    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

         DRIVING A GLOBAL, WHOLE-OF-SOCIETY RESPONSE TO CLIMATE ACTION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  May 12, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-36

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                                docs.house.gov,
                           or http://www.govinfo.gov

                              ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    44-473 PDF           WASHINGTON : 2021

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                      GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman

    BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey                  Member
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    KAREN BASS, California               JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts       SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island        DARRELL ISSA, California
    AMI BERA, California                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas                LEE ZELDIN, New York
    DINA TITUS, Nevada                   ANN WAGNER, Missouri
    TED LIEU, California                 BRIAN MAST, Florida
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota             KEN BUCK, Colorado
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
    COLIN ALLRED, Texas                  MARK GREEN, Tennessee
    ANDY LEVIN, Michigan                 ANDY BARR, Kentucky
    ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia         GREG STEUBE, Florida
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
    ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
    SARA JACOBS, California              PETER MEIJER, Michigan
    KATHY MANNING, North Carolina        NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
    JIM COSTA, California                RONNY JACKSON, Texas
    JUAN VARGAS, California              YOUNG KIM, California
    VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas              MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
    BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois

                        Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director

                   Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Kerry, The Honorable John, Special Presidential Envoy for
      Climate, U.S. Department of State..............................     9

                      INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Letter submitted for the record..................................    41

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    57
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    58
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    59

                            STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD

    Statement for the record from Representative Connolly............    60

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Responses to questions submitted for the record..................    62

         DRIVING A GLOBAL, WHOLE-OF-SOCIETY RESPONSE TO CLIMATE ACTION

                            Wednesday, May 12, 2021

                              House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gregory Meeks
    (Chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Meeks. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come
    to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the committee at any point. And all Members will have
    5 days to submit statements, extraneous material, and questions
    for the record, subject to the length limitations in the rules.
        To insert something into the record, please have your staff
    email to the previously mentioned address or contact full
    committee staff.
        As a reminder to Members, please keep your video function
    on at all times, even when you are not recognized by the Chair.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
        Consistent with House rules, staff will only mute Members,
    as appropriate, when they are not under recognition, to
    eliminate background noise.
        I see that we have a quorum. And I now recognize myself for
    opening remarks.
        Let me say good morning to everyone and welcome Special
    Envoy John Kerry to today's committee hearing entitled Driving
    a Global Response to Climate Action.
        Last month's Leaders Summit on Climate, the first summit
    for the Biden Administration, was another strong signal to the
    world that the U.S. is back after years of costly absence. And
    the stakes could not be higher. Although the threats sometimes
    seem distant, we cannot turn back the clock.
        This is especially true of climate change where we have
    lost precious time in responding to a mounting crisis. Even if
    we achieve our ambitious goals of keeping 1.5 percent warming
    within reach, our children will still have to learn to live on
    a dramatically changed planet. Many will have to move from
    uninhabitable land, if they can. Others, who are not so lucky,
    must endure more frequent and severe weather events: fires,
    drought, and pollution, which have become the new perilous
    norm.
        But, yet, I remain an optimist. The Biden Administration
    committed to drastically reduce U.S. emissions by 2030. Now,
    certainly this is ambitious, but ambition is what we need right
    now.
        We welcome the British pledge to ban non-electric, non-
    electric vehicles by 2030, which sparked similar plans in at
    least 16 other countries and several U.S. States. And on the
    global level, we saw China set long-needed targets on Coal.
    Brazil pledged to end deforestation by 2030. Argentina and
    others committed to deploy more renewables. Japan, South Korea,
    and Canada made more ambitious pledges than those in Paris.
        Now, as a believer in the science behind climate change, as
    well as the benefits of trade, investment, and American
    ingenuity in the face of competition, what I see is
    opportunity. A well-defined plan on climate action will create
    high-paying, good jobs for the American people. And our
    committee will play its crucial role in getting us there.
        We are exploring legislative options that will support
    innovative approaches with civil society and the private
    sector. And as Chair, I fully support efforts to galvanize
    climate option in the lead up to the Glasgow and beyond.
        It is not just about summit diplomacy and commitments on
    paper, it is about paving the road to Glasgow and follow
    through beyond. There remain obvious hurdles in achieving the
    necessary collective action, however. Yes, we have work with
    strategic competition--competitors like China and Russia, but
    we also have to hold them accountable. And, yes, they will
    require investment in developing countries. And, yes, it will
    involve helping our neighbors, as good neighbors do.
        What do we do as leaders on the global stage to tackle this
    problem? We work strategically with other ambitious countries
    to spark the momentum leading up to Glasgow. This includes the
    G-7 and the G-20, which shows a multilateral approach has us
    moving in the right direction.
        We must also empower the U.S. Government, including through
    the International Development Finance Corporation, to have
    global reach assisting all countries, including all those in
    the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Africa to have access to
    needed financing and investment opportunities. When it comes to
    building a green, resilient economy, adapting and protecting
    one's people, countries should not be left with only China as
    an option, whose investments often come with strings attached.
    Financing options should not be based solely on income
    criteria, but on vulnerability and risk to external shocks.
        In the years since, we survived the hottest years on record
    and emitted the highest levels of carbon in human history. The
    gap of what is being done and what needs to be done has also
    grown. And I think of the words of John F. Kennedy, Jr., who
    said, ``Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.''
        So, I pledge not only to try, as the Chairman of this
    committee, but demand that we do our best to save this planet.
        With that, I will turn to my good friend and the Ranking
    Member of this committee, Mr. McCaul, for his opening
    statement.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
    hearing. And I want to welcome you, Secretary Kerry, back to
    the Hill. It is good to see you.
        I believe the climate is changing. And we must take steps
    to address it. However, the answer is not the Paris Agreement
    in its current form.
        The People's Republic of China is the world's leading
    greenhouse gas emitter, and is responsible for almost 30
    percent of global emissions. Yet, the Paris Agreement does the
    bare minimum to hold the PRC accountable, while allowing them
    to continue increasing their emissions until 2020--2030.
        At the same time, it disproportionately penalizes American
    workers and American industries, even though the PRC emits over
    twice as much carbon dioxide as the United States.
        And, Mr. Secretary, I understand you have a big challenge
    ahead of you. We had a good visit on this issue. But I just do
    not see how we can truly make an impact if China isn't held to
    the same standards as the United States. Last year alone, the
    Chinese Community Party brought more than three times as many
    new coal-powered plants online in the PRC as the rest of the
    world combined. And they aren't just polluting at home. Beijing
    is exporting coal-fired power plants throughout the developing
    world through their Belt and Road Initiative.
        In fact, the CCP is the biggest financier of coal plants in
    the world. It is clear the Chinese Communist Party does not
    care about the environment, but they have proven time and again
    they cannot be trusted, and are not a reliable partner in
    addressing climate change.
        That is why I have worked with Representatives Graves and
    McMorris-Rodgers to introduce the Paris Transparency and
    Accountability Act. Our bill acknowledges it is vital we
    renegotiate the Paris Agreement to create a level playing
    field. And it calls for this new agreement to be submitted for
    Senate approval. Any comprehensive agreement that will
    significantly impact American jobs and the American economy
    deserves that much.
        Our bill would also ensure there is sufficient oversight of
    the committees, and commitments the President makes on behalf
    of the American people under the agreement. And it makes
    certain those commitments do not jeopardize our national
    security or our competitiveness.
        Like you, Secretary Kerry, I am a father, and I care about
    the world we are leaving behind for our children and our
    grandchildren. And we have that in common. Yet, after the
    United States finally achieved energy independence in oil and
    natural gas, we now appear to be trying--or tying our future
    energy needs to the CCP-dominated supply chain such as solar
    panels and electric batteries.
        If we truly want to reduce emissions, we must keep all
    these options on the table. That also means investing in
    renewable energy. But it also means expanding our nuclear
    energy capabilities, including, as you and I talked about, the
    development of small modular reactors with zero carbon
    emissions.
        And it means utilizing fossil fuels with a smaller
    environmental impact. For example, LNG from my home State of
    Texas has significantly lower lifecycle emissions than coal or
    Russian piped gas. The United States has been a leader in
    addressing climate risk through innovation and technology. Now,
    more than ever, we need to take advantage of our strengths,
    which have enabled us to become energy independent.
        So, Secretary Kerry, I look forward to hearing your
    thoughts on what steps can be taken to address climate risk in
    a responsible way that also protects American interests and
    jobs.
        And before I close, I and many of my colleagues are
    concerned by alleged conversations that you have reportedly had
    with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif after you were Secretary of
    State. Iran is the world's largest State sponsor of terror and
    one of our biggest adversaries. I hope that you will address
    these allegations today before Congress, and I hope you will
    reassure this committee that classified or sensitive
    information was not shared with Iranian officials when you were
    either Secretary of State or after you left your post.
        Again, thank you for being here today. And, Mr. Chairman, I
    yield back.
        Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Mr. McCaul. Now I will introduce
    our witness.
        On January 20th, 2021, John F. Kerry was sworn in as the
    Nation's first Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, where he
    leads the United States international effort to address climate
    change. In recent years, Special Envoy Kerry was a Carnegie
    Endowment for International Peace's first ever visiting
    distinguished Statesman, following his 4 years as the 68th
    United States Secretary of State.
        In that capacity, he was a critical part of the successful
    negotiations in the Paris Climate Agreement. From 1985 to 2013
    he served as a United States Senator, representing
    Massachusetts, and was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign
    Relations Committee from 2009 to 2013.
        Secretary Kerry served in the United States Navy,
    completing two combat tours of duty in Vietnam for which he
    received a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and the Combat V, and
    three Purple Hearts.
        He received his undergraduate degree from Yale University
    and his law degree from Boston College Law School. Most
    importantly, he is an American patriot, a patriot and a close
    friend of mine.
        And I welcome Secretary John Kerry. Without objection, the
    witness' prepared testimony will be made part of the record.
    And I now recognize the Honorable John Kerry.

