The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CLIMATE ACTION NOW ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H3411-H3420 on May 2, 2019.
The Department includes the Census Bureau, which is used to determine many factors about American life. Downsizing the Federal Government, a project aimed at lowering taxes and boosting federal efficiency, said the Department is involved in misguided foreign trade policies and is home to many unneeded programs.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CLIMATE ACTION NOW ACT
General Leave
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 9.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 329 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 9.
Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten) kindly take the chair.
{time} 0917
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 9) to direct the President to develop a plan for the United States to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement, and for other purposes, with Mr. Casten of Illinois
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May 1, 2019, amendment No. 20 printed in House Report 116-42 offered by the gentlewoman from Nevada (Mrs. Lee) had been disposed of.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Kim
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed in House Report 116-42.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, line 25, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 8, line 5, strike ``Agreement.'' and insert
``Agreement; and''.
Page 8, after line 5, insert the following paragraph:
(3) how the Paris Agreement's loss and damage provisions would affect infrastructure resiliency in the United States.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kim) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 9.
My amendment is straightforward. This bill requires the President to submit a plan to Congress to meet our obligations under the Paris accord. This amendment ensures that we do not forget the impact of our infrastructure when addressing the threat of climate change.
We know that climate change is real. We know that we are already feeling its effects and that it will only intensify. Strong scientific research tells us that storms are getting stronger and more frequent. Sea levels are rising, and this poses a direct threat to our coastal communities.
While this bill and the Paris accord take significant steps to address the root causes of climate change, we must be prepared to address the significant impact it is having on our Nation's infrastructure today.
My district in New Jersey was among the hardest hit by Superstorm Sandy. Toms River alone saw $2.25 billion in property damages, the highest out of any township in New Jersey, and we are still recovering from that storm that hit our State years ago.
In 2017 we saw three of the five costliest storms in our history in Harvey, Maria, and Irma. Rising sea levels are increasing the severity and frequency of flooding and are contributing to beach erosion, posing a major threat to our coastal tourism economy.
Climate change isn't just measured by rising tides and rising temperatures. It is measured by the rising costs that will incur on our communities and the investment needed in infrastructure to keep our communities resilient in the face of that threat.
In the coming months, as we hopefully take up and pass a bold infrastructure package, this amendment will provide guidance towards achieving the infrastructure resiliency our communities need. We know that infrastructure improvements don't only need to come in the form of potholes fixed and bridges rebuilt, they need to lessen the impact of rising storm surges from the next big storm and make sure communities like mine in Ocean County can remain a place for people to raise a family, create jobs, and achieve the American Dream.
The Paris Agreement's loss and damage provision recognizes the importance of updating our infrastructure to help communities deal with the adverse impacts of climate change. I urge that we include this amendment because it is crucial that there is an understanding from top to bottom of the threat that climate change poses and the impact that it will have toward infrastructure resiliency across our country.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ensure we are not only protecting our climate but the infrastructure we need to support our communities, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him for his leadership.
This issue of infrastructure resiliency is so important. We are now discussing doing major infrastructure legislation to rebuild America in a way that is making it safer, by promoting commerce and improving the quality of life by decreasing the amount of time people have to spend in their cars. By increasing broadband and all of the things that enable people, whether it is healthcare, education, or commerce, the infrastructure is so central to that.
When we talk about infrastructure, we have to talk about resiliency; and when we talk about climate change, we have to talk about infrastructure. So this is a very important amendment, and I rise to support it.
I thank the gentleman for sharing his New Jersey experience in terms of the need for resiliency in this very wise amendment.
I also want to rise in support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act. I commend Chairwoman Kathy Castor who is the chair of our House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and also the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Engel, for his leadership on this important issue which is under the jurisdiction of his committee. They bring vision, they bring values, and they bring the voices of Members and the American people to make a difference.
We thank our freshman Members, in particular, who have carried the priorities of their communities to Congress to demand climate action now. And I think it is very appropriate that the gentleman in the chair is on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and has been a leader in the private sector, now in the public sector, on this important issue as we go forward.
It is time, Mr. Chairman, to end denial about this and start listening to the facts. This is about science, science, science. An overwhelming number, 86 percent, of Americans know that this is a crisis. They know that human behavior has an impact on it, and they want us to act.
We all have stories from our communities.
One of my constituents wrote:
My daughter has developed asthma. It wrenches me to see her used as a canary in a coal mine. We are literally choking on the denial and inaction.
Another writes:
Green jobs are guaranteed local jobs and will put people to work. Survival is now poised to become a viable economic sector.
Let me just say that this is about jobs, jobs, jobs. It is very important for our country to be preeminent in the world on the green technologies, and this legislation is in recognition of that. It is about public health, about clean air and clean water, the air our children breathe and the water they drink, and it is about environmental justice in that regard as well that all children will be able to live in a safe, clean environment in which they can thrive.
It is about our national security. Over and over again the national security experts, the generals and the admirals, have come to us and said that this is a global security issue, because of what impact the climate change crisis is doing to the use of water and access to food and how natural disasters affect migration and also how that can lead to initiation of hostilities among people. It is a national security issue in terms of how we use our resources for our national security as well.
It is a moral issue. If you believe, as I and some in the evangelical community do, that this planet is God's creation and we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of it, then you would be sure to be a good steward and sign up for climate action now.
But even if you don't share that religious belief, we all know that we have a moral responsibility to the next generation to pass this planet on in a better way than we found it in a very responsible way.
