[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3330-H3333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PARIS ACCORDS WERE FLAWED
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2019, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Graves) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, years ago, the administration,
working through an international group, had helped to negotiate and put
together an agreement on climate change known as the Kyoto Protocol.
That protocol was resoundingly rejected by the United States Senate.
It actually had provisions in it that indicated that should the
United States in the future end up entering into some sort of climate
agreement or any type of agreement, that there would have to be some
type of a consent by the United States Senate; that this would have to
be presented before the United States Senate.
We don't have a unilateral government. We don't have a dictatorship.
We have scenario whereby we have a Congress, we have a President, and
we work together. In this case what has happened is, under the Obama
administration, these Paris accords were agreed to unilaterally,
meaning they were never submitted to the Congress. They were never
submitted to the United States Senate for approval.
Mr. Speaker, that is why the American people have their
Representatives. Their Representative is their Senator, and that is how
their voice is heard on agreements like this.
Yet, we had a President that unilaterally agreed to the Paris accords
and did not submit it to the United States Senate. So now we have a
President that is saying: Well, this was unilaterally agreed to. I am
unilaterally withdrawing.
We have a bill this week, H.R. 9, that attempts to prevent the
President from withdrawing from this. So I want to stick with procedure
here for just a minute, Mr. Speaker.
We unilaterally entered into an agreement that we don't believe
should have been entered into unilaterally. We think it should have
been presented to the United States Senate. It was not.
Now the President is saying, I am withdrawing. And now this bill is
trying to prevent that. So, on the one hand they think that a President
should be able to unilaterally act, and in another scenario, the
withdrawal that President Trump has proposed, you have folks saying
with H.R. 9 that, no, no, you can't do that. You can't have both. One
or the other, take your pick.
Now, let's actually get into the contents of the agreement. The Paris
accords set targets on emissions reductions for the United States. All
right, so they try and set emissions reductions.
Mr. Speaker, under this agreement, we could eliminate all emissions
from the United States, all greenhouse gases. We can eliminate all of
them, and China can come in and they can emit 10 times what we were
emitting before we cut. Under this agreement that is totally legal. It
doesn't make sense.
To add insult to injury, China can go years and years increasing
emissions; not reducing, increasing. I want to remind you, we live in a
global environment. As much as we like to think we are the only country
in the world, we are not. It is a global environment. If you care about
the whole environment for the entire globe, you have got to look
holistically.
You can't come to the United States and say: Okay, you have to cut
emissions. Yet, in China, they can double, triple, they can go tenfold
increasing their emissions, twentyfold increasing their emissions, and
that is all legal under this agreement. That is inappropriate. If we
care about the global environment, let's care about the global
environment.
Now, to add insult to injury, the agreement also establishes an
entirely different metric for developing countries like China than it
does for the United States.
Now, think about this, if we are in the Olympics; we are running a
race, and you win the race. But then somebody comes, and they say: No,
no we are giving this Chinese runner a 20-second deduction. That is not
fair. And that is what has happened here.
They have an entirely different metric that they are measured by.
Why? If we live in a global environment, if we care about overall
reducing emissions, why are we giving different standards, different
measurements? That is inappropriate. This entire agreement is flawed.
Now, some of you may be sitting there thinking: Well, wait a minute.
I care about the environment. I care about emissions reduction.
Let me read you a statement that was included in the International
Energy Agency's Global Energy & CO2 Status Report.
Here is the statement: ``Emissions in the United States remain around
their 1990 levels, 14 percent and 800 metric tons of CO2
below their peak in 2000.''
Now, here is the kicker. Listen to this statement. ``This is the
largest absolute decline among all countries since 2000.''
I am going to say that again. ``This is the largest absolute decline
among all countries since 2000.''
Let me translate that, Mr. Speaker. What that means is that the
United States, over the last, nearly 20 years, has reduced emissions
greater than every other country.
