May 1, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 71 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H3351-H3361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 9, CLIMATE ACTION NOW ACT

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 329 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 329

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for 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. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed 90 minutes, with 60 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 30 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ted Lieu of California). The gentleman 
from Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 329. It provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 9 under a structured rule that makes 30 
amendments in order.
  It also provides for 90 minutes of general debate, with the chair and 
the ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
controlling 60 minutes, and the chair and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce controlling 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the measure we are considering today makes clear that 
under this Democratic majority science is once again respected here in 
the House of Representatives, that facts matter, and that the word of 
the fossil fuel lobby is not going to rule the day, because there is no 
debate on our side about something as basic as climate change.
  The evidence is overwhelming. It is happening, Mr. Speaker, and human 
beings are playing a defining role.
  Now, you don't have to take my word for it. You can ask virtually any 
scientist working in the field today, because 97 percent of all climate 
scientists agree that it is happening--97 percent.
  There is a United Nations body charged with looking at the science 
here called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  Do you know what it has found? That the evidence is unequivocal.
  The facts are as clear as day.
  But you don't even need to read the report to know that something is 
happening here. Just look out your window. Once-in-a-generation 
hurricanes are becoming commonplace; record-breaking storms are 
becoming the norm; and drastic temperature swings are now just the way 
it is.
  My district is home to more than 1,800 farms, and I visit with 
farmers often. Climate change isn't just an issue on their minds; it is 
sometimes the top issue on their minds when they are asked about the 
challenges that they face.
  These farmers have told me about how heat waves disrupt what was once 
a reliable growing season and how unexpected frosts have completely 
wiped out their crops. Rainfall that once ran like clockwork has given 
way to droughts that could wipe out their entire profits.
  They don't question what is going on. They are not debating the 
science of whether climate change is real. They know. They know.

                              {time}  1230

  They can see it, seemingly every day as it impacts their livelihoods. 
I wish the Republicans took climate change as seriously. But instead of 
treating it as a threat, they treat it as a punch line.
  A Republican Senator once brought a snowball onto the Senate floor, 
trying to prove that climate change isn't real because it still snows 
sometimes. You can't make this stuff up.
  Just the other day, President Trump mocked clean energy by suggesting 
that windmills cause cancer. Are you kidding me? That is the President 
of the United States.
  I won't pretend to know what goes on in the President's head, but I 
know this: His announcement in June 2017 that he would be pulling the 
United States out of the Paris climate agreement was indefensible.
  This agreement set an ambitious goal of keeping warming below 2 
degrees Celsius and established binding commitments for countries to 
meet to reduce emissions. It recognized climate change is a global 
problem that requires a global solution.
  If the President gets his way and actually withdraws the United 
States, we would stand alone as one of the only nations in the world 
not to be part of it. Even Syria, a nation embroiled in war, announced 
that it would sign on.
  Thankfully, we are not out of it yet, but we could be starting as 
early as 2020.
  H.R. 9 would ensure the President wouldn't get his way by requiring 
him to develop a plan to meet our commitments under the Paris 
Agreement.
  It is called the Climate Action Now Act because we can't wait, Mr. 
Speaker. Climate change isn't some far-off threat. It is not a problem 
for our great-grandchildren or even our grandchildren to solve. It is 
our problem. It is here today, impacting our Nation and our future.
  It is not just about the weather. Climate change also negatively 
impacts public health and our national security. Experts have even 
developed a new term to describe those displaced by its destructive 
impacts, ``American climate refugees.''
  This is not the time for handwringing or indecisiveness and not the 
time to let the fossil fuel industry that funds some campaigns outweigh 
the facts. It is certainly not the time for more stunts or snowballs on 
the floor.
  This is the time to act boldly, to listen to what the scientists are 
telling us, and to protect our planet for future generations. That is 
what H.R. 9 is all about.

[[Page H3352]]

  I ask my colleagues to let the facts rule the day once again in the 
people's House of Representatives. Let's support this rule and the 
underlying legislation and send an undeniable message that, under this 
majority, we value science and recognize the urgent need to act on 
climate change.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman McGovern for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves on the floor, yet again, to consider a 
rule for a piece of legislation that is nothing more than another 
messaging bill against the President of the United States.
  This new Democratic majority has spent nearly 20 percent--20 
percent--of the time debating bills on the floor that are nonbinding 
messaging pieces of legislation. H.R. 9 is just another example of this 
majority's intent on messaging against the President and the lack of 
any true agenda for the American people.
  The reality is that we all want clean air, clean water, and a healthy 
environment. Who doesn't? However, this bill isn't the solution.
  Addressing environmental policy should not include extreme policies 
like the Green New Deal, nor should it involve binding ourselves to 
international agreements that put the United States at a disadvantage 
to its main security and economic competitors in the world, and with no 
regard to cost for American consumers and ratepayers.
  Republicans have a better approach. We can protect our environment by 
promoting policies favoring clean energy, like nuclear, hydropower, 
natural gas, wind, solar, and carbon capture, and removing barriers to 
the deployment of new technologies and innovation.
  The United States is already leading the world in reducing greenhouse 
gas emissions through innovation and technological development. Between 
2000 and 2014, in fact, the U.S. reduced emissions more than 18 
percent.
  We should be focused on continuing to reduce emissions, developing 
and exporting clean energy technologies, and making our communities 
more resilient, all while ensuring affordable and reliable energy 
prices and prioritizing the consumer and American security and 
prosperity.
  We have serious questions concerning costs, effectiveness, and the 
feasibility of the U.S. commitments made by the Obama administration 
under the Paris Agreement 4 years ago. Even then-Secretary of State 
Kerry noted during the Paris negotiations that if the United States cut 
its CO2 emissions to zero, it would still not offset the 
emissions coming from the rest of the world.
  The Obama administration's commitments in Paris were made without a 
clear plan to meet those promises, without a full view of the costs to 
American consumers, and, certainly, without a strategy that had broad 
bipartisan support of Congress.
  If H.R. 9 were enacted into law, it would put the United States into 
a position where it could not enforce any other country's action and 
would put us at a disadvantage.
  I have heard from some of my Democratic colleagues that their energy 
policies are good for consumers, that it creates many jobs and benefits 
the economy. When they argue this, they point to States like 
California, with their renewable energy mandates.
  However, California finds itself in the precarious situation where it 
actually pays Arizona to take their energy. This is not good energy or 
economic policy.

