Secretary, I am one of the few people here that
actually has listened to the entire conversation today, is more
predisposed perhaps to your message than most on my side of the
aisle. I was a wind, solar, and geothermal expert for an
electric utility many years ago back when the Department of
Energy actually started. I have people on my staff that are
looking at a carbon tax and a number of issues, and yet when we
come in and say we want to pull out the politics and we start,
Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, with hyperbole in some
areas, it makes it very difficult to listen to.
For example, your comments that would suggest that the
unrest in Syria and the Middle East is largely a byproduct of
climate change is just not accurate, and you know that, Mr.
Secretary. You were the Secretary of State. Would you not agree
that that was a little bit of hyperbole to suggest that climate
change is the reason for the unrest and terrorist activity in
those countries?
Mr. Kerry. Congressman, I am sorry that, you know, perhaps
it was a step beyond the hearing for me to comment on
immigration, but it is obviously a big issue, and I acknowledge
that.
Mr. Meadows. I appreciate your comment.
Mr. Kerry. But coming back to this, I did not say that. I
very clearly said that climate change is not the cause of the
war in Syria. I said that as my opening comment.
Mr. Meadows. But in your opening comments----
Mr. Kerry. But then I said--then I said that you have to--
--
Mr. Meadows [continuing]. you talked about Syria.
Mr. Kerry. But everybody in the region understands that the
level of violence, the intensity and some of the sectarian
component of it was added to by the million people who
descended on Damascus. That is a known fact.
Mr. Meadows. That is a known fact. But what is also a fact,
Mr. Secretary----
Mr. Kerry. I did not----
Mr. Meadows. Hold on. What is also a known fact is
historically that particular region has had famines, has had
unbelievable unrest, long before there was a combustion engine.
Mr. Kerry. Sure.
Mr. Meadows. Long before.
Mr. Kerry. Sure.
Mr. Meadows. And so it is the hyperbole that makes it very
difficult to have a bipartisan conversation where we try to
find a solution to this.
Mr. Kerry. But there is no hyperbole, I think, in saying,
as I did, climate change did not cause the war in Syria, but a
million people moving because their livestock died due to an
unprecedented drought had an impact. That is a reality.
Mr. Meadows. But an unprecedented drought--are you
suggesting that droughts only started once the combustion
engine----
Mr. Kerry. No, no.
Mr. Meadows. And that is my point. When you take what is a
rational argument and extrapolate it to a point, it makes it
very difficult for us to say everything relates to climate
change.
Mr. Kerry. No, it does not. And I am not here----
Mr. Meadows. It does--well, with all due respect, it does
for me, when we look at this. I mean----
Mr. Kerry. I think, Congressman, I said earlier in a couple
of answers, I made it clear that there are things that
obviously happen naturally. There are components of the models
that shift, and I understand that. And that is why there are
differences between the models. But even where there have been
differences in the models, people agree on the basic precept,
the basic concept that human contribution to the rate of----
Mr. Meadows. There is no doubt that human contributions
have attributed to greenhouse gases. There is no denying as
well that fracking has actually decreased the price of natural
gas, which actually has changed our mix in what we have used
for energy and lowered our greenhouse gas emissions. Would you
not agree with that?
Mr. Kerry. Congressman, it is absolutely--you have heard me
advocate that we need to have gas used----
Mr. Meadows. So you are in favor of fracking?
Mr. Kerry. Fracking--I have accepted that fracking--I have
accepted that fracking is currently the methodology by which we
have been able to advance technologically to produce our----
Mr. Meadows. But it has lowered greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Kerry. But, in fairness, I will also say we do not know
yet, we do not know the full evidence yet on whether or not
subterranean fissures and passages may someday come back to
haunt us. We do not have the answer to that yet. And I have----
Mr. Meadows. Well, we do have many of those answers, and I
will be glad to discuss in private, offline, the science on
both of those things. Here is what I am saying, Mr. Secretary,
and I will close with this. Let's have real discussions, and
the real discussion right now is that fracking has lowered
natural gas prices exponentially.
Mr. Kerry. Absolutely.
Mr. Meadows. To the point where we actually met the Kyoto
Protocol guidelines without actually being a signatory on that
particular agreement. Would you agree?
Mr. Kerry. Fracking has been an enormous economic boon, but
we actually do not know yet if it is going to be cost-free in
terms of downstream impact. We just do not know that.
Mr. Meadows. I will yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
As we go to Mr. DeSaulnier, let me say this, Secretary
Kerry: Although it is not directly related, your comments on
Colombia, I got your point that engaging--Colombia was a major
accomplishment. Major. And I guess what you were saying is that
by engaging we were able to resolve that. Is that what you were
saying?
Mr. Kerry. I am saying we empowered them to be able to
resolve it.
Chairman Cummings. Yes.
Mr. Kerry. They did it for themselves. At great cost, but
they did it.
Chairman Cummings. Yes. Mr. DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
both of you for giving the committee so much of your time. I
sense some level of frustration. I will also tell you, you are
two of my heroes. I imagine a time when this institution was
more based on rational thought and analysis.
I will admit when I was 18 and I was a resident of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I registered as a Republican
because I wanted to vote for Ed Brooke. I tell people under 30
now that I did that because I wanted to vote for a liberal
Republican, and they do not believe there was such a thing.
But times change. I have had many occasions to work with my
colleagues on the other side, except on these big instances. So
I want to talk about the Green New Deal, with all due respect
to its author, and my experience in California. In the 1990's I
was fortunate enough to be appointed by two Republican
Governors and a Democratic Governor to the California Resources
Board. During the Wilson administration, our peer-reviewed
scientific panels brought to us the evidence that climate
change was real, was going to have a significant impact on the
state of California, the snowpack, the delta, the runoff, and
we started to respond to it in a nonpartisan, analytical
approach.
So to me--and we had and we continue to have robust cost-
benefits that are peer-reviewed, that created great value, that
included the public health benefits, which are an international
model. But to me the most compelling thing is the economic
argument with the exceptions, as Mr. Meadows said, there are
things that happen that we have to consider, like fracking.
But California, I am sorry to be parochial, because we did
these things 20 years ago, it is sort of a given that
renewables and alternative fuels are a good thing to the
economy. So I would like to get a response. It strikes me that
one of our great national crises, if we do not adhere to the
advice you are giving us and the scientists, is our economic
growth. I tell my kids that their kids are going to grow up in
a world where Chinese cars are probably going to dominate the
world if they are capable of mass-producing electric cars in
the next five or 10 years. General Motors has indicated that
they understand this and are putting more resources in
alternative fuels.
So California gets about 50 percent of the venture capital
in the United States every year, year after year. A lot of that
goes into tech. A lot of it goes into biomed. But a
disproportionate amount goes into alternative fuels and
renewables where 33 percent--when I was in the legislature, the
utility said there is no way we can make it. They made it. They
have surpassed it. We are talking about going to 50, 75, 100
percent. All of those things would indicate to me that there is
plenty of research that California and the west coast is
leading the country when it comes to economic growth.
One of our key things is to make sure that people who are
left behind are not left behind, so people who are coal miners
need to have more than just career training and job training.
But our success in California is a partnership between the
building trades, when Republicans supported the building
trades, and the environmental community, where the cultural
differences in those two groups 20 years ago came together and
said, ``You are going to have the jobs of the future. You are
going to be installing and maintaining these renewable fuels.''
We have huge challenges on the alternative fuel side
because battery electric cars or fuel cells will not require
the maintenance that fossil fuel and internal combustion
engines do. So maybe you could enlighten me just in your view
of the economic benefits that go to international security for
the United States and our leadership when it comes in terms of
economic growth for everybody, for a middle class that does
well and people who do not have a college degree to do well in
a global economy that acknowledges that our dependence on
fossil fuels, even if you were to accept the doubts of the
science, that the economic growth is sort of inarguably there,
that by changing the Europeans and California and the west
coast is really leading the world and the Chinese are right
behind us. Secretary Kerry or Secretary Hagel?