So, we are actually operating without a requirement, just with an
incentive. We are operating on already reducing emissions. We are
already transitioning to an all-of-the-above energy strategy which
includes solar, which includes wind, which includes geothermal, which
includes hydro, and nuclear, and natural gas, and coal, and oil, and
other things, all of the above, whichever makes the most sense.
We had a hearing today in the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
and it was fascinating listening to people
[[Page H3331]]
talking about the impact of these energy policies on the poor.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the home State where I am from, south Louisiana,
we have the lowest electricity rates in the United States, the lowest.
The States that have the highest are the ones that are forcing things
that are perverting or distorting markets. Those are the States that
have the highest electricity rates. That disproportionately affects the
poor.
We were citing today an analysis by the Manhattan Institute. In that
analysis, they looked at if you invested $1 million and you could
invest it in solar, you could invest it in wind, or you could invest it
in natural gas and shale--I see my friend here from North Dakota that
represents much of the shale production in the United States--you would
get a sixfold increase in the amount of energy produced by investing it
in shale.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, transitioning to natural gas results in a
significant reduction in emissions as compared to other sources. It is
part of our existing infrastructure. It is part of a transition plan.
And not to say that we don't ever transition or continue migrating to
renewable sources; it is all of the above.
Don't say all of the above, as President Obama and others did, but
then carry out policies that prevent you or drive up the cost of these
other energy sources. It doesn't make sense and that is what
disproportionately affects the poor.
Mr. Speaker, we have other Members here from the Select Committee on
the Climate Crisis, and I appreciate them being here. I am looking
forward to engaging with them on bringing reality, bringing
practicality to this discussion today.
But I want to say in summary: number one, procedurally, the Paris
accords were flawed. Practically speaking, the targets that were
established disproportionately affect the United States, and it
establishes a different measuring stick, a different standard for us
than it does for China and other countries.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, China, the country that is here under the
auspices of a developing Nation, this is the country that is spending
billions and billions of dollars around the world on projects in other
countries to improve their national security, their defense, contrary,
in many cases, to the United States and our allies. This is a
developing country. This is inappropriate.
And I will say one last thing in closing. We are the country that
over nearly the last 20 years has had the greatest reduction in
emissions and we have done it by incentivizing, not by coming in and
distorting markets and putting perverse policies in place.
H.R. 9 is a flawed approach that is going to have a disproportionate
impact on the poor. It is going to simply squeeze a balloon in the
middle and make it pop out on the sides where you have more emissions
resulting in China and other countries. Because companies will leave
the United States, jobs will leave the United States if we address this
inappropriately, and they will go to other countries where they will be
less energy efficient. They will release greater emissions into our
global environment. That is not a win.
Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of H.R. 9. I urge support of involving
the United States Senate, the United States Congress in these
discussions and negotiations, and to develop a true all-of-the-above
energy strategy that incorporates things like incentives, thinks about
our infrastructure network and other important components of ultimately
achieving this objective, which we all share, which is giving a better
planet to future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Buddy
Carter, that, similar to me, represents a coastal district.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I thank him for hosting this today. This is extremely
important.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honor and privilege of representing the First
Congressional District of Georgia, a district that includes the entire
coast of Georgia, over 100 miles of pristine coastline. We are very
proud.
The coast of Georgia is my home. That is where I have lived all of my
life, where I was born, and I was raised, and where I intend to live
the rest of my life. I love the coast of Georgia, and I have always
said that I am going to protect the coast of Georgia, and I am.
Mr. Speaker, climate change is real. Protecting our environment is
real. We understand that. Since day one, the climate has been changing.
Yes, industrialization has had an impact on it as well. We understand
that.
In order to represent my constituents, I believe our Nation needs to
be working in a responsible way, a responsible way to prepare ourselves
for future weather events while striving for cleaner and more
affordable energy sources.
