Continuing Federal Employee Leave Policy Act of 2019

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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.

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

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.

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.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Chair, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist).

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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

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

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.

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.

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

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,

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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee,

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).

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. Chairman, can I inquire about how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

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.

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.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ms. Jackson Lee, I speak in support of the amendment.

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.

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.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would inquire if the gentlewoman has any additional speakers.

Madam Chair, because I have the right to close, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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

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. 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. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

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

Mr. Chair, I will close once the gentleman yields back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

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

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.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will close after the gentlewoman yields back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Chair, I will close after the gentlewoman closes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment, but I am not opposed to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will close once the gentleman from New Jersey yields back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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

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.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

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.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, I will close once the gentlewoman yields back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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

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.

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chair, I will finish that up.

The State Department has a Circular 175, and there are ten opportunities

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.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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

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.

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. 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

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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a very important member of our committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) to speak on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

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

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.