  If Democrats were serious about solving big problems for the American 
people, they would partner and work across the aisle to find bipartisan 
solutions that they knew would have a chance to pass in the U.S. Senate 
and be signed by the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, let me make a couple of 
points.
  First of all, just so the Record is clear, under President Trump's 
policies, which are now taking effect and are now reversing some of the 
advances that we made under previous administrations, basically, these 
policies have consequences. In 2018, our emissions rose by 3.4 percent. 
We are going in the wrong direction.
  When the gentlewoman talks about all these other alternative energy 
sources that are clean and green that my Republican friends support, 
she neglects to point out that this President hasn't seen a fossil fuel 
that he hasn't wanted to embrace. In fact, he wants to go back and 
invest more in coal, which is hard to believe, given all the scientific 
evidence that exists about the dangers of coal for our atmosphere.
  There is no question where this President is coming from. He doesn't 
believe in climate change, and that is what is so shocking, that the 
whole world, the scientific community all over the world, has warned us 
time and time again that this is a real problem, and we have a 
President who doesn't believe it. It is stunning. It is stunning, but 
that is what we are dealing with.
  Basically, this is an attempt to try to get us back on the right 
track, to take this problem, which is already having significant 
negative consequences in our country, and do something about it.
  It is time to come together and tell the President, who doesn't 
believe in science, that science is real, that it is something we ought 
to take seriously, and that we ought to do something about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, climate change is already wreaking economic 
and security havoc: deep freezes; an incredible 5 feet of water dumped 
on Houston, Texas, by a hurricane; in other areas, droughts, amazing 
wildfires, and extensive disease.
  What we need is alternative energy, not Trump ``alternative facts,'' 
and decisions that are based on science, not on mythology. President 
Trump's rejection of sound climate change facts only makes Chinese 
clean energy great again.
  We need to lead on the road to clean green energy, not get run over. 
Fighting climate change is an existential challenge, but it is also an 
amazing economic opportunity. We can create green jobs right here with 
technology that is exported to the world, instead of letting our 
international competitors prevail.
  Recommitting to the Paris climate agreement is more than bipartisan. 
It is joining 2,000 American businesses. It is joining 23 States. It is 
joining cities across America, like San Antonio and Austin, that have 
already pledged that they want climate action, not more nonsense and 
climate denying.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. It is joining 21 senior Defense officials who identify 
climate change action as a way to address a major national security 
challenge.
  President Trump continues to block meaningful environmental action by 
clogging the corridors of power with fossil fuel industry cheerleaders. 
A Green New Deal is an alternative to the same old dirty deal 
threatening our planet with dark money, where the only thing green is 
that money clogging and polluting our democracy.
  Climate action does bear some costs, but inaction has even greater 
costs. Let's embrace the simple truth that preserving the Earth is 
worth it. Let's embrace an America that is leading on a green economic 
revolution.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend and the Republican whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona for 
yielding and for leading on this issue for the economy of the United 
States of America and for hardworking families.
  If you look at what getting back in the Paris accord would do, Mr. 
Speaker, it would wreck our economy in many different ways.
  The people hardest hit by the United States getting back in the Paris 
accord are the very people who don't need to be hit the most, those 
with the lowest income in our country, because it would increase energy 
costs. By outside estimates, this bill, complying with the unachievable 
requirements that they have in this bill, would cost up to 2.7 million 
American jobs.

[[Page H3353]]

  Those jobs wouldn't just evaporate, Mr. Speaker. Those jobs, 
ironically, if we were to get back into the Paris accord, would go to 
China and India because China and India, according to the accord, are 
exempt until 2030. They don't even have to comply.
  By the way, why don't we look at the countries that are begging us to 
get back into the Paris accord? Not one of the countries in the entire 
European Union is in compliance with the unachievable targets set in 
the Paris accord. In fact, France, which Paris is in, is not even in 
compliance with the target.
  Then they tell us: Hey, America, why don't you come into this thing, 
this disaster of an agreement that none of the countries in Europe are 
in compliance with?
  Then you look at what it would do, again, to wreck America's economy.
  Let's talk about carbon emissions. If this is really about carbon 
emissions, like the Green New Deal and other crazy ideas that would 
wreck the American economy, get rid of fossil fuels. You don't have to 
fly around on planes anymore. You don't have to worry about missing a 
flight because there wouldn't be any flights. That is how ludicrous 
their ideas are, yet they believe in them.
  They all do this under the guise of carbon emissions. As they say on 
the other side, climate action does have some cost. Let's talk about 
that cost: $250 billion in higher taxes, as well as lower wages for 
American families.
  You wonder why they are rioting in the streets of France. In Paris, 
where the accord was signed, they are having riots over this radical 
idea. By the way, again, they are not even in compliance with it.
  Then you look at where these jobs would go. The jobs would go to 
China and India, which are not only exempt, Mr. Speaker, but those 
countries actually emit four or five times more carbon than we do here 
because we have good environmental standards in America.

                              {time}  1245

  We have been decreasing our carbon emissions in America. In fact, we 
have decreased our carbon emissions down to the level that they were at 
in the year 2000.
  We are doing it not by signing some radical job-killing accord; we 
are doing it through American ingenuity, something we have always 
celebrated in this country, something that we are the world leader at.
  Why would we want to give that advantage away? And not just giving it 
away in the name of saving the planet, giving it away to countries like 
China and India, who are increasing carbon emissions dramatically 
higher than us.
  This is a disaster for our economy. We need to reject this bad deal.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words from our distinguished minority 
whip, but I would point out that the cost of climate inaction will far 
outweigh the cost associated with acting now.
  According to the Fourth National Climate Assessment, by 2090, lost 
wages will reach $155 billion, mortality from extreme temperatures will 
surpass $140 billion, and coastal property damage will approach $120 
billion. All told, the U.S. economy could lose more than 10 percent of 
its GDP under the worst-case scenario.
  So people can deny that this is a problem all they want, but they do 
so at great economic risk for our country and for other economies 
around the world.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9, the Climate 
Action Now Act.
  Washington's First District is home to some of our Nation's most 
beautiful parks, mountains, and waterways, and we are already seeing 
the consequences of climate change:
  Snowpack in the north Cascades is currently 20 to 40 percent below 
normal amounts;
  Last year, wildfires ravaged the West Coast, resulting in poor air 
quality and public health issues;
  Washington State just had the second driest March on record, and 
there is a greater likelihood of more fires through the summer.
  This is why Congress must take action and pass H.R. 9. We need to be 
moving forward, not backward.
  President Trump's statement of intent to withdraw from the Paris 
climate agreement is a grave mistake that would have lasting effects on 
our planet and our economy.
  H.R. 9 is an important step forward, ensuring the United States 
upholds our commitments under the agreement and leads in the green 
economy.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend and the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, Mrs. Lesko, for 
yielding.
  Well, we are here again, Madam Speaker, on yet another bill that 
isn't going to pass the Senate, isn't going to become law, and doesn't 
really do anything.
  As they have done over and over again over the past few months, my 
Democratic friends seem content to bring up virtue-signaling messaging 
bills as a substitute for passing real bipartisan legislation to solve 
problems facing the American people.
  Today's bill purports to force the President to return the United 
States to the Paris Agreement on climate change, never mind that he 
hasn't actually pulled the United States from that agreement yet, nor 
can he until the day after the next Presidential election in 2020. But 
on that day, to be fair, I think he will.
  Ineffective though it may be, the bill does nothing to address the 
serious fundamental flaws in the Paris Agreement, nor does it offer any 
substantial legislation to consider the problem of our own changing 
climate.
  Instead, like many other bills the majority has offered in Congress, 
today's legislation is all talk, no action. It is simply another 
messaging bill to allow the majority to go on record in opposition to 
President Trump. That is not legislating.
  Madam Speaker, it didn't have to be this way. We had an opportunity 
to improve this bill both at the committees of jurisdiction and again 
at the Rules Committee this week, and we could have made the bill 
better if we had made more amendments from both sides of the aisle in 
order for consideration on the floor. Legislating is better and more 
effective when all Members can have their ideas considered before final 
passage.
  Making more amendments in order is a pledge that we have heard time 
and time again from my good friend and my good chairman, Mr. McGovern, 
so it is unfortunate that this rule misses a perfect opportunity to 
have robust debate on ideas from both sides of the aisle.
  At the Rules Committee Monday night, 91 amendments were proposed and 
considered. Of those, 45 were proposed by Democrats, 44 by Republicans, 
and 2 were bipartisan. Of the 44 Republican amendments, 35 had no 
points of order against them or any parliamentary issues, yet when the 
final rule was proposed and passed out of committee, it made in order 
30 amendments: 1 bipartisan amendment, 26 Democratic amendments, and 
just 3 Republican amendments.
  Is that really how the majority wants to operate going forward, 58 
percent of the Democratic amendments allowed to come to the floor, but 
just 6 percent of the Republican amendments and just 8 percent without 
points of order? That is an abysmal result.
  For example, my good friend Rodney Davis of Illinois proposed an 
amendment that simply would have noted that the 2018 farm bill is 
relevant to achieving the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 
and would have required the President to add the Committee on 
Agriculture to any reports he sends on this topic to the Foreign 
Affairs and Energy and Commerce Committees. This is a commonsense 
amendment that takes into account the role agriculture can play in 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, yet the amendment was blocked from 
consideration on the floor.
  What is the harm, I ask, in debating that amendment here on the floor 
and