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN KERRY, SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL
              ENVOY FOR CLIMATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Mr. Kerry. Well, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCaul,
    distinguished Members of the committee, it is a great privilege
    for me to be able to be here and a pleasure to testify to you
    today. And I look forward to answering your questions and
    having, hopefully, a really good dialog on the subject of the
    climate crisis that we all face, and also explaining President
    Biden's climate agenda.
        And, Ranking Member, I expect to have the opportunity, I
    will address your questions. And I particularly look forward to
    talking with you about the Paris Agreement and China. And I
    think, hopefully, there will be a lot of discussion about China
    today.
        But during his campaign President Biden identified climate
    crisis as one of the four historic crises facing our country,
    alongside COVID-19, the economic crisis, and the racial
    division in our country.
        And I think, personally I think he was right to do so.
        Everywhere around the United States and around the world we
    are all living with these mounting costs, present day costs, of
    global warming and of a more volatile climate.
        2020 set a new record, U.S. record of 22 weather and
    climate disasters costing over $1 billion each. Last year's
    tally of 22 hurricanes, floods, droughts, and wildfires
    shattered the previous annual record of 16 such events. And
    that was set only 4 years ago. So, these natural disasters have
    cost the United States, our taxpayers, more than $1.79 trillion
    since 1980.
        The 2020 U.S. wildfire season burned more than 10 million
    acres--an area greater than the State of Maryland. We saw five
    of the six biggest wildfires in California's history last year,
    as well as the single largest wildfire in Colorado's history.
        2020 was the warmest year on record. The last decade was
    the warmest decade on record. The decade before that, the
    second warmest; the decade before that the third warmest. You
    do not have to be a scientist to begin to feel that we are
    looking at a trend line.
        For the first time in our country's history, NOAA now
    considered Fairbanks, Alaska, as a warm summer continental
    climate because for 4 months of the calendar year the average
    temperature is now 50 degrees Fahrenheit or more.
        As my friend Secretary Blinken noted recently, we are fast
    running out of records to break.
        And that is why I was so honored to be asked by the
    President to lead his all-out diplomatic effort to ensure that
    the United States is once again a global leader in combating
    the climate crisis.
        As the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, it is my job
    to make sure that the rest of the world sees that the United
    States is re-engaged, re-energized, and re-dedicated to
    tackling the climate crisis both at home and abroad. In
    practice, that means marshaling all of our resources to ensure
    that we can keep a 1.5 degrees Celsius within reach. That is
    the target.
        Scientists started out in Paris, Ranking Member, with a
    well below 2 degrees. But then, because the island States and
    very vulnerable nations thought that was not good enough, 1.5
    was adopted. And now, as of 2018 when the scientists reported
    back on where we were, they said we have got to try and achieve
    the 1.5.
        So, unless emissions targets across the world are enhanced
    and implemented, we are now headed into a dangerous world above
    3 degrees Celsius of warming. That is the current direction we
    are on.
        Now, keeping 1.5 degrees alive is our north start over the
    months to come. But achieving that goal is going to mean
    bending the emissions curve downward substantially by 2030.
    That makes this the decisive decade in the climate fight. And
    at home, that will entail an all-of-government effort, an
    interagency effort, to which my colleagues across the
    Administration are now fully dedicated, including my good
    friend from Massachusetts and National Climate Advisor Gina
    McCarthy.
        My friends, I spent 28 years as a Senator, and 4 years as
    Secretary of State. And I have voted on important issues like
    you do and are now. I will just share with you from an
    imperative analysis here, these stakes could not be more
    serious, not just in terms of damage and problems, but in terms
    of economic possibilities. A race, if you will. Who is in the
    race and who isn't? And what technologies are going to define
    the future?
        The United States is contributing a declining share of
    global annual emissions. The Biden Administration has made
    important and measurable strides just in the first weeks. At
    the President's landmark 100-days-plus Climate Leaders Summit
    on April 22d and 23d, we put forward a very strong 2030
    emission reduction target alongside ambitious new targets which
    we worked on with Canada, with Japan, with the EU, in order to
    implement a stronger 2030 goal.
        And the U.K. has set a new pace-setting 2035 goal with a 78
    percent reduction in emissions.
        Many of our closest allies, a coalition accounting for more
    than half of the global economy of the world, are now clearly
    committed to climate technology leadership and the pace of
    emissions reductions required globally to meet the goal of
    keeping 1.5 degrees alive. That means 55 percent of the global
    GDP is now committed to move in the direction of keeping 1.5
    alive. But it also means that 45 percent is not yet. And that
    is the challenge, Ranking Member, that you raised with China
    and others. And we will talk about it.
        South Korea came in with a recent announcement that it will
    strengthen its 2030 target later this year.
        And we are far from alone. Argentina has updated its 2030
    target. It is ramping up renewables, including sourcing from
    U.S. suppliers. So, we gain.
        South Africa moved forward with peaking, with setting a new
    peaking year, moving a full decade forward to 2025.
        Additionally, the Chinese Government did commit to
    implement the Kigali Agreement to the Montreal Protocol to
    phase down HRCS, and they indicated that they will now strictly
    control coal-fired power generation projects, building on their
    2020 commitment to achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.
        So, there is much more to be done, in China and elsewhere,
    and we are working with partner governments to secure enhanced
    action and additional pledges ahead of the COP26 global climate
    summit in November. But, my friends, this represents, what I
    have described, is actually the result of a pretty serious
    sprint that we have been engaged in since January 20th when I
    came into this job and the President issued his executive
    orders a day later.
        Now, I know that today's hearing is focused on our efforts
    abroad. But I also know that every member here is deeply
    concerned with our economic health and prosperity here at home.
        The fact is, addressing the climate crisis is integrally
    related to our economic recovery here in the U.S. It is a huge
    opportunity for jobs, for new technology, for our communities.
    Yes, there is a transition involved in some of that. But we
    have been through transitions before as a Nation. And just as
    America led the world in the industrial revolution, just as we
    led the technological revolution, we can and will lead the
    energy revolution.
        And just as we developed the lightbulb and the airplane,
    and just as we developed the internet and vaccines, and went to
    the Moon, we can and will develop the battery storage
    technologies, the direct air capture technologies, the green
    hydrogen, the smart-grid technologies that will change the
    world and stave off the catastrophic impacts of the climate
    crisis.
        There are tough choices in politics. We all know that. But
    this is not one of them.
        Because in addressing the climate crisis, we are actually
    taking advantage of the greatest economic opportunity the world
    has ever known.
        Before the pandemic, two of the three fastest-growing jobs
    in the country were wind turbine technicians and solar
    photovoltaic installers. From 2017 to 2020, clean energy jobs
    grew by an average of 6 percent each year, faster than fossil
    fuels and the rest of the energy economy, and about twice the
    pace of the U.S. economy as a whole.
        We now have more Americans working in clean energy--3
    million--than we have bankers or middle and elementary school
    teachers, and clean energy jobs outnumber fossil fuel jobs in
    the U.S. three-to-one. And it is broad-based. Clean energy jobs
    outnumber fossil fuel jobs in 81 percent of rural counties.
        So, there is an even bigger growth opportunity for the U.S.
    in the years to come.
        In 2020, global investment in clean technologies crossed
    the $500 billion mark. And the International Energy Agency
    predicts that clean energy investment could triple during this
    decade.
        Solar and wind investment is forecasted to be five times
    larger than that for coal or for gas-fired power plants through
    2050--that is 30 more years it will be five times higher.
    Similarly, the size of the global electric vehicle fleet is
    expected to jump to 116 million in 2030, up from only 8.5
    million in 2020.
        Jobs and dollar figures alone do not tell the whole story.
        We are also seeing that clean energy can power our homes
    and businesses. For a period on April 24th in California,
    California's electrical grid was powered--California obviously
    being the size of, it is what, the sixth largest nation in the
    world--well, in April 24th its electrical grid was powered by
    95 percent energy, renewable energy, without any loss in
    reliability or supply. Countries as diverse as Denmark,
    Ethiopia, and Slovakia now all power 80 percent or more of
    their grid with emissions-free generation.
        We see markets moving inexorably in the direction of clean
    energy and low-carbon solutions.
        Ahead of the summit, six leading United States banks
    pledged to mobilize $4.15 trillion of low-carbon capital by
    2030. That is over the next 10 years, 4.15 trillion spent in
    investment. America's three largest U.S. asset managers also
    announced that $19 trillion in assets that they manage will be
    moved to low-carbon investments by 2050.
        American automakers are positioning to lead the global
    electric vehicle revolution.
        The transformation I am talking about is not a future
    projection. It is happening here and now. It is a reality as we
    speak.
        The trajectory toward the new energy economy is now
    unmistakable in so many sectors. As we saw over the last 4
    years, much of that movement is irrespective of Federal action.
    It is not the Government saying go do this, the marketplace is
    moving in that direction. And so, dollars are rapidly draining
    away from investments that do not fit squarely within that
    crucial 1.5 degree pathway, which boards of directors all
