CLIMATE ACTION NOW ACT; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 72
(House of Representatives - May 02, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H3411-H3420]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CLIMATE ACTION NOW ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 9.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 329 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 9.
  Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  0917


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 9) to direct the President to develop a plan for the 
United States to meet its nationally determined contribution under the 
Paris Agreement, and for other purposes, with Mr. Casten of Illinois 
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
May 1, 2019, amendment No. 20 printed in House Report 116-42 offered by 
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Mrs. Lee) had been disposed of.


                  Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Kim

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, line 25, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 8, line 5, strike ``Agreement.'' and insert 
     ``Agreement; and''.
       Page 8, after line 5, insert the following paragraph:
       (3) how the Paris Agreement's loss and damage provisions 
     would affect infrastructure resiliency in the United States.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Kim) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 9.
  My amendment is straightforward. This bill requires the President to 
submit a plan to Congress to meet our obligations under the Paris 
accord. This amendment ensures that we do not forget the impact of our 
infrastructure when addressing the threat of climate change.
  We know that climate change is real. We know that we are already 
feeling its effects and that it will only intensify. Strong scientific 
research tells us that storms are getting stronger and more frequent. 
Sea levels are rising, and this poses a direct threat to our coastal 
communities.
  While this bill and the Paris accord take significant steps to 
address the root causes of climate change, we must be prepared to 
address the significant impact it is having on our Nation's 
infrastructure today.
  My district in New Jersey was among the hardest hit by Superstorm 
Sandy. Toms River alone saw $2.25 billion in property damages, the 
highest out of any township in New Jersey, and we are still recovering 
from that storm that hit our State years ago.
  In 2017 we saw three of the five costliest storms in our history in 
Harvey, Maria, and Irma. Rising sea levels are increasing the severity 
and frequency of flooding and are contributing to beach erosion, posing 
a major threat to our coastal tourism economy.
  Climate change isn't just measured by rising tides and rising 
temperatures. It is measured by the rising costs that will incur on our 
communities and the investment needed in infrastructure to keep our 
communities resilient in the face of that threat.
  In the coming months, as we hopefully take up and pass a bold 
infrastructure package, this amendment will provide guidance towards 
achieving the infrastructure resiliency our communities need. We know 
that infrastructure improvements don't only need to come in the form of 
potholes fixed and bridges rebuilt, they need to lessen the impact of 
rising storm surges from the next big storm and make sure communities 
like mine in Ocean County can remain a place for people to raise a 
family, create jobs, and achieve the American Dream.
  The Paris Agreement's loss and damage provision recognizes the 
importance of updating our infrastructure to help communities deal with 
the adverse impacts of climate change. I urge that we include this 
amendment because it is crucial that there is an understanding from top 
to bottom of the threat that climate change poses and the impact that 
it will have toward infrastructure resiliency across our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
ensure we are not only protecting our climate but the infrastructure we 
need to support our communities, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H3412]]

  

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
commend him for his leadership.
  This issue of infrastructure resiliency is so important. We are now 
discussing doing major infrastructure legislation to rebuild America in 
a way that is making it safer, by promoting commerce and improving the 
quality of life by decreasing the amount of time people have to spend 
in their cars. By increasing broadband and all of the things that 
enable people, whether it is healthcare, education, or commerce, the 
infrastructure is so central to that.
  When we talk about infrastructure, we have to talk about resiliency; 
and when we talk about climate change, we have to talk about 
infrastructure. So this is a very important amendment, and I rise to 
support it.
  I thank the gentleman for sharing his New Jersey experience in terms 
of the need for resiliency in this very wise amendment.
  I also want to rise in support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act. 
I commend Chairwoman Kathy Castor who is the chair of our House Select 
Committee on the Climate Crisis and also the chairman of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee, Mr. Engel, for his leadership on this important 
issue which is under the jurisdiction of his committee. They bring 
vision, they bring values, and they bring the voices of Members and the 
American people to make a difference.
  We thank our freshman Members, in particular, who have carried the 
priorities of their communities to Congress to demand climate action 
now. And I think it is very appropriate that the gentleman in the chair 
is on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and has been a 
leader in the private sector, now in the public sector, on this 
important issue as we go forward.
  It is time, Mr. Chairman, to end denial about this and start 
listening to the facts. This is about science, science, science. An 
overwhelming number, 86 percent, of Americans know that this is a 
crisis. They know that human behavior has an impact on it, and they 
want us to act.
  We all have stories from our communities.
  One of my constituents wrote:

       My daughter has developed asthma. It wrenches me to see her 
     used as a canary in a coal mine. We are literally choking on 
     the denial and inaction.

  Another writes:

       Green jobs are guaranteed local jobs and will put people to 
     work. Survival is now poised to become a viable economic 
     sector.

  Let me just say that this is about jobs, jobs, jobs. It is very 
important for our country to be preeminent in the world on the green 
technologies, and this legislation is in recognition of that. It is 
about public health, about clean air and clean water, the air our 
children breathe and the water they drink, and it is about 
environmental justice in that regard as well that all children will be 
able to live in a safe, clean environment in which they can thrive.