[[Page H3354]]

bringing our Nation's farmers into the discussion?

  Dr. Burgess, my fellow member of the Rules Committee and a member of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, submitted two amendments that 
required the President to consider how carbon emission-free nuclear 
power and other forms of renewable energy with zero emissions, like 
hydropower, could contribute to meeting the United States' obligation 
under the Paris Agreement.
  It seems logical to me that, when you are seeking to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, using energy sources that are emission-free 
makes sense, yet the majority didn't even want to discuss that on the 
floor and blocked both of Dr. Burgess' amendments. What harm was there 
in discussing them?
  I could go on and on, but the reality is that the majority has used 
its power at the Rules Committee to block consideration of dozens of 
amendments that could have and should have been discussed on the floor.
  When the Democrats took majority control in the House, they promised 
a more inclusive process with more minority voices heard, more 
Republican amendments considered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Castor of Florida). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
additional time.
  When the Democrats took majority control of the House, they promised 
a more inclusive process, more minority voices heard, more Republican 
amendments considered. If today's action is any indication, we have a 
long way to go in making that promise a reality. Instead, we are moving 
forward with a deeply flawed bill that could and should have been 
improved through the amendment process.
  I have been a member of the Rules Committee for a long time, 
including many years in the majority. It is fair to ask: How did we do 
when we were in the majority? Let's look at the record.
  In the 115th Congress, under Republican control of the Rules 
Committee, 45 percent of the amendments made in order were Democratic, 
38 percent were Republican, 17 percent were bipartisan. The statistics 
for today's rule is a far cry from the fairness of that record.
  If the majority truly wants to address the environment and wants to 
legislate, then we can all certainly do better than the bill before us 
today, and we can do better than the process we saw with this bill. All 
Members should have an opportunity to be heard, and we should all have 
an opportunity to make the bill better today.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say to my ranking member, whom I have 
great respect for, that I think we always need to figure out a way to 
do better and to be more accommodating, and I will continue to work 
with him to try to do that. But I will point out for the record that 
the committee has made in order 30 amendments, a total of 31 pages of 
amendments on a 6-page bill.
  I think we have a long way to go to achieve the record of closed 
rules that the previous Congress had, well over 100 closed rules. That 
broke, I think, every closed rule record in history. We certainly don't 
want to get there, but we need to continue to figure out ways we can be 
more accommodating, and he has my word that I will do that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine 
(Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for his good work 
and for yielding me the time.
  Greenhouse gas emissions did not happen in isolation. They have 
widespread impact and will not be curbed without global coordination. 
The Obama administration understood that fact, and that is why they 
entered America into an international compact to curb emissions on a 
global scale.
  When the Trump administration retreated from the Paris accord last 
year, it meant the effects of climate change would only get worse in my 
home State of Maine. In Maine, climate change isn't an abstraction, it 
is not a silly floor debate that has no meaning. It is a very real 
threat to our economy and to our way of life.
  I recently met with farmers in my State who told me climate change is 
here now and we need real solutions to adapt and to mitigate.
  I met with climate scientists from the University of Maine who told 
me invasive species are threatening the livelihoods of our foresters.
  I also met with shellfish growers and harvesters who are grappling 
with the effects of ocean acidification, of extreme weather events, and 
of the very real fact that the Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 95 
percent of the Earth's other waters.
  This is real, and I don't want my grandchildren looking back and 
saying: ``Why didn't Congress fix the problem when they could?''
  H.R. 9 is the first piece of positive climate change legislation to 
receive a vote in the House in years. The bill will reaffirm America's 
commitment to fighting climate change and will put this Congress on a 
course to take on the climate crisis before it is too late.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my good friend.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that is before us 
today. As Democrats in the House bring forward legislation in the name 
of supporting the environment and climate, I would like to talk a 
little bit about the process.
  My good friend Chairman McGovern and the Democratic majority of the 
House Rules Committee received a total of 91 amendments submitted for 
consideration on the legislation that we have before us, and as you 
just heard from Mr. Cole, of the 45 Democratic amendments, more 
than half were made in order, 26 of those; but of the 44 Republican 
amendments submitted for consideration, only 3--let me repeat that--3 
of those were made in order.

  Myself, I offered 2 of those 44 amendments. They were 
noncontroversial. They were ruled germane to the legislation before us 
by the House Parliamentarian, and all they did, simply, was recognize 
the clean, renewable benefits of hydropower and the clean emissions-
free benefits of nuclear power, but Chairman McGovern and his committee 
refused to allow this recognition.
  So we have got to ask ourselves, Madam Speaker:
  Why? Why, if we are supposedly here to debate policy affecting our 
environment and our climate, why would they not want to discuss the 
clean energy that comes from hydroelectric dams like those in my 
district along the Columbia and Snake Rivers?
  Why would they not want to discuss the emissions-free energy produced 
by nuclear power plants like the Columbia Generating Station in my 
district in central Washington.
  It is because the efforts put forward by Democrats in the House, be 
it the flawed Paris agreement legislation that is before us or the 
radical Green New Deal proposal--which, I might add, has no mention of 
hydropower and actually calls for the end of nuclear power in our 
Nation--have nothing to do with science and everything to do with 
politics.
  The majority party, the Democrats, with these proposals, is more 
focused on pushing a mandated top-down system that will inevitably do 
nothing to help our environment.
  What we should be doing, and what my Republican colleagues continue 
to advocate for, is focusing on the free market approach spurred by 
collaboration and innovation between our national laboratories, 
research universities, Federal partners, and the private sector.
  Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend Mr. McGovern that, when 
Republicans were in the majority, we made a conscientious effort on the 
Rules Committee to provide equitable treatment of amendments offered to 
legislation. With the process before us today, it is disappointing to 
see the chairman not following in that good faith effort, and I would 
urge a ``no'' vote.