    across our country, the boardrooms of our biggest corporations,
    they are talking about ESG--environment, social, and
    governance--and its requirements. They are talking about
    sustainable development goals. And they are setting their own
    goals in order to set investment on a different track.
        So, Members of the committee, there is already so much
    progress being made. There is much more work still ahead. And
    as we move toward the COP26 global summit in Scotland this
    November, we are clear-eyed about the bold goals that we have
    set for ourselves. Our engagement is designed to help build out
    opportunities for our country. President Biden knows how
    important it is for the United States to join the nations
    around the world to meet the challenge of the climate crisis.
        I served here, as I mentioned earlier, on Capitol Hill for
    28 years. I have always had respect for the oversight role of
    Congress. And I have already had several productive exchanges
    with Members of the committee. And I look forward to continuing
    those discussions in the months ahead.
        I welcome your guidance, and your feedback, and input as we
    work to implement a critical agenda for our Nation and for the
    world. It is ambitious, but it is also essential.
        So, I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kerry follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Secretary Kerry, for your
    testimony. And I, too, look forward to a insightful
    conversation, and dialog, and questions with our Members.
        I want to inform all Members we have a hard 1 p.m. stop.
    And so from henceforth I will be adhering strictly to the 5-
    minute rule. So, I am going to be--not meaning to be
    disrespectful to anyone--at 5 minutes I will be banging the
    gavel so that we can get to as many Members as possible.
        Mr. Kerry. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to interpose, but I was
    just asking my staff. We originally, the hearing was set from
    10 to noon. And I can push to 12:30. But I am flying commercial
    and have a flight that I have to make. So, I have to leave here
    by 12:30.
        Chairman Meeks. Got it. My information, I have been
    corrected, so we have an even harder gavel purpose.
        Mr. Kerry. So, at 12:30.
        Chairman Meeks. I will be very mindful of the 5-minute rule
    to get as many Members to ask their questions as possible.
        I will recognize Members by committee seniority,
    alternating between Democrats and Republicans. If you miss your
    turn, please let our staff know and we will come back to you.
        If you seek recognition, you must unmute your microphone
    and address the Chair verbally, and identify yourself so that
    we know who is speaking.
        I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Secretary, vulnerable communities across the world are
    already facing severe adverse impacts of climate change from
    drought, crop failures, severe weather events, rising seas, and
    even a changing ocean chemistry. Those that can move and adapt,
    they will. However, historically marginalized communities will
    likely face the brunt of the impact in the incoming years.
        So, my question to you is how can we ensure that global
    efforts to combat climate change do not neglect these
    communities?
        Mr. Kerry. We are trying, Mr. Chairman, to pay very, very
    close attention. We started at the summit. And I will tell you
    why.
        I remember in Paris in that negotiation where I had the
    privilege to lead our team, in the lead-up to Paris there was
    not enough dialog with marginalized countries, less developed
    countries, people who suffer the greatest problems. There are
    about 138 nations on the planet all of whom are less, they are
    a fraction of 1 percent of emissions. I mean, within fractions.
    But they are the ones suffering the greatest consequences.
        I have been on the phone in the last weeks with the
    President of the Marshall Islands, the President of Fiji--I
    mean the Prime Minister of Fiji, others. They are facing not
    just adaptation; they may have to move altogether. Those
    nations, most likely, some of them are facing extinction, and
    that is existential for them.
        So, we invited those nations not to wait until we get to
    Glasgow. We had about 20 of those nations involved in the
    climate summit the President just had. So, the President
    invited the 20 biggest emitters in the world, biggest, most
    powerful economies. We had President Xi, we had Russia, we had
    Modi, so forth. But he also invited Bangladesh, and the
    Marshall Islands, and small entities because we wanted to hear
    from people about this demand for adaptation and mitigation.
        Now, we depend on you. Congress will decide what it is
    willing to appropriate to this task. The President has put
    forward a proposal to double the amount that we are doing for
    adaptation, and to triple the amount we are doing for
    resilience on behalf of other countries.
        And as you know, there is a Green Climate Fund. It has
    maybe about 10 billion in it total at that point. It is a part
    of the larger commitment made in Paris for the world to
    mobilize about $100 billion on an annual basis by 2020 in order
    to help those nations do what they need to do to respond to
    this crisis.
        We have never been able to get to the 100 yet. We are at 80
    billion right now. And I think it is going to be very difficult
    in Glasgow if the developed world cannot step up.
        Let me put this in perspective.
        A hundred billion to try to help 138 nations that do not,
    some of them do not even have electricity, to be able to
    respond to what is happening, measure that against the fact
    that about two or 3 years ago we all spent here in America $265
    billion just to clean up after three storms: Harvey, Maria, and
    Irma.
        Irma had the first sustained winds of 185 miles an hour for
    24 hours.
        Harvey dropped more water in the greater Houston, Louisiana
    area in 5 days than goes over Niagara Falls in an entire year.
        And Irma and Maria, we all know, savaged the infrastructure
    of Puerto Rico.
        So, if we do not want to just rebuild and rebuild, if we
    want to get the world enlisted in this, we have got to begin to
    look at some greater effort to help countries adapt and to help
    people build resilience so that we are a global community
    shifting our energy basis in an appropriate way to avoid this
    crisis in the long run.
        And I think this is something that President Biden is going
    to continue to try to ask you to help him with and help our
    country do, because a lot of people are going to suffer if we
    cannot do that.
        And the military, by the way, our own military will tell
    you that climate crisis is a threat multiplier. And so conflict
    will grow as people are fighting for a place to live, a place
    to have water, a place to be able to feed themselves. And we
    already do have climate refugees on the planet. So----
        Chairman Meeks. My time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative McCaul for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome, Mr. Secretary. You have a very enormous
    challenge and a very important one in front of you.
        Secretaries Blinken and Pompeo both said that the CCP is
    committing genocide against the Uyghur Muslim population. Last
    month this committee marked up a bill that I introduced along
    with Chairman Meeks condemning this genocide. You recently said
    that--were quoted saying, ``We have other differences on human
    rights,'' but those should not get in the way of something that
    is as critical as dealing with climate.''
        I know you can try to compartmentalize it. The problem is
    it is intertwined. Because when you look at the supply chain
    and you look at China, they dominate the critical mineral
    supply and solar supply chains, all coming out of Xinjiang
    Province which we believe is using slave labor to create these
    renewable energy sources.
        So my question to you is how can you assure us, or ensure
    that this quest that we are on, that slave labor coming out of
    China where genocide is taking place as we speak, are never a
    part of the climate solution in the United States?
        Mr. Kerry. You are absolutely correct, Ranking Member
    McCaul. It is a problem. Xinjiang Province not only produces
    some of the solar panels that we believe are being in some
    cases produced in forced labor by Uyghurs, but also there are a
    significant amount of rare earth minerals that is used in the
    solar panels themselves.
        It is my understanding that the Biden Administration is
    right now in the process of assessing whether or not that will
    be the target of sanctions. I have heard some discussion about
    it. I am not privy to where that decision is at this point in
    time.
        But I can tell you that nothing can be traded. And I have
    made that very clear. President Biden has made it very clear.
    Climate is existential for everybody on the planet. We have to
    deal with it. And because China is nearly 30 percent of all the
    emissions on the planet, China has got to be part of the
    solution, not part of the problem.
        So, we have had very direct conversations with the Chinese
    on this. They have moved somewhat in the course of the last
    month-and-a-half, 2 months, after we have engaged.
        For instance, they had a peak date of peaking in terms of
    their emissions by 2030. That is where we began. And they were
    not willing to change it. And in addition, they were not even
    discussing mitigation during the course of the next 10 years.
        Well, we have been having some very serious conversations
    about the reality of the science, the 1.5 degrees, the need to
    hold it. And so, China has now announced, President Xi
    announced, he announced a number of things:
        No. 1, that they believe this is a climate crisis now. Our
    joint statement, that is entitled U.S.-China Joint statement on
    Climate Crisis. They have never done that. They now have, in
    the body of the text, they have agreed they have to change and
    do something into 2020, 2030's.
        They have agreed that the peaking now they think may be
    able to take place by 2025-24. We do not know yet.
        So, we are in an ongoing negotiation with them. And where
    we are at the aftermath of the summit that we had where
    President Xi made some of these announcements is that we have
    got to go back to work. We have five more months left to get
    them to embrace something that we believe you will view,
    hopefully, as a legitimate, you know, a legitimate initiative
    that makes sense. We are not there yet.
        And so I think both on the--you know, and I have made it
    clear there are serious issues we all know with China, issues
    of Hong Kong, to Taiwan, to the South China Sea, to access to
    the marketplace, cyber and cybertech. These are big challenges.
    But, historically, we have always proven ourselves capable of
    negotiating, even when we have big disagreements. Ronald Reagan
    went to Reykjavik and negotiated with the Evil Empire,
    Gorbachev. And they came away from there repurposing over
    50,000 warheads which we both had pointed at each other.