Mr. Speaker, in an 11-month period, we had two major hurricanes on
the Georgia coast: Hurricane Matthew and Hurricane Irma. The number of
hurricanes appears to be increasing and there are those who would argue
that the intensity of those hurricanes are increasing. That is
something we are concerned with.
Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
as well as on the Environment Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, and that is very important. That is where I need to be as
the Representative of the coast of Georgia. I need to be on those
committees. This is where I want to be.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, to address this problem, the majority
party, the Democrats, have offered H.R. 9. It is coming to the floor
this week and it is not a solution. It is not a solution to climate
change.
What it is, is government overreach at its best. It disallows the
President from withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. It puts
our economy, our national security, and our ability to make our
environment cleaner in danger, while other nations, as was pointed out
by my colleague from Louisiana, other nations just simply continue on.
They aren't held by these same principles.
{time} 1530
China right now is responsible for 30 percent of the pollution in the
world, and yet they aren't abiding by this. They aren't even a part of
the Paris climate agreement. They are not even participating in this
until 2030.
As my colleague pointed out, again, they can just continue to
increase pollution while here in America, if the President is not
allowed to get us out of this climate agreement, we are going to have
to adhere to that. That is not fair, and it is not going to help if
China is not held to the same principles that we are held to.
Mr. Speaker, between the year 2000 and 2014, the United States
decreased emissions by more than 14 percent, in fact, by more than 18
percent, but China's emissions have increased. They have doubled since
the year 2000, and they are significantly higher than the U.S. right
now.
The U.S. is already leading the way without the Paris climate
agreement. We are leading the way. We are the economic leader, and we
can't let a half-baked policy like H.R. 9 jeopardize that status.
Companies in our country are responsible, and they are leading the
way. As my colleague from Louisiana mentioned, we had a meeting earlier
today of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. We had
witnesses who told us about companies that are involved in this that
already, on their own accord and on their own initiative, are doing
things and putting in place programs that are going to help with
climate change.
For example, there is a startup called 4Oceanis that has collected
4.2 million pounds of ocean garbage. If we put our economy at risk
through expensive regulations and mandates, then we risk losing
companies like this and the capital that they have necessary to invest
in these projects.
As my colleagues stated earlier, we have to have an all-of-the-above
approach. In order to control climate change, we need three things: We
need adaptation; we need mitigation; and we need innovation.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9 is bad policy. Again, as my colleague pointed out
earlier, it was brought about without even a subcommittee hearing. It
was rushed through. This is a very important subject. This is a very
important subject that can't be rushed. We can't take this lightly. We
have to take this seriously. We are taking it seriously in the
Republican Party.
[[Page H3332]]
The Democrats didn't think about the real consequences of this bill.
Here we have the Green New Deal, pie in the sky that would ruin our
economy by $93 trillion, and it includes things such as healthcare for
all. Now, what has that got to do with climate change? Absolutely
nothing.
We need to concentrate; we need to focus; and we need to have real,
commonsense solutions to this. That is what we are proposing. But here
we have politics as usual on Capitol Hill with Democrats bringing this
to the floor. They couldn't care less about the impact on our economy
or the impacts on real people.
This legislation, H.R. 9, quite frankly, would be better off being
called the ``U.S. Energy Disadvantage Act.'' That is what they ought to
call it.
Having said all this, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you--and I mean this
sincerely--I am excited. I am excited about the future of clean energy.
I am excited about the future of innovation in America. We have the
greatest innovators in the world right here in America. We have the
smartest scientists in the world right here in America. If we simply
give them the chance to do their work, then they will do it. I am
convinced of that.
Yes, we need to incentivize it and we need to encourage it, but we
don't need to be an obstacle, and we don't need to be in the way.
Look at the internet, arguably one of the greatest inventions in
modern times. Where did that come from? Right here in America.
I am excited. I am convinced that we can come up with real solutions
to this. Unfortunately, H.R. 9 is not one of those real solutions. H.R.
9 is going to ruin our economy.