[[Page H3355]]

  


                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, oh my God, just listening to the gentleman from 
Washington State give his remarks. He was on the Rules Committee when 
the Republicans were in charge last time and voted for a record number 
of 103 closed rules. That meant that not a single amendment, Republican 
or Democrat, could be made in order. Never once, never once, did I hear 
him express reservation about the historic closed process that the 
Republicans embraced.
  And as far as his amendment goes, as the gentleman knows, the Paris 
climate agreement operates under the theory that parties should be able 
to satisfy their compliance plans any way they choose. There are 
neither preferred nor prohibited ways to reduce emissions.
  Since the Paris Agreement is fuel and technology neutral, we think 
this bill should be too. But I just find it hard to sit here and to 
listen with any level of seriousness to the gentleman's complaints. 
When he was on the Rules Committee, they broke every record in the 
history of Congress being the most closed Congress in the history of 
our country. Can we do better? Yes, we can, and we should do better.
  But I will remind the gentleman, again, that there were 30 pages of 
amendments made in order on a 6-page bill, a bill, by the way, that the 
gentlewoman, Mrs. Lesko, said is not a serious bill anyway. So, I am 
not quite sure what the messaging is here: that it is not serious or 
that it is serious enough where we need to have more amendments. I 
can't quite figure their logic out here.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his important work on this urgent bill.
  It is too late to overstate the urgency of the climate crisis. It has 
already assumed emergency status in parts of the world, including parts 
of States like Florida.
  The threatened withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris climate accord 
should be considered an international crime. The United States is the 
only nation to threaten to withdraw from the agreement, but others, 
such as Brazil, seem willing to follow our lead.
  I am encouraged, though, that in our country, even though we have 
record polarization today, Americans overwhelmingly want the United 
States to remain in the agreement. The absurdity of sealing our own 
fate by faking blindness to the climate catastrophe is not lost on the 
American people we represent. This is the most serious issue faced by 
the Congress of the United States in our history. We must vote for the 
life, not the end of the planet.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my good friend.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 9.
  Madam Speaker, if we are really going to speak about what makes 
sense, what doesn't make sense, or what does have a relevance, let's 
not forget about who bears the brunt of the cost of what we are talking 
about. It is hardworking Americans.
  I find it interesting that we talk about: Well, do you know what, you 
guys did stuff the last time that prevented us from getting amendments 
in, so we are following along with the same thing. I have great respect 
for the chairman of the Rules Committee, but I have to say that if the 
whole purpose of this is what I think it is, then I would like to go 
back to the actual beginning where this should have been treated as a 
treaty and it should have gotten the advice and consent of the Senate. 
Why did President Obama not do that? Obviously, he did it because he 
couldn't get the advice and consent of the Senate, so he decided to do 
it this way.
  If our whole job in coming to the people's House is to defend the 
American people, then we need to take a real long look at what it is 
that we are trying to defend. This bill today is a messaging bill, 
there is no question about it.
  If you look at the damage that could be done to the American people--
I am talking about the American people now, not a philosophy that is 
out there, not an agenda that is out there, but I am talking about 
hardworking Americans: a loss of nearly 400,000 jobs--this is according 
to the Heritage Foundation--an average manufacturing loss of over 
200,000 jobs, a total income loss of more than $20,000 per family, a 
GDP loss of over $2.5 trillion, and increases in household electricity 
expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. The biggest offenders 
in the world are China and India, and they aren't part of this so-
called agreement.
  If we are really concerned about protecting the people who sent us 
here to be their voice, then we ought to look at what their voice is 
and who bears the burden of a philosophy, a failed philosophy, that has 
no chance of working itself into law. We know that, and yet today we 
will come here, and we will rail against something that isn't really on 
the list of what the American people have the greatest concerns over.
  The people who I represent back in Pennsylvania, they thank me every 
day for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act because it has reduced their utility 
bills.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues that the impact on 
our economy is astronomical if we do nothing. We are already seeing the 
negative impacts on our economy because of climate change. It is hard 
to believe that we are having a debate on the floor of the House of 
Representatives where people are denying that climate change is a real 
threat or that our constituents somehow don't care about this issue, 
which they do.
  And just one other thing. I want to make sure that the Record is 
clear on process. This bill went through two committee hearings--
Foreign Affairs and Energy and Commerce--and two markups before it went 
to the Rules Committee where we granted a structured rule and we are 
having a debate here on the floor. That is called regular order. I know 
some of my Republican friends don't know what regular order is, because 
when they were in charge bills routinely came to the Rules Committee 
that bypassed committees of jurisdiction and then were closed up and 
sent to the floor with no amendments at all.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the distinguished chairwoman of the Energy 
and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
  Climate change is the greatest, the greatest, and most urgent 
challenge of our time and this government should never put corporate 
profits and those kinds of concerns ahead of the health and safety of 
our children and our future.
  Climate change isn't just a Democratic or a Republican issue. It is 
an existential issue for our species on this planet.
  I am hearing so many mischaracterizations of what the Paris accord 
is. These standards that are applied to the United States are not from 
the outside, not coming from across the pond. We agree to reduce carbon 
emissions on our own terms. Every country develops its own plan and its 
own program.
  This issue about jobs is just ridiculous. Everyone understands that 
our future is not in the fossil fuel industry. The future is in the 
green technologies that are being developed by entrepreneurs. Young 
people get it. The 21st century jobs of the future are clean 
technologies that make sure our planet is good and that entrepreneurs 
can actually succeed.
  The costs of not doing this right now are so enormous. We are seeing, 
practically every year, what are called 500-year floods. They are only 
supposed to happen once every 500 years, and now we are seeing State 
after State, in my own Midwest, under water, and it happens all the 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.

[[Page H3356]]

  

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. What is the cost that we are bearing in all of our 
States and at the Federal level to mitigate the problems that are 
caused by climate change? And I want to just say to my colleagues: 
These words are on the Record. You might want to consider not 
embarrassing your children and your grandchildren and future 
generations of yours with making the kinds of statements you are.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), my good friend.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule and the 
underlying legislation that is both ill-advised and misguided.
  The environment in the United States isn't getting dramatically worse 
as those on the other side claim. We are using more while actually 
reducing air pollutants.
  The total emissions of the six major air pollutants has dropped by 68 
percent since 1970. This is a feat no other country has accomplished.
  How did we do this? These milestones have been reached due to free-
market innovation and technological advances only possible in a 
capitalistic society.
  This is how to solve problems, not through disastrous plans like the 
Paris climate accord that imposes burdensome and costly regulations not 
approved by Congress. Remember that: not approved by Congress.
  The accord, which was negotiated unilaterally by the Obama 
administration with little congressional oversight, was flawed in both 
process and substance. The Obama administration skipped the 
ratification process in the Senate and tied the American people's hands 
through executive power.