  It is about our national security. Over and over again the national 
security experts, the generals and the admirals, have come to us and 
said that this is a global security issue, because of what impact the 
climate change crisis is doing to the use of water and access to food 
and how natural disasters affect migration and also how that can lead 
to initiation of hostilities among people. It is a national security 
issue in terms of how we use our resources for our national security as 
well.
  It is a moral issue. If you believe, as I and some in the evangelical 
community do, that this planet is God's creation and we have a moral 
responsibility to be good stewards of it, then you would be sure to be 
a good steward and sign up for climate action now.
  But even if you don't share that religious belief, we all know that 
we have a moral responsibility to the next generation to pass this 
planet on in a better way than we found it in a very responsible way.
  So it is we must take action. The bill demands action now, by keeping 
us in the only international agreement dedicated to ending the climate 
crisis and demanding a plan of action from the administration, and Mr. 
Kim has put forth that plan to recognize infrastructure resiliency as 
the administration comes forward.
  We are sending a signal to the world that the U.S. is in denial about 
the overwhelming science about climate, but this bill is a step in the 
right direction.
  I am very proud of the work the House Select Committee on the Climate 
Crisis and other committees of jurisdiction are doing. But it is a task 
for every committee of the Congress to look at the jurisdiction of the 
committee and to see how, in terms of jobs, public health, national 
security, and, again, our moral responsibility to our children and 
future generations--it is everybody's responsibility in the Congress. 
It is a Congress-wide responsibility.
  I do thank the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis for the 
focus that it is placing on all of this. We will be able to accommodate 
so many entrepreneurial ideas, new thinking on the subject, being 
current on the data and on the science. So we have a tremendous 
generational opportunity and responsibility.
  I thank all who are involved in this for their extraordinary 
leadership. Anyone who cares about our planet and our children's future 
is deeply in debt to those who have taken the lead on this.
  Under President Bush's leadership when he was President and we had 
our select committee then, we passed the biggest energy bill in 
history. While everyone was not in agreement on the climate crisis, we 
all agreed that we had to take action. President Bush signed the bill 
in a big ceremony, and it was the equivalent of taking tens of millions 
of cars off the road in how we raised the emissions standards. It was 
important, and that legislation was the basis for many of the executive 
actions that President Obama was able to take under the authority of 
that legislation.
  So that was very important, and it was bipartisan. Hopefully, we can 
be bipartisan as we go forward for the next big steps that we have to 
take.
  Technology has come a long way since then. Science informs us better. 
Current events have made it very clear: we have an imperative to have 
climate action now.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote for Mr. Kim's 
amendment to H.R. 9.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. On behalf 
of both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, we support this amendment. It is a good amendment.
  I also thank the gentleman for working with the committees on this 
amendment.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chair, I reiterate that my amendment is straightforward. 
It recognizes the importance of safeguarding our communities and 
updating infrastructure to protect against the adverse impacts of 
climate change.
  We can see that storms are getting worse and worse and costlier. The 
storms are not hitting just red States or blue States. They are hitting 
all of us.
  I urge all my colleagues to stand behind my amendment and lend your 
support to ensure that our communities are resilient after the next big 
storm so that they can remain a place for people to raise a family, 
create jobs, and achieve the American Dream.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, it is, again, great to be here this morning. 
I appreciate Speaker Pelosi coming down and talking about bipartisan 
solutions and working together.
  Obviously, on this piece of legislation, I think the terminology was 
demanding a plan for the administration. Well, that assumes that the 
administration would sign this bill. That also assumes that the Senate 
would pass this bill. Even if the President would sign a bill that he 
doesn't want to enact, he would probably then veto the bill he just 
signed. Then we would sustain his veto.
  If we want to move forward, then we want to do things that can get 
through

[[Page H3413]]

the Senate and get to the President's desk. That is why, all afternoon 
yesterday, we talked about--and this amendment has some of those issues 
in it--adaptation, resiliency, grid modernization, and how do you 
adapt.
  We appreciate the intent on which this amendment is being brought 
forward.
  On another cautionary note, in the Paris accord, when it talks about 
addressing loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate 
change, it is referring to the Paris accord's provision for developing 
countries. That accord doesn't have provisions for developed countries.
  Maybe as things move forward with my colleague from New Jersey, we 
can make sure we address that appropriately.
  We would like to have these studies done before we go into 
international agreements when we don't know how they are going to 
respond, versus after the fact, just like the cart before the horse. 
Then we will know that this is a good deal, that we should do this, or 
maybe that we shouldn't.
  We had a couple of amendments last night that talked about all the 
bad aspects but none of the positive aspects. We also had a couple that 
said let's look at the good and the bad.
  I would suggest that, in an amendment, there may be some areas of the 
country in which the infrastructure is not going to be harmed. In fact, 
an area of the country might even benefit from these changes.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kim).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mrs. Fletcher

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask 
for its consideration.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, after line 20, insert the following new subsection:
       (d) Technology Neutral.--Nothing in this Act may be 
     construed to require or prohibit the inclusion of a specific 
     energy technology or technologies in the plan required by 
     this section.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 4 minutes, and I rise in 
support of my amendment.
  Innovation drives the energy industry, and it is important that we 
continue to follow a technology-neutral approach that allows the best 
science to flourish and the best technologies to emerge.
  When it comes to energy innovation, my home in Houston is its home. 
Houston, long known as the energy capital of the world, is the 
epicenter of our modern energy renaissance. Home to virtually every 
segment of the energy industry, including exploration, production, 
transmission, marketing, supply, and technology, we see opportunities 
for innovation in all sectors of the energy industry.
  Over the last decade in particular, energy technology has enabled us 
to recover resources in new areas and new ways. Advances in technology 
that have transformed our energy economy have substantially reduced 
U.S. carbon emissions.
  Replacing coal-fired plants with natural gas plants has led to the 
greatest reduction in carbon emissions in the last 30 years, and we are 
leading the way on new technologies critical to reaching our emissions 
reduction goals and combating climate change, like carbon capture 
technologies. Two plants are near my district in Houston.
  We believe in an all-of-the-above approach to energy sources that 
reduces costs as well as emissions, and we see that in Texas' 
investment in wind energy.
  In Texas, we have installed more wind power generation than any 
State, three times as much as the next leading State.
  Houston is home to more than 100 solar-related companies.
  These statistics may surprise some, but they should not because 
energy companies, whether renewable or hydrocarbon-based, are really 
technology companies that apply their technology to energy.
  My amendment ensures that nothing in this act will favor one fuel 
source or one technology over another.
  Climate change is a global threat. We need the input of a diverse and 
broad coalition of stakeholders that have the energy expertise we need 
to chart our path forward, and we need to encourage innovation and 
technology in every area.
  Mr. Chair, it is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding 
to me.
  On behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, we support this amendment. It is a good amendment, 
and I thank the gentlewoman for working with the committees on the 
amendment.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, this is the perfect example of an amendment 
that, as we move something forward that might be able to be considered 
by the Senate and signed by the President, I think we would be very 
interested in dealing with.
  Although, I guess I am a little confused. The amendment says we don't 
want to be technologically specific, although you mentioned the 
benefits of carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization, which is an 
amendment we had in the committee to try to say these are some good 
technologies we ought to consider.
  A lot of folks on our side have been excited about the energy 
renaissance, the ability to recover more oil. We know the great stories 
of Texas and the ability to capture carbon and sequester it with 
utilization for money to help deal with other issues.
  I think when we move in the direction of a bill that we plan to get 
through the Senate and the House, we should keep our communications 
open because I think there are some bipartisan solutions.
  The Republicans have always talked about conservation, innovation, 
and adaptation. This is part of the innovation package.
  We also have advanced nuclear in that package. We also have pump 
storage and batteries in that package. I think there are opportunities 
here.
  We offered, as I said, in the committee, the value of nuclear and 
advanced nuclear energy, hydropower, carbon capture, and the production 
and export of natural gas. Part of my portfolio of volunteer activities 
is in the Eastern European bloc. Obviously, the ability to export 
natural gas has been a boon to these countries that don't want to be 
enslaved to Russian natural gas.
  Again, there are things we can do. When we talk about innovation 
necessary to produce a strong economy, energy security, and lower 
emissions, we have to focus on the benefits of these technologies. 
While I can agree with the idea of this amendment, I think it falls 
short of what is necessary for Congress to assist our priorities.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage a ``no'' vote, but I look forward to working 
with my colleague in the future, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H3414]]