The Green New Deal, are you kidding me? That kind of pie-in-the-sky
type of legislation has no place. We need real solutions. Citizens sent
us up here to come up with real solutions, not some pie-in-the-sky
idea.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 9 and
deliberate on real solutions that will make our world cleaner and
improve our environment without destroying our economy.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from Georgia for his comments.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Armstrong), who is another member of the House Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, Americans care about clean air; Americans
care about clean water; and the U.S. needs to be at the table for these
discussions as we move into a global economy. But, Mr. Speaker, a bad
deal is worse than no deal at all. Make no mistake, H.R. 9 is a bad
deal.
Almost no countries are in compliance with the Paris deal now, let
alone its future requirements. I am going to have some breaking news
here: China is not a developing country. China emits over 30 percent of
the world's pollution. But not China, not India, not Australia, not the
EU, and not even Canada are in compliance with the current terms.
The U.N. Emissions Gap Report estimates U.N. countries will have to
triple their efforts to meet the Paris deal commitments. This deal
imposes stricter requirements on the United States than other
countries. It requires significant and economically damaging carbon
emission reductions from the United States without requiring those same
requirements from China, from India, and from other developing
countries.
A true international agreement to address carbon emissions would
require actionable commitments from all the countries and would have
included a mechanism for enforcement. China has only committed to
raising its nonfossil fuel share of its economy to 20 percent by 2030
and a commitment that CO2 emissions will peak in 2030. That
is not including their financing of essentially unregulated coal plants
all over the developing world.
U.S. CO2 emissions have peaked in the mid-2000s and have
decreased since then. The United States is on track to hit about 65
percent of the voluntary targets based on both the Bush- and Obama-era
regulations and existing power sector trends.
Mr. Speaker, we need to focus on developing and exporting innovation
and technology to reduce emissions; give us cleaner air and water and
reliable, affordable energy for families all across the country.
Without that, this bill is simply virtue signaling. But it is worse
than that because, by its very nature, it will force the exporting of
pollution to countries that do not have the United States' regulatory
controls.
We benefit from producing energy here. It is done safely and securely
and creates American jobs. We need to end our reliance on foreign fuels
and promote homegrown and home-produced fuels just like we have done in
North Dakota.
The energy sector not only is great for our economy, but it is
incredibly important for national security. So let's get on with real
solutions. Let's get more pipelines in the ground. Let's allow for
natural gas to be burned during the winter instead of heating oil.
Let's end sue-and-settle environmentalism, and let's not forget that we
had 8 years under the Obama administration to lead environmentally by
symbolism and symbolism alone. We need to get rid of symbolism and
start working toward action.
Democrats are offering unrealistic, counterproductive policies like
stopping pipelines needed to transport environmentally safe natural gas
and stopping trains from going into their own States. We need to allow
for our energy infrastructure to catch up to where it needs to be, and
then we can lead the world in global innovation and technology.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
North Dakota for his comments.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Miller), who represents a lot of the victims of bad energy policy or
energy policy that is not thought out.
Mrs. MILLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R.
9, the Climate Action Now Act.
I represent West Virginia, an energy State. Our natural resources
power the Nation, and our coal produces the steel that is the backbone
of our country's infrastructure. The bill my colleagues across the
aisle have introduced today is a direct threat to the economy of my
State and to the security of our Nation.
When President Obama entered into the Paris Agreement in 2016, he
made a shortsighted, hasty decision which passed egregious costs on to
American consumers and sent $1 billion in taxpayer funds to subsidize
other nations' energy agendas without congressional authorization--
while never offering a clear plan for our country to meet the
commitments made, aside from the overall goal of killing energy
production in the U.S.
This is an attempt to further the war on coal which decimated my
State, killing jobs, destroying businesses, and exacerbating the opioid
epidemic. We face a bleakness which we are starting to recover from,
yet, now, Washington liberals are restarting the charge.