  In fact, I offered an amendment in committee to delay this 
legislation until the Senate performed their constitutional duty, but 
the other side would rather send billions of taxpayer dollars to other 
countries without congressional approval. If the American people are 
forced to put aside their personal needs in order to help the global 
good, the Constitution should be followed, and the Senate should 
perform their proper role.
  The substance of the Paris climate accord was equally flawed and 
would have significantly damaged the American economy. It is estimated 
that the Paris climate accord would result in a loss of 400,000 jobs, a 
total income loss of $20,000 or more per family of four, and an 
aggregate gross domestic product loss of over $2.5 trillion.
  While causing harm to the U.S. economy, the accord does nothing to 
hold the biggest offenders of the emissions accountable, nations like 
Russia and China. Again, an amendment was offered in committee to hold 
these nations--Russia and China--to the same standards the United 
States would be held to and it was shot down by the other side.
  We can't have effective climate policy that puts the United States at 
a disadvantage to its main security and economic competitors in the 
world. This is not an America First agenda. This legislation is more of 
a redistribution of wealth scheme than actual sound environmental 
policy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. DUNCAN. I think it is telling when former U.N. climate official 
Ottmar Edenhofer said regarding international climate policy, ``We 
redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.''
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and defeat 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Washington 
Post article entitled ``Trump on climate change: `People like myself, 
we have very high levels of intelligence but we're not necessarily such 
believers.' ''

               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 27, 2018]

Trump on Climate Change: `People Like Myself, We Have Very High Levels 
       of Intelligence but We're Not Necessarily Such Believers'

     (By Josh Dawsey, Philip Rucker, Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney)

       President Trump on Nov. 26 reacted to a major report issued 
     Nov. 23 that said climate change will challenge the economy, 
     environment, and human health. (The Washington Post)
       President Trump on Tuesday dismissed a landmark report 
     compiled by 13 federal agencies detailing how damage from 
     global warming is intensifying throughout the country, saying 
     he is not among the ``believers'' who see climate change as a 
     pressing problem.
       The comments were the president's most extensive yet on why 
     he disagrees with his own government's analysis, which found 
     that climate change poses a severe threat to the health of 
     Americans, as well as to the country's infrastructure, 
     economy and natural resources. The findings--unequivocal, 
     urgent and alarming--are at odds with the Trump 
     administration's rollback of environmental regulations and 
     absence of any climate action policy.
       ``One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we 
     have very high levels of intelligence but we're not 
     necessarily such believers,'' Trump said during a 
     freewheeling 20-minute Oval Office interview with The 
     Washington Post in which he was asked why he was skeptical of 
     the dire National Climate Assessment his administration 
     released Friday.
       ``As to whether or not it's man-made and whether or not the 
     effects that you're talking about are there, I don't see 
     it,'' he added.
       Trump did not address the fundamental cause of climate 
     change. The president riffed on pollution in other parts of 
     the world. He talked about trash in the oceans. He opined on 
     forest management practices. But he said little about what 
     scientists say is actually driving the warming of the 
     planet--emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of 
     fossil fuels.
       ``You look at our air and our water and it's right now at a 
     record clean. But when you look at China and you look at 
     parts of Asia and you look at South America, and when you 
     look at many other places in this world, including Russia, 
     including many other places, the air is incredibly dirty, and 
     when you're talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very 
     small,'' Trump said in an apparent reference to pollution 
     around the globe. ``And it blows over and it sails over. I 
     mean we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all 
     the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down 
     the Pacific. It flows and we say, `Where does this come 
     from?' And it takes many people, to start off with.''
       Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech 
     University, said in an email Tuesday that the president's 
     comments risk leaving the nation vulnerable to the ever-
     growing impacts of a warming planet. ``Facts aren't something 
     we need to believe to make them true--we treat them as 
     optional at our peril,'' Hayhoe said. ``And if we're the 
     president of the United States, we do so at the peril of not 
     just ourselves but the hundreds of millions of people we're 
     responsible for.''
       Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at 
     Texas A&M University, struggled to find a response to the 
     president's comments. ``How can one possibly respond to 
     this?'' Dessler said when reached by email, calling the 
     president's comments ``idiotic'' and saying Trump's main 
     motivation seemed to be attacking the environmental policies 
     of the Obama administration and criticizing political 
     adversaries.
       In his comments, Trump also seemed to invoke a theme that 
     is common in the world of climate-change skepticism--the idea 
     that not so long ago, scientists feared global cooling, 
     rather than the warming that is underway today.
       ``If you go back and if you look at articles, they talk 
     about global freezing,'' Trump said. ``They talk about at 
     some point, the planet is going to freeze to death, then it's 
     going to die of heat exhaustion.''
       This may refer to an oft-cited 1975 Newsweek article titled 
     ``The Cooling World'' or a 1974 Time magazine story titled 
     ``Another Ice Age?'' But researchers who have reviewed this 
     period have found that while such ideas were indeed afoot at 
     the time, there was ``no scientific consensus in the 1970s'' 
     about a global cooling trend or risk, as there is today about 
     human-caused climate change.
       In other words, scientists' understanding of where the 
     planet is headed, and the consequences, is far more developed 
     now than it was in the 1970s.
       At present, Earth has warmed roughly one degree Celsius 
     (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above late-19th-century, 
     preindustrial levels. Multiple analyses have shown that 
     without rapid emissions cuts--well beyond what the world is 
     undertaking--the warming will continue and could blow past 
     key thresholds that scientists say could lead to irrevocable 
     climate-related catastrophes, such as more-extreme weather, 
     the death of coral reefs and losses of major parts of 
     planetary ice sheets.
       On Tuesday, a U.N. report underscored again how the world 
     is far off course on its promises to cut greenhouse-gas 
     emissions. The report found that, with global emissions still 
     increasing as of 2017, it is unlikely they will peak by 2020. 
     Scientists have said carbon emissions must fall sharply in 
     coming years if the world is to have a chance of avoiding the 
     worst consequences of climate change.
       Trump also made reference to recent devastating wildfires 
     in California, which scientists say have been made more 
     intense and deadly by climate change. But the president 
     instead focused on how the forests that burned have been 
     managed. Previously, he has praised Finland for spending ``a 
     lot of time on raking and cleaning'' its forest floors--a 
     notion that left the Finnish president flummoxed.

[[Page H3357]]

       ``The fire in California, where I was, if you looked at the 
     floor, the floor of the fire, they have trees that were 
     fallen,'' Trump said. ``They did no forest management, no 
     forest maintenance, and you can light--you can take a match 
     like this and light a tree trunk when that thing is laying 
     there for more than 14 or 15 months. And it's a massive 
     problem in California.''
       ``You go to other places where they have denser trees, it's 
     more dense, where the trees are more flammable, they don't 
     have forest fires like this because they maintain,'' he said. 
     ``And it was very interesting I was watching the firemen, and 
     they were raking brush. . . . It's on fire. They're raking 
     it, working so hard. If that was raked in the beginning, 
     there would be nothing to catch on fire.''
       Trump wasn't the only administration official on Tuesday to 
     shrug off the federal government's latest climate warnings. 
     In a television appearance in California, Interior Secretary 
     Ryan Zinke acknowledged that fire seasons have grown longer 
     in the state but added, ``Climate change or not, it doesn't 
     relieve you of responsibility to manage the forest.''
       Meanwhile, asked Tuesday about the findings of the nearly 
     1,700-page climate report the administration released on 
     Black Friday, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders echoed 
     her boss.
       ``We think that this is the most extreme version and it's 
     not based on facts,'' Sanders said of the National Climate 
     Assessment. ``It's not data-driven. We'd like to see 
     something that is more data-driven. It's based on modeling, 
     which is extremely hard to do when you're talking about the 
     climate. Again, our focus is on making sure we have the 
     safest, cleanest air and water.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I do that because I want the Record to 
reflect this President's ignorance on an issue that is not only of 
national concern but of international concern.
  In the past three annual worldwide threat assessments, the U.S. 
intelligence communities have cited climate change as a national 
security threat and a multiplier of threats that create instability, 
food and water shortages, refugee and population migration, and 
economic disruption. This is a matter that we can't ignore anymore. We 
need to pass this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, climate change is a crisis 
that demands our immediate attention. Its effects are ongoing. It will 
impact all of us eventually, whether through worse storms, bigger 
wildfires, less food and water, or conflicts over resources.
  The good news is, we still have the time and ability to halt the 
worst effects. That is what the Paris climate agreement achieved. This 
landmark agreement was the first ever to unite 195 countries around the 
common goal of protecting our planet from the worst impacts of our own 
actions. That is why we must pass H.R. 9, to keep the President from 
pulling us out of this deal and require the administration to develop 
concrete plans to meet our emissions reduction targets.
  Under the Paris Agreement, each country agreed to meet our own goals 
to keep global temperatures from raising more than 2 degrees Celsius. 
Despite Trump's step backwards, I am proud that my State of California 
shows change can be made with commonsense steps.
  Investments in important technologies like renewable energy, clean 
cars, and green buildings mean that California is on track to drop our 
emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. Now the Federal 
Government must follow.
  The urgency of fighting climate change cannot be in question. Neither 
can our commitment to the Paris Agreement. I urge passage of this bill.