Mr. Kerry. I have always considered myself a pro-growth
Democrat but with sensitivity to the folks who do not always
get the shared opportunity, and I think we have to be sensitive
to that, and I think it is particularly important to be
sensitive in terms of what we call ``environmental justice.''
But the future--and I would just say to my friends here,
the world is moving rapidly toward this transition. And the
fastest-growing job in America today, I believe, I am told, is
solar power technician, installer, and the second-fastest is
wind turbine technician. So it is happening. There has been an
88-percent reduction in the cost of solar. There has been a 69-
percent reduction in the cost of wind in the last 10 years. And
you have to look at the trend line of what we are living with.
The last 10 years included the hottest year in recorded
history. The 10 years prior to that decade was the second
hottest. The 10 years prior to that decade was the third
hottest. There is sort of a trend line here, I think, over 30
years. And given the science that is added to that trend line,
when the scientists in such overwhelming number are saying this
is what humans are causing, we have an alternative opportunity
here to dominate a market. The global energy market is the
biggest market ever, 4 to 5 billion users today. It will go up
to 9 billion users in the next 30 years, and already it is a
multi-trillion-dollar market. The market that we experienced in
Massachusetts and California in the 1990's, when a lot of
people made a lot of money, was fundamentally a $1 trillion
market with 1 billion users, and yet we created more wealth
than we have ever created. In the 1990's in America, every
single quintile of earner of income went up.
So I believe to have America on the sidelines not
aggressively pursuing this market is to be contrary to the very
success that California has had as, what, the sixth largest
economy in the world?
Mr. DeSaulnier. Fifth.
Mr. Kerry. Fifth.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Almost fourth.
Mr. Kerry. Fifth largest economy in the world. So I hope we
will understand this is economic opportunity. This is not cost.
Mr. Hagel. You know, I would just add one thing. The
reality is we are all global citizens in a global community,
underpinned by a global economy. The world is interconnected in
every way: climate, environment, economy, security. And I am
not sure we always take that into consideration when we are
debating, passing laws, making regulation, and doing the things
to move this country forward. Sometimes we are too insulated,
and we will pay a price for that.
Chairman Cummings. I am going to recognize Ms. Ocasio-
Cortez for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just very briefly,
since there seems to be some confusion on how climate change is
connected to immigration patterns, I seek unanimous consent to
submit to the record this article from the New Yorker on how
climate change is fueling the U.S. border crisis, particularly
in Guatemala. The question is no longer whether someone will
leave but when.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The New Yorker article referred to is available at:
docs.house.gov.]
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Hagel, who is on the President's task force, this
council? Who are the members?
Mr. Hagel. I have no idea.
Mr. Jordan. You do not know?
Mr. Hagel. The President's task force on----
Mr. Jordan. Yes, we have been talking a lot about it. I
just was curious who is on it.
Mr. Hagel. I do not know. I said in my statement I do not
now.
Mr. Jordan. Do you know when the Executive order was issued
to form the task force?
Mr. Hagel. No.
Mr. Jordan. That is because there was not one.
Mr. Hagel. I do not know. All I know----
Mr. Jordan. There was no executive order issued to form a
task force. There is no task force that exists, and, therefore,
there are no members on the task force.
Mr. Hagel. Well, there is certainly a lot of conversation
evidently going on in the White House about it.
Mr. Jordan. Let me ask you this----
Mr. Hagel. It was picked up by the press reporting it.
Mr. Jordan. Do you agree with your colleague, Senator
Kerry, Secretary Kerry, in his testimony just a few hours ago
when he read his testimony, he said, ``It is a council of
doubters and deniers.'' Is that accurate?
Mr. Hagel. Secretary Kerry just handed me a draft of the
President's Executive order setting up this task force. Maybe
we should include----
Mr. Jordan. I have got the draft in front of me. I have
seen that. It is a draft. It has never been done, never been
executed, no one has been appointed. So I am just curious how
the Secretary----
Mr. Hagel. Well, it should not be, and I hope it is not.
Mr. Jordan. Well, that is no my question. My question is:
Do you agree with what Secretary Kerry said when he said, ``It
is a council of doubters and deniers''?
Mr. Hagel. I do not know who the council is. I have already
told you that. I do not know who it is.
Mr. Jordan. That is the point. We have had a three-hour
hearing talking about this council----
Mr. Hagel. I think you should direct your question to
Secretary Kerry.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. that is yet to be formed.
Secretary Hagel, are emissions up or down for the United
States over the last 15 years?
Mr. Hagel. They are down.
Mr. Jordan. Down.
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Earlier, both of you talked about market
forces. It is amazing to me that emissions are down in spite of
the fact that we had the first Green New Deal, the loan
guarantee program in the Obama Administration, that gave
millions and millions and millions of dollars to all kinds of
companies, and almost every single one of them went bankrupt.
And yet, still, somehow the market figured out a way to drive
emissions down.
Mr. Hagel. Well, I think President Obama may have----
Mr. Jordan. Is that--do you----
Mr. Hagel. I think President Obama may have had something
to do with that, too, and a Congress recognizing what the
issues are and the seriousness of the issues.
Mr. Jordan. I will tell you about market forces. Market
forces said Solyndra got a bunch of our taxpayers' money, folks
from the 4th District of Ohio, and went bankrupt. That was
market forces. Beacon Power got a bunch of taxpayer money, some
of it from the citizens of the 4th District of Ohio, went
bankrupt. Abound Solar went bankrupt. Fisker Automotive went
bankrupt after receiving tons of taxpayer money. That is market
forces. And in spite of those companies, which were the end-
all, be-all, save-all, emissions went down because the market
did it--something you both talked about.
Mr. Kerry. Not just the market, Congressman. The fact is we
put in place the strongest CAFE standard----
Mr. Hagel. The Obama Administration----
Mr. Jordan. I was talking to Secretary Kerry. Is the Green
New Deal, Secretary Hagel, is the Green New Deal bipartisan?
Mr. Hagel. I do not know. I told you before in my comments
in responding to the Green New Deal question, I do not know
about it other than what I have read in the paper. I do not
know who is cosponsoring it. I do not know the details of it.
Mr. Jordan. Well, both of you have talked a lot--and I
agree with this. Both of you have talked about de-politicizing
this issue. Both of you have talked about working in a
bipartisan fashion. The Green New Deal has got 91 Democrat
cosponsors, 13 Democrat Senators, not one Republican.
Mr. Hagel. Take that up with the Congresswoman, not me.
Mr. Jordan. No, I am just asking your thoughts. Would you
define that as bipartisan?
Mr. Hagel. I am not here to defend that bill or testify
about it.
Mr. Jordan. Well, you made----
Mr. Hagel. You talk to your Congress----
Mr. Jordan. You have made that clear several times.
How about the statement, do you--I want to go back to--do
you agree with what Secretary Kerry said, that the council is
made up of doubters and deniers?
Mr. Hagel. I said I do not know who is on the council.
Mr. Jordan. So is it an accurate statement? If we do not
know who is on the council--in fact, we not only do not know
who is on the council, there has been no council formed. How
can you conclude it is a council of deniers and doubters?
Mr. Hagel. Take that up with Secretary Kerry.
Mr. Jordan. Secretary Kerry?
Mr. Kerry. I made it clear in the beginning----
Mr. Jordan. I am asking the Honorable Secretary a question.
Mr. Kerry. I made it clear in the beginning that the
prelude to the actual language of the draft Executive order,
which was obviously leaked by somebody who was deeply concerned
about it, said very clearly that it claims to authoritatively
link climate change. It is----
Mr. Jordan. I am not asking about the Executive order. I am
asking about what you told us three hours ago. You said
definitively, you said----
Mr. Kerry. The names----
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. it is a council of doubters and
deniers, and I am just asking the fundamental question: How can
it be a council of doubters and deniers when it has not even
been formed?
