CLIMATE ACTION NOW ACT; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 71
(House of Representatives - May 01, 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 H3363-H3397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CLIMATE ACTION NOW ACT


                             general leave

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to insert extraneous material on H.R. 9.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  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 consideration of the bill, H.R. 9.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1432


                     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 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. Blumenauer in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the House the bill is considered 
read the first time.
  General debate 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.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. McCaul) each will control 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) each 
will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action 
Now Act.
  I shouldn't need to persuade anyone in this Chamber that we 
desperately need to take serious action on climate change. Just look at 
the news. We are already seeing the consequences of our inaction: 
natural disasters, famines, instability, human suffering.
  The time for action to avoid the worst effects of climate change is 
rapidly closing. We must demonstrate to the rest of the world and to 
future generations that we are still committed to taking on this fight.
  Climate change is a national security threat that transcends borders 
and requires international coordination. That is why it is so critical 
that we work shoulder to shoulder with our friends and partners around 
the world.
  The negotiation of the Paris Agreement was a defining moment for the 
future of our planet. For the first time, the countries of the world 
came together to face this global crisis.
  At challenging times like these, the international community usually 
looks to the United States for leadership. So when President Trump 
announced his intention to withdraw from this landmark agreement, it 
sent an unmistakable message that America is on the retreat. It is 
really just shameful.
  Every nation in the world has now signed on to the Paris Agreement. 
If we withdraw, we will be the only country unwilling to step up to 
this challenge.
  We can--we must--do better.
  The Climate Action Now Act keeps the United States in the Paris 
climate accord, renewing our country's pledge to address climate change 
head-on.
  The Paris Agreement allows every country to determine its own 
pollution reduction targets and to develop a public plan for how to 
meet those targets. This bill follows that same model. It gives the 
executive branch total flexibility to decide what approach we need to 
follow and what kind of technology we need to use to reach our national 
targets.
  H.R. 9 gives us all an opportunity to show Americans that we hear 
them, that we take their concerns seriously, and that we are addressing 
this danger that is hurting their health and safety.
  Mr. Chair, it is time for Congress to put our country back on the 
right path to address the climate change crisis facing the world. I 
strongly support passage of H.R. 9, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that the climate is changing and we 
need to take positive steps to address it. However, I oppose H.R. 9 
because it is just a messaging bill that is dead on arrival in the 
Senate and that the President will veto.
  I oppose H.R. 9 because, among other problems, it attempts to codify 
President Obama's unrealistic and unilaterally determined greenhouse 
gas reduction pledge under the Paris Agreement. This pledge was 
submitted on behalf of the United States without any notification, 
consultation, or role for Congress.
  At a recent hearing, when we asked whether any of the witnesses 
agreed that President Obama should have submitted the Paris Agreement 
to the

[[Page H3364]]

Senate for ratification, all four witnesses, including the three 
Democrat witnesses, agreed it should have been submitted to the Senate.
  In addition to not involving Congress, the Obama administration also 
did not seek meaningful input from private-sector stakeholders, such as 
energy companies.
  Not only that, the administration provided no cost-benefit analysis 
or economic justification to rationalize its pledge--its arbitrary 
pledge--to cut greenhouse gases by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels 
by 2025.
  A recent study by the Chamber of Commerce estimates it could cost 
U.S. GDP $250 billion and 2.7 million jobs by 2025. By 2040, it could 
cost the United States economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial 
sector jobs.
  But the good news is that, even before the United States entered the 
Paris Agreement, the United States started making progress to 
significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. According to the 
EPA, from 1990 to 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions per GDP declined 
by 40 percent, and we are at the lowest emissions levels since 2000.
  In addition, over the last decade, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have 
decreased by 14 percent, Mr. Chairman, while China's emissions doubled. 
Sadly, China, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, under this 
agreement, will continue to increase its emissions through 2030 under 
its unenforceable Paris Agreement pledge.
  Other major greenhouse gas emitters, like Russia, have signed the 
Paris Agreement but have not ratified it.
  Instead of doubling down on a pledge that Congress had no role in 
setting that will have a potentially catastrophic impact on the United 
States economy and which will do nothing, Mr. Chairman, to address 
China and other countries' growing emissions, we should work on 
bipartisan legislation to boost research, advance technologies, promote 
innovation, and develop real solutions.
  That is why I offered an amendment calling for bipartisan solutions 
to address this challenge, providing a meaningful role for Congress 
regarding the Paris Agreement, and requiring our greenhouse gas 
reduction commitments to undergo a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. 
Sadly, this amendment failed by a party-line vote in the committee and 
the Rules Committee, denying it from even being debated on this House 
floor.
  So for that, Mr. Chairman, and many other reasons, I oppose H.R. 9, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend on the other side of the aisle just said that 
all four witnesses at our April 2 hearing in the Foreign Affairs 
Committee expressed agreement that President Obama should have 
submitted the Paris accord to the Senate for ratification. I was there 
and chaired the hearing. I didn't hear that.
  Let me tell you that, first of all, we were proud to welcome a 
distinguished panel of national security leaders, including former 
military officials. They offered detailed descriptions of the risks 
that climate change poses to our national security.
  They talked about how climate change acts as a threat multiplier and 
a source of international conflict, how it makes individuals more 
vulnerable to recruitment by violent extremist organizations, how it is 
increasing great power competition and tensions in places like the 
Arctic, and how it is the driver of extreme weather and natural 
disasters that require dangerous and expensive military responses.
  More to my point, there was a fleeting question about whether any 
witness disagreed with the statement that President Obama should have 
submitted the Paris Agreement to the Senate for ratification. The only 
response, I believe, came from one retired admiral, who simply said, 
``military, not political,'' meaning he is not the right guy to ask, 
nor were any of the other witnesses, so they all sat in silence.
  As my colleague should know, silence is not an assent, whether it is 
at a congressional hearing or at a deposition or even in the exit row 
of an overcrowded commercial airplane. A person must give a verbal 
``yes'' or ``no'' for their answer to be accepted and relied upon.
  So I just want to clear the record, because what really happened is 
one of my colleagues posed a question to the wrong person and got no 
answer.
  So when it comes to arguing that the Paris Agreement needed to be 
submitted to the Senate for ratification, my colleagues are incorrect 
as a matter of international law and incorrect as a matter of U.S. law. 
The previous President had the authority to enter into the Paris 
Agreement, derived from the Constitution, the Senate-approved United 
Nations Framework on Climate Change, and domestic law.
  We all know that the vast majority of international agreements 
entered into by the U.S. are not approved by the Senate, and the Paris 
Agreement is no different.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Castor), the author of this bill.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Engel of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise humbly as a Representative of my home State of 
Florida and as a patriotic American but, especially today, as a mother 
of two daughters and future generations because I feel the weight of 
our moral responsibility to address climate change.
  This is a historic day here in the House of Representatives. This is 
the first time in 10 years that major climate legislation is being 
heard in the people's House.

                              {time}  1445

  H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act, is where we will start by 
honoring America's commitment to address the climate crisis, and it is 
a crisis. The last time global monthly temperatures were below average 
was in February of 1985. That means everyone who is 34 years of age or 
younger has grown up in a world that has been forever altered by the 
change in climate.
  How severe the impacts of climate change will be to us personally 
over time depends on the actions that we take now.
  Based on the latest science from the administration's own National 
Climate Assessment, we have reason to worry. Seas are rising. America's 
heartland and farms have suffered unprecedented floods. Snowpack is 
shrinking, and that is bad for clean water supplies. Droughts are 
getting worse. Hot, humid heat waves are becoming more intense, with 
more days where people cannot safely work or play outside. Higher 
temperatures mean that pollutants, like ground-level ozone from car 
exhaust, will become more damaging to our health.
  One-and-a-half years ago, I had to pack up my home, board up the 
windows and doors, pack up my most cherished belongings, and flee as 
Hurricane Irma, that monster hurricane, threatened the State of 
Florida. We were scared of a huge storm surge coming up from the Gulf 
of Mexico and into Tampa Bay. We were petrified.
  Fortunately, we had time to get out of the way, but that isn't true 
for so many Americans who have suffered floods, fires, and more. They 
haven't been as lucky. And the risks and costs going forward are likely 
to be more severe.
  What is necessary to combat the climate crisis is to stop carbon 
pollution from accumulating in the atmosphere. That requires action, 
urgent action, ambitious action.
  Fortunately, we have made some progress in recent years in cutting 
carbon pollution. Thousands of businesses, houses of worship, States, 
and communities are taking action. Now they are demanding that we do 
the same.
  A few years ago, there was also good news. After years of finger-
pointing, the United States, China, India, Europe, and other countries, 
all of the countries around the world, came together and agreed to cut 
carbon pollution. With America's leadership and engagement, the U.S. 
led other nations in committing to take climate action in an 
international agreement called the Paris climate accord. The agreement 
was a breakthrough.
  After years of playing the blame game, nearly every other country 
said, here is our plan, and each country developed its own individual 
plan, and America has done just that. That plan has incredible upsides.

[[Page H3365]]

  We are creating millions of clean energy jobs right now, and they are 
good-paying jobs. We are saving billions of dollars on home energy 
bills, and businesses are saving huge amounts of money through energy 
efficiency. We can finally address climate injustice.
  And despite what the Trump administration says, America is still in 
the international agreement. We have not formally withdrawn. If this 
bill becomes law, we never will, because America does not cut and run, 
America keeps its commitments, and we will recommit to doing so when we 
pass this bill.
  My Climate Action Now bill is straightforward. It would block the 
administration from spending any money on withdrawal, and it would 
require the Trump administration to release its plan to cut carbon 
pollution.
  Americans overwhelmingly support U.S. leadership on the climate 
crisis because they understand that when America leads, we win. Ask the 
23 States, 300 cities, and more than 2,000 businesses who have pledged 
to honor the Paris goals. Now they will be joined by the House of 
Representatives.
  Some of the fastest growing jobs in America are clean energy, 
engineering, green building, solar installers, and wind turbine 
technicians. This is just the beginning, but we have to stay on course.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. In addition to sending an important signal to 
clean energy, job-creating businesses, this will send an important 
signal to our allies across the world. We expect ambitious action from 
them.
  I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle say, but 
China. Well, if the President forces a retreat here, other countries 
will retreat, as well. A vote against H.R. 9 is a vote to let China off 
the hook. This is a patriotic vote. Vote for America, vote for our 
future, and keep us in the climate Paris Agreement. I thank the 
hundreds of my colleagues who have joined this, and I thank the brave 
Republicans who will join us in this patriotic vote for Climate Action 
Now.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), a member of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 9, the 
Climate Action Now Act, not because we don't want clean water or clean 
air or deny a world-changing climate. H.R. 9 is a direct attack on this 
administration for withdrawing from the flawed agreement and is a 
purely political move by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  The Paris Agreement requires each signatory country to determine, 
plan, and regularly report on the contributions that it undertakes to 
mitigate global warming with no regard for American consumers; it 
places burdensome regulations on American businesses that are already 
employing environmentally friendly practices; and it places the cost of 
the Paris Agreement to supplement other nations on the backs of the 
moms, dads, and citizens of America.
  In August 2016, President Obama unilaterally accepted the Paris 
Agreement under the United Nations climate change treaty. Rather than 
bringing it to this body, where it could be ratified with the advice 
and consent of the Senate, this was a blatant power grab by the 
executive branch encumbering America and future generations.

  I had been opposed to President Obama's decision to circumvent 
congressional approval of the Paris Agreement from the beginning. It 
was a clear violation of the Constitution to leave Congress out of the 
approval process of an agreement that will have far-reaching 
implications on our economy and our citizens.
  During the 114th Congress, I even introduced H.R. 544, expressing the 
sense of the House that the President should submit any binding 
international agreement on climate change to the Senate as a treaty. By 
accepting the Paris Agreement without congressional approval, the Obama 
administration made promises that are too expensive and too difficult 
and not science-based as far as the results. In fact, in a current 
hearing, it was stated that if the U.S. were to cut emissions to zero, 
it would not change global warming.
  A report prepared by NERA Economic Consulting in 2017, found that 
meeting the commitments President Obama made could cost the U.S. 
economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial-sector jobs by 2040. 
There are serious concerns surrounding costs, effectiveness, and 
feasibility of U.S. commitments made under the Paris Agreement.
  Greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. fell by 14 percent from 2005 to 
2017, our manufacturing output increased 4 percent, and our energy 
consumption went down 2 percent. That is American leadership done by 
the private sector, not by government mandates or encumbering 
agreements.
  The United States is already leading around the world in reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions. This agreement does not address the world's 
largest carbon emission offenders, as you have heard--China and India. 
These countries are not held to any enforcement standards besides being 
required to provide a report to the United Nations every 5 years.
  Again, the Paris Agreement ties the hands of the American consumers 
to pay for countries, like China and India, whose total commitment is, 
``We will try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions''--not do it, but we 
will try--while they continue to increase our carbon footprints around 
the world, again at the cost of nearly $3 trillion to the American 
consumer.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOHO. China is building or planning to build over 700 coal-fired 
power plants around the world with one-fifth of these plants located in 
countries outside of China, making it virtually impossible for them to 
meet goals set in the Paris Agreement.
  Additionally, of the 195 signatories, 13 countries have still not 
ratified the agreement, including Russia, Turkey, Yemen, Iraq, and 
Iran. Russia accounts for nearly 5 percent of the global greenhouse 
gas.
  While I do believe that climate change should be addressed, I do not 
agree that forcing the President to remain in an agreement that had no 
oversight, cost-benefit analysis or stakeholder input is the right way 
to go.
  As we continue to have discussions about how to address climate 
change, we should focus on solutions for the world body.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Engel for 
yielding, and I congratulate Representative Castor for her great 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel it is odd listening to the very same argument 
that we can't go forward with this because there is nothing to hold 
China or India to account because there are no requirements, and, at 
the same time, the very same document puts a huge burden on America by 
putting enforced requirements on us. It doesn't make any sense.
  Mr. Chairman, for decades, the scientific community has understood 
the need to fundamentally transition everything about how we live, 
work, and move about this planet to protect life on Earth as we know 
it. We have known this for decades. And yet, knowing how destructive 
climate change is to our health, our safety, and our national security, 
President Trump decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and 
neglect, not just the fundamental responsibility to protect Americans, 
but an enormous economic opportunity.
  I feel like I am listening to arguments from lobbyists from the horse 
and carriage industry against railroads, or for the buggy whip industry 
against paving roads because cars are such a threat.
  President Trump made a huge mistake by backing away from the 
commitment we made in Paris. We are here today to correct that mistake 
and to steer our country back in the right direction.

[[Page H3366]]

  We have a chance to propel economic growth with investments in zero 
net-energy buildings, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, 
expanded solar, wind, geothermal, solar thermal, and more. We can lead 
the world in creating good-paying, sustainable jobs.
  There is no way that we can move fast enough or comprehensively 
enough to address climate change, but this is about more than that. 
This is about unleashing American innovation, creating American jobs, 
and restoring American leadership on the world stage.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. We must pass this bill and we must do it now, 
both for the sake of the climate, for our kids, and for our economy.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright), a member of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 9, the Climate 
Action Now Act, which would prevent the President from rightfully 
withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement and codify 
President Obama's misguided and, frankly, over-the-top emissions 
reduction commitments.

  There are two principles, I believe, that should guide our 
international agreements.
  First, they should be fair and beneficial to the American people.
  Second, they should not put the United States at a disadvantage vis-
a-vis other nations of the world.
  The Paris Agreement fails on both counts.
  As already noted, if we implement the commitments made by the Obama 
administration as part of this agreement, it could cost the U.S. gross 
domestic product $250 billion and eliminate 2.7 million jobs. That is 
hardly fair and beneficial to the American people.
  As it is, the Paris Agreement allows countries to determine their own 
commitments, without regard to their emissions. Should this remain the 
case, the United States will forever be at a disadvantage to self-
interested countries, like China and Russia, whose emissions continue 
to grow. Meanwhile, our emissions were the lowest in 2017 since 1992. 
Despite this, our commitments far outweigh those made by the worst 
greenhouse gas offenders.
  I submitted an amendment that would have, at the very least, 
addressed the disadvantage of this agreement. My amendment would have 
changed the enacted date of H.R. 9 to whenever the Secretary of State 
could certify that Russia and China were making commitments equivalent 
to ours.
  I regret that it was not made in order and that my colleagues across 
the aisle denied us the opportunity to do right by the American people. 
H.R. 9 is an outrage, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against it.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I want to remind my colleagues that the United States was 
once a global leader in pushing for climate action, but the current 
administration has largely abandoned our efforts to mitigate the 
effects of a warming world. As a result, our progress in reducing 
pollution has dwindled and is now reversing itself.
  The Environmental Protection Agency's latest data shows that 
reductions in greenhouse gas pollution fell to just half a percent in 
2017, and, according to the International Energy Agency, U.S. carbon 
dioxide pollution actually rose by 3.1 percent in 2018.
  Think about that for a minute. At a time when the world desperately 
needs to decrease emissions, ours increased. In a year, where more 
dirty coal plants closed than almost any other year in history, our 
emissions increased. So this bill is absolutely important.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. 
Spanberger), a valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now 
Act.
  Back in 2003, 16 years ago, the Pentagon commissioned a report on how 
climate change would impact our ability to keep our country safe. Its 
conclusion? That we should move beyond scientific debate and treat 
ongoing ecological damage as a serious national security threat.
  Our military and intelligence communities agree that climate change 
exacerbates conflict and instability. It weakens fragile governments, 
contributes to food and water insecurity, and perpetuates poverty.
  These are threat multipliers, and they present real risk to U.S. 
interests around the globe, especially in areas vulnerable to extreme 
weather, such as the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.
  As a former CIA officer, I recognize that combating climate change is 
a national security imperative, and the first step in this fight is to 
keep our word to cooperate with our allies and partners in this battle. 
By staying in the Paris Agreement, we demonstrate that the United 
States takes our planet's fate seriously, keeps its word, and can be a 
steady partner in future agreements. Going forward, we must use our 
country's tremendous diplomatic, military, and economic strength as 
assets in this global fight.
  Today, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation because our 
country cannot afford to abdicate its role of leadership.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here today because the previous administration 
wanted to score political points before leaving office by saving the 
world for America's leadership on greenhouse gas emissions.
  The former administration's chasing glory on foreign soils signed the 
Paris climate agreement, or, as folks back home call it, ``the kill 
America's economy agreement so China can take my jobs.''
  The Constitution, Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2, sentence 1, 
says very clearly: ``He shall have the power, by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the 
Senators present concur.''
  The Paris Agreement looks, smells, and feels like a treaty.
  The worst offender for climate change in the world, China, had their 
legislature approve the Paris Agreement. President Obama never sent 
that to the Senate for approval, and since the Paris Agreement was 
never approved, it has the same power as this blank piece of paper.
  Here are some numbers, some facts:
  From 2000 to 2014, America's global leadership has reduced our 
emissions by 18 percent.
  From a study by the EIA, despite having an increase of 3.1 percent of 
CO2 in 2017, we are down 14 percent from 1990 levels for 
CO2.
  Former Secretary of State John Kerry noted through negotiations from 
Paris that if America and all of the developed countries of the world 
cut their gas CO2 emissions to zero, emissions for the world 
would take over, and we would still be in the same position.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chair, in conclusion, America does not need the Paris 
Agreement.
  Russia needs the Paris Agreement; China needs the Paris agreement; 
India needs the Paris Agreement; the European Union needs the Paris 
Agreement.
  We don't have to take this. We have proven to the world with 
technology and the free market, we can make this Earth cleaner.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the families, vote for 
the local jobs--vote against H.R. 9.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me say, the whole world--not just the 
United States and not just China--needs to do more if we are to be 
spared from the worst damage of climate change.
  Under Paris, China committed to leveling off its carbon emissions no 
later than 2030 and reducing its carbon intensity by 60 to 65 percent 
from 2005 levels by 2030. And that is a big step towards 
sustainability.
  Meanwhile, global action on climate change has already spared public 
and

[[Page H3367]]

private-sector investments and green innovation. China has created the 
world's largest carbon market, pumped approximately three times as much 
money into renewables as we have, and surpassed the United States in 
terms of both the number of electric vehicles on the road and the 
number of publicly available charging stations.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), the distinguished chairwoman.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding, 
for his tremendous leadership on this and so many issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action 
Now Act. This piece of legislation is an extremely important first step 
in protecting our environment--major first step--and we have to move 
forward and do even more.
  H.R. 9 ensures that the United States remains in the Paris Agreement 
and prohibits Federal funding to exit the agreement. It is critical 
that the United States takes the lead on addressing climate change on 
the world's stage.
  Let me be clear. The Trump Administration is plugging their ears and 
pretending that climate change doesn't exist.
  America was once a global leader in fighting climate change. It was 
our leadership that led so many nations to commit to climate action. 
Yet this administration has abandoned plans to address climate change 
and, instead, has weakened our leadership in the world. It is really 
shameful, and this needs to stop.
  Climate change is an urgent matter. It creates more flooding and 
superstorms, threatening the safety of millions of Americans and people 
around the world.
  People around our country and throughout the world are breathing in 
polluted and unhealthy air. Here in our own country, communities of 
color and low-income communities also, disproportionately, are impacted 
by the effects of climate change and have a lack of access to adequate 
healthcare services on top of that.
  We owe it to our children and future generations to do more for the 
environment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 9 and ``yes'' 
on fighting climate change.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern), a member of the Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.
  America has long been the standard of leadership, freedom, and 
innovation. We do not allow other countries to take advantage of us.
  While H.R. 9 has many issues, my opposition is founded in its attempt 
to strip our President of his constitutional executive authority and 
force us to remain locked in an agreement that hurts American 
taxpayers.
  After the Obama administration's international apology tour, it is a 
refreshing change to have a strong hand at the wheel. I am glad to see 
President Trump defending our exceptionalism instead of sacrificing our 
economy for the sake of other countries.
  My colleagues across the aisle would have us believe that we are 
headed for doom within a decade, that Americans are behind the curve. 
In reality, we lead the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 
while other countries are growing emissions; yet America is paying the 
lion's share in the Paris Climate Accord.
  American innovation and technological advancements are second to 
none. These are the same qualities of American excellence that made us 
the greatest country on this planet. We should not lower our standards 
and allow other nations to take advantage of us.
  This poorly negotiated deal will do nothing to address the growing 
emissions from China and other industrial countries. It only hurts 
American jobs, especially the energy industry that employs hundreds of 
thousands of people in Oklahoma and brings high-paying jobs to my 
district. These are people who are hurt by the continuation of the 
Paris Climate accord.
  I applaud President Trump's leadership on this issue and support his 
authority to remove us from the Paris climate accord.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of misinformation out there 
about the Paris Agreement, including the idea that it will hurt the 
U.S. economy. The Paris Agreement will cost little or nothing, and 
allowing climate change to proceed would certainly be very expensive 
indeed.
  A raft of studies from environmental organizations, Citibank, and the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development all argue that a 
failure to mitigate the effects of climate change could cost the U.S. 
economy trillions of dollars. Citi found that investing in low-carbon 
energy to address climate change would save the world $1.8 trillion 
through 2040, but not acting will cost an additional $44 trillion by 
2060.
  Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Texas has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because I know climate 
change is real, and its impacts are already here. In New Jersey, we 
know those impacts all too well.
  Superstorm Sandy sent an unprecedented storm surge up the Hudson and 
the Hackensack Rivers that destroyed homes, businesses, police 
departments, and critical infrastructure that our neighbors are still 
digging out of this day.
  These once-in-a-generation storms have a human toll. In 2017, the 
destruction and failed response to Hurricane Maria by the Trump 
Administration led to over 3,000 Americans dying--3,000.
  The time for waiting is over. We need to act right now. Climate 
scientists are in universal agreement. Our planet is warming, and it 
will continue to inflict catastrophic devastation.
  Military and intelligence experts have warned it is a national 
security threat. You are no longer going to educate Americans to hide 
their head in the sand.
  We need to work together, one nation, as an international community.