the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 23 Offered by Ms. Pressley

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, after line 19, insert the following paragraph:
       (3) The Paris Agreement specifies the need for a strong 
     global response to climate change and when taking action, the 
     need to respect, promote, and safeguard the right to health 
     now and for future generations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 9, the 
Climate Action Now Act.
  My amendment is a commonsense amendment that reaffirms the 
interconnection between climate change and public health disparities 
plaguing communities across our country and throughout the globe.
  Mr. Chair, despite arguments to the contrary by many, there is no 
such thing as planet B. This is the only Earth we have, and we need to 
act like it. H.R. 9 will ensure that this administration acts 
accordingly.
  It has been said that politicians consider future elections while 
statesmen and -women consider future generations. It is our 
responsibility to consider future generations, to take the necessary 
actions to reestablish our Nation as a leader in the global fight to 
combat climate change.
  The impacts of climate change are not some futuristic threat. The 
threats are imminent; we are being confronted by them daily; and we 
must act now.
  Climate scientists have made clear that, if we are to continue down 
this path without action, it will be too late. We must act now. We must 
act today. We must act at this very moment.
  Climate change and global warming are threatening all aspects of our 
society and increasing the risk to human lives and health today, 
particularly for vulnerable communities like Roxbury and Chelsea in my 
district. These communities are finding themselves on the front lines 
of the crisis.
  For example, in Boston's Chinatown neighborhood, a predominantly 
immigrant and low-income community that falls at the crossroads of two 
major highways, my constituents breathe some of the most toxic air in 
all of Boston, air polluted with car exhaust and other irritants that 
are exacerbated by rising heat levels.
  While these are largely invisible pollutants, the impacts are crystal 
clear. Over the last several years, asthma rates at the Josiah Quincy 
Elementary School in the heart of Chinatown have jumped from 18 to 25 
percent.
  Mr. Chair, let me make this plain. Our children are breathing toxic 
air.
  These climate injustices are far-reaching. According to a report 
released earlier this week by the American Lung Association, more than 
141 million people in the U.S. live in communities with unhealthy 
levels of toxic pollution, including many living in my home State of 
Massachusetts where air quality has worsened each year.
  The World Health Organization estimates that 7 million people around 
the world die each year as a result of these types of air pollution 
exposures. These toxic pollutants are affecting 9 out of 10 people, the 
vast majority of the world's population.
  These statistics are staggering and, quite frankly, terrifying. If it 
seems that we are being fatalists, it is because the threat is a fatal 
one.
  Again, my amendment recognizes the critical impact that climate 
change poses to our fundamental right to breathe clean air, to drink 
clean water, and to live in clean and safe communities.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Let 
me say, with pleasure, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and 
also the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment. It 
is a good amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman for working with the 
committees on this amendment.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, we really don't need a Paris 
Agreement to meet substantial changes in the carbon dioxide, or, as my 
colleague was speaking, she was really referring to the Clean Air Act 
and the four criteria pollutants that we have so aggressively addressed 
since 1992.
  Having said that, what is better for the poor and the downtrodden is 
to have a job. What is better for their health and economic opportunity 
is to have a job. What also helps is that they have a good paying job 
that provides great healthcare benefits.
  So, from 2015 to 2018, out of the industrialized countries, the 
United States is the number one reducer of carbon dioxide--number one. 
We didn't have to do it with all these international accords. We do it 
through innovation, technology, and advancement.
  But carbon dioxide emissions went up last year. That is a known fact. 
The question is why. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have one of the best 
economies that I have ever served in in the House of Representatives, 
where there are help wanted signs all over the place.
  As the manufacturing sector grows, there is a need to address these 
emissions. That is why Republicans continue to look forward to the day 
when we can join with our Democratic colleagues on conservation, 
innovation, and adaptation, moving some bills and processes through the 
floor that will be received well in the Senate and to the President's 
desk.
  I think, rather than focus on the finding, we should debate 
bipartisan solutions such as boosting research, advanced technologies, 
and promoting innovation. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Ms. Schrier