Mr. Kerry. Well, it would be. Congressman, you are
quibbling. It would be.
Mr. Jordan. It would be.
Mr. Kerry. Clearly----
Mr. Jordan. Now we know you can foretell the future. That
is----
Mr. Kerry. No, because there are several names that have
been also leaked about the people who have been approached with
respect to membership on this, and so, you know, I can submit
their names if you really want that. But I do not think it is
necessary. For my judgment to be made, it was made on the basis
of Mr. Happer's experience, his background, his lack of being a
climatologist, and various other statements he has made
publicly, including----
Mr. Jordan. I am not here to defend Mr. Happer. I am just
asking about a simple statement you made. You already know who
is on the council----
Mr. Kerry. I stand by my statement.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. you already know--well, I know you
stand by your statement.
Mr. Kerry. The purpose of this council----
Mr. Jordan. You already know who is on the council, and you
already know the conclusions they are going to reach, even
though there has been no council formed----
Mr. Kerry. No, I do not know--I do not know----
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. and no Executive order creating
the council in the first place.
Mr. Kerry. I do not know at this point in time who all the
members are. I know enough members, and I know the purpose of
it, and I know with clarity what it is doing. What is the
secrecy about it? Why don't they ask some of the top people in
the country----
Mr. Jordan. There is no secrecy about it because it has not
been formed.
Mr. Kerry. Well, come on. You are playing games now, Mr.
Ranking Member.
Mr. Jordan. No, I am not. You are playing games.
Mr. Kerry. Yes, it is really----
Mr. Jordan. You are taking all kinds of latitude with an
Executive order that has not been issued.
Mr. Kerry. No. I am hoping it never will be issued----
Mr. Jordan. I guess I am out of time.
Mr. Kerry [continuing]. and I trust that because I and
others have raised this issue about it, 58 national security
concerned people, that this will never be issued because it
does not deserve to be----
Mr. Jordan. Maybe you are right. Maybe you are right. I do
not know.
Mr. Kerry. Well, it could be that they have been warned off
by this hearing and by other things.
Mr. Jordan. I just think we have had three hours of talking
about something that has not even been formed.
Chairman Cummings. Ms. Wasserman Schultz? Ms. Wasserman
Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretaries, it is good to see you both, and thank you
both for your real serious devotion to making sure that we can
actually get the facts out about global warming and climate
change.
Secretary Kerry, I do just want to point out--this is not
what I intend to ask you about, but I do want to point out that
if we are going to talk about the so-called White House Panel
on Climate Change, that apparently it has been widely reported
that William Happer has been spearheading the proposed White
House Panel on Climate Change, and he believes that CO2 has
undergone decade after decade of abuse for no reason, and that
he has compared carbon dioxide similarly to the treatment that
Jews received under Hitler.
So would you say that it is legitimate to suggest that
someone spearheading a proposed White House Panel on Climate
Change that had those beliefs perhaps was a doubter or someone
who had no idea what they were talking about?
Mr. Kerry. Obviously, for sure, which is what we said
earlier.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, I have an
article here from Vanity Fair that describes the individual,
Mr. Happer, which I would like to ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record.
Chairman Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
[The Vanity Fair article referred to is available at:
docs.house.gov.]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Now, to ask you both--I want to
thank you both for being here. President Trump and his
appointees really have seemed intent on casting doubt on the
science of climate change, and they are joined by our
colleagues, unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle.
There is already a consensus on climate change. The Federal
Government's definitive statement is the National Climate
Assessment. The assessment represents the consensus view of 13
Federal agencies and more than 300 experts from Federal, state,
and local governments, universities, and the private sector.
The entire 1,500-page report was peer-reviewed by the National
Academies. This document represents the zenith of current
scientific understanding of the dangers of climate change. The
report said that climate change will have a startling impact on
the American economy, costing us hundreds of billions of
dollars per year by the end of the century.
I see this happening at home in South Florida as well where
properties are sinking into the sea, beaches are eroding, and
algae blooms get worse every few years. It is disappointing but
not surprising that President Trump, who has repeatedly
demonstrated an irrational hostility toward science, disbanded
the advisory committee that provides guidance to the Government
based on the assessment.
So Secretary, both Secretaries, do you agree that the
National Climate Assessment went through a rigorous scientific
review process?
Mr. Hagel. Yes, it did.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Secretary Kerry?
Mr. Kerry. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you agree the assessment
represents a consensus view on the science of climate change?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Mr. Kerry. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you know of any reason why the
American public should not trust the results of the assessment?
Mr. Hagel. No.
Mr. Kerry. No. I don't either.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Now I chair the Military
Construction Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee. And
so I have a very specific understanding how the Department of
Defense has been struggling with the consequences of extreme
weather, and it's taking a toll.
The Air Force is looking for $5 billion to restore Tyndall
Air Force Base, in my home state of Florida. Offutt Air Force
Base, in your home state of Nebraska, Mr. Secretary, has been
devastated by historic flooding along the Missouri River. It
drowned a third of Offutt under water. Hurricane Michael
bulldozed Tyndall Air Force Base. The marines need more than $3
billion to restore Camp Lejeune after Hurricanes Florence and
Michael tore through North Carolina.
Secretary Hagel, you understood the criticality of missions
at Offutt as secretary, but you also represented the base as a
senator, and you know better than most what the consequences of
record flooding there could entail.
The new U.S. Strategic Command, STRATCOM, headquarters was
built on higher ground because they were aware of some flood
risk, albeit probably not the extent that what actually
occurred. There were levees that were ultimately breached, but
those levies gave the air force time to prepare for the flood.
Secretary Hagel, what if someone convinced STRATCOM that
there was no threat of flooding? What if they were told there
was no need to build levees or come up with flood evacuation
plans? What if they built STRATCOM on lower ground in harms
way, and it was knocked out by the flood? What if someone
directed DOD to ignore the risk? What would the mission
consequences be, and how would an incident like that impact our
national security?
Mr. Hagel. Well, reality is reality, and when the base was
built many, many years ago, and upgraded, and those dikes were
built, and upgraded, it was anticipation of flooding, not
historic. I mean it's biblical----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
Mr. Hagel [continuing]. proportions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
Mr. Hagel. But it was never intended it would be that bad.
But they knew, 20 years ago they knew. When I was in the
Senate, I remember talking then with Defense officials at Offit
about the possibility of devastating flooding. They weren't
prepared. They had dikes built. But what happened this time is
something that the people out there and in the Pentagon had
considered possible with the climate change and the environment
changing.
John Kerry said something exactly right on this. The rate
of change, the rate of destruction that we're seeing around the
world in every way, flooding, hurricanes, typhoons, wildfires,
we didn't even anticipate even close to that, knowing that we
had to anticipate something.
So we've got to factor this into future planning, and build
accordingly. Probably what it is going to mean is some bases
are going to have to be changed, moved, or in some way
adjusted, because the seriousness of this is not going to go
away.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And I know my time has expired, Mr.
Chairman, but I will just note that all of those provisions
that were prepared, were prepared based on climate science.
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Actual hard data. Thank you. I yield
back the balance of my time. And thank you both for your
service.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
First of all, Secretary Kerry, I just want to point out
something that I do not feel was accurate, or at least implied
as inaccurate, that you said leading off today, particularly
with so many children around.
You started off by saying during the cold war no one in
public would have been taken seriously if they did not offer a
policy to counter the Soviets. I am old enough to remember a
lot of the cold war. I am old enough to remember tens of
thousands of people marching ``Ho, Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh,'' who
clearly wanted victory for the Atheistic Totalitarians who
lived in North Viet Nam. And I remember a lot of politicians
kowtowing to those people at the time, and eventually they kind
of got their wish when they defunded the war, and we had over a
million people die in Cambodia, and all the churches shut down
in South Viet Nam.
And I just think it is something for any of the young
people listening here, they ought to look into all of the
politicians who seem to be on the other side at that time of
our history.