                              {time}  1315

  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how many minutes I 
have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Arizona has 10 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me 
the time.
  Madam Speaker, it has been nearly 2 years since President Trump 
recklessly announced the United States' withdrawal from the Paris 
climate accord. We are now the only country in the world not firmly 
behind this agreement.
  There are times where we must stand alone. This is not one of them. 
Climate change and its impacts are an existential threat, and American 
leadership has an important role to play, but under the Trump 
administration, we are retreating from our responsibility and giving up 
our seat at the table.
  Two years ago, more than 180 Representatives joined my resolution 
condemning President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, but 
the Republican leadership refused to let this body vote its will. 
Today, that changes. That is because this House is finally reflecting 
the will of the American people, which, by a 5-to-1 margin, support 
staying in the agreement.
  We need to work with the rest of the world, and the nations of the 
world are looking to us to lead. Staying in the Paris Agreement and 
developing a plan to meet emission reduction targets agreed to would be 
an important first step.
  As this House takes action to pass H.R. 9, I hope the Senate will 
follow our lead and promptly take up the legislation, and I hope 
today's vote--this vote--represents just the first of many efforts to 
reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and prevent a global climate 
disaster.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9, the 
Climate Action Now Act.
  Climate change is here, and it is worth highlighting some of the 
impacts that are underway.
  This year, we have seen record flooding in the Midwest, unprecedented 
wildfires in the West, and record temperatures across the country.
  In Vermont--and talk about economic impacts--the ski season is 
getting shorter. In one study, it has noted that, even under the most 
optimistic climate change models, all the ski areas in southern New 
England will no longer be economically viable by 2040. That would be 
thousands of jobs melting away as a result of climate change.
  We have had 16 disasters in 2017 with damage exceeding $1 billion, 
spending $306 billion on weather-related disasters that year.
  Climate change is a priority for young people and local officials. It 
now must become a priority for Congress.
  The Climate Action Now Act takes an important step in this direction 
by keeping us--or getting us back into the Paris climate agreement and 
not taken out by the action of a single person. This bill is just the 
start of fulfilling our obligations and our opportunity to slow climate 
change.
  Now, some folks are fearful about the economic consequences of 
addressing climate change, but a confident nation faces its problems; 
it doesn't deny them. It is in facing these problems that we are 
actually going to create jobs, not lose jobs.
  So, Madam Speaker, I commend Representative Castor for her leadership 
on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as the 
beginning of undertaking the opportunity that we have economically to 
build a stronger and safer environment.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, climate change is an 
existential threat that requires the entire international community to 
solve. The Paris Agreement was a monumental achievement, rightly 
praised across the world and in Congress. The President's impulsive 
decision to pull out of the agreement was one of the most dangerous 
acts of his Presidency.
  My district, Ventura County, knows all too well the devastating 
economic and human toll of climate change, which has increased the 
frequency and severity of deadly wildfires in our community.
  Climate change is also a threat to our national security and military 
readiness.
  I am the proud Representative of Naval Base Ventura County, and I 
know that climate change will increase problems with coastal corrosion 
at our Navy base and other U.S. military installations worldwide. In 
Ventura

[[Page H3358]]

County, the Army Corps of Engineers must replenish sand regularly or we 
will lose land for military exercises, and buildings on the base could 
literally fall into the sea.
  As sea levels rise and the severity of coastal storms increase, these 
problems will only grow more acute. Fortunately, House Democrats have 
recognized these threats, and we have developed plans to address them 
through the creation of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, on 
which I proudly serve.
  The Climate Action Now Act is our pledge to the world that many in 
the United States Congress want our Nation to be a global leader in 
solving this crisis. I urge my Republican colleagues to vote to protect 
our children's and our grandchildren's future and our national 
security. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the bill.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 
leading public health advocates in support of H.R. 9, as well as a 
letter signed by many of the leading environmental organizations in 
support of this legislation.

                                                   April 29, 2019.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned public health and 
     medical organizations urge you to support H.R. 9, the Climate 
     Action Now Act. The bill would help ensure that the United 
     States adheres to the science-based targets in the Paris 
     Agreement and develops a plan to meet them, both essential 
     steps to protecting public health from the impacts of climate 
     change.
       Climate change is a public health emergency. The science 
     clearly shows that communities across the nation are 
     experiencing the health impacts of climate change, including 
     enhanced conditions for ozone and particulate air pollution, 
     which cause asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease and 
     premature death; increased instances of extreme heat, severe 
     storms and other destabilizing weather patterns that disrupt 
     people's access to essential healthcare; increased spread of 
     vector-borne diseases; and longer and more intense allergy 
     seasons. These threats are no longer hypothetical, and 
     Americans across the country have experienced them firsthand.
       Every American's health is at risk due to climate change, 
     but some populations are at greater risk, including infants, 
     children, seniors, pregnant women, low-income communities, 
     some communities of color, people with disabilities and many 
     people with chronic diseases. Evidence and experience shows 
     that these populations will disproportionately bear the 
     health impacts of climate change without concerted action to 
     both mitigate and adapt to climate change.
       The science is also clear that limiting increase in global 
     temperatures to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius is 
     essential. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
     found dramatic differences in health impacts between 1.5 and 
     2 degrees, including in heat-related morbidity and mortality, 
     ozone-related mortality, and vector-borne diseases. The Paris 
     Agreement's goals are to keep the world well under 2 degrees 
     Celsius and to pursue efforts to further stay below 1.5 
     degrees.
       H.R. 9 is an important step toward what must become a 
     comprehensive set of policies protect public health from the 
     worst impacts of climate change. The nation urgently needs to 
     implement strong, science-based measures to reduce the 
     emissions that cause climate change. The U.S. must also 
     invest in health adaptation strategies to help communities 
     address the varied health impacts they are already facing.
       On behalf of the patients and communities we serve, we urge 
     you to vote YES on H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.
           Sincerely,
       Allergy & Asthma Network, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy 
     Environments, American Lung Association, American Public 
     Health Association, Association of Schools and Programs of 
     Public Health, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, 
     Children's Environmental Health Network, Climate for Health, 
     Health Care Climate Council, Health Care Without Harm, 
     National Association of County and City Health Officials, 
     National Environmental Health Association, National Medical 
     Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public 
     Health Institute.
                                  ____

