[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 72 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3411-H3420]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLIMATE ACTION NOW ACT
General Leave
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 9.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 329 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 9.
Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten) kindly take the chair.
{time} 0917
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 9) 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, with Mr. Casten of Illinois
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday,
May 1, 2019, amendment No. 20 printed in House Report 116-42 offered by
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Mrs. Lee) had been disposed of.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Kim
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21
printed in House Report 116-42.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, line 25, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 8, line 5, strike ``Agreement.'' and insert
``Agreement; and''.
Page 8, after line 5, insert the following paragraph:
(3) how the Paris Agreement's loss and damage provisions
would affect infrastructure resiliency in the United States.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Kim) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 9.
My amendment is straightforward. This bill requires the President to
submit a plan to Congress to meet our obligations under the Paris
accord. This amendment ensures that we do not forget the impact of our
infrastructure when addressing the threat of climate change.
We know that climate change is real. We know that we are already
feeling its effects and that it will only intensify. Strong scientific
research tells us that storms are getting stronger and more frequent.
Sea levels are rising, and this poses a direct threat to our coastal
communities.
While this bill and the Paris accord take significant steps to
address the root causes of climate change, we must be prepared to
address the significant impact it is having on our Nation's
infrastructure today.
My district in New Jersey was among the hardest hit by Superstorm
Sandy. Toms River alone saw $2.25 billion in property damages, the
highest out of any township in New Jersey, and we are still recovering
from that storm that hit our State years ago.
In 2017 we saw three of the five costliest storms in our history in
Harvey, Maria, and Irma. Rising sea levels are increasing the severity
and frequency of flooding and are contributing to beach erosion, posing
a major threat to our coastal tourism economy.
Climate change isn't just measured by rising tides and rising
temperatures. It is measured by the rising costs that will incur on our
communities and the investment needed in infrastructure to keep our
communities resilient in the face of that threat.
In the coming months, as we hopefully take up and pass a bold
infrastructure package, this amendment will provide guidance towards
achieving the infrastructure resiliency our communities need. We know
that infrastructure improvements don't only need to come in the form of
potholes fixed and bridges rebuilt, they need to lessen the impact of
rising storm surges from the next big storm and make sure communities
like mine in Ocean County can remain a place for people to raise a
family, create jobs, and achieve the American Dream.
The Paris Agreement's loss and damage provision recognizes the
importance of updating our infrastructure to help communities deal with
the adverse impacts of climate change. I urge that we include this
amendment because it is crucial that there is an understanding from top
to bottom of the threat that climate change poses and the impact that
it will have toward infrastructure resiliency across our country.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and
ensure we are not only protecting our climate but the infrastructure we
need to support our communities, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
[[Page H3412]]
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
commend him for his leadership.
This issue of infrastructure resiliency is so important. We are now
discussing doing major infrastructure legislation to rebuild America in
a way that is making it safer, by promoting commerce and improving the
quality of life by decreasing the amount of time people have to spend
in their cars. By increasing broadband and all of the things that
enable people, whether it is healthcare, education, or commerce, the
infrastructure is so central to that.
When we talk about infrastructure, we have to talk about resiliency;
and when we talk about climate change, we have to talk about
infrastructure. So this is a very important amendment, and I rise to
support it.
I thank the gentleman for sharing his New Jersey experience in terms
of the need for resiliency in this very wise amendment.
I also want to rise in support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.
I commend Chairwoman Kathy Castor who is the chair of our House Select
Committee on the Climate Crisis and also the chairman of the Foreign
Affairs Committee, Mr. Engel, for his leadership on this important
issue which is under the jurisdiction of his committee. They bring
vision, they bring values, and they bring the voices of Members and the
American people to make a difference.
We thank our freshman Members, in particular, who have carried the
priorities of their communities to Congress to demand climate action
now. And I think it is very appropriate that the gentleman in the chair
is on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and has been a
leader in the private sector, now in the public sector, on this
important issue as we go forward.
It is time, Mr. Chairman, to end denial about this and start
listening to the facts. This is about science, science, science. An
overwhelming number, 86 percent, of Americans know that this is a
crisis. They know that human behavior has an impact on it, and they
want us to act.
We all have stories from our communities.
One of my constituents wrote:
My daughter has developed asthma. It wrenches me to see her
used as a canary in a coal mine. We are literally choking on
the denial and inaction.
Another writes:
Green jobs are guaranteed local jobs and will put people to
work. Survival is now poised to become a viable economic
sector.
Let me just say that this is about jobs, jobs, jobs. It is very
important for our country to be preeminent in the world on the green
technologies, and this legislation is in recognition of that. It is
about public health, about clean air and clean water, the air our
children breathe and the water they drink, and it is about
environmental justice in that regard as well that all children will be
able to live in a safe, clean environment in which they can thrive.
It is about our national security. Over and over again the national
security experts, the generals and the admirals, have come to us and
said that this is a global security issue, because of what impact the
climate change crisis is doing to the use of water and access to food
and how natural disasters affect migration and also how that can lead
to initiation of hostilities among people. It is a national security
issue in terms of how we use our resources for our national security as
well.
It is a moral issue. If you believe, as I and some in the evangelical
community do, that this planet is God's creation and we have a moral
responsibility to be good stewards of it, then you would be sure to be
a good steward and sign up for climate action now.
But even if you don't share that religious belief, we all know that
we have a moral responsibility to the next generation to pass this
planet on in a better way than we found it in a very responsible way.
So it is we must take action. The bill demands action now, by keeping
us in the only international agreement dedicated to ending the climate
crisis and demanding a plan of action from the administration, and Mr.
Kim has put forth that plan to recognize infrastructure resiliency as
the administration comes forward.