Now I want to talk to you a little bit about being open-
minded, Secretary Kerry. I mean I am old enough to remember--
just as I remember people who wanted the United States to lose
in Viet Nam, I am old enough to remember experts being quoted
in Newsweek or Time in the 1970's about global cooling.
And at the time we were assured by people who were experts
in the field that food production was going to go down, and we
were going to have huge problems because of it by the turn of
the century. So when that did not happen, it kind of makes me a
little bit skeptical, and I don't always believe everything
any, I'll call them global alarmist, says.
I know that over 20 years ago there were experts before the
United Nations who talked about if we didn't do something
within 10 years this global warming thing would be a disaster,
and we couldn't turn back from that. That was back in 1989, and
those global alarmists have since proven to be false.
I have with me here an article that appeared in the
Financial Post a couple years ago strongly questioning your 97
percent figure, and they say that among the American
Meteorological Association it is way under that figure. There
are all sorts of people who believe that global warming or
manmade global warming doesn't exist.
How much do you, Secretary Kerry, do you ever interact with
people who don't share your worldview here, particularly,
because so many times in the past the alarmists have proven to
be wrong? Do you ever show up with them?
I know today we set up a situation which have two
likeminded people testifying before us, which is very
unfortunate. But do you ever spend any time dealing with these
people who may have a different view than your own, people who
maybe predicted all along we wouldn't have a disaster by the
year 2000?
Mr. Kerry. I have spent a lot of time with a lot of people
who have different points of view on many different issues. I
seek them out, and I spend time trying to examine my own issues
versus theirs. Sure.
Mr. Grothman. Have you read articles, you know, that----
Mr. Kerry. Yes, I have. And I have talked to many--I have
talked to, you know, people who allege that climate change
isn't as bad as it thinks, and why they think it, and----
Mr. Grothman. I encourage you to keep doing it. I encourage
our chairman to have another hearing in which we are able to
bring in people who maybe don't--have another opinion other
than yourselves. Like I said, I'd like to put into the record
an article in the Financial Post that strongly----
Mr. Kerry. Let me just say to you, Congressman, I have
spent now----
Mr. Grothman. No. That's Okay. I only have a limited amount
of time, and I'd like to yield the rest of my time to my good
friend from Kentucky, Thomas Massie.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Grothman.
People ask me is the next generation going to be better or
worse off than our generation. And I think it's a crazy
question. Of course, they're going to be better off, because
you've got engineers, and entrepreneurs, and inventors laboring
in a system of free markets, capitalism, and strong
intellectual property. And so for politicians to sit here and
take credit for solar power is a little bit like the rooster
taking credit for the sunrise.
But I think we're on the verge of, in our lifetimes, we are
going to have an energy revolution, and it's going to be
because of those entrepreneurs. And our job here is not to
screw that system up, because if we do, there is going to be
suffering.
I mentioned before that China has installed a lot of solar
in the past few years. They have capped it now, because there
are technological limitations. You put any more on their grid
it's going to destabilize it, and we're going to be in the same
situation soon, and that's why we are waiting on a better
battery. Right now it takes 30 cents a kilowatt hour to put
power in and take it back out. Nobody's going to pay that.
So that's what we're facing now. We need a technological
breakthrough. We don't need another government program, and the
free market will do that.
Thank you, I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Gomez.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I said also, not on just Oversight, but I also said on the
Committee of Ways and Means, when it comes to this
Administration, I notice a reoccurring theme. They view the
practice of transparency as a nuisance. Whereas most Americans
see transparency as essential to our democracy, this
Administration responds to oversight requests as if they are
Presidential harassment.
So I'm not surprised that I've heard reports that the White
House could structure their proposed climate panel to avoid the
requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FOCA.
FOCA requires committee meetings and records to be open to the
public. So if the White House conducts their panel, their
climate change panel in secrecy, the public would have no idea
whether the panel was meeting with fossil fuel lobbyists or
campaign donors.
Secretary Hagel, do you agree that any White House
committee on climate change should be open and transparent?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Mr. Gomez. FOCA also requires committee membership to be
``fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented
and the functions to be performed.'' Avoiding FOCA would make
it easier for the White House to stock the panel with climate
change deniers.
Secretary Hagel, do you think a panel made up entirely of
individuals who do not believe in climate change is likely to
make any meaningful recommendations about climate science or
policy?
Mr. Hagel. No.
Mr. Gomez. In contrast, the National Climate Assessment was
developed through a process that was entirely in public view.
The assessment represents the consensus view of over 300
experts from both government and the private sector, and was
peer-reviewed by the National Academies of Science,
Engineering, and Medicine.
What's more, the author conducted a ``series of regional
engagement workshops that reach more than 1,000 individuals and
over 40 series.'' The author also had listening sessions,
webinars, and public comment periods to receive input from
Americans from all walks of life.
Secretary Hagel, based on reporting so far, is it fair to
say that the proposed White House panel may be far less
transparent than the National Climate Assessment?
Mr. Hagel. Well, what we know, but we don't know anything
yet. There's no executive order, as Mr. Jordan has pointed out,
so we don't know what we've got.
Mr. Gomez. Okay.
Mr. Hagel. So it's all speculation on everyone's part.
Mr. Gomez. Given that the National Climate Assessment was a
result of a transparent process, has it already been peer-
reviewed as a non-transparent White House panel likely to add
value?
Mr. Hagel. Is it--I'm sorry?
Mr. Gomez. Would the panel add value if it's not
transparent and open to the public for review?
Mr. Hagel. I don't believe so, because there will be a
question of trust and confidence in the panel, the makeup, if
it's not transparent.
Mr. Gomez. And I'm also concerned that the White House
climate panel will be no different than the Vice President Dick
Cheney's energy taskforce, which was famously--held secret
meetings with oil companies, lobbyists, and republican donors.
Perhaps, unsurprisingly, the Cheney taskforce recommended
giving handouts to oil and gas companies.
Secretary Kerry, should we be concerned that the White
House climate panel would cater to the oil and gas industry
like the Cheney taskforce did?
Mr. Kerry. Well, I think it is one fair concern.
Mr. Gomez. Doesn't the public have a right to know who's on
the panel and who's meeting with it, and how they would arrive
at their conclusions?
Mr. Kerry. Absolutely.
Mr. Gomez. One of the things I asked to--I was trying to
get the ranking member to yield to me, because I think a fair
request is if any panel that's conducted by this administration
should meet the FOCA requirements. Do you agree with that
statement?
Mr. Kerry. I do.
Mr. Gomez. And before I end, I just want to kind of make a
statement. We've heard a lot of criticism from our republican
colleagues about the Green New Deal. The Green New Deal is a
bold and ambitious at its goals. It doesn't really stipulate
how to get there. But I believe it has to be ambitious. Decades
of inaction on climate change have put our country in a
position where we need bold action.
Just like our Nation's infrastructure. The more it decays,
the more it falls apart, the more costly it becomes. We dealt
with that in California, and we're paying the price for it.
If Congress had taken steps years ago when the climate
science was clear, you know, we would be able to just have
incremental changes. California started on this path almost 15
years ago. Many more years ago actually if you've taken, you
know, the gas--our tail pipe emissions standards, and the like.
So being bold is just to make up for the lack of urgency that
previous administrations, previous Congresses failed to really
address this issue.
So I know there will be a lot more discussion on this
topic, but I want to just say that we believe that we need to
act now for future generations.
And I thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, members
of the committee. Thanks for the opportunity to share my
thoughts and pose a few questions to the witnesses.
And first, let me apologize, if I have any excess emotion
over my normal level, I just returned from an internment of a
special operator over at Arlington who died in Syria. He is
from my district. I represent Fort Campbell, Kentucky area.
I think everyone here recognizes that our planet is an
amazing place, and while we should look at all the climate
theories with a critical eye, we can all admit that we can harm
our planet, and we should always cleanup after ourselves, and
we should focus ourselves on sustainability, as our farmers
have for many years.