                                                   April 29, 2019.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members 
     and supporters across the country, we urge you to support 
     H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act, to ensure the U.S. meets 
     its commitments under the Paris Agreement and to reinforce 
     our national resolve to address climate change.
       The Paris Agreement is a global response to the greatest 
     environmental challenge of our time. It includes, for the 
     first time, specific commitments from all major countries and 
     a pathway for each country to strengthen its own domestic 
     climate actions in the years ahead. United States leadership 
     and participation was crucial in bringing the world together 
     to act. But now, by threatening to exit the agreement, the 
     Trump administration risks isolating itself, undermining 
     global climate action, and weakening America's international 
     influence on a broad array of critical foreign policy issues.
       Americans are experiencing climate change here and now in a 
     rising tide of extreme weather disasters, from hurricanes in 
     the southeast, to wildfires in the west, to flooding right 
     now in the country's heartland. It's no surprise that polls 
     consistently show that concern over the climate crisis is 
     rising across generational, geographic, and partisan lines.
       Americans' personal experience is underscored by a raft of 
     new scientific reports. Last fall the Intergovernmental Panel 
     on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed that climate change is 
     already happening, and ambitious action to curb carbon 
     pollution is needed starting now to stave off steadily 
     worsening impacts in the U.S. and across the globe. The last 
     four years have been the hottest on record since global 
     measurements began in 1880, according to the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration. And the National Climate 
     Assessment--prepared by 13 federal agencies and released by 
     the Trump Administration last year--lays out the stark 
     reality of current climate impacts in all regions of the 
     nation and projects how much worse they could get.
       Without significant global action, the National Climate 
     Assessment concludes: ``rising temperatures, sea level rise, 
     and changes in extreme events are expected to increasingly 
     disrupt and damage critical infrastructure and property, 
     labor productivity, and the vitality of our communities.'' 
     ``[C]oastal economies and property are already at risk,'' 
     especially communities disproportionately comprised of low-
     income and minority Americans. In short, climate change is 
     already here in America and it's already harming Americans' 
     lives.
       Despite these dire forecasts, we can still stave off the 
     worst effects of climate change. Congressional leadership is 
     more important than ever, and the Climate Action Now Act will 
     go a long way to ensure that the United States fulfills our 
     commitments under the Paris Agreement and stays on the path 
     to serious action on climate change.
       This legislation demonstrates leadership and vision needed 
     to tackle the climate crisis. We urge you to support the 
     Climate Action Now Act to help make the future climate safe 
     for our children and grandchildren and honor America's 
     commitments to help confront this global challenge.
       Signed,
       Alaska Wilderness Action, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy 
     Environments, Arizona Parks and Recreation Association, Blue 
     Future, Bold Alliance, Chispa, Chispa Arizona, Citizens' 
     Climate Lobby, Clean Water Action, Climate Hawks Vote, 
     Climate Law & Policy Project, Climate Reality Project, 
     Colorado Farm and Food Alliance, Conservation Colorado, 
     Defend Our Future, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, 
     Earthworks, Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine 
     Reclamation, Elders Climate Action.
       Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America, 
     Environment Colorado, Environment North Carolina, 
     Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Justice Center of 
     Chestnut Hill United Church, Environmental Law & Policy 
     Center, Friends of Ironwood Forest, Gasp, Green The Church, 
     GreenLatinos, Hispanic Access Foundation, Hispanic 
     Federation, Interfaith Power & Light, Kids Climate Action 
     Network, League of Conservation Voters, League of Women 
     Voters of the United States, National Hispanic Medical 
     Association, National Parks Conservation Association, 
     National Wildlife Federation.
       Natural Resources Defense Council, NC League of 
     Conservation Voters, Oxfam America, Partnership for Policy 
     Integrity, Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania, 
     Public Citizen, Sierra Club, The Healthy Environment Alliance 
     of Utah (HEAL Utah), The Trust for Public Land, The 
     Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, Voices for 
     Progress, World Wildlife Fund.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action 
Now Act.
  The simple fact of the matter is that climate change is real, and it 
is creating enormous consequences for the United States. It is a threat 
to coastlines and property values, to public health, and to our 
economy.
  But it is also affecting our military readiness, our national 
security, and it is changing the strategic environment in which our 
country and our troops operate. That is why I added language to the 
fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act making it clear 
that Congress acknowledges climate change is a threat to our national 
security.
  My amendment also requires the Department of Defense to assess the 
military bases most threatened by climate change, including an analysis 
of future costs of how to deal with and mitigate

[[Page H3359]]

those challenges. Only through sober and rigorous analysis can we 
recognize the true cost of climate change to American strength and 
capabilities.
  Madam Speaker, it is absolutely imperative that we address the 
impacts of climate change now, and we have more work to do. This year, 
on the Armed Services Committee, we will continue to require the 
Pentagon to better assess and report on the climate threat.
  Madam Speaker, the Climate Action Now Act is about honoring our 
global commitments. As Americans, we rise to meet our challenges; we do 
not hide from them. We solve problems. We develop new technologies, and 
we innovate to create a more sustainable world. That is our Nation's 
proud heritage, and that is the spirit that we should bring toward 
engaging this climate threat.
  The Paris Agreement was crafted through the work of American 
negotiators with other countries around the world. It was signed by an 
overwhelming 174 countries, plus the European Union. This agreement 
represents a clear consensus to get serious and combat climate change.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. The 
threat is real. Time is of the essence. The time to act is now.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide additional consideration of H. Res. 
109, the notorious Green New Deal.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, it is about time that the American people 
know where Members of Congress stand on this radical proposal of the 
Green New Deal, which will change nearly every aspect of Americans' 
lives. Even the sponsor of this legislation has requested hearings on 
this proposal since the Speaker and the Democratic leadership refuse to 
give the Green New Deal any legislative hearings. I would like to lay 
out some of it here.
  Estimations show energy bills under the Green New Deal would spike by 
as much as $3,800 per year, per family.
  The resolution calls for upgrading all--all--existing buildings in 
the United States and constructing new buildings to achieve maximal 
energy efficiency, which could range between $1.6 trillion, with a t, 
and $4.2 trillion in cost.
  What is the estimated total price tag for the Green New Deal? Up to 
$93 trillion. That is with a t, trillion dollars.
  So where is this money going to come from? The Green New Deal could 
cost nearly $65,000 per year, per household, much higher than the 
average family income.
  We have seen the Democratic majority bring messaging bill after 
messaging bill to the floor. Why not this one? Why not the Green New 
Deal? Why not truly let the American people know where the Democrats 
stand on what I believe is a radical proposal that will hurt our Nation 
and kill jobs?
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Hice), my good friend.
  Mr. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mrs. 
Lesko, for yielding some time.
  H.R. 9 is an attempt simply to force the President to reenter an 
ineffectual international agreement, one that pushes the United States 
to adopt burdensome, painful measures and hold us to a standard that no 
other country that is a part of the agreement has bothered to meet 
themselves, all to do something that we are already doing, and that is 
lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
  But H.R. 9 is not the real agenda of our Democratic colleagues. To 
understand what the real Democratic Party wants to do, one need look no 
further than H. Res. 109, better known as the Green New Deal.
  Look, people in my district are not asking where I stand or what I 
think about the Paris climate agreement, but they are asking, eagerly, 
where I stand on the Green New Deal. Everywhere I go, people are asking 
about it.
  Last night, on a telephone townhall, several questions were asking 
where I stood on this. They are concerned that their Representative 
might support a proposal that would drastically increase their energy 
bills.
  And businesses I talk to want to know whether or not I would support 
what amounts to a torrent of heavyhanded regulations.
  I assure you, as I did them, that I do not. I strongly oppose the 
Green New Deal, but I cannot say the same for my colleagues across the 
aisle.
  Madam Speaker, 92 Democrats have cosponsored the Green New Deal, and 
nearly every Democrat running for President has endorsed it. It seems 
clear that this really is the new policy platform for the Democratic 
Party.

