Protect Our Workers Act

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 9.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chair, it is, again, great to be here this morning. I appreciate Speaker Pelosi coming down and talking about bipartisan solutions and working together.

Obviously, on this piece of legislation, I think the terminology was demanding a plan for the administration. Well, that assumes that the administration would sign this bill. That also assumes that the Senate would pass this bill. Even if the President would sign a bill that he doesn't want to enact, he would probably then veto the bill he just signed. Then we would sustain his veto.

If we want to move forward, then we want to do things that can get through

the Senate and get to the President's desk. That is why, all afternoon yesterday, we talked about--and this amendment has some of those issues in it--adaptation, resiliency, grid modernization, and how do you adapt.

We appreciate the intent on which this amendment is being brought forward.

On another cautionary note, in the Paris accord, when it talks about addressing loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change, it is referring to the Paris accord's provision for developing countries. That accord doesn't have provisions for developed countries.

Maybe as things move forward with my colleague from New Jersey, we can make sure we address that appropriately.

We would like to have these studies done before we go into international agreements when we don't know how they are going to respond, versus after the fact, just like the cart before the horse. Then we will know that this is a good deal, that we should do this, or maybe that we shouldn't.

We had a couple of amendments last night that talked about all the bad aspects but none of the positive aspects. We also had a couple that said let's look at the good and the bad.

I would suggest that, in an amendment, there may be some areas of the country in which the infrastructure is not going to be harmed. In fact, an area of the country might even benefit from these changes.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chair, this is the perfect example of an amendment that, as we move something forward that might be able to be considered by the Senate and signed by the President, I think we would be very interested in dealing with.

Although, I guess I am a little confused. The amendment says we don't want to be technologically specific, although you mentioned the benefits of carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization, which is an amendment we had in the committee to try to say these are some good technologies we ought to consider.

A lot of folks on our side have been excited about the energy renaissance, the ability to recover more oil. We know the great stories of Texas and the ability to capture carbon and sequester it with utilization for money to help deal with other issues.

I think when we move in the direction of a bill that we plan to get through the Senate and the House, we should keep our communications open because I think there are some bipartisan solutions.

The Republicans have always talked about conservation, innovation, and adaptation. This is part of the innovation package.

We also have advanced nuclear in that package. We also have pump storage and batteries in that package. I think there are opportunities here.

We offered, as I said, in the committee, the value of nuclear and advanced nuclear energy, hydropower, carbon capture, and the production and export of natural gas. Part of my portfolio of volunteer activities is in the Eastern European bloc. Obviously, the ability to export natural gas has been a boon to these countries that don't want to be enslaved to Russian natural gas.

Again, there are things we can do. When we talk about innovation necessary to produce a strong economy, energy security, and lower emissions, we have to focus on the benefits of these technologies. While I can agree with the idea of this amendment, I think it falls short of what is necessary for Congress to assist our priorities.

Mr. Chair, I encourage a ``no'' vote, but I look forward to working with my colleague in the future, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, we really don't need a Paris Agreement to meet substantial changes in the carbon dioxide, or, as my colleague was speaking, she was really referring to the Clean Air Act and the four criteria pollutants that we have so aggressively addressed since 1992.

Having said that, what is better for the poor and the downtrodden is to have a job. What is better for their health and economic opportunity is to have a job. What also helps is that they have a good paying job that provides great healthcare benefits.

So, from 2015 to 2018, out of the industrialized countries, the United States is the number one reducer of carbon dioxide--number one. We didn't have to do it with all these international accords. We do it through innovation, technology, and advancement.

But carbon dioxide emissions went up last year. That is a known fact. The question is why. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have one of the best economies that I have ever served in in the House of Representatives, where there are help wanted signs all over the place.

As the manufacturing sector grows, there is a need to address these emissions. That is why Republicans continue to look forward to the day when we can join with our Democratic colleagues on conservation, innovation, and adaptation, moving some bills and processes through the floor that will be received well in the Senate and to the President's desk.