We are sending a signal to the world that the U.S. is in denial about
the overwhelming science about climate, but this bill is a step in the
right direction.
I am very proud of the work the House Select Committee on the Climate
Crisis and other committees of jurisdiction are doing. But it is a task
for every committee of the Congress to look at the jurisdiction of the
committee and to see how, in terms of jobs, public health, national
security, and, again, our moral responsibility to our children and
future generations--it is everybody's responsibility in the Congress.
It is a Congress-wide responsibility.
I do thank the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis for the
focus that it is placing on all of this. We will be able to accommodate
so many entrepreneurial ideas, new thinking on the subject, being
current on the data and on the science. So we have a tremendous
generational opportunity and responsibility.
I thank all who are involved in this for their extraordinary
leadership. Anyone who cares about our planet and our children's future
is deeply in debt to those who have taken the lead on this.
Under President Bush's leadership when he was President and we had
our select committee then, we passed the biggest energy bill in
history. While everyone was not in agreement on the climate crisis, we
all agreed that we had to take action. President Bush signed the bill
in a big ceremony, and it was the equivalent of taking tens of millions
of cars off the road in how we raised the emissions standards. It was
important, and that legislation was the basis for many of the executive
actions that President Obama was able to take under the authority of
that legislation.
So that was very important, and it was bipartisan. Hopefully, we can
be bipartisan as we go forward for the next big steps that we have to
take.
Technology has come a long way since then. Science informs us better.
Current events have made it very clear: we have an imperative to have
climate action now.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote for Mr. Kim's
amendment to H.R. 9.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel).
{time} 0930
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. On behalf
of both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce
Committee, we support this amendment. It is a good amendment.
I also thank the gentleman for working with the committees on this
amendment.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chair, I reiterate that my amendment is straightforward.
It recognizes the importance of safeguarding our communities and
updating infrastructure to protect against the adverse impacts of
climate change.
We can see that storms are getting worse and worse and costlier. The
storms are not hitting just red States or blue States. They are hitting
all of us.
I urge all my colleagues to stand behind my amendment and lend your
support to ensure that our communities are resilient after the next big
storm so that they can remain a place for people to raise a family,
create jobs, and achieve the American Dream.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, it is, again, great to be here this morning.
I appreciate Speaker Pelosi coming down and talking about bipartisan
solutions and working together.
Obviously, on this piece of legislation, I think the terminology was
demanding a plan for the administration. Well, that assumes that the
administration would sign this bill. That also assumes that the Senate
would pass this bill. Even if the President would sign a bill that he
doesn't want to enact, he would probably then veto the bill he just
signed. Then we would sustain his veto.
If we want to move forward, then we want to do things that can get
through
[[Page H3413]]
the Senate and get to the President's desk. That is why, all afternoon
yesterday, we talked about--and this amendment has some of those issues
in it--adaptation, resiliency, grid modernization, and how do you
adapt.
We appreciate the intent on which this amendment is being brought
forward.
On another cautionary note, in the Paris accord, when it talks about
addressing loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate
change, it is referring to the Paris accord's provision for developing
countries. That accord doesn't have provisions for developed countries.
Maybe as things move forward with my colleague from New Jersey, we
can make sure we address that appropriately.
We would like to have these studies done before we go into
international agreements when we don't know how they are going to
respond, versus after the fact, just like the cart before the horse.
Then we will know that this is a good deal, that we should do this, or
maybe that we shouldn't.
We had a couple of amendments last night that talked about all the
bad aspects but none of the positive aspects. We also had a couple that
said let's look at the good and the bad.
I would suggest that, in an amendment, there may be some areas of the
country in which the infrastructure is not going to be harmed. In fact,
an area of the country might even benefit from these changes.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kim).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mrs. Fletcher
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22
printed in House Report 116-42.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask
for its consideration.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, after line 20, insert the following new subsection:
(d) Technology Neutral.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to require or prohibit the inclusion of a specific
energy technology or technologies in the plan required by
this section.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 4 minutes, and I rise in
support of my amendment.
Innovation drives the energy industry, and it is important that we
continue to follow a technology-neutral approach that allows the best
science to flourish and the best technologies to emerge.
When it comes to energy innovation, my home in Houston is its home.
Houston, long known as the energy capital of the world, is the
epicenter of our modern energy renaissance. Home to virtually every
segment of the energy industry, including exploration, production,
transmission, marketing, supply, and technology, we see opportunities
for innovation in all sectors of the energy industry.
Over the last decade in particular, energy technology has enabled us
to recover resources in new areas and new ways. Advances in technology
that have transformed our energy economy have substantially reduced
U.S. carbon emissions.
Replacing coal-fired plants with natural gas plants has led to the
greatest reduction in carbon emissions in the last 30 years, and we are
leading the way on new technologies critical to reaching our emissions
reduction goals and combating climate change, like carbon capture
technologies. Two plants are near my district in Houston.
We believe in an all-of-the-above approach to energy sources that
reduces costs as well as emissions, and we see that in Texas'
investment in wind energy.
In Texas, we have installed more wind power generation than any
State, three times as much as the next leading State.
Houston is home to more than 100 solar-related companies.
These statistics may surprise some, but they should not because
energy companies, whether renewable or hydrocarbon-based, are really
technology companies that apply their technology to energy.
My amendment ensures that nothing in this act will favor one fuel
source or one technology over another.
Climate change is a global threat. We need the input of a diverse and
broad coalition of stakeholders that have the energy expertise we need
to chart our path forward, and we need to encourage innovation and
technology in every area.
Mr. Chair, it is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding
to me.
On behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and
Commerce Committee, we support this amendment. It is a good amendment,
and I thank the gentlewoman for working with the committees on the
amendment.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, this is the perfect example of an amendment
that, as we move something forward that might be able to be considered
by the Senate and signed by the President, I think we would be very
interested in dealing with.