My concern for this briefing is that we are focusing on the
wrong agency, particularly to address these concerns. And let
me explain what I mean if I were to ask our witnesses the
purposes of the Department of Defense, I assume they would
answer it, ``Sir, it is to defend our Nation against all
enemies and war, and to deter war through strength.'' With that
purpose in mind, we could also ask the question that is there's
$1 in the budget spent on, say, climate research or excessive
costs of energy, that is a dollar that is not spent on flight
training, or tank maintenance, or weapon marksmanship, or ship
readiness.
If I ask that, I'm certain that the witnesses would agree
that if we spend a DOD dollar on non-warfighting capability, it
decreases the potential of our warfighting capability.
Since this hearing is about the national security
ramifications of climate change, I assume a possible scenario
that the witnesses might propose or would be concerned about
are the potential wars that might be started after famine or
other natural disasters allegedly caused by climate change.
But let's think about what that means. The end result is
potentially war. And there's one department in the U.S.
Government that exists about determining when those wars,
should they happen, shouldn't we then let them use all of their
resources to train to deter war, and win it, if necessary. And
I say yes.
I propose some non-hypothetical questions. These are not
hypotheticals. This is just the current assessment in the open-
source information about where our military is. I ask the
question how many fighter pilots are we short in the United
States military. It's not classified. It's well over 1,000.
How many ships are we short if we go back to winning the
two strategies as opposed to the current strategic imperative
of one contingency, and deter another contingency? If we go
back to winning two simultaneously, and if this is such a great
crisis that's going to produce those needs for military, we
should go back to that two scenario--how many ships are we
short? Fifty-six.
What's the percentage of our combat battalions at the top
line of readiness? Again, open-source information. Thirty-three
percent. Thirty-three percent.
What's the average age of our aircraft? Twenty-eight years.
The oldest in the history of the United States.
Mr. Secretary, let me just tell you, when I went to war in
2003 and 2004, our force was second to none, and it was
honestly an unfair fight. It was just an unfair fight. If we're
preparing for some national security crisis second to climate
change, it would be an injustice to send American's sons and
daughters to war where they did not have the very best
equipment, training, and leadership, and that costs money.
In the business world we confront the opportunity costs of
our decisions every day. To put it bluntly, the Department of
Defense has one purpose, and that is to kill our enemies. Your
use of the national security threats surrounding this issue
prove my point. There are tigers in the world, and we need men
and women that we train to fight those tigers to be elite at
every level.
Forcing them to spend money, forcing the department to
spend money on anything but preparations to do their mission
has the opportunity costs, and it's measured in tombstones in
Arlington. We must not use a single dollar of the Department of
Defense budget to address the climate change issue. And that is
my statement for today, period.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield the remainder of my time to
the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie--to the ranking member
then, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Yes. And I want to speak to the gentleman's
notion that no money should be used for our military to combat
climate change. First, I want to say how grateful I am for this
hearing, Mr. Chairman. Congress as an institution has failed
the American people by failing to do something about what I
regard as the most important issue for our country and for the
world today.
I'm pleased that we have a select committee on the climate
crisis, and that this committee has a new subcommittee on the
environment. And I want to directly respond to this notion
relating to the military with facts and figures that we have to
face now. And my question really goes to the impact on national
security of climate change, notwithstanding this
administration, and some of my friends on the other side.
The Defense Department itself has issued a report to
examine the vulnerability of 79 military bases to climate-
related events. And they issue these sobering results, 36 bases
are vulnerable to wildfires. Forty-three are vulnerable to
drought. Fifty-three of our bases face recurrent flooding
caused by sea-level rise and storm surges. That's the Defense
Department speaking.
Secretary Hagel, how does the vulnerability of our military
bases to extreme weather impact national security?
Mr. Hagel. Well, it's a centerpiece for national security,
because not only does it affect the infrastructure, it affects
readiness and preparation, just as we know from the destruction
of Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. Seventeen of our F-22s
were damaged, some of them significantly damaged. They're out
of the lineup now. Seventeen F-22s are out of the lineup
because of the damage during that hurricane.
Readiness affects the bases in North Carolina, Fort Bragg,
and others, where they can't train. They've got to rebuild.
They have to shift their people, and their structures, and
their readiness, and their planning, and move those people to
different places.
And you could go on and on, the differences and the
dynamics, and the results, and the consequences----
Ms. Norton. That's very explicit, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Hagel. But it is very clear that planning--let me just
finish. Planning for climate change is not some frivolous waste
of time, a waste of money. It is essential to our troops and to
their wellbeing, and the national security of this country.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Secretary.
It is not coming. It is here. And that is why I cited those
base statistics. And I want to cite some more, because of the
effect on several of our military installations. Offutt Air
Force Base, in your home state, Secretary Hagel, is the
headquarters of the U.S. Strategic Command, which is
responsible for nuclear weapons already hit by climate change.
Tyndall Air Force Base took a direct hit from Hurricane
Michael. That was the strongest storm on record of the Florida
Panhandle.
The Air Force estimates repairs will cost $3 billion.
Hurricane Florence slammed North Carolina in September to cause
massive damage to Camp Lejeune. California, the Vandenberg Air
Force Base has experienced multiple wildfires, including one
that delayed a satellite launch.
Secretary Hagel, do you agree that climate change continues
to change the costs of repairing our military facilities and
will increase as we face more climate change?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
Ms. Norton. What do the armed forces need to do to become
more resilient to these climate change threats that they're
already facing?
Mr. Hagel. Well, they have to plan for the reality that we
are going to have more. And they will be more severe. And that
means probably having to relocate some bases, especially in
Norfolk, for example, very vulnerable, our Atlantic Fleet, on
the coast.
But bases within those numbers, those statistics that you
cited, are all going to have to be looked at and reviewed as to
how serious it could--more, and probably more disastrous
climate change events happen, and what would be done to those
bases, and what would be the consequences if they didn't do
anything, if they didn't move, or change, or dikes, or
something.
So this is reality. This is what they have to plan for.
Ms. Norton. Your testimony has been very helpful, and I
yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Hello. Thank you for being here, continuing on
with this, and for the time you've taken to be here for this
committee.
Is the world demand for energy growing or shrinking?
Mr. Kerry. Growing. It will probably double in the next 15,
20 years.
Mr. Cloud. Right. And if the United States were to suddenly
stop production of fossil fuels, where would the world get its
energy?
Mr. Kerry. Well, nobody is talking, I don't think--I mean
we're not talking about stopping or use fossil fuels. We're
going to use fossil fuels, as I said, for some time in the
future.
Mr. Cloud. Right.
Mr. Kerry. The question is how, which one, and at what rate
are we going to transition to try to hit a low carbon, no
carbon economy by 2050.
Mr. Cloud. I appreciate the fact that we need to look at a
mixed energy portfolio, but there have been proposals out there
that suggest that in the next 10, 12 years we need to get rid
of fossil fuels.
Generally speaking, do U.S. companies produce energy
cleaner or more responsibly than those in developing nations?
Mr. Kerry. Generally speaking, in developing nations, yes,
absolutely. We put together a $100 billion fund in the Paris
agreement, which was supposed to help those countries to
leapfrog, so that they could develop, create stability, grow,
but do so in a responsible way. And unfortunately, there's
almost no money in the Green Climate Fund, is at $5 billion.
Mr. Cloud. Well, you mentioned that we're, as you put it,
not in the game as a Nation. But carbon emissions in the U.S.
has decreased by 42 million tons in 2017. So it seems that
we're one of the world's leaders in carbon emission----
Mr. Kerry. We were. 2017 was a very good year. And as I
mentioned earlier, in 2017, 75 percent of the new electricity
that came online in the United States came from solar power.
That's good. Unfortunately, this year we're going up again in
terms of emissions, as is Europe and other parts of the world.