I think, rather than focus on the finding, we should debate bipartisan solutions such as boosting research, advanced technologies, and promoting innovation. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, again, to my colleague, and I appreciate it. She has me at a disadvantage because I have a huge ag district, 33 counties in southern Illinois, more pigs than people. I have corn, beans, and the like, so we appreciate this; and we appreciate this amendment because of the voluntary action of it and trying to incentivize and appreciate what our agriculture community has done because, as you know, other proposals out there that are debated in Washington might have some severe effects on agriculture.

I also want to take this time to say we did a lot in the last Congress. I think the misnomer is that if we don't say ``climate change'' and we move good public policy, that we haven't done anything.

Through the House, we passed:

The Energy Efficient Government Technology Act; that was actually voice voted and sponsored by Anna Eshoo from California;

Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act, Bob Latta from Ohio;

Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act, which this is another thing we did in the last Congress;

Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, Pete Olson from Texas;

Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment, the SENSE Act;

Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act by Bill Johnson;

Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act of 2017, another bill to reauthorize the West Valley Act.

Of course, I am a proud sponsor, with a huge bipartisan vote, for what was H.R. 3053, which was how do you deal with the nuclear waste provision.

So we actually moved a lot of bills in the last Congress, and many of those bills were in a bipartisan manner.

Yes, we do not carry the mantle of ``Paris'' or ``climate,'' but not everything has to be a subtitle of that major provision, especially if you are doing what we are trying to do in the House, which is bring to the floor bills in a bipartisan manner.

Conservation, that would be like energy efficiency, new source review, forest management practices. Being from Washington State, the gentlewoman understands the forest issues and the concerns that we do more forest management practices. Maybe some of our fires would be less so.

Innovation; advanced nuclear power; carbon capture; utilization; sequestration, which we spoke about in an amendment previously; and also pump storage batteries.

Also, from Washington State, the gentlewoman knows the benefits of hydropower, and if we can pump that water back up and have a continuous cycle, that is a pretty green use of power.

Adaptation, grid modernization, resiliency, and things on GMO crops, crops that can change if the environment is changing, if the growing cycles change. Right now we have drought-resistant corn. We might have to have corn that grows in wetter conditions. That is all part of the adaptation that we need to talk about.

So I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment and the chance to discuss these issues. I support voluntary action. The idea of this amendment will be better served focusing on examining the costs of these commitments, like some of our Republican amendments try to do, as we move this bill outside of the committee.

I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague bringing that up. I taught high school for 4 years, so education is key.

This whole provision of moving to the Paris accord was done without education of the Members of Congress. It was an executive branch decision.

We can debate whether the President had the authority or didn't have the authority, but we think what happened was that there was not total buy-in. Had it been presented as an agreement or had it been presented as a treaty, it wouldn't have passed either Chamber.

I do agree that education is very, very important. However, I also believe in local control. Republicans will always have a challenge with the Federal Government directing, dictating, and telling our local schools what their curriculum should be.

Mr. Chair, that is why I oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, we appreciate this amendment. A lot of these amendments are putting the cart before the horse. It would have been interesting to have these debates about resiliency and efficiencies prior to the administration going into the Paris accord. You do the research first and then you make a decision.

Now what we are trying to do is say, okay, we have this Paris accord that the President has stepped away from, so now let's evaluate what impacts are happening.

We did accept an amendment yesterday in this debate to look at both positive and negative aspects, which I think is a fair balance. There are going to be some areas of the country that are going to benefit; there are going to be some areas of the country that are going to be disadvantaged. So I think that is helpful in this debate.

There is a lot of talk about an infrastructure bill coming up. We hope that would be something we would move in a bipartisan manner. I know that it is always going to be asked how to pay for it.

I am willing to make the tough calls on how to pay for it. But in that infrastructure bill, it would be great if the resiliency of communities and these concerns that are being addressed could be wrapped up in something like that.

Again, for this bill, Leader McConnell just said on the floor that they are not going to address it. Even if they did, the President wouldn't sign it.

We will get to a point in time in this Congress when we will work together.

Republicans believe in conservation, innovation, and adaptation. This is part of the adaptation portfolio, and we look forward to working with you as we move forward.