So it is we must take action. The bill demands action now, by keeping us in the only international agreement dedicated to ending the climate crisis and demanding a plan of action from the administration, and Mr. Kim has put forth that plan to recognize infrastructure resiliency as the administration comes forward.
We are sending a signal to the world that the U.S. is in denial about the overwhelming science about climate, but this bill is a step in the right direction.
I am very proud of the work the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and other committees of jurisdiction are doing. But it is a task for every committee of the Congress to look at the jurisdiction of the committee and to see how, in terms of jobs, public health, national security, and, again, our moral responsibility to our children and future generations--it is everybody's responsibility in the Congress. It is a Congress-wide responsibility.
I do thank the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis for the focus that it is placing on all of this. We will be able to accommodate so many entrepreneurial ideas, new thinking on the subject, being current on the data and on the science. So we have a tremendous generational opportunity and responsibility.
I thank all who are involved in this for their extraordinary leadership. Anyone who cares about our planet and our children's future is deeply in debt to those who have taken the lead on this.
Under President Bush's leadership when he was President and we had our select committee then, we passed the biggest energy bill in history. While everyone was not in agreement on the climate crisis, we all agreed that we had to take action. President Bush signed the bill in a big ceremony, and it was the equivalent of taking tens of millions of cars off the road in how we raised the emissions standards. It was important, and that legislation was the basis for many of the executive actions that President Obama was able to take under the authority of that legislation.
So that was very important, and it was bipartisan. Hopefully, we can be bipartisan as we go forward for the next big steps that we have to take.
Technology has come a long way since then. Science informs us better. Current events have made it very clear: we have an imperative to have climate action now.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote for Mr. Kim's amendment to H.R. 9.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
{time} 0930
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. On behalf of both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment. It is a good amendment.
I also thank the gentleman for working with the committees on this amendment.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chair, I reiterate that my amendment is straightforward. It recognizes the importance of safeguarding our communities and updating infrastructure to protect against the adverse impacts of climate change.
We can see that storms are getting worse and worse and costlier. The storms are not hitting just red States or blue States. They are hitting all of us.
I urge all my colleagues to stand behind my amendment and lend your support to ensure that our communities are resilient after the next big storm so that they can remain a place for people to raise a family, create jobs, and achieve the American Dream.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, it is, again, great to be here this morning. I appreciate Speaker Pelosi coming down and talking about bipartisan solutions and working together.
Obviously, on this piece of legislation, I think the terminology was demanding a plan for the administration. Well, that assumes that the administration would sign this bill. That also assumes that the Senate would pass this bill. Even if the President would sign a bill that he doesn't want to enact, he would probably then veto the bill he just signed. Then we would sustain his veto.
If we want to move forward, then we want to do things that can get through the Senate and get to the President's desk. That is why, all afternoon yesterday, we talked about--and this amendment has some of those issues in it--adaptation, resiliency, grid modernization, and how do you adapt.
We appreciate the intent on which this amendment is being brought forward.
On another cautionary note, in the Paris accord, when it talks about addressing loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change, it is referring to the Paris accord's provision for developing countries. That accord doesn't have provisions for developed countries.
Maybe as things move forward with my colleague from New Jersey, we can make sure we address that appropriately.
We would like to have these studies done before we go into international agreements when we don't know how they are going to respond, versus after the fact, just like the cart before the horse. Then we will know that this is a good deal, that we should do this, or maybe that we shouldn't.
We had a couple of amendments last night that talked about all the bad aspects but none of the positive aspects. We also had a couple that said let's look at the good and the bad.
I would suggest that, in an amendment, there may be some areas of the country in which the infrastructure is not going to be harmed. In fact, an area of the country might even benefit from these changes.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kim).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mrs. Fletcher
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 printed in House Report 116-42.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, after line 20, insert the following new subsection:
(d) Technology Neutral.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to require or prohibit the inclusion of a specific energy technology or technologies in the plan required by this section.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 4 minutes, and I rise in support of my amendment.
Innovation drives the energy industry, and it is important that we continue to follow a technology-neutral approach that allows the best science to flourish and the best technologies to emerge.
When it comes to energy innovation, my home in Houston is its home. Houston, long known as the energy capital of the world, is the epicenter of our modern energy renaissance. Home to virtually every segment of the energy industry, including exploration, production, transmission, marketing, supply, and technology, we see opportunities for innovation in all sectors of the energy industry.
Over the last decade in particular, energy technology has enabled us to recover resources in new areas and new ways. Advances in technology that have transformed our energy economy have substantially reduced U.S. carbon emissions.
Replacing coal-fired plants with natural gas plants has led to the greatest reduction in carbon emissions in the last 30 years, and we are leading the way on new technologies critical to reaching our emissions reduction goals and combating climate change, like carbon capture technologies. Two plants are near my district in Houston.
We believe in an all-of-the-above approach to energy sources that reduces costs as well as emissions, and we see that in Texas' investment in wind energy.
In Texas, we have installed more wind power generation than any State, three times as much as the next leading State.
Houston is home to more than 100 solar-related companies.
These statistics may surprise some, but they should not because energy companies, whether renewable or hydrocarbon-based, are really technology companies that apply their technology to energy.
My amendment ensures that nothing in this act will favor one fuel source or one technology over another.