        Mr. McCaul. Can I just say in closing, I think your
    successes will be tied to China. And I think that the more you
    can hold them to the same standards as the United States----
        Mr. Kerry. Mike.
        Mr. McCaul. The more you can hold the CCP to the same
    standards as the United States, I think the more successful you
    will be. But we are not seeing that right now.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative Brad Sherman of California
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sherman. Ambassador Kerry, welcome back.
        We all know climate change is not free, it is not going to
    pay for itself. And, as you point out, it is the issue of our
    time. It is worth the effort.
        There is a tendency of Americans to think it is all about
    us. And if we just live our lives differently, everything will
    be as it should. Yet, the United States and the EU combined are
    way less than 20 percent of the emissions. The U.S. is 11
    percent; the rest of the world almost 90 percent.
        So, while the whole U.S. Government, the people of the
    United States are focused on reducing our emissions, you and
    you alone are able to head the effort to deal with almost 90
    percent of the problem while all your fellow Americans are
    focused on 10 or 11 percent of the problem. You have an
    important job.
        And as we focused on, we are dealing with China. And China
    has grudgingly made a few comments. As you just pointed out,
    they have been willing to use the word ``crisis.'' But the fact
    is, even if China uses the word ``crisis,'' even if they make a
    commitment, they may not actually do anything on the ground.
    What they do on the ground is more important than what they
    say.
        And every week they build a new, large, coal-fired power
    plant, week after week. And when you build this plant it is not
    with the intention that they are going to decommission it five
    or 10 years after they put it online. As others have pointed
    out, they are also financing coal-fired power plants around the
    world.
        You are a very good diplomat. You are very persuasive. But
    all you have in your toolbox is a chance to appeal to the
    conscience of a regime that Ranking Member McCaul has described
    as genocidal, a regime that puts its own people by the millions
    in concentration camps. And we have given you the job of
    appealing to their better nature, appealing to their conscience
    and getting them to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in
    order to help their fellow human beings.
        So, my question is, would you be in a stronger position if
    we were threatening, gave you the power to impose an additional
    10 percent tariff on all goods coming into the United States
    from China and, of course, work with our allies to do the same
    thing?
        Right now our total average tariff on goods coming from
    China is less than 10 percent, just a bit less than 10 percent.
    And it occurs to me that you may, through great diplomacy, be
    able to get a genocidal and conscience-free regime to make a
    statement or two. But to actually get them to stop building a
    coal-fired power plant every year, you may need more arrows in
    your quiver.
        Mr. Kerry. Well, Congressman, thank you for the question.
        The fact is that Europe is considering a border adjustment
    mechanism. And this is a mechanism which President Biden has
    also asked us to evaluate as a means of placing an additional
    cost on the cost of goods that come from places that are not
    responsible in what they are doing, or how they are being
    produced.
        Now, no decision has been made about deploying that or
    doing it. But I think Congress looking at this would be a very,
    you know, important analysis, an important undertaking to sort
    of look at the dynamics of this.
        But let me share with all of you, if I can, in this
    negotiating process I learned over the years, both negotiating
    in the Senate and here in Congress, but more importantly with
    other countries, and especially in the Iran nuclear agreement,
    Ronald Reagan had a saying, you know, ``trust but verify.'' We
    changed that a little bit and have a saying, do not trust but
    verify.
        And in this endeavor with China you have got to be eyes
    wide open. You cannot go in and just take their word.
        Chairman Meeks. I apologize to you, Mr. Secretary, but
    Members are reminded again, if you want your questions answered
    you have a certain amount of time you have to ask them, because
    I am stopping at 5 minutes.
        I now recognize Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey,
    who is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global
    Health, and Global Human Rights, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
    Secretary, welcome to the committee.
        As you know, under President Xi Jinping, human rights abuse
    throughout China have significantly worsened, including the
    pervasive use of torture, religious persecution, human
    trafficking, and genocide against Muslim Uyghurs. Paper
    promises made by Beijing, as you know as well, are simply not
    kept. Broken promises are the rule, not the exception, under
    Xi. And the people of Hong Kong are suffering as we speak
    because of it.
        As you know, Xi Jinping has completely reneged on the
    promises made in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration that
    facilitated the conveyance of Hong Kong from the U.K. to China
    beginning on July 1st, 1997, that autonomy, human rights,
    including press assembly, association, religion, would be
    exactly the same as before the handover for at least 50 years.
        Xi Jinping has completely reneged on promises made in the
    basic law of Hong Kong, adopted by the Chinese People's
    Congress in 1990 before the give-back that autonomy, human
    rights, and adherence to the rule of law would be protected.
        The Chinese Communist Party, again as you know, has not
    been truthful concerning the origin of COVID-19. The CCP tells
    lies concerning the genocide against the Uyghurs, and continues
    to brazenly violate its WTO obligations, U.N. sanctions on
    North Korea, and so much more.
        So, two questions:
        During your trip with leaders of the Chinese Communist
    Party, did you raise human rights in general?
        Did you ask them to stop the genocide against the Uyghurs
    and the brutal suppression of Hong Kong, and other massive acts
    of cruelty?
        And, if you did, how did they respond?
        And, second, given the Chinese Communist Party's massive
    unwillingness to honor its word, do you believe the CCP will
    honor its word on climate? Mr. Secretary?
        Mr. Kerry. Of course, I raised, I have always raised the
    issue of human rights in every conversation I ever had as
    secretary anywhere I was related to that issue.
        Mr. Smith. But on this trip as well, Mr. Secretary?
        Mr. Kerry. Yes, but I am just about to get to it.
        In this trip I raised it with the Chinese officials, not
    the climate folks, because the climate, you know, climate
    emissary for China, Xie Zhenhua, has been their Special Envoy
    on Climate for about 20 years. And, you know, we could casually
    talk about it, but he does not have any input or capacity to do
    anything on it.
        But I have raised it at the highest levels with officials
    in China and they deny certain things that we allege,
    obviously, and move on. It is a wall of, you know, different
    attitude about what, what they are willing to acknowledge and
    not acknowledge.
        Clearly, we have a very different perception of what is
    happening, for instance, in Xinjiang than they are willing to
    acknowledge.
        So, a decision has to be made, whether by Congress or the
    Administration, how we will respond to that. You have
    legislation, Ranking Member McCaul, and maybe that is the way
    it is going to be responded to.
        I am not, that is not my lane. My lane is very specifically
    to try to get the Chinese to move to do what we need to do with
    respect to climate itself.
        And I will just point out something to everybody on the
    committee. China is already the leading producer in the world
    of solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles, and lithium
    ion batteries. They produced 72 percent of all the solar panels
    globally in 2019. That is up from the last year when they were
    at 67 percent.
        U.S. companies only produced, you know, a very minor amount
    compared to that. So----
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Secretary, I know the Chairman will have to
    cut me off and everybody else at 5 minutes. But do you believe
    that they will honor their word on this issue of climate?
        Mr. Kerry. As I said earlier, do not trust, and verify. You
    have to set up a structure where you are doing things which you
    can see happening and you can measure. And that is what is
    critical here. This is not a question of relying on somebody's
    word.
        But I do want to share with you, and I wanted to share this
    a moment ago in answer to the prior question, let me just share
    with you what was published in an internal meeting of President
    Xi with the Communist Party Members about a week-and-a-half
    ago. And this is new.
        ``President Xi: China will make cutting emissions a focus
    of its ecological strategy in the next 5 years. President Xi
    Jinping said, he vowed,'' vowed is used, to cutoff projects
    which consume a lot of energy and cannot meet global
    standards.'' And he talked about moving away from coal and how
    they are going to do it.
        Now, we are going to have to check on that.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Kerry. I would rather have those words than not have
    them. And now we get into the verification.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative Albio Sires of New Jersey,
    who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere,
    Civilian Security, Migration, and International Economic
    Policy, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sires. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
        During President Biden's Leaders Summit on Climate, Brazil
    pled to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and eliminate
    illegal deforestation by 2030. One day after making this
    pledge, President Bolsonaro approved a 24 percent cut to the
    environmental budget for 2021.
        What should the U.S. policy toward the Brazilian Amazon
    consist of? And how can we address the consistent lack of
    adequate spending on environmental regulations by the current
    government in Brazil?
        Mr. Kerry. It is a terrific question. And the answer is we
    are trying to set up a new structure of verification and
    accountability. Promises have been made in the past. Brazil
    actually did quite well between 2004 and 2012. Deforestation
    was making prog--they were making progress in stopping it.
        But in 2012 to 2020 Amazon reached a 12-year high in the
    level of deforestation. And, unfortunately, the Bolsonaro
    regime has rolled back some of the environmental enforcement.
        We have had this conversation. They say they are committed
