tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN May 1, 2019 1:59pm-4:00pm EDT
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 228 yeas and 191 nays. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mrs. lesko: madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from arizona. mrs. lesko: i call for the yeas and nays. of the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226, and the nays are 188. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. he house will come to order. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will come to order. ladies and gentlemen, take your seats.
the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> madam speaker, i rise to offer a question of the privilege of the house as noticed. the clerk: house resolution 304, raising a question of the privileges of the house. whereas michael cohen testified under oath as a witness before
the house committee on oversight and government reform -- oversight and reform on february 27, 2019, whereas michael cohen falsely testified under oath, i have never asked for nor would i accept a pardon from president trump. whereas in truth in fact, attorney for michael cohen, landy davis, admitted on march 6, 2019, that cohen directed his attorney to explore possibilities of a pardon at one point with donald j. trump lawyer rudy all-janne as well as other lawyers advising president trump. whereas, truth in fact, michael monaco, admitted in a march 12, 2019, letter that cohen's temperature was inaccurate. whereas in truth in fact the ex-postrepresentation by cohen's attorney does not annul cohen's false and misleading testimony. whereas, in truth in fact, cohen's testimony under oath was delivered in the context of a apologizing for all his criminal activities. whereas in truth in fact,
seeking a pardon contained no qualifiers about the context of his statement. whereas, in truth in fact, cohen's denial of ever seeking a pardon as uttered under oath in his testimony was absolute and unequivocal. whereas, in truth in fact, cohen testified under oath that he and his lawyers spent hours editing his written statement -- search the clerk will resume. the clerk: waras in truth and fact cohen testified under oath he and his lawyers spent hours editing his written statement submitted to the committee on oversight and reform preceding his testimony which included the written assertion, i have never asked for nor would i accept a pardon from president trump. whereas, in truth and fact cohen's denial and written statement of never asking for a presidential pardon was an unqualified assertion. whereas michael cohen faultlies test upped oath that he did not
want to go the to the white house and he did not want a a role or title in the administration. whereas, in truth and fact the united states attorney's office for the southern district of new york submitted to federal court a sentencing memorandum expressing michael cohen's desire to work in the white house explaining during and after the campaign cohen privately told friends and colleagues, including in seized text message, he expected to be given a prominent role and tight until the new administration. when that did not materialize, cohen found a way to monetize his relationship with and access to the president. whereas, michael cohen falsely testified under oath on other factual matters of material significance. whereas, michael cohen's intentionally false testimony was aimed at obscuring the treat and ameliorating the extent of his own personal embarrass many. whereas, intentionally false testimony to a committee of the house of representatives harms the integrity of the proceedings of the house. whereas, it is a federal crime
to provide false information to congress and the failure to enforce this claim further undermines the integrity of the house. and whereas, it is the judgment of the house of representatives that providing a copy of the official transcript of the hearing of the committee on oversight and reform on february 27, 20189 -- 2019, to the department of justice would aid the attorney general's consideration of investigation and potential prosecution of michael cohen's criminal conduct. now, therefore, be it resolved that the house of representatives directs the chair of the oversight and reform committee to submit to the attorney general an official copy of the transcript of the hearing during which michael cohen testified under oath on february 27, 2019. the speaker pro tempore: the resolution you qualifies. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. hoyer moves that the resolution be laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to
lay the resolution on the table. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is not adopted. the gentleman from tennessee. >> request a recorded vote, please. the speaker pro tempore: a a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a a recorded vote will rise. a a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on 226. ote the yeas are the nays are 183. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california, the speaker of the house, seek recognition? the speaker: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. the speaker: mr. speaker, i rise with great sadness to mark the passing of a leader of exceptional courage and firm principles, our colleague and dear friend, congresswoman ellen tauscher. the presence of so many members
from our california delegation is a beautiful tribute to her beautiful life. thank you-all for being here. ellen's passing is a great official loss to the people of california and to the nation and deep personal loss for all a of us who were blessed to call her friend. our hearts break for her daughter personally it was a joy for many of us to see her, expect katherine, katherine king, growing up. she took such delight in being katherine's mother. ellen was an extraordinary force for progress who made a difference. her smart, strategic leadership strengthening our democratic institutions and kept america safe. a and her relentless commitment to nuclear nonproliferation beautifully under the oath we take to support and defend the constitution and protect the american people. ellen was pioneer who made history when she became the youngest ever in one of the very earlest women members of the new york stock exchange where she was a powerful voice
for technology, science, and innovation. ellen's friendship was a gift and her legacy was one of outstanding leadership marked by deep patriotism and commitment to progress. may it be -- to her daughter and loved ones that share her loss and pray for them at this sad time. mr. speaker, i now ask that members and guests in the gallery rise to observe a mement of silence. the speaker pro tempore: all present will rise to observe a moment of silence.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 962, the born alive abortion survivors protection act and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: under guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers, as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leadership. mr. speaker, i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not been recognized for debate.