Climate change is a global threat. We need the input of a diverse and broad coalition of stakeholders that have the energy expertise we need to chart our path forward, and we need to encourage innovation and technology in every area.
Mr. Chair, it is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding to me.
On behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment. It is a good amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman for working with the committees on the amendment.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, this is the perfect example of an amendment that, as we move something forward that might be able to be considered by the Senate and signed by the President, I think we would be very interested in dealing with.
Although, I guess I am a little confused. The amendment says we don't want to be technologically specific, although you mentioned the benefits of carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization, which is an amendment we had in the committee to try to say these are some good technologies we ought to consider.
A lot of folks on our side have been excited about the energy renaissance, the ability to recover more oil. We know the great stories of Texas and the ability to capture carbon and sequester it with utilization for money to help deal with other issues.
I think when we move in the direction of a bill that we plan to get through the Senate and the House, we should keep our communications open because I think there are some bipartisan solutions.
The Republicans have always talked about conservation, innovation, and adaptation. This is part of the innovation package.
We also have advanced nuclear in that package. We also have pump storage and batteries in that package. I think there are opportunities here.
We offered, as I said, in the committee, the value of nuclear and advanced nuclear energy, hydropower, carbon capture, and the production and export of natural gas. Part of my portfolio of volunteer activities is in the Eastern European bloc. Obviously, the ability to export natural gas has been a boon to these countries that don't want to be enslaved to Russian natural gas.
Again, there are things we can do. When we talk about innovation necessary to produce a strong economy, energy security, and lower emissions, we have to focus on the benefits of these technologies. While I can agree with the idea of this amendment, I think it falls short of what is necessary for Congress to assist our priorities.
Mr. Chair, I encourage a ``no'' vote, but I look forward to working with my colleague in the future, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Ms. Pressley
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 printed in House Report 116-42.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, after line 19, insert the following paragraph:
(3) The Paris Agreement specifies the need for a strong global response to climate change and when taking action, the need to respect, promote, and safeguard the right to health now and for future generations.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.
My amendment is a commonsense amendment that reaffirms the interconnection between climate change and public health disparities plaguing communities across our country and throughout the globe.
Mr. Chair, despite arguments to the contrary by many, there is no such thing as planet B. This is the only Earth we have, and we need to act like it. H.R. 9 will ensure that this administration acts accordingly.
It has been said that politicians consider future elections while statesmen and -women consider future generations. It is our responsibility to consider future generations, to take the necessary actions to reestablish our Nation as a leader in the global fight to combat climate change.
The impacts of climate change are not some futuristic threat. The threats are imminent; we are being confronted by them daily; and we must act now.
Climate scientists have made clear that, if we are to continue down this path without action, it will be too late. We must act now. We must act today. We must act at this very moment.
Climate change and global warming are threatening all aspects of our society and increasing the risk to human lives and health today, particularly for vulnerable communities like Roxbury and Chelsea in my district. These communities are finding themselves on the front lines of the crisis.
For example, in Boston's Chinatown neighborhood, a predominantly immigrant and low-income community that falls at the crossroads of two major highways, my constituents breathe some of the most toxic air in all of Boston, air polluted with car exhaust and other irritants that are exacerbated by rising heat levels.
While these are largely invisible pollutants, the impacts are crystal clear. Over the last several years, asthma rates at the Josiah Quincy Elementary School in the heart of Chinatown have jumped from 18 to 25 percent.
Mr. Chair, let me make this plain. Our children are breathing toxic air.
These climate injustices are far-reaching. According to a report released earlier this week by the American Lung Association, more than 141 million people in the U.S. live in communities with unhealthy levels of toxic pollution, including many living in my home State of Massachusetts where air quality has worsened each year.
The World Health Organization estimates that 7 million people around the world die each year as a result of these types of air pollution exposures. These toxic pollutants are affecting 9 out of 10 people, the vast majority of the world's population.
These statistics are staggering and, quite frankly, terrifying. If it seems that we are being fatalists, it is because the threat is a fatal one.
Again, my amendment recognizes the critical impact that climate change poses to our fundamental right to breathe clean air, to drink clean water, and to live in clean and safe communities.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Let me say, with pleasure, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment. It is a good amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman for working with the committees on this amendment.
{time} 0945
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, we really don't need a Paris Agreement to meet substantial changes in the carbon dioxide, or, as my colleague was speaking, she was really referring to the Clean Air Act and the four criteria pollutants that we have so aggressively addressed since 1992.
Having said that, what is better for the poor and the downtrodden is to have a job. What is better for their health and economic opportunity is to have a job. What also helps is that they have a good paying job that provides great healthcare benefits.
So, from 2015 to 2018, out of the industrialized countries, the United States is the number one reducer of carbon dioxide--number one. We didn't have to do it with all these international accords. We do it through innovation, technology, and advancement.
But carbon dioxide emissions went up last year. That is a known fact. The question is why. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have one of the best economies that I have ever served in in the House of Representatives, where there are help wanted signs all over the place.
As the manufacturing sector grows, there is a need to address these emissions. That is why Republicans continue to look forward to the day when we can join with our Democratic colleagues on conservation, innovation, and adaptation, moving some bills and processes through the floor that will be received well in the Senate and to the President's desk.
I think, rather than focus on the finding, we should debate bipartisan solutions such as boosting research, advanced technologies, and promoting innovation. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Ms. Schrier
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 printed in House Report 116-42.
Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, after line 20, insert the following new subsection:
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed to require or prohibit the President from including or considering voluntary agricultural practices to be undertaken by farmers and ranchers, thereby contributing to the development of soil organic matter, increasing carbon sequestration, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and contributing to meeting the goals and ambitions of the Paris Agreement.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment would support farmers and ranchers who employ agricultural practices that help us meet the goals and ambitions of the Paris Agreement.
In order to combat climate change, we are all going to have to work together. Ours is a country that has already banded together to take on the greatest challenges of our times, and this is no exception. This is a time for the United States to not just partner, but to lead the world in protecting this planet for our children and future generations.
Now, farmers and ranchers are on the front line of the climate crisis, and they are stepping up. Droughts, fires, and floods are threatening their safety and their livelihoods. My time on the Agriculture Committee and time spent with growers in my district have shown me that farmers are deeply invested in addressing our climate and are eager to be part of the solution.
Farmers are already expanding no-till practices, rotating crops, and planting cover crops to sequester carbon, fix nitrogen and other soil nutrients, and reduce erosion. With that healthier soil packed with organic matter, they are decreasing their reliance on fossil fuel-based fertilizers, increasing yields, saving water, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
We must recognize and celebrate the contributions of our farmers who engage in sustainable ag practices. My amendment would support this agricultural ingenuity and creativity and prevent this administration from standing in the way of farmers and ranchers who are fighting climate change.
The climate crisis is an urgent matter, and there isn't one silver bullet. Let's recognize that the solution will require something from all of us and support our farmers who can make a tremendous dent in CO2 emissions.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Let me say with pleasure, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also the Energy and Commerce Committee, I support this amendment. It is a good amendment, and I want to thank the gentlewoman for working with the committee on this amendment.
Ms. SCHRIER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate that it is so important that we all step up.
When I hear my colleagues talking about jobs, needing to do other things, waiting, this is too advanced. It is frustrating to see that 2 years passed and we saw absolutely no legislation to protect our climate. Kicking the can down the road further just puts our future in peril, along with the future of our children.
So I would ask for that step of faith that we will protect jobs. I am happy to say that H.R. 9 specifically notes that, in addressing our changing climate, this will create jobs, clean energy jobs, and you can rest assured that our economy will flourish with addressing our climate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, again, to my colleague, and I appreciate it. She has me at a disadvantage because I have a huge ag district, 33 counties in southern Illinois, more pigs than people. I have corn, beans, and the like, so we appreciate this; and we appreciate this amendment because of the voluntary action of it and trying to incentivize and appreciate what our agriculture community has done because, as you know, other proposals out there that are debated in Washington might have some severe effects on agriculture.
I also want to take this time to say we did a lot in the last Congress. I think the misnomer is that if we don't say ``climate change'' and we move good public policy, that we haven't done anything.
Through the House, we passed:
The Energy Efficient Government Technology Act; that was actually voice voted and sponsored by Anna Eshoo from California;
Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act, Bob Latta from Ohio;
Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act, which this is another thing we did in the last Congress;
Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, Pete Olson from Texas;
Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment, the SENSE Act;
Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act by Bill Johnson;
Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act of 2017, another bill to reauthorize the West Valley Act.
Of course, I am a proud sponsor, with a huge bipartisan vote, for what was H.R. 3053, which was how do you deal with the nuclear waste provision.
So we actually moved a lot of bills in the last Congress, and many of those bills were in a bipartisan manner.
Yes, we do not carry the mantle of ``Paris'' or ``climate,'' but not everything has to be a subtitle of that major provision, especially if you are doing what we are trying to do in the House, which is bring to the floor bills in a bipartisan manner.
Conservation, that would be like energy efficiency, new source review, forest management practices. Being from Washington State, the gentlewoman understands the forest issues and the concerns that we do more forest management practices. Maybe some of our fires would be less so.
Innovation; advanced nuclear power; carbon capture; utilization; sequestration, which we spoke about in an amendment previously; and also pump storage batteries.
Also, from Washington State, the gentlewoman knows the benefits of hydropower, and if we can pump that water back up and have a continuous cycle, that is a pretty green use of power.
Adaptation, grid modernization, resiliency, and things on GMO crops, crops that can change if the environment is changing, if the growing cycles change. Right now we have drought-resistant corn. We might have to have corn that grows in wetter conditions. That is all part of the adaptation that we need to talk about.
So I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment and the chance to discuss these issues. I support voluntary action. The idea of this amendment will be better served focusing on examining the costs of these commitments, like some of our Republican amendments try to do, as we move this bill outside of the committee.
I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington will be postponed.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Neguse
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 printed in House Report 116-42.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment. It is at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, after line 10, insert the following new subsection
(and redesignate the subsequent subsection accordingly):
(c) Education and Public Awareness.--
(1) In general.--The plan under this section shall be consistent with Article 12 of the Paris Agreement, which states ``Parties shall cooperate in taking measures, as appropriate, to enhance climate change education, training, public awareness, public participation and public access to information, recognizing the importance of these steps with respect to enhancing actions under this Agreement.''.
(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to require or prohibit the President from including in the plan under this section, consistent with the prohibition described in section 438 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232a), recommendations to support State and local educational agencies, in integrating instruction on human-caused climate change and the societal, environmental, and economic effects of such climate change into curricula taught in elementary and secondary schools under the control of such State and local educational agencies, in order to meet the goals and ambitions of the Paris Agreement to ensure climate education and awareness in schools.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment today to provide a pathway for the curriculum in our elementary and secondary schools to include information on the impacts of climate change. Eighty percent of parents and 86 percent of teachers believe that schools should teach about climate change and its impacts on our environment, our economy, and our society.