    now to raise the budget. And they are going to put together a
    new structure.
        We are willing to talk to them, not with any blinders on,
    but with an understanding of where we have been. But if we do
    not talk to them we are guaranteed that that forest is going to
    disappear.
        And scientists are telling us today that the level of
    cutting of the forest is so significant that there is a
    possibility it has reached a tipping point already in the
    ability of the forest to remain a rainforest.
        In fact, a week ago there was an article saying that the
    Amazon is now releasing more carbon than it is consuming. So,
    we have already--something is going on. So, we need to figure
    that out.
        The bottom line is, we are going to engage in order to try
    to find out what is possible, and we will report back to you. I
    assure you, before we wind up going to Glasgow we will have a
    better sense of where we are in the next month.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you. And going to the Northern Triangle,
    the dry corridor of Central America has been experiencing years
    of severe drought and floods, made much worse by the climate
    crisis. These impacts are destroying livelihood across
    Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and pushing people to
    migrate to the U.S. out of desperation.
        Are we planning to deal with this in this Northern
    Triangle, these countries, to stop this push north because of
    the severe drought in the area?
        Mr. Kerry. I hope we are. I think people are trying to put
    together those responses now, from what I understand.
        When I was secretary, and the President was the Vice
    President, we became very involved with those countries, with
    Guatemala, with Honduras, with El Salvador. We went down there.
    We met with the Presidents. And we tried to--because we also
    saw the connection of what was happening with their
    dislocation, and then the pressure on the border of the United
    States. It was part of the culture of people moving because
    they couldn't grow things anymore. And that has a serious
    impact on their livelihoods.
        So, what we are doing now is trying to figure out was back
    then we put some money on the table. We helped them deal with
    some of the problems within their community to be able to hold
    on to those populations and to be able to provide a food chain
    and a capacity to survive.
        But this is, this is a harbinger of what may come as more
    and more regions are not able to pursue the livelihood that
    they used to pursue in the way that they did because the
    climate is changing.
        So, I know the Administration is focused on this now, and
    trying to, you know, mobilize initiatives.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio, who is
    the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific,
    Central Asia and Nonproliferation, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, as has already been stated, the PRC is one
    of the worst actors on the world scene, whether we are talking
    about stealing half a trillion dollars of our intellectual
    property every year, or employing unfair trade practices that
    undermine our economy and destroy American jobs, or conducting
    a massive military buildup, or using aggressive bullying
    tactics against Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, India, Australia,
    Vietnam, and others.
        In fact, if you read an article in the Wall Street Journal
    this morning, you can even add Sweden to that list. Not to
    mention the atrocities against the Uyghurs, Tibetans, Falun
    Gong, the crackdown on Hong Kong, and a variety of behaviors
    aimed at reorienting the world to revolve around Beijing.
        And, indeed, when he testified in March, Secretary Blinken
    said that confronting this menace is the biggest geopolitical
    task of the 21st Century.
        Now, I know you are focused on climate, but the American
    people deserve to know where this Administration's priorities
    really are. Is it climate change that is the top priority for
    this Administration, or is it confronting a more and more
    aggressive Chinese Communist Party?
        I know you will probably say something along the lines that
    we can walk and chew gum at the same time. And I get that. But
    when push comes to shove and the President has to either play
    nice with China to get them to cooperate on climate change or
    confront them on their latest attempt at stealing American
    jobs, or bullying an ally, or committing genocide, what is it
    going to be, Mr. Secretary, in your opinion?
        Mr. Kerry. It has to be all of the above. There is no
    choice. This is not an either/or. And the President does not
    see it as either/or.
        The best way the United States of America, frankly, can
    aggregate efforts to deal with these many different legitimate
    concerns about China's behavior is for us to be strong. The
    stronger the United States is you are going to address more of
    these issues.
        And by stronger I mean one of the, one of the things that I
    overheard years ago was a new narrative that is coming out of
    China about how this century is the century of China, and the
    United States is in decline, and the West is in decline, and
    the liberal order of the West is in decline, and that they
    cannot make decisions, and they cannot pass budgets, they do
    not get anything done, they are not investing in their country.
    I have heard this out there.
        And I just have to tell you that the best thing we could do
    is be more competitive. When I say 73 percent of these items
    are being built in China and sold around the world, they are
    cornering the market on that, why aren't we? What has happened
    to us that we are not the country that is pushing the curve on
    the technology, and the R&D? Now, that is what President Biden
    has put forward.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, but the Chair has
    been, he has been pretty strict with our time, and I am running
    out of time. So I want to get one more question in, if I can.
        Mr. Kerry. Sure. Sorry.
        Mr. Chabot. And I commend him for being strict with all of
    us.
        Mr. Kerry. Yes, right.
        Mr. Chabot. When you signed the Paris Agreement and praised
    China for participating, China at that time emitted about 20
    percent of the total global emissions. Now they have gone up to
    27 percent. And even though the previous Administration had
    pulled us out, we have been going down. And, in fact, since
    2005 we have gone down I believe it is 4 billion tons, or
    excuse me, a billion tons and they have gone up 4 billion tons.
    So, they are going in just the wrong direction and we are going
    in the right direction.
        And I think the United States should be commended for that.
    But as some of the other Members have indicated, even if we
    reach an agreement with the PRC on this, in light of the fact
    that they pretty much break every international agreement that
    they make, why should be trust them?
        And I know we say trust and verify, but there is a lot of
    skepticism not only by this committee, I think, but the
    American people for good reason overall.
        So, in the short time that I have got left could you
    address that lack of trust of the PRC as to whether they will
    followup an agreement?
        Mr. Kerry. Obviously the lack of trust is real. I mean,
    they do not trust us and we do not trust them. And we have to
    find a way forward in the midst of that that they have a global
    crisis that cannot be solved by any one----
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia,
    who is the President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing. And welcome back, Mr. Secretary, to the House Foreign
    Affairs Committee. And thank you for addressing the Sustainable
    Energy and Environmental Caucus last week. We really
    appreciated your presentation.
        I wanted you to talk a little bit about the engagement with
    our alliance, the North Atlantic Alliance's Membership
    especially. The Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg
    comes from Norway, has visited Svalbard, has seen firsthand the
    effects in the Arctic of climate change: the receding glaciers,
    the opening up of the Arctic waterways to additional shipping
    and exploitation of natural resources. How, especially with the
    Alliance, can we anchor a commitment to reversing climate
    change, addressing climate change with the Alliance
    specifically?
        And how did those conversations go when you met with the
    European Council and other allied Members in Europe?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, thank you, Gerry.
        Jens Stoltenberg, the head of NATO, is deeply committed on
    the climate issue. And he is also very seized by the reality
    that this is a defense security issue. And he, together with
    Secretary Austin, General Austin also, and General Milley, are
    both seized by the notion that they have serious challenges
    within the military to deal with with respect to readiness,
    deployment, conflict. There are a lot demands that are falling
    on the military.
        There is not a ``military solution'' here, but the military
    has a big carbon footprint. And it is already wrestling with
    the issue of fuels for aircraft, of supply chains, and so
    forth.
        I think, you know, there are, there are also some
    interesting contributions that current military capacity may
    provide with respect to the provision of power because there
    are small unit nuclear capacity energy providers in literally
    small, mobile reactors. And that may be something that is going
    to be combined with the technology that Bill Gates is pursuing
    for small modular reactors, which he is building a prototype
    of.
        And I met with a group at MIT recently who were talking
    about the possibilities of literally what they call a quantum
    battery, which is a small nuclear battery that is the size of a
    container the length of these tables.
        So, there are very exciting things that Jens Stoltenberg
    and the military are starting to grapple with about how they
    will contribute their part, as well as be ready for the crises
    and the challenges that may come, and the consequences, the
    threat multiplier that they believe the challenge is.
        Mr. Connolly. Me too, Mr. Secretary. And thank you for your
    leadership. I am so glad you are in the position you are. We
    look forward to supporting you over the coming years.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize Representative Joe Wilson of South
    Carolina, who is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the
    Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Greg Meeks, for your
    leadership, very positive leadership.
        Secretary Kerry, taking up with the issues of Congressman
    Steve Chabot, last week a report revealed the People's Republic
    of China's greenhouse gas emissions exceeded those of United
    States and other developed countries combined. China currently
    accounts for nearly 30 percent of global greenhouse gas
    emissions, not including emissions associated with the Belt and
    Road Initiative.
        Do these trends show a serious commitment to its advertised
