Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 9) to direct the President to develop a plan for the United States to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 329 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 329. It provides for the consideration of H.R. 9 under a structured rule that makes 30 amendments in order.

It also provides for 90 minutes of general debate, with the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs controlling 60 minutes, and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce controlling 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the measure we are considering today makes clear that under this Democratic majority science is once again respected here in the House of Representatives, that facts matter, and that the word of the fossil fuel lobby is not going to rule the day, because there is no debate on our side about something as basic as climate change.

The evidence is overwhelming. It is happening, Mr. Speaker, and human beings are playing a defining role.

Now, you don't have to take my word for it. You can ask virtually any scientist working in the field today, because 97 percent of all climate scientists agree that it is happening--97 percent.

There is a United Nations body charged with looking at the science here called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Do you know what it has found? That the evidence is unequivocal.

The facts are as clear as day.

But you don't even need to read the report to know that something is happening here. Just look out your window. Once-in-a-generation hurricanes are becoming commonplace; record-breaking storms are becoming the norm; and drastic temperature swings are now just the way it is.

My district is home to more than 1,800 farms, and I visit with farmers often. Climate change isn't just an issue on their minds; it is sometimes the top issue on their minds when they are asked about the challenges that they face.

These farmers have told me about how heat waves disrupt what was once a reliable growing season and how unexpected frosts have completely wiped out their crops. Rainfall that once ran like clockwork has given way to droughts that could wipe out their entire profits.

They don't question what is going on. They are not debating the science of whether climate change is real. They know. They know.

They can see it, seemingly every day as it impacts their livelihoods. I wish the Republicans took climate change as seriously. But instead of treating it as a threat, they treat it as a punch line.

A Republican Senator once brought a snowball onto the Senate floor, trying to prove that climate change isn't real because it still snows sometimes. You can't make this stuff up.

Just the other day, President Trump mocked clean energy by suggesting that windmills cause cancer. Are you kidding me? That is the President of the United States.

I won't pretend to know what goes on in the President's head, but I know this: His announcement in June 2017 that he would be pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement was indefensible.

This agreement set an ambitious goal of keeping warming below 2 degrees Celsius and established binding commitments for countries to meet to reduce emissions. It recognized climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution.

If the President gets his way and actually withdraws the United States, we would stand alone as one of the only nations in the world not to be part of it. Even Syria, a nation embroiled in war, announced that it would sign on.

Thankfully, we are not out of it yet, but we could be starting as early as 2020.

H.R. 9 would ensure the President wouldn't get his way by requiring him to develop a plan to meet our commitments under the Paris Agreement.

It is called the Climate Action Now Act because we can't wait, Mr. Speaker. Climate change isn't some far-off threat. It is not a problem for our great-grandchildren or even our grandchildren to solve. It is our problem. It is here today, impacting our Nation and our future.

It is not just about the weather. Climate change also negatively impacts public health and our national security. Experts have even developed a new term to describe those displaced by its destructive impacts, ``American climate refugees.''

This is not the time for handwringing or indecisiveness and not the time to let the fossil fuel industry that funds some campaigns outweigh the facts. It is certainly not the time for more stunts or snowballs on the floor.

This is the time to act boldly, to listen to what the scientists are telling us, and to protect our planet for future generations. That is what H.R. 9 is all about.

I ask my colleagues to let the facts rule the day once again in the people's House of Representatives. Let's support this rule and the underlying legislation and send an undeniable message that, under this majority, we value science and recognize the urgent need to act on climate change.

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

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

Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, let me make a couple of points.

First of all, just so the Record is clear, under President Trump's policies, which are now taking effect and are now reversing some of the advances that we made under previous administrations, basically, these policies have consequences. In 2018, our emissions rose by 3.4 percent. We are going in the wrong direction.

When the gentlewoman talks about all these other alternative energy sources that are clean and green that my Republican friends support, she neglects to point out that this President hasn't seen a fossil fuel that he hasn't wanted to embrace. In fact, he wants to go back and invest more in coal, which is hard to believe, given all the scientific evidence that exists about the dangers of coal for our atmosphere.

There is no question where this President is coming from. He doesn't believe in climate change, and that is what is so shocking, that the whole world, the scientific community all over the world, has warned us time and time again that this is a real problem, and we have a President who doesn't believe it. It is stunning. It is stunning, but that is what we are dealing with.

Basically, this is an attempt to try to get us back on the right track, to take this problem, which is already having significant negative consequences in our country, and do something about it.

It is time to come together and tell the President, who doesn't believe in science, that science is real, that it is something we ought to take seriously, and that we ought to do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words from our distinguished minority whip, but I would point out that the cost of climate inaction will far outweigh the cost associated with acting now.