As our future generations grow up in a world that is impacted by extreme weather events and a changing climate, it is essential that we educate them on the causes and impacts of the crisis, as well as equip them for finding solutions to combat it.
Climate change truly is an existential threat, in my view, that we must begin tackling head-on. Science is perfectly clear that we have a very short runway to avoid catastrophic consequences for our planet, and this moment requires bold action now. The solutions we find and the bold policies that our country requires to combat this current crisis must begin with education.
While it is our duty to get the ball rolling on policies and programs that will begin to mitigate climate change-related issues, make no mistake: It is our children who will feel the brunt of the effects that our scientific community has outlined time and time again.
When my daughter, Natalie, who is now 8 months old, is attending middle school, climate change and its impacts on our planet will be her reality. She should be equipped with every resource we are able to offer her at that time, and that begins with education.
This amendment underscores the importance of State and local efforts to teach our youth the causes and effects of climate change. Again, the science is clear, and it is of the utmost importance that the next generation is presented with the facts of this crisis.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, thank the gentleman for yielding and say unequivocally, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, we, both committees, support this very good amendment. I also want to thank the gentleman for working with the committees on this amendment.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the chairman for his distinguished leadership in chairing the Foreign Affairs full committee and for his leadership in shepherding this important resolution to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my colleagues across the aisle could come to consensus on this amendment. I think it is a commonsense, reasonable amendment that ensures that our children, the next generation, are, as I said, well-informed about the causes and the effects of climate change so that they can work with all of us to try to stop it and to try to deal with the planetary crisis that we find ourselves in.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1000
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague bringing that up. I taught high school for 4 years, so education is key.
This whole provision of moving to the Paris accord was done without education of the Members of Congress. It was an executive branch decision.
We can debate whether the President had the authority or didn't have the authority, but we think what happened was that there was not total buy-in. Had it been presented as an agreement or had it been presented as a treaty, it wouldn't have passed either Chamber.
I do agree that education is very, very important. However, I also believe in local control. Republicans will always have a challenge with the Federal Government directing, dictating, and telling our local schools what their curriculum should be.
Mr. Chair, that is why I oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Van Drew
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 printed in House Report 116-42.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 6, after line 23, insert the following new paragraphs
(and redesignate the subsequent paragraph accordingly):
(8) Article 8 of the Paris Agreement notes Parties recognize the importance of averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events, and the role of sustainable development in reducing the risk of loss and damage such as strong winds from hurricanes and tropical storms, and flooding from storm surges and heavy rain, that inflict losses on various sectors of the United States economy.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, my amendment would add to the findings of the importance of averting, minimizing, and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events.
It is well known that extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and tropical storms, are some of the most devastating and costly consequences of a warming world, displacing thousands of people at a time and costing government billions of dollars to recover.
The good people of south Jersey know that climate change is occurring because our streets flood almost every time it rains in the coastal areas. Unfortunately, we also have the painful reminder of Superstorm Sandy.
On October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy first struck the mainland near Brigantine, New Jersey, in my district, pounding our coast with winds of over 70 miles per hour and 13-foot storm surges, ultimately killing 147 people.
Superstorm Sandy was the most destructive natural disaster ever to strike the State of New Jersey and ranks among the five costliest natural disasters in our Nation's history.
Here is some of the damage caused by Sandy: Almost 350,000 homes were damaged. 1,400 vessels were sunk or abandoned. Seventy drinking water systems were affected. Eighty wastewater treatment plants suffered power loss or damage. The entire coastline experienced erosion. And untold billions were sucked out of our economy.
We need to recognize that climate change is exacerbating the intensity and the frequency of extreme weather events that often cause the loss of life, property, and security.
Staying in the Paris Agreement is good for jobs and good for the economy.
Investing in clean, low-carbon technologies will help us expand and develop the industries of the future and help us compete globally against other countries that are already making significant investments in these fields.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which simply acknowledges the need to reduce and avoid the human and economic toll brought on by the changing climate and that we need to develop our economy in a sustainable fashion.
Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and say, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment.
New York, which is just up from New Jersey, also suffered tremendously from Superstorm Sandy. In fact, a lot of the repairs that we are doing now to the New York City subway are a direct result of that, so I certainly appreciate the gentleman's words and concern.
This is a good amendment, and I thank the gentleman for working with the committees on this amendment.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, we appreciate this amendment. A lot of these amendments are putting the cart before the horse. It would have been interesting to have these debates about resiliency and efficiencies prior to the administration going into the Paris accord. You do the research first and then you make a decision.
Now what we are trying to do is say, okay, we have this Paris accord that the President has stepped away from, so now let's evaluate what impacts are happening.
We did accept an amendment yesterday in this debate to look at both positive and negative aspects, which I think is a fair balance. There are going to be some areas of the country that are going to benefit; there are going to be some areas of the country that are going to be disadvantaged. So I think that is helpful in this debate.
There is a lot of talk about an infrastructure bill coming up. We hope that would be something we would move in a bipartisan manner. I know that it is always going to be asked how to pay for it.
I am willing to make the tough calls on how to pay for it. But in that infrastructure bill, it would be great if the resiliency of communities and these concerns that are being addressed could be wrapped up in something like that.