Although, I guess I am a little confused. The amendment says we don't
want to be technologically specific, although you mentioned the
benefits of carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization, which is an
amendment we had in the committee to try to say these are some good
technologies we ought to consider.
A lot of folks on our side have been excited about the energy
renaissance, the ability to recover more oil. We know the great stories
of Texas and the ability to capture carbon and sequester it with
utilization for money to help deal with other issues.
I think when we move in the direction of a bill that we plan to get
through the Senate and the House, we should keep our communications
open because I think there are some bipartisan solutions.
The Republicans have always talked about conservation, innovation,
and adaptation. This is part of the innovation package.
We also have advanced nuclear in that package. We also have pump
storage and batteries in that package. I think there are opportunities
here.
We offered, as I said, in the committee, the value of nuclear and
advanced nuclear energy, hydropower, carbon capture, and the production
and export of natural gas. Part of my portfolio of volunteer activities
is in the Eastern European bloc. Obviously, the ability to export
natural gas has been a boon to these countries that don't want to be
enslaved to Russian natural gas.
Again, there are things we can do. When we talk about innovation
necessary to produce a strong economy, energy security, and lower
emissions, we have to focus on the benefits of these technologies.
While I can agree with the idea of this amendment, I think it falls
short of what is necessary for Congress to assist our priorities.
Mr. Chair, I encourage a ``no'' vote, but I look forward to working
with my colleague in the future, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by
[[Page H3414]]
the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Ms. Pressley
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23
printed in House Report 116-42.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, after line 19, insert the following paragraph:
(3) The Paris Agreement specifies the need for a strong
global response to climate change and when taking action, the
need to respect, promote, and safeguard the right to health
now and for future generations.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman
from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 9, the
Climate Action Now Act.
My amendment is a commonsense amendment that reaffirms the
interconnection between climate change and public health disparities
plaguing communities across our country and throughout the globe.
Mr. Chair, despite arguments to the contrary by many, there is no
such thing as planet B. This is the only Earth we have, and we need to
act like it. H.R. 9 will ensure that this administration acts
accordingly.
It has been said that politicians consider future elections while
statesmen and -women consider future generations. It is our
responsibility to consider future generations, to take the necessary
actions to reestablish our Nation as a leader in the global fight to
combat climate change.
The impacts of climate change are not some futuristic threat. The
threats are imminent; we are being confronted by them daily; and we
must act now.
Climate scientists have made clear that, if we are to continue down
this path without action, it will be too late. We must act now. We must
act today. We must act at this very moment.
Climate change and global warming are threatening all aspects of our
society and increasing the risk to human lives and health today,
particularly for vulnerable communities like Roxbury and Chelsea in my
district. These communities are finding themselves on the front lines
of the crisis.
For example, in Boston's Chinatown neighborhood, a predominantly
immigrant and low-income community that falls at the crossroads of two
major highways, my constituents breathe some of the most toxic air in
all of Boston, air polluted with car exhaust and other irritants that
are exacerbated by rising heat levels.
While these are largely invisible pollutants, the impacts are crystal
clear. Over the last several years, asthma rates at the Josiah Quincy
Elementary School in the heart of Chinatown have jumped from 18 to 25
percent.
Mr. Chair, let me make this plain. Our children are breathing toxic
air.
These climate injustices are far-reaching. According to a report
released earlier this week by the American Lung Association, more than
141 million people in the U.S. live in communities with unhealthy
levels of toxic pollution, including many living in my home State of
Massachusetts where air quality has worsened each year.
The World Health Organization estimates that 7 million people around
the world die each year as a result of these types of air pollution
exposures. These toxic pollutants are affecting 9 out of 10 people, the
vast majority of the world's population.
These statistics are staggering and, quite frankly, terrifying. If it
seems that we are being fatalists, it is because the threat is a fatal
one.
Again, my amendment recognizes the critical impact that climate
change poses to our fundamental right to breathe clean air, to drink
clean water, and to live in clean and safe communities.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Let
me say, with pleasure, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and
also the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment. It
is a good amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman for working with the
committees on this amendment.
{time} 0945
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, we really don't need a Paris
Agreement to meet substantial changes in the carbon dioxide, or, as my
colleague was speaking, she was really referring to the Clean Air Act
and the four criteria pollutants that we have so aggressively addressed
since 1992.
Having said that, what is better for the poor and the downtrodden is
to have a job. What is better for their health and economic opportunity
is to have a job. What also helps is that they have a good paying job
that provides great healthcare benefits.
So, from 2015 to 2018, out of the industrialized countries, the
United States is the number one reducer of carbon dioxide--number one.
We didn't have to do it with all these international accords. We do it
through innovation, technology, and advancement.
But carbon dioxide emissions went up last year. That is a known fact.
The question is why. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have one of the best
economies that I have ever served in in the House of Representatives,
where there are help wanted signs all over the place.
As the manufacturing sector grows, there is a need to address these
emissions. That is why Republicans continue to look forward to the day
when we can join with our Democratic colleagues on conservation,
innovation, and adaptation, moving some bills and processes through the
floor that will be received well in the Senate and to the President's
desk.
I think, rather than focus on the finding, we should debate
bipartisan solutions such as boosting research, advanced technologies,
and promoting innovation. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Ms. Schrier
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24
printed in House Report 116-42.
Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, after line 20, insert the following new subsection:
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to require or prohibit the President from including
or considering voluntary agricultural practices to be
undertaken by farmers and ranchers, thereby contributing to
the development of soil organic matter, increasing carbon
sequestration, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
contributing to meeting the goals and ambitions of the Paris
Agreement.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. Schrier) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment would support farmers and ranchers who employ
agricultural practices that help us meet the goals and ambitions of the
Paris Agreement.