So we've had a good year. We made some gains. But now we're
moving in the wrong direction.
Mr. Cloud. It seems to me that we're maybe moving in the
right direction in the sense that a lot of our advancements
have also been in the production of L&G.
Mr. Kerry. In what?
Mr. Cloud. L&G.
Mr. Kerry. Yes, it has. Yes.
Mr. Cloud. And in the sense of, we're talking about
national security today, that if the amazing transition that
our Nation is making from an energy-dependent nation to an
energy-dominant nation is providing our allies and other
nations across the world a new place to get energy. And to me,
that's a national security win, a big national security win
Mr. Kerry. Absolutely. Congressman, I advocated for energy
independence for years, and I welcome it. It's fantastic. It's
a great tribute to American ingenuity, to our technology, and
people deserve credit for it.
Natural gas is obviously a critical bridge fuel to help us
create a virtuous grid, a smart grid, where we're minimizing
our emissions. But, you know, some people are fighting to add
coal to that. And that would be moving in the wrong direction.
Mr. Cloud. Well, some people are also advocating that we
get rid of fossil fuels in the next 10 years, and----
Mr. Kerry. Well, yes. And I don't think it's possible to do
it in the next 10 years, needless to say. But over the next 50
years, 40 years, next 30 years, we have an incredible capacity
to develop new fuels. And what we need to do is put enormous
resources into mission innovation, enormous into consortium
R&D.
Maybe hydrogen will be a fuel of the future, if we could
bring it to scale. It's flammable. It's got some problems. But
if we can bring it to scale, it's possible to do that. Possibly
battery storage is going to have a massive breakthrough, which
would be a gamechanger all across the board.
I have confidence in the future. What I'm afraid of is, as
a country, we are not coming together, the Congress, the
President, to push that future to create the incentives that
will help it work.
I mean why is it that in 2019----
Mr. Cloud. I only have 40 seconds. I'm sorry.
Mr. Kerry. I'm sorry. Okay. Go ahead. You've been very
fair.
Mr. Cloud. I agree with you that I think technology is the
answer. I think the great huge push in something like the Green
New Deal to shutter the progress we have made in energy, and
that technological advancement is based on a thriving economy.
That's how those advancements are funded, with market
principles and such.
And so a diverse portfolio that makes us a world's leader
in energy I do think is the best way to go for national
security. I think that's a bipartisan issue.
We mentioned, you know, the importance of not taking crises
and looking at them on the merits of the issues. I just ask in
the context of national security, it's been said by our
chairman here that the debt and the border are manufactured,
are fake crises. Do you think that those two are real crises or
fake crises?
Mr. Kerry. That the what?
Mr. Cloud. Both our debt and the issues going on with the
border.
Mr. Kerry. Our debt?
Mr. Cloud. Our debt.
Mr. Kerry. Yes.
Mr. Cloud. And our border.
Mr. Kerry. I think our----
Mr. Cloud. Are those real or manufactured crises?
Mr. Kerry [continuing]. debt is increasing, and moving in
the wrong direction. And we're going to have an increasing
deficit problem, I believe.
I think we have a problem on the border. I wouldn't call it
a crisis. I think there is an easy way to deal with it in a
fair-minded way, and we are not being offered an opportunity to
do that.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you. Mr. Khanna.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
Kerry, Secretary Hagel for your service.
Let me say I actually agree with my friend, Representative
Jordan, about the history, that the Green New Deal isn't a new
idea. Thomas Friedman wrote a whole column about it in 2007,
and President Obama adopted part of it in his platform in 2008.
I know. I served in his administration, far lower level than
either of you. I was a lowly deputy assistant secretary at
Commerce. But I was proud of the work.
And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just came over. She's
introduced the Green New Deal with new energy. But she reminded
me that the Energy Department in the Obama Administration
actually funded Tesla. And I know Representative Jordan wants
to pick on the one or two things that didn't work.
Let me tell you, in Silicon Valley you'd be going to
Kleiner Perkins and saying, ``Well, you invested in all these
wrong things. Oh, forget that you invested in Google.'' You
know, we at least ought to talk about the things that
succeeded.
Now here's why Tesla matters, and I'd like both of your
thoughts on this. China, as I understand it, has 50 percent of
the market on electric vehicles. Fifty percent. And China is
going to spend $450 billion on clean energy. And China right
now has about 20 percent solar and wind. We are at 10 percent.
They're projected by 2025 to be 41 percent.
My question is this: Put aside even whether you believe in
climate change or not, let's talk about a green energy race. Is
there a single American, in your view, Secretary Kerry or
Secretary Hagel, democrat, republican, I don't care what party,
who believes that America should lose the green energy race to
China?
Mr. Kerry. I hope not.
Mr. Khanna. Secretary Hagel?
Mr. Hagel. I'd be giving the same answer. I hope not.
Mr. Khanna. So let me ask this, and I just want to put in
the record that the Green New Deal resolution doesn't say
anything about getting rid of fossil fuels in 10 years. I
certainly don't think 10 years is some magical number.
But if you were going to be president of the United States
in 2020, and Secretary Kerry, of course, you've run for
president, and you were saying that a very simple promise to
the American people, by 2024 or 2025, America will beat China
when it comes to clean technology. That's it. We're going to do
what it takes. What would you recommend that we need to do to
make sure that we're ahead of China by 2025?
Mr. Kerry. Well, first of all, I think it would be very
exciting. I think that would be our moon shot, so to speak. I
think it would be one of the great challenges that the American
people would respond to, providing it was accompanied by a
realistic set of proposals for how we do it, to begin with.
As I said earlier, a massive commitment to technology R&D,
reverse incentives. We ought to be providing incentives for--it
has been a struggle. We managed to keep them temporarily, at
least, on solar, wind, et cetera. But electric vehicles, we
ought to be doing whatever is necessary to try to advance
battery storage, battery capacity. That's going to be critical
to leadership in the electric field.
And there are a number of other incentives, I think we
could put--energy efficiency. There are huge gains to be made
in efficiencies. It's probably the lowest hanging fruit of the
energy choices that we face. But R&D is the biggest single
piece of this.
Technology is what is going to do it, and if we put the
right incentives in place, money is going to come pouring in
from the private sector, because people want to be winners,
whatever it's going to be, the next Sergey Brin, the next Bill
Gates. That's what excites people's imagination. And this is
the sector we ought to be doing it in.
Mr. Khanna. Well, let me ask both of you this, a final
question, because whether people agree or disagree with your
particular ideology, I don't think anyone would question both
of your patriotism and extraordinary service to the country and
national security expertise.
And if this president is right, that China poses the long-
term biggest strategic threat to the United States'
competition, how critical do you think it is, from a pure
national security perspective, that we win the energy race
against China to maintain America's weight?
Secretary Hagel.
Mr. Hagel. Thank you. Let me answer the other question, and
then I'll get to that question.
Very simply, in addition to what Secretary Kerry said in
answering your first question, smart government and regulatory
policy, and let the market work. Those are the two big factors.
Let the market work, because our market does produce better
than anybody, and it's free. We have a nation of laws, the
infrastructure, but the government and regulatory policy to go
with it have to be smart.
Now your second question?
Mr. Khanna. How critical is beating China on energy to make
sure America----
Mr. Hagel. I think it's absolutely--no question. It's
absolutely necessary, essential that this country not lose that
race to China, because it affects not just this country, but it
affects the world. It affects other countries and technologies
that they will buy and they will use. We just can't afford to
give that up. We must lead.
Mr. Kerry. And while we're at it, Congressman, it is a very
important question, it's critical that we also face up to the
realities of what's happening with cyber. We need to make much
more significant effort to create rules of the road in the same
way that we reigned in the possibilities of nuclear
confrontation in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, et cetera. We need
to be working for much greater restraint with respect to cyber
today. It's as big a threat as any of the other security
challenges that we face.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing proves that democrat leadership is tone
deaf and out of touch with the issues that the American people
actually care about. A hearing to threats of our national
security should be focusing on the ongoing crisis at our
Southern border, as opposed to the publicity stunt that we see
here today.