for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on h.r. 9. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 329 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 9. the chair appoints the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, to preside over the committee of the whole. the house is in the
committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 9 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to direct the president to develop a plan for the united states to meet its nationally determined contribution under the paris agreement, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. general debate shall not exceed 90 minutes with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on foreign affairs and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on energy and commerce. the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, and the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, will each control 30 minutes. the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, and the gentleman
from oregon, mr. walden, will each control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of h.r. 9, the climate action now act. i shouldn't have to persuade anyone in this chamber that we need to seek action on climate change. look at the news. we see the consequences of inaction. natural disasters, famine, instability, human suffering, the time for action to avoid the worst effects of climate change is rapidly closing. we must demonstrate to the rest of the world and to future generations that we're still committed to taking on this fight. climate change is a national security threat that transcends borders and requires international coordination. that's why it's so critical that we work shoulder to
shoulder with our friends and partners around the world. the negotiation of the paris agreement was a defining moment for the future of our planet. for the first time, the countries of the world came together to face this global crisis. in challenging times like these, the international community usually looks to the united states for leadership. so when president trump announced his intention to withdraw from this landmark agreement, it sent an unmistakable message that america is on the retreat. it's really just shameful. every nation in the world has now signed onto the paris agreement. if we withdraw, we will be the only country unwilling to step up to this challenge. we can, we must do better. the climate action now act keeps the united states in the paris climate accord, renewing our country's pledge to address climate change head-on. the paris agreement allows
every country to determine its own pollution reduction targets and to develop a public plan for how to meet those targets. this bill follows that same model. it gives the executive branch total flexibility to decide what approach we need to follow and what kind of technology we need to use to reach our national targets. h.r. 9 gives us all an opportunity to show americans that we hear them, that we take their concerns seriously, and that we are addressing this danger that is hurting their health and safety. it's time for congress to put our country back on the right path to address the climate change crisis facing the world. i strongly support passage of h.r. 9, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chairman. we can all agree that climate is changing. the chair: the gentleman -- mr. mccaul: i yield myself such
time as i may consume. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccaul: mr. chairman, we can agree that the climate is changing. we need to take positive steps to address it. however, i oppose h.r. 9, because it's just a messaging bill that's dead on arrival in the senate and that the president will veto. i oppose h.r. 9 because, among other problems, it intends to codify president obama's unrealistic and unilaterally determined greenhouse gas reduction pledge under the paris agreement. this pledge was submitted on behalf of the united states ithout any notification, consultation, or role for congress. in a recent hearing when asked whether any of the witnesses agreed that president obama should have submitted the paris agreement to the senate for ratification, all witnesses, including the three democrat witnesses, agreed it should
have been submitted to the senate. in addition to not involving congress, the obama administration also did not seek meaningful input from private sector stakeholders, such as energy companies. not only that, the administration provided no cost-benefit analysis or economic justification to rationalize its pledge, its arbitrary pledge to cut eenhouse gases by 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. the recent study by the chamber of commerce estimates that it will cost the u.s. g.d.p. $250 jobs by nd 2.7 million 2025. and by 2040, it could cost the united states' economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million
industrial sector jobs. but the good news is that even before the united states entered the paris agreement, the united states started making progress to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. according to the e.p.a., from 1990 to 2014, u.s. greenhouse gas emissions per g.d.p. declined by 40%, and we are at the lowest emissions level since 2000. in addition, over the last decade, u.s. greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by 14%, mr. chairman. while china's emissions doubled. sadly, china, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, under this agreement, will continue to increase its , under s through 2030
the unenforceable, i should say, paris agreement pledge. other major greenhouse gas emitters, like russia, have signed the paris agreement but have not ratified it. instead of doubling down on a pledge that congress had no role in setting, that will have potentially catastrophic impact on the united states economy, and which will do nothing, mr. chairman, to address china and other countries growing emissions, we should work on bipartisan legislation to boost research, advance technologies, promote innovation, and develop real solutions. that is why i offered an amendment calling for bipartisan solutions to address this challenge, providing a meaningful role for congress regarding the paris agreement, and requiring our greenhouse gas reduction commitments to
undergo a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. sadly, this amendment failed by party line vote in the committee and the rules committee, denying it from even being debated on this house floor. so that, mr. chairman, for that and many other reasons, i oppose h.r. 9, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: my friend on the other side of the aisle just said that all four witnesses at our april 2 hearing in the foreign affairs committee expressed agreement that president obama should have submitted the paris accords to the senate for ratification. i was there and chaired the hearing. i didn't hear that. let me tell you that, first of all, we were proud to welcome a distinguished panel of national security leaders, including
former military officials. they offered detailed descriptions of the risks that climate change poses to our national security. they talked about how climate change acts as a threat multiplier and a source of international conflict, how it makes individuals more vulnerable to recruitment by violent extremist organizations, how it is increasing great power competition and tensions in places like the arctic, and how it is a driver of extreme weather and natural disasters that requires dangerous and expensive military responses. more to my point, there was a fleeting question about whether any witness disagreed with the statement that president obama should have submitted the paris agreement to the senate for ratification. the only response, i believe, came from one retired admiral who simply said, military, not political, meaning, he's not the right guy to ask, nor the any other witnesses, so they all sat in silence. as my colleagues should know,
silence is not an assent. whether it's at a congressional hearing or in a deposition or even in the exit role of an overcrowded commercial airplane, a person must give a verbal yes or no for their answer to be accepted and relied upon. so i just wanted to clear the record, because what really happened when my colleagues posed the question to the wrong person and got no answer. when it comes to arguing that the paris agreement needed to be submitted to the senate for ratification, my colleagues are incorrect. as a matter of international law, and the u.s. law. the president had the authority to go into the paris agreement. the convention on climate change and domestic law. we all know that the vast majority of international agreements entered into by the u.s. are not approved by the
senate, and the paris agreement is no different. i now would like to yield five minutes to the author of this bill, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for five minutes. ms. castor: well, i thank chairman engel and the foreign affairs committee for yielding the time. mr. speaker, i rise humbly as a representative of my home state of florida and as a patriotic american. but especially today, as a mother of two daughters and future generations, because i feel the weight of our moral responsibility to address climate change. time in 10 he first years -- this is the first time in 10 years that major climate legislation is being heard in the people's house. h.r. 9, climate action now, is where we will start by honoring america's commitment to address the climate crisis, and it is a
crisis. the last time global monthly temperatures were below average was in february of 1985. that means everyone who is 34 years of age or younger has grown up in a world that has been forever altered by the change in climate. how severe the impacts of climate change will be to us personally over time depends on the actions that we take now. and based on the latest science from the administration's own national climate assessment, we have reason to worry. . seas are rising, america's heartland and farm have suffered unprecedented floods. show pack is shrinking. droughts are getting worse, hot, humid heat waves are more intense with more days where people can can cannot safely work or play outside. higher temperatures mean that pollutants like ground level
ozone from car exhausts will become more damaging to our health. one year and a half ago i had to pack up my home, board up the windows and doors, pack up my most cherished belongs, and flee as hurricane irma, that monster hurricane, threatened the state of florida. we were scared of a huge storm surge coming up from the gulf of mexico and into tampa bay. we were petrified. fortunately we had time to get out of the way, but that isn't true for so many americans who have suffered floods, fires, and more. they haven't been as lucky. and the risks and costs going forward are likely to be more severe. so what is necessary to combat the climate crisis is to stop carbon pollution from accumulating in the atmosphere. that requires action. urgent action. ambitious action.
fortunately we have made some progress in recent years in cutting carbon solutions. thousands of businesses, houses of worship, states, and communities are taking action. now they are demanding that we do the same. a few years ago there was also good news, after years of finger pointing, the united states, china, india, europe, and other countries all of the countries around the world came together and agreed to cut carbon pollution. with america's leadership and engagement. the u.s. led other nations in ommitting to eliminate, to take climate action in an international agreement called the paris climate accords. the agreement was a breakthrough. after years of playing the every other arly country said here is our plan, and each country develops its own individual plan. and america has done just that. and that plan has incredible up sides. every other country said we are creating millions of clean energy jobs right now. they are good-paying jobs.