This amendment does nothing to affect CO2 reductions, so I will oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, again, first of all, I appreciate my colleague, one whom I have gotten a chance to know. I look forward to working with him on some issues down the road.

I want to take this time to kind of reject the premise that nothing has been done. In the debate a little while ago, I mentioned the 15 or 20 bills that had passed the House in a bipartisan manner. These were signed into law, a lot of the hydroelectric extensions in H.R. 2122 and H.R. 2292 to extend the project of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission involving the Cannonsville dam. Hydroelectric power is clean, renewable. I can go through a whole list of things that were done.

As I said in debate earlier, just because we don't put the stamp of ``Paris'' or ``climate change'' on a piece of legislation doesn't mean that it is not going to help reduce our carbon exposure. In fact, our country has the largest reduction of CO2 of any industrialized nation from 2015 to 2018.

Having said that, I also would readily admit, and the Chair has heard me say this many times, that in 2019, our emissions went up. But that was because we have a thriving economy with more manufacturing. So this debate is still very important.

This amendment suggests that the measures that the Obama administration were putting in place to meet the commitments in the Paris Agreement were affordable. A lot of us would reject that premise when you look at the cost per kilowatt hour of major generation, baseload versus the green.

We have always tried to be kind of an all-of-the-above. Actually, in part of my congressional district, which is very large, I have one of the biggest wind farms in Illinois. That is in the Champaign County, Vermilion County, Ford County area in southern Illinois.

Also, solar power. Because of the actions our State General Assembly has done, we have a lot of solar power construction going on in the State of Illinois. An all-of-the-above approach is what we would hope for.

We look forward to the time when this, too, shall pass, this debate on this bill, which will then go to the Senate and die, and then we work back with my friends in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairman Engel is also on the Energy and Commerce Committee, so he knows that we will eventually get to the aspect where we can move in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I also thank my colleague for his service. I, too, served in the Army infantry during the Cold War. They are a band of brothers, and we do appreciate his service to the country.

Also, I do appreciate that the National Defense Authorization Act, passed in the last Congress, has been helpful. That is another example of, it

wasn't couched in climate change, but it was couched in national defense. That is where, again, I will continue to make the arguments and the comments that things have been going on. I don't want to read the first list of bills and stuff that we have passed over the last Congress.

The military is also looking at small modular nuclear reactors in some isolated locations. That will be part of the issues in the innovation area that Republicans could be very, very supportive of. We look forward to having those debates.

I also know forward operating bases of solar technology and of solar power help keep our warfighters prepared and able to communicate. It is just the smart thing to do versus trying to haul crude oil or generators and stuff to places where it would not be in the best interest of our warfighters to have.

So the focus is good. The Republicans, again, believe in conservation, innovation, and adaptation. When we move a bill that will get a chance to be heard by the Senate and that we work together, the goal would be to get something on the President's desk that he will sign. This is not the venue, because the Senate is not going to move it and the President is not going to sign it. But I would encourage my colleagues to stay engaged, not just with the Armed Services Committee, but the Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues on this side because I do think there is merit to the debate. Acknowledgement of what the Department of Defense has done was focused on by the previous Commander in Chief.

The Paris climate mandates instituted by the Obama administration through the Paris Agreement and the outdated executive order would have increased energy prices and wasted taxpayer dollars. As a result, we cannot support the amendment that would condone and reinstitute some of these costly measures.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will read into the Record a statement. This is from the International Energy Agency, Global Energy and CO2 Status Report 2018, published March of 2019, so it is pretty much fresh off the press. It addresses some of these issues that I have mentioned during this debate today about how we have been doing things; how, overall, missions are decreasing; and how public policy has helped, and the like.

This is on page 10: ``In the United States, the emission reductions seen in 2017 were reversed with an increase of 3.1 percent in CO2 emissions in 2018.''

That is what we addressed about the economy going up, more CO2 emissions.

``Despite this increase, emissions in the United States remain around their 1990 levels, 14 percent and 800 metric tons of CO2 below their peak in 2000. This is the largest absolute decline among all countries since 2000.''