According to the Fourth National Climate Assessment, by 2090, lost wages will reach $155 billion, mortality from extreme temperatures will surpass $140 billion, and coastal property damage will approach $120 billion. All told, the U.S. economy could lose more than 10 percent of its GDP under the worst-case scenario.

So people can deny that this is a problem all they want, but they do so at great economic risk for our country and for other economies around the world.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let me just say to my ranking member, whom I have great respect for, that I think we always need to figure out a way to do better and to be more accommodating, and I will continue to work with him to try to do that. But I will point out for the record that the committee has made in order 30 amendments, a total of 31 pages of amendments on a 6-page bill.

I think we have a long way to go to achieve the record of closed rules that the previous Congress had, well over 100 closed rules. That broke, I think, every closed rule record in history. We certainly don't want to get there, but we need to continue to figure out ways we can be more accommodating, and he has my word that I will do that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, oh my God, just listening to the gentleman from Washington State give his remarks. He was on the Rules Committee when the Republicans were in charge last time and voted for a record number of 103 closed rules. That meant that not a single amendment, Republican or Democrat, could be made in order. Never once, never once, did I hear him express reservation about the historic closed process that the Republicans embraced.

And as far as his amendment goes, as the gentleman knows, the Paris climate agreement operates under the theory that parties should be able to satisfy their compliance plans any way they choose. There are neither preferred nor prohibited ways to reduce emissions.

Since the Paris Agreement is fuel and technology neutral, we think this bill should be too. But I just find it hard to sit here and to listen with any level of seriousness to the gentleman's complaints. When he was on the Rules Committee, they broke every record in the history of Congress being the most closed Congress in the history of our country. Can we do better? Yes, we can, and we should do better.

But I will remind the gentleman, again, that there were 30 pages of amendments made in order on a 6-page bill, a bill, by the way, that the gentlewoman, Mrs. Lesko, said is not a serious bill anyway. So, I am not quite sure what the messaging is here: that it is not serious or that it is serious enough where we need to have more amendments. I can't quite figure their logic out here.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues that the impact on our economy is astronomical if we do nothing. We are already seeing the negative impacts on our economy because of climate change. It is hard to believe that we are having a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives where people are denying that climate change is a real threat or that our constituents somehow don't care about this issue, which they do.

And just one other thing. I want to make sure that the Record is clear on process. This bill went through two committee hearings-- Foreign Affairs and Energy and Commerce--and two markups before it went to the Rules Committee where we granted a structured rule and we are having a debate here on the floor. That is called regular order. I know some of my Republican friends don't know what regular order is, because when they were in charge bills routinely came to the Rules Committee that bypassed committees of jurisdiction and then were closed up and sent to the floor with no amendments at all.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the distinguished chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Washington Post article entitled ``Trump on climate change: `People like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence but we're not necessarily such believers.' ''

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

Trump on Climate Change: `People Like Myself, We Have Very High Levels

of Intelligence but We're Not Necessarily Such Believers'

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

President Trump on Nov. 26 reacted to a major report issued

Nov. 23 that said climate change will challenge the economy,

environment, and human health. (The Washington Post)

President Trump on Tuesday dismissed a landmark report

compiled by 13 federal agencies detailing how damage from

global warming is intensifying throughout the country, saying

he is not among the ``believers'' who see climate change as a

pressing problem.

The comments were the president's most extensive yet on why

he disagrees with his own government's analysis, which found

that climate change poses a severe threat to the health of

Americans, as well as to the country's infrastructure,

economy and natural resources. The findings--unequivocal,

urgent and alarming--are at odds with the Trump

administration's rollback of environmental regulations and

absence of any climate action policy.

``One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we

have very high levels of intelligence but we're not

necessarily such believers,'' Trump said during a

freewheeling 20-minute Oval Office interview with The

Washington Post in which he was asked why he was skeptical of

the dire National Climate Assessment his administration

released Friday.

``As to whether or not it's man-made and whether or not the

effects that you're talking about are there, I don't see

it,'' he added.

Trump did not address the fundamental cause of climate

change. The president riffed on pollution in other parts of

the world. He talked about trash in the oceans. He opined on

forest management practices. But he said little about what

scientists say is actually driving the warming of the

planet--emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of

fossil fuels.

``You look at our air and our water and it's right now at a

record clean. But when you look at China and you look at

parts of Asia and you look at South America, and when you

look at many other places in this world, including Russia,

including many other places, the air is incredibly dirty, and

when you're talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very

small,'' Trump said in an apparent reference to pollution

around the globe. ``And it blows over and it sails over. I

mean we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all

the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down

the Pacific. It flows and we say, `Where does this come

from?' And it takes many people, to start off with.''

Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech

University, said in an email Tuesday that the president's

comments risk leaving the nation vulnerable to the ever-

growing impacts of a warming planet. ``Facts aren't something

we need to believe to make them true--we treat them as

optional at our peril,'' Hayhoe said. ``And if we're the

president of the United States, we do so at the peril of not

just ourselves but the hundreds of millions of people we're

responsible for.''

Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at

Texas A&M University, struggled to find a response to the

president's comments. ``How can one possibly respond to

this?'' Dessler said when reached by email, calling the

president's comments ``idiotic'' and saying Trump's main

motivation seemed to be attacking the environmental policies

of the Obama administration and criticizing political

adversaries.

In his comments, Trump also seemed to invoke a theme that

is common in the world of climate-change skepticism--the idea

that not so long ago, scientists feared global cooling,

rather than the warming that is underway today.

``If you go back and if you look at articles, they talk

about global freezing,'' Trump said. ``They talk about at

some point, the planet is going to freeze to death, then it's

going to die of heat exhaustion.''

This may refer to an oft-cited 1975 Newsweek article titled

``The Cooling World'' or a 1974 Time magazine story titled

``Another Ice Age?'' But researchers who have reviewed this

period have found that while such ideas were indeed afoot at

the time, there was ``no scientific consensus in the 1970s''

about a global cooling trend or risk, as there is today about

human-caused climate change.

In other words, scientists' understanding of where the

planet is headed, and the consequences, is far more developed

now than it was in the 1970s.

At present, Earth has warmed roughly one degree Celsius

(1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above late-19th-century,

preindustrial levels. Multiple analyses have shown that

without rapid emissions cuts--well beyond what the world is

undertaking--the warming will continue and could blow past

key thresholds that scientists say could lead to irrevocable

climate-related catastrophes, such as more-extreme weather,

the death of coral reefs and losses of major parts of

planetary ice sheets.

On Tuesday, a U.N. report underscored again how the world

is far off course on its promises to cut greenhouse-gas

emissions. The report found that, with global emissions still

increasing as of 2017, it is unlikely they will peak by 2020.

Scientists have said carbon emissions must fall sharply in

coming years if the world is to have a chance of avoiding the

worst consequences of climate change.

Trump also made reference to recent devastating wildfires

in California, which scientists say have been made more

intense and deadly by climate change. But the president

instead focused on how the forests that burned have been

managed. Previously, he has praised Finland for spending ``a

lot of time on raking and cleaning'' its forest floors--a

notion that left the Finnish president flummoxed.

``The fire in California, where I was, if you looked at the

floor, the floor of the fire, they have trees that were

fallen,'' Trump said. ``They did no forest management, no

forest maintenance, and you can light--you can take a match

like this and light a tree trunk when that thing is laying

there for more than 14 or 15 months. And it's a massive

problem in California.''

``You go to other places where they have denser trees, it's

more dense, where the trees are more flammable, they don't

have forest fires like this because they maintain,'' he said.

``And it was very interesting I was watching the firemen, and

they were raking brush. . . . It's on fire. They're raking

it, working so hard. If that was raked in the beginning,

there would be nothing to catch on fire.''

Trump wasn't the only administration official on Tuesday to

shrug off the federal government's latest climate warnings.

In a television appearance in California, Interior Secretary

Ryan Zinke acknowledged that fire seasons have grown longer

in the state but added, ``Climate change or not, it doesn't

relieve you of responsibility to manage the forest.''

Meanwhile, asked Tuesday about the findings of the nearly

1,700-page climate report the administration released on

Black Friday, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders echoed

her boss.

``We think that this is the most extreme version and it's

not based on facts,'' Sanders said of the National Climate

Assessment. ``It's not data-driven. We'd like to see

something that is more data-driven. It's based on modeling,

which is extremely hard to do when you're talking about the

climate. Again, our focus is on making sure we have the

safest, cleanest air and water.''

Madam Speaker, I do that because I want the Record to reflect this President's ignorance on an issue that is not only of national concern but of international concern.

In the past three annual worldwide threat assessments, the U.S. intelligence communities have cited climate change as a national security threat and a multiplier of threats that create instability, food and water shortages, refugee and population migration, and economic disruption. This is a matter that we can't ignore anymore. We need to pass this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from leading public health advocates in support of H.R. 9, as well as a letter signed by many of the leading environmental organizations in support of this legislation.

April 29, 2019.

Dear Representative: The undersigned public health and

medical organizations urge you to support H.R. 9, the Climate

Action Now Act. The bill would help ensure that the United

States adheres to the science-based targets in the Paris

Agreement and develops a plan to meet them, both essential

steps to protecting public health from the impacts of climate

change.