    targets?
        Mr. Kerry. A great question. Let me be clear. And I want
    everybody to agree with your fundamental premise, China
    produces more emissions than all the rest of the OECD countries
    put together. They are currently funding coal, external coal-
    fired power.
        What we have been working on, this is one of the things we
    have really engaged on in quite--we have had some very heated
    discussions about this. Because, obviously, it is not
    sustainable. There is no way the United States and the rest of
    the world can get to our goal if China does not join in and
    become part.
        It is not just China. There are other countries who are
    part of that 45 percent. We need to see greater reductions in
    India. India, however, Prime Minister Modi has made a
    commitment to deploy 450 gigawatts of renewable energy. We have
    created a partnership with India because of that commitment,
    because they do not have the finance and technology completely.
    So, we are going to try to help them bring the technology to
    the table, bring the finance to the table. And they have to do
    certain things internally to make this happen.
        But, if you deploy in the next 10 years 450 gigawatts of
    renewables, then India is in keeping with the 1.5 degrees. So,
    it is a huge step forward. It is worth the investment.
        Mr. Wilson. And, Mr. Kerry, I am so grateful for the
    leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. What a great job he
    has done for the people of India.
        On another issue, what is the Administration's
    justification for canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, which
    created American jobs, for refusing to implement the required
    sanctions on Nord Stream 2 pipeline which promotes the Russian
    intimidation of Europe?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, I do not know where the, where the latest
    is on the Nord Stream, so I cannot speak to that here with any
    authority.
        What I can tell you is that on the Keystone the
    Administration is trying to put teeth in its words and its
    commitment to a climate crisis. We do not need to be building
    that additional infrastructure at this moment when we have
    other options, which are readily available to us, for how we
    supply and what we supply.
        We need to do a greater build-out of alternative renewable
    in this country.
        Mr. Wilson. But, Mr. Secretary, this creates--destroys jobs
    in the district I represent. The tires that are used for the--
    in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, are made in South Carolina.
    And so you are destroying jobs all over the United States of
    what had been an achievement, and that is energy independence.
    And that needs to be promoted.
        And so I deeply regret. And then Nord Stream 2, what that
    does to Europe is just so sad for the people of the--our allies
    across Europe.
        Thank you very much. And I yield back.
        Mr. Kerry. Well, Congressman----
        Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield. Could I just use a
    little bit of the time.
        Chairman Meeks. The time belongs to Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson. I yield.
        Mr. Issa. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I apologize, I did not mean to cut you off. We can both
    talk. Go ahead, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Kerry. No, I was just going to say that we opposed Nord
    Stream, as I think you know. We, the Obama Administration,
    myself, we were involved in those discussions. And
    notwithstanding, they went forward. And you know what the State
    of play is right now.
        But I just very quickly say to you, we should not be
    leaving people behind. And that is President Biden's code here.
    He does not believe that doing this transition has to be
    massive job loss.
        Mr. Issa. And, Mr. Secretary, quickly on behalf of the
    member that yielded, the cancellation of this pipeline in the
    United States does not change the amount of oil, it does change
    how that oil is coming through. Isn't it true that pipelines
    are more carbon-delivery efficient than trains, or trucks, or
    other forms of delivery? If you could answer just that
    question.
        Mr. Kerry. Yes, that is true. I think that is true. But it
    does not mean we necessarily want to be adding another line
    when there are other alternatives.
        But, is it better than train, and better than truck? Yes,
    it is.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you.
        Mr. Kerry. In my judgment.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative Ted Deutch of Florida, who
    is the Chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, North
    Africa, and Global Counterterrorism, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Kerry, it is good to have you back. Your
    appointment as Special Presidential Envoy is, I think, a strong
    signal by President Biden right out of the gate that he
    attaches great significance to this issue. I have been
    heartened by your and the Administration's pace, ambition, and
    I think pragmatism, as evidenced by the bold yet achievable
    initiatives that were announced at the President's Summit last
    month.
        As the founder and co-Chair of the bipartisan House Climate
    Solutions Project, and a Member of Congress from South Florida,
    I know firsthand how important it is that we approach this
    challenge with realism as much as with urgency. Sea level rise,
    intensity of storms, so many ways that climate change is
    impacting us right now.
        That is why we reintroduced the Energy Innovation and
    Carbon Dividend Act in April to put a price on carbon. The
    legislation will help the U.S. reach net-zero carbon emissions
    by 2050, and will return 100 percent of the net revenue back to
    American families to help them afford any increase in energy
    costs, and have money left over to help with the daily expenses
    as our Nation recovers still from the pandemic economy.
        So, I wanted just to ask about your coordination with our
    geopolitical partners on how to present a united front when
    dealing with countries with which we have a more adversarial
    and difficult relationship.
        So, you talked earlier about the EU. If you could expand
    upon that, is part of the strategy to stay aligned with the EU
    specifically on carbon pricing schemes and carbon tariffs so
    that we can collectively pressure China on this issue more
    effectively?
        Let's start with that.
        Mr. Kerry. No decision has been made at this point in time
    about carbon pricing. The President, it is not in his current
    plan. He is, obviously, embracing a clean electricity standard.
    That would be one big step forward if Congress were to come
    together on that.
        But I think you all need to develop further what that
    proposal might look like and whether or not it is possible.
        Mr. Deutch. We do have to do that. We will have those
    conversations. It is, this is the moment when so many, as you
    well know, so many companies already place carbon in their own
    analysis. They are simply waiting, as so many are, for the
    price to be imposed so that we can actually see this urgent
    approach that will get us to net zero.
        But I just want to get back to the question. You could
    broaden it if you like if you care not to talk about carbon
    pricing, but just generally staying aligned with the EU and
    bringing collective pressure on China, can you speak to that,
    the approach that you are taking there and how that can lead to
    the results that we are all looking for?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, I just had a meeting yesterday, or I think
    it was yesterday, yesterday or the day before with all of the
    European foreign ministers. I did it virtually, obviously, with
    them in Brussels. And we discussed exactly this. It was
    alignment as we go into these next 5 months going into Glasgow.
        We agreed to work extremely closely together, that we
    needed to unify, particularly with respect to some of our
    conversations with China, with other countries, where we are
    trying to move more rapidly to a mutuality of effort here.
        So, the answer is yes, we are trying to align as much as we
    can. But we are also trying to solicit from them help with
    other countries.
        I mean, my, my small staff that I have is engaged with
    really major dialogs with about 25 nations right now, and in
    running around the world, Indonesia, Australia, and many
    others. And we are trying to get Europe to come together with
    us in that effort because there is much that they can bring to
    the table. There is great expertise, great technology, and a
    huge commitment on this. Because Europe has committed to a 55
    percent reduction.
        And Germany, in Germany the Constitutional Court of Germany
    just decided that the Government was not doing enough for
    future generations. And Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, had to
    go back to the Government. They just put together a new plan.
    They have moved up by 5 years their commitment to net-zero. And
    they have raised the level of their reductions to about 65
    percent. So, there is a serious effort here which we hope to
    bring to the table----
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative----
        Mr. Perry. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mast. Point of order.
        Chairman Meeks. Point of order.
        Mr. Mast. Are our questions and the Secretary's responses
    so unimportant that we must cut him off? I know we want to get
    to everybody, but we are here to hear his answers. Is that so
    important----
        Chairman Meeks. As I reminded Members, you can form your
    questions without statements. If you make statements it is
    going to mean a reduction of time.
        Mr. Mast. Totally agree. But can we hear his answers?
        Chairman Meeks. If they stay within the timeframe of 5
    minutes, you can.
        Mr. Mast. So, not that important. Check.
        Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Scott Perry
    of Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, would you say you have a good relationship
    with Foreign Minister Zarif?
        Mr. Kerry. Right now I do not have a relationship with
    Foreign Minister Zarif.
        Mr. Perry. Well, when you had one, when you were
    negotiating, was it good or was it bad?
        Mr. Kerry. I would characterize it as professional.
        Mr. Perry. OK, professional.
        You have still got a security clearance?
        Mr. Kerry. Do I?
        Mr. Perry. Yes.
        Mr. Kerry. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Perry. You do. Okay.
        So, you're a smart guy, Navy lieutenant, Senator for many
    decades, Secretary of State. You know that since 1979 Iran is
    responsible for killing more Americans than any other nation-
    State; right? I suppose you know that?
        Mr. Kerry. I have heard that.
        Mr. Perry. Yes, of course.
        You went to Yale, so you are probably familiar with 50 U.S.
    Code 2204, 18 U.S. Code 2381, I suspect. I am not going to get
    into it. If you want me to, I will.
        But, Mr. Secretary, the foreign minister claimed that you