In order to combat climate change, we are all going to have to work
together. Ours is a country that has already banded together to take on
the greatest challenges of our times, and this is no exception. This is
a time for the United States to not just partner, but to lead the world
in protecting this planet for our children and future generations.
Now, farmers and ranchers are on the front line of the climate
crisis, and they are stepping up. Droughts, fires,
[[Page H3415]]
and floods are threatening their safety and their livelihoods. My time
on the Agriculture Committee and time spent with growers in my district
have shown me that farmers are deeply invested in addressing our
climate and are eager to be part of the solution.
Farmers are already expanding no-till practices, rotating crops, and
planting cover crops to sequester carbon, fix nitrogen and other soil
nutrients, and reduce erosion. With that healthier soil packed with
organic matter, they are decreasing their reliance on fossil fuel-based
fertilizers, increasing yields, saving water, and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.
We must recognize and celebrate the contributions of our farmers who
engage in sustainable ag practices. My amendment would support this
agricultural ingenuity and creativity and prevent this administration
from standing in the way of farmers and ranchers who are fighting
climate change.
The climate crisis is an urgent matter, and there isn't one silver
bullet. Let's recognize that the solution will require something from
all of us and support our farmers who can make a tremendous dent in
CO2 emissions.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Let me say with pleasure, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee
and also the Energy and Commerce Committee, I support this amendment.
It is a good amendment, and I want to thank the gentlewoman for working
with the committee on this amendment.
Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate that it is
so important that we all step up.
When I hear my colleagues talking about jobs, needing to do other
things, waiting, this is too advanced. It is frustrating to see that 2
years passed and we saw absolutely no legislation to protect our
climate. Kicking the can down the road further just puts our future in
peril, along with the future of our children.
So I would ask for that step of faith that we will protect jobs. I am
happy to say that H.R. 9 specifically notes that, in addressing our
changing climate, this will create jobs, clean energy jobs, and you can
rest assured that our economy will flourish with addressing our
climate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, again, to my colleague, and I appreciate
it. She has me at a disadvantage because I have a huge ag district, 33
counties in southern Illinois, more pigs than people. I have corn,
beans, and the like, so we appreciate this; and we appreciate this
amendment because of the voluntary action of it and trying to
incentivize and appreciate what our agriculture community has done
because, as you know, other proposals out there that are debated in
Washington might have some severe effects on agriculture.
I also want to take this time to say we did a lot in the last
Congress. I think the misnomer is that if we don't say ``climate
change'' and we move good public policy, that we haven't done anything.
Through the House, we passed:
The Energy Efficient Government Technology Act; that was actually
voice voted and sponsored by Anna Eshoo from California;
Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act, Bob Latta from Ohio;
Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act, which this is another
thing we did in the last Congress;
Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, Pete Olson from Texas;
Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment, the SENSE Act;
Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act by Bill
Johnson;
Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act of 2017, another bill to
reauthorize the West Valley Act.
Of course, I am a proud sponsor, with a huge bipartisan vote, for
what was H.R. 3053, which was how do you deal with the nuclear waste
provision.
So we actually moved a lot of bills in the last Congress, and many of
those bills were in a bipartisan manner.
Yes, we do not carry the mantle of ``Paris'' or ``climate,'' but not
everything has to be a subtitle of that major provision, especially if
you are doing what we are trying to do in the House, which is bring to
the floor bills in a bipartisan manner.
Conservation, that would be like energy efficiency, new source
review, forest management practices. Being from Washington State, the
gentlewoman understands the forest issues and the concerns that we do
more forest management practices. Maybe some of our fires would be less
so.
Innovation; advanced nuclear power; carbon capture; utilization;
sequestration, which we spoke about in an amendment previously; and
also pump storage batteries.
Also, from Washington State, the gentlewoman knows the benefits of
hydropower, and if we can pump that water back up and have a continuous
cycle, that is a pretty green use of power.
Adaptation, grid modernization, resiliency, and things on GMO crops,
crops that can change if the environment is changing, if the growing
cycles change. Right now we have drought-resistant corn. We might have
to have corn that grows in wetter conditions. That is all part of the
adaptation that we need to talk about.
So I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment and the chance to discuss
these issues. I support voluntary action. The idea of this amendment
will be better served focusing on examining the costs of these
commitments, like some of our Republican amendments try to do, as we
move this bill outside of the committee.
I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Neguse
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25
printed in House Report 116-42.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment. It is at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, after line 10, insert the following new subsection
(and redesignate the subsequent subsection accordingly):
(c) Education and Public Awareness.--
(1) In general.--The plan under this section shall be
consistent with Article 12 of the Paris Agreement, which
states ``Parties shall cooperate in taking measures, as
appropriate, to enhance climate change education, training,
public awareness, public participation and public access to
information, recognizing the importance of these steps with
respect to enhancing actions under this Agreement.''.
(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to require or prohibit the President from including
in the plan under this section, consistent with the
prohibition described in section 438 of the General Education
Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232a), recommendations to support
State and local educational agencies, in integrating
instruction on human-caused climate change and the societal,
environmental, and economic effects of such climate change
into curricula taught in elementary and secondary schools
under the control of such State and local educational
agencies, in order to meet the goals and ambitions of the
Paris Agreement to ensure climate education and awareness in
schools.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment today to provide
a pathway for the curriculum in our elementary and secondary schools to
include information on the impacts of
[[Page H3416]]
climate change. Eighty percent of parents and 86 percent of teachers
believe that schools should teach about climate change and its impacts
on our environment, our economy, and our society.
As our future generations grow up in a world that is impacted by
extreme weather events and a changing climate, it is essential that we
educate them on the causes and impacts of the crisis, as well as equip
them for finding solutions to combat it.