  The goals some have set above have been called overly ambitious. You 
bet they are ambitious. These are big problems, and Americans tackle 
big problems with big solutions.
  Supporting H.R. 9 would do just that. It shows the world the United 
States is committed to the Paris Agreement, that we are serious about 
setting targets for carbon emissions reductions.
  This agreement is the bare minimum we can do to prevent against the 
impacts of climate change.
  We need to be serious about getting this right, that we are serious 
about preserving the world for our people, for our children, like my 
grandchildren and their grandchildren, Mr. Chairman, because that is 
who this is about.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me first say to my good friend from New 
Jersey that there are many of us on this side of the aisle who agree 
the climate is changing, and I think it is a question of how we get 
there and the solutions and innovation and technology.
  I hope that--it will not move forward; it will be, obviously, 
vetoed--maybe we can work together in a bipartisan way on something 
that can reduce emissions using innovation technology. I personally 
think nuclear power should be examined as well.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Zeldin), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. McCaul for his statements, and I 
agree with everything that was just stated. I have great respect for 
Chairman Engel and the bill's sponsor, Ms. Castor, and for their 
intentions and their advocacy. I look forward to working with them on 
this issue and many others because this is a very important issue for 
us to be working on, on both sides of the aisle in both the House and 
the Senate.
  We all have constituents who want access to clean air and clean 
water. It is something that, whether you are representing a district in 
Flint, Michigan, or you are in Tampa, Florida, or the east end of Long 
Island, we all

[[Page H3368]]

want to advocate for that for our constituents.
  I was concerned with the negotiation of the Paris climate deal, that 
there wasn't more discussion. There wasn't any discussion in Congress. 
There weren't hearings and votes. There wasn't enough of an analysis 
done of the impact on the economy.
  There is a debate now over numbers. I wish it was fleshed out. What 
will be the impact on GDP? What will be the impact on jobs? What will 
be the impact on energy costs for my constituents? There are a lot of 
numbers that are going around that are very concerning to my 
constituents.
  Other countries were having debates, and they were having votes 
publicly. In this case, this was not submitted to the United States 
Senate for ratification, and there was some discussion earlier about 
what happened at the House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on this 
topic.
  What I asked of the witnesses was: ``Do any of the witnesses disagree 
with the statement that President Obama should have submitted it to the 
Senate for ratification?'' That was the exact wording of my question.
  If you look at the video of the response, no one disagreed. I asked: 
``Does anyone disagree?'' No one disagreed. There was one person, 
Admiral McGinn, who specified that his role was military, not 
political.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  He said his role was military, not political, but nobody disagreed 
with that statement.
  I believe it should have been submitted.
  I also think it is outrageous that China and India are not doing 
more. They are emitters. China, in fact, won't even comply to reduce 
its carbon emissions until 2030. Many other countries that made 
commitments aren't fulfilling their commitments.
  We needed a better deal for the world and other countries to step up 
and do more, more transparency and debates, and a vote here in 
Congress. That is in the best interests of all our constituents.
  Hopefully, we can agree on the numbers and a process going forward, 
and we can work together on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, climate change is one of the greatest 
existential threats of our time. I am honored to serve on the House 
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis with the leadership of the 
author of this bill, Representative Castor.
  In Oregon, smoke from raging wildfires makes the air unhealthy to 
breathe. Acidic oceans are threatening our fishing industries. Droughts 
and extreme weather patterns jeopardize the livelihoods of our farmers. 
Warmer water in the Columbia River is further threatening endangered 
salmon.
  My home State of Oregon is one of the many States committed to 
meeting the Paris climate agreement targets, but climate change is a 
global crisis, which is why more than 175 countries have signed on to 
the agreement.
  The Climate Action Now Act is a clear signal to our international 
allies and to the world that the United States, at least the United 
States House of Representatives, supports upholding our Nation's 
commitments to the planet. This is about U.S. leadership.
  The cost of inaction on climate change is too high to wait any 
longer. We can protect the planet, unleash innovation, and create good 
jobs. This bill is an important first step.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Chair Engel, Chair McGovern, and Chair Castor for 
their leadership. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to support this important bill.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).
  Mr. MEUSER. Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member McCaul for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, in my district in Pennsylvania, we are conservationists. 
But with this bill, H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act, more 
appropriately known as the U.S. energy disadvantage act, the American 
people are being told yet again that Big Government is the solution to 
all of the people's problems. The American people know better than 
that, and they expect solutions, not more government.
  The latest data is revealing. The U.S. is actually a global leader in 
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
  In 2017, while global CO2 emissions increased by 1.6 
percent, the United States reduced its CO2 emissions by more 
than 42 million tons, an annual reduction of 0.5 percent, the largest 
reduction of any country in the world.
  The data also underscores that we have not seen this type of progress 
from other countries that are still part of the Paris Agreement. 
American leadership is ongoing while countries like Spain, Canada, 
India, South Korea, and China and the EU are all increasing their 
CO2 emissions by 100 million tons and more.
  If the U.S. stayed party to this agreement, it would be a huge and 
unnecessary drag on our economy that would be passed on to the American 
taxpayer. Moreover, it would not improve the situation, as most of the 
world is moving in the wrong direction.

  The U.S. is reducing our emissions without the heavy hand of this 
Congress. This will continue, and it will be factual, as it will be 
measured.
  We need to harness American talent and energies, not squander them 
with bogus plans like the Green New Deal or ineffective climate 
agreements.
  We need access to affordable, reliable, and clean energy sources, 
including natural gas, nuclear, oil, and clean coal. We need to empower 
our private sector to continue to innovate and develop new 
technologies. What we need is a true all-of-the-above and all-of-the-
below energy plan.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to consider this and vote against 
this bill.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist).
  Mr. CRIST. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Engel for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise in strong support of the Climate Action Now Act written by my 
dear friend and the chairwoman of the Select Committee on the Climate 
Crisis, Kathy Castor. We are both blessed to represent the Tampa Bay 
region of Florida, which is the most economically vulnerable to climate 
change in the world.
  For the people back home, this isn't a partisan issue. It is real. It 
is happening. It threatens our environment, our quality of life, and 
our economy.
  I know there are friends and colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle struggling with this issue, and I want to offer encouragement: Do 
not wait for the next 1,000-year flood to hit your district or the next 
freak Category 5 hurricane that explodes over warming seas right before 
landfall. Do not wait for the next drought-fueled firestorm to destroy 
one of your towns or for rising sea levels to flood the streets when it 
rains during high tide, as it does in parts of my district.
  The time to act is yesterday. Please vote ``yes.''
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I rise 
today in opposition to H.R. 9, more appropriately named the U.S. energy 
disadvantage act.
  The bill attempts to lock us into a bad deal. While the United States 
is continuing to lower its emissions and to lead the world through 
technological innovation, other countries around the world are not 
meeting even their targets. Some aren't making targets. Those countries 
came up with targets on their own, and they still aren't living up to 
them.
  Staying in the Paris Agreement would raise energy prices and slow 
economic growth without curbing emissions in a meaningful, global 
fashion.
  Mr. Chair, we are not the ones who are polluting the air and the 
water. We are cleaning it up. We are doing it as a result of doing the 
right thing. Yet, Mr. Chair, today, the ones that are polluting 
greatest are doing nothing other than just being told to think up 
something by 2030.
  Mr. Chair, our President did the right thing. We should do the same. 
We need

[[Page H3369]]

to get to work on legislating, not political messaging.
  The American people sent us here to work on solutions to healthcare, 
infrastructure, education, the economy, and much more. Let's get to 
work on that, and let's encourage the nations of the world to do the 
right thing and get involved in doing what the United States has done 
already and, by the way, will continue to do.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose this bill. We all should.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When President Trump announced plans to withdraw the U.S. from the 
Paris climate agreement in 2017, hundreds of businesses from all over 
the country immediately responded that it was a mistake and that they 
would redouble their own efforts to cut emissions.
  In a separate declaration a few days later, a group called We Are 
Still In said that, despite Trump, they continue to support climate 
action. They argued that compliance with the Paris Agreement would open 
markets and generate jobs.
  Today, We Are Still In is comprised of over 3,500 leaders, including 
Governors, mayors, universities, and over 1,800 companies working 
together to uphold America's promise to meet the goals of the Paris 
Agreement.
  Included in the coalition are some of the country's most successful 
companies, and I think you will recognize the names: Adobe, Amazon, 
Apple, Belkin, Ben & Jerry's, Campbell's, Chobani, Citi, DuPont, eBay, 
Gap, Google, The Hartford, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, 
Levi Strauss, Lyft, Mars, McDonald's, MGM Resorts International, 
Microsoft, and I can go on and on.
  The Paris Agreement will not on its own solve our global warming 
problems, but it does present business and investors with a historic 
opportunity by signaling a new global consensus that the transition to 
a clean energy economy is underway.
  The argument that the Paris Agreement is somehow antibusiness or will 
hurt our economy just doesn't hold water. So I encourage my friends on 
the other side of the aisle to listen to American businesses and treat 
climate change as both the threat and opportunity that it is.
  Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our majority leader.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the 
world, not just in the United States, believe that climate change is 
one of the major crises confronting the global community.
  We went to Paris, and the world community got together and adopted an 
agreement that was voluntary in its implementation. No sovereignty was 
given up by any nation. They said that scientists say we have a crisis 
and that we need to respond to it.
  My friend from Michigan who spoke earlier, Mr. Walberg, said that we 
ought to be focused on education, housing, healthcare, and job 
creation. He is right, but to ignore this problem is dangerous and 
unacceptable.
  Climate change is perhaps one of the greatest threats we face as a 
nation and as a planet. Those who deny it do so at great peril to the 
health, security, and economic prosperity of our country.
  H.R. 9 will not solve climate change. The first step in any journey 
does not get you there. But without it, you get nowhere.
  House Democrats are laying down a marker today that we are committed 
to tackling this challenge with the seriousness it deserves.
  Recognizing and combating climate change must be a global effort. 
This legislation prohibits the Trump administration from using any 
funds to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
  I tell my friends in the House that I believe the overwhelming 
majority of Americans support that proposition, as do the citizens of 
the world.

                              {time}  1530

  We have been the leader of the free world. Withdrawing from an 
agreement that was voluntarily entered into by over 170 nations shrugs 
off the mantle of leadership, moral and intellectual. If the United 
States withdraws, then we will be the only nation in the world not to 
be part of this historic agreement which embraces the goals previously 
set by our country--joined by the contribution of other nations--to 
reduce carbon pollution, promote technological innovation, and help 
avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change.
  If we ignore the challenges of climate change, then we will also 
close ourselves off to opportunities to take the lead in the race to 
develop and deploy cleaner and more efficient technologies, which would 
create jobs and grow businesses and be a boon to our economy.
  So I would suggest to my colleagues that those who argue against this 
bill argue not for economic progress, not for the creation of jobs, but 
exactly the opposite, and they deny the future: the future of the 
economy, the future of our health, the future of our environment, and 
the future of our children.
  America, if it is to be great, must not sit on the sidelines and 
shrug like Atlas in confronting the rest of the world. We must act on 
climate change.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my dear friend, the chair of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Engel, for his leadership and his strong 
voice on behalf of what is an international issue. It is an issue for 
us, but it is an international issue.
  I want to thank, as well, my dear friend, Representative Kathy 
Castor, for her leadership as chair of the House Select Committee on 
the Climate Crisis and for introducing H.R. 9.
  I also want to thank Chairman Pallone and the Energy and Commerce 
Committee for their leadership.
  There have been over 30 hearings on this issue. All concluded we must 
have a concerted effort to address climate change, and House Democrats 
will continue to do our part. But this ought to be a bipartisan vote. 
Every citizen--Republican, Democrat, Independent, and nonaffiliated--
are going to be affected if we do not deal with climate change, and 
their children as well.
  I look forward to bringing to the floor future legislation from our 
committees which seeks to tackle the climate crisis with substantive 
proposals, but I urge my colleagues: Let's take this first step. Let's 
say that we are not going to withdraw from the rest of the world. Let's 
say we are going to continue to lead on an issue that there is a global 
consensus on that we must deal with climate change. Take this step. 
Assert America's leadership.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
distinguished leader for his statement.
  I, too, wish this were a bipartisan bill. I do. I wish it were a 
bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, as the ranking member of the House 
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, I found out about this from the 
press, not from the chairman of the committee. I found out from the 
press about this bill. That is not how you pursue bipartisan 
legislation. If there were a true attempt and a true desire to do 
bipartisan legislation, certainly this would have been handled 
differently.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman, I fully agree that the climate is 
changing. I agree that humans are contributing to that change. I agree 
that there is something that we need to do about this, and we need to 
be aggressive.
  As we heard from scientists just yesterday in the House Select 
Committee on the Climate Crisis, they have confirmed to us that the 
United States can eliminate all emissions, and we are still going to 
see warming. We are not going to see changes in the temperature if we 
eliminate all of our emissions.
  Mr. Chairman, China, right now, is the top emitter. They are emitting 
80 percent more than the United States. As a matter of fact, Greenpeace 
found last year they are actually increasing their emissions. Here we 
are, the United States, for about the last 20 years, the largest 
absolute reduction in emissions of any country in the world.
  The Paris accord is fundamentally flawed. It is not the solution. We 
can eliminate all of our emissions, Mr. Chairman, and you are going to 
have countries like China that are allowed, under the Paris accords, to 
come in and more than replace all of our emissions

[[Page H3370]]

reductions. That doesn't make sense, and it is not fair. This coming 
from a country that has already stolen trillions of dollars in 
intellectual property and cost this country millions of jobs.
  Let me say it again: Climate change is real, and we need to take 
action.
  This agreement is fundamentally flawed. It benefits China.
  Of course other countries agree. It is on the back of the United 
States, the nation that spends more money on climate change science and 
more money on climate change technology than any other country in the 
world.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is fundamentally flawed. This whole agreement 
is fundamentally flawed. China has an entirely different metric to 
measure their emissions reduction than the United States, and they 
don't even have to reduce a single degree of emissions until after 
2030.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a flawed bill, and I urge rejection.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud original cosponsor 
of H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act, which preserves our Nation's 
commitment to the Paris Agreement and keeps our promise to the American 
people to take meaningful action on climate change.
  The Paris Agreement paved the way for our Nation to develop a robust 
plan for cutting emissions which both threaten public health and 
contribute to global climate change. Part of this plan was to clean up 
the transportation sector, now the largest single source of emissions 
in the country.

  My home State of California was critical in the effort to establish 
more stringent vehicle emissions standards. When the administration 
irresponsibly chose to abandon part of this plan by rolling back Obama-
era vehicle emissions standards, I introduced legislation that would 
protect these standards and the benefits that they ultimately bring to 
our communities.
  I am pleased to see so many of my congressional colleagues join me in 
proposing meaningful solutions to combat climate change, but we must do 
more. We must act together as a nation to lead the way.
  Our Nation cannot afford to cede its international leadership. By not 
participating in the Paris Agreement, we risk irreversible damage to 
our planet and endanger the American people.
  I think about my grandchildren, Anna and Robby. It is their future I 
am thinking about. They will be greatly impacted if we don't do 
something now.
  Tackling climate change is and always has been my top priority. We 
must act now to mitigate the effects of climate change before it is too 
late. I have spent the last decade helping lead on this effort, and I 
am immensely pleased to be able to support the Climate Action Now Act 
on the floor today.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), who is a member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, let's be clear. We must have a global 
approach to the climate crisis, but giving a pass to countries like 
China and India subverts that process. Look at their record. Since 
2001, there has been a 290 percent increase in emissions; India, 235. 
We have got a negative 16. We are reducing that.
  So because of their miserable record of curtailing greenhouse gases, 
we still, in America, across the country, in rural areas, are going to 
face droughts, wildfires, and sea level rise. Because of India and 
China, experts are saying that Miami, Florida, and Baltimore are still 
going to flood.
  So let's be honest. The Paris accord is really nothing more about 
political theater than actually addressing climate change.
  Instead, we should have an agreement that is enforceable with legally 
binding targets and specific financial support that provides for 
liability or compensation for damages that could be caused and an 
understanding that global communities are still fossil fuel driven.
  America should not unilaterally transform our energy policies while 
gambling that other nations will voluntarily--and I underscore that, 
voluntarily--reduce their emissions. History and past agreements 
indicate other nations are not following the lead of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' on H.R. 9.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to start off by saying that I respect the 
chairman. I respect his point of view, and I respect the arguments that 
have been made on this floor. I believe they are genuine. I believe 
that most Members of this Chamber agree that climate change is real and 
that climate change presents a risk.
  I sat down with a scientist from NASA, which is in my home State. We 
talked about the data. He said: I am not a policymaker. Here is the 
data. Here is what is going to happen if we do nothing.
  But I think, as the majority leader said, H.R. 9 does not solve this 
problem.
  You have heard from my side of the aisle very genuine arguments about 
the cost to the economy, the fact that we have reduced our emissions 
but countries like China and India have doubled theirs. We want to get 
something done to solve this crisis, and I admit it is a crisis.
  This bill is a messaging bill. It is a feel-good bill. It won't get 
through the Senate. It will be vetoed by the White House. I submit to 
all those listening to this debate that when that happens, we work on 
something real, that is bipartisan.
  We heard the ranking member from the new House Select Committee on 
the Climate Crisis say that he found out about this bill in the press. 
That is no way to lead a bipartisan effort in the Congress.
  So when this fails, and it will, I submit we go back to the drawing 
board and do things that we know do work, and that is let's work on 
innovation, clean energy technologies, and, yes, nuclear power.
  We are showing we are being a leader reducing our emissions while 
other countries are not. Let's lead by example. Let's come back with 
some real legislation that is going to make a difference, reduce 
emissions, and get us out of this crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say that I am very glad that the 
Foreign Affairs Committee has jurisdiction over this bill.
  I would also like to note for the Congressional Record that we have 
three additional Members who intended to cosponsor H.R. 9, 
Congresswoman Kaptur, Congresswoman Gabbard, and Congresswoman 
Underwood.
  Let me also say that I include in the Record 9 letters in support of 
H.R. 9. Specifically, I have letters from a group of four dozen 
environmental organizations led by Oxfam; the Sierra Club; the Union of 
Concerned Scientists and others; the League of Conservation Voters; The 
Wilderness Society; EDF Action, which is an advocacy partner of the 
Environmental Defense Fund; BlueGreen Alliance, which is a coalition of 
the Nation's largest labor unions and environmental groups; the United 
Steelworkers; E2, which is a nonpartisan group of environmental 
entrepreneurs from across the country; Ceres and its BICEP Network, 
which is the Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy; the We 
Are Still In coalition, which is made up of over 3,750 U.S. businesses, 
cities, States, Tribes, colleges, universities, investors, faith 
groups, cultural institutions, and healthcare organizations; the NAACP; 
leading public health and medical organizations, including the American 
Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and the 
Allergy & Asthma Network; and the American College of Physicians.

                                                   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

[[Page H3371]]

     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.
                                  ____



                                                          LCV,

                                                   April 26, 2019.
     Re Support H.R. 9, Climate Action Now Act.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters 
     (LCV) works to turn environmental values into national 
     priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National 
     Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of 
     members of Congress on environmental legislation. The 
     Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters 
     nationwide, and the media.
       We write in strong support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action 
     Now Act. This important legislation honors America's 
     commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement, recognizes the 
     urgency of tackling climate change, and lays the groundwork 
     for further action.
       Climate change is already having devastating impacts on 
     communities across the country and the world. More extreme 
     storms, record-breaking floods, and raging wildfires are 
     hurting our families and even taking people's lives. It is 
     unacceptable that these impacts and the burden of toxic 
     pollution hit lower income, communities of color, and 
     Indigenous peoples first and worst. Poll after poll shows 
     that an overwhelming majority of voters--across ideological 
     lines--want strong action on clean energy and climate 
     solutions.
       H.R. 9 is a strong rebuke of the Trump Administration's 
     denial of the climate crisis, efforts to undermine progress, 
     and ill-conceived decision to become the only country in the 
     world to reject the landmark Paris Climate Agreement. In 
     response to this utter failure of leadership, governors, 
     mayors, universities, businesses, faith leaders, and 
     investors are stepping up to support climate action to meet 
     this agreement.
       This momentum is only growing. Just this year, six new 
     governors have joined the U.S. Climate Alliance, bringing the 
     total to 23 states and territories committed to meeting the 
     Paris Climate Agreement's goals. New Mexico Governor Lujan 
     Grisham signed into law legislation that moves the state's 
     electricity to 100% carbon free by 2045. Governors Walz (MN), 
     Evers (WI), and Mills (ME) have all announced plans to move 
     their state to 100% clean energy. After passing both chambers 
     unanimously, Nevada Governor Sisolak signed into law 
     legislation moving the state to 50% renewable energy by 2030. 
     The Washington state legislature just passed a 100% clean 
     energy bill, the Maryland legislature passed a 50% clean 
     energy bill by 2030, and a comprehensive 100% clean energy 
     package has been introduced in Illinois.
       After eight years of the Republican leadership in the U.S. 
     House taking us backwards in the fight against climate 
     change, we are thrilled to see this important first step in 
     the right direction and LCV urges you to SUPPORT H.R. 9. We 
     will strongly consider including votes on this bill in the 
     2019 Scorecard. If you need more information, please call my 
     office and ask to speak with a member of our government 
     relations team.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gene Karpinski,
     President.
                                  ____



                                       The Wilderness Society,

                                                    April 2, 2019.
     Hon. Frank Pallone,
     Chair, House Committee on Energy & Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy & Commerce, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, and Members 
     of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce: On behalf of The 
     Wilderness Society's over one million members and supporters, 
     I write in support of H.R. 9, The Climate Action Now Act. 
     This legislation would take a necessary and welcome step to 
     reestablish the United States as a global leader and to 
     tackle climate change at the scale required to avert the 
     worst impacts of this crisis. The Wilderness Society urges 
     you to vote for H.R. 9 when it is marked up in committee 
     later this week.
       Climate change represents the greatest threat facing our 
     public lands and the communities that depend on them, from 
     America's thawing Arctic to regions devastated by extreme 
     drought and wildfire. President Trump's decision to withdraw 
     the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change 
     was a misguided step back from the kind of leadership the 
     world expects of America. By deliberately undermining the 
     global agreement and reversing policies to address U.S. 
     emissions, President Trump has moved the United States and 
     the world in the wrong direction at precisely the moment we 
     need accelerated progress. H.R. 9 represents a much-needed 
     step to confront the climate crisis by taking steps to 
     prevent formal withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and 
     requiring the Administration to develop a plan to meet 
     national greenhouse gas targets.
       The Wilderness Society believes that our 640 million acres 
     of public lands can and must play a prominent role in 
     addressing climate change in a comprehensive, sustainable and 
     equitable way. We have a significant opportunity to reduce 
     greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel energy development 
     on public lands, which currently accounts for more than 20% 
     of all U.S. emissions, and support responsibly-sited 
     renewable energy projects. We must also protect large, 
     connected landscapes, including our forests, deserts and 
     other wild places that can help species adapt, store carbon, 
     and provide natural infrastructure to safeguard communities 
     from intensifying storms and extreme weather events. H.R. 9 
     takes an important first step in establishing a framework 
     that allows for our public lands to be part of the climate 
     solution, and no longer a significant contributor to the 
     United States' carbon footprint.
       The Wilderness Society looks forward to seeing passage of 
     this bill, without amendment, as a first step in solving the 
     climate crisis, and we welcome the opportunity to work with 
     Congress to make public lands part of our national solution 
     to climate change.
           Sincerely,
     Drew McConville,
       Senior Managing Director of Government Relations, The 
     Wilderness Society.

[[Page H3372]]

     
                                  ____
                           [From EDF Action]

                   H.R. 9: The Climate Action Now Act

       The Climate Action Now Act is a much-needed step toward 
     reasserting American global leadership in the fight to solve 
     climate change.
       This bill gives Congress the opportunity to take common 
     sense action against one of our country's most dangerous 
     threats.
       We need immediate action to reduce climate pollution and 
     move our country toward 100% clean energy across the economy 
     by 2050.
       Taking action on climate change is necessary to:
       Protect our health and our kids' future,
       Strengthen the U.S. economy through innovation and 
     investment,
       Protect against trillions of dollars in damages,
       Allow America to lead the next technological and energy 
     revolution.


                      What is the Paris Agreement?

       In 2015 in a historic breakthrough, virtually every country 
     in the world came together and committed to addressing 
     climate change by reducing emissions. The announcement, known 
     as Paris Agreement, allows each country to make its own plan 
     to fight pollution.
       A recommitment to the goals of the Paris Agreement would 
     show the world that America takes its promise to cut 
     pollution seriously, encourage other nations to honor their 
     climate pledges as well, and give America a stronger voice in 
     ongoing climate negotiations.


                    Americans support climate action

       The Trump administration has surrendered American 
     leadership in the fight against climate change, isolating our 
     country, and ignoring two-thirds of Americans who support 
     climate action.
       Recommitting to the Paris Agreement goals follows the lead 
     of the over 3,500 elected officials, and tribal, university, 
     businesses, and faith leaders, representing millions of 
     Americans, who have pledged to continue to support climate 
     action.
                                  ____



                                           BlueGreen Alliance,

                                                   April 30, 2019.
     Re BlueGreen Alliance Supports H.R. 9, Climate Action Now 
       Act.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: As a coalition of the nation's largest 
     labor unions and environmental groups, collectively 
     representing millions of members and supporters, we write to 
     express the BlueGreen Alliance's support for H.R. 9, the 
     Climate Action Now Act.
       The United States' adoption of the Paris Agreement was an 
     historic step to lead in the fight against global climate 
     change. The Trump Administration's stated intention to 
     withdraw from this agreement is a mistake with dire 
     consequences for the United States and the rest of the world. 
     The effects of climate change are already being felt in 
     communities across the country in the form of more frequent 
     and severe extreme weather events, wildfires, droughts, and 
     rising sea levels.
       Removing the United States from the Agreement would be an 
     abdication of our nation's responsibility to the world and to 
     future generations to lead in the fight against climate 
     change. Our country can and should lead the world in driving 
     the significant economic growth and job creation that can 
     result from clean energy technologies and infrastructure 
     required to reduce climate change-driving pollution. The 
     Paris Agreement holds all countries accountable for their 
     emissions, and is a critical tool at our disposal to create a 
     level playing field for U.S.-based manufacturing in the race 
     against our global economic competitors to build the clean 
     technologies of the future.
       America is currently meeting the challenge of making our 
     energy, transportation, and other systems cleaner and more 
     efficient. We have already begun putting millions of people 
     to work in jobs designing, manufacturing, and installing the 
     clean energy technology and infrastructure needed to reduce 
     the pollution that is driving climate change. At the same 
     time, we must ensure that the jobs we're building in new 
     clean technologies are quality, family-sustaining jobs. 
     Additionally, we must address the challenges of this 
     transition to ensure that no communities or workers are left 
     behind by making available the tools and resources for 
     workers to transition to new, good jobs and for communities 
     to diversify their local and regional economies and create 
     new opportunities.
       Ultimately, we have everything we need to meet our 
     commitment made in the Paris Agreement. American innovation 
     has the potential to lead the world in solving our 
     environmental problems while creating good jobs for workers.
       The Climate Action Now Act recognizes this reality and 
     would block President Trump's dangerous threat to remove the 
     United States from the Paris Agreement and require the 
     Administration to create a plan that demonstrates how the 
     U.S. will go about meeting our commitments for climate change 
     mitigation. By addressing climate change the right way--with 
     investments in infrastructure and job training, and 
     developing technologies of the future--our country can lead 
     the world in driving the significant economic growth and job 
     creation that comes from the design, manufacturing, and 
     installation of the clean energy economy. For these reasons, 
     BlueGreen Alliance urges Congress to swiftly pass this 
     legislation.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                             Michael Williams,

                                    Interim Co-Executive Director,
     BlueGreen Alliance.
                                  ____



                                          United Steelworkers,

                                                    April 2, 2019.
     Re United Steelworkers support H.R. 9, Climate Action Now 
         Act.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 850,000 members of 
     the United Steelworkers (USW), we urge you to support the 
     Climate Action Now Act (H.R. 9). This simple and 
     straightforward legislation prevents the Trump Administration 
     from withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and requires a plan 
     for the United States to meet its emissions targets.
       In our union's 1990 report titled Our Children's World, we 
     stated that, ``[Climate change] may be the single greatest 
     problem we face.'' The situation has become more urgent, and 
     for many years the United States has been a leader in 
     innovation and technology to combat this crisis.
       The Paris Agreement is an ambitious, nonbinding, and 
     transparent achievement in the global fight against climate 
     change. The President's 2017 announcement of his intent to 
     withdraw was reckless and opposed by labor, environmental, 
     and business leaders. Withdrawal would be an inexcusable blow 
     to the U.S. economy, as the diplomatic and trade impacts 
     would be felt for years.
       We applaud the House Democratic Leadership for introducing 
     H.R. 9 to reverse this Administration's decision. We urge all 
     members to support the Climate Action Now Act (H.R. 9).
           Sincerely,
                                                    Leo W. Gerard,
     International President.
                                  ____

                                                       April 2019.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: We are members of 
     the Leaders Circle of the largest coalition ever assembled 
     for climate action in the United States, and are among the 
     over 3,750 U.S. businesses, cities, states, tribes, colleges 
     and universities, investors, faith groups, cultural 
     institutions, and health care organizations who declared ``We 
     Are Still In'' the Paris Agreement and the fight against 
     climate change.
       Since We Are Still In launched two years ago, more and more 
     American leaders have stepped forward to declare their 
     support for the global solution to climate change. Our 3,750 
     signatories come from all fifty states, represent half of the 
     U.S. population and over half of the U.S. economy.
       In that time, the science around climate change has only 
     become increasingly clear. Last year, the Intergovernmental 
     Panel on Climate Change detailed the dire global consequences 
     of allowing global temperature increases to exceed 2.7 deg. 
     F/1.5 deg. C. Similarly, the National Climate Assessment 
     detailed that the impacts of climate change are already 
     impacting every place and walk of life in the United States. 
     Our future is at stake.
       For these reasons, we endorse H.R. 9: Climate Action Now 
     Act, which advances our commitment to address climate change 
     and support the Paris Agreement, and hope that leaders from 
     both sides will choose to stand behind the legislation. It is 
     in America's best interest to improve our global leadership 
     and reputation on this issue by honoring our contribution to 
     the Paris Agreement.
       For our part, we will continue our commitment to tackling 
     climate change by reducing our emissions and working together 
     for a broad transformation of the U.S. economy. We look 
     forward to welcoming strong, smart, national policies to 
     address the climate challenge while unleashing substantial 
     economic and public health benefits.
           Sincerely,
       Bishop Marc Andrus, The Episcopal Church; Richard Beam, 
     Chief Environmental Officer, Providence St Joseph Health; 
     Mayor Jim Brainard, City of Cannel, Indiana; Alison Brown, 
     President and CEO, Science Museum of Minnesota; President 
     Michael Crow, Arizona State University; President David 
     Finegold, Chatham University; President Dianne Harrison, 
     California State University--Northridge; Mayor Keith A James, 
     City of West Palm Beach, Florida; President Mark Mitsui, 
     Portland Community College; President Fawn Sharp, Quinault 
     Indian Nation.
                                  ____

                                      National Association for the


                                Advancement of Colored People,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2019.
     Re NAACP Strong support for H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now 
         Act
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's 
     oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based 
     civil rights organization, I strongly urge you to support and 
     vote in favor of H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act. The 
     earth's climate is now changing faster than at any point in

[[Page H3373]]

     the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of 
     human activities, and as the effects of climate change 
     intensify, so too will the stark differences in consequences 
     experienced by the privileged and the disadvantaged. Low-
     income populations and in America people of color will suffer 
     more dire repercussions because of climate change.
       From Hurricane Katrina in 2005, to the more recent flooding 
     in Houston due to Hurricane Harvey in 2017, as well as 
     numerous other weather-related catastrophes including heat 
     waves, hurricanes, cyclones, and floods we have witnessed the 
     inconceivable loss of life and property that can be caused by 
     more dangerous weather systems. The increased ferocity of 
     these storms is but one result of climate change, yet it 
     perhaps offers us the best insight into its disparate impact. 
     Low income Americans and racial and ethnic minorities have 
     fewer resources with which they can prepare for, defend 
     against, or use to clean up after a disaster.
       While H.R. 9 does not offer the resources which are 
     necessary to defend against a crisis situation, it does make 
     it less likely that we will be faced with catastrophes on the 
     scale to which we are growing sadly increasingly accustomed. 
     Specifically, H.R. 9 would require that the United States 
     remain a partner in and part of the 2016 Paris agreement on 
     climate change. The United States was once a global leader in 
     pushing for climate action, but we have recently lost our 
     way. As a result, our progress and that of some other nations 
     in reducing emissions has dwindled and is now reversing 
     itself.
       There is not time to waste: we need to take decisive action 
     to address this increasing problem while we still can. It is 
     not an understatement to say that our future depends upon it. 
     Please support and vote for H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now 
     Act, and urge your colleagues in the other body, as well, as 
     the President, to take the threat of climate change 
     seriously. Should you have any questions or comments, please 
     do not hesitate to contact me at my office.
           Sincerely,
                                                Hilary O. Shelton,
      Director, NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President 
     for Policy and Advocacy.
                                  ____

                                                   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.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. ENGEL. I think that it is very clear to say that this is a broad-
based bill, and I do hope that we will pass it. We have the ability to 
work together to do it.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  May 1, 2019 on page H3373, the following appeared: I think that 
it is very clear to say that this is a broad-based bill, and I do 
hope that we will pass it.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. ENGEL. I 
think that it is very clear to say that this is a broad-based 
bill, and I do hope that we will pass it.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  I thank the ranking member for his offer to work together. We have a 
tradition of doing that on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we will 
do it again.
  But climate change, global warming, is a factor. We can put our heads 
in the sand like an ostrich and pretend it is not there, but it is 
there and it is big; and if we don't do something about it soon, we are 
all going to pay the price in the future.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote for this important bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.
  President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is 
unjustified and, I believe, dangerous. It abdicates U.S. leadership on 
climate action and puts the health and safety of our communities at 
great risk. It also jeopardizes our national and economic security.
  We can't live in the past. China, the EU, and others are moving 
towards a low-carbon economy, building solar panels, wind turbines, and 
cornering the market on renewable industries.
  We can and should be a leader in that transition so that our 
industries, our workers, and our communities benefit from the new 
opportunities created.
  The United States has always been at the forefront in the creation of 
new technologies and new jobs; but, rather than leading right now, 
President Trump and his administration are simply sticking their heads 
in the sand, acting like this is the 19th century.
  We have to be future oriented, not live in the past, or we will 
simply be left behind.
  The President is actually making the climate crisis worse. The Trump 
administration gutted regulations to control methane pollution from the 
oil and gas sector, rolled back stronger fuel efficiency standards for 
vehicles, and illegally blocked improved appliance efficiency 
standards.
  These actions led to a rise in greenhouse gas emissions last year.
  Now, back in my district, I want you to understand, this is not a 
partisan issue. Everyone sees the harm climate change is doing to our 
shoreline, our oceans, and the health and well-being of our residents.
  States and local governments are taking action on climate change. 
They are concerned about the health of their constituents, asthmatics 
who are negatively impacted by dirty air, cancers that are aggravated 
by increased toxicity.
  I have a lot of Republican mayors and county and State legislators, 
and I don't know one of those Republican mayors or elected officials 
who thinks that the Federal Government should withdraw from climate 
action.
  It is the cost of inaction that is really painful. We have all seen 
them. In 2017, the United States experienced 16 natural disasters with 
costs totaling $360 billion. Superstorm Sandy hit my district very 
hard.
  But I want to say that we still have time to avoid a deeper climate 
crisis, while strengthening and modernizing our economy at the same 
time, and H.R. 9 is an important step in that regard.
  So--please--I call on my colleagues, I beg my colleagues, let's take 
this opportunity to prevent the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement 
and, at the same time, call upon this administration to come up with 
ways of achieving the goal of the Paris Agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly, today is, unfortunately, more about the 
politics of climate change than actually rolling up our sleeves and 
getting to work on American solutions.
  Climate change is real, but addressing climate change should not 
involve binding ourselves to international agreements that put United 
States workers and jobs at a disadvantage to our main competitors 
around the world and with no regard to the cost for American consumers 
and ratepayers.
  We should have a serious, solutions-oriented discussion about how to 
address climate change risks through

[[Page H3374]]

American innovation, American conservation, and preparation.
  But we all know that long-term, sustainable policy is best developed 
through a thoughtful, logical, and strong bipartisan process. That is 
the approach we have taken over the last several Congresses as 
Republicans and one I think we should continue in this Congress.
  In fact, in the last Congress, Republicans worked with Democrats to 
remove regulatory barriers to new technological advances in power 
generation, from hydropower to small modular nuclear, from tax policies 
that actually encourage carbon capture and storage to reforms of the 
Nation's electric grid.
  There are many bipartisan policies Congress could further pursue to 
accelerate innovation and to create industrial, electrical, and 
technological infrastructure that actually will enable cleaner energy 
systems for the future; such as, furthering advanced nuclear reactor 
technologies, easing the permitting of clean-energy infrastructure, and 
modernizing our electric grid.
  We need to do all of those, Mr. Chairman.
  We can also look to better management of our Federal forests to 
reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, which choke the communities, 
like those in my home State of Oregon, with smoke and fill our 
atmosphere with untold pollutants.
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that sustainably 
managing our Federal forests--in fact, all forests--will create the 
longest sustained carbon mitigation benefit. Those are the findings of 
the U.N. IPCC.

  But H.R. 9, it just does not represent that kind of bipartisan policy 
that we should be considering today. This bill is being considered, 
frankly, without the benefit of regular order in any committee of 
jurisdiction. It has no companion in the United States Senate.
  H.R. 9 represents the Democrats' reflexive response to the 
President's June 1, 2017, announcement that the U.S. would withdraw 
from the Paris Agreement.
  Now, the Obama administration's commitments in Paris were made 
without a clear plan to even meet those provisions, without a full view 
of the costs to American consumers, and certainly without a strategy 
that had broad bipartisan support from Congress.
  Further, H.R. 9's unquestioning focus on U.S. domestic action ignores 
the evidence that the bulk of the future global emissions growth will 
be in China, it will be in India and the rest of the developing world.
  If implemented, it would lock in the United States to expensive 
commitments that will harm consumers; our communities; and, frankly, 
our economic security.
  Republicans offered a number of amendments to debate these matters, 
but, unfortunately, most of those amendments were rejected by 
Democrats.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about 
reducing emissions and addressing other climate change risks, and doing 
so quickly, they would acknowledge the reality of global energy needs. 
They would acknowledge that the United States is reducing greenhouse 
gas emissions through innovation and through technological development, 
frankly, better than any country on the planet.
  That is what we are doing as Americans. That is what we do. We 
innovate. We lead. And we are doing that in emissions reduction; we are 
doing that with new energy technologies; and that is where we should be 
focused as a Congress to incentivize those going forward.
  Now, instead of spending a week of precious legislative time talking 
about a bill that, frankly, has little teeth, will never move in the 
Senate, would get vetoed by the President if it ever got to his desk, 
we could be legislating on how to ease the overly burdensome hydropower 
licensing process.
  The Northwest is a great place for hydroelectricity. We know a lot 
about it, and it has zero carbon emissions.
  Or we could be passing bills that support nuclear energy. You look at 
the small modular nuclear technologies that are on the cusp of an 
energy future for baseload power, and you understand just what that 
could be, with no emissions.
  We could either do that through licensing reform or through these 
advanced technologies.
  Let's focus on the new technology necessary for future energy 
systems, for future transportation systems, for advances in 
manufacturing and industry to emit fewer greenhouse gases. That is what 
we should be doing.
  Let's work together on the bills that are going to lead to ribbon-
cutting ceremonies for new energy infrastructure or to an American 
getting a new, well-paid job in the energy industry.
  That infrastructure could be a wind farm. It could be a natural gas 
pipeline. That new job could be as a solar installer, or it could be a 
nuclear engineer.
  I am not talking about picking winners and losers here when it comes 
to energy, the environment, or the climate. I am talking about 
unleashing American innovators to do what they do best, and that is 
develop new and better technologies that benefit consumers, benefit the 
environment, and benefit the good, old United States of America.
  So we should reject H.R. 9 and focus on realistic solutions to 
prepare for the future and on policies that work for the American 
public.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney), a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee,
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for allowing me 2 
minutes.
  We are here today to talk about a global problem that demands a 
global solution. Since the Industrial Revolution, a significant amount 
of carbon has been building up in the atmosphere; and, until just 
recently, the United States was the number one emitter of carbon 
pollution.
  As China ramped up its emissions, we lost that dubious title, but we 
are still dumping massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
  This carbon in the atmosphere has caused energy to accumulate in the 
oceans and the skies, and that is now causing changes in our 
environment. And these changes will continue to grow.
  The global solution we need is one that the United States actually 
had a hand in crafting. We led the efforts in the development and 
adoption of the Paris climate accord; but now, because of this 
administration's decision, we are telling the world to do as we say, 
not as we do.
  The Paris climate accord is one of the most comprehensive deals to 
date and is a worldwide agreement to begin reducing carbon emissions. 
It is the important first step in the battle to stop the dangerous 
spiral of climate change.
  If we retreat from the Paris accord, we are condemning future 
generations to a world filled with catastrophic climate change and 
conflict.
  H.R. 9 will help heal this rift by putting us in alignment with the 
rest of the global community and holding us to standards that we helped 
put in place.
  My Republican colleagues say they believe in climate change but have 
always refused action.
  The Paris climate agreement is action. Let's get with the program.
  The United States has led by example, so, today, I inform my 
colleagues: Adopt H.R. 9. Don't make us the past villain for future 
generations.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a very important member of our committee.

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, put simply, this legislation 
forces President Trump's hand to carry out the goals of his 
predecessor, but this administration was elected to tackle our energy 
issues differently, our environmental issues differently.
  Americans asked for this change in direction. And we got that last 
Congress, where Republicans worked with this administration to find 
creative ways to streamline the development and use of all of our 
energy sources and technologies.
  We examined grid modification issues, looked at ways to encourage the 
creation and adoption of advanced nuclear energy, along with creative 
ways to encourage new coal and natural gas technologies.
  We looked at how market forces are driving new energy technologies 
and

[[Page H3375]]

how the Federal Government can play a supportive role in that 
advancement, not pick winners and losers.
  I worry that today's legislation could bring us back to a 
prescriptive approach to our Federal energy policy. It could cause 
significant ratepayer hikes on families and small businesses in eastern 
and southeastern Ohio who simply cannot absorb higher electric bills.
  H.R. 9 was rushed through our committees. The Energy and Commerce 
Committee held no hearings on it, but simply a full committee markup. 
Members had no time to debate it--only vote.
  E&C Democrat leadership even expressed frustration over the expedited 
pace of this bill.
  Because of these reasons and the issues raised by my colleagues, I 
urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 9.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), another member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 9, 
the Climate Action Now Act, that is laid before this House now for 
final consideration.
  ``The Earth's climate is now changing faster than at any point in the 
history of modern civilization.'' This is a direct quote from the 
Fourth National Climate Assessment issued by our top scientists from 
across 13 government agencies.
  Sea levels are rising; average temperatures are warming; ice is 
disappearing; and extreme weather is intensifying and becoming more 
frequent. And we know that in this Chamber, because we are dealing with 
the consequences of the hurricanes, the fires, too often because of our 
constituents that are being hurt.
  We know this is affecting the lives of growing numbers of Americans 
all across the country. And even as I stand here, right now, we have 
floods in my district.
  Climate change is an urgent, existential threat we all face, and bold 
action is demanded at this moment. We have to act together, not as 
Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans.
  We don't change treaties. We don't change things because we have had 
a change in who has been elected President. We respect that office. The 
consequences of inaction are real, and not only are future generations 
put at risk each day if we do nothing, so are we.
  This begins by ensuring America honors its commitment under the Paris 
Agreement. Withdrawing is not the answer.
  The Climate Action Now Act would simply prevent the United States 
from using Federal dollars to withdraw from the Paris Agreement; and 
calls on the President to develop and make public a plan for how the 
United States will meet its nationally-determined contributions 
submitted to the world in 2015.
  The bill is technology-neutral, so the President has the flexibility 
to set climate policies and marshal renewable forms of energy. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, President Trump has made clear what climate 
action he doesn't like. He doesn't like the Paris Agreement, which 
contemplated that every nation in the world would set a target to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  He doesn't like the Clean Power Plan, which encouraged each State to 
create its own strategy to lower greenhouse gas emissions. And he 
doesn't like the CAFE standards that required automakers to lower 
emissions from cars and trucks.
  Now, last month, the President's own EPA administrator came to the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, and he testified, and he agreed that 
climate change is happening, and that it is driven largely by human 
activity.
  So the question is, what climate action does President Trump support? 
And that is the point of the Climate Action Now Act, which simply 
invites the President to tell us his strategy.
  Now, there are many options, many bipartisan options, many mentioned 
by my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Walden. These are increasing research 
into energy storage technologies, pricing carbon, incentivizing more 
renewable energy, requiring or incentivizing energy efficiency, easing 
regulation for developing renewables, developing carbon capture and 
negative emissions technology, or investing in resiliency and more.
  And we don't even need the President to draft new ideas. We have got 
existing bills from the last Congress and from this Congress we have 
assembled into The Climate Playbook, which you can find right on my 
Congressional website.
  Mr. President, we get that you don't like President Obama's climate 
action ideas. Now tell us your climate action plans.
  I encourage each of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join 
me in making that request to President Trump by supporting and passing 
H.R. 9. Congress has a Climate Playbook.
  Mr. President, tell us yours.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Sablan). Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) to speak on this matter.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I am probably going to be a little 
different than some of the folks you are going to have come speak from 
our side. I actually, though, like the goal that we agreed to, or the 
President agreed to in 2015.
  I believe it is an abdication, though, of our responsibility to 
actually build what the plan is--we will call it the smorgasbord of 
options out there--because, if you think about it, once again, it is 
Congress passing the buck saying, well, here's the goal; let someone 
else take the blows of it.
  So if we are going to have an honest conversation, let's say I am a 
State that uses heating oil. Heating oil is functionally filthy. Okay. 
Are you willing to encourage that community, that State, to allow more 
natural gas extraction, more pipelines so we can actually hit the 
numbers? Or is it easier passing it on to the White House to let them 
take the slings and arrows of what it takes policy-wise?
  If you actually look at the reality, 2015, the year that President 
Obama agreed to this, that year, every functioning benefit from all of 
the solar that was adopted in 2015 was removed because of the amount of 
nuclear that went offline that year. Are we ready here to step up and 
say, hey, if we want baseload, clean, non-CO, non-greenhouse emitting, 
we are going to step up and get this nuclear back online, because it is 
a type--just that 1 year of the number of nuclear facilities 
that closed equaled every solar panel in the country that was added.

  Are we willing to continue to do as we did in Ways and Means last 
year, moving forward with carbon sequestration tax credits?
  Turns out there is some new amazing technology of mining 
CO2 right out of the air. There is a utility scale, 
industrial scale facility going up in Canada now that has broken the 
Holy Grail on the code on how to do it. These are pro-growth policies 
that we, as this body, should be adopting, not passing it off to the 
bureaucracy and the administration to make the hard choices.
  Understand, we did some math a couple of years ago that, if we would 
do a pipeline loop in West Texas to capture methane flare-off, capture 
that gas and make it--utilize it, it had a huge effect in getting us, 
like right now, that last 13 points of gap that we have to get in the 
next 7 years.
  How many of my brothers and sisters on the other side are ready to 
stand up and promote more natural gas, more pipelines, more tax credit 
mechanisms for carbon sequestration? Those are policy decisions. That 
is our job here in the House.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the chairman of our Environment and 
Climate Change Subcommittee.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding, and I thank him for his leadership as chair of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.

[[Page H3376]]

  Certainly, as chair of the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change, I understand the prioritization that we need to make as a House 
with climate change. We are doing it with this caucus, with the 
Democratic Caucus. We have languished without a policy or hearings in 
the committee for quite some time and, finally, the Democrats are 
showing their forcefulness.
  Global problems require global cooperation, and we accept this as a 
given when it comes to countless security, health, and economic 
challenges. And climate change will impact all of these areas, and 
more.
  But global climate action will not succeed without America at the 
table, leading by example. Other nations understand this, as do 
thousands of United States cities, businesses, universities, and 
nonprofit organizations.
  That is why the ``We Are Still In'' campaign was formed, and why its 
many members support this bill. The contributions of subnational actors 
can achieve two-thirds of our 2025 national commitment, but we need 
Federal action to fill the gap.
  President Trump has made it clear that he does not appreciate the 
previous administration's policies to achieve America's Paris target. 
Therefore, Mr. President, we have a very fair question of you. What is 
your plan?
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken the opposite 
approach, throwing up their hands and saying this bill is a waste of 
time because the President would veto it.
  I could not disagree more. This vote will show the American people 
and the international community who in Washington understands and 
acknowledges the threat of climate change; who recognizes the 
importance of building global cooperation to address it; and who will 
work to enact the policies that will result in a safer, healthier 
planet, a planet that will be safer for future generations.
  Based on the President's statements, the answer is clearly, not him. 
And the clock is ticking.
  I hope next time we are on the floor, we will be debating concrete 
solutions that will lead to meaningful emissions reductions and 
accelerate the clean energy transition. We can start that process today 
by stating in clear and resounding fashion: We Are Still in. Support 
this bill.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, at the heart of America's economic 
prosperity and unrivaled security is an abundant, affordable and 
reliable supply of domestic energy.
  The lion's share of America's energy supply, nearly 90 percent, comes 
from fossil energy resources, and the hardworking energy producers of 
West Texas are leading the way. This is thanks to the great American 
work ethic, entrepreneurial spirit, and drive for innovation.
  In the Permian Basin in West Texas, we went from producing a million 
barrels of oil a day in 2012 to four million today, and we are on a 
path to producing 8 million barrels a day within just a few years.
  The blessings of these natural resources have allowed us to become 
the most powerful and prosperous nation on the face of the planet. It 
has allowed us to build the largest middle class in the world; helped 
us to produce the new technologies and innovations that have improved 
the quality of life and given us the highest standard of living in the 
world.
  It has been the lifeblood of this land of opportunity, where we now 
have more jobs than we actually have people to fill them.
  Having an abundant supply of energy doesn't just fuel this economy. 
It also is an overwhelming advantage in terms of national security. 
Energy independence gives us choices that many nations would be envious 
of. It allows us to export that same freedom to our allies and to 
democracies around the world.
  Forcing our President to stay in this terrible deal would undermine 
many of those advantages, and it would penalize the American people, 
and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. It would cost us millions of 
jobs.
  At best, the Paris Agreement is a feel-good-do-nothing political 
window dressing, at best. At worst, it is a tax on the middle and 
working class. It is a millstone around the neck of our job creators. 
And it is a gift to our enemies, and we must oppose it.
  It would punish the American people. It would punish our children and 
their future in this country.
  Look, I want responsible stewardship of the environment, like 
everybody in this Chamber. And I want clean water and clean air for my 
kids. But I also want them to grow up in the safest, strongest, freest 
nation in the world.

  The irony of this discussion is that the United States is leading 
this debate. We are leading in our actions.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WALDEN. I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. The irony is the innovations and technology that 
created the shale revolution have already resulted in significant 
reduction in carbon. Since 2000, the U.S. has led the way by cutting 
emissions by almost 20 percent.
  We need policies that are not hostile to America's main source of 
energy. Instead, we should put forth solutions that encourage the 
continued development of all energy resources, while setting high and 
responsible standards for environmental quality and human health. And 
we should carry out this mission in partnership, not in hostility, in 
partnership with States and industry.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire about how much time remains 
on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Oregon has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 9, the Climate 
Action Now Act. I am a proud cosponsor of the bill and a longtime 
supporter of the Paris climate accord.
  With the Northwest on catastrophic fire alert every year, everyone 
out west knows full well that climate change is a real and serious 
threat that needs addressing.
  To that end, we cannot abdicate the United States' very serious 
responsibility to lead the world in curbing the effects of climate 
change. That is why I have strongly opposed the President's reckless 
decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which has seriously 
damaged U.S. credibility on the world stage.
  The Paris Agreement stresses the dire importance of international 
cooperation in combating the climate crisis. We must work together with 
countries around the world if we are to achieve any sort of meaningful 
dent in greenhouse gas emissions.
  I am proud that my State of Oregon remains committed to the goals of 
the Paris Agreement, but one State's efforts cannot combat climate 
change alone. We need the Climate Action Now Act to keep the entire 
country committed to the Paris Agreement.
  I urge support for the bill.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I don't believe we have any other speakers on our side, so I will 
conclude my comments and then be happy to hear from the chairman of the 
committee.
  I think we have had a good debate here, a thorough debate, and at the 
end of the day, it is important to remember America is actually 
leading, through new innovation and technology in the energy sector, 
the reduction in emissions. Again, we are leading as a country.
  You look at other countries, competitors of ours like China, wouldn't 
have to begin making reductions until 2030, so they can keep adding 
emissions-spewing power plants. They could do all kinds of things until 
2030. Meanwhile, we are supposed to shut down our economy in a lot of 
ways if you go down certain paths.
  We don't think we should take that bargain. We don't think we have to 
take that bargain. Instead, Republicans believe we should continue to 
rely on our great innovators in America to develop even new 
technologies to reduce emissions and produce power like we have done in 
the energy sector, as my friend from Texas described.
  And like my friend from Arizona described, there are companies around

[[Page H3377]]

the world that are figuring out how to remove carbon from the 
atmosphere and use it for another purpose. Republicans led the effort 
on tax credits to say let's incent you to put carbon into other use or 
into the ground, and we will even give you a bigger incentive to put it 
in the ground.
  We should be doing more in the area of advanced battery research, 
like is being done at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory across the 
river from Oregon, and get to where we can harness the renewable 
intermittent power sources to more firm power; and the same with 
streamlining hydro, with pump storage.
  There is a lot we can do working together to make sure we have a 
safe, secure, reliable grid that is adequate to make all this 
seamlessly work together because, at the end of the day, we want to 
make sure we don't have riots in the streets because you have driven up 
costs too high, like they are having in France today. We want to make 
sure that we are creating the jobs and technology here, because if 
somebody is going to lead this effort internationally, it should be us.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is going nowhere after this vote today, and I 
would urge opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, particularly the last two speakers, and it just seems that 
they are trying to invent something that doesn't exist.
  They talk about jobs. They talk about innovation. They talk about the 
freedom to let people do what they want, but what is really happening 
here is the Trump administration is actually trying to force the old 
ways, saying, well, okay, maybe coal is not as competitive as it used 
to be, but we will find a way to make it competitive. We will find a 
way to say that fossil fuels have a future where they can be used even 
more so.
  Government policy has to lead innovation. That is what it is all 
about. What we are seeing is that our competitors like China, for 
example, realize that renewables are the future. They realize that the 
fossil fuels and continued use of coal, for example, are actually 
polluting the environment, so they are taking the lead and they are 
creating innovative technologies, and they are creating the jobs that 
go along with it.
  A few years ago, if I can use my home State of New Jersey, when 
Governor Christie was first elected, a Republican Governor in New 
Jersey, he started out by saying that he was going to have wind 
turbines built in New Jersey. He was going to have us manufacture solar 
panels. He was going to have us be the renewable center for the 
country. Then, very quickly after that, when he decided to run for 
President, he dropped all that and actually pulled out of RGGI, our 
regional agreement.
  And what happens? The other States or the other countries, they start 
developing these new technologies, and they then corner the market on 
things like wind turbines or solar panels. More and more of those are 
being manufactured in China and then shipped over here. So we lose the 
competitive edge that we would have had through innovation that is 
essentially driven by good government policy. Then what happens is we 
lose the jobs and our economy falls behind.
  You know, the same thing is true with climate disasters. My district 
was more impacted by Superstorm Sandy than any other district in the 
country. What happens? You know, we lose jobs. Our tourism economy was 
destroyed in the summer because there was so much damage and 
destruction. People lost their jobs; they had to look elsewhere; their 
income was reduced.

  So this notion that somehow if you do nothing or if you withdraw from 
international agreements because of your fear of the future, that this 
is going to help you, help your economy, help your jobs, it is not 
true. It is, in fact, just the opposite.
  I don't want our country to fall behind. I don't want us to look 
towards 19th century solutions while other countries are looking 
towards 21st century innovations. We can't be like an ostrich where we 
just put our head in the sand and we assume that everything is going to 
be the same in the future. That is simply not the case.
  I don't care whether it is the European Union. I don't care whether 
it is Japan, China, or India. They understand where the future is. They 
understand that these new technologies have to be fostered at the 
Federal level, the same way they are being fostered at the State and 
the local level.
  So let us not kid ourselves and think that somehow actions in 
Washington don't make a difference. They do. One of the purposes of 
government is trying to find ways to innovate and create jobs for the 
future and not rely on the past, and that is all we are saying.
  So we have to send a message with H.R. 9: Withdrawal from the Paris 
Agreement is not good for this country; it is not good for our jobs; it 
is not good for our economy.
  Please support this bill. Let us be on the right path again.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Congressman Moulton of Massachusetts and Congresswoman Hayes of 
Connecticut, and express my appreciation to them for their assistance 
and support.
  The Jackson Lee/Moulton/Hayes Amendment improves the bill by adding a 
finding which emphasizes the importance of international cooperation 
and multilateralism in responding to the global challenges facing the 
international community.
  The Paris Climate Accord was an example of the international 
leadership, commitment, and resolve that defeated fascism, created 
NATO, the European Union, the Marshall Plan, the World Bank, 
International Monetary Fund, and most importantly, preserved peace and 
freedom for the last 75 years.
  Collective international action is also needed to combat growing 
international challenges such as terrorism, human trafficking, and 
black-market sales of illegal weapons, drugs, and tobacco.
  No one country can solve these problems on its own, and this 
amendment emphasizes the importance of collective international action.
  The landmark Paris Climate Accord was established to combat climate 
change and to accelerate and intensify the actions and investments 
needed for a sustainable low carbon future.
  This also brings all nations into a common cause to undertake 
ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, 
with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so.
  And in these efforts, we promote the importance of continued 
international cooperation that has sustained the global community 
through epidemics, famines, and natural disasters.
  A collective of rational actors acting in a selfless manner to 
achieve a rational result such as this requires leadership and systemic 
reasoning.
  Without this type of collective action and selfless resolve, we leave 
ourselves vulnerable to a Tragedy of Commons.
  When countries act solely in their best interests without regard to 
combatting international threats, everyone suffers.
  That is why a great person and former Secretary of State, Hillary 
Clinton, so eloquently said: ``We are stronger together.''
  The Jackson Lee/Moulton/Hayes Amendment reflects this important 
insight.
  I urge support of the Jackson Lee/Moulton/Hayes Amendment.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 9, the 
Climate Action Now Act. The Paris Agreement codified what many across 
the world already knew must be done to meaningfully address our most 
serious environmental challenge: climate change. Four years ago, 190 
countries came together to make a commitment. Now, however, the United 
States stands alone in its intent to withdraw from it.
  Establishing a commitment to action, not for some, but for all 
countries, is the first step towards limiting the worst effects of a 
changing climate. Scientific reports like the Fourth National Climate 
Assessment and the IPCC's Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 
Degrees, both released at the end of last year, summarized 50 years of 
scientific evidence. These reports concluded that every bit of warming 
matters, for our economies, for our families, and for public health.
  I cosponsored H.R. 9 because it represents a simple, bold, and 
achievable goal. It lays out common-sense steps that will lead to a 
healthier environment, because acting on climate change is not only an 
environmental imperative, but a public health and economic one as well.
  Without action, climate change will be costly. With the right signals 
from the federal government, however, addressing climate change can 
also lead to business opportunities. This

[[Page H3378]]

bill sends a signal to the private sector that a stable framework for 
action will be put in place, enabling private actors to invest, 
innovate, and inspire further action.
  It promotes the transition to a clean economy. And perhaps, most 
importantly, it sends a strong and much needed signal to the rest of 
the world about the seriousness of the United States in addressing 
climate change. It restores meaningful international engagement.
  The United States has been a leader in global initiatives on climate 
solutions before and should be again. This Congress my colleagues and I 
have worked to re-establish the U.S.'s climate leadership. On the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, we have held hearings 
examining the findings of major climate reports, discussing the 
warming, deoxygenation, and acidification of our oceans, and how our 
interconnected energy and water systems are stressed by a changing 
climate. The House Science Committee has marked up four bipartisan 
bills that address ocean acidification, as well as the Energy and Water 
Research Integration Act, which I reintroduced with my colleague and 
Ranking Member of the House Science Committee, Mr. Lucas. It instructs 
the Department of Energy to incorporate the consideration of water use 
and treatment into all of its relevant research, development, and 
demonstration programs. We hope to continue the momentum of discussion 
and action on climate change, and urge my colleagues to support passage 
of this bill.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the following letters 
of support for H.R. 9.

       Dear Members of Congress, Congress will soon vote on 
     legislation that would compel the Trump administration to 
     honor and plan for meeting the United States' commitment 
     under the Paris Agreement. We, the undersigned members of E2 
     (Environmental Entrepreneurs), strongly urge you to vote in 
     support of this bill to ensure that we continue to focus on 
     actions to protect our climate and grow our economy.
       E2 is a national, nonpartisan group of business leaders who 
     advocate for smart policies that are good for the economy and 
     good for the environment. Our members have founded or funded 
     more than 2,500 companies, created more than 600,000 jobs, 
     and manage more than $100 billion in venture and private 
     equity capital.
       As business leaders, investors and professionals from every 
     sector of the economy who live or do business in every state, 
     we understand the enormous economic promise that can arise if 
     the United States leads on this issue and stays a party to 
     the Paris Agreement.
       Thanks in part to federal leadership, more than 3 million 
     Americans now work in clean energy and vehicles jobs. These 
     are residents of every state who go to work every day 
     installing solar panels on homes and commercial buildings, 
     manufacturing wind turbines, and making our homes, schools, 
     vehicles and offices more efficient. By honoring our 
     obligations in the Paris Agreement, America can continue to 
     drive demand for innovative technologies and industries that 
     grow our economy and create jobs.
       Studies show that delivering on the Paris Agreement would 
     unlock at least $19 trillion in economic growth globally. The 
     international clean energy market is already worth an 
     astounding $1.4 trillion a year--and set to grow, with 
     America's share pegged at $200 billion annually. This 
     economic activity could fuel an additional $26 billion in GDP 
     growth in the United States alone by 2020, which would also 
     provide greater opportunities for U.S. businesses to lead in 
     emerging clean economy markets.
       The Paris Agreement is good for American businesses and its 
     workers. Ensuring that we maintain our obligations under this 
     historic agreement is a chance to ensure America leads in 
     clean energy, agriculture, transportation, infrastructure, 
     technology and other sectors instead of falling behind our 
     overseas competitors.
       We urge you to vote in favor of legislation that keeps the 
     United States in the Paris Agreement and creates a plan for 
     meeting our nation's commitments.
           Sincerely,


                 382 E2 Business Members and Supporters

       Dan Abrams (California), President/CEO, Wynkoop Properties; 
     Clifford Adams (New York), Managing Director, Coady Diemar 
     Partners; Hartwig Adan, Google; Milo Aguilar (Illinois), 
     Consultant, Sumac Consulting; Shauna Alexander (Oregon), Vice 
     President, Sustainability Stumptown Coffee Roasters; Annick 
     Anctil (Michigan), Assistant Professor, Civil & Environmental 
     Engineering, Michigan State University.
       Trevor Anderson (California), Policy Manager, Climate 
     Action Reserve; Emily Applegate (Colorado), Senior Manager, 
     Business Funding & Incentives, Business Investments, OEDIT; 
     Esteban Arenas; Gerald L. Armes, Principal Engineer, 
     Aurastar; Anne Arquit Niederberger (California), VP, Market 
     Development, Enervee; John Atherton (Pennsylvania); Michael 
     Atkins (California), Communications and Impact Manager, 
     Friends of the Los Angeles River; Betsy Aubrey (California); 
     Marta Badon (Louisiana); Ravi Bajaj (California); Claire 
     Baldwin (California); Jay Baldwin (California), Partner, Wind 
     River Capital Partners, LLC.
       Fred Bamber (California), Managing Director, Spartina LLC; 
     Tom Bartley (California), Founder/VP Sales & Marketing, 
     Proensis; Caroline Bauhaus (California), Education 
     Consultant, Equity & Access; Mark Bauhaus (California), 
     Partner, Just Business; Keir Beadling (California), CEO and 
     Co-Founder, Mavericks Surf Ventures; Michael Bean (Ohio), 
     Facility Manager, Third Federal Savings & Loan; Jacob Bean-
     Watson (Oregon); Natalie Bearbower (Illinois).
       Josh Beck (Pennsylvania), General Manager, BCI Technology 
     Investments; Karen Begin (California), Development Director, 
     Environment, San Diego Habitat for Humanity; Thatcher Bell 
     (New York), CoVentures; Dave Belote (Virginia), Managing 
     Partner & CEO, DARE Strategies LLC; Jeff Bennett (Colorado), 
     Founder, Big Kid Science; Lisa Bennett (Colorado); Karin 
     Berardo (California), Founder, SIRES Advisors (Also Board 
     Member, CleanPath); Seth Berkman (Massachusetts), Energy 
     Market Analyst, SourceOne; Elliot Berman, CEO, Solar Energy 
     Corp.
       Eric Berman (Washington), President and Co-Chair, E8 
     Angels; Luann Berman (Washington); Aron Bernstein 
     (Massachusetts), Professor of Physics, MIT; Marcella 
     Bernstein (California); Stuart Bernstein (California), 
     Founding Member, Sustainable Capital LLC; Doug Berry 
     (Pennsylvania), President & CEO Solar Renewable Energy LLC; 
     Phil Beyl, Co-Director, GBD Architects; Jan Birenbaum 
     (California); Larry Birenbaum (California), Former SVP, Cisco 
     Systems.
       Mari Bishop (Illinois), CLEAResult; Maureen Blanc 
     (California), Director, CHARGE ACROSS TOWN; Philip Blumenthal 
     (North Carolina); Darren Booth (Colorado), Director, 
     Renewable Energy Integration, GreenPowerU; Dara Bortman 
     (Pennsylvania), Senior Vice President of Marketing and Sales, 
     Exact Solar; Mark Bortman (Pennsylvania), Owner, Exact Solar; 
     David Bowen (California), Consultant; Bill Boyk (Oregon), 
     CEO/Founder, GyroVolts by Ameristar Solar, LLC; Diane Boyk 
     (Oregon); Mickele Bragg, Product Manager, Geotech 
     Environmental Equipment, Inc.; George Brandt (California).
       Alice Brown (Massachusetts), Director of Planning, Boston 
     Harbor Now; Beth Brummitt (California), President, Brummitt 
     Energy Associates, Inc.; Barbara Brenner Buder (California); 
     Jim Bunch (California), Chairman, Green Chamber; Kyle 
     Burkybile (Illinois), Administrative Lead, Franklin Energy; 
     Adriane Busby (Colorado), Staff Attorney, Ryley Carlock 
     Applewhite; Richard Bush (California), Chairman, Identity 
     Engines; Vince Calvano (Colorado), Attorney & Business Owner, 
     Vincent P. Calvano, LLC; Paul Campbell (Illinois), Director, 
     Sears Holding Corp.
       Bill Capp (Florida), Founder, Grid Storage Consulting; 
     Jacqueline Capp, DDS (Florida), Owner, JHC Studio; Patrick 
     Carberry (Colorado); Jim Cassidy (Colorado); Shaandiin Cedar, 
     Sales and Marketing Assistant, GreenBiz; Suzanne Charle, 
     Journalist, Freelance; John Cleveland (New Hampshire), 
     Executive Director, Green Ribbon Commission; Michelle 
     Cleveland (New Hampshire); Carole Connell (Oregon), City 
     Planner, Connell PC Associates Inc.; Martha Conway 
     (California) Valerie Corbett (New York); President, 
     Intelligreen Partners.
       D. Rafael Coven (Pennsylvania), SVP Bus Dev, PaceControls; 
     Jane Cuddehe (New York), Broker Associate, Coldwell Banker 
     Devonshire; Michael Cuddehe (New York), Principal, Strategic 
     Global Advisors, LLC; Greg Curhan (California), President and 
     CEO, Merrriman Curhan; Mary Ann Cusenza (California), 
     Independent Consultant for high tech and cleantech companies; 
     Joseph Dalum (Wisconsin), Odyne; Diane Dandeneau (Colorado), 
     CEO, IPower Alliance; David Danielson, Managing Director, 
     Breakthrough Energy Ventures.
       Chris Davis, VP Smart Cities, Cimcon Lighting Inc.; Michael 
     Davis, Vice President, Bergmeyer; Bart Deamer (California), 
     Treasurer, ODC Dance; Patty Debenham (California), Managing 
     Director, Ocean Enterprise, Environmental Defense Fund; Rick 
     DeGolia (California), Executive Chairman, Cimbal, Inc; 
     Michael Delapa (California), DeLapa Consulting; Sheila Dennis 
     (Massachusetts), Director, Principal Gifts, Harvard Divinity 
     School; Sally DeSipio (Oregon), Creative consultant and 
     climate activist, Self-employed.
       James Dice (Colorado), Vice President, Sitton Energy 
     Solutions; Scott Dietzen (California), Chairman, Pure 
     Storage; Christopher Dillion (Illinois), President, Campbell 
     Coyle; Sean Donaghy (Massachusetts), Energy Management 
     Analyst, Mass DOT; Mark Doughty (Massachusetts), President & 
     CEO, Thoughtforms Corporation; James Doyle (North Carolina); 
     Teresa Dupuis (Michigan), Patricia Durham (California); 
     Robert Earley (New York), Principal, Armor Capital; Mike 
     Eckhart, Managing Director, Citigroup, Inc.; Stanley Eilert 
     (Colorado); Lloyd Elam, Auditor, Impact.
       Ellington Ellis (Michigan), President, Ellington Management 
     Group; Blake Enyart (Colorado), Lab Manager, University of 
     Colorado; Bob Epstein (California), Co-Founder, Sybase, New 
     Resource Bank, Environmental Entrepreneurs; Helen Fairman; 
     Chris Farrington (Oregon), Co-Found, Voxity Video 
     Productions; Jerry Feitelson (California), CEO, Agribody 
     Technologies, Inc., Anne Feldhusen (California), Consultant, 
     Green Business, Technology Marketing; Boris Feldman 
     (California), Base Energy; Brett Feldman; Jason Fike.
       Barry Fitzgerald (California), Founder, Hidden Compass 
     Consulting; Kevin

[[Page H3379]]

     Fitzwilliam (Louisiana), Regional Account Manager, Joule 
     Energy; Vanessa Flores (Illinois), Sustainability and 
     Property Operations Manager, ACE Hardware; Suzanne Foster 
     Porter; (Colorado), Principal, Kannah Consulting; Andrew Foy 
     (Oregon), MBA Candidate, Lundquist College of Business.
       Karen Francis (California), CEO, Academix Direct, Inc.; 
     Richard Frankel (California), Co-Founder, Rocket Fuel; Corey 
     Friedman (Illinois), Principal, CF Financial LLC; Micah Fuchs 
     (Illinois), Business Development Director, Dynamic Energy; 
     Linda Gerber (Oregon), Principal Consultant, Linda Gerber 
     Consulting Services; Gerry Glaser (California); Barbara Glynn 
     (California), Glynn Capital; John Glynn (California), CEO, 
     Glynn Capital; Nancy Gail Goebner (California), Owner, 
     Gardenpeach Place; Susan Goldhor (Massachusetts), Biologist, 
     C.A.R.S.
       Ken Goldsholl (California), CEO, x.o.ware, Inc.; Nancy 
     Goldsholl (California); Wes Goldstein (California), Senior 
     Partner, Hobbs & Towne, Inc. Keith Good (Pennsylvania) 
     Belmont Solar; Alan Gordon; Todd Gossett (Virginia); Joan 
     Green (California), Trustee, J.C. Krauskopf GCLA Trust; 
     Connie Greenfield (Connecticut); Stewart Greenfield 
     (Connecticut), Chairman, Alternative Investment Group; 
     Michael Greis (Massachusetts), Principal, Riverbend Advisors; 
     Kat Gridley (Colorado), Founder, Atolla Energy.
       Lynn Griffith, Director of Operations, Building Performance 
     Institute; Rachel Griffith (Washington); Abby Gritter; 
     Barbara Gross (Oregon), Winegrower, Cooper Mountain 
     Vineyards; Marianna Grossman (California), Founder and 
     Managing Partner. Minerva Ventures; Isaac Hacker (Oregon), 
     Key Account Manager, QOS Energy; Lauren Hafford (Colorado), 
     Mechanical Eng; Reed Hamilton (California), Owner, Grass 
     Valley Grains; Kate Hammarback (Oregon), Principal, Occam 
     Advisors; Doug Hammer (California), Senior Counsel, Shartsis 
     Friese LLP; Lisa Harding.
       Berl Hartman (Massachusetts), E2 New England Chapter 
     Director, Hartman Consulting; Hyman Hartman (Massachusetts), 
     Research Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 
     Carol Hazenfield (California), Communications Coach; Sheryl 
     Heckmann (California); Ward Hendon (New York), Business 
     Advisor, Independent Consultant; Karen Hennessey, Eastern 
     Regional Director, Nexant; Tom Henry (Massachusetts).
       Len Hering (California), I Love A Clean San Diego; Kathi 
     Hess (Ohio); Renate Heurich; James Higgins (California), 
     Partner, Lakeside Enterprises; Jill Tate Higgins 
     (California), General Partner, Lakeside Enterprises; John 
     Hopkins (District of Columbia), Vice President--Energy & 
     Infrastructure, Astris Finance LLC; Reuben Howard Jr 
     (Colorado); Robin Hruska (Washington); Paige Humecki 
     (Illinois), Analyst, Smart Energy, AECOM; Ari Isaak 
     (California), Founder and CEO, Evari GIS Consulting, Inc.; 
     Erica Jackson (Pennsylvania), Community Outreach and 
     Communications Specialist, FracTracker Alliance.
       Ed Jaros (Massachusetts), Jarson Corporation; Corinna Jess 
     (Illinois), Director, Consulting Services & Trade Missions, 
     GACC Midwest; Lars Johansson (Washington), Manager, E8 Fund; 
     Michael Johnson-Chase (New York), Blogger, Carbonstories.org; 
     Charlene Kabcenell (California), Former Vice President, 
     Oracle Corporation; Derry Kabcenell (California), Former 
     Executive Vice President, Oracle Corporation; Jerome Kalur 
     (Montana), Attorney at Law.
       Christopher Kaneb (Massachusetts), Principal, Catamount 
     Management Corporation; Nancy Kaplan, Manager of Workforce 
     Development, BPI; Stephanie Katsaros (Illinois), Business 
     Owner, Bright Beat; Steven Keleti (Massachusetts); Brett 
     KenCairn (Colorado), Senior Climate & Sustainability 
     Coordinator, City of Boulder, CO; Gavriella Keyles 
     (California), Manager, Stakeholder Engagement, Future 500; 
     John Kibler; Peter Kirby (Massachusetts), Board Director, 
     Governance Committee Chair, Plaxall, Inc.; David Kirkpatrick 
     (North Carolina), Managing Director and Cofounder, SJF 
     Ventures; Joseph Kiss (Pennsylvania), Owner, Kiss Electric.
       Bill Kissinger (California), Bingham McCutchen LLP; 
     Virginia Klausmeier (California), CEO, Sylvatex; Charly 
     Kleissner (California), Co-Founder & Investor, KL Felicitas 
     Foundation; Lisa Kleissner (California), Co-Founder, KL 
     Felicitas Foundation; Charles Knowled (California), Executive 
     Director, Wildlife Conservation Network; Stephanie Knowles 
     (California); Christian Koch, Business Development Driver, 
     Levin Energy Partners; Ari Kornelis (Michigan), Graduate 
     Research Assistant, Michigan State University.
       Chip Krauskoph (California), VP Business Development, 
     Aditazz; Pete Krull (North Carolina), CEO and Director of 
     Investments, Earth Equity Advisors, LLC; Brice Leconte 
     (Virginia), Founder, iUnit; Stetphanie Leconte (Virginia); 
     Nicole Lederer (California), Chair and Co-Founder, 
     Environmental Entrepreneurs; Grey Lee (Massachusetts); Andrew 
     Legge (California), Havelock Wool; Regina Leung; Steve 
     Lichtenberg (California); Mike Lingle (Illinois), CEO, Eta 
     Vision; Pyramyth Liu (California), COO, Hanergy; Charles Lord 
     (Massachusetts), Principal, RENEW Energy Partners.
       Olivia Loria (Colorado); Tracy Lyons (California); Fred 
     Maas (California), Pacific EcoCompanies, LLC; Henrik Mader 
     (Michigan), Energy Planner, Southeast Michigan Municipal 
     Energy Planning Project, Ecoworks; Cliff Majersik (District 
     of Columbia), Institute for Market Transformation; Theron 
     Makley; Theron Makley (Colorado), Marketing Director, 
     Panasonic; Lori Malloy (New York); Timon Malloy (New York); 
     Mayela Manasjan (California), Chief Environmental Optimist, 
     The Manasjan Consultancy.
       Jessie Mansperger (Massachusetts), Program Launch Manager, 
     Engie Services US; Heather March Takle (Massachusetts), 
     Principal, 2ndPath Energy; William Marshall (Virginia); Jim 
     Martin-Schramm (Iowa), Professor, Luther College DG Projects; 
     James Marvin (Massachusetts), Regional Manager, North America 
     East & Canada, Expeditors International of Washington Inc.; 
     Joanna Marvin (Massachusetts), Owner, Federal Consulting 
     Solutions; Steve Masters (Pennsylvania), President, JustLaws.
       Richard Mattocks (New York), Principal, Environomics LLC; 
     Camilla McCalmont (California), Tom McCalmont (California), 
     President, McCalmont Engineering; Michael McElroy 
     (Massachusetts), Gilbert Butler Professor of Environmental 
     Studies, Harved University; Doug McGarrah, Partner, Foley 
     Hoag; John McGarry (Washington), Investor; Dennis McGinn, 
     Senior Advisor, Customer First Renewables; Patricia McGuigan 
     (California), Senior Vice President, Cornish and Carey 
     Commercial.
       Milton McIntyre (Ohio), President, Peak Electric Inc.; 
     David Mendels, (Massachusetts), Board Member, Resilient 
     Coders; Mike Mercer (Oregon), Principal, MMercer Consulting; 
     Quinn Middleton Antus (Colorado), Head of Operations, 
     Campfire Labs; David Miller (Massachusetts), Executive 
     Managing Director, Clean Energy Venture Group; Karen Miller 
     (Massachusetts), President, Belly Shmooze; Malcolm Miller 
     (Michigan), Director of Business Development, Walker Miller 
     Energy Services; John Montgomery (California), President, Lex 
     Ultima.
       Joseph Morinville (Pennsylvania), President, EIS Solar; 
     Kevin Morse (Colorado, Vice President, Lever Energy Finance; 
     Sherry Morse (California), Principal Designer, Sherry Morse 
     Interiors; Ning Mosberger-Tang (Colorado), President, Ovonni 
     Ventures LLC; Sam Mumford (Oregon), MBA Candidate, Lundquist 
     College of Business; Emilie Munger Ogden (California), 
     Leonard Nagy, systems analyst, ARCADIS; Jim Nail 
     (Massachusetts), Principal Analyst, Forrester Research.
       Alison Nash (Massachusetts), Architect, DiMella Shaffer 
     Associates, Inc.; Carl Nettleton (California), President, 
     Nettleton Strategies LLC; Franklin Neubauer, Principal, Core 
     Metrics; Armand Neukermans (California), Founder, Xros; Al 
     Nierenberg (Massachusetts), President, Evergreen Consulting & 
     Training; Tori Nourafchan (California); Julia Novy-Hildsey 
     (Oregon); Graham Noyes (California); Managing Attorney, Noyes 
     Law Corporation; Anne O'Grady (California); Standish O'Grady 
     (California), Managing Director, Granite Ventures, LLC; Doug 
     Ogden (California), CEO, North Ridge Investment Management; 
     Barry Olafson (California), CEO, Protabit, LLC; Larry Orr 
     (California), General Partner, Trinity Ventures; Michael 
     Brian Orr (Washington), Senior Computer Scientist, Adobe 
     Systems; Jack Oswald (California), CEO, SynGest Inc.
       Julie Parish (California), The Parish Fund; Will Parish 
     (California); Robin Park (California), Principal, RXP Energy, 
     Inc.; Richard Parker (Illinois); Katherine Peretick 
     (Michigan), Director of Engineering, NRStor, Inc; Linda 
     Perrine (Oregon), Owner, Honor Earth Farm; Brandon Pieczynski 
     (Illinois), Energy and Sustainability, Pangea Real Estate; 
     Milton Pinsky (Illinois), Chairman, Banner Real Estate Group, 
     LLC; Scott Piper (Illinois), Owner/Architect, SPM Architects; 
     Brad Pnazek (Michigan), Senior Development Manager, Trade 
     Wind Energy; Michael D Ramage (Washington), President/CEO, 
     Asemblon Inc.
       Megan Rast (Colorado), Corporate Sustainability 
     Professional; James Rehrmann; Emily Reichert (Massachusetts), 
     CEO & Executive Director, Greentown Labs; Camila Restrepo 
     (Colorado), Project Manager, Intelex; Theo Revlock 
     (California), Principal, Q Architecture; David Ringler 
     (Michigan), Cedar Springs Brewing; Tom Rinker (Delaware), 
     President, Cape Henlopen Consulting, Inc.; Jonathan Roberts 
     (Illinois), Director of Development, Soltage.
       Liz Robinson (Pennsylvania); Helda Rodriguea (Florida), 
     President, NovaCharge; David Rosenheim (California), Founder 
     and CEO, JobsWithImpact; Jackie Rosenheim (California), David 
     Rosenstein (California), President, Intex Solutions; Bill 
     Rosenzweig (California), IdeaGarden; Joan Rossetti 
     (Massachusetts), Chair, Environmental Affairs Committee of 
     the Prudential Center Residents' Association; Amy Roth 
     (California); Scott Rotman (New Jersey), Senior Project 
     Manager, Matrix New World Engineering; Jacqueline Royce 
     (Massachusetts), Independent Scholar; Karen Rucker 
     (Colorado), President, ByHandConsulting; Michael Rucker 
     (Colorado), CEO, Scout Clean Energy.
       Julie Rudick (California); Stuart Rudick (California), 
     Partner, Mindful Investors, LLC; Meg Ruxton (California), 
     Partnerships Manager, Charge Across Town; Randy Salim; Paul 
     Salinger (California), VP, Marketing, Oracle; Mel Samaroo 
     (Illinois), Civil Engineer, Borrego Solar Systems, Inc.; 
     Cristine Sanchez (New York); Gonzalo Sanchez, Offshore Wind 
     Development Intern, EDP Renewables North America; Frank 
     Sandoval (Colorado) Principal, Pajarito Technologies.
       Kate Sandrini (California), Amy Santullo (California), 
     California Clean Tech Open, Downtown College Prep Scholarship 
     Committee; Michael Santullo (California), Co-

[[Page H3380]]

     Founder and Board Member, California Clean Tech Open; Jan 
     Schalkwijk (California), Investment Adviser, JPS Global 
     Investments; David Schwartz (California), Tom Sciacca 
     (Massachusetts), Co-founder, Intelligen Energy Systems; Brad 
     Seaman (Colorado), Director of Project Finance, Scout Clean 
     Energy; Lt Gen (ret) Noman Seip (Virginia), Owner, NS 
     Solutions, LLC; Anneke Seley (California), CEO, ALIO Inc.; 
     Christopher Senger (Illinois), Owner, Penguin Energy Services 
     LLC; Joel Serface (Colorado), Managing Director, Catalyze.
       Douglas Shackelford (District of Columbia), Managing 
     Partner, Exselleration; Jigar Shah (California), Co-founder 
     and President, Generate Capital; Cathleen Shattuck 
     (Washington), Creative Director, evluma; Rebecca Shaw 
     (California), World Wildlife Fund; Scott Sidlow, Plan Review 
     Coordinator, TopBuild Home Services; Greg Simon (California); 
     Barbara Simons (California), Research Staff Member, Retired, 
     IBM Research; Divya Singh (California), Project Finance 
     Associate, Cypress Creek Renewables; Ian Skor (Colorado), Co-
     Founder, Sandbox Solar.
       Joshua Skov (Oregon), Industry Mentor and Instructor, 
     University of Oregon, Lundquist College of Business; Jon 
     Slangerup (California), Chairman and CEO, American Global 
     Logistics; Brian Smith (Texas), Founder and Managing Partner 
     & Investor, Clean Energy Catalyst; Michael Smith 
     (California), Founder, Adaptation Research; Patrick Smith 
     (New York), New Mobility Policy Analyst, NYC Department of 
     Transportation; Richard Smith, Doctor; Ethan Soloviev (New 
     York); Roger Sorkin (Massachusetts), Executive Producer, 
     American Resilience Project; Rachel Stern (California), 
     Senior Environmental Specialist, Port of San Diego.
       Naomi Stone (California), CEO and President, MugenKioku 
     Corporation; Eric Strid (Washington), Co-Founder and Retired 
     CEO, Cascade Microtech; Robert Sullivan (Illinois), Dean, 
     UCSD; Mark Sylvia (Massachusetts), Managing Director, Blue 
     Wave Ezgi Takmaz (Illinois), Energy, Energy Resources Center; 
     Russ Teall (California), President and Founder, Biodico; Trey 
     Teall (California), VP Operations, Biodico; Andrew Thomaides 
     (Colorado), Consultant; Todd Thorner (District of Columbia).
       Cariad Thronson (California), CEO, Forefront 
     Communications; Robert Thronson (California), VP Business 
     Development, Vigilent; Leslie Tidwell (California), Ian 
     Todreas (Massachusetts), Vice President, ERG; Colin Tomkins-
     Bergh (Colorado), Strategic Business Development Manager, 
     FoodMaven; John Tourtelotte (Massachusetts), Managing 
     Director, Rivermoor Energy; Elisa Townshend (Colorado), Ian 
     Tran (Michigan), Special Projects Strategist, AGI 
     Construction Solutions; Todd Travaille (Nebraska), Owner/
     President, USA Insulation.
       Doug Trimbach (North Carolina), Vice President and 
     Director, Lighting Services, Energy Optimizers, USA; Patricia 
     Trumbull (California), Terry Trumbull (California), Trumbull 
     Law Firm; Zach Tucker (Missouri), Founder, Good Meets World; 
     Bill Unger (California), Partner Emeritus, Mayfield Fund; Amy 
     Van Beek (Iowa), Co-Founder, Designer, Ideal Energy, Inc.; 
     Troy Van Beek (Iowa), President, Renewable Energy Expert, 
     Ideal Energy, Inc.; Lorna Vander Ploeg (California); Mark 
     Vander Ploeg (California), Retired, Investment Banker.
       John Vernacchia (Pennsylvania), Segment Manager, 
     Alternative Energy, Eaton Corporation; Ariana Vito 
     (California), Sustainability Analyst/EV Program Coordinator, 
     City of Santa Monica; Puja Vohra (Massachusetts), Owner, 
     consultant, Green Elements LLC; Dan Von Seggern (Washington), 
     Staff Attorney, The Center for Environmental Law & Policy; 
     David Walls; David Watson (California), Director & Investor, 
     Ultra Capital; Dave Welch (California), President, Infinera 
     Corporation; Heidi Welch (California).
       Ian Welch (California) Jordan Wildish (Washington), 
     Research Analyst, Earth Economics; Tony Williams (Colorado), 
     Engineering PM, USPS; Bruce Wilson (Pennsylvania), Owner 
     Bruce Wilson Contracting; Tonia Wisman (California); Andrea 
     Wittchen (Pennsylvania), Principal, iSpring; Sarah Wolbert 
     (Minnesota) Architect, Piece Work Design; Gary Wolff 
     (California), Founder, 3E Engineering; Garrett Wong 
     (California), Sr. Sustainability Analyst, City of Santa 
     Monica.
       Bryndis Woods (Massachusetts), Researcher, Applied 
     Economics Clinic; Christopher Woodward (Massachusetts), Vice 
     President, Credit Research, Breckinridge Capital Advisors; 
     HansJorg Wyss (Massachusetts); Leila Yassa (Massachusetts); 
     Denny Young (California); Mark Yuschak (New Jersey); 
     Instructor, Thomas Shortman; Peter Zahn (California), 
     President and Director, Moxie Foundation; Rosamund Zander 
     (Massachusetts), Chairman, Independent Design Center for the 
     Environment.


                                                        Ceres,

                                                   April 26, 2019.
     Re H.R. 9, The Climate Action Now Act

       Dear Representative, on behalf of the Business for 
     Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) network, a 51 
     company coalition of major American businesses representing 
     many sectors across the U.S. economy, I write to respectfully 
     request that you vote in support of H.R. 9, The Climate 
     Action Now Act, which would ensure that the United States 
     does not withdraw from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. As 
     you know, H.R. 9 will be brought up for consideration the 
     week of April 29th.
       As a network of major businesses based throughout the 
     United States and around the world, BICEP sees international 
     engagement and maintaining U.S. commitments under the Paris 
     Climate Agreement as critical to our continued economic 
     success. Climate change is a global problem and requires a 
     global solution. The United States cannot solve the climate 
     problem on its own, which is why a strong international 
     framework is required to assure that other countries also 
     meet their commitments, reduce their greenhouse gas 
     emissions, and do so in a transparent and verifiable manner.
       Every nation in the world has signed on to the Paris 
     Agreement, which creates a structure for countries to submit 
     non-binding, voluntary targets for greenhouse gas emissions 
     reductions. Only one, the United States, has announced its 
     intent to withdraw. Since the development of this global 
     agreement, the understanding of the impacts of global warming 
     has only become more clear. The Intergovernmental Panel on 
     Climate Change--the world's foremost body of climate 
     scientists, has released it's 2018 IPCC 1.5 Report, which 
     details the consequences of allowing average global 
     temperature increases to exceed 2.7 F /1.5 C. Additionally, 
     the most recent U.S. National Climate Assessment report 
     projects the impacts that American industry and communities 
     will face (and are already facing) from climate change-
     related impacts.
       Days after the administration's June 2017 announcement of 
     its intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris 
     Agreement, many BICEP members joined other sectors of the 
     U.S. economy, including states, cities, universities, faith 
     groups, healthcare systems, and others to declare that ``We 
     Are Still In.'' The now 3,750+ signatories to We Are Still In 
     include members from all 50 states and represent $9.46 
     trillion of the American economy--demonstrating significant 
     real economy support for U.S. participation in the Paris 
     Climate Agreement.
       Remaining in the Paris Climate Agreement is essential for 
     the U.S. to retain a seat at the table, contribute in a 
     positive manner to international negotiations, and reflect 
     the deep ambition among U.S. businesses to fight climate 
     change and protect from the worst economic impacts associated 
     with a warming world.
       As companies across the United States, BICEP recognizes 
     that a zero-carbon economy is necessary to achieve long-term 
     climate goals and are taking steps in their own operations to 
     accelerate this transition. However, domestic and 
     international policy structures are critical to drive change 
     at the scale and speed necessary to reflect our latest 
     understanding of the science. Maintaining our participation 
     in the Paris Agreement is one such policy structure that the 
     U.S. should retain.
       On behalf of the businesses in our BICEP network, I 
     respectfully request that you vote in support of H.R. 9, The 
     Climate Action Now Act when it comes up for a vote.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request. I am 
     happy to connect further on this issue and answer any 
     questions you may have. Please do not hesitate to follow up.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Anne L. Kelly,
     Vice President, Government Relations.
                                  ____

         American College of Physicians, Leading Internal 
           Medicine, Improving Lives,
                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 2019.
     Hon. Kathy Castor,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep. Castor: On behalf of the American College of 
     Physicians (ACP), I am writing to express our strong support 
     for the Climate Action Now Act (H.R. 9), which directs the 
     United States to uphold its commitment to the Paris Agreement 
     on Climate Change. We applaud your leadership in introducing 
     this legislation and urge its quick passage in the U.S. House 
     of Representatives today. ACP is deeply concerned about the 
     negative impact that climate change is having on public 
     health and patients, and that these effects will worsen 
     without immediate action. This is an important issue for the 
     medical community and patients, and we all need to be part of 
     finding a solution.
       The American College of Physicians is the largest medical 
     specialty organization and the second largest physician group 
     in the United States. ACP members include 154,000 internal 
     medicine physicians (internists), related subspecialists, and 
     medical students. Internal medicine physicians are 
     specialists who apply scientific knowledge and clinical 
     expertise to the diagnosis, treatment, and compassionate care 
     of adults across the spectrum from health to complex illness.
       Because physicians are on the front lines of patient care, 
     they are witnessing--here and now--the harmful health effects 
     that climate change can and does have on the human body. 
     These harmful effects include: higher rates of respiratory 
     and heat-related illness, increased prevalence of vector-
     borne and waterborne diseases, food and water insecurity, and 
     malnutrition, as outlined in ACP's 2016 position paper, 
     ``Climate Change and Health,'' published in the Annals of 
     Internal Medicine. People who are elderly, sick, or poor are 
     especially vulnerable to these potential consequences. As 
     climate change worsens, an increase in global temperature and 
     frequency of heat waves will raise the risk of heat 
     exhaustion. Asthma

[[Page H3381]]

     and other chronic lung conditions will be exacerbated by 
     increased particulate matter and ground-level ozone in the 
     atmosphere. Exposure to infectious disease from vectors such 
     as ticks and mosquitoes, which carry the harmful Zika virus, 
     has and will continue to escalate.
       Physicians, both individually and collectively, are 
     encouraged to advocate for climate change adaptation and 
     mitigation policies and communicate about the health co-
     benefits of addressing climate change in objective, simple 
     language to their community and policymakers. For its part, 
     the American College of Physicians is committed to working 
     with lawmakers, its international chapters and with other 
     professional membership and public health organizations 
     within the United States and globally to pursue the policies 
     recommended in its position paper. ACP is a founding member 
     of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, 
     which brings together 22 medical associations representing 
     approximately 550,000 clinical practitioners. Just two days 
     ago on Monday of this week, I joined my colleagues from the 
     Consortium to educate members of Congress about how climate 
     change affects health and the need to take action now. In 
     addition, ACP was pleased to submit its perspective and 
     recommendations on climate change to the House Resources 
     Committee earlier this year.
       Your legislation represents a vital step in the fight 
     against climate change, and in maintaining this nation's role 
     as a leader in combatting the harmful impact of climate 
     change. H.R. 9 prohibits the use of funds to advance the 
     withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement and 
     requires the President to develop and submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees and make available to 
     the public a plan for the United States to meet its 
     nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement.
       A global effort is required to reduce anthropogenic 
     greenhouse gas emissions and address the health impact of 
     climate change. The United States must commit to taking both 
     a leadership and collaborative role in developing, 
     implementing, and ensuring the success of such a global 
     effort and in reducing its own contributions to greenhouse 
     gas emissions. For this reason, ACP remains strongly opposed 
     to the United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. 
     Climate change adaptation strategies must be established, and 
     mitigation measures, like switching to clean, renewable 
     energy and promoting active transportation, must be adopted.
       ACP looks forward to continuing to work with you in your 
     leadership role on this critical issue. We stand ready to 
     serve as a resource for you and other lawmakers in helping to 
     communicate the harmful impacts of climate change on the 
     public's health.
           Sincerely,
                                       Robert M. McLean, MD, FACP,
                                                        President.

  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chair, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
whom I represent, are on the front line of climate change. In the past 
year, back-to-back typhoons struck our islands. Lives were lost. We 
suffered hundreds of millions in damage.
  No single weather event can be attributed to climate change. But 
science tells us that global warming means more frequent and more 
intense storms of the kind that hit the Marianas.
  And we know the sudden increase in intensity of one of those storms, 
Super Typhoon Yutu, just before landfall in the Marianas, is 
characteristic of a new normal caused by higher atmospheric 
temperatures and warmer ocean waters. We saw the same acceleration of 
force as Hurricane Michael came ashore in the Gulf last year.
  Today, Congress has an opportunity to act to slow climate change and 
reduce the disasters being caused. We can vote to return the United 
States to the company of nations that is working to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement of 2015. I support 
H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.
  There are those who argue it is too expensive to lower carbon 
pollution of our planet's atmosphere. I point to the disaster 
supplemental appropriation bills this House will take up shortly and 
previously passed in January. If we are willing to spend billions to 
repair the impact of climate change on communities around our nation, 
should we not be willing to spend to prevent that damage in the first 
place? Would that not be wise?
  I make this plea especially for people in the Marianas and other 
Pacific islands. We are increasingly battered by storms. As sea levels 
rise, our islands are disappearing. And the coral reefs that protect 
our coasts and give us nourishment are dying before our eyes.
  We are the front line of the consequences, yet had little to do with 
the decades of carbon pollution that are causing this destruction. 
Nevertheless, we in the islands are willing to transform, just as our 
nation as a whole must transform to reduce carbon emissions and protect 
our safety in the decades ahead.
  A yes vote on H.R. 9 is an important first step.

  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                 H.R. 9

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Climate Action Now Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) In Paris, on December 12, 2015, parties to the United 
     Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 
     reached a landmark agreement to combat climate change and to 
     accelerate and intensify the actions and investments needed 
     for a sustainable low carbon future.
       (2) The Paris Agreement's central aim is to strengthen the 
     global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a 
     global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius above 
     pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the 
     temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
       (3) The Paris Agreement requires all parties to put forward 
     their best efforts through nationally determined 
     contributions (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the 
     years ahead.
       (4) The Paris Agreement further requires each party to 
     update its nationally determined contribution every 5 years, 
     with each successive nationally determined contribution 
     representing a progression beyond the previous nationally 
     determined contribution, and reflecting the party's highest 
     possible ambition.
       (5) The United States communicated its nationally 
     determined contribution to achieve an economy-wide target of 
     reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent 
     below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to 
     reduce its emissions by 28 percent.
       (6) A number of existing laws, regulations, and other 
     mandatory measures in the United States are relevant to 
     achieving this target, including the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7401 et seq.), the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-
     486), and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
     (Public Law 110-140).
       (7) On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced his 
     intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris 
     Agreement, which would leave the United States as the only 
     UNFCCC member state that is not a signatory to the Paris 
     Agreement.
       (8) Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, the earliest 
     possible effective withdrawal date by the United States is 
     November 4, 2020. However, the United States is still 
     obligated to maintain certain commitments under the Paris 
     Agreement, such as continuing to report its emissions to the 
     United Nations.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO ADVANCE THE WITHDRAWAL 
                   OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE PARIS AGREEMENT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds are 
     authorized to be appropriated, obligated, or expended to take 
     any action to advance the withdrawal of the United States 
     from the Paris Agreement.

     SEC. 4. PLAN FOR THE UNITED STATES TO MEET ITS NATIONALLY 
                   DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PARIS 
                   AGREEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the President shall develop and 
     submit to the appropriate congressional committees and make 
     available to the public a plan for the United States to meet 
     its nationally determined contribution under the Paris 
     Agreement that describes--
       (1) how the United States will achieve an economy-wide 
     target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 
     percent below its 2005 level by 2025; and
       (2) how the United States will use the Paris Agreement's 
     transparency provisions to confirm that other parties to the 
     Agreement with major economies are fulfilling their announced 
     contributions to the Agreement.
       (b) Updates to Plan.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, 
     the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees and make available to the public an updated plan 
     under subsection (a).
       (c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works, and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate.

     SEC. 5. PARIS AGREEMENT DEFINED.

       In this Act, the term ``Paris Agreement'' means the 
     decision by the United Nations Framework Convention on 
     Climate Change's 21st Conference of Parties in Paris, France, 
     adopted December 12, 2015.
  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
those printed in House Report 116-42. Each such amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report,

[[Page H3382]]

shall be considered 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.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 1 will not be offered.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Espaillat

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. 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:
       (3) The Paris Agreement acknowledges that all ``Parties 
     should, when taking action to address climate change, 
     respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on 
     human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous 
     peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with 
     disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the 
     right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment 
     of women and intergenerational equity''.
       (4) The Paris Agreement notes the importance of ``climate 
     justice'' when mitigating and adapting to climate change and 
     recognizes ``the need for an effective and progressive 
     response to the urgent threat of climate change''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Espaillat) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment today lays before this 
House a very simple fact, an undeniable fact: Communities of color 
across this great Nation and, in fact, across the world are least 
responsible for climate change. They contribute far less to the carbon 
footprint of the world; they don't drive as many cars; in fact, they 
most often take public transportation. So they contribute less to 
climate change, and yet they suffer the most harm from its impact.
  The most vulnerable among us, from my home in Washington Heights, in 
Harlem and the northwest Bronx communities and around the world, are 
all experiencing greater impacts and stand to suffer even more.
  At home, I see it in the worsening of asthma rates among African 
American and Latinx children when parents come to my office looking for 
help for ballooning healthcare costs that they cannot afford.
  I see it with seniors who have an array of respiratory diseases, in 
many cases contributing to long illnesses, if not death.
  I see it in Central America, where extreme drought endangers 
livelihoods and has led to violence and outward migration.
  I see it in the Caribbean and even here in the United States, where 
climate change has increased the magnitude and frequency of hurricanes, 
affecting millions who do not have the capacity to prepare for 
worsening storms and have barely recovered from one before the next one 
hits.
  I see it in southern Africa and in south Asia and in small island 
developing states, where climate change affects food scarcity and 
access to clean water, damaging public health and increasing political 
instability and regional violence.
  Mr. Chairman, in the United States and around the world, climate 
change has an unequal impact on communities of color because it 
compounds existing injustices of racial and economic disparities. This 
is fundamentally unjust, Mr. Chairman.
  The amendment that I bring before you today is a very simple 
amendment, one that says that poor communities that are very often 
communities of color suffer disproportionately from climate change, 
although they do not contribute more to that ill.
  My amendment makes it clear that the Paris Agreement seeks to address 
issues of environmental justice and the disparate impact climate change 
is having and will continue to have on vulnerable communities and 
people of color.
  If adopted, I believe it will send a strong message, a very strong 
message that, with this bill, the United States of America's commitment 
to remain in the Paris climate agreement also means our agreement to 
address environmental injustices.
  When it comes to mitigating climate change, we cannot forget 
disenfranchised communities. We cannot forget communities of color. We 
cannot forget indigenous communities. We cannot forget low-income 
communities. We cannot forget climate refugees, and we cannot forget 
the children who will bear this burden when we are all gone.
  In every piece of legislation on climate change considered by this 
House, in every bill on environmental issues we pass, and at every 
hearing that we hold regarding this important matter, we must ensure 
that issues of environmental justice are equally addressed and that the 
disenfranchised communities and communities of color are heard, 
because, again, Mr. Chairman, they contribute far less to the carbon 
footprint, they contribute far less to climate change, and yet they 
suffer tremendously. So this is, fundamentally, an injustice.
  Mr. PALLONE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I just want to say, on behalf of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, we support 
this amendment. It is a good amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I also want to thank Mr. Espaillat for working with the 
committees to make changes to his amendment.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, I will close once the gentleman yields back.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Engel and the 
leadership, Chairman Pallone, for working with me to advance this 
important issue.
  I want to, further, thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this 
amendment and are similarly dedicated to advancing environmental 
justice: Congress Members McEachin, Omar, Jayapal, Pressley, Carbajal, 
Cisneros, and Moore.
  Finally, I want to thank many other groups in my district that 
continue to advocate day in and day out for environmental justice, a 
strong and diverse coalition that I am proud to represent.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, let me first say, like everyone in this 
Chamber, I support human rights and climate justice, but this amendment 
really does nothing to reduce our emissions. We should debate 
bipartisan solutions, such as boosting research, advancing 
technologies, and promoting innovation.
  Mr. Chairman, 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. Espaillat).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. 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 York 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Omar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Ms. OMAR. 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, add the following:
       (9) The Paris Agreement further requires that parties 
     ``should strengthen their cooperation on enhancing action on 
     adaptation, taking into account the Cancun Adaptation 
     Framework'', which includes ``measures to enhance 
     understanding, coordination and cooperation with regard to 
     climate change induced displacement, migration and planned 
     relocation, where appropriate, at the national, regional and 
     international levels''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman 
from Minnesota (Ms. Omar) and a

[[Page H3383]]

Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
  Ms. OMAR. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 
9, the Climate Action Now Act.
  My amendment includes findings recognizing the importance of the 
Paris climate agreement's task force addressing the impact of climate 
change on displacement and the global refugee crisis.
  The United States is responsible for nearly a third of the excess 
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today and, thus, bears more 
responsibility for the climate crisis than any other country. But the 
climate crisis is a major contributing factor of yet another 
devastating crisis we are facing today: the global refugee crisis.
  In 2017, more than 60 percent of the internal displacements in the 
world was a result not of conflict but of natural disasters. Since 
2008, an average of 24 million people has been displaced by 
catastrophic weather disasters each year.
  Within three of the most vulnerable regions of the world--sub-Saharan 
Africa, South Asia, and Latin America--143 million people could be 
displaced by climate change impacts by 2050.
  We do not need to look that far from home to know this. At least 
400,000 residents of New Orleans were displaced by Hurricane Katrina 
for at least a few days, and many were displaced permanently. A 
disproportionate number of them were Black Americans.
  We saw it happen last year in Puerto Rico when 3,000 people died 
because of Hurricane Maria and our current administration failed to 
help them recover.
  At a time when climate change is making droughts and famines worse, 
making conflicts fiercer and repression more brutal, our country is 
resettling historically low numbers of refugees. The United States 
should be offering protection and support to climate change refugees. 
Instead, we have capped the number of refugees that we resettle to only 
30,000 people next year.
  Citizens of some of the countries that have been hit hardest by 
climate change, including Yemen, Iran, and Somalia, are currently 
subject to an arbitrary and racist Muslim ban. We cannot be willing to 
turn our backs on those suffering because of the effects of global 
catastrophes.
  We have to acknowledge that this tragedy is not going to go away any 
time soon. As food security, drinking water, and energy supplies become 
scarcer, more and more families are going to be forced to leave their 
homes.
  Countries that are responsible for perpetuating the climate crisis, 
like the United States, should rise as leaders in offering protection 
and refuge for displaced communities. It is our duty, as one of the 
richest countries in the world, to support the Paris Agreement and its 
task force on the impact of climate change on displacement and the 
global refugee crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support for this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. OMAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me first say, again, I agree with the 
premise of this amendment. I met today with U.N. officials on the 
refugee crisis. I have been to the camps in Jordan and Turkey, so I 
agree with the premise of this amendment. But, again, it does nothing 
to reduce our emissions.
  We should be debating, I think, bipartisan solutions, such as 
boosting research, technology, and innovation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Houlahan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. 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''.
       Page 8, line 5, strike the period at the end and insert ``; 
     and''.
       Page 8, after line 5, insert the following:
       (3) how the United States may use multilateral and 
     bilateral diplomatic tools, in addition to the expert 
     committee established under Article 15 of the Paris 
     Agreement, to encourage and assist other parties to the 
     Agreement to fulfill their announced contributions.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment 
to H.R. 9.
  Inaction on climate change will lead to the demise of the human 
species. Science is not a partisan issue, and the science in this case 
is crystal clear: Climate change is happening, and we, as humans, are 
causing it.
  The amendment that I am offering today would require the President to 
include in the administration's strategy how the United States will be 
able to use all the diplomatic tools available to help our partners 
around the world meet their own goals.
  It is simple. Their success is our success; their failure is our 
failure. We all share the same planet, the same environment, and the 
same atmosphere. We cannot fight this alone. We have to be in this 
fight with every tool available to us, and that includes our diplomacy.
  My amendment recognizes the leadership role that our country can and 
should play in addressing global climate change. This administration 
has taken a back seat to facing one of our most pressing national 
security threats, and this amendment puts us back in the global arena, 
leading this vital charge.
  Some naysayers and doubters have expressed concern that developing 
countries are and will take advantage of the Paris Agreement, placing 
the burden of addressing climate change on the U.S. This is misleading. 
The agreement requires all parties to develop their own plans to reduce 
carbon emissions. Rather than retreat from that effort, we should lead 
it.
  I serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Just today, Ranking Member 
McCaul said that we have always been leaders on the global stage, and 
when we are not involved, we leave a power vacuum. This applies 
militarily and diplomatically with respect to humanitarian aid and in 
the case of climate action as well.
  The best way for us to secure the safety and health of our planet is 
for us to be an aggressive leader in the fight against climate change. 
Pulling out of the Paris Agreement would send a resounding message to 
the international community that the United States is not in this fight 
to save this planet, and that is unacceptable.
  Let us be clear: The fight to stop climate change is not just a fight 
to save our environment. It is a fight for our economy. It is a fight 
for the health of everyone and for social justice. It is a fight for 
national security. And, yes, it is a fight for our children, for our 
future generations, and for humanity.
  I introduced this amendment because the threat is too grave for us, 
as a country, to be doing the bare minimum as laid out in the Paris 
Agreement. We must also work aggressively with each country to combat 
climate change at every turn. Inaction is a death sentence for us all.
  We have the opportunity before us to stand up for our fellow 
Americans and brothers and sisters around the world. I am sure my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers of Congress 
would agree: This country we call home and this planet we call home are 
worth fighting for.
  I served our country in the Air Force. I believe in this country, and 
I believe it is worth fighting for.
  Yes, climate change poses one of, if not the, gravest existential 
threats to our country, but its threats are not insurmountable.
  Just 2 days ago, Pennsylvania became the 24th State to join the U.S. 
Climate Alliance, committing to work toward cutting greenhouse gas 
emissions in line with the Paris Agreement. We in Pennsylvania are 
still in.

[[Page H3384]]

  I am proud of our Commonwealth for joining this fight for our 
country. We in Pennsylvania know America is worth it.
  Mr. Chairman, to vote for my amendment is to commit to our necessary 
leadership on climate change. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I will close after the gentlewoman yields 
back.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Pallone, Chairman Engel, 
and Ranking Member McCaul for all of their leadership and guidance on 
this very, very important issue.
  I also thank the members of my community who have brought me here to 
serve in this way. This issue couldn't be more fundamental to our 
existence in my community, our Commonwealth, our country, and our 
planet.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me first commend my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, for quoting me. I do think we should 
lead as a nation in the world. I support the United States leading the 
world on the international challenges we face. But, again, this 
amendment has nothing to do with reducing our emissions.
  We should be a leader on the bipartisan approach to solutions to this 
crisis, like boosting research, innovation, and technologies.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. 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 section 
     (and redesignate the subsequent section accordingly):

     SEC. 5. REPORT.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the President shall produce a report that examines 
     the effect of the Paris Agreement on clean energy job 
     development in rural communities.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman 
from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Hampshire.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ms. Castor for her 
tireless leadership on this landmark legislation.
  Nearly 2 years ago, the United States ceded global leadership when 
President Trump announced plans to withdraw from the Paris climate 
agreement, a sweeping accord amongst the overwhelming majority of 
nation-states to curb carbon pollution and mitigate the damaging 
effects of climate change.
  The Climate Action Now Act reverses this misguided decision by 
ensuring that America honors its commitments to the Paris Agreement and 
prevents any taxpayer dollars from being used to take any action to 
advance the United States' withdrawal from the agreement.
  I am proud to support this legislation and to offer an amendment that 
would require the President to produce a report examining how rejoining 
the Paris Agreement will bolster clean energy job creation in rural 
communities.
  Contrary to the claims that have been made here today by my 
colleagues across the aisle, we have seen the positive impacts across 
my district and across New Hampshire that the deployment of clean 
energy can have on our communities, both for our economy and our 
environment.
  Our rural communities are home to some of the hardest working 
Americans who are committed to securing good-paying jobs to support 
themselves and their families. Clean energy jobs are good-paying jobs.

                              {time}  1645

  In New Hampshire, a clean energy job pays 50 percent more than the 
State's median wage.
  Rejoining the Paris climate agreement will spur a new clean energy 
economy that weans America off fossil fuels from countries that do not 
share our values, protects our environment by reducing carbon 
pollution, and creates good paying jobs.
  My amendment is straightforward. If we are going to rejoin the Paris 
Agreement, we must ensure that rural communities benefit from the 
subsequent job creation and manufacturing. My amendment would create a 
framework for how rural America can thrive and combat climate change.
  We know that rural communities face unique economic challenges, and 
it is imperative that they are not left behind as we move toward the 
21st century clean energy economy.
  We also know that rural communities can lead the clean energy 
revolution, and I am very proud to represent five communities that have 
made a commitment to use 100 percent renewable energy by 2030: Concord, 
Keene, Plainfield, Hanover, and Cornish.
  I am proud and pleased to offer this amendment with my colleague, 
Congressman Chris Pappas, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to vote ``yes'' on the amendment and the underlying bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. I yield to the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, on behalf of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, that 
we support this amendment. It is an excellent amendment.
  I want to thank Ms. Kuster for working with the committees to make 
some changes to her amendment.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  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 will close after the gentlewoman yields 
back.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
committee chair. I want to thank Ms. Castor for her leadership on this 
issue, and I want to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
help us to create good jobs in our rural communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I didn't get a chance to come down during 
the debate on the underlying bill, and the committee, of course, raised 
this issue.
  The hope is that the President is going to sign a bill to go back 
into an agreement that he already decided to get out of. So, when the 
statement is made--it only reverses the President's action if the 
President signs the bill. The President is not going to sign this bill.
  So why are we here? Why are we spending a whole week? I understand we 
need to get this climate debate off our chest and eventually move 
forward, and I hope we will do that in a bipartisan manner.
  As to the amendment that we are debating here, not bad, I think, 
trying to understand the green jobs that will occur. But I think those 
of us from fossil fuel areas, coal mining areas, marginal oil, well, we 
would probably like to see an evaluation of job losses that could occur 
as part of this.
  They are going to tout the job creation. Let's look at the areas--and 
they touted rural America. Let's look at the areas where coal mines 
will close, coal-fired power plants will close, and the economic impact 
that will be impacted there.
  We are pretty excited about working with the Energy and Commerce 
Committee on, as is, I think, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, conservation, innovation, adaption. Our focus is going to 
be: Let's affect the carbon dioxide emissions without raising energy 
costs and slowing the economic activity.

[[Page H3385]]

  I think we have one of the best economies that I have ever served in, 
and we do have an increase in carbon dioxide this last year because the 
economic activity is so great.
  So if you believe that, which is true, the reverse would be, if you 
delay and raise energy costs, you could really hurt economic growth.
  Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Torres of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mrs. TORRES 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:

       At the end of section 4, add the following subsection:
       (d) State and Local Actions.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to prohibit States and cities from taking more 
     ambitious actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than the 
     actions described in the plan developed and updated under 
     this section.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Torres) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 9, the Climate 
Action Now Act.
  My grandsons' generation will remember President Trump's decision to 
leave the Paris Agreement as the day that he condemned them to a world 
of manmade devastation.
  Today, we have a chance to change that. Which side do we want to be 
on, the side of future generations or the side of those who would 
profit at their expense?
  H.R. 9 mandates that the United States Government honor the 
commitments we made in the Paris Agreement.
  We also need to protect the rights of cities and States to go above 
and beyond to meet the unique strains climate change puts on their 
regions.
  For example, California has committed to source 100 percent of its 
electricity from renewable sources by 2045. This is necessary, 
considering the toll climate change has taken on California, including 
historic droughts, deadly fires, and terrible flooding.
  Despite this, President Trump has tried to make it harder for 
California to regulate its own greenhouse emissions. I have offered an 
amendment to H.R. 9 that would stop President Trump from using the plan 
mandated in this act to limit cities and States like California from 
taking more ambitious action to reduce greenhouse emissions.
  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.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I will close after my colleague yields back 
her time.
  I reserve the balance of my time
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez).
  Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.
  I would like to point out that oftentimes the opposition party talks 
about States' rights, but when it comes to fighting for climate, 
cleaning up our air and our water, making sure that people can combat a 
climate crisis, then: Do you know what? We are going to get involved. 
We are going to stop these States from doing something that they have 
been doing.
  California is a leader in combating climate change--a leader. We have 
reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and we are on target to implement a 
lot of our top goals: 100 percent renewable energy and carbon 
neutrality by 2045, zero-emission vehicles, and curbing greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  I also, when I was in the State legislature, passed a law that said 
that more of the money from greenhouse gas emission fees must go to the 
most disadvantaged and the most impacted communities of climate change. 
That means that not only are we reducing our carbon footprint, but we 
are also giving resources directly back to these communities.
  So let's not get in the way. Let's not stop California's progress, 
because it is a leader for not only the country, but the world.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rouda).
  Mr. ROUDA. Mr. Chair, I stand today as a cosponsor of this important 
amendment offered by my colleague and fellow Californian, 
Representative Torres.
  Our State and many others across the country are showing the world 
how to take meaningful steps to meet our Paris climate agreement 
commitments.
  While the current administration continues to do everything in its 
power to prioritize industry conflicts of interest over the 
sustainability and future of our planet, I am proud of the forward-
thinking work being done in our cities, like the ones in my district, 
in Orange County, and States like the one I call home, California. 
These important efforts must not be prohibited.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr. Chair, if we don't take an aggressive 
step to deal with this problem, our grandchildren and their 
grandchildren will pay the price.
  A United States Government report found that our economy will lose 
over $1 trillion dollars by the end of this century due to climate 
change. Clean energy is an investment, not only for our communities, 
but for future generations.
  California has over 500,000 jobs created within the clean energy 
sector. That is about 10 times the number of coal jobs nationwide. This 
amendment ensures that California's progress and commitment will not be 
sabotaged.
  I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for 
offering this critical legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I urge passage of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Listen, in the transmission world, other than Texas, no State is 
alone. California is in the Western interconnect. So we have great 
support for States' rights, but decisions made by California will 
affect Nevada and will affect Arizona.
  For example, we have seen how decisions in some areas actually 
benefit the fossil energy in other areas, such as support of fossil and 
nuclear power in Arizona for California's electricity requirements.
  The basic underlying amendment really does nothing to address things 
that we would like to support--conservation, innovation, adaption--
trying to, in a bipartisan approach, address the real issue, which is 
how do we reduce carbon dioxide emissions in a way that protects the 
economy, grows the economy. We also feel that our citizens are better 
served when they have good paying jobs and they are working versus a 
risk of not doing that if you move down an unchecked path.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1700


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Shalala

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Ms. SHALALA. 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) Article 8 of the Paris Agreement states that ``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'', such as sea level rise, saltwater 
     intrusion, and flooding.


[[Page H3386]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Shalala) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. SHALALA. Mr. Chairman, since 1950, the sea level in south Florida 
has risen 8 inches and it is only speeding up. By 2030, the sea level 
in south Florida is projected to rise up to 12 inches, and by the end 
of the century, perhaps 80 inches. If we continue to do nothing on 
climate change, my community, and, in fact, my district, will 
disappear.
  We have a moral obligation to mitigate and adapt immediately, as we 
are already seeing the effects of climate change and sea level rise.
  That is why I was so heartened when the international community came 
together to sign the Paris Agreement, and that is why I was so 
devastated when this administration announced the United States' 
withdrawal.
  The Paris Agreement strengthens the international response to climate 
change adaptation, mitigation, and capacity building. It is our best, 
collective effort to combat climate change.
  The withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the failure to act on 
climate is a mistake with global implications and catastrophic 
consequences for my south Florida community.
  I am proud to support H.R. 9 because it rejects the decision to 
withdraw from Paris and requires the President to develop a plan to 
meet the United States' commitment under the agreement.
  My amendment strengthens the bill because it makes clear that 
addressing climate change means addressing its effects that are 
ravaging our coastal communities, sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, 
and flooding.
  My region's drinking water is seriously threatened as the sea rises 
and the saltwater reaches further inland and gets dangerously close to 
our fragile aquifer.
  In south Florida, it no longer takes a strong hurricane to flood our 
streets. They now flood just from a particularly high tide, such as the 
king tides. In fact, tidal flooding has become three times as common in 
south Florida in just the past 19 years, causing so-called sunny-day 
flooding. We simply cannot wait.
  Coastal communities around the world, including my south Florida 
community, are counting on us. I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I represent a coastal district, so the threat 
of worsening sea level rise is especially important to me, so I am glad 
my colleague from Florida offered this amendment.
  It is a good amendment and speaking on behalf of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, we support its 
adoption.
  Ms. SHALALA. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, I will close after the gentlewoman closes.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SHALALA. Mr. Chairman, I have completed my statement. This is 
absolutely critical to my south Florida community.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me first say, I agree with the premise 
of this amendment. Addressing sea level rise is a serious issue as well 
as saltwater intrusion and flooding.
  I am a member of the House Oceans Caucus, but, again, it does not 
reduce our emissions. It is not, to me, germane to the underlying bill.
  I think we should debate, once again, bipartisan solutions on 
boosting research, advancing technologies, and promoting innovation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Shalala).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. 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 section 
     (and redesignate the subsequent section accordingly):

     SEC. 5. REPORT.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the President shall enter into a contract with the 
     National Academy of Sciences to produce a report that 
     examines the potential impacts of a withdrawal by the United 
     States from the Paris Agreement on the global economic 
     competitiveness of the United States economy and on workers 
     in the United States.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to follow the previous 
discussion that was taking place under Mrs. Torres' amendment, having 
spent a long time in California on air regulation as an appointee to 
the California Air Resources Board by three Governors--Republicans and 
Democrats--where we worked in a bipartisan fashion under Federal 
regulation in the Clean Air Act, and California regulation, first to 
improve the air quality for Californians, but other States that 
followed us under the U.S. Clean Air Act, on criteria pollutants, but 
now to do it on carbon.
  So my amendment would direct the administration to work with the 
National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the negative economic impacts 
to the United States' global competitiveness and to our workforce by 
leaving the Paris treaty.
  Our experience in California has been, by transitioning to renewables 
and alternative fuels, one of the best arguments--of course, secondary 
to saving the planet, in my view--is the economic benefit. So, I hear 
and I respect some of the conversations and perspectives from people 
from different parts of the country, but that has not been our 
experience.
  Our experience has been that we passed a bill in 2006 that I was 
involved with in the legislature that called for the California Air 
Resources Board to drop CO2 emissions by 2020 to 1990 
levels. We were told by industry that there was no way we could do 
that. We are actually on track to do that.
  In fact, the last Governor, Governor Brown, signed legislation to 
decrease our CO2 levels and, again, directed the California 
Air Resources Board to implement a strategy to do that in regulations 
to 40 percent by 2030.
  On the renewable side, we went to 33-1/3 percent, a third of our 
renewables by 2020 on the stationary source side, and the industry came 
when I was in the legislature and said: We can't do this. We want your 
help.
  We went through with it, and, in fact, we did it. So now there is 
legislation saying that by 2030, we should decrease it or only have 50 
percent renewables.
  So what has that done to the economy? Our economy is the fifth 
largest in the world. We get more venture capital in the United States 
for renewables and alternative fuels than the total, combined research 
investment in venture capital in the other 49 States.
  We get half of the venture capital in total in the whole country into 
California, and it continues to provide for transition and new jobs. 
Many of our workforce are transitioning from fossil fuel to renewables.
  When we get mass-produced electric cars--and I am fearful that my 
grandchildren will drive Chinese electric cars--but we know that our 
car companies are transitioning and being somewhat successful and we 
hope that they will continue to be, as General Motors has indicated it 
would. It is in our best interest to continue this movement.
  My hope is that we would work collectively with the people who are 
being displaced, whether they are coal miners in West Virginia, or 
refinery workers in the four refineries in my county, to make sure that 
they don't lose out as the new economy takes over. The world benefits 
and the economy benefits. So that is the purpose of this amendment.
  I do want to say that right now, 3.3 million Americans now work in 
clean energy jobs; 2.3 million different jobs

[[Page H3387]]

are energy efficient; and 318,000 jobs are in California. The World 
Bank has an analysis that says the Paris accord will contribute $23 
trillion to the world economy.
  So on the basis of that and the fact that there are three times more 
jobs in the renewable and alternative fuel right now in the world than 
there are in the fossil fuel industry, I think that my colleagues 
should support this amendment so that we get the facts from the 
National Academy of Sciences, and the administration can see that what 
we are supporting not only benefits the planet and public health, but 
it benefits the economy and the future of American competitiveness.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, let me say first to the gentleman from 
California, that I appreciate the Californians and the California tech 
companies expanding to my home city of Austin, Texas, but I find this 
amendment contrary to the premise of this bill, which prohibits 
withdrawing from the U.S. Paris Agreement. In fact, it withdraws 
funding.
  So for that reason, I am in opposition to it, and, again, I think, as 
the gentleman stated, we should be advancing--if this bill doesn't make 
it through the Senate, doesn't get signed into law--advancing the clean 
energy technologies I think both of our States want to advance.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Pallone

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ms. Jackson Lee, I speak 
in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, after line 5, add the following:
       (9) The Paris Agreement is an example of multilateral, 
     international cooperation needed to overcome challenges 
     facing the international community, such as reducing 
     emissions, promoting economic growth, and deploying clean 
     energy technologies.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, 
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Congressman Moulton of Massachusetts, 
and Congresswoman Hayes of Connecticut, and I express my appreciation 
to them for their assistance and support.
  This amendment improves the bill by adding a finding which emphasizes 
the importance of international cooperation and multilateralism in 
responding to the global challenges facing the international community.
  Mr. Chair, the Paris climate accord was an example of the 
international leadership commitment and resolve that defeated fascism, 
created NATO, the European Union, the Marshall Plan, the World Bank, 
the International Monetary Fund, and most importantly, preserved peace 
and freedom for the last 75 years.
  Collective international action is also needed to combat growing 
international challenges such as terrorism, human trafficking, and 
black-market sales of illegal weapons, drugs, and tobacco.
  No one country can solve these problems on its own, and this 
amendment emphasizes the importance of collective international action.
  The landmark Paris climate accord was established to combat climate 
change and to accelerate and intensify the actions and investments 
needed for a sustainable, low-carbon future. This also brings all 
Nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat 
climate change and adapt to its effects with enhanced support to assist 
developing countries to do so.
  In these efforts, we promote the importance of continued 
international cooperation that has sustained the global community 
through epidemics, famines, and natural disasters.
  Mr. Chairman, a collection of rational actors acting in a selfless 
manner to achieve a rational result, such as this, requires leadership 
and systematic reasoning. Without this type of collective action and 
selfless resolve, we leave ourselves vulnerable to a tragedy of the 
commons.
  When countries act solely in their own best interests without regard 
to combating international threats, everyone suffers. That is why a 
great person and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton so 
eloquently said, ``We are stronger together.''
  The Jackson Lee-Moulton-Hayes amendment reflects this important 
insight by Mrs. Clinton, and I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this 
amendment, but I am not opposed to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I will close once the gentleman from New 
Jersey yields back.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), who is a member of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of our 
committee for yielding me time.
  The Paris Agreement will still stand with or without the U.S. not 
meeting our commitment, and it doesn't hurt the Paris Agreement, it 
just hurts the U.S. diplomatically and economically. So it is so 
critical that we use this opportunity to express to the world and to 
express to our own Nation that climate change is a priority for this 
Congress.
  Beyond the diplomatic consequences around the world, a decision to 
withdraw from the Paris Agreement hurts Americans right here at home. 
The U.S. is in the midst of a major transition to clean energy. As 
consumers demand access to cleaner energy and cleaner air, prices for 
renewables are falling across the board. With the market forces 
increasing favoring renewables, dirty energy is no longer a smart 
investment.
  So I want to thank my colleague, Kathy Castor, and I want to thank 
the members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee for continuing 
to stand strong and stand firm in our commitment to the American 
people, because ceding the leadership role on the global stage means 
losing economic opportunities in the global clean energy economy, 
hurting American workers and businesses.
  As we talk about the international framework, we see China, India, 
and other countries would lead if America does not.
  This decision is just another bad Trump deal for the United States of 
America. It won't bring the coal industry back, and it cedes ground to 
creating renewable energy jobs that put Americans to work.
  This is the new industrial revolution of the 21st century. Let us not 
cede our leadership to others around the globe but let us lead them. 
Let us provide the technology that the world will utilize to make sure 
that we save and preserve this planet, not only for our generation, but 
generations to come.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, I am not opposed to this 
amendment. I think the international community should reduce emissions. 
I think the issue is that the international community is not living up 
to the expectations of this agreement, particularly China and India. 
While we have reduced emissions by 14 percent, they have doubled their 
emissions, and they have until 2030 to reduce any emissions. That is 
why fundamentally I think this is a flawed agreement.
  But I am not opposed to an international consensus to reduce 
emissions. I don't think this is the right way to do it.

[[Page H3388]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment on 
behalf of myself, Congressman Moulton of Massachusetts and 
Congresswoman Hayes of Connecticut, and express my appreciation to them 
for their assistance and support.
  The Jackson Lee/Moulton/Hayes Amendment improves the bill by adding a 
finding which emphasizes the importance of international cooperation 
and multilateralism in responding to the global challenges facing the 
international community.
  The Paris Climate Accord was an example of the international 
leadership, commitment, and resolve that defeated fascism, created 
NATO, the European Union, the Marshall Plan, the World Bank, 
International Monetary Fund, and most importantly, preserved peace and 
freedom for the last 75 years.
  Collective international action is also needed to combat growing 
international challenges such as terrorism, human trafficking, and 
black-market sales of illegal weapons, drugs, and tobacco.
  No one country can solve these problems on its own, and this 
amendment emphasizes the importance of collective international action.
  The landmark Paris Climate Accord was established to combat climate 
change and to accelerate and intensify the actions and investments 
needed for a sustainable low carbon future.
  This also brings all nations into a common cause to undertake 
ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, 
with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so.
  And in these efforts, we promote the importance of continued 
international cooperation that has sustained the global community 
through epidemics, famines, and natural disasters.
  A collective of rational actors acting in a selfless manner to 
achieve a rational result such as this requires leadership and systemic 
reasoning.
  Without this type of collective action and selfless resolve, we leave 
ourselves vulnerable to a Tragedy of Commons.
  When countries act solely in their best interests without regard to 
combatting international threats, everyone suffers.
  That is why a great person and former Secretary of State, Hillary 
Clinton, so eloquently said: ``We are stronger together.''
  The Jackson Lee/Moulton/Hayes Amendment reflects this important 
insight.
  I urge support of the Jackson Lee/Moulton/Hayes Amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. GOSAR. 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) The Paris Agreement is a treaty and should be treated 
     as a treaty. Therefore, before any action can be taken to 
     execute the goals in the Paris Agreement, the Senate should 
     approve a resolution of advice and consent to ratification of 
     the Paris Agreement.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment ensuring 
the constitutionality of the Paris Agreement. The previous 
administration refused to abide by the Constitution and called this an 
agreement, not a treaty, despite the agreement having an impact on 
every American.
  Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President 
shall ``have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to 
make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.''
  My amendment simply states that the Paris Agreement is a treaty, and 
before anything can be implemented to abide by the agreement, it should 
be submitted to the Senate for approval.
  My good friend from Virginia, Representative Morgan Griffith, said it 
best yesterday in our Special Order when he eloquently stated: ``If we 
are going to bind our hands and seal our fate to be the number two or 
number three or number five economy in the world instead of being the 
number one economy in the world, if that is what we are going to do, 
then there ought to be votes taken down the hall. Men and women in the 
United States Senate should put their name on the line and say yes or 
no. And the American people then will know who has voted yes and who 
has voted no. They won't be hiding behind any games or circumstances or 
procedural maneuvers. Then the American people can use the power that 
was given to them by our Constitution and an inalienable right granted 
by God to use the ballot box to make a decision as to whether or not 
they wanted to be bound, whether or not they wanted to have their 
economy reduced, and have their children and grandchildren to be lesser 
than what we have today in our economic wealth.''
  Many radical environmental groups are saying the Paris Agreement does 
not need to go to the Senate, that the agreement reiterates obligations 
already contained in article 4 of the 1992 United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change, or the UNFCCC. This is completely a 
falsehood.
  The Congressional Research Service has already proven them wrong.
  Let me quote the CRS: ``The George H.W. Bush administration stated 
that Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC, which commits the parties to, inter 
alia, adopt national policies and, accordingly, mitigate climate change 
by limiting GHG emissions did `not require any new implementing 
legislation nor added regulatory programs.' Perhaps, most importantly, 
it stated that an amendment or future agreement under the UNFCCC to 
adopt targets and timetables for emissions reductions would be 
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent.''
  Furthermore, in a subsequent report, the Senate Committee on Foreign 
Relations wrote:
  ``A decision by the conference of parties to adopt targets and 
timetables would have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and 
consent before the United States could deposit its instruments of 
ratification for such an agreement. The committee notes further that a 
decision by the executive branch to reinterpret the convention to apply 
legally binding targets and timetables for reducing emissions of 
greenhouse gases to the United States would alter the `shared 
understanding' of the convention between the Senate and the executive 
branch and would therefore require the Senate's advice and consent.''
  The previous administration purposely ignored the will of Congress by 
refusing to send the Paris Agreement to the Senate. I often hear 
Members from both sides of the aisle lament about executive overreach.
  Here we have a clear case of the executive branch telling Congress it 
doesn't matter.
  If Congress refuses to exercise its constitutional authority and not 
demand the Paris Agreement to be sent to the Senate, then this body is 
telling future Presidents that there are no checks and balances.
  Madam Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment that preserves the 
constitutional checks and balance, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Norton). The gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I strongly support this amendment. It has 
been the thrust of our argument.
  I support the U.S. Constitution Article I authority. This process 
circumvented that. I do believe it required Senate ratification. But 
not only that, the President didn't even consult with the Congress. 
There was not one hearing on this during the Obama administration and 
therefore circumventing the American people. For that reason, I 
strongly support this amendment.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I will finish that up.
  The State Department has a Circular 175, and there are ten 
opportunities

[[Page H3389]]

that tell us whether they are an agreement or whether they are a 
treaty.
  So let me highlight just four or five of these.
  Number one, the extent to which the agreement involves commitments or 
risks affecting the nation as a whole.
  This obviously impacts everybody across this country, therefore, 
ratification by the Senate.
  Whether the agreement is intended to affect State laws.
  This will bind all State laws, because they have to fulfill the 
ratification based on that activity. So, therefore, it, once again, has 
to be a treaty.
  Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of 
subsequent legislation by the Congress.
  This agreement obligates U.S. taxpayer funds to the Green Climate 
Fund, which is a slush fund, but it still obligates those applications 
and that money to that fund. Therefore, it must be fulfilled by a 
treaty.
  Madam Chair, I ask Members to adopt my amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, we have heard this argument over and over again. The 
Republicans said the same thing in the markup before the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, but these Republican arguments are not going to 
change the facts.
  The fact is the Paris Agreement itself is not a treaty. It is an 
agreement under an existing treaty, and that is the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change, that is UNFCCC, pronounced UNF 
triple C, and that was signed by President George H.W. Bush and 
approved by both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate in 1992.
  There is no requirement for the Senate to approve subsidiary 
agreements around already approved treaties.
  In fact, the vast majority of international agreements to which the 
United States is a party are not treaties. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, more than 90 percent of international 
legal agreements which the United States supports are agreements that 
do not require Senate ratification.
  Now, President Obama did not have to submit the Paris Agreement to 
the Senate for ratification for two reasons: first, because the 
emissions targets are not legally binding; and, second, because the 
legally binding commitments, which are almost entirely procedural, 
generally either elaborate or repeat obligations under the UNFCCC.
  It is also not true that an agreement with any legally binding 
provisions must be ratified by the Senate. There are many ways in which 
the United States can enter into international agreements with legally 
binding commitments.
  As I previously mentioned, the vast majority of international 
agreements the United States enters into are not approved by the 
Senate. Using examples of that, we have the U.S.-Canada Air Quality 
Agreement, the Minamata Convention on Mercury, and the Convention on 
Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.
  Arguments that the GOP are using, that the Paris Agreement needs to 
be ratified are disingenuous. They are, frankly, trying to avoid 
climate action at all costs. I really find it unfortunate that rather 
than arguing on the merits, that they use these arguments about 
ratification that are simply disingenuous.
  For those reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in voting against it.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam 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:

       Strike section 3 (and redesignate the subsequent sections 
     accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
strikes section 3 of the bill. Section 3 prohibits the use of funds to 
advance the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement. 
My amendment ensures any decision made on the Paris Agreement will be 
based on the merits, not politics.
  I have said this before, and I will say it again: Either the Paris 
Agreement is a treaty, or it is not. If it is not a treaty, then the 
current administration may independently terminate the agreement 
without congressional approval, as the previous administration entered 
into the agreement without congressional approval.
  Makes sense, right?
  What one administration does by executive action can be undone by the 
next administration by executive action.
  If the Paris Agreement is not an agreement entered into by the United 
States by executive action and constitutes a treaty, then it should be 
presented to the Senate and put on the floor for a two-thirds vote per 
Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution.

                              {time}  1730

  For the last several years, Democratic Members have crowed at the top 
of their lungs about none of the funds provisions and forced the U.S. 
Senate to agree to only take up appropriation bills if they don't 
include political riders. Riders have not been included in the final 
appropriations bills signed into law as a result.
  Well, folks, section 3 is a political, none-of-the-funds rider, whose 
sole ability is to try and prevent the administration from doing 
something they currently have the authority to do. The hypocrisy here 
is outrageous, and this amendment should pass based on that precedent 
utilized over the last several years alone.
  We have heard folks on the other side of the aisle claim we need to 
stay in the Paris Agreement in order to protect future generations. 
Americans for Tax Reform estimates the Paris Agreement will cost the 
U.S. an estimated 6.5 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our GDP by over 
$2.5 trillion.
  NERA Consulting estimates those numbers are even higher, and that the 
Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 31.6 million jobs by 
2040 and reduce our GDP by over $3 trillion.
  How does killing 6.5 to 31.6 million jobs and costing our economy 
more than $3 trillion protect future generations? I don't know.
  The European Climate Action Network reported that no single country 
in Europe is performing sufficiently to meet the Paris Agreement goals.
  A recent United Nations Emissions Gap report found that all 
participating countries will have to at least triple their efforts in 
order to meet the Paris Agreement's basic goals.
  China and India, the world's two biggest polluters, have said they 
will not even consider reducing carbon emissions until 2030 at the 
earliest, while we are pledging to reduce our emissions by 26 to 28 
percent by 2025.
  How does tying ourselves to a nonbinding agreement that puts us at a 
competitive disadvantage and that countries throughout the world are 
failing to implement protect the American people?
  This is not a partisan issue, Madam Chairwoman. This is about doing 
what is right for America and about protecting freedom and opportunity 
for our children and grandchildren.
  If the administration didn't already have the authority to withdraw 
the United States from the fundamentally flawed Paris Agreement, then 
there should be no reason to include the section 3 political rider 
being debated here today.
  But since the United States Senate has failed to take up the Paris 
Agreement and weigh in one way or the other whether the Paris Agreement 
is a

[[Page H3390]]

treaty or not, this body should not attempt to tie the administration's 
hands with a political none-of-the-funds rider.
  Either you are for the Constitution or you are not. Either you 
believe executive action can be taken to enter and leave the Paris 
Agreement or you don't.
  I urge adoption of my amendment, which removes the politics from the 
bill and allows any decision made on the Paris Agreement to be based on 
merits, not politics.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Once again, Madam Chairwoman, this is an important 
application. Once again, you have to realize that we are talking about 
the Constitution.
  The other side talks out of both sides of their mouth. They want it 
one way when they are in the minority, they want it the other way when 
they are in the majority, and they can't have that.
  This is about the rule of law and about good policy. Good process 
builds good policy builds good politics, and that is just not what is 
here today.
  So when we start looking at the applications here, let's make sure 
the American taxpayer, the American family, is treated fairly, not put 
at a disadvantage by the rest of the world.
  Too often we have taken the short end of the stick. It is fine for us 
to stand up.
  And, by the way, if I am not mistaken, in 2015, 2016, and 2017 we led 
the world in carbon emissions reductions. Yes, it is that very 
application of entrepreneurialism and technology that has driven that 
boat. Let's continue doing it that way. Let's get back to good process.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to Mr. Gosar's amendment, which would gut the 
heart of the bill, the section that prevents the President from 
withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.
  Now, the Paris Agreement sets a strong foundation for action that 
will accelerate the shift to a clean energy economy and put us on the 
path to a safer, healthier planet for generations to come. It is the 
most ambitious climate change agreement in history and builds upon the 
unprecedented participation of roughly 200 parties to the convention, 
including India and China, something that my Republican colleagues have 
wanted for many years.
  It provides a framework for reducing U.S. carbon pollution, while 
also growing our economy. More energy-efficient appliances, buildings, 
and vehicles will result in lower energy costs for consumers, all while 
lowering emissions of harmful air pollutants and keeping our 
manufacturing industries competitive in this global transition towards 
low carbon practices.
  So, first and foremost, what H.R. 9 is doing is stopping President 
Trump's reckless withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the very 
agreement our country was instrumental in negotiating. But this move 
has real diplomatic consequences, further diminishing 
America's credibility around the world.

  Let me be clear, the Paris Agreement will still stand with or without 
the United States; but not meeting our commitments doesn't hurt the 
Paris Agreement, it just hurts the United States diplomatically and 
economically. Other countries, not to mention U.S. cities and States, 
are still moving forward on climate action, making the Trump 
administration only appear more isolated and irrelevant as the world 
moves past us.
  But beyond the diplomatic consequences around the world a decision to 
withdraw from the Paris Agreement hurts Americans at home.
  The U.S. is in the midst of a major transition to clean energy. As 
consumers demand access to cleaner energy and cleaner air, prices for 
renewables are falling across the board. With market forces 
increasingly favoring renewables, dirty energy is no longer a smart 
investment.
  Ceding the leadership role on the global stage means losing economic 
opportunities in a global clean energy economy, hurting American 
workers and businesses. China, India and other countries will lead if 
America does not.
  Leaving the Paris Agreement is just another bad Trump deal for the 
United States. H.R. 9 is trying to prevent this bad Trump deal from 
becoming our reality. The Gosar amendment would all but guarantee that 
the United States feels the full weight of the economic and diplomatic 
consequences of abandoning our friends and allies.
  This amendment ensures we lose the clean energy development race to 
China or India.
  This amendment locks the United States and the world into a future of 
catastrophic warming that puts all of our lives and livelihoods at 
risk.
  I said this earlier when we spoke on the bill: We cannot look 
backwards. We can't look back into the 19th century. We have to look 
forward, with new innovation, with an economy that creates more jobs.
  Don't let us fall behind the rest of the world and not lead on such 
an important issue. It is a huge mistake. That is why we are saying in 
H.R. 9, in this bill, that the President should not be allowed to 
withdraw and should put together a plan that leads us forward toward a 
clean economy and meeting the Paris goals.
  So, I oppose the Gosar amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Case

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. CASE. Madam 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 5, insert the following new paragraph:
       (5) The Paris Agreement recognizes that the ocean 
     ecosystems covering more than 70 percent of the Earth's 
     surface have an integral role in climate balance. Seventy 
     percent of nationally determined contributions under the 
     Paris Agreement are ocean-inclusive, and 39 Paris Agreement 
     signatories are focused on the inclusion of ocean action in 
     nationally determined contributions through the Because the 
     Ocean Initiative.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from Hawaii (Mr. Case) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 9, which would 
recognize the importance of the oceans to our global climate system and 
the international efforts under way to include our oceans in nationally 
determined contributions, or NDCs, under the Paris Agreement.
  When we talk about the impacts of manmade climate change, we focus on 
the worlds of our lands and air, but we tend to forget the largest 
world of all, our oceans. Yet, some of the foremost negative 
consequences of climate change, as well as the positive vital processes 
that have kept our climate on an even keel until recently and can 
continue to do so, lie in the ocean.
  We cannot forget the oceans. No climate change solutions can work if 
our oceans are not in the room.
  The ocean covers more than 70 percent of the Earth and directly 
affects weather around the globe. The temperature and currents of the 
ocean determine storm patterns and strength.
  We have seen increases in measures of intensity, frequency, and 
duration, as well as the number of the strongest--category 4 and 5--
storms since the 1980s.
  The ocean also absorbs many of the most immediate consequences of 
carbon pollution, buffering us from some

[[Page H3391]]

of its most damaging impacts. The ocean has absorbed 93 percent of the 
total excess heat energy taken up by greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. 
Additionally, the ocean is the largest sink for anthropogenic carbon 
dioxide, or CO2, absorbing roughly one-third of 
CO2 emissions.
  The increase in temperature and carbon in the atmosphere and oceans 
are directly impacting communities throughout the world. According to 
the 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment, or NCA, released by the 
U.S. Global Change Research Program, made up of 13 Federal agencies: 
``Human-caused carbon emissions influence ocean ecosystems through 
three main processes: ocean warming, acidification, and 
deoxygenation.''
  Additionally, the NCA states: ``The social, economic, and 
environmental systems along the coasts are being affected by climate 
change. Threats from sea level rise are exacerbated by dynamic 
processes such as high tide and storm surge flooding, erosion, waves 
and their effects, saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers and 
elevated groundwater tables, local rainfall, river runoff, increasing 
water and surface air temperatures, and ocean acidification.''
  In just one compelling instance of many from around the world, my 
State of Hawaii's oceans and coastlines are on the front lines of 
dealing with the impacts of climate change in our oceans and coasts.
  For example, the Honolulu tide gauge, a constant for over a century 
now, has measured a sea level rise of nearly half a foot since 1905.
  Over 70 percent of our beaches in Hawaii are in a state of chronic 
erosion, likely caused by a combination of shoreline hardening and 
ongoing sea level rise.
  The frequency of high tide flooding in Honolulu since the 1960s 
increased from 6 days per year to 11 per year.
  We have also seen in Hawaii sea level rise impact traditional and 
customary practices, including fishpond maintenance, cultivation of 
salt, and gathering from the nearshore fisheries.
  About 550 cultural sites, 38 miles of major roads, and more than $19 
billion in assets will be vulnerable to chronic flooding resulting from 
a 3.2-foot increase in sea level. Such widespread flooding will change 
the character of the islands by affecting cultural heritage and daily 
commerce and lifestyle, and this is chronic throughout the entire 
Pacific.
  We also, in Hawaii, face just one example of the impacts of ocean 
warming, acidification, on our reefs.
  We have seen globally averaged sea surface temperature increase by 
1.8 percent Farenheit over the past 100 years.
  We have seen over nearly 30 years of oceanic pH measurements, based 
on data collected from Station ALOHA, Hawaii, show a roughly 8.7 
percent increase in ocean acidity over this time.
  We have seen increased ocean acidification reduce the ability of 
marine organisms to build shells and other hard structures, adversely 
impacting coral reefs and threatening marine ecosystems.
  We have seen extended periods of coral bleaching, which did not even 
occur first until 2014 but now are becoming much longer.
  This is, again, true throughout the entire Pacific Ocean. And we are 
not alone, because the ocean is interconnected throughout our world, 
and we are a clear example of what the world is facing.
  These impacts are happening all over the world and our country.
  Madam Chair, 39 countries--conspicuously, not including the U.S.--
have embraced the challenges and promise of our oceans in facing 
climate change by signing the Because the Ocean initiative, which has 
encouraged progress on the incorporation of the ocean in climate change 
policy debate, with a special focus on the inclusion of ocean action 
into nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. The 
efforts of these countries and their partners will be invaluable as we 
face the crisis of climate change.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Hawaii has expired.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, let me just say first, we all recognize the 
oceans' ecosystems, 70 percent of the Earth's surface. I am a member of 
the Ocean Caucus.
  This really has nothing to do with reducing our emissions. It is 
simply a finding. We ought to be focused on bipartisan solutions and 
boosting research, advancing technologies, and promoting innovation.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1745

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Bost

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. BOST. Madam 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 8, after line 20, insert the following new subsection:
       (d) Public Comment.--The President shall--
       (1) in making the plan under subsection (a), and updates 
     under subsection (b), available to the public, and before 
     submitting such plan and updates to the appropriate 
     congressional committees--
       (A) publish the plan or update, as applicable, in the 
     Federal Register; and
       (B) provide a period of at least 90 days for public 
     comment; and
       (2) after each such period for public comment, continue to 
     make the proposed plan or update, as well as the comments 
     received, available to the public on regulations.gov (or any 
     successor website).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. BOST. Madam Chair, any time Congress considers legislation that 
will radically change our economy, the American people deserve an 
opportunity to be heard first. And make no mistake, the underlying bill 
is a radical change to our economy, and not for the better.
  My amendment is simple. Before Congress considers legislation to 
comply with the Paris climate agreement, let's give the American people 
90 days of public comment. That is a standard exception for legislation 
as big as this.
  Who would dare deny our job creators, working families, farmers, coal 
miners, and manufacturers the opportunity to be heard?
  If you support the underlying bill, then I would think you would need 
to hear how this agreement will impact people's jobs and their bottom 
lines. No one will escape higher prices for energy, food, housing, 
transportation, or just about anything else. If you come from an 
industrial State, like my home State of Illinois, you can be especially 
hard hit.
  According to recent studies, the Paris Agreement will devastate 
employment in steel, iron, cement, and oil refining by killing over 1 
million jobs.
  Manufacturing jobs are good jobs, and they are jobs that are 
multipliers, with every new steel job leading to seven additional jobs 
in the region in which they are created.
  We just worked our tail off with the President, President Trump's 
administration, to help bring nearly 2,000 jobs back, the steel jobs 
that were in Granite City that were lost. The underlying bill would 
throw these jobs right back out the window.
  What about our farmers? They have faced tougher times and more 
uncertainty than at any other time, and this would cripple them.
  Coal miners have a proud heritage in my district. They are barely 
hanging on, and this would be the final nail in the coffin.
  All of this risk, and for what? A global climate agreement that holds 
America to a higher standard than China, India, and other emerging 
nations with bigger emissions and pollution problems?
  Look, I have 11 grandchildren. I want to leave a healthier world for 
them. I want future generations to look back and say that we cared 
about the future of our planet. But we also have to worry about the 
people's security in the present. We need to work together to find 
solutions that protect jobs and protect the planet.

[[Page H3392]]

  So before the people's House considers the underlying bill, let's 
hear from the people themselves.
  Support my amendment and give our constituents the opportunity to be 
heard on just how bad the Paris Agreement could be for them.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Let me explain. I am only claiming the time in 
opposition. I actually support the gentleman's amendment.
  In the interest of increasing transparency and public participation 
in the development of the President's climate plan, I believe that Mr. 
Bost's amendment actually is a good one.
  Speaking on behalf of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the 
Foreign Affairs Committee, we support its adoption and would accept the 
amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOST. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for supporting the 
amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Meng

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Ms. MENG. Madam 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 paragraph:
       (9) The Paris Agreement recognizes ``the fundamental 
     priority of safeguarding food security and ending hunger, and 
     the particular vulnerabilities of food production systems to 
     the adverse impacts of climate change.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Meng) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. MENG. Madam Chair, my amendment adds language that recognizes the 
fundamental link between climate change and food security, as 
recognized in the Paris Agreement.
  The administration's plan to leave the Paris Agreement is a betrayal 
of America's global leadership and threatens food security for hundreds 
of millions of people in the United States and around the world.
  Vulnerable communities, including children, the elderly, and low-
income individuals, are at a greater risk of malnutrition or chronic 
hunger if the effects of climate change are not mitigated.
  According to the 2018 ``National Climate Assessment,'' climate change 
will lead to reduced agricultural productivity, and food production 
will decline in U.S. regions that experience increased frequency and 
duration of droughts, floods, and severe storms.
  Climate change will cause irreparable damage to New York's 
agriculture sector, which is the dominant ag State in the Northeast.
  According to the New York Climate Change Science Clearinghouse, 
climate change may affect food production by increased heat stress days 
above 90 degrees Fahrenheit, which could stress livestock and some 
crops; increased river flooding, which is likely to cause soil erosion, 
soil loss, and crop damage; and wetter springs, which could delay 
planting for crops and reduce yields.
  These are just a few examples of how climate change may affect New 
York's agriculture sector.
  However, climate change isn't just an American problem. It is a 
global problem that will cause already vulnerable communities to face 
increased malnutrition and chronic hunger.
  According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 
chronic hunger is on the rise. The number of people facing chronic food 
deprivation increased to nearly 821 million in 2017 from around 804 
million in 2016.
  Food insecurity is already a challenge across the globe and is likely 
to become an even greater threat as climate change impacts agriculture 
production. Food insecurity can also further strain communities that 
are already facing challenges, from conflict to job scarcity.
  The 2014 ``Worldwide Threat Assessment'' noted that ``the lack of 
adequate food will be a destabilizing factor in countries important to 
U.S. national security.''
  The President's plan to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement is 
misguided and will contribute to food insecurity here and abroad. It is 
imperative the President understands the consequences of climate change 
for food security and ending hunger.
  Again, my amendment simply recognizes the critical and inextricable 
link between climate change and food security, as recognized in the 
Paris Agreement.
  I urge support for the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I will close once the gentlewoman yields 
back.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MENG. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, we all agree with the premise of this 
amendment--food security, ending hunger. Again, this amendment does 
nothing to reduce our emissions. We need to debate bipartisan 
solutions, such as boosting research, advancing technologies, and 
promoting innovation.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).
  The amendment was agreed to.


     Amendment No. 15 Offered by Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Madam 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:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 6. STUDY AND REPORT.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     complete a study and submit a report to the Congress on the 
     impact of the plan under subsection (a) on the United States 
     territories, including the potential positive and negative 
     impacts on their economies, taking into consideration their 
     unique energy needs and systems and the climate change 
     vulnerabilities faced by communities in these jurisdictions.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman 
from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico.
  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Madam Chair, I rise today to 
speak on behalf of my bipartisan amendment, Amendment No. 15. This bill 
will provide for a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 
28 percent below its 2005 level by 2025.
  While I share some of my colleagues' concerns about the effectiveness 
of these targets and the underlying bill, I strongly believe that it is 
vital that Congress and the Federal Government pay particular attention 
to the needs of 3.5 million American citizens living in all five U.S. 
territories whenever it is considering and crafting policies that 
tackle climate risk.
  My amendment will help us achieve just that. Specifically, it directs 
the General Accounting Office to study and submit a report to Congress 
on the impact of the President's plan on the U.S. territories, 
including the potential positive and negative implications on our 
economies.
  In conducting this analysis, the General Accounting Office will have 
to consider our unique energy needs and systems and the climate risk 
vulnerabilities faced by communities across our islands.
  U.S. territories are at the forefront of climate risks. Given our 
geographic location, we are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather 
events. Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, for example, completely 
devastated Puerto Rico

[[Page H3393]]

and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Typhoon Yutu did the same last year in the 
Northern Mariana Islands.

                              {time}  1800

  We are also vulnerable to rising sea levels and coastal erosion. In 
fact, it is estimated that approximately 60 percent of Puerto Rico's 
beaches show some sign of erosion, negatively impacting critical 
infrastructure, communities, properties, and the economies and 
livelihoods of coastal communities across our island.
  Unlike our fellow Americans in the 48 contiguous States, we are not 
interconnected with a national or larger power grid. Instead, we have 
isolated systems with limited access to cost-effective fuel sources, 
heavily rely on foreign petroleum imports, and face among the highest 
electricity rates in the Nation.
  My amendment will allow the study of whether the President's plan has 
any impact on addressing and tackling these issues, in terms of 
providing us important information to ensure we are enacting the most 
effective policies to help territories become more resilient.
  It also allows us to study whether the President's plan is a net 
positive for territories and ensures it does not further raise energy 
costs, which will be detrimental to economic growth and development.
  We need to have a comprehensive understanding of how any climate 
policy impacts the U.S. territories and incorporates our unique energy 
needs and realities.
  Madam Chair, this bipartisan amendment--and I thank Congresswoman 
Plaskett and Congresswoman Radewagen, as well as Congressman San 
Nicolas of Guam, for being original cosponsors of this amendment--
offers a sensible and simple way to achieve this. That is the reason 
why I thank all of them for sponsoring this amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to join us in supporting this amendment for the U.S. 
territories.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).
  Ms. PLASKETT. Madam Chair, I join my colleagues today to speak out on 
the President's intent to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement by 
supporting H.R. 9 and specifically in support of Congresswoman 
Gonzalez-Colon's amendment that is before the floor right now.
  The President's intent to withdraw from the climate agreement is 
perilous, misguided, and ignores the increasingly stark reality of the 
impacts of climate change in our Nation as well as in the world.
  Rising sea levels are already having devastating impacts on hundreds 
of vulnerable communities across the country and around the world.
  Last week, I visited Charleston, South Carolina, and listened to the 
mayor of Charleston discuss how they were urgently working to heighten 
the seawall in Charleston directly as a consequence of drastically 
increasing carbon emissions, and likely related to warming sea water 
and the rise in sea level and volatility that has caused so much 
damage.
  The catastrophic effects of global warming were manifested in 2017 
and 2018 natural disasters, where the Nation saw unprecedented natural 
disasters, from the deadliest wildfires in California to the worst 
hurricanes that hit the East Coast and Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands.
  The vulnerability of the island territories is particularly 
important, as they are isolated and have specific energy issues and 
concerns that other places do not due to their isolation and being 
surrounded by and part of the ocean environment.
  Madam Chair, I thank Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon for her work on 
this amendment, which requires a report on the impact of climate change 
in the U.S. territories that pays particular attention and 
consideration to their unique energy needs and systems and the climate 
change vulnerabilities faced by communities in this jurisdiction.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and 
passage of H.R. 9.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Madam Chair, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I also thank Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon 
and, actually, Congresswoman Plaskett. I was able to visit the Virgin 
Islands and Puerto Rico during the last hurricane, and it was 
devastating. I appreciate the hospitality shown in difficult times.
  Madam Chair, while this is a ``let's do an evaluation of good and 
bad,'' versus one of the amendments we talked about earlier, I am 
pleased to support it.
  The only caveat we would say is that we would rather have these 
reports done prior to making major decisions versus making a decision 
and then seeing how it is going to impact. But I am pleased to support 
it, and I thank the gentlewoman for bringing it forward.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I would inquire if the gentlewoman has any 
additional speakers.
  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Madam Chair, how much time do I 
have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Puerto Rico has three-quarters 
of a minute remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, because I have the right to close, I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Madam Chair, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, let me say, this is a good amendment, and speaking on 
behalf of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, we support its adoption.
  Madam Chair, I thank Miss Gonzalez-Colon for working with the 
committees to make changes to her amendment. It has already been 
mentioned by my colleague, Mr. Shimkus, that she was our gracious host 
when we went to Puerto Rico and also to the Virgin Islands in the 
aftermath of Hurricane Maria, where we saw the devastation of the 
hurricane.
  Of course, part of the reason why we as Democrats support the Paris 
Agreement is that we are very concerned about these severe and more 
severe weather conditions that are occurring because of climate change.
  Madam Chair, this is a good amendment, and I would urge my colleagues 
to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


    Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam 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:
       (9) The Paris Agreement recognizes that adaptation is a 
     global challenge faced by all with local, subnational, 
     national, regional and international dimensions, and that it 
     is a key component of and makes a contribution to the long-
     term global response to climate change to protect people, 
     livelihoods, and ecosystems.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Pallone, my colleague and neighbor from 
New Jersey. I also thank Chairman Engel for his leadership on the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  My amendment to H.R. 9 takes language from the Paris Agreement and

[[Page H3394]]

recognizes that adaptation of the agreement is a key component of the 
global response to climate change.
  Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time, and we are 
in a defining moment. From shifting weather patterns that threaten food 
production to rising sea levels that increase the risk of catastrophic 
flooding, the impacts of climate change are global in scope and 
unprecedented in scale.
  Without dramatic action today, adapting to these impacts in the 
future will be far more difficult and costlier.
  The Paris Agreement for the first time brought all nations into a 
common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change 
and to adapt to its effects. The agreement chartered a new course in 
the global climate effort.
  This amendment stands for the American leadership that was displayed 
throughout the development and the adoption of the Paris Agreement.
  In order to bring every nation to the table, it is essential that we 
retain our commitment to this agreement. That is why I urge support for 
this amendment as well as for the underlying bill.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I will close once the gentleman has yielded 
back.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I yield myself the 
remainder of my time.
  Madam Chair, this amendment basically attempts to state the 
following: Not only is climate change real and not only are there 
profound environmental reasons for addressing it, the Paris climate 
agreement was also a tremendous achievement of U.S. foreign policy. 
That is why we must keep it. The United States must remain in it.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, again, I agree with the premise of this 
amendment, but it does not address reducing emissions. We should debate 
bipartisan solutions, as I stated in the past.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Panetta

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. PANETTA. Madam 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:

       At the end of section 2, add the following new paragraph:
       (9) American leadership encouraged widespread international 
     participation in the Paris Agreement.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Panetta) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PANETTA. Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 9, the Climate 
Action Now Act.
  As we know and as we have been hearing all day, this bill that we are 
considering ensures that the United States honors our commitments 
detailed in the Paris Agreement and lays the groundwork for further 
action on climate change.
  By including this amendment in this bill, it will then be crystal 
clear that it is the United States that has led and will continue to 
lead when it comes to influencing other nations to participate in the 
Paris Agreement.
  Now, yes, I do admit that it was the leadership of the United States 
that got other nations of the world to come together and boldly declare 
our unified commitment to dealing with the growing climate crisis. We 
did that by explicitly committing ourselves to play a leadership role. 
We had to do that in order to attract other countries to join in the 
goal of limiting the temperature of our globe.
  That is why the United States gave structural and directional 
leadership with ready greenhouse gas reduction targets and a vision for 
institutional design principles.
  Moreover, in our efforts to entice other nations to be a part of the 
deal, the United States made recommendations for financing adaption, 
energy investment, and support for developing countries.
  The U.S. then stepped up and led by example by announcing its intent 
to reduce carbon pollution by drastic levels, an act that underscored 
our role as a global leader on the issue of climate change.
  It was that American ambition, that American action, that encouraged 
other nations around the world to set their sights and their standards 
higher and to be bolder on the most pressing issue that we face when it 
comes to climate change. As a result, we saw an unprecedented display 
of a global commitment to address that pressing issue.
  That is why it is all the more disappointing that this administration 
announced its intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris 
Agreement, an act that would make the United States, the country that 
pushed us and others into this agreement, the only country to reject 
this agreement.

                              {time}  1815

  If the United States abdicates its leadership role here, it will not 
only cost us influence in this agreement, it will also invite other 
countries to walk away from combating the climate crisis.
  As Todd Stern, the former U.S. special envoy for climate change, 
stated at a World Resources Institute conference on May 30, ``In the 
absence of the United States, you have a phenomenon of a fair number of 
countries . . . trying to pull back a little bit on some of the things 
that were agreed to, some of the compromises that were reached in 
Paris.''
  Madam Chair, we cannot let this happen. That is why I seek to include 
my amendment to H.R. 9 to strengthen this important bill, to stop the 
administration from advancing the withdrawal of the United States from 
the Paris Agreement, and to reclaim our leadership role in combating 
climate change and protecting our planet.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I agree with the premise that the world 
looks to the United States as a leader. Unfortunately, other countries 
are not leading--China and India, for instance.
  This amendment, again, does not address reducing emissions. We need 
to look at leading as a nation on technology, innovation, and 
bipartisan solutions.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Rouda

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mr. ROUDA. Madam 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 paragraph:
       (9) American cities, States, and businesses are stepping up 
     and pledging to meet the Paris Agreement goals in the wake of 
     absent and uncertain United States Federal leadership.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rouda) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROUDA. Madam Chair, this amendment recognizes that American 
cities, States, and businesses are stepping up and pledging to meet the 
Paris Agreement goals in the wake of absent

[[Page H3395]]

and uncertain United States Federal leadership.
  While the current administration takes steps to actively undermine 
the position of the United States on the global stage with regard to 
climate change, an unprecedented coalition of American States, cities, 
and businesses are taking action and working to lead the United States 
to a low-carbon future, as affirmed by the Paris Agreement.
  Cities across the country and in my home State of California are 
taking on the challenge of combating climate change. These cities are 
implementing new sustainability initiatives by targeting 100 percent 
renewable energy, recycling 100 percent of wastewater, and working 
toward net zero carbon emission goals.
  As California continues to be an international leader in forward-
thinking policy and environmental stewardship, we are not alone.
  When describing the ongoing work and the action still needed, 
California Governor Jerry Brown said, ``We're at the base camp of Mount 
Everest, and we're looking up at the long way we still have to go.'' 
That is why, without Federal leadership, States are left taking the 
lead.
  The United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of 
Governors committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent 
with the goals of the Paris Agreement, just added its 24th State this 
week.
  I reiterate: This bipartisan coalition of Governors is committed to 
taking real, on-the-ground action to urgently address climate change by 
implementing policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 
26 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025, tracking and reporting 
progress to the global community, and accelerating new and existing 
policies to reduce carbon pollution and promote clean energy 
deployment.
  Businesses, large and small, are stepping up across a wide range of 
industries. Large corporations and small businesses alike have already 
taken steps to develop and deploy high-impact climate action 
strategies. They see opportunities in working toward a low-carbon 
future and support the aims of the Paris Agreement.
  However, for this transition to succeed, federal governments must 
also lead. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of 
my amendment and the underlying bill. We must remain in the Paris 
climate agreement and work to meet our commitment for future 
generations. The time for action is now.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I will close after the gentleman closes. I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROUDA. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Schneider), my colleague.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague, Congressman Rouda, of which I am a cosponsor.
  It was a low point of the Trump Presidency when President Trump 
announced his plans to recklessly begin withdrawal of the United States 
from the Paris climate agreement. This was an abandonment of our global 
leadership.
  But I took heart watching the many cities, States, and localities 
step forward to declare their intention to keep the emission reduction 
commitments of the Paris accord. These include 20 cities and villages 
in the 10th District that have joined the Greenest Region Compact to 
implement sustainability plans to reduce the risk of global climate 
change and mitigate its effects.
  Regardless of the lack of leadership from the White House on 
addressing climate change, our cities continue to drive the change 
needed to prevent a climate disaster.
  I am glad this House is finally taking action with H.R. 9, the 
Climate Action Now Act. I fully support this amendment to recognize the 
actions of our cities and States that continue to uphold the spirit of 
the Paris climate agreement.
  Mr. ROUDA. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, bravo for our States and bravo for our 
communities. I think the only problem I have with the amendment is you 
seem to have to believe that the United States has to be involved in an 
international agreement for us to lead. We are the largest carbon 
reducer since 2015 in the world.
  I think the Energy and Commerce Committee over the last Congress has 
led with bipartisan solutions that have come to the floor. That is 
where we need to get to eventually, instead of the ``he said, she 
said,'' point fingers, ``you are bad.''
  What can we do that gets across to the Senate? What can we do to get 
it to the President's desk? Moving an amendment and a bill that says, 
``Mr. President, you got out of the Paris accord, now sign this bill to 
undo what you just did,'' no one believes he is going to sign that.
  We also know that even if he vetoes that bill, we will be able to 
sustain it on this side.
  We look forward to doing things that we did in the last Congress. We 
can address carbon capture, sequestration, utilization; advanced 
nuclear reforms; hydropower; and clean natural gas, which has also 
enhanced our national security; and energy efficiency.
  Republicans are willing to work with my colleagues on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee on conservation, things like energy efficiency, new 
source review, and forest management. We are willing to talk about 
innovation, things like advanced nuclear power, as I mentioned; carbon 
capture, utilization, sequestration, pumped storage; battery technology 
through research and development; adaptation addressing the grid, 
adapting to the climate change issues; resiliency of our communities; 
genetically modified crops, if we have weather conditions or drier 
conditions.

  There are things that we think we can move to address this debate 
that could get through the Senate and could get to the President's 
desk, but haranguing and harassing a President who has already decided 
to leave the accord and think he is going to sign a bill is just not 
going to happen. That is why I oppose this amendment.
  I disagree with the basic premise of the amendment. I agree that 
communities are doing great things. States are leading. When you argue 
that States are leading, that is contrary to your argument that we have 
to lead. If the States and local communities are doing it, why does it 
take the Federal Government to do that?
  We don't have to bash to work together and move a policy forward.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rouda).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Porter

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Ms. PORTER. Madam 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:
       (9) Article 10 of the Paris Agreement states that 
     ``Parties, noting the importance of technology for the 
     implementation of mitigation and adaptation actions under 
     this Agreement and recognizing existing technology deployment 
     and dissemination efforts, shall strengthen cooperative 
     action on technology development and transfer.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Porter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PORTER. Madam Chair, I am honored to be here today to introduce 
my amendment to the Climate Action Now Act, which highlights the 
critical role of technology in the fight against climate change. The 
United States must continue to invest in research and development of 
clean energy technology in order to meet our nationally determined 
contributions under the Paris climate accord.
  We need American leadership in the fight against climate change. The 
U.S. has always led in the field of research and innovation. Our 
laboratories and research universities are among the best in the world, 
and their ability to

[[Page H3396]]

innovate to combat the world's challenges are without parallel.
  Climate change is an urgent challenge we must address, and America's 
scientists and technologists have always risen to this challenge. Yet, 
instead of fighting climate change, this administration proposed 
slashing the budget for climate research and renewable energy programs.
  Let's take a look at the President's proposed 2020 budget for the 
Department of Energy. President Trump would slash the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy by more than 85 percent. This is the 
home at the Department of Energy for supporting every kind of renewable 
technology that we have developed and implemented.
  President Trump proposed completely zeroing out the ARPA-E budget. 
ARPA-E was created to incentivize researchers to develop promising 
research into game-changing technologies that can meet our future 
research needs. Since 2009, 136 of these projects have attracted 
billions in private follow-on funding, creating private-public 
partnerships and American jobs.

                              {time}  1830

  President Trump has even proposed cutting State Energy Programs, 
which help States implement energy efficiency in schools and government 
buildings, saving taxpayers money.
  That is why I believe that it is so important that we now recognize 
and support the critical role that United States leadership in research 
and development can and must play in the fight against climate change.
  These programs help our country develop new and improved 
technologies, foster entrepreneurship, urge small business growth, and 
create clean energy jobs.
  In my home, California's 45th Congressional District, there are 5,239 
renewable energy jobs and 14,140 energy efficiency jobs. That is a 
total of 21,622 clean jobs. Those programs filter down to our 
laboratories, our universities, and our entrepreneurs leading American 
innovation.
  I am proud to say that some of the great research and development 
happening to combat climate change is happening in California's 45th 
District at the University of California, Irvine.
  UC Irvine is a leader in clean technology innovation and research, 
helping bring our country closer to meeting the goals of the Paris 
climate accord.
  UC Irvine is home to the Advanced Power and Energy Program and the 
National Fuel Cell Research Center, which focuses on developing new 
fuel cell technology.
  UC Irvine engineers created the first power-to-gas hydrogen pipeline 
injection project in the country. This pipeline takes surplus energy 
from the school's solar panels, converts water to hydrogen and blends 
it with gas, which can be stored for later use. This allows us to use 
clean electricity that would otherwise go to waste, helping reduce 
pollutants in our air.
  Now is the time to harvest the innovative technologies we have while 
investing in improving clean technologies for tomorrow. I am proud to 
champion and advance research and innovation.
  We need to act now and keep the commitments we made to our 
coastlines, our community, our country, and the world when we signed 
the Paris climate accord.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I will close once the gentlewoman yields 
back.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PORTER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, again, I agree with the premise of this 
amendment. Clean energy technologies are important in my hometown of 
Austin.
  We have a lot of clean energy in Irvine, California, a lot of clean 
energy, a lot of collaboration between our two States, but this is 
simply a finding and does not reduce our emissions.
  I again would urge, since I do not think this will become law, that 
we work on a bipartisan solution, talking explicitly about what you are 
talking about. We can pass these bills out of the House; we can pass 
them out of the Senate; and if we can do it bipartisanly, we can get it 
signed into law.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, 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 California 
will be postponed.


             Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mrs. Lee of Nevada

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 
printed in House Report 116-42.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Madam 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 paragraph:
       (9) Article 8 of the Paris Agreement states that ``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'' such as drought conditions and water 
     scarcity.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Mrs. Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Madam Chair, my amendment would ensure that the 
administration takes into account the problems caused by water 
shortages and droughts when addressing climate change.
  Climate change is no longer a threat to the future. We are 
experiencing the damaging consequences now globally and regionally in 
the United States.
  According to the Government Accountability Office, climate change has 
already cost taxpayers over $350 billion over the last decade.
  Water scarcity and drought conditions as a result of climate change 
have direct economic, legal, and national security implications for our 
society and for our systems of governance.
  In my home State of Nevada, the water supply at Lake Mead is already 
dangerously low and could face emergency levels as soon as next year. 
As our water supply continues to diminish, water prices will continue 
to rise for families across southern Nevada, the United States, and the 
world.
  Under Article 8 of the Paris Agreement, parties must recognize the 
importance of addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse 
effects of climate change, including drought and increased water 
scarcity. And since the United States cannot leave the Paris climate 
accord until November 4, 2020, we are still obligated to maintain 
certain commitments, and that includes recognizing the fact that rising 
temperatures pose an imminent threat to our water supply, especially in 
already arid regions.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I will close once the gentlewoman yields 
back.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, again, I agree with the premise of this 
amendment. Drought conditions, water scarcity are important in, I know, 
the gentlewoman's home State, certainly important in my home State of 
Texas. It will be--as climate change advances, the entire continent of 
Africa will face drought conditions.
  But, again, this is a finding. It doesn't, in and of itself, reduce 
the emissions, and I would again urge bipartisan solutions to advancing 
technologies and promoting innovation.

[[Page H3397]]

  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Mrs. Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pappas) having assumed the chair, Ms. Norton, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________