So I think that is instructive when we are here debating a bill that is not going to be reviewed by the Senate and the President is not going to sign it.

We look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce on things that we can do to work together to even make better strides than what we already have in this country.

We don't get a lot of credit because we don't couch it in, as I said before, Mr. Chairman, ``climate change,'' ``Paris accord.''

But, you know, facts are important, data is important, and the Energy Information Agency is an independent agency underneath the Department of Commerce, so it is evaluating all countries and all emissions.

Republicans believe in conservation, which would be energy efficiency, new source review, force management, innovation, advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, sequestration, utilization.

To the colleague who brought the amendment up, I don't believe coal will be dead. I think if we bring technology and we use carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration and get it captured, we can still have a coal mining sector. We can still have energy electricity generated by coal. I hope so, because I am from a coal mining region, and I am not going to walk away from the jobs in southern Illinois.

And the adaptation which we have had a lot of debate about today, which is grid modernization, resiliency, crops, and the like.

The amendment of my colleague is opposite to what Dr. Burgess and I tried to do in the committee when we marked up this bill. We wanted to have the research and the analysis done before we go back to a climate agreement.

I mean, what good does it do if you go to an agreement and then you find that jobs have been lost, wages have gone down? It is too late. You are in the agreement.

So let's do the research prior, which was our amendment, Dr. Burgess and I--it wasn't made in order for the floor----to say let's do this research.

So if we are going to move and go back into the climate Paris accord, if we are going to affect jobs in the economy negatively, we should know that beforehand. This amendment does not do that.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him for his leadership.

This issue of infrastructure resiliency is so important. We are now discussing doing major infrastructure legislation to rebuild America in a way that is making it safer, by promoting commerce and improving the quality of life by decreasing the amount of time people have to spend in their cars. By increasing broadband and all of the things that enable people, whether it is healthcare, education, or commerce, the infrastructure is so central to that.

When we talk about infrastructure, we have to talk about resiliency; and when we talk about climate change, we have to talk about infrastructure. So this is a very important amendment, and I rise to support it.

I thank the gentleman for sharing his New Jersey experience in terms of the need for resiliency in this very wise amendment.

I also want to rise in support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act. I commend Chairwoman Kathy Castor who is the chair of our House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and also the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Engel, for his leadership on this important issue which is under the jurisdiction of his committee. They bring vision, they bring values, and they bring the voices of Members and the American people to make a difference.

We thank our freshman Members, in particular, who have carried the priorities of their communities to Congress to demand climate action now. And I think it is very appropriate that the gentleman in the chair is on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and has been a leader in the private sector, now in the public sector, on this important issue as we go forward.

It is time, Mr. Chairman, to end denial about this and start listening to the facts. This is about science, science, science. An overwhelming number, 86 percent, of Americans know that this is a crisis. They know that human behavior has an impact on it, and they want us to act.

We all have stories from our communities.

One of my constituents wrote:

My daughter has developed asthma. It wrenches me to see her

used as a canary in a coal mine. We are literally choking on

the denial and inaction.

Another writes:

Green jobs are guaranteed local jobs and will put people to

work. Survival is now poised to become a viable economic

sector.

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

It is about our national security. Over and over again the national security experts, the generals and the admirals, have come to us and said that this is a global security issue, because of what impact the climate change crisis is doing to the use of water and access to food and how natural disasters affect migration and also how that can lead to initiation of hostilities among people. It is a national security issue in terms of how we use our resources for our national security as well.

It is a moral issue. If you believe, as I and some in the evangelical community do, that this planet is God's creation and we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of it, then you would be sure to be a good steward and sign up for climate action now.

But even if you don't share that religious belief, we all know that we have a moral responsibility to the next generation to pass this planet on in a better way than we found it in a very responsible way.

So it is we must take action. The bill demands action now, by keeping us in the only international agreement dedicated to ending the climate crisis and demanding a plan of action from the administration, and Mr. Kim has put forth that plan to recognize infrastructure resiliency as the administration comes forward.

We are sending a signal to the world that the U.S. is in denial about the overwhelming science about climate, but this bill is a step in the right direction.