We have seen unrealistic proposals like the Green New Deal put
forward which would not only bankrupt our country, but also kill our
energy industry once and for all. I will not stand here and let that
happen.
When President Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2017, he showed
leadership. He showed the world that he was willing to resist
diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests and ensure
energy competitiveness.
Those who support this legislation aren't telling the whole story on
America's energy production. The Paris Agreement, since its creation,
has not accounted for the United States' abundance of natural resources
and the hundreds of thousands of Americans employed by the energy
industry.
Additionally, the Paris Agreement ignores that America produces
affordable, reliable energy, including coal, oil, and natural gas, and
it also ignores the importance that energy has to the United States'
economy and national security.
In the past 5 years, there has been a 110 percent increase in coal
exports, and we still have 259 billion tons of coal reserves, the
largest in the world.
Since 2008, the U.S. has increased crude oil production by 48 percent
and natural gas production by 53 percent; and looking forward, the
increased access to undeveloped energy production could create as many
as 690,000 jobs by 2030.
[[Page H3333]]
Energy has been our past, and energy is our future. It is important
the United States is already leading the world in reducing greenhouse
emissions through innovation and technological development. If my
colleagues across the aisle were interested in working with Republicans
to address climate change, then they would not ignore the fact that the
United States has already had the largest absolute decline of carbon
emissions among all the countries since the year 2000.
We did not need an international agreement to do it. Forcing America
to reenter the Paris Agreement is not the answer for climate concerns.
It is restarting a tried-and-failed approach which only leads to less
jobs, a weaker economy, and a less safe America.
The answer to the climate debate is not a $93 trillion socialist
restructuring of our country. It is innovation, and it is supporting
new technology like taking rare-earth minerals and distilled water from
previously used coal ash. It is supporting carbon capture moving
forward. It is recognizing that, in the dead of winter when the
renewable energy grids fall short, we can rely on coal to get us
through the next polar vortex.
America cannot afford to reenter the Paris Agreement. We cannot
afford to lose jobs. We cannot afford to lose security. We cannot
afford the security risks. We cannot afford to weaken our economy. And
we cannot afford to say ``no'' to innovation.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time
is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I will now close.
Mr. Speaker, it has been fascinating serving on the House Natural
Resources Committee, where we have talked about efforts to stop
pipelines from being built under the auspices of this is protecting our
environment.
Mr. Speaker, study after study has shown that, when you stop
pipelines, it doesn't stop the utilization of oil and gas. What it does
is it puts that on barges, on trains, and on trucks--less safe means of
transportation. The safest thing you can do is put energy in a
pipeline. If you care about the environment, that is what you should
do.
Mr. Speaker, we had a hearing recently in the Natural Resources
Committee where we had a career Department of the Interior official. We
talked to him and asked him: What happens when you try and stop the
supply of energy? Does that reduce the demand for oil and gas?
Do you know what the response was? This person has served in at least
the Clinton administration, all of these different Republican and
Democratic administrations. He said: No. As a matter of fact, we have
researched this extensively. What it does is it causes us to import
more energy.
Mr. Speaker, I remind you of some of the top nations we would import
from: Venezuela, Middle Eastern countries, and Nigeria. We are giving
them billions of dollars.
To put it in perspective on how much this is, Mr. Speaker, in 2011,
58 percent of our Nation's trade deficit was attributable to our
importing energy.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. I am going to reiterate what my
friend from Georgia said.
I have children. I care about the environment. I taught outdoor
education classes for years, and I care about the environment.
{time} 1545
I care about the environment. I know that facts can be pesky little
things, but we have to introduce more science and data into these
decisions to make sure that we are making informed, deliberate
decisions that result in a better global environment, not simply coming
in and squeezing the United States to the benefit of China where they
end up releasing greater emissions into our global environment.
That is a flawed strategy. It is what this bill, H.R. 9, would do. I
urge, once again, rejection of this flawed approach.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________