we are saving billions of dollars on home energy bills, and businesses are saving huge amounts of money through energy efficientcy -- efishency. a and we can can address climate injustice. despite what the trump administration says, america is still in the international agreement. we have not formally withdrawn. and if this bill becomes law we never will. you see, america does not cut and run. america keeps its commitments. and we will recommit to doing so when we pass this bill. my common action now bill is straightforward. it will block the 5d mcmorris rodgers -- the administration from spending any money on withdrawal and require the trump administration to release its plan to cut carbon pollution. americans overwhelmingly support u.s. leadership on the climate crisis because they understand that when america leads, we win. ask the 23 states, 300 cities, and more than 2,000 business who is have pledged to honor the paris goals.
now they'll be joined by the u.s. house of representatives. some of the fastest growing jobs in clean energy, engineering, green building, solar installers, wind turbine technicians, this is just the beginning. we have to stay on course. in addition to sending an important signal to clean energy job creating businesses, this will send an important signal to our allies. 30 additional seconds. mr. engel: i yield 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 additional seconds. miss cassor: this will -- ms. castor: this will send a signal to our allies across the world. i heard fry mifriend on the other side of the aisle -- but china. if the president force as a retreat here, other countries will retreat as well. a vote against h.r. 9 is a vote to let china off the hook. so this is a patriotic vote. vote for america. vote for our future. keep us in the climate paris
agreement. thank you to the hundreds of my colleagues who have joined us. thank you to the brave republicans who will join us in this patriotic vote for climate action now. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i'm pleased to yield 3 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from florida, a member of the foreign affairs committee, mr. yoho. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, thank you. i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 9, the climate action now act. not because we don't want clean water or clean air or deny world changing climate, h.r. 9 is a direct attack on this administration for withdrawing from the flawed agreement and is a purely political move by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. the paris agreement requires each signatory country to -- signatory country to determine, plan, and regularly report on the contributions it undertakes to mitigate global warming with no regard for american consumers.
it places burdensome regulations on american businesses that are already employing environmentally friendly practices and places the cost of the paris agreement to slement or nations on the backbone of the moms and dads and citizens of america. in august, 2016, president obama unilaterally accepted the paris agreement under the united nations climate change treaty rather than bringing it to this body, where it could be ratified with the advice and consent of the senate, this was a blatant power grab by the executive branch emcoupleberg america and future generations. i have been opposed to president obama's decision to circumvent of the paris agreement since the beginning. it was a clear violation of the constitution toe leave congress out of a process of an agreement that will have far-reaching implications on our economy and citizens. during the 114th congress, i even introduced h.r. 544, expressing the sense of the
house that -- the president should submit any binding international agreement on climate change to the senate as a treaty. by accepting the paris agreement without congressional approval, the obama administration made promises that are too expensive and too difficult and not science-based as far as the results. in fact, a current hearing it was stated that if the u.s. were to cut emissions to zero, it would not change global warming. a report prepared by the n.r.a. economic con-- ner a a economic consulting found meeting the commitments president obama made could cost the u.s. economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040. there are serious concerns surrounding costs, effectiveness, feasibility. u.s. commitments made under the paris a agreement. greenhouse gas emissions in the to fell by 14% from 2005
17, our manufacturing output increased 4% and our energy consumption went down 2%. that's american leadership done by the private sector not by government mandates or encumbering agreements. the united states is already leading around the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. this agreement does not address the world's largest carbon emission offenders, as you heard, china and india. they are not held to any enforcement standards besides being required to provide a report to the united nations every five years. again the paris agreement ties the hands of the american consumers to pay for countries like china and intera -- india whose total commitment is, we will try to reduce greenhouse emissions. not do it, but we will try. while they continue to increase our carbon footprints around the world, again at a cost of nearly $3 trillion to the american consumer. china is building or planning to build over 700 coal fired
power plants around the world -- 1/5 of these plants mr. mccaul: additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yoho: with 1/5 of these plans located in cono terrorist outside of china and making it virtually impossible for them to meet goals set in the paris agreement. additionally, of the 195 signatories, 13 countries still have not ratified agreement including russia, turkey, yemen, iraq, iran, and russia accounts for nearly 5% of the global greenhouse gas. while do i believe that climate change should be addressed, do i not agree forcing the prs to remain in an -- president to remain in an agreement that has no oversight is not the right way to go. as we continue to have the discussions about how to address climate change, we should focus on solutions on a a world body. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i yield two minutes
to the gentleman from michigan, valued member of the foreign affairs committee, mr. levin. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. levin: thank you so much, chairman engel. and congratulations to representative castor for your great leadership on this issue. i feel whipsawed listening to the very same argument that we can't go forward with this because there a's nothing to hold china or india to account because there is no requirements. and at the same time the very same document puts a huge burden on america by putting enforce requirements on us. it doesn't make any sense. chairman engel, for decades the scientific community has understood the need to fundamentally transition. everything about how we live, work, and move about this planet to protect life on earth as we know it. we have known this for decades.
and yet knowing how destructive climate change is to our health, our safety, and our national security, president trump decided to withdraw from the paris agreement and negligent not just the fundamental responsibility to protect americans, but an enormous economic opportunity. i feel like i'm listening to arguments from lob whichists from the horse and carriage industry against railroads, or for the buggy whip industry against paving roads because cars are such a threat. president trump made a huge mistake by backing a away from the commitment we made in paris. we are here today to correct that mistake and to steer our country back in the right direction. we have the chance to propel economic growth with investments in zero net energy buildings, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, expanded solar, wind, geothermal, solar thermal, and
more. we can can lead the world in creating good-paying sustainable jobs. there is no way that we can move fast enough. or comprehensively enough to address lie mat change. but this is about more than that. this is about unleashing american innovation. creating american jobs. and restoring american leadership on the world stage. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. levin: thank you. we must pass this bill and we must do it now. vote for the sake of the climate for our kids and for our economy. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chairman. i am a' pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, member of the foreign affairs committee,. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the ranking member. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 9, climate
action now act, which would prevent the president from rightfully withdrawing the united states from the paris agreement and codify president obama's misguided and frankly over-the-top emissions reduction commitments. there are two principles i believe should guide our international agreements. first, they should be fair and beneficial to the american people. second, they should not fit the united states at a disadvantage vis-a-vis other nations of the world. the paris agreement fails on both counts. as already noted if we implement the commitments made by the obama administration as part of this agreement, it could cost the u.s. gross domestic product $250 billion. and eliminate 2.7 million jobs. that's hardly fair and beneficial to the american people. as it is, the paris agreement allows country to determine their own commitments without regard to their omissions.