Again, for this bill, Leader McConnell just said on the floor that they are not going to address it. Even if they did, the President wouldn't sign it.
We will get to a point in time in this Congress when we will work together.
Republicans believe in conservation, innovation, and adaptation. This is part of the adaptation portfolio, and we look forward to working with you as we move forward.
This amendment does nothing to affect CO2 reductions, so I will oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be postponed.
Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Levin of California
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 printed in House Report 116-42.
Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, after line 5, insert the following new paragraph:
(9) The Paris Agreement has driven innovation in developing cleaner, more reliable, and more affordable forms of energy, demonstrating that addressing climate change and providing affordable energy to American consumers are not mutually exclusive. The Paris Agreement encouraged the United States to develop a Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization, which was submitted on November 16, 2016. The Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization stated that ``energy efficiency improvements enable the energy system to provide the services we need with fewer resources and emissions. Over the past several years, the United States has demonstrated that programs and standards to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, appliances and vehicles can cost-effectively cut carbon pollution and lower energy bills, while maintaining significant support from U.S. industry and consumers.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today to mark a monumental occasion for this body and offer an amendment to H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.
After years of denial, outright lies, and inaction on the climate crisis under Republican leadership in the House, we are finally taking meaningful steps to protect our planet for future generations.
While the President denies climate change exists, promotes fake scientists who believe pollution is good, and pulls us backward, we are embracing the scientific consensus that climate change is real; it is driven by human action; and it is already having a detrimental impact on our health and our planet.
There are a lot of myths about climate change that we must dispel. One of the biggest myths I hear is that we cannot combat climate change, invest in clean energy, and grow our economy at the same time. We know that isn't true.
In California, we have seen strong GDP and per capita income growth while also leading the country in the fight to combat the climate crisis.
We also know that renewable energy options are often more affordable for consumers than traditional fossil fuels. That is why my amendment to the Climate Action Now Act adds three key facts about our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and maintain affordable energy options at the same time.
First, the greenhouse gas emissions reductions spurred by the Paris Agreement have driven innovation for reliable and affordable forms of energy, which demonstrates that emissions reductions and affordable energy are not mutually exclusive.
Second, the United States' long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy under the Paris Agreement touted energy efficiency improvements in buildings, appliances, and vehicles as a way to cost-
effectively reduce emissions and lower energy bills.
Third, this strategy has had the support of both industry and consumers.
This amendment is very simple. It should not be controversial. Members of both parties should be able to agree that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, invest in clean energy alternatives, and maintain affordable energy options at the same time.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to recognize this simple fact and support my amendment to H.R. 9.
Ultimately, this is about the planet we leave behind for our children and our grandchildren. With a 5- and 6-year-old at home, I am proud to cosponsor the Climate Action Now Act and support bold and commonsense solutions to the climate crisis.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and want to gladly say, on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment.
It is a very good amendment, an important amendment. I thank the gentleman for working with the committees on this amendment.
Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips).
Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Levin for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Representative Levin's amendment and H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.
I know when you think of Minnesota, the first thing you think of is snow. It is true that we know how to handle a snowy winter. But this year, the Midwest was hit with record levels of snowfall, and when all that snow melted, it led to record levels of flooding.
Farms and homes across the entire region have been devastated, and it is because of climate change, one of the greatest threats of our time.
We must lead, and we must be on the right side of history, so I cannot understand why the President pulled us out of the Paris climate agreement.
I support H.R. 9 to recommit us to this agreement because we should be running toward sustainable solutions, not away from them.
Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, again, first of all, I appreciate my colleague, one whom I have gotten a chance to know. I look forward to working with him on some issues down the road.
I want to take this time to kind of reject the premise that nothing has been done. In the debate a little while ago, I mentioned the 15 or 20 bills that had passed the House in a bipartisan manner. These were signed into law, a lot of the hydroelectric extensions in H.R. 2122 and H.R. 2292 to extend the project of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission involving the Cannonsville dam. Hydroelectric power is clean, renewable. I can go through a whole list of things that were done.
As I said in debate earlier, just because we don't put the stamp of
``Paris'' or ``climate change'' on a piece of legislation doesn't mean that it is not going to help reduce our carbon exposure. In fact, our country has the largest reduction of CO2 of any industrialized nation from 2015 to 2018.
Having said that, I also would readily admit, and the Chair has heard me say this many times, that in 2019, our emissions went up. But that was because we have a thriving economy with more manufacturing. So this debate is still very important.
This amendment suggests that the measures that the Obama administration were putting in place to meet the commitments in the Paris Agreement were affordable. A lot of us would reject that premise when you look at the cost per kilowatt hour of major generation, baseload versus the green.
We have always tried to be kind of an all-of-the-above. Actually, in part of my congressional district, which is very large, I have one of the biggest wind farms in Illinois. That is in the Champaign County, Vermilion County, Ford County area in southern Illinois.
{time} 1015
Also, solar power. Because of the actions our State General Assembly has done, we have a lot of solar power construction going on in the State of Illinois. An all-of-the-above approach is what we would hope for.
We look forward to the time when this, too, shall pass, this debate on this bill, which will then go to the Senate and die, and then we work back with my friends in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairman Engel is also on the Energy and Commerce Committee, so he knows that we will eventually get to the aspect where we can move in a bipartisan manner.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Crow
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28 printed in House Report 116-42.