In fact, climate change has been changing all through the
life of this planet. I've got a fossil right here from Western
Wyoming, a desert, that once was under an ocean.
Now on March 18, more than 125 scientists, climate experts,
and leaders on energy and environmental issues sent President
Trump a letter urging him to set up a commission to conduct an
independent review of the fourth national climate assessment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to submit the letter for the
record.
Chairman Cummings. So ordered.
[The Letter for the Record referred to is available at:
docs.house.gov.]
Mr. Gosar. Now Mr. Chairman, if the democrats are so
confident that their fundamentally flawed report, written
mostly by career bureaucrats under the Obama Administration,
why are you opposed to having the science analyzed, and the
report independently reviewed by a commission? If the science
from the report is factual, then it should hold up under
independent review, correct? But we all know the report was
bogus, that it utilized computer models that predicted
excessive warming, and negative impacts associated with
increased warming were derived from highly unrealistic
scenarios that surface temperature data was also manipulated.
In fact, we're spending, as proposed by the Green New Deal,
$93 trillion. You think you'd want to explore everything under
the sun to make sure that it was right.
Now I'm pleased that Representative Cortez actually showed
up today. We actually had an opportunity with the Western
Caucus for her to actually have a discussion with it. She
initially RSVP'd, and then backed out a day before.
Now for decades alarmists have been using scare tactics and
false science to push environmental agendas. The Green New Deal
is no more than rhetoric and the false narratives. On December
13, 2009, former president candidate Al Gore citing so-called
scientific reports predicted there was a 75 percent chance that
the entire north polar ice cap could be completely ice free in
five years.
Mr. Kerry, is there any ice on the Arctic Cap today?
Mr. Kerry. Yes, there is, but it's----
Mr. Gosar. What it basically shows is there's flaws to
predictability, and that's what I'm pointing out.
Now according to the think tank data progress, the Green
New Deal will ban plastic straws. Mr. Kerry, do you ban the use
of plastic straws in America?
Mr. Kerry. Do we what?
Mr. Gosar. Do you support banning plastic straws in
America?
Mr. Kerry. I think it would be great to find a way to move
on to a biodegradable straw, frankly. Yes, we should try.
Mr. Gosar. Especially if they were nutritious.
Secretary Hagel, you testified that you supported the Paris
climate agreement in 2015. The U.S. was the world leader in
carbon emissions reductions not just in 2017, but 2016 and
2015.
Further, from 2005 to 2017, the U.S. cut 62 million tons, a
14 percent decline. Over the same period, global emissions
increased by 26 percent, and China increased its emissions by 4
billion tons. And India increased its carbon dioxide emissions
by 1.3 billion tons, with a B, a 70 percent increase.
Now I heard in the discussion earlier that we were going to
incentivize people. Are we really going to incentivize India
and China for best behavior? Really?
Now with an estimated price tag of $93 trillion over the
first 10 years, Admiral Mullen said that our debt is our
biggest national security problem. At 93 trillion, that is even
going to be worse. So we better get this right.
Now the democrat socialists pushing the Green New Deal want
to get rid of all energy sources, as quoted, except for wind,
solar, and batteries by 2030.
Mr. Kerry, how are we going to do that when wind and solar
only produced 8.2 percent of our electric currently? And the
reason why they're so far ahead of us in electric is they
control this, they have a monopoly on rare earths. Where's the
incentivization right here? This isn't a real plan, because we
don't see that. This comes from the Mojave Desert out in
Arizona. It's all over the desert. Yet, we have no ambition,
whatsoever. We are anti-mining on the other side. We don't want
to do any of this. So how are we going to do that when we allow
China to be the monopoly? Batteries are the problem.
Mr. Chairman, you know, I'd love to see the debate. That's
how we actually discovered that the earth was not flat. We
actually had people that said it was different, and they sailed
to the far reaches, and found out that there was a planet. It
was round.
And I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Steube.
Mr. Steube. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, Mr.
Secretary, my questions are for Secretary Kerry.
I just want to kind of drill down on, you know, we had a
lot of discussion today about the Green New Deal, which would
move America to 100 percent clean and renewable energy in 10
years. You had stated that you want zero carbon emissions by
2050.
Mr. Kerry. Net. Zero net.
Mr. Steube. Zero net. 2050.
Mr. Kerry. Net means that you would have carbon in certain
places, but you'd have offsets against it, so that you are net
at zero. I know we can't do zero--I understand that. I've made
that clear in my testimony, and I made it clear, certainly,
with respect to the 10 years. But that is what scientists tell
us we must achieve in order to have a balance globally with
respect to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Mr. Steube. So I guess I'd like to ask if you were still in
the U.S. Senate, then would you have voted against the Green
New Deal if it were brought up for a vote.
Mr. Kerry. Well, I'm not going to get--I learned long ago
in the Senate not to do hypotheticals. And I'm not in the
Senate, and I'm not voting, happily.
But what I would say is this, that I know the difference,
after 28 years in the Senate, between a serious effort to try
to legislate something, and a political game that's going on.
We just had a five-minute presentation about all the
reasons we can't do this or that without any legitimate, you
know, question or dialog. I understand how it's played. But the
fact is----
Mr. Steube. I'm asking you a question right now. I'm having
a dialog. I'm asking you if you would vote for it. And I'll----
Mr. Kerry. No. Where was the dialog?
Mr. Steube. How about this? I won't give you a
hypothetical.
Mr. Kerry. Okay.
Mr. Steube. Do you support moving America to 100 percent
clean or renewable energy in 10 years?
Mr. Kerry. It's a wonderful ambition to have. I don't think
you can quite pull that off, given where we are. But I applaud
the ambition. I applaud the notion that this is a serious
issue, and we need to be dealing with it. And I would love to
see what, you know, everybody else is proposing as an
alternative, or as a better way of doing it.
That's how we used to legislate here. We'd get together.
We'd work on the legislation. We'd come up with something. It
wasn't perfect. Neither side loved it, which is usually a good
piece of legislation. That doesn't seem to happen now.
Mr. Steube. Well, I agree with you. I haven't had a
conversation with the other side, nor have they approached me
to work with on issues.
You had said that it would take enormous resources. In Ms.
Cortez's fact sheet it says massive investment. Like, what type
of dollars would you expect to make this transition to a 100
percent clean and renewable energy?
Mr. Kerry. Well, it depends over what period of time you're
talking about.
Mr. Steube. Well, hers is 10 years. And the facts say 35
trillion to $70 trillion.
Mr. Kerry. There are estimates.
Mr. Steube. My question to you would be, is: How are we as
Americans going to pay for this transition to no fossil fuels?
Mr. Kerry. Well, we make choices all the time legislating
around here in the budget. If this is, indeed, a national
security crisis, which I hope a consensus will finally agree on
at some point in time, and people are dying today, and billions
of dollars of property damage are occurring today, and the vast
majority of scientific evidence is indicating that if we don't
take steps, we're going to pay a lot more, in the high
trillions. If we have a .5-degree increase in the earth's
temperature in the next 12 years, it could cost us, I am told,
$54 trillion. If we go up to two degrees, it could cost us 69
trillion.
Mr. Steube. Well, I haven't seen anything that----
Mr. Kerry. You better start making a judgment about what
we're prepared to invest in to avoid catastrophe and avoid
these large expenses----
Mr. Steube. I just don't see how you're going to pay for
$70 trillion when we have $22 trillion in debts, and all the
other problems that we have in our country right now.
Mr. Kerry. Well, we're the richest country on the face of
the planet, and we have to begin to decide what we're going to
invest in that is important or not. We can bend the cost curve
in healthcare, believe me, in big ways. We're spending more
money than any other country in the world on healthcare, and we
get worse results than about 26 other nations. We could make
that better.