I am very proud of the work the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and other committees of jurisdiction are doing. But it is a task for every committee of the Congress to look at the jurisdiction of the committee and to see how, in terms of jobs, public health, national security, and, again, our moral responsibility to our children and future generations--it is everybody's responsibility in the Congress. It is a Congress-wide responsibility.

I do thank the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis for the focus that it is placing on all of this. We will be able to accommodate so many entrepreneurial ideas, new thinking on the subject, being current on the data and on the science. So we have a tremendous generational opportunity and responsibility.

I thank all who are involved in this for their extraordinary leadership. Anyone who cares about our planet and our children's future is deeply in debt to those who have taken the lead on this.

Under President Bush's leadership when he was President and we had our select committee then, we passed the biggest energy bill in history. While everyone was not in agreement on the climate crisis, we all agreed that we had to take action. President Bush signed the bill in a big ceremony, and it was the equivalent of taking tens of millions of cars off the road in how we raised the emissions standards. It was important, and that legislation was the basis for many of the executive actions that President Obama was able to take under the authority of that legislation.

So that was very important, and it was bipartisan. Hopefully, we can be bipartisan as we go forward for the next big steps that we have to take.

Technology has come a long way since then. Science informs us better. Current events have made it very clear: we have an imperative to have climate action now.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote for Mr. Kim's amendment to H.R. 9.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. On behalf of both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment. It is a good amendment.

I also thank the gentleman for working with the committees on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding to me.

On behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment. It is a good amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman for working with the committees on the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Let me say, with pleasure, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment. It is a good amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman for working with the committees on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Let me say with pleasure, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also the Energy and Commerce Committee, I support this amendment. It is a good amendment, and I want to thank the gentlewoman for working with the committee on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, thank the gentleman for yielding and say unequivocally, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, we, both committees, support this very good amendment. I also want to thank the gentleman for working with the committees on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and say, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment.

New York, which is just up from New Jersey, also suffered tremendously from Superstorm Sandy. In fact, a lot of the repairs that we are doing now to the New York City subway are a direct result of that, so I certainly appreciate the gentleman's words and concern.

This is a good amendment, and I thank the gentleman for working with the committees on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and want to gladly say, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment.

It is a very good amendment, an important amendment. I thank the gentleman for working with the committees on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say that on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee we support this amendment. It is a very good amendment. I also thank the gentleman for working with our committees on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say very strongly that on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment. It is a very good amendment.

The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, is the first truly universal agreement among nations to tackle climate change. Rarely is there consensus among nearly all nations on a single topic. But with the Paris Agreement, leaders from around the world collectively agreed that climate change is driven by human behavior, that it is a threat to the environment and all of humanity, and that global action is needed to stop it.

It also created a clear framework for all countries to make emission reduction commitments. At present, 197 countries--every nation on Earth, with the last signatory being war-torn Syria--have adopted the Paris Agreement. This agreement includes a series of mandatory measures for the monitoring, verification, and public reporting of progress towards a country's emission reduction targets.

The emission reduction targets themselves are voluntary. Each nation sets their own, respectful of national sovereignty, and there is no penalty for missing the targets. The idea is to create a culture of accountability and maybe some peer pressure to get countries to reduce emissions.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the author of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to highlight the continuing work at the Department of Defense to procure renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make our military more resilient in the face of climate change.

The American military is the strongest in the world. It is also the world's biggest consumer of energy. In 2017, our Armed Forces consumed over 85 million barrels of fuel to power ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and bases. As a combat veteran, I know firsthand that our reliance on fossil fuels at home and on the battlefield makes us very vulnerable.

Moreover, current and former DOD civilian and military leaders have argued that climate change presents a rising threat to our force readiness and has exposed vulnerabilities of critical operations. They have argued that climate change is an urgent national security threat, and I agree.

Warming oceans lead to higher tides, putting our Nation's critical infrastructure at risk. Severe weather has already wrought havoc on military assets, including Tyndall Air Force Base, which will likely require $5 billion in repairs after Hurricane Michael. Climate change is already causing mass migrations that affect the stability of nations and will put our national security and that of our allies at risk.