  I know that many of my Democratic colleagues disagree with me. They 
believe strongly in the policies of the Green New Deal, and I am sure 
some of their constituents would agree as well.
  But I am also positive that their constituents, Democratic 
constituents, want to know where their Representative stands on this 
issue just as much as mine want to know where I stand. So let's have a 
vote.
  But let's be frank with each other. The Speaker would not allow a 
recorded vote. Speaker Pelosi knows very likely that to have a vote on 
the Green New Deal could cost the Democrats the majority.
  So, look, here is the deal. We Republicans are more than happy to go 
on record with our opposition to the Green New Deal, and we are more 
than happy to help our Democratic colleagues go on record with their 
support for the Green New Deal. So help us defeat the previous 
question.
  As my friend, Mrs. Lesko, has said, if we defeat the previous 
question, then we will amend the rule and enable a vote on the Green 
New Deal, and I hope to have support in that regard.
  But I understand it may be difficult for some of my colleagues across 
the aisle to do so, and if they are unable to help support us on this 
previous question, then I have another opportunity.

                              {time}  1330

  If we do not defeat the previous question immediately following this 
vote series, I am going to file a discharge petition to ensure a vote 
on the Green New Deal. I encourage all Members here to vote against the 
previous question, vote against the rule, and sign the discharge 
petition. Let's have a vote on the Green New Deal.
  Again, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, we all want to protect the environment, 
both Republicans and Democrats, and ensure that we are leaving a better 
world for on our children, grandchildren, and future generations.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 9 is not, in my opinion, a legitimate solution. 
H.R. 9 is little more than a messaging bill that is intended to 
undermine the President and message to the Democratic base.
  We do have an opportunity to get things done here, but it takes a 
willingness from those in power to work with us in a bipartisan fashion 
for a solution.
  Republicans want to focus on clean and affordable energy solutions 
that will create stability for consumers at affordable rates. We should 
be working together on these solutions and on real pieces of 
legislation that have the ability to pass the U.S. Senate and be signed 
by the President.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a 
``no'' vote on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This is like the theater of the absurd, when I listen to my 
Republican colleagues. We have a bill, H.R. 9, that says that the 
United States should not remove itself from the Paris climate accord. I 
have one colleague saying that it is a messaging bill that means 
nothing. I have other Republican colleagues saying that if we pass 
this, it is the end of the world because it is going to have all these 
implications.
  Then we get lectured to by my Republican colleagues for almost an 
hour

[[Page H3360]]

now that 30 amendments are not enough on a 6-page bill, that we need 
more and more amendments in order. Then, the gentleman from Georgia 
comes to the floor and says: I want to offer the Green New Deal, and I 
want to offer it under a closed rule where nobody can amend it.
  I mean, you can't make this stuff up. The Republicans are saying: We 
don't want hearings, and we don't want markups. We want nothing. We 
just want to bring it to the floor under a closed rule so that nobody, 
Democrats or Republicans, can amend it.
  I support the Green New Deal. I have some ideas to make it a little 
bit better. I would like to have some amendments made in order. But my 
Republican friends say no amendments, closed rule, shut it all down. 
Old habits die hard.
  When the Republicans were in charge, they presided over the most 
closed Congress in the history of our country, and they just can't 
break that old habit.
  Well, you know what? We want to move on a Green New Deal, but we want 
to do it right. We want to do hearings, and you can have some of your 
friends and allies who are climate-change deniers come to testify 
against it if you want. We will bring experts and scientists because we 
believe in science. We will have them come to talk about why it is 
important and how we can improve it.
  We look forward to that, but not under a closed rule with no hearings 
and no markups. This is embarrassing.
  Madam Speaker, the United States has a unique role to play in 
fighting climate change, not just because we should be leading the way 
on innovation or because we have the largest economy anywhere but 
because we played a major role in furthering this crisis.
  Between 1970 and 2013, the U.S. ranked number one in total carbon 
emissions. We released more carbon into the atmosphere than China, 
Japan, or any of the other 40 global nations. That is according to the 
Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research. I don't think we 
should be turning our back on a problem that we helped create.
  It isn't a radical or partisan idea. Experts consider 1988 to be the 
year that the science behind climate change became widely known and 
accepted, and that is the year when a Republican Presidential nominee, 
George H.W. Bush, pledged that he would fight the greenhouse effect 
with the ``White House effect.''
  We have come a long way since then, Madam Speaker, and I don't mean 
positively. There was a time when Republicans cared about the 
environment, when they understood that issues like the climate crisis 
were something that we needed to work on in a bipartisan way. Now they 
have become the party of climate change deniers.
  This is the challenge of our generation. It is more important than 
petty partisanship.
  President Trump seems obsessed with dismantling anything that Barack 
Obama has ever done. That doesn't mean that Congress should sit idly by 
when it comes at the expense of the future of our planet.
  With climate change, public health is at risk and our national 
security is endangered. The President may be unwilling to rise to the 
challenge, but this Democratic majority is not. Congress shouldn't let 
another one of his temper tantrums ruin our planet.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question, and I 
urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  The text of the material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as 
follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 329

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 109) recognizing the duty of the Federal 
     Government to create a Green New Deal. The resolution shall 
     be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or 
     their respective designees. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not 
     apply to the consideration of House Resolution 109.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 191, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 172]

                               YEAS--228

     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--191

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko

[[Page H3361]]


     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Abraham
     Adams
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Harris
     Hastings
     Norman
     Perry
     Rooney (FL)
     Titus
     Vargas
     Woodall

                              {time}  1401

  Mr. STEUBE, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Messrs. CURTIS, STEWART, GROTHMAN 
and ROGERS of Alabama changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. WILSON of Florida and Mr. ESPAILLAT changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 188, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 173]

                               YEAS--226

     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--188

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Abraham
     Adams
     Blumenauer
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Harris
     Hastings
     Higgins (LA)
     Himes
     Marchant
     Norman
     Perry
     Rooney (FL)
     Scalise
     Titus
     Vargas
     Woodall

                              {time}  1410

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would 
have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 173.

                          ____________________