Climate change is a public health emergency. The science

clearly shows that communities across the nation are

experiencing the health impacts of climate change, including

enhanced conditions for ozone and particulate air pollution,

which cause asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease and

premature death; increased instances of extreme heat, severe

storms and other destabilizing weather patterns that disrupt

people's access to essential healthcare; increased spread of

vector-borne diseases; and longer and more intense allergy

seasons. These threats are no longer hypothetical, and

Americans across the country have experienced them firsthand.

Every American's health is at risk due to climate change,

but some populations are at greater risk, including infants,

children, seniors, pregnant women, low-income communities,

some communities of color, people with disabilities and many

people with chronic diseases. Evidence and experience shows

that these populations will disproportionately bear the

health impacts of climate change without concerted action to

both mitigate and adapt to climate change.

The science is also clear that limiting increase in global

temperatures to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius is

essential. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

found dramatic differences in health impacts between 1.5 and

2 degrees, including in heat-related morbidity and mortality,

ozone-related mortality, and vector-borne diseases. The Paris

Agreement's goals are to keep the world well under 2 degrees

Celsius and to pursue efforts to further stay below 1.5

degrees.

H.R. 9 is an important step toward what must become a

comprehensive set of policies protect public health from the

worst impacts of climate change. The nation urgently needs to

implement strong, science-based measures to reduce the

emissions that cause climate change. The U.S. must also

invest in health adaptation strategies to help communities

address the varied health impacts they are already facing.

On behalf of the patients and communities we serve, we urge

you to vote YES on H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.

Sincerely,

Allergy & Asthma Network, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy

Environments, American Lung Association, American Public

Health Association, Association of Schools and Programs of

Public Health, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America,

Children's Environmental Health Network, Climate for Health,

Health Care Climate Council, Health Care Without Harm,

National Association of County and City Health Officials,

National Environmental Health Association, National Medical

Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public

Health Institute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This is like the theater of the absurd, when I listen to my Republican colleagues. We have a bill, H.R. 9, that says that the United States should not remove itself from the Paris climate accord. I have one colleague saying that it is a messaging bill that means nothing. I have other Republican colleagues saying that if we pass this, it is the end of the world because it is going to have all these implications.

Then we get lectured to by my Republican colleagues for almost an hour

now that 30 amendments are not enough on a 6-page bill, that we need more and more amendments in order. Then, the gentleman from Georgia comes to the floor and says: I want to offer the Green New Deal, and I want to offer it under a closed rule where nobody can amend it.

I mean, you can't make this stuff up. The Republicans are saying: We don't want hearings, and we don't want markups. We want nothing. We just want to bring it to the floor under a closed rule so that nobody, Democrats or Republicans, can amend it.

I support the Green New Deal. I have some ideas to make it a little bit better. I would like to have some amendments made in order. But my Republican friends say no amendments, closed rule, shut it all down. Old habits die hard.

When the Republicans were in charge, they presided over the most closed Congress in the history of our country, and they just can't break that old habit.

Well, you know what? We want to move on a Green New Deal, but we want to do it right. We want to do hearings, and you can have some of your friends and allies who are climate-change deniers come to testify against it if you want. We will bring experts and scientists because we believe in science. We will have them come to talk about why it is important and how we can improve it.

We look forward to that, but not under a closed rule with no hearings and no markups. This is embarrassing.

Madam Speaker, the United States has a unique role to play in fighting climate change, not just because we should be leading the way on innovation or because we have the largest economy anywhere but because we played a major role in furthering this crisis.

Between 1970 and 2013, the U.S. ranked number one in total carbon emissions. We released more carbon into the atmosphere than China, Japan, or any of the other 40 global nations. That is according to the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research. I don't think we should be turning our back on a problem that we helped create.

It isn't a radical or partisan idea. Experts consider 1988 to be the year that the science behind climate change became widely known and accepted, and that is the year when a Republican Presidential nominee, George H.W. Bush, pledged that he would fight the greenhouse effect with the ``White House effect.''

We have come a long way since then, Madam Speaker, and I don't mean positively. There was a time when Republicans cared about the environment, when they understood that issues like the climate crisis were something that we needed to work on in a bipartisan way. Now they have become the party of climate change deniers.

This is the challenge of our generation. It is more important than petty partisanship.

President Trump seems obsessed with dismantling anything that Barack Obama has ever done. That doesn't mean that Congress should sit idly by when it comes at the expense of the future of our planet.

With climate change, public health is at risk and our national security is endangered. The President may be unwilling to rise to the challenge, but this Democratic majority is not. Congress shouldn't let another one of his temper tantrums ruin our planet.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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.

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. 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.