Mr. CROW. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, after line 5, insert the following:
(9) In its nationally determined contribution, the United States notes that pursuant to Executive Order 13693 (2015), the Federal Government has committed to reduce emissions 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and reaffirmed the Department of Defense's goal to procure renewable energy across military installations and operations ``to drive national greenhouse gas reductions and support preparations for the impacts of climate change''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. CROW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to highlight the continuing work at the Department of Defense to procure renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make our military more resilient in the face of climate change.
The American military is the strongest in the world. It is also the world's biggest consumer of energy. In 2017, our Armed Forces consumed over 85 million barrels of fuel to power ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and bases. As a combat veteran, I know firsthand that our reliance on fossil fuels at home and on the battlefield makes us very vulnerable.
Moreover, current and former DOD civilian and military leaders have argued that climate change presents a rising threat to our force readiness and has exposed vulnerabilities of critical operations. They have argued that climate change is an urgent national security threat, and I agree.
Warming oceans lead to higher tides, putting our Nation's critical infrastructure at risk. Severe weather has already wrought havoc on military assets, including Tyndall Air Force Base, which will likely require $5 billion in repairs after Hurricane Michael. Climate change is already causing mass migrations that affect the stability of nations and will put our national security and that of our allies at risk.
The purpose of my amendment is to make the DOD's contributions to the government sustainability efforts a part of the conversation surrounding H.R. 9. And the DOD's accomplishments should be lauded: the DOD has invested heavily in microgrids, renewable energy resources, and fuel-efficient vehicles.
Additionally, last year's NDAA required the military to build on its obligations to address climate change by incorporating energy and climate resiliency efforts into its installation and operational planning.
The DOD has done a lot so far and is a model for the rest of the U.S. Government, but there is more to be done.
Going forward, we have a unique opportunity to support sustainable policies, while also securing our bases, saving taxpayer money, and protecting the environment. One of the best examples is Fort Hood, Texas. Fort Hood has invested in technology to harness renewable energy and ensure that power is being efficiently managed. It is estimated that the combination of microgrids and renewable energy will save Fort Hood $100 million in energy costs. It is also hardened against potential vulnerabilities in the electrical grid, which is a win for our security.
We must scale smart, practical solutions, like those at the DOD, to make our force more resilient, agile, and efficient.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the chairman.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say that on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee we support this amendment. It is a very good amendment. I also thank the gentleman for working with our committees on this amendment.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CROW. Mr. Chairman, simply put, the Federal Government cannot meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement without DOD's past, ongoing, and future contributions to this effort. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize this fact and support my amendment.
This is very simple. This is an opportunity for a win-win-win, which is often hard to come by these days, but this is good for the American taxpayers. It will save us hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars by promoting these efforts and increasing energy resiliency and efficiency. It is a win for our national security, because it is one of our largest vulnerabilities. Our bases are subject to cyberattack and are very vulnerable to continuity decreases in our operations. And it is a win for the environment.
This is something that we have to do and that we have an obligation to do in support of our national security.
Mr. Chairman, again, I urge everyone to join in supporting this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I also thank my colleague for his service. I, too, served in the Army infantry during the Cold War. They are a band of brothers, and we do appreciate his service to the country.
Also, I do appreciate that the National Defense Authorization Act, passed in the last Congress, has been helpful. That is another example of, it wasn't couched in climate change, but it was couched in national defense. That is where, again, I will continue to make the arguments and the comments that things have been going on. I don't want to read the first list of bills and stuff that we have passed over the last Congress.
The military is also looking at small modular nuclear reactors in some isolated locations. That will be part of the issues in the innovation area that Republicans could be very, very supportive of. We look forward to having those debates.
I also know forward operating bases of solar technology and of solar power help keep our warfighters prepared and able to communicate. It is just the smart thing to do versus trying to haul crude oil or generators and stuff to places where it would not be in the best interest of our warfighters to have.
So the focus is good. The Republicans, again, believe in conservation, innovation, and adaptation. When we move a bill that will get a chance to be heard by the Senate and that we work together, the goal would be to get something on the President's desk that he will sign. This is not the venue, because the Senate is not going to move it and the President is not going to sign it. But I would encourage my colleagues to stay engaged, not just with the Armed Services Committee, but the Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues on this side because I do think there is merit to the debate. Acknowledgement of what the Department of Defense has done was focused on by the previous Commander in Chief.
The Paris climate mandates instituted by the Obama administration through the Paris Agreement and the outdated executive order would have increased energy prices and wasted taxpayer dollars. As a result, we cannot support the amendment that would condone and reinstitute some of these costly measures.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Engel
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29 printed in House Report 116-42.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, line 25, strike ``and''.
Page 8, line 5, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 8, after line 5, insert the following new paragraph:
(3) how the plan takes into consideration populations, regions, industries, and constituencies that could be affected by nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement, and the failure to meet such contribution, including but not limited to--
(A) American jobs, wage, and pay;
(B) the cost of energy, such as electricity and gasoline, for consumers; and
(C) the ability to develop and deploy new, innovative, domestically-produced technologies.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 329, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to say very strongly that on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also the Energy and Commerce Committee, we support this amendment. It is a very good amendment.
The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, is the first truly universal agreement among nations to tackle climate change. Rarely is there consensus among nearly all nations on a single topic. But with the Paris Agreement, leaders from around the world collectively agreed that climate change is driven by human behavior, that it is a threat to the environment and all of humanity, and that global action is needed to stop it.