should this remain the case, the united states will forever be at a disadvantage to self-interested countries like china and russia whose emegses continue to grow. meanwhile, our emissions were the lowest in 2017 since 1992. despite this, our commitments far outweigh those made by the worst greenhouse gas offenders. i submitted an amendment that would have at the very least addressed the disadvantage of this agreement. my amendment would have changed the enacted date of h.r. 9 to whenever the secretary of state could certify that russia and china were making commitments equivalent to ours. i regret that it was not made in order and that my colleagues across the aisle denied us the opportunity to do right by the american people. h.r. 9 is an outrage, mr. speaker, and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york. . engel: i yield myself as
much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i want to remind my colleagues that the united states once a global leader in push pushing for climate action, but the current administration has largely add band beyond our efforts to mid gate the effects of a warming world and as a result our progress in reducing pollution has dwindled and reversing it self. the latest data shows the reductions in greenhouse gas pollution fell to just half a% in 2017 and according to the international energy agency, u.s. carbon dioxide pollution rose by 3.1% in 2018. -- where most re dirty coal plants closed, carbon increased. i yield to the gentlewoman from virginia, a valued member of e foreign affairs committee,
ms. spanberger. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. spanberger: mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 9, the climate action now act. back to 2003, 16 years ago, the pentagon commissioned a report on how climate change would impact our ability to keep our country safe. its conclusion, that we should move beyond scientific debate and treat ongoing ecological damage as a serious national security threat. our military and intelligence communities agree that climate change exacerbates conflict and instability. it weakens fragile governments, contributes to food and water insecurity, and perpetuates poverty. these are threat multipliers and it presents real risks to u.s. interests around the world, especially those vulnerable to extreme weather, such as sub-saharan africa. as a former military officer, i know that the first step in this fight is to keep our word to cooperate with our allies
and partners in this battle. by staying in the paris agreement, we say that we keep our word and can be a steady partner in future agreements. going forward, we must use our country's tremendous military and economic strength as assets in this global fight. today, i urge my colleagues to support this legislation because our country cannot afford to abdicate its role of leadership. thank you and i yield back. . the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: i yield to a member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. olson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. olson: i thank my friend from texas. we are here today because the previous administration wanted to score political points by -- before leaving office by saving the world for america's leadership on greenhouse gas emissions.
administrations chasing glory on foreign soils signed the paris climate agreement. or as folks call it back home, the kill america's economy agreement so china can take our jobs. the constitution, article 1, section 2, paragraph 1, sentence 1, says very clearly, quote, he shall have the power by and with advice and consent of the senate to make treaties, provide 2/3 of the senators present concur. the paris agreement looks, smells, and feels like a treaty . the worst offender for climate change in the world, china, had their legislature approve the paris agreement. president obama never sent that to the senate for approval. since the paris agreement has never been approved, it has the same power as this blank piece of paper. here are some numbers, some
facts. 2014, - in 2000 to america's global leadership has reduced emissions by 18%. a study by the e.i.a., despite having an increase of 3.1% of o-2 in 2017, we are down 14% from 1990 levels for co-2. secretary of state john kerry noted during negotiations for paris that if america and all of the developed countries in the world cut their co-2 emissions to zero, we would still be in the same position. america does not need paris. mr. mccaul: mr. chairman, i yield 30 more seconds. mr. coltson: in conclusion -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30
seconds. mr. olson: in conclusion, america does not need the paris agreement. russia needs a paris agreement. china needs a paris agreement. india needs a paris agreement. the european union needs a paris agreement. we don't have to take this. we've proven to the world that technology -- with technology and the free market we can make it cleaner. vote for the families. vote for local jobs. vote against h.r. 9. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: let me say, the whole world, not just the united states and not just china, needs to do more if we are to be spared under climate change. reducing its carbon intensity by 60% to 65% from 2005 levels by 2030, and that's a big step towards sustainability. meanwhile, global action on climate change has already spurred public and private sector investments in green
innovation. china has created the world's largest carbon market, pumped as much as three times as much money in renewables as we have, and surpassed the united states in terms of both the number of electric vehicles on the road. and the number of publicly available charging stations. it's now my pleasure to call on the -- yield 1 1/2 minutes to a stinguish gentlewoman from california, california, ms. lee. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding and for your tremendous leadership on this and so many issues. i rise in support of h.r. 9, the climate action now act. this piece of legislation is an extremely important first step in protecting our environment. major first step and we have to move forward and do even more. h.r. 9 ensures that the united states remains in the paris agreement and prohibits federal funding to exit the agreement. it's critical that united
states -- that the united states takes the lead on addressing climate change on the world stage. let me be clear, the trump administration is plugging their ears and claim that climate change does not exist. america was once a global leader in fighting climate change. it was our leadership that led so many nations to commit to climate action. yet, this administration has abandoned plans to address climate change and instead has weakened our leadership in the world. it's really shameful, and this needs to stop. climate change is an urgent matter. it creates more flooding and superstorms, threatening the safety of millions of americans and people around the world. people around our country and throughout the world are breathing in polluted and unhealthy air. hear in our own country, communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change and have a lack of access to
adequate health care services on top of that. we owe it to our children and future generations to do more for the environment. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 9 and yet on fighting climate change. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. hern, a member of the natural resources committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hern: i rise in opposition to h.r. 9, the climate action now act. america has been the standard of leadership, freedom, innovation. we do not allow other countries to take advantage of us. while h.r. 9 has many issues, my opposition is founded in its attempt to strip our president of his constitutional executive authority and force us to remain locked in an agreement that hurts american taxpayers. after the obama administration's international apology tour, it's refreshing to change to have a strong hand at the wheel. i'm glad to see president trump defending our exceptionalism instead of sacrificing our economy for the sake of other
countries. my colleagues across the aisle would have us believe that we're headed for doom within a decade. that americans are behind the curve. in reality, we lead the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while other countries are growing emissions. yet, america is paying the lion's share of the paris climate accord. american innovation and technological advancements are second to none. these are the same qualities of american excellence that made us the greatest country on this planet. we should not lower our standards and allow other nations to take advantage of us. this poorly negotiated deal will do nothing to address the growing emissions from china and other industrial countries. it only hurts american jobs, especially the energy industry that employs hundreds of thousands of people in oklahoma and brings high-paying jobs to my district. these are people that are hurt by a continuation of the paris climate accord. i applaud president trump's leadership on this issue and support his authority to remove us from the paris climate accord. mr. speaker, i yield back my
time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: you know, mr. speaker, there is a lot of misinformation out there by the paris agreement, including the idea that it will hurt the u.s. economy. the paris agreement will cost little or nothing in allowing climate change to -- and allowing climate change to precede will be expensive indeed. studies from citibank, the organization for economic cooperation and development, all argue a failure to mitigate the effects of climate change could cost the u.s. economy trillions of dollars. citi found investing in low-carbon energy would save the world $1.8 trillion through 2040, but not acting will cost an additional $44 trillion by 2060. and mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, can i inquire how much time remains on each side? the chair: certainly. the gentleman from new york has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has 15 1/2 minutes remaining.