The purpose of my amendment is to make the DOD's contributions to the government sustainability efforts a part of the conversation surrounding H.R. 9. And the DOD's accomplishments should be lauded: the DOD has invested heavily in microgrids, renewable energy resources, and fuel-efficient vehicles.

Additionally, last year's NDAA required the military to build on its obligations to address climate change by incorporating energy and climate resiliency efforts into its installation and operational planning.

The DOD has done a lot so far and is a model for the rest of the U.S. Government, but there is more to be done.

Going forward, we have a unique opportunity to support sustainable policies, while also securing our bases, saving taxpayer money, and protecting the environment. One of the best examples is Fort Hood, Texas. Fort Hood has invested in technology to harness renewable energy and ensure that power is being efficiently managed. It is estimated that the combination of microgrids and renewable energy will save Fort Hood $100 million in energy costs. It is also hardened against potential vulnerabilities in the electrical grid, which is a win for our security.

We must scale smart, practical solutions, like those at the DOD, to make our force more resilient, agile, and efficient.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, simply put, the Federal Government cannot meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement without DOD's past, ongoing, and future contributions to this effort. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize this fact and support my amendment.

This is very simple. This is an opportunity for a win-win-win, which is often hard to come by these days, but this is good for the American taxpayers. It will save us hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars by promoting these efforts and increasing energy resiliency and efficiency. It is a win for our national security, because it is one of our largest vulnerabilities. Our bases are subject to cyberattack and are very vulnerable to continuity decreases in our operations. And it is a win for the environment.

This is something that we have to do and that we have an obligation to do in support of our national security.

Mr. Chairman, again, I urge everyone to join in supporting this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 9.

My amendment is straightforward. This bill requires the President to submit a plan to Congress to meet our obligations under the Paris accord. This amendment ensures that we do not forget the impact of our infrastructure when addressing the threat of climate change.

We know that climate change is real. We know that we are already feeling its effects and that it will only intensify. Strong scientific research tells us that storms are getting stronger and more frequent. Sea levels are rising, and this poses a direct threat to our coastal communities.

While this bill and the Paris accord take significant steps to address the root causes of climate change, we must be prepared to address the significant impact it is having on our Nation's infrastructure today.

My district in New Jersey was among the hardest hit by Superstorm Sandy. Toms River alone saw $2.25 billion in property damages, the highest out of any township in New Jersey, and we are still recovering from that storm that hit our State years ago.

In 2017 we saw three of the five costliest storms in our history in Harvey, Maria, and Irma. Rising sea levels are increasing the severity and frequency of flooding and are contributing to beach erosion, posing a major threat to our coastal tourism economy.

Climate change isn't just measured by rising tides and rising temperatures. It is measured by the rising costs that will incur on our communities and the investment needed in infrastructure to keep our communities resilient in the face of that threat.

In the coming months, as we hopefully take up and pass a bold infrastructure package, this amendment will provide guidance towards achieving the infrastructure resiliency our communities need. We know that infrastructure improvements don't only need to come in the form of potholes fixed and bridges rebuilt, they need to lessen the impact of rising storm surges from the next big storm and make sure communities like mine in Ocean County can remain a place for people to raise a family, create jobs, and achieve the American Dream.

The Paris Agreement's loss and damage provision recognizes the importance of updating our infrastructure to help communities deal with the adverse impacts of climate change. I urge that we include this amendment because it is crucial that there is an understanding from top to bottom of the threat that climate change poses and the impact that it will have toward infrastructure resiliency across our country.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ensure we are not only protecting our climate but the infrastructure we need to support our communities, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Chair, I reiterate that my amendment is straightforward. It recognizes the importance of safeguarding our communities and updating infrastructure to protect against the adverse impacts of climate change.

We can see that storms are getting worse and worse and costlier. The storms are not hitting just red States or blue States. They are hitting all of us.

I urge all my colleagues to stand behind my amendment and lend your support to ensure that our communities are resilient after the next big storm so that they can remain a place for people to raise a family, create jobs, and achieve the American Dream.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.