It also created a clear framework for all countries to make emission reduction commitments. At present, 197 countries--every nation on Earth, with the last signatory being war-torn Syria--have adopted the Paris Agreement. This agreement includes a series of mandatory measures for the monitoring, verification, and public reporting of progress towards a country's emission reduction targets.
The emission reduction targets themselves are voluntary. Each nation sets their own, respectful of national sovereignty, and there is no penalty for missing the targets. The idea is to create a culture of accountability and maybe some peer pressure to get countries to reduce emissions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the author of this amendment.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be here today to introduce my amendment to H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act. My amendment takes into consideration the various populations, regions, industries and communities affected by climate change, while reducing any possible impacts on American jobs.
We all know that climate change has impacted countries and communities throughout our country and the world. Over the past few years, we have seen the devastating effects of it on the waters of the Caribbean Sea, fueling powerful storms, like Hurricane Maria, which devastated Puerto Rico and took the lives of close to 3,000 people and displacing another 300,000 from their homes.
In my home State of California last year, it led to the deadliest wildfire season in history. According to the National Climate Assessment, rural communities, like the ones I serve, face challenging obstacles in responding to climate change because they are so highly dependent on natural resources.
My constituents, the people of California's Central Valley, live in one of the most economically distressed parts of our country. We have been forgotten and left behind. But it is my constituents who have seen the direct impacts of climate change with our recent heat waves and droughts. It is only going to get worse if we don't work together and address this issue head-on.
H.R. 9 is the first step we must take in addressing this challenge. This would prohibit Federal funds from being used to take any action in advancing the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement.
The U.S. committed to joining the Paris Agreement because we are a leading nation. It is unfortunate that this President is taking us backward.
{time} 1030
Instead of fighting climate change, the President and his administration have proposed to slash funding from the Department of Energy's Efficiency and Renewable Energy offices by over 85 percent, and they even propose to cut energy funding from our States.
My amendment would help create a clean energy economy that would provide good paying jobs to millions of Americans, cleaner air for everyone, and a safe, sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.
What we continue to hear from our Republican colleagues is that a number of coal jobs will be taken away from Americans. And I can tell you, as somebody who has worked in the mining industry, who has worked underground, I know it is not the way to go.
While we know that mining jobs and underground jobs are honorable jobs and provide for families, at one time so was whaling, but we need to be innovative in looking towards the future. The more time we waste on clinging to jobs of the past, the more time we waste on not making progress.
Nationally, there are over 240,000 jobs in the solar industry alone, and only about 53,000 coal mining jobs. Reports find that the Paris Agreement would generate over 24 million jobs worldwide.
In the State of California, we have over 519,000 clean energy jobs, and it is critical, more than ever, that we continue to connect workers to these jobs that we are creating for the 21st century. My amendment does just that by requiring any climate plan to consider the impact on jobs, wages, and pay.
We have the opportunity to be global leaders in the clean energy economy, ensure that so many of these jobs are created right here in the United States--not in other countries, not in India, not in China.
We cannot afford to take steps back on the fight on climate change, and we must keep our word to the rest of the world. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has the only time remaining. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I will read into the Record a statement. This is from the International Energy Agency, Global Energy and CO2 Status Report 2018, published March of 2019, so it is pretty much fresh off the press. It addresses some of these issues that I have mentioned during this debate today about how we have been doing things; how, overall, missions are decreasing; and how public policy has helped, and the like.
This is on page 10: ``In the United States, the emission reductions seen in 2017 were reversed with an increase of 3.1 percent in CO2 emissions in 2018.''
That is what we addressed about the economy going up, more CO2 emissions.
``Despite this increase, emissions in the United States remain around their 1990 levels, 14 percent and 800 metric tons of CO2 below their peak in 2000. This is the largest absolute decline among all countries since 2000.''
So I think that is instructive when we are here debating a bill that is not going to be reviewed by the Senate and the President is not going to sign it.
We look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce on things that we can do to work together to even make better strides than what we already have in this country.
We don't get a lot of credit because we don't couch it in, as I said before, Mr. Chairman, ``climate change,'' ``Paris accord.''
But, you know, facts are important, data is important, and the Energy Information Agency is an independent agency underneath the Department of Commerce, so it is evaluating all countries and all emissions.
Republicans believe in conservation, which would be energy efficiency, new source review, force management, innovation, advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, sequestration, utilization.
To the colleague who brought the amendment up, I don't believe coal will be dead. I think if we bring technology and we use carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration and get it captured, we can still have a coal mining sector. We can still have energy electricity generated by coal. I hope so, because I am from a coal mining region, and I am not going to walk away from the jobs in southern Illinois.
And the adaptation which we have had a lot of debate about today, which is grid modernization, resiliency, crops, and the like.
The amendment of my colleague is opposite to what Dr. Burgess and I tried to do in the committee when we marked up this bill. We wanted to have the research and the analysis done before we go back to a climate agreement.
I mean, what good does it do if you go to an agreement and then you find that jobs have been lost, wages have gone down? It is too late. You are in the agreement.
So let's do the research prior, which was our amendment, Dr. Burgess and I--it wasn't made in order for the floor----to say let's do this research.
So if we are going to move and go back into the climate Paris accord, if we are going to affect jobs in the economy negatively, we should know that beforehand. This amendment does not do that.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Phillips) assumed the chair.
____________________