mr. engel: well, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. speaker, i rise today because i know climate change is real and its impacts are already here. in new jersey, we know those impacts all too well. superstorm sandy sent an unprecedented storm surge up the hudson and up the hack sack -- hacka sack rivers, destroyed homes, police departments. the critical infrastructure that our neighbors still digging out this day. because these once-in-a-generation storms have a human toll. in 2017, the destruction and failed response to the hurricane maria by the trump administration led to over
3,000 americans dying. 3,000. the time for waiting is over. we need to act reich now. climate scientists are in universal agreement -- we need to act right now. climate scientists are in universal agreement, the climate is warming. military and intelligence experts have warned it is a national security threat. you are no longer going to educate americans to hide their head in the sand. e need to work together. one nation, as an international community. the goals some have set above have been called overly ambitious. you bet they're ambitious. these are big problems, and americans tackle big problems with big solutions. support h.r. 9 would do just that. it shows the world the united states is committed to the paris agreement, that we are serious about setting targets
for carbon emissions reductions. this agreement is the bare minimum we can do to prevent against the impacts of climate change. we need to be serious about getting this right, that we're serious about preserving the world for our people, for people like my grandchildren and their grandchildren. madam speaker, because that's who this is about. i thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chairman. let me just first say to my good friend from new jersey that there are many of us on this side of the aisle that agree, the climate is changing, and i think it's a question of how we get there and the solutions and innovation and technology. i hope when this -- it will not move forward. it will obviously be vetoed. maybe we can work together in a bipartisan way on something that can reduce emissions using
innovation, technology, and i personally think nuclear power should be examined as well. with that i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. zeldin, a member of the foreign affairs committee. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. zeldin: i thank mr. -- thank you, mr. speaker. i thank mr. mccaul for his statements and i agree with everything that was just stated as well as wanting to commend -- i have great respect for chairman engel and the bill's sponsor, ms. castor, and their intentions and advocacy, and i look forward to working with them on this issue and many others, because this is a very important issue for us to be working on both sides of the aisle, both the house and the senate. i have constituents, we all have constituents who want access to clean air and clean water. it's something that, whether you're representing a district in flint, michigan, or you're
in tampa, florida, or the east end of long island, we all want to advocate for that for our constituents. i was concerned with the negotiation of the paris climate deal that there wasn't more discussion -- there wasn't any discussion in congress. there were no hearings and votes. there wasn't enough of an analysis done of the impact to the economy. there's a debate now over numbers. i wish it was flushed out. what would the impact be on g.d.p.? what will the impact be on jobs? what will the impact on energy costs for my constituents? there are a lot of numbers going around that were very concerning to my constituents. other countries were having debates and they were having votes, publicly, and in this case, this was not submitted to the united states senate for ratification and there were some discussion earlier about what happened at the house foreign affairs committee on
this topic. what i asked of the witnesses was, quote, do any of the witnesses disagree with the statement that president obama should have been -- should have submitted it to the senate for ratification, that was the exact wording of my question. if you look at the video of the response, no one disagreed. i asked, does anyone disagree? no one disagreed. there was one person, an admiral, that specified his role as military, not political -- i request 30 seconds. mr. mccaul: i yield 30 seconds. mr. mccaul: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. zeldin: he said his role was military, not political. but no one disagreed with the statement. i think more should be done about china and india, and many
other countries that made commitments are not fulfilling their commitments. we need other countries to step up and do more, a vote here in congress and that's in the best interest of all our constituents. hopefully we can agree on numbers in the process forward and work together on a bipartisan basis, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: it's my pleasure to yield one and a half minutes to the gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. bonamici: i'm honored to serve on the house select committee on climate crisis with the author of this bill, representative castor. in oregon, smoke from raging wildfires makes the air unhealthy to breathe. acidic oceans are threatening our fishing industries. droughts and extreme weather patterns jeopardize the livelihood of our farmers.
and warmer water in the columbia river is threatening endangered salmon. my home state of oregon is one of many states committed to meeting the paris climate agreement target but climate change is a global crisis which is why more than 175 countries have signed on to the agreement. the climate action now act is a clear signal to our international allies and the world that the united states, at least the united states house of representatives, is supporting the -- supporting the upholding of our nation's commitment to the paris agreement. this is about u.s. leadership. the cost of inaction on climate change is too high to wait any longer. we can protect the planet, unleash innovation, and create good jobs. this bill is an important first step. i want to thank chair engale, chair mcgovern and chair mccaskill for their leadership,
i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. munes. the chair: the gentleman from ennsylvania is recognized. >> in pli district we are conservationists, but this act, the american people are being told yet again that big government is the solution to all of the people's problems. the american people know better than that and they expect solutions, not more government. the latest data is revealing. the u.s. is actually a global leader in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. mr. meuser: the united states reduced our co-2 emissions by more than 42 million ton, an
annual reduction of .5%, the largest reduction of any country in the world. the data also underscores that we have not seen this type of progress from other countries that are still part of the paris agreement. the american leadership is ongoing while countries like spain, canada, the e.u., india, south korea, and china are all increasing their co-2 emissions by 100 million tons and more. if the u.s. stayed party to this agreement it would be a huge and unnecessary drag on our economy that would be passed on to the american taxpayer. moreover, it would not improve the situation as most of the world is moving in the wrong direction. the u.s. is reducing our emissions without the heavy hand of this congress. this will continue and it will be factual as it will be measured. we need to harness american talent not squander them with bogus plans like the green new deal or ineffective climate
plans. we need access to affordable, reliable, clean energy sources including natural gas, nuclear, oil, and clean coal. we need to empower the preist sector to continue to innovate and develop new technologies. what we need is a true all-of-the-above and all-of-the-below energy plan. i urge my colleagues to consider this and vote against this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: it is now my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. kris. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kris: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, chairman engel for yielding timism rise in support of the climate action now act written by my dear friend and chairwoman of the climate change committee, kathy castor. we are both blessed to represent the tampa bay reof florida, which is the most economically vulnerable to climate change in the world. for the people back home, this isn't a partisan issue, it's real. it's happening and it threatens
our environment, quality of life, and our economy. i know there are friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle struggling with this issue and i want to offer encouragement. do not wait for the next thousand-year flood to hit your district or the next freak category five hurricane that explodes over warming seas right before land fall. do not wait for the next drought-fueled firestorm to destroy one of your teams or for rising sea levs to flood the streets when it rains during high tide like it does in part moifs district they have time to act is yesterday. please vote yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: mr. chairman, at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, as a member of the energy and commerce committee, i rise in opposition to h.r. 9, more appropriately naped the
u.s. energy disadvantage act. the bill attempts to lock us into a bad deal. while the united states is continuing to lower its emissions, to lead the world through technological innovation other countries around the world are not meeting even their targets. some aren't making targets. and those countries came up with targets on their own and they still aren't living up to them. staying in the paris agreement would raise energy prices and slow economic growth without curbing emissions in a meaningful global fashion. mr. speaker, we're not the ones that are polluting the air and water. we're cleaning it up. we're doing it as a result of doing the right thing. -- yet, mr. speaker, the day today, the ones polluting greatest are doing nothing and just being told think up something. by 2030.