    had discussed more than 200 Israeli operations against Iranian-
    backed terrorists in Syria. Did you provide information to Mr.
    Zarif on Israeli operations against Iranian-backed terrorists
    during or following your tenure as Secretary of State?
        Mr. Kerry. On no occasion. Never.
        Mr. Perry. Never.
        So, Mr. Zarif is a liar?
        Mr. Kerry. Mr. Zarif may be confused or incorrect, or he is
    trying to embellish his--what I read about that article said
    that he was portraying himself as out of the loop and whatever.
    And quite emotional, apparently, is what I read. And I have
    seen him be quite emotional.
        And I cannot vouch for why he did that, what he said. I am
    just telling you that did not happen. End of story.
        Mr. Perry. That never happened. And I know you are not
    under oath. But we have seen many Administration officials come
    to this Congress and lie straight faced to Members of Congress.
        You are saying for the record that that----
        Mr. Kerry. The first time----
        Mr. Perry [continuing]. Never occurred?
        Mr. Kerry. The first time I ever heard this number 200 was
    when I read the article a few days ago. I have never heard of
    that.
        Mr. Perry. Well, that is heartening to hear. But I will
    tell you that there is reason for suspicion in this, in this
    Congress and across America. And I just want to go through the
    record.
        In 1985, you as Senator traveled to Nicaragua, against the
    Administration's wishes, to meet with Marxist leader Daniel
    Ortega.
        In 2006, you traveled to Syria to meet with the dictator
    Bashar al-Assad, contradicting President Bush's efforts to
    isolate Assad for supporting Hezbollah. And I remind you that
    it is a sea of war and horrifying activities in Syria right
    now. I mean, if we could have done something with Assad then
    maybe we wouldn't be dealing what we are dealing with now.
        In 2018, you told the Palestinian Authority to hold on, the
    Palestinian Authority to hold on and be strong, and play for
    time, and do not yield to the President's demands.
        And, finally, following your term as secretary, we know
    that you met with Mr. Zarif. I know that you said you had a
    professional relationship, apparently it was not a good
    relationship, but professional enough that you met with him at
    least three times to discuss how to save the JCPOA, undermining
    President Trump's peace efforts.
        I remind you that as we speak, the Iranian proxy Hamas is
    raining down rockets across Israel right now.
        That is why people are right to be skeptical. That is why
    we ask this question. And so you say you are surprised and have
    no recollection of ever discussing these activities with Zarif
    regarding Israel in Syria. One more time, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Kerry. I did not discuss, I did not even know about
    this number, as I said, until we, until we read the article the
    other day.
        Mr. Perry. I'm not asking about the number.
        Mr. Kerry. No, I never had a discussion with him about
    Israel with respect to attacks or anything. No. I told you.
    That is the end of the story.
        But let me, I want to say something to what you just said.
    I traveled to Nicaragua as a United States Senator with another
    United States Senator on an officially sanctioned U.S. Senate
    trip in order to try to learn about what was happening with
    respect to the war in El Salvador. And, you know, Ortega was
    one of many people we met with.
        We met with people like you do on any given trip as a
    member of the U.S. Congress. And we were handed a letter we
    brought back to the United States. We turned it over to
    President Reagan and to Vice President Bush. They had a big
    meeting about it because he was offering some kind of peace
    initiative. And that was the end of it.
        We did not have any further involvement or engagement in
    that.
        Mr. Perry. He is a brutal dictator and a communist.
        Mr. Kerry. You are damn right.
        Mr. Perry. Yes, that is exactly right.
        Mr. Kerry. You are damn right.
        Mr. Perry. You are supporting America.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative Karen Bass of California,
    who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
    and Global Human Rights, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Bass. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for taking the
    time out with us today.
        Mr. Kerry. Thank you.
        Ms. Bass. Before I ask my question, and I did want to talk
    about Africa, similar to the conversation we were having before
    the hearing, was there anything else you were trying to say
    that you did not have time to?
        Mr. Kerry. Simply that I think it is important for people
    to understand that in the course of being an ex-secretary you
    do wind up going to various events that you are invited to, and
    you have conversations, for instance, Munich Security
    Conference. There are only four times that I know of that I saw
    Prime Minister Zarif in the aftermath of being secretary. And
    they were all at an international event or sanctioned period of
    time.
        So, I, I just, you know, I do not think that--well, I do
    not think it needs any further comment.
        Ms. Bass. Okay. No problem.
        So, I wanted to ask, how do we balance our interests abroad
    with our domestic interests and all that we need to do in terms
    of maintaining the pace of the growth of jobs in the renewable
    energy space and then what it is that we are trying to do
    internationally, especially in regard to Africa?
        Mr. Kerry. What was the first part of the question?
        Ms. Bass. About how we maintain our interests abroad. I
    mean, we have our goals around climate domestically. And,
    obviously, the connection internationally. But the
    international focus I wanted to zero in on.
        Mr. Kerry. Well, I think, thank you, Representative, it is
    a very important focus. The fact is that Africa is one of the
    most negatively affected continents as a consequence of the
    climate crisis. And it is exacerbated by virtue of the fact
    that so much of Africa is still undeveloped, less developed. I
    mean, there are about 860 million people with no electricity,
    and most of them are in Africa.
        And, so, we have an enormous challenge in order to help
    with adaptation, help with resilience. But, also, in the doing
    of that to help with development. We used to do that more.
        Right now we are basically, I mean people are legitimately
    complaining about some of the things that are happening out
    there with respect to either China or another country, but the
    fact is that China is filling a void. We used to do that. We do
    not do it now.
        Ms. Bass. Could you imagine a possibility of the EU and the
    United States working together to address an infrastructure
    problem like you mentioned, two-thirds of the continent----
        Mr. Kerry. Sure.
        Ms. Bass [continuing]. Doesn't have electricity? Could you
    envision the EU? The EU is going through its whole reckoning.
    They have the issue with the migrants. We know why they travel
    and risk their lives.
        Mr. Kerry. I could easily envision that. I think it would
    be very productive. But it does require some funding. It is
    very hard to do if you are not in that business anymore.
        And to a large measure, we have stepped back our budget
    over the years. I think, I mean the total budget of everything
    we do abroad with USAID, and our embassies, and the entire
    State Department, is around $51 billion or so, 52, somewhere in
    there. I do not have the latest figure. But it has not changed
    in a number of years. It has been cut to some degree in the
    last few years. So we cannot do that.
        Ms. Bass. Do you see this Administration proposing
    significant increases?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, I do not know what the President is going
    to decide. He has the four crises he is trying to deal with
    now.
        Ms. Bass. Yes.
        Mr. Kerry. He has to build back from COVID.
        You all have rapidly addressed the initial legislation.
    There is obviously more coming. But, hopefully, we will get
    back in that business. It begins here at home, I understand
    that. It begins here at home. But you have to be able to go
    further abroad also.
        I mean, we are only, we are now, actually, down to 11
    percent of the world's emissions. Last year we were at 15
    percent. And then we moved down.
        So, that means that 89 percent is in the rest of the world.
        Ms. Bass. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Kerry. And there is no way to solve this crisis. Mother
    nature does not decide, oh, it is only coming from here or it
    is coming from there. It is the conglomerate amount that makes
    the difference. And if 89 percent of it is coming from the rest
    of the world, we, as a leading economy, leading nation, need to
    step up in order to help those other people be able to solve
    the problem because it is our problem, too.
        Ms. Bass. In the international conferences is there ever
    any attention paid or focused to Africa.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mr. Kerry. The answer is yes.
        Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Adam
    Kinzinger of Illinois for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary,
    thank you for spending a little time with us
        To echo your comments about development and competition, I
    think it is important. We, you know, we cannot both cut our
    international affairs and funding and development budget and
    then expect to be able to compete with China when they are
    using money as a soft power weapon. And I think that is an
    important point.
        More to the task at hand, I am a strong supporter of an
    all-the-above approach to fighting climate change. And I fear
    that some, including the Administration and our allies, have
    written off the largest source of carbon-free energy on the
    planet. For example, the EU has developed policies is clearing
    nuclear energy from their green goals.
        As you may know, my district is home to four nuclear power
    plants that are critical to the U.S. goal of cutting carbon
    emissions. Unfortunately, years of regulatory hurdles have left
    many of these plants on a weak financial footing.
        Would it be possible for the United States to meet our
    climate change goals if we took a similar approach to nuclear
    as our European colleagues have? And maybe with that, if you
    can explain why in the fight against climate change the EU
    appears to be taking this tool off the table?
        Mr. Kerry. The nuclear tool off the table?
        Mr. Kinzinger. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Kerry. Well, Germany has very much taken it off the
    table. Others have not.
        As you know, France provides about 70-some percent of all
    their power comes from nuclear. 20 percent of our power comes
    from nuclear. And we still have, we have another nuclear plant,
    I think, coming on.
        China is building, I think, 12 or 13 nuclear plants. And so
    they are trying to diversify a little bit.