Climate change truly is an existential threat, in my view, that we
must begin tackling head-on. Science is perfectly clear that we have a
very short runway to avoid catastrophic consequences for our planet,
and this moment requires bold action now. The solutions we find and the
bold policies that our country requires to combat this current crisis
must begin with education.
While it is our duty to get the ball rolling on policies and programs
that will begin to mitigate climate change-related issues, make no
mistake: It is our children who will feel the brunt of the effects that
our scientific community has outlined time and time again.
When my daughter, Natalie, who is now 8 months old, is attending
middle school, climate change and its impacts on our planet will be her
reality. She should be equipped with every resource we are able to
offer her at that time, and that begins with education.
This amendment underscores the importance of State and local efforts
to teach our youth the causes and effects of climate change. Again, the
science is clear, and it is of the utmost importance that the next
generation is presented with the facts of this crisis.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, thank the gentleman
for yielding and say unequivocally, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs
Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, we, both committees,
support this very good amendment. I also want to thank the gentleman
for working with the committees on this amendment.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the chairman for his
distinguished leadership in chairing the Foreign Affairs full committee
and for his leadership in shepherding this important resolution to the
floor.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my colleagues across the aisle could
come to consensus on this amendment. I think it is a commonsense,
reasonable amendment that ensures that our children, the next
generation, are, as I said, well-informed about the causes and the
effects of climate change so that they can work with all of us to try
to stop it and to try to deal with the planetary crisis that we find
ourselves in.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1000
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague bringing that up. I
taught high school for 4 years, so education is key.
This whole provision of moving to the Paris accord was done without
education of the Members of Congress. It was an executive branch
decision.
We can debate whether the President had the authority or didn't have
the authority, but we think what happened was that there was not total
buy-in. Had it been presented as an agreement or had it been presented
as a treaty, it wouldn't have passed either Chamber.
I do agree that education is very, very important. However, I also
believe in local control. Republicans will always have a challenge with
the Federal Government directing, dictating, and telling our local
schools what their curriculum should be.
Mr. Chair, that is why I oppose this amendment. I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Van Drew
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26
printed in House Report 116-42.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, after line 23, insert the following new paragraphs
(and redesignate the subsequent paragraph accordingly):
(8) Article 8 of the Paris Agreement notes Parties
recognize the importance of averting, minimizing and
addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse
effects of climate change, including extreme weather events
and slow onset events, and the role of sustainable
development in reducing the risk of loss and damage such as
strong winds from hurricanes and tropical storms, and
flooding from storm surges and heavy rain, that inflict
losses on various sectors of the United States economy.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, my amendment would add to the findings of
the importance of averting, minimizing, and addressing loss and damage
associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including
extreme weather events.
It is well known that extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and
tropical storms, are some of the most devastating and costly
consequences of a warming world, displacing thousands of people at a
time and costing government billions of dollars to recover.
The good people of south Jersey know that climate change is occurring
because our streets flood almost every time it rains in the coastal
areas. Unfortunately, we also have the painful reminder of Superstorm
Sandy.
On October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy first struck the mainland near
Brigantine, New Jersey, in my district, pounding our coast with winds
of over 70 miles per hour and 13-foot storm surges, ultimately killing
147 people.
Superstorm Sandy was the most destructive natural disaster ever to
strike the State of New Jersey and ranks among the five costliest
natural disasters in our Nation's history.
Here is some of the damage caused by Sandy: Almost 350,000 homes were
damaged. 1,400 vessels were sunk or abandoned. Seventy drinking water
systems were affected. Eighty wastewater treatment plants suffered
power loss or damage. The entire coastline experienced erosion. And
untold billions were sucked out of our economy.
We need to recognize that climate change is exacerbating the
intensity and the frequency of extreme weather events that often cause
the loss of life, property, and security.
Staying in the Paris Agreement is good for jobs and good for the
economy.
Investing in clean, low-carbon technologies will help us expand and
develop the industries of the future and help us compete globally
against other countries that are already making significant investments
in these fields.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which simply
acknowledges the need to reduce and avoid the human and economic toll
brought on by the changing climate and that we need to develop our
economy in a sustainable fashion.
Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and say, on
behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce
Committee, we support this amendment.
New York, which is just up from New Jersey, also suffered
tremendously from Superstorm Sandy. In fact, a lot of the repairs that
we are doing now to the New York City subway are a direct result of
that, so I certainly appreciate the gentleman's words and concern.
This is a good amendment, and I thank the gentleman for working with
the committees on this amendment.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
[[Page H3417]]
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, we appreciate this amendment. A lot of these
amendments are putting the cart before the horse. It would have been
interesting to have these debates about resiliency and efficiencies
prior to the administration going into the Paris accord. You do the
research first and then you make a decision.
Now what we are trying to do is say, okay, we have this Paris accord
that the President has stepped away from, so now let's evaluate what
impacts are happening.
We did accept an amendment yesterday in this debate to look at both
positive and negative aspects, which I think is a fair balance. There
are going to be some areas of the country that are going to benefit;
there are going to be some areas of the country that are going to be
disadvantaged. So I think that is helpful in this debate.
There is a lot of talk about an infrastructure bill coming up. We
hope that would be something we would move in a bipartisan manner. I
know that it is always going to be asked how to pay for it.
I am willing to make the tough calls on how to pay for it. But in
that infrastructure bill, it would be great if the resiliency of
communities and these concerns that are being addressed could be
wrapped up in something like that.
Again, for this bill, Leader McConnell just said on the floor that
they are not going to address it. Even if they did, the President
wouldn't sign it.
We will get to a point in time in this Congress when we will work
together.