mr. speaker, our president did the right thing. we should do the same. we need to get to work on legislating, not political messaging. the american people sent us here to work on solutions, to health care, infrastructure, education, the economy, and much more. let's get to work on that and let's encourage the nations of the world to do the right thing and get involved in doing what the united states has done already and oh, by the way, will continue to do. i oppose this bill. we all should. nd i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: when president trump announced plans to withdraw the u.s. from the paris climate agreement in 2017, hundreds of businesses from all over the country immediately responded that it was a mistake and that
they would redouble their own efforts to cut emotions. in a separate declaration a few days later, a group called we are still in said despite trump they conned to support climate action and argued compliance with the paris agreement would pen markets and generate jobs. today we're still in is comprised of hundreds of leaders and companies working to uphold america's promise to meet the goals of the paris agreement including the coalition of some of the country's most successful company, i think you'll recognize the names -- apoe doe bee, ben & jerry's, campbell's, dupont, ebay, gap, google, the hartford, hewlett-packard, i.b.m., intel, levi strauss, lyft, mars, microsoft, i could go on and on. the paris agreement will not on its own solve our global warming
problems but it does present businesses and investors with a historic opportunity to signaling a new global consensus, that the transition to a clean energy economy is under way. the idea that the paris agreement is antibusiness doesn't hold water. i encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to listen to american businesses and treat climate change as the threat and opportunity it is. now, mr. chairman, it's my pleasure to yield one minute to our majority leader, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman from aryland is recognized. without objection. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the house. thever whelming majority of scientists in the world, not just in the united states, believe that this is climate change is one of the major
crisises confronting the global community. so we went to paris and the world community got together and they adopted an agreement which was voluntary in its implementation. no sovereignty was given up by any nation. but they said, the scientists say we have a crisis. and we need to respond to it. my friend from michigan who spoke earlier, mr. walberg, said we ought to be focused on education. housing. health care. job creation. he's right. is to ignore this problem dangerous. and unacceptable.
climate change is perhaps one of the greatest threats we face as a nation and as a planet. those who deny it do so at great peril to the health, security, and economic prosperity of our country. h.r. 9 will not solve climate hange. the first step in any journey does not get you there. but without it, you get nowhere. house democrats are laying down a marker today that we are committed to tackling this challenge with the seriousness it deserves. recognizing that combating climate change must be a global effort, this legislation prohibits the trump administration from using any funds to withdraw from the paris
climate agreement. i tell my friends in the house, i believe the overwhelming majority of americans support that proposition. overwhelming. as to the citizens of the world. we have been the leader of the free world. withdrawing from an agreement that was voluntarily entered shrugs over 170 nations off the mantle of leadership, moral and intellectual. if the united states withdraws, we will be the only nation in the world not to be part of this historic agreement. which embraces the goals previously set by our country. joined by the contribution of other nations to reduce car bob
pollution, promote technological innovation, and help avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. if we ignore the challenges of climate change, we will also close ourselves off to opportunities to take the lead in the race to develop and the ploy cleaner and more efficient technologies. which would create job, grow businesses and be a boon to our economy. so i would suggest to my olleagues that those who argue against this bill argue not for economic progress, not for the creation of jobs, but exactly the opposite. and they deny the future. a future of the economy, the future of our health, the future of our environment, the future of our children.
america, if it is to be great, ust not sit on the sidelines and shrug like atlas in confronting the rest of the world. we must act on climate change, and i want to thank my dear friend, the chair of the foreign affairs committee, mr. ngel, for his leadership and his strong voice on behalf of what is an international issue. it is an issue for us, but it is an international issue. i want to thank as well my dear friend, representative kathy castor, for her leadership as chair of the select committee on climate crisis, and for introducing h.r. 9. i also want to thank chairman frank pallone and the energy
and commerce committee for their leadership. there have been over 30 , all gs on this issue concluded, we must have a concerted effort to address climate change, and house democrats will continue to do our part. this ought to be a bipartisan vote. every citizen, republican, democrat, independent, nonaffiliated, are going to be affected if we do not deal with climate change, and their children as well. i look forward to bringing to the floor future legislation from our committees which seeks to tackle the climate crisis with substantive proposals. but i urge my colleagues, let's take this first step.
let's say we are not going to withdraw from the rest of the world. let's say we're going to continue to lead on an issue that there is a global consensus on, that we must deal with climate change. take this step. assert america's leadership. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. graves. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the distinguished leader for his statement. i wish this was a bipartisan bill.
i do. as the ranking member of the climate committee i found about this from the press, not from the chairman of the committee. i found out from the press about this bill. that's not how you pursue bipartisan legislation. if there was a true attempt, if there was a true desire to do bipartisan legislation, certainly this would have been handled differently. let me be clear, mr. speaker. i fully agree the climate is changing. i agree humans are contributing to that change. i agree there's something we need to do about this, and we need to be aggressive. as we heard from scientists just yesterday in the climate committee, they confirmed to us, the united states could eliminate all emissions and we're still going to see warming. we're not going to see changes in the temperature. if we eliminate all our emissions. mr. speaker, china right now is the top emitter. they're emitting 80% more than the united states. as a matter of fact, greenpeace found last year they're actually increasing their emissions. here we are, the united states, since -- for about the last 20 years, the largest absolute
reduction of any country in the world. paris accord is fundamentally flawed. it's not the solution. we can eliminate all of our emissions, and you're going to have countries like china that are allowed under the paris accords to come in and more than replace all our emissions reductions. that doesn't make sense and it's not fair. this coming from a country that's already stolen trillions of dollars in intellectual property and cost this country millions of jobs. let me say it again. climate change is real. we need to take action. this agreement is fundamentally flawed. it benefits china. of course, other countries agree, it's on the backs of the united states, the nation that spends more money on climate change science, more money on climate change technology than any other country in the world. mr. speaker, this bill is fundamentally flawed. this whole agreement is fundamentally flawed. china has an entirely different metric to measure their emissions reduction than the united states, and they don't even have to reduce a single degree of emissions until after
2030. this is a flawed bill. i urge rejection. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. matsui. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. matsui: thank you very much. i rise today as a proud original co-sponsor of h.r. 9, the climate action now act, which preserves our nation's commitment to the paris agreement and keeps our promise to the american people to take meaningful action on climate change. the paris agreement paved the way for our nation to develop a robust plan for cutting emissions, which both threaten public health and contributes to global climate change. part of this plan was to clean up the transportation sector, now the largest single source of emissions in the country. my home state of california was critical in the effort to establish more stringent
vehicle emission standards. when the administration irresponsibly chose to abandon part of this bill by rolling back obama-era vehicle standards, i introduced legislation that will protect these standards and the benefits they ultimately bring to our communities. i am pleased to see so many of my congressional colleagues join me in proposing meaningful solutions to combat climate change. but we must do more. we must act together as a nation to lead the way. our nation cannot afford to see its international leadership by not participating in the paris agreement, we risk irreversible damage to our planet and ndanger the american people. i think about my grandchildren. it's their future i'm thinking about. they will be greatly impacted f we don't do something now. tackling climate change has
billions been my top priority. we must hit gait the effects of climate change before -- mitigate the effects of climate change before it's too late. i spent the last decade leading on this effort, and i'm pleased to support the climate action now act on the floor today. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas. is recognized. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to a distinguished gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. mckinley: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. let's be clear, we must have a global approach. this subverts that process. so, because of their -- they look at the record since 2001. 290% increase in emissions. india, 235%.
we got a negative 16%. we're reducing that. so because of their miserable record of curse tailing eenhouse gases, we are going -- curtailing greenhouse gases, we're going to see sea levels rises. because of india and china, experts are saying, florida, miami, baltimore are still going to flood. so let's be honest. the paris accord is really nothing more than political theater than actually addressing climate change. instead, what we should have an agreement is when it's enforceable with legal, bind targets, specific financial support, provides for liability or compensation for damages that could be caused, and an ununsing that the global communities are still fossil fuel driven. america should not unilaterally transform our energy policies
while gambling that other nations will voluntarily -- and i underscore that -- voluntarily reduce their emissions. history and past agreements indicate other nations are not following the lead of the united states. yield a no on h.r. 9 and back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: yes, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close. i have no further speakers. mr. engel: yes, i have no further speakers. the chair: so the gentleman from texas has the floor. mr. mccaul: thank you. i just want to start out by saying, i respect the chairman, i respect his point of view, i respect the arguments that have been made on this floor.
i believe they're genuine. i believe that most members of this chamber agree that climate change is real and that climate change presents a risk. i sat down with a scientist from nasa, you know, which is in my home state, and we talked about the data. he said, i'm not a policymaker. here's the data. here's what's going to happen if we do nothing. but i think, as the majority leader said, h.r. 9 does not solve this problem, and you heard from my side of the aisle very genuine arguments about the cost to the economy, the fact we have reduced our emissions, but countries like china and india have doubled theirs. we want to get something done to solve this crisis, and i admit it is a crisis.
this bill is a messaging bill. it's a feel-good bill. it won't get through the senate. it will be vetoed by the white house, and i submit to all those listening to this debate that when that happens, that we work on something real that's bipartisan. we heard the ranking member from the new committee on climate change say he found out about this bill in the press, and that's no way -- that's no way to lead a bipartisan effort in the congress. so when this fails -- and it will -- i submit we go back to the drawing board and do things that we do know does work and that is, let's work on innovation and technology and clean energy technologies and,
yes, nuclear power. we are being a leader reducing our emissions while other countries are not. let's lead by example. let's come back with some real legislation that's going to make a difference, reduce emissions, and get us out of this crisis. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: yes, mr. chairman, in closing, let me say that i am very glad that the foreign affairs committee has jurisdiction over this bill. i'd also like to note for the record, congressional record that we have three additional members who intended to co-sponsor h.r. , congresswoman kaptur, congresswoman gabbard and congresswoman underwood. let me also say that i have
letters in my hand, 12 letters in support of h.r. 9, and i ask to include these letters of support into the record. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. mr. engel: thank you. specifically, i have letters from a group of more than four dozen environmental organizations, led by oxfen, the ciara club, the uni-- ierra club, the wilderness organization, the blue-green alliance, which is a coalition of the nation's largest labor union and environmental groups, the united steelworkers, e-2, which is a non-- which is a steelworkers group of environmental entrepreneurs from across the country, a network which is the business for innovative climate and energy policy, the we are still in coalition, which is made up
of over 3,750 u.s. businesses, cities, states, tribes, colleges and universities, investors, faith groups, cultural institutions, and health care organizations, the naacp, the leading public health and medical organizations, including the american lung association, the american public health association, and the allergy and asthma network and the american college of physicians. so i think that it's very clear to say that this is a broad-based bill, and i do hope we will pass it. we have the ability to work together to do it. i thank the ranking member for his offer to work together. we have a tradition of doing that on the foreign affairs committee. we will do it again, but climate change, global warming is a factor. we can put our heads in the sand like an ostrich and pretend it's not there but it's there and it's big and if we don't do something about it
soon, we're all going to pay the price in the future. with that i yield back the balance of my time and urge a yes vote for this important bill. . the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, and the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, will each control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey mr. pallone. mr. pallone: thank you, mr.
speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i rise in strong support of h.r. 9, the climate action now act. president trump's decision to withdraw from the paris agreement is unjustified and i believe dangerous. it abdicates u.s. leadership on climate action and puts the health and safety of our communities at great risk. it also jeopardize ours national and economic security. we can't live in the past. china, the e.u., and others are moving toward a low-carbon economy, building solar panels, wind turbines, cornering the market on renewable industries. we can and should be a leader in that transition so that our industries, our workers, and our communities benefit from the new opportunities created. the united states has always been at the forefront in the creation of new technology and new jobs. but rather than leading right now, president trump and his administration are simply sticking their heads in the sand, sacramentoing like this is
the 19th century. we have to be future oriented, not live in the past, or we will simply be left behind. the president is actually making the climate crisis worse. the trump administration gutted regulations to control methane pollution if the oil and gas sector, rolled back stronger fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and illegally blocked approved appliance efficiency standards. these actions led to a rise in greenhouse gas emissions last year. back in my district, i want you to understand, this is not a partisan issue. everyone sees the harm climate change is doing to our shoreline, our oceans, and the health and well being of our residents. states and local governments are taking action on climate change, they're concerned about the health of their constituents, asthmatics who are negatively impacted by dirty air, cancers that are aggravated by increased toxicity, i have a lot of republican mayors and county and
state legislators and i don't know one of those republican mayors of elected officials who thinks the federal government should withdraw from climate action. it's the cost of inaction that's painful. we've all seen them. in 2017, the united states experienced 16 natural disasters with costs totaling $360 billion. superstorm sandy hit my district very hard. i want to say we industrial time to avoid a deeper climate crisis while strengthening and modernizing our economy at the same time. h.r. 9 is an important step in that regard. so please, i call on my colleague, i beg my colleagues, let's take this opportunity to prevent the withdrawal from the paris agreement and at the same time call upon this administration to come up with ways of achieving the goal of the paris agreement. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: good afternoon, mr. chairman.
i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. clearly today is unfortunately more about politics of climate change than rolling up our sleeves and getting to work on american solutions. climate change is real. but addressing climate change should not involve binding ourselves to international agreements that put united states workers and jobs at a disadvantage to our main competitors around the world and with no regard to the cost for american consumers and rate payers. we should have a serious solutions-oriented discussion about thousand address climate change risks through american innovation. american conservation. and preparation. but we all know that long-term sustainable policy is best developed through a thoughtful, logical, strong, bipartisan process. that's the approach we have taken over the last several congresses as republicans. the one i think we should continue in this congress. in fact in the last congress
republicans worked with democrats to remove regulatory barriers to new technological advances in power generation from hydropower to small modular nuclear, from tax policies that actually encourage carbon capture and storage to reforms of the nation's electric grid. there are many bipartisan policies congress could further pursue to accelerate innovation and to create industrial, electrical and technological infrastructure that will enable cleaner energy systems for the future. such as furthering advanced nuclear reactor technologies, easing the permitting of clean energy infrastructure and modernizing our electric grid. we need to do all of those, mr. chairman. we can also look to better management of our federal forests to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, which choke the communities like those in my home state of oregon with smoke, fill our atmosphere with untold pollutants.
the intergovernmental panel on climate change found that sustainably managing our federal forests, in fact, all forest, will create the longest sustained carbon mitigation benefit. those are the finds of the un -- the u.n. ibcc. h.r. 9 does not represent that kind of bipartisan policy that we should be considering today. this bill is being considered, frankly, without the benefit of regular order in any committee of jurisdiction. it has no companion in the united states senate. h.r. 9 represents the democrats' reflective response to the president's june 1, 2017, announcement that the u.s. would withdraw from the paris agreement. now the obama administration's commitments in paris were made without a clear plan to even meet those provisions, without a full view of the cost to american consumers, and certainly without a strategy that had broad, bipartisan support in congress. further, h.r. 9's unquestioning
focus on the u.s. domestic action ignores the evidence that the bulk of the future global emissions growth will be in china. it will be in india. and the rest of the developing world. implemented, it would lock in the united states to expensive commitments that will harm consumers, communities, and our economic security. republicans offered a number of amendments to debate these matters but unfortunately, most of those amendments were rejected by democrats. if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about reducing emissions and addressing other climate change risks and doing so quickly, they would acknowledge the reality of global energy needs. they would acknowledge that the united states is reducing greenhouse gas emotions through innovation and through technological development, frankly better than any country on the planet. that's what we're doing as americans. what we do, we innovate, we lead, and we're doing that in emissions reduction, we're doing that with new energy technologies, and that's where
we should be focused as a ngress to insent those -- to incent those going forward. now instead of spending prerble legislative time that has little teeth, willner move in the senate, would get vetoed by the president if it ever got to his desk, we could be legislating how to ease the overly burdensome hydropower licensing. the northwest is a great place for hydropower. or we could be passing bills that support nuclear energy. look at the small, modular knew cheer technologies on the cusp of an energy future for base lode power and you understand just what that could be with no emissions. we could either do that through license regular form or through these advanced technologies. let's focus on the new technology necessary for future energy systems. for future transportation systems. for advances in manufacturers and industry to emit fewer greenhouse gases.
that's what we should be doing. let's work together on the bills that will lead to ribbon cutting ceremonies for new energy infrastructure, to america getting a new well-paid job in the energy industry. that infrom -- that infrastructure could be a wind farm, could be a natural gas pipeline. the new job could be as a solar installer or nuclear engineer. i'm not talk about picking winners and losers when it comes to energy, the environment, or climate. i'm talking about unleashing american innovators to do what they do best, develop new and better technologies that benefit consumers, benefit the environment, and benefit good old united states of america. so we should reject h.r. 99 -- h.r. 9 and focus on realistic measures for the future and policies that work for the american public. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to a member of the energy and commerce committee, the
gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcnerney: i thank the chairman for allowing me two minutes. we're here to talk about a global problem that demands a global solution. since the industrial revolution, a significant amount of carbon has been building up in the atmosphere and until just recently the united states was the number one emitter of carbon pollution. as china ramped up its emissions, we last that dubious tite bull we're still dumping massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. this carbon in the atmosphere has caused energy to accumulate in the oceans, and the skies, and that's now causing changes in the environment and these changes will continue to grow. the global solution we need is one that the united states actually had a hand in crafting. we led the effort in development and adoption of the paris climate accord. but now buzz of this administration's decision, we're telling the world to do as we say, not as we do. the paris climate accord is one of the most comprehensive deals to date and is a worldwide agreement to begin reducing
carbon emissions, it is an important first step in the battle to stop the dangerous spiral of climate change. if we retreat from the paris accord, we are condemning future generations to a world filled with catastrophic climate change and conflict. h.r. 9 will help heal this rift by putting us in alignment with the rest of the global community and holding us to standards we helped put in place. my republican colleagues say they believe in climate change but have always refused action. the paris climate agreement is action. let's get with the program. the united states has led by example so today i implore my colleagues, adopt h.r. 9. don't make us the past vail lynn -- villain for future generations. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. with that i'm honored to yield two minute this is -- to the gentleman from ohio, an important member of our committee, mr. johnson.
the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. put simply this legislation forces president trump's hand to carry out the goals of his predecessor. when this administration was elected to tackle our energy issues differently. our environmental issues differently. americans asked for this change in direction. and we got that last congress where republicans worked with this administration to find creative ways to streamline the development and use of all of our energy sources and technologies. we examined grid modification issues, looked at ways to encourage the creation and adappings of advanced nuclear energy along with creative ways to encourage new coal and natural gas technologies. we looked at how market forces are driving new energy technologies and how the federal government can play a supportive role in that advancement. not pick winners an losers. i worry that today's legislation
could bring us back into a prescriptive approach to our federal energy policy. it could cause significant rate payer hikes on families and small businesses in eastern and southeastern ohio who simply cannot absorb higher electric bills and h.r. 9 was rushed through our committees. the energy and commerce committee held no hearings on it but simply put a full committee markup. members had no time to debate it. only vote. democrat leadership even expressed frustration over the expedited pace of this bill. because of these reasons and the issues raised by my colleagues i urge a no vote on h.r. 9 and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from -- the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to to a -- to another member of the energy and commerce