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, after line 20, insert the following new subsection:
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to require or prohibit the President from including 
     or considering voluntary agricultural practices to be 
     undertaken by farmers and ranchers, thereby contributing to 
     the development of soil organic matter, increasing carbon 
     sequestration, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and 
     contributing to meeting the goals and ambitions of the Paris 
     Agreement.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Schrier) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would support farmers and ranchers who employ 
agricultural practices that help us meet the goals and ambitions of the 
Paris Agreement.
  In order to combat climate change, we are all going to have to work 
together. Ours is a country that has already banded together to take on 
the greatest challenges of our times, and this is no exception. This is 
a time for the United States to not just partner, but to lead the world 
in protecting this planet for our children and future generations.
  Now, farmers and ranchers are on the front line of the climate 
crisis, and they are stepping up. Droughts, fires,

[[Page H3415]]

and floods are threatening their safety and their livelihoods. My time 
on the Agriculture Committee and time spent with growers in my district 
have shown me that farmers are deeply invested in addressing our 
climate and are eager to be part of the solution.
  Farmers are already expanding no-till practices, rotating crops, and 
planting cover crops to sequester carbon, fix nitrogen and other soil 
nutrients, and reduce erosion. With that healthier soil packed with 
organic matter, they are decreasing their reliance on fossil fuel-based 
fertilizers, increasing yields, saving water, and reducing greenhouse 
gas emissions.
  We must recognize and celebrate the contributions of our farmers who 
engage in sustainable ag practices. My amendment would support this 
agricultural ingenuity and creativity and prevent this administration 
from standing in the way of farmers and ranchers who are fighting 
climate change.
  The climate crisis is an urgent matter, and there isn't one silver 
bullet. Let's recognize that the solution will require something from 
all of us and support our farmers who can make a tremendous dent in 
CO2 emissions.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Let me say with pleasure, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee 
and also the Energy and Commerce Committee, I support this amendment. 
It is a good amendment, and I want to thank the gentlewoman for working 
with the committee on this amendment.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate that it is 
so important that we all step up.
  When I hear my colleagues talking about jobs, needing to do other 
things, waiting, this is too advanced. It is frustrating to see that 2 
years passed and we saw absolutely no legislation to protect our 
climate. Kicking the can down the road further just puts our future in 
peril, along with the future of our children.
  So I would ask for that step of faith that we will protect jobs. I am 
happy to say that H.R. 9 specifically notes that, in addressing our 
changing climate, this will create jobs, clean energy jobs, and you can 
rest assured that our economy will flourish with addressing our 
climate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, again, to my colleague, and I appreciate 
it. She has me at a disadvantage because I have a huge ag district, 33 
counties in southern Illinois, more pigs than people. I have corn, 
beans, and the like, so we appreciate this; and we appreciate this 
amendment because of the voluntary action of it and trying to 
incentivize and appreciate what our agriculture community has done 
because, as you know, other proposals out there that are debated in 
Washington might have some severe effects on agriculture.
  I also want to take this time to say we did a lot in the last 
Congress. I think the misnomer is that if we don't say ``climate 
change'' and we move good public policy, that we haven't done anything.
  Through the House, we passed:
  The Energy Efficient Government Technology Act; that was actually 
voice voted and sponsored by Anna Eshoo from California;
  Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act,  Bob Latta from Ohio;
  Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act, which this is another 
thing we did in the last Congress;
  Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, Pete Olson from Texas;
  Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment, the SENSE Act;
  Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act by Bill 
Johnson;
  Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act of 2017, another bill to 
reauthorize the West Valley Act.
  Of course, I am a proud sponsor, with a huge bipartisan vote, for 
what was H.R. 3053, which was how do you deal with the nuclear waste 
provision.
  So we actually moved a lot of bills in the last Congress, and many of 
those bills were in a bipartisan manner.
  Yes, we do not carry the mantle of ``Paris'' or ``climate,'' but not 
everything has to be a subtitle of that major provision, especially if 
you are doing what we are trying to do in the House, which is bring to 
the floor bills in a bipartisan manner.
  Conservation, that would be like energy efficiency, new source 
review, forest management practices. Being from Washington State, the 
gentlewoman understands the forest issues and the concerns that we do 
more forest management practices. Maybe some of our fires would be less 
so.

  Innovation; advanced nuclear power; carbon capture; utilization; 
sequestration, which we spoke about in an amendment previously; and 
also pump storage batteries.
  Also, from Washington State, the gentlewoman knows the benefits of 
hydropower, and if we can pump that water back up and have a continuous 
cycle, that is a pretty green use of power.
  Adaptation, grid modernization, resiliency, and things on GMO crops, 
crops that can change if the environment is changing, if the growing 
cycles change. Right now we have drought-resistant corn. We might have 
to have corn that grows in wetter conditions. That is all part of the 
adaptation that we need to talk about.
  So I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment and the chance to discuss 
these issues. I support voluntary action. The idea of this amendment 
will be better served focusing on examining the costs of these 
commitments, like some of our Republican amendments try to do, as we 
move this bill outside of the committee.
  I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Neguse

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment. It is at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, after line 10, insert the following new subsection 
     (and redesignate the subsequent subsection accordingly):
       (c) Education and Public Awareness.--
       (1) In general.--The plan under this section shall be 
     consistent with Article 12 of the Paris Agreement, which 
     states ``Parties shall cooperate in taking measures, as 
     appropriate, to enhance climate change education, training, 
     public awareness, public participation and public access to 
     information, recognizing the importance of these steps with 
     respect to enhancing actions under this Agreement.''.
       (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this Act may be 
     construed to require or prohibit the President from including 
     in the plan under this section, consistent with the 
     prohibition described in section 438 of the General Education 
     Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232a), recommendations to support 
     State and local educational agencies, in integrating 
     instruction on human-caused climate change and the societal, 
     environmental, and economic effects of such climate change 
     into curricula taught in elementary and secondary schools 
     under the control of such State and local educational 
     agencies, in order to meet the goals and ambitions of the 
     Paris Agreement to ensure climate education and awareness in 
     schools.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment today to provide 
a pathway for the curriculum in our elementary and secondary schools to 
include information on the impacts of

[[Page H3416]]

climate change. Eighty percent of parents and 86 percent of teachers 
believe that schools should teach about climate change and its impacts 
on our environment, our economy, and our society.
  As our future generations grow up in a world that is impacted by 
extreme weather events and a changing climate, it is essential that we 
educate them on the causes and impacts of the crisis, as well as equip 
them for finding solutions to combat it.
  Climate change truly is an existential threat, in my view, that we 
must begin tackling head-on. Science is perfectly clear that we have a 
very short runway to avoid catastrophic consequences for our planet, 
and this moment requires bold action now. The solutions we find and the 
bold policies that our country requires to combat this current crisis 
must begin with education.
  While it is our duty to get the ball rolling on policies and programs 
that will begin to mitigate climate change-related issues, make no 
mistake: It is our children who will feel the brunt of the effects that 
our scientific community has outlined time and time again.
  When my daughter, Natalie, who is now 8 months old, is attending 
middle school, climate change and its impacts on our planet will be her 
reality. She should be equipped with every resource we are able to 
offer her at that time, and that begins with education.
  This amendment underscores the importance of State and local efforts 
to teach our youth the causes and effects of climate change. Again, the 
science is clear, and it is of the utmost importance that the next 
generation is presented with the facts of this crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, thank the gentleman 
for yielding and say unequivocally, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, we, both committees, 
support this very good amendment. I also want to thank the gentleman 
for working with the committees on this amendment.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the chairman for his 
distinguished leadership in chairing the Foreign Affairs full committee 
and for his leadership in shepherding this important resolution to the 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my colleagues across the aisle could 
come to consensus on this amendment. I think it is a commonsense, 
reasonable amendment that ensures that our children, the next 
generation, are, as I said, well-informed about the causes and the 
effects of climate change so that they can work with all of us to try 
to stop it and to try to deal with the planetary crisis that we find 
ourselves in.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague bringing that up. I 
taught high school for 4 years, so education is key.
  This whole provision of moving to the Paris accord was done without 
education of the Members of Congress. It was an executive branch 
decision.
  We can debate whether the President had the authority or didn't have 
the authority, but we think what happened was that there was not total 
buy-in. Had it been presented as an agreement or had it been presented 
as a treaty, it wouldn't have passed either Chamber.
  I do agree that education is very, very important. However, I also 
believe in local control. Republicans will always have a challenge with 
the Federal Government directing, dictating, and telling our local 
schools what their curriculum should be.
  Mr. Chair, that is why I oppose this amendment. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Van Drew

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, after line 23, insert the following new paragraphs 
     (and redesignate the subsequent paragraph accordingly):
       (8) Article 8 of the Paris Agreement notes Parties 
     recognize the importance of averting, minimizing and 
     addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse 
     effects of climate change, including extreme weather events 
     and slow onset events, and the role of sustainable 
     development in reducing the risk of loss and damage such as 
     strong winds from hurricanes and tropical storms, and 
     flooding from storm surges and heavy rain, that inflict 
     losses on various sectors of the United States economy.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, my amendment would add to the findings of 
the importance of averting, minimizing, and addressing loss and damage 
associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including 
extreme weather events.
  It is well known that extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and 
tropical storms, are some of the most devastating and costly 
consequences of a warming world, displacing thousands of people at a 
time and costing government billions of dollars to recover.
  The good people of south Jersey know that climate change is occurring 
because our streets flood almost every time it rains in the coastal 
areas. Unfortunately, we also have the painful reminder of Superstorm 
Sandy.
  On October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy first struck the mainland near 
Brigantine, New Jersey, in my district, pounding our coast with winds 
of over 70 miles per hour and 13-foot storm surges, ultimately killing 
147 people.
  Superstorm Sandy was the most destructive natural disaster ever to 
strike the State of New Jersey and ranks among the five costliest 
natural disasters in our Nation's history.
  Here is some of the damage caused by Sandy: Almost 350,000 homes were 
damaged. 1,400 vessels were sunk or abandoned. Seventy drinking water 
systems were affected. Eighty wastewater treatment plants suffered 
power loss or damage. The entire coastline experienced erosion. And 
untold billions were sucked out of our economy.
  We need to recognize that climate change is exacerbating the 
intensity and the frequency of extreme weather events that often cause 
the loss of life, property, and security.
  Staying in the Paris Agreement is good for jobs and good for the 
economy.
  Investing in clean, low-carbon technologies will help us expand and 
develop the industries of the future and help us compete globally 
against other countries that are already making significant investments 
in these fields.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which simply 
acknowledges the need to reduce and avoid the human and economic toll 
brought on by the changing climate and that we need to develop our 
economy in a sustainable fashion.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and say, on 
behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, we support this amendment.
  New York, which is just up from New Jersey, also suffered 
tremendously from Superstorm Sandy. In fact, a lot of the repairs that 
we are doing now to the New York City subway are a direct result of 
that, so I certainly appreciate the gentleman's words and concern.
  This is a good amendment, and I thank the gentleman for working with 
the committees on this amendment.
  Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H3417]]

  

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, we appreciate this amendment. A lot of these 
amendments are putting the cart before the horse. It would have been 
interesting to have these debates about resiliency and efficiencies 
prior to the administration going into the Paris accord. You do the 
research first and then you make a decision.
  Now what we are trying to do is say, okay, we have this Paris accord 
that the President has stepped away from, so now let's evaluate what 
impacts are happening.
  We did accept an amendment yesterday in this debate to look at both 
positive and negative aspects, which I think is a fair balance. There 
are going to be some areas of the country that are going to benefit; 
there are going to be some areas of the country that are going to be 
disadvantaged. So I think that is helpful in this debate.
  There is a lot of talk about an infrastructure bill coming up. We 
hope that would be something we would move in a bipartisan manner. I 
know that it is always going to be asked how to pay for it.
  I am willing to make the tough calls on how to pay for it. But in 
that infrastructure bill, it would be great if the resiliency of 
communities and these concerns that are being addressed could be 
wrapped up in something like that.
  Again, for this bill, Leader McConnell just said on the floor that 
they are not going to address it. Even if they did, the President 
wouldn't sign it.
  We will get to a point in time in this Congress when we will work 
together.
  Republicans believe in conservation, innovation, and adaptation. This 
is part of the adaptation portfolio, and we look forward to working 
with you as we move forward.
  This amendment does nothing to affect CO2 reductions, so I 
will oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Levin of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, after line 5, insert the following new paragraph:
       (9) The Paris Agreement has driven innovation in developing 
     cleaner, more reliable, and more affordable forms of energy, 
     demonstrating that addressing climate change and providing 
     affordable energy to American consumers are not mutually 
     exclusive. The Paris Agreement encouraged the United States 
     to develop a Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization, 
     which was submitted on November 16, 2016. The Mid-Century 
     Strategy for Deep Decarbonization stated that ``energy 
     efficiency improvements enable the energy system to provide 
     the services we need with fewer resources and emissions. Over 
     the past several years, the United States has demonstrated 
     that programs and standards to improve the energy efficiency 
     of buildings, appliances and vehicles can cost-effectively 
     cut carbon pollution and lower energy bills, while 
     maintaining significant support from U.S. industry and 
     consumers.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today to mark a monumental 
occasion for this body and offer an amendment to H.R. 9, the Climate 
Action Now Act.
  After years of denial, outright lies, and inaction on the climate 
crisis under Republican leadership in the House, we are finally taking 
meaningful steps to protect our planet for future generations.
  While the President denies climate change exists, promotes fake 
scientists who believe pollution is good, and pulls us backward, we are 
embracing the scientific consensus that climate change is real; it is 
driven by human action; and it is already having a detrimental impact 
on our health and our planet.
  There are a lot of myths about climate change that we must dispel. 
One of the biggest myths I hear is that we cannot combat climate 
change, invest in clean energy, and grow our economy at the same time. 
We know that isn't true.
  In California, we have seen strong GDP and per capita income growth 
while also leading the country in the fight to combat the climate 
crisis.
  We also know that renewable energy options are often more affordable 
for consumers than traditional fossil fuels. That is why my amendment 
to the Climate Action Now Act adds three key facts about our ability to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and maintain affordable energy options 
at the same time.
  First, the greenhouse gas emissions reductions spurred by the Paris 
Agreement have driven innovation for reliable and affordable forms of 
energy, which demonstrates that emissions reductions and affordable 
energy are not mutually exclusive.
  Second, the United States' long-term greenhouse gas emissions 
reduction strategy under the Paris Agreement touted energy efficiency 
improvements in buildings, appliances, and vehicles as a way to cost-
effectively reduce emissions and lower energy bills.
  Third, this strategy has had the support of both industry and 
consumers.
  This amendment is very simple. It should not be controversial. 
Members of both parties should be able to agree that we can reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, invest in clean energy alternatives, and 
maintain affordable energy options at the same time.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to recognize this simple 
fact and support my amendment to H.R. 9.
  Ultimately, this is about the planet we leave behind for our children 
and our grandchildren. With a 5- and 6-year-old at home, I am proud to 
cosponsor the Climate Action Now Act and support bold and commonsense 
solutions to the climate crisis.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished chair of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and 
want to gladly say, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment.
  It is a very good amendment, an important amendment. I thank the 
gentleman for working with the committees on this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips).
  Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Levin for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Representative Levin's amendment and 
H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.
  I know when you think of Minnesota, the first thing you think of is 
snow. It is true that we know how to handle a snowy winter. But this 
year, the Midwest was hit with record levels of snowfall, and when all 
that snow melted, it led to record levels of flooding.
  Farms and homes across the entire region have been devastated, and it 
is because of climate change, one of the greatest threats of our time.
  We must lead, and we must be on the right side of history, so I 
cannot understand why the President pulled us out of the Paris climate 
agreement.
  I support H.R. 9 to recommit us to this agreement because we should 
be running toward sustainable solutions, not away from them.

  Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

[[Page H3418]]

  

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, again, first of all, I appreciate my 
colleague, one whom I have gotten a chance to know. I look forward to 
working with him on some issues down the road.
  I want to take this time to kind of reject the premise that nothing 
has been done. In the debate a little while ago, I mentioned the 15 or 
20 bills that had passed the House in a bipartisan manner. These were 
signed into law, a lot of the hydroelectric extensions in H.R. 2122 and 
H.R. 2292 to extend the project of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission involving the Cannonsville dam. Hydroelectric power is 
clean, renewable. I can go through a whole list of things that were 
done.
  As I said in debate earlier, just because we don't put the stamp of 
``Paris'' or ``climate change'' on a piece of legislation doesn't mean 
that it is not going to help reduce our carbon exposure. In fact, our 
country has the largest reduction of CO2 of any 
industrialized nation from 2015 to 2018.
  Having said that, I also would readily admit, and the Chair has heard 
me say this many times, that in 2019, our emissions went up. But that 
was because we have a thriving economy with more manufacturing. So this 
debate is still very important.
  This amendment suggests that the measures that the Obama 
administration were putting in place to meet the commitments in the 
Paris Agreement were affordable. A lot of us would reject that premise 
when you look at the cost per kilowatt hour of major generation, 
baseload versus the green.
  We have always tried to be kind of an all-of-the-above. Actually, in 
part of my congressional district, which is very large, I have one of 
the biggest wind farms in Illinois. That is in the Champaign County, 
Vermilion County, Ford County area in southern Illinois.

                              {time}  1015

  Also, solar power. Because of the actions our State General Assembly 
has done, we have a lot of solar power construction going on in the 
State of Illinois. An all-of-the-above approach is what we would hope 
for.
  We look forward to the time when this, too, shall pass, this debate 
on this bill, which will then go to the Senate and die, and then we 
work back with my friends in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairman 
Engel is also on the Energy and Commerce Committee, so he knows that we 
will eventually get to the aspect where we can move in a bipartisan 
manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Crow

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, after line 5, insert the following:
       (9) In its nationally determined contribution, the United 
     States notes that pursuant to Executive Order 13693 (2015), 
     the Federal Government has committed to reduce emissions 40 
     percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and reaffirmed the 
     Department of Defense's goal to procure renewable energy 
     across military installations and operations ``to drive 
     national greenhouse gas reductions and support preparations 
     for the impacts of climate change''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Crow) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to highlight the continuing work at the 
Department of Defense to procure renewable energy, reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions, and make our military more resilient in the face of 
climate change.
  The American military is the strongest in the world. It is also the 
world's biggest consumer of energy. In 2017, our Armed Forces consumed 
over 85 million barrels of fuel to power ships, aircraft, combat 
vehicles, and bases. As a combat veteran, I know firsthand that our 
reliance on fossil fuels at home and on the battlefield makes us very 
vulnerable.
  Moreover, current and former DOD civilian and military leaders have 
argued that climate change presents a rising threat to our force 
readiness and has exposed vulnerabilities of critical operations. They 
have argued that climate change is an urgent national security threat, 
and I agree.
  Warming oceans lead to higher tides, putting our Nation's critical 
infrastructure at risk. Severe weather has already wrought havoc on 
military assets, including Tyndall Air Force Base, which will likely 
require $5 billion in repairs after Hurricane Michael. Climate change 
is already causing mass migrations that affect the stability of nations 
and will put our national security and that of our allies at risk.
  The purpose of my amendment is to make the DOD's contributions to the 
government sustainability efforts a part of the conversation 
surrounding H.R. 9. And the DOD's accomplishments should be lauded: the 
DOD has invested heavily in microgrids, renewable energy resources, and 
fuel-efficient vehicles.
  Additionally, last year's NDAA required the military to build on its 
obligations to address climate change by incorporating energy and 
climate resiliency efforts into its installation and operational 
planning.
  The DOD has done a lot so far and is a model for the rest of the U.S. 
Government, but there is more to be done.
  Going forward, we have a unique opportunity to support sustainable 
policies, while also securing our bases, saving taxpayer money, and 
protecting the environment. One of the best examples is Fort Hood, 
Texas. Fort Hood has invested in technology to harness renewable energy 
and ensure that power is being efficiently managed. It is estimated 
that the combination of microgrids and renewable energy will save Fort 
Hood $100 million in energy costs. It is also hardened against 
potential vulnerabilities in the electrical grid, which is a win for 
our security.
  We must scale smart, practical solutions, like those at the DOD, to 
make our force more resilient, agile, and efficient.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel), the chairman.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say that on behalf of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee we support this 
amendment. It is a very good amendment. I also thank the gentleman for 
working with our committees on this amendment.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Chairman, simply put, the Federal Government cannot 
meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement without DOD's past, 
ongoing, and future contributions to this effort. I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to recognize this fact and support my 
amendment.
  This is very simple. This is an opportunity for a win-win-win, which 
is often hard to come by these days, but this is good for the American 
taxpayers. It will save us hundreds of millions, if not billions, of 
dollars by promoting these efforts and increasing energy resiliency and 
efficiency. It is a win for our national security, because it is one of 
our largest vulnerabilities. Our bases are subject to cyberattack and 
are very vulnerable to continuity decreases in our operations. And it 
is a win for the environment.
  This is something that we have to do and that we have an obligation 
to do in support of our national security.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I urge everyone to join in supporting this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I also thank my 
colleague for his service. I, too, served in the Army infantry during 
the Cold War. They are a band of brothers, and we do appreciate his 
service to the country.
  Also, I do appreciate that the National Defense Authorization Act, 
passed in the last Congress, has been helpful. That is another example 
of, it

[[Page H3419]]

wasn't couched in climate change, but it was couched in national 
defense. That is where, again, I will continue to make the arguments 
and the comments that things have been going on. I don't want to read 
the first list of bills and stuff that we have passed over the last 
Congress.
  The military is also looking at small modular nuclear reactors in 
some isolated locations. That will be part of the issues in the 
innovation area that Republicans could be very, very supportive of. We 
look forward to having those debates.
  I also know forward operating bases of solar technology and of solar 
power help keep our warfighters prepared and able to communicate. It is 
just the smart thing to do versus trying to haul crude oil or 
generators and stuff to places where it would not be in the best 
interest of our warfighters to have.

  So the focus is good. The Republicans, again, believe in 
conservation, innovation, and adaptation. When we move a bill that will 
get a chance to be heard by the Senate and that we work together, the 
goal would be to get something on the President's desk that he will 
sign. This is not the venue, because the Senate is not going to move it 
and the President is not going to sign it. But I would encourage my 
colleagues to stay engaged, not just with the Armed Services Committee, 
but the Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues on this side 
because I do think there is merit to the debate. Acknowledgement of 
what the Department of Defense has done was focused on by the previous 
Commander in Chief.
  The Paris climate mandates instituted by the Obama administration 
through the Paris Agreement and the outdated executive order would have 
increased energy prices and wasted taxpayer dollars. As a result, we 
cannot support the amendment that would condone and reinstitute some of 
these costly measures.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Engel

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox), I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, line 25, strike ``and''.
       Page 8, line 5, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 8, after line 5, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) how the plan takes into consideration populations, 
     regions, industries, and constituencies that could be 
     affected by nationally determined contribution under the 
     Paris Agreement, and the failure to meet such contribution, 
     including but not limited to--
       (A) American jobs, wage, and pay;
       (B) the cost of energy, such as electricity and gasoline, 
     for consumers; and
       (C) the ability to develop and deploy new, innovative, 
     domestically-produced technologies.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to say very strongly that on behalf 
of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, we support this amendment. It is a very good amendment.
  The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, is the first truly universal 
agreement among nations to tackle climate change. Rarely is there 
consensus among nearly all nations on a single topic. But with the 
Paris Agreement, leaders from around the world collectively agreed that 
climate change is driven by human behavior, that it is a threat to the 
environment and all of humanity, and that global action is needed to 
stop it.
  It also created a clear framework for all countries to make emission 
reduction commitments. At present, 197 countries--every nation on 
Earth, with the last signatory being war-torn Syria--have adopted the 
Paris Agreement. This agreement includes a series of mandatory measures 
for the monitoring, verification, and public reporting of progress 
towards a country's emission reduction targets.
  The emission reduction targets themselves are voluntary. Each nation 
sets their own, respectful of national sovereignty, and there is no 
penalty for missing the targets. The idea is to create a culture of 
accountability and maybe some peer pressure to get countries to reduce 
emissions.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the 
author of this amendment.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be here today to 
introduce my amendment to H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act. My 
amendment takes into consideration the various populations, regions, 
industries and communities affected by climate change, while reducing 
any possible impacts on American jobs.
  We all know that climate change has impacted countries and 
communities throughout our country and the world. Over the past few 
years, we have seen the devastating effects of it on the waters of the 
Caribbean Sea, fueling powerful storms, like Hurricane Maria, which 
devastated Puerto Rico and took the lives of close to 3,000 people and 
displacing another 300,000 from their homes.
  In my home State of California last year, it led to the deadliest 
wildfire season in history. According to the National Climate 
Assessment, rural communities, like the ones I serve, face challenging 
obstacles in responding to climate change because they are so highly 
dependent on natural resources.
  My constituents, the people of California's Central Valley, live in 
one of the most economically distressed parts of our country. We have 
been forgotten and left behind. But it is my constituents who have seen 
the direct impacts of climate change with our recent heat waves and 
droughts. It is only going to get worse if we don't work together and 
address this issue head-on.
  H.R. 9 is the first step we must take in addressing this challenge. 
This would prohibit Federal funds from being used to take any action in 
advancing the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement.
  The U.S. committed to joining the Paris Agreement because we are a 
leading nation. It is unfortunate that this President is taking us 
backward.

                              {time}  1030

  Instead of fighting climate change, the President and his 
administration have proposed to slash funding from the Department of 
Energy's Efficiency and Renewable Energy offices by over 85 percent, 
and they even propose to cut energy funding from our States.
  My amendment would help create a clean energy economy that would 
provide good paying jobs to millions of Americans, cleaner air for 
everyone, and a safe, sustainable future for our children and 
grandchildren.
  What we continue to hear from our Republican colleagues is that a 
number of coal jobs will be taken away from Americans. And I can tell 
you, as somebody who has worked in the mining industry, who has worked 
underground, I know it is not the way to go.
  While we know that mining jobs and underground jobs are honorable 
jobs and provide for families, at one time so was whaling, but we need 
to be innovative in looking towards the future. The more time we waste 
on clinging to jobs of the past, the more time we waste on not making 
progress.
  Nationally, there are over 240,000 jobs in the solar industry alone, 
and only about 53,000 coal mining jobs. Reports find that the Paris 
Agreement would generate over 24 million jobs worldwide.
  In the State of California, we have over 519,000 clean energy jobs, 
and it is critical, more than ever, that we continue to connect workers 
to these jobs that we are creating for the 21st century. My amendment 
does just that by requiring any climate plan to consider the impact on 
jobs, wages, and pay.
  We have the opportunity to be global leaders in the clean energy 
economy, ensure that so many of these jobs are created right here in 
the United States--not in other countries, not in India, not in China.
  We cannot afford to take steps back on the fight on climate change, 
and we

[[Page H3420]]

must keep our word to the rest of the world. Mr. Chairman, I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New York has 
expired.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has the only time 
remaining. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I will read into the Record a statement. 
This is from the International Energy Agency, Global Energy and 
CO2 Status Report 2018, published March of 2019, so it is 
pretty much fresh off the press. It addresses some of these issues that 
I have mentioned during this debate today about how we have been doing 
things; how, overall, missions are decreasing; and how public policy 
has helped, and the like.
  This is on page 10: ``In the United States, the emission reductions 
seen in 2017 were reversed with an increase of 3.1 percent in 
CO2 emissions in 2018.''
  That is what we addressed about the economy going up, more 
CO2 emissions.
  ``Despite this increase, emissions in the United States remain around 
their 1990 levels, 14 percent and 800 metric tons of CO2 
below their peak in 2000. This is the largest absolute decline among 
all countries since 2000.''
  So I think that is instructive when we are here debating a bill that 
is not going to be reviewed by the Senate and the President is not 
going to sign it.
  We look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce on things that we can do to work together to even 
make better strides than what we already have in this country.
  We don't get a lot of credit because we don't couch it in, as I said 
before, Mr. Chairman, ``climate change,'' ``Paris accord.''
  But, you know, facts are important, data is important, and the Energy 
Information Agency is an independent agency underneath the Department 
of Commerce, so it is evaluating all countries and all emissions.
  Republicans believe in conservation, which would be energy 
efficiency, new source review, force management, innovation, advanced 
nuclear power, carbon capture, sequestration, utilization.
  To the colleague who brought the amendment up, I don't believe coal 
will be dead. I think if we bring technology and we use carbon capture, 
utilization, and sequestration and get it captured, we can still have a 
coal mining sector. We can still have energy electricity generated by 
coal. I hope so, because I am from a coal mining region, and I am not 
going to walk away from the jobs in southern Illinois.
  And the adaptation which we have had a lot of debate about today, 
which is grid modernization, resiliency, crops, and the like.
  The amendment of my colleague is opposite to what Dr. Burgess and I 
tried to do in the committee when we marked up this bill. We wanted to 
have the research and the analysis done before we go back to a climate 
agreement.
  I mean, what good does it do if you go to an agreement and then you 
find that jobs have been lost, wages have gone down? It is too late. 
You are in the agreement.
  So let's do the research prior, which was our amendment, Dr. Burgess 
and I--it wasn't made in order for the floor----to say let's do this 
research.
  So if we are going to move and go back into the climate Paris accord, 
if we are going to affect jobs in the economy negatively, we should 
know that beforehand. This amendment does not do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Phillips) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________