Republicans believe in conservation, innovation, and adaptation. This
is part of the adaptation portfolio, and we look forward to working
with you as we move forward.
This amendment does nothing to affect CO2 reductions, so I
will oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Levin of California
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27
printed in House Report 116-42.
Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, after line 5, insert the following new paragraph:
(9) The Paris Agreement has driven innovation in developing
cleaner, more reliable, and more affordable forms of energy,
demonstrating that addressing climate change and providing
affordable energy to American consumers are not mutually
exclusive. The Paris Agreement encouraged the United States
to develop a Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization,
which was submitted on November 16, 2016. The Mid-Century
Strategy for Deep Decarbonization stated that ``energy
efficiency improvements enable the energy system to provide
the services we need with fewer resources and emissions. Over
the past several years, the United States has demonstrated
that programs and standards to improve the energy efficiency
of buildings, appliances and vehicles can cost-effectively
cut carbon pollution and lower energy bills, while
maintaining significant support from U.S. industry and
consumers.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today to mark a monumental
occasion for this body and offer an amendment to H.R. 9, the Climate
Action Now Act.
After years of denial, outright lies, and inaction on the climate
crisis under Republican leadership in the House, we are finally taking
meaningful steps to protect our planet for future generations.
While the President denies climate change exists, promotes fake
scientists who believe pollution is good, and pulls us backward, we are
embracing the scientific consensus that climate change is real; it is
driven by human action; and it is already having a detrimental impact
on our health and our planet.
There are a lot of myths about climate change that we must dispel.
One of the biggest myths I hear is that we cannot combat climate
change, invest in clean energy, and grow our economy at the same time.
We know that isn't true.
In California, we have seen strong GDP and per capita income growth
while also leading the country in the fight to combat the climate
crisis.
We also know that renewable energy options are often more affordable
for consumers than traditional fossil fuels. That is why my amendment
to the Climate Action Now Act adds three key facts about our ability to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and maintain affordable energy options
at the same time.
First, the greenhouse gas emissions reductions spurred by the Paris
Agreement have driven innovation for reliable and affordable forms of
energy, which demonstrates that emissions reductions and affordable
energy are not mutually exclusive.
Second, the United States' long-term greenhouse gas emissions
reduction strategy under the Paris Agreement touted energy efficiency
improvements in buildings, appliances, and vehicles as a way to cost-
effectively reduce emissions and lower energy bills.
Third, this strategy has had the support of both industry and
consumers.
This amendment is very simple. It should not be controversial.
Members of both parties should be able to agree that we can reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, invest in clean energy alternatives, and
maintain affordable energy options at the same time.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to recognize this simple
fact and support my amendment to H.R. 9.
Ultimately, this is about the planet we leave behind for our children
and our grandchildren. With a 5- and 6-year-old at home, I am proud to
cosponsor the Climate Action Now Act and support bold and commonsense
solutions to the climate crisis.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished chair of the
Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and
want to gladly say, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also
the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment.
It is a very good amendment, an important amendment. I thank the
gentleman for working with the committees on this amendment.
Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips).
Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Levin for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Representative Levin's amendment and
H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.
I know when you think of Minnesota, the first thing you think of is
snow. It is true that we know how to handle a snowy winter. But this
year, the Midwest was hit with record levels of snowfall, and when all
that snow melted, it led to record levels of flooding.
Farms and homes across the entire region have been devastated, and it
is because of climate change, one of the greatest threats of our time.
We must lead, and we must be on the right side of history, so I
cannot understand why the President pulled us out of the Paris climate
agreement.
I support H.R. 9 to recommit us to this agreement because we should
be running toward sustainable solutions, not away from them.
Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[[Page H3418]]
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, again, first of all, I appreciate my
colleague, one whom I have gotten a chance to know. I look forward to
working with him on some issues down the road.
I want to take this time to kind of reject the premise that nothing
has been done. In the debate a little while ago, I mentioned the 15 or
20 bills that had passed the House in a bipartisan manner. These were
signed into law, a lot of the hydroelectric extensions in H.R. 2122 and
H.R. 2292 to extend the project of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission involving the Cannonsville dam. Hydroelectric power is
clean, renewable. I can go through a whole list of things that were
done.
As I said in debate earlier, just because we don't put the stamp of
``Paris'' or ``climate change'' on a piece of legislation doesn't mean
that it is not going to help reduce our carbon exposure. In fact, our
country has the largest reduction of CO2 of any
industrialized nation from 2015 to 2018.
Having said that, I also would readily admit, and the Chair has heard
me say this many times, that in 2019, our emissions went up. But that
was because we have a thriving economy with more manufacturing. So this
debate is still very important.
This amendment suggests that the measures that the Obama
administration were putting in place to meet the commitments in the
Paris Agreement were affordable. A lot of us would reject that premise
when you look at the cost per kilowatt hour of major generation,
baseload versus the green.
We have always tried to be kind of an all-of-the-above. Actually, in
part of my congressional district, which is very large, I have one of
the biggest wind farms in Illinois. That is in the Champaign County,
Vermilion County, Ford County area in southern Illinois.
{time} 1015
Also, solar power. Because of the actions our State General Assembly
has done, we have a lot of solar power construction going on in the
State of Illinois. An all-of-the-above approach is what we would hope
for.
We look forward to the time when this, too, shall pass, this debate
on this bill, which will then go to the Senate and die, and then we
work back with my friends in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairman
Engel is also on the Energy and Commerce Committee, so he knows that we
will eventually get to the aspect where we can move in a bipartisan
manner.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Crow
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28
printed in House Report 116-42.
Mr. CROW. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, after line 5, insert the following:
(9) In its nationally determined contribution, the United
States notes that pursuant to Executive Order 13693 (2015),
the Federal Government has committed to reduce emissions 40
percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and reaffirmed the
Department of Defense's goal to procure renewable energy
across military installations and operations ``to drive
national greenhouse gas reductions and support preparations
for the impacts of climate change''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Crow) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. CROW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to highlight the continuing work at the
Department of Defense to procure renewable energy, reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, and make our military more resilient in the face of
climate change.
The American military is the strongest in the world. It is also the
world's biggest consumer of energy. In 2017, our Armed Forces consumed
over 85 million barrels of fuel to power ships, aircraft, combat
vehicles, and bases. As a combat veteran, I know firsthand that our
reliance on fossil fuels at home and on the battlefield makes us very
vulnerable.
Moreover, current and former DOD civilian and military leaders have
argued that climate change presents a rising threat to our force
readiness and has exposed vulnerabilities of critical operations. They
have argued that climate change is an urgent national security threat,
and I agree.
Warming oceans lead to higher tides, putting our Nation's critical
infrastructure at risk. Severe weather has already wrought havoc on
military assets, including Tyndall Air Force Base, which will likely
require $5 billion in repairs after Hurricane Michael. Climate change
is already causing mass migrations that affect the stability of nations
and will put our national security and that of our allies at risk.
The purpose of my amendment is to make the DOD's contributions to the
government sustainability efforts a part of the conversation
surrounding H.R. 9. And the DOD's accomplishments should be lauded: the
DOD has invested heavily in microgrids, renewable energy resources, and
fuel-efficient vehicles.
Additionally, last year's NDAA required the military to build on its
obligations to address climate change by incorporating energy and
climate resiliency efforts into its installation and operational
planning.
The DOD has done a lot so far and is a model for the rest of the U.S.
Government, but there is more to be done.
Going forward, we have a unique opportunity to support sustainable
policies, while also securing our bases, saving taxpayer money, and
protecting the environment. One of the best examples is Fort Hood,
Texas. Fort Hood has invested in technology to harness renewable energy
and ensure that power is being efficiently managed. It is estimated
that the combination of microgrids and renewable energy will save Fort
Hood $100 million in energy costs. It is also hardened against
potential vulnerabilities in the electrical grid, which is a win for
our security.
We must scale smart, practical solutions, like those at the DOD, to
make our force more resilient, agile, and efficient.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Engel), the chairman.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say that on behalf of the Foreign Affairs
Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee we support this
amendment. It is a very good amendment. I also thank the gentleman for
working with our committees on this amendment.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CROW. Mr. Chairman, simply put, the Federal Government cannot
meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement without DOD's past,
ongoing, and future contributions to this effort. I urge my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to recognize this fact and support my
amendment.
This is very simple. This is an opportunity for a win-win-win, which
is often hard to come by these days, but this is good for the American
taxpayers. It will save us hundreds of millions, if not billions, of
dollars by promoting these efforts and increasing energy resiliency and
efficiency. It is a win for our national security, because it is one of
our largest vulnerabilities. Our bases are subject to cyberattack and
are very vulnerable to continuity decreases in our operations. And it
is a win for the environment.
This is something that we have to do and that we have an obligation
to do in support of our national security.
Mr. Chairman, again, I urge everyone to join in supporting this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I also thank my
colleague for his service. I, too, served in the Army infantry during
the Cold War. They are a band of brothers, and we do appreciate his
service to the country.
Also, I do appreciate that the National Defense Authorization Act,
passed in the last Congress, has been helpful. That is another example
of, it
[[Page H3419]]
wasn't couched in climate change, but it was couched in national
defense. That is where, again, I will continue to make the arguments
and the comments that things have been going on. I don't want to read
the first list of bills and stuff that we have passed over the last
Congress.
The military is also looking at small modular nuclear reactors in
some isolated locations. That will be part of the issues in the
innovation area that Republicans could be very, very supportive of. We
look forward to having those debates.
I also know forward operating bases of solar technology and of solar
power help keep our warfighters prepared and able to communicate. It is
just the smart thing to do versus trying to haul crude oil or
generators and stuff to places where it would not be in the best
interest of our warfighters to have.
So the focus is good. The Republicans, again, believe in
conservation, innovation, and adaptation. When we move a bill that will
get a chance to be heard by the Senate and that we work together, the
goal would be to get something on the President's desk that he will
sign. This is not the venue, because the Senate is not going to move it
and the President is not going to sign it. But I would encourage my
colleagues to stay engaged, not just with the Armed Services Committee,
but the Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues on this side
because I do think there is merit to the debate. Acknowledgement of
what the Department of Defense has done was focused on by the previous
Commander in Chief.
The Paris climate mandates instituted by the Obama administration
through the Paris Agreement and the outdated executive order would have
increased energy prices and wasted taxpayer dollars. As a result, we
cannot support the amendment that would condone and reinstitute some of
these costly measures.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Engel
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29
printed in House Report 116-42.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox), I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, line 25, strike ``and''.
Page 8, line 5, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 8, after line 5, insert the following new paragraph:
(3) how the plan takes into consideration populations,
regions, industries, and constituencies that could be
affected by nationally determined contribution under the
Paris Agreement, and the failure to meet such contribution,
including but not limited to--
(A) American jobs, wage, and pay;
(B) the cost of energy, such as electricity and gasoline,
for consumers; and
(C) the ability to develop and deploy new, innovative,
domestically-produced technologies.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to say very strongly that on behalf
of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also the Energy and Commerce
Committee, we support this amendment. It is a very good amendment.
The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, is the first truly universal
agreement among nations to tackle climate change. Rarely is there
consensus among nearly all nations on a single topic. But with the
Paris Agreement, leaders from around the world collectively agreed that
climate change is driven by human behavior, that it is a threat to the
environment and all of humanity, and that global action is needed to
stop it.
It also created a clear framework for all countries to make emission
reduction commitments. At present, 197 countries--every nation on
Earth, with the last signatory being war-torn Syria--have adopted the
Paris Agreement. This agreement includes a series of mandatory measures
for the monitoring, verification, and public reporting of progress
towards a country's emission reduction targets.
The emission reduction targets themselves are voluntary. Each nation
sets their own, respectful of national sovereignty, and there is no
penalty for missing the targets. The idea is to create a culture of
accountability and maybe some peer pressure to get countries to reduce
emissions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the
author of this amendment.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be here today to
introduce my amendment to H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act. My
amendment takes into consideration the various populations, regions,
industries and communities affected by climate change, while reducing
any possible impacts on American jobs.
We all know that climate change has impacted countries and
communities throughout our country and the world. Over the past few
years, we have seen the devastating effects of it on the waters of the
Caribbean Sea, fueling powerful storms, like Hurricane Maria, which
devastated Puerto Rico and took the lives of close to 3,000 people and
displacing another 300,000 from their homes.
In my home State of California last year, it led to the deadliest
wildfire season in history. According to the National Climate
Assessment, rural communities, like the ones I serve, face challenging
obstacles in responding to climate change because they are so highly
dependent on natural resources.
My constituents, the people of California's Central Valley, live in
one of the most economically distressed parts of our country. We have
been forgotten and left behind. But it is my constituents who have seen
the direct impacts of climate change with our recent heat waves and
droughts. It is only going to get worse if we don't work together and
address this issue head-on.
H.R. 9 is the first step we must take in addressing this challenge.
This would prohibit Federal funds from being used to take any action in
advancing the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement.
The U.S. committed to joining the Paris Agreement because we are a
leading nation. It is unfortunate that this President is taking us
backward.
{time} 1030
Instead of fighting climate change, the President and his
administration have proposed to slash funding from the Department of
Energy's Efficiency and Renewable Energy offices by over 85 percent,
and they even propose to cut energy funding from our States.
My amendment would help create a clean energy economy that would
provide good paying jobs to millions of Americans, cleaner air for
everyone, and a safe, sustainable future for our children and
grandchildren.
What we continue to hear from our Republican colleagues is that a
number of coal jobs will be taken away from Americans. And I can tell
you, as somebody who has worked in the mining industry, who has worked
underground, I know it is not the way to go.
While we know that mining jobs and underground jobs are honorable
jobs and provide for families, at one time so was whaling, but we need
to be innovative in looking towards the future. The more time we waste
on clinging to jobs of the past, the more time we waste on not making
progress.
Nationally, there are over 240,000 jobs in the solar industry alone,
and only about 53,000 coal mining jobs. Reports find that the Paris
Agreement would generate over 24 million jobs worldwide.
In the State of California, we have over 519,000 clean energy jobs,
and it is critical, more than ever, that we continue to connect workers
to these jobs that we are creating for the 21st century. My amendment
does just that by requiring any climate plan to consider the impact on
jobs, wages, and pay.
We have the opportunity to be global leaders in the clean energy
economy, ensure that so many of these jobs are created right here in
the United States--not in other countries, not in India, not in China.
We cannot afford to take steps back on the fight on climate change,
and we
[[Page H3420]]
must keep our word to the rest of the world. Mr. Chairman, I urge my
colleagues to support my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has the only time
remaining. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I will read into the Record a statement.
This is from the International Energy Agency, Global Energy and
CO2 Status Report 2018, published March of 2019, so it is
pretty much fresh off the press. It addresses some of these issues that
I have mentioned during this debate today about how we have been doing
things; how, overall, missions are decreasing; and how public policy
has helped, and the like.
This is on page 10: ``In the United States, the emission reductions
seen in 2017 were reversed with an increase of 3.1 percent in
CO2 emissions in 2018.''
That is what we addressed about the economy going up, more
CO2 emissions.
``Despite this increase, emissions in the United States remain around
their 1990 levels, 14 percent and 800 metric tons of CO2
below their peak in 2000. This is the largest absolute decline among
all countries since 2000.''
So I think that is instructive when we are here debating a bill that
is not going to be reviewed by the Senate and the President is not
going to sign it.
We look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee on
Energy and Commerce on things that we can do to work together to even
make better strides than what we already have in this country.
We don't get a lot of credit because we don't couch it in, as I said
before, Mr. Chairman, ``climate change,'' ``Paris accord.''
But, you know, facts are important, data is important, and the Energy
Information Agency is an independent agency underneath the Department
of Commerce, so it is evaluating all countries and all emissions.
Republicans believe in conservation, which would be energy
efficiency, new source review, force management, innovation, advanced
nuclear power, carbon capture, sequestration, utilization.
To the colleague who brought the amendment up, I don't believe coal
will be dead. I think if we bring technology and we use carbon capture,
utilization, and sequestration and get it captured, we can still have a
coal mining sector. We can still have energy electricity generated by
coal. I hope so, because I am from a coal mining region, and I am not
going to walk away from the jobs in southern Illinois.
And the adaptation which we have had a lot of debate about today,
which is grid modernization, resiliency, crops, and the like.
The amendment of my colleague is opposite to what Dr. Burgess and I
tried to do in the committee when we marked up this bill. We wanted to
have the research and the analysis done before we go back to a climate
agreement.
I mean, what good does it do if you go to an agreement and then you
find that jobs have been lost, wages have gone down? It is too late.
You are in the agreement.
So let's do the research prior, which was our amendment, Dr. Burgess
and I--it wasn't made in order for the floor----to say let's do this
research.
So if we are going to move and go back into the climate Paris accord,
if we are going to affect jobs in the economy negatively, we should
know that beforehand. This amendment does not do that.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Phillips) assumed the chair.
____________________