We could gain some ability to put some money into other
things. Infrastructure can pay for itself in many different
ways.
Mr. Steube. Well, I do not see how any of these natural
disasters are directly scientifically related to climate
change. I represent the state of Florida, and we----
Mr. Kerry. Well, I am sorry you do not, but----
Mr. Steube. Irma came through my backyard, in fact. We were
without power for a week. We had hurricanes----
Mr. Kerry. Well, scientists----
Mr. Steube. I remember growing up and having hurricanes in
the state of Florida.
Mr. Kerry. And I experienced them as a kid.
Mr. Steube. I am the one with my time here. I do not see
any scientific evidence that says that because we had Hurricane
Irma that came through my district and devastated the citrus
growers in my district, that that is related to half a
millimeter, half a rise in the ocean's rise or a degree change
in the climate from last year, and I do not see that.
With that I would yield--well, I am out of my time. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kerry. The evidence is, and scientists will back this
up, that because the oceans are warming at a rate 40 percent
faster than they were--40 percent faster than any time recorded
previously, there is increased moisture that is going into
storms because of the warming----
Mr. Steube. So how would us curbing our CO2 emissions, when
China and India are not doing anything to curb theirs, make any
difference globally?
Mr. Kerry. Actually, that is a legitimate complaint. If
others do not also reduce, we are all cooked. The question is
who is going to lead? Who is going to step up and show how this
can happen?
Mr. Steube. We are leading. Ours have gone down over the
last several years.
Mr. Kerry. Well, I am not----
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Roy, your time is running.
Mr. Roy?
Mr. Roy. Okay, starting out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to yield for 30 seconds to my friend from
Kentucky.
Mr. Massie. I have a quick question that does apply to
national security and foreign policy and relates to energy.
Germany earlier this year announced they are going to phaseout
all of their coal production. Is that not really a commitment
to Putin and to Russia? Because, as you mentioned, Secretary
Kerry, they have to have those peak plants, they have to have
natural gas, and unless the American taxpayer is ready to
subsidize gas companies in the United States to export that to
Germany, really Germany is going to be more dependent on
Russia. And I do believe you are qualified also, Secretary
Hagel. You are both qualified to answer that question.
Mr. Kerry. That is true, and it is a concern, and that is
why we oppose the Nord Stream Pipeline. We thought it was a
mistake and we were concerned about the security implications.
Mr. Roy. Secretary Hagel, do you want to quickly respond?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. I would not add anything to John's comment.
The only thing I would say is what John's last point was. We
have opposed this, and we have been working with the Germans
trying to explain to them what is down the road here if you
make yourself dependent that way on Russia.
Mr. Massie. That is just the downstream consequence of
their commitment to reducing CO2, and it is geopolitically
unstable.
Mr. Roy. I appreciate that. And thank you for being here,
Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel. I apologize for being a
little bit late. I took my dad, a Texas Tech alum, to
Minneapolis last night, which would seem like a magnanimous
gesture for a son to his father, except that I went to the
University of Virginia. So we had a nice family experience last
night. But I appreciate you all's time here today.
I would have liked to have been here a little bit more, and
I will followup with some questions. I just wanted to followup
on the question of could you be more specific about the timing
at which you think the earth is at a particular level of risk
based on the current trajectory? I would like just a quick
answer.
Mr. Kerry. Well, I base my judgment on the science. I am
not a scientist but I have read as much as I can, studied it,
worked with a lot of people, and my judgment is that if the
scientists are telling us that you have 12 years within which
to try to prevent the 0.5 additional degrees of warming, to
bring us to 1.5, we want to try to avoid it. Is that going to
be the end of the earth? No. But it is going to be profound
changes in how we live on earth, and in crises, and that will
take us up closer to the 2 degrees.
The problem we have is right now we are on track to hit
four or 4.5 degrees. That is unlivable. That is a different
world from anything we have imagined.
Mr. Roy. Reclaiming my time, let me ask this question. If
that is as apocalyptic as some make it out to be, then do you
support moving to a full nuclear strategy in order to avoid
emissions?
Mr. Kerry. A full what?
Mr. Roy. Nuclear strategy.
Mr. Kerry. I think it has to be one of the options, and I
have advocated for fourth-generation modular and for some more
R&D. I think there ought to be a government effort to try to
help re-kindle the pipeline. One of the reasons nuclear is so
expensive today, and in the program we have down in Carolina
and Georgia, is that it is a one-off. Everything is a one-off,
so it drives the prices up.
Mr. Roy. If I could just----
Mr. Kerry. It has to be part of the menu.
Mr. Roy. Okay, good to hear, and I am glad to hear that.
Do you also agree that moving to clean-burning natural gas
is a step in the right direction, and that the emissions that
we are reducing in the United States, that that is a benefit to
the country----
Mr. Kerry. Absolutely.
Mr. Roy [continuing]. and liquefied natural gas being
distributed around the world is beneficial both geopolitically
for the United States and the world, and for the emissions that
would go off in the atmosphere?
Mr. Kerry. Absolutely.
Mr. Roy. That is good.
Do you also agree that the benefit to the world of
abundant, clean energy is particularly important when we have
upwards of 1 to 2 billion, depending on how you define it,
people around the world who do not have access to the kind of
power and resources and quality of life that we have? Would we
agree to that?
Mr. Kerry. Sure.
Mr. Roy. And would we agree that you have life expectancies
around the world that have risen dramatically where reliable
access to energy has increased?
Mr. Kerry. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Right? And would we think it is probably immoral
to deny Third World countries access to a better standard of
living if we were to adopt policies that might negatively
impact countries that do not have our standard of living by
denying them access to power if we are perpetuating policies
that would prohibit that access to power?
Mr. Kerry. I would just change your formulation slightly. I
believe it is important to get power, but it is important to
get the right kind of power in the right mix with respect to
that particular country so that you are not doing them worse
downstream harm or contributing to the larger problem.
Mr. Roy. I understand that, and I will finish with this,
Mr. Chairman, my last question, which is just to say I happen
to believe that the world has been extraordinarily made better
by the abundant availability of fossil fuel energy in terms of
the quality of life, in terms of hospitals that are powered, in
terms of the tools and resources that we use, in terms of
access to power to warm houses, air conditioning in the summer,
in terms of life-saving technologies, babies being on
incubators that are powered instead of bags like you have in
certain countries around the world, and I would just suggest
that we do not want to be following the line--and I will wrap
up right now, Mr. Chairman--of Europe, where you have 54
million people choosing between heating and eating because of
prices increasing, because of policies that I think could be
harmful. So I think that should be a part of our discussion.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. No problem.
I want to thank you all for your testimony today. You have
given us four hours of your life.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Cummings. And I do not say that lightly.
Mr. Kerry. It has been a life-changing experience, Mr.
Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Cummings. But the fact is that you are here
because you care about somebody other than yourselves. That is
what this is all about. You are looking far into the future.
Like I said, when we are dancing with the angels, hopefully the
world will have benefited from what you are doing. I honestly
and deeply appreciate what you are doing, and I encourage you
to continue to do what you are doing. I had hope that our
hearing would not be whether we had a problem--we have one--but
how we would go about solving it.
I do believe that minds will be opened, that we will get
this done, because we have no choice, and that is my opinion.
With that, I would like to again thank you all.
Let the record show that, without objection, all members
will have five legislative days within which to submit
additional written questions for the witnesses to the Chair,
which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
I ask our witnesses to please respond promptly, as you are
able to.
Just one last thing. I think it was Mr. Gosar who made a
comment with regard to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. He said that she
rarely shows up, or something to that effect. I just want to
correct the record. I have been here for every minute of every
hearing, and she probably has the best attendance of any
member. So I just wanted to put that on the record.
Mr. Roy. I would concur, Mr. Chairman. I have seen our
colleague from New York here regularly, so I agree with that.
Chairman Cummings. Big time.
All right. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]