        But nuclear has been off the table, obviously, for a number
    of reasons. It became uneconomical in the aftermath of a
    combination of Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl.
    And, you know, the economics of it do not work at the current
    moment.
        On the other hand, there are lots of people who believe
    that it may become very difficult to get the kind of baseload
    guarantee we need for our businesses, our homes, and
    communities without having something like small, next
    generation, fourth generation modular nuclear as part of the
    mix.
        So, it is being pursued. I think the U.S. Government is
    currently putting something like $500 million or so into the
    R&D and development of this. Bill Gates is putting a similar
    amount of his own money into it and building a prototype. And
    it may well be that this is going to come back into the dialog
    because the pace at which we have to reduce is so significant.
        I am told by scientists and experts in the field of
    emissions reduction, that about 50 percent of all the emissions
    we need to cut are going to come from technologies that we have
    not yet developed or taken to the marketplace. So that, I mean,
    that is astounding.
        So, whether it is direct air carbon capture, or green
    hydrogen, or storage, we still have a lot of discovering to do.
    And whoever breaks through on those things, boy, that is going
    to be, you know, that will be competition for the wealth of
    Amazon, and Bezos, and others. It is going to be an
    extraordinary amount of money made by people who come up with
    several weeks of storage, or with cheap green hydrogen.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, sir. I do not mean to cut you
    off. I just do have another question. I appreciate it.
        So, I introduced with Congresswoman Spanberger the Energy
    Resource Governance Initiative Act, which would formalize an
    initiative at State to make sure that the U.S. and our allies
    are leading the way on responsible mineral sources.
    Unfortunately, many of our clean energy technologies purchase
    their materials from the Chinese Communist Party who are the
    world's leading polluters.
        What else can be done, not only to push back on the CCP's
    policies, but to encourage American companies to source their
    materials from responsible partners?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, I think we can create incentives. That is
    something that you all have a huge capacity to do.
        And, you know, I think the second thing to do is get
    aggressively into those markets.
        I mean, clearly the tax, the tax credit on renewables has
    worked. It has been extremely effective. And so we are seeing I
    think, you know, the more you create one incentive or another
    in the directions that we need to move, the more impact you are
    going to have on the marketplace.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, sir.
        Let me just close with saying that--just another plug--that
    I hope the Administration pushes forward on the congressional
    mandated sanctions on Nord Stream 2.
        I had a question but no time, so I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Kerry. Thank you.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative Bill Keating of
    Massachusetts, and the Chair of the Subcommittee on Europe,
    Energy, and the Environment and Cyber, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
    Secretary for being here.
        You know, just in the last couple of days we had a landmark
    decision affecting U.S. energy policy here in the United States
    with the record of decision on Vineyard Wind, which was the
    first major offshore wind project in our Nation. You know, it
    was just 7 months ago that the former President was using wind
    power as a punchline in his campaign rallies. And within the
    next 7 months we are likely to be breaking ground under the
    Biden Administration in construction on this project.
        This project really meets so many our needs and priorities,
    our energy goals, our environmental goals, and our employment
    goals--good jobs.
        And this project also unlocks the projects for the whole
    eastern seaboard. And this project alone, one project, would
    have enough energy produced for 400,000 homes, for all their
    energy needs for a year. And the potential on the eastern
    seaboard is for 10 million homes being able to get their power
    from offshore wind in the future as well for a whole year.
        It is a great example of a public/private partnership. And
    with your efforts with the Administration and internationally,
    to me I get great optimism out of seeing the private investment
    that is going to occur. That is going to help us meet our
    goals. Without it, we will not be successful.
        The Biden Administration in the tax policy recognized this
    in terms of clean energy tax credits and advancing clean
    electricity production, by providing a 10-year extension in
    production tax credits, investment tax credits for energy
    generation, whether it is solar, wind, or energy storage. That
    is just part of what they are doing.
        But you touched upon it in your opening remarks, we have to
    get a partnership on the private side going forward. Can you
    give us a little more detail about the Glasgow Financial
    Alliance for net-zero and the change to bring together 160
    firms with assets in excess of $70 trillion?
        And, also, could you touch upon how we can use our
    alliances, our transatlantic alliances with our partners, to
    better coordinate the private investment side of how we are
    going to finance this going forward?
        It is a very important issue. And if you could take the
    remainder of your time, my time, just touching on the potential
    that is there, what your plan is, what can be done?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, thank you, Congressman. Thank you very
    much. And I agree with you that it is very exciting what is
    happening with Martha's Vineyard Wind possibilities.
        I really am excited about having a chance to share this
    with our colleagues here. And I particularly want to call
    attention of this to our friends on the other side of the
    aisle.
        I think that when you look at this challenge of climate
    crisis, the U.N. has done a thorough analysis of what it is
    going to cost us. Most economists will tell you today that it
    is more expensive not to respond to the climate crisis than it
    is to respond. And the private sector understands this.
        In Europe they demanded disclosure in the sector
    investments. And they have a new standard on disclosure with
    respect to investments.
        What has happened is the largest asset managers in the
    world, the BlackRocks, and the Vanguards, and others, have made
    a decision already that this is an area for major investment
    and investment returns. It is not a give-away. And so banks
    have come together, the six major banks in the United States,
    our biggest banking institutions, have volunteered that they
    are going to commit in climate sector over the next 10 years
    $4.16 trillion.
        And they joined, they have joined a thing called the Net-
    Zero Asset Managers Initiative. There is, in addition to that,
    a Net-Zero Banking Alliance. There is a Net-Zero Asset Owner
    Alliance that is 37 institutions with $5 trillion. The Net-Zero
    Banking Alliance is 28 trillion in assets; 43 banks have
    committed to this.
        And the Glasgow Financial Alliance for net-zero brings a
    lot of those others all together. So, there are about 130
    financial institutions, worth a hundred-and-some trillion
    dollars in assets being managed for lending, they are committed
    to be investing in this sector over the course of the next
    years. That is going to be----
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. Sorry,
    Mr. Secretary.
        I now recognize Representative Lee Zeldin of New York for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Kerry, did you meet with Iranian Foreign Minister
    Zarif in Munich during the Munich Security Conference in
    February 2019?
        Mr. Kerry. I do not know if I met with him in 20--I do not
    have a recollection of 2019.
        Mr. Zeldin. You maybe do not remember the year.
        Mr. Kerry. I met with him, I know I met with him, I know I
    met with him in 2018. And I met with him, I met with him I
    think twice in 2018, and twice in 2017.
        Mr. Zeldin. Do you recall meeting him in Munich during the
    Munich Security Conference?
        Mr. Kerry. I recall meeting him. I just cannot remember
    exactly which year or when it was.
        Mr. Zeldin. Were there other U.S. participants in that
    meeting?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, I think it was not a meeting. I think I
    just----
        Mr. Zeldin. Were there other U.S.----
        Mr. Kerry [continuing]. Exchanged pleasantries.
        Mr. Zeldin. Were there other Americans with you in that
    discussion?
        Mr. Kerry. I do not recall. There were in one or two, but I
    do not recall which ones.
        Mr. Zeldin. In the meetings that you did have with U.S.
    participants, who were the U.S. participants?
        Mr. Kerry. In Oslo I met with I think, I think John, a
    fellow named John Finer might have been with me in Oslo.
        I do not know in New York. I cannot remember who was with
    me in New York. It was during the UNCA, during the United
    Nations meeting.
        And the Oslo meeting was a public event which I did with
    the High Representative of the EU, the former High
    Representative of the EU--no, she was then still sitting High
    Representative. And it was hosted by the Norwegian Peace
    Institute.
        Mr. Zeldin. Okay. Well, I'm just asking which U.S.
    participants were in the meeting? Any other names there?
        Mr. Kerry. But I remember I had other people with me. I
    would have to go back and figure out. I do not recall who was
    the traveling party.
        Mr. Zeldin. Did the discussion involve foreign affairs?
        Mr. Kerry. Writ large, yes.
        Mr. Zeldin. Did it involve U.S. foreign policy?
        Mr. Kerry. I mean not--I mean, it involved sort of
    listening to views of what is happening in the world, where are
    we, where are we going, what do you think about this, what--I
    mean, just general conversations, similar to one, by the way,
    that many Members of Congress met with him during that same
    period when I was in New York and had a meeting in New York. He
    met with Congress, he met with the New York Times editorial
    board, he was on T.V. It was a public dialog.
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes. I am just asking about your meetings.
        Any other meetings with--how many meetings did you have
    with Zarif during the Trump Administration?
        Mr. Kerry. I think during the Trump Administration I had
    four meetings.
        Mr. Zeldin. Did you have any phone calls with Zarif during
    the Trump Administration?
        Mr. Kerry. No. No.
        Mr. Zeldin. Would messages, communications be passed
    between the two of you----
        Mr. Kerry. No.
        Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Separately during this time?
        Mr. Kerry. No. The only time we ