Text: H.Res.125 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)All Information (Except Text)

There is one version of the bill.

Text available as:

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (02/15/2021)

 
[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 125 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 125

To oppose the use of the National Emergencies Act to declare a national 
                 emergency relating to climate change.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2021

  Mr. Pfluger (for himself, Mr. Cloud, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Burgess) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee 
 on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
To oppose the use of the National Emergencies Act to declare a national 
                 emergency relating to climate change.

Whereas, on January 27, 2021, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declared that 
        ``It might be a good idea for President Biden to call a climate 
        emergency'' and that ``He can do many, many things under the emergency 
        powers . . . that he could do without legislation.'';
Whereas the National Emergencies Act (NEA) was enacted with the intent of 
        reining in emergency executive authority and preserving an appropriate 
        balance of power between the coequal legislative and executive branches 
        of government;
Whereas the declaration of a national emergency for purposes of addressing a so-
        called climate crisis would fall outside the bounds of an emergency as 
        contemplated by the NEA;
Whereas the late Edward S. Corwin, an eminent constitutional scholar, explained 
        emergency conditions as being those that ``have not attained enough of 
        stability or recurrency to admit of their being dealt with according to 
        rule'';
Whereas if there were to declare a climate national emergency, President Biden 
        would undeniably break his pledge to ``be a president for all Americans, 
        all Americans'' and that he would ``fight as hard for those who did not 
        support me as those who did'';
Whereas, as a candidate, President Biden noted that the President ``can't 
        [legislate] by executive order unless you`re a dictator. We're a 
        democracy. We need consensus.'';
Whereas President Biden has already undertaken a plethora of executive actions 
        that would directly reverse or undermine important and commonsense 
        deregulatory actions of the Trump administration, including that Biden 
        has ordered the United States to rejoin the Paris Agreement, begun the 
        process of reversing President Trump's Waters of the United States Rule, 
        shuttered the Keystone XL Pipeline project, and halted energy production 
        activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;
Whereas a climate national emergency, and actions taken pursuant thereto, would 
        magnify his environment agenda that is littered with policies that would 
        drive up consumer costs, produce job losses, drive up Federal deficits, 
        increase dependence on oil from foreign countries, and generally 
        disadvantage the United States with nations such as Saudi Arabia and 
        Mexico, as well as adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran, and 
        Venezuela;
Whereas according to the Brennan Center for Justice, ``Emergency powers cover 
        almost every imaginable subject area, including the military, land use, 
        public health, trade, federal pay schedules, agriculture, 
        transportation, communications, and criminal law'' and the Brennan 
        Center has identified 136 statutory provisions available during national 
        emergencies;
Whereas the myriad of ways in which Biden could seek to carry out his expansive 
        climate agenda cannot be predicted with certainty;
Whereas President Biden's climate agenda includes broad, far-reaching policy 
        proposals that extend far past the acute, severe emergencies envisioned 
        under the National Emergencies Act, such as a commitment to end the use 
        of all fossil fuels by 2050, decarbonizing the food and agriculture 
        sectors, and unprecedented Federal spending on clean energy research and 
        innovation;
Whereas President Biden would be broadly empowered to assert Federal control in 
        domestic and international economic matters with no guardrails clearly 
        defining the parameters of the emergency; and
Whereas the United States of America has already reduced CO2 emissions to a 20-
        year low: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) opposes use of the National Emergencies Act to declare 
        a so-called ``climate emergency'';
            (2) recognizes that any policy-making action taken to 
        address global climate conditions should be undertaken by the 
        legislative branch, not through unilateral executive action;
            (3) recognizes that addressing global climate conditions 
        through the National Emergencies Act would violate the purpose 
        of the Act as well as separation of powers; and
            (4) opposes executive actions that would increase the 
        United States dependence on foreign oil, deprive Americans of 
        jobs, increase consumer costs, or disadvantage the United 
        States relative to adversarial nations such as Russia and 
        China.
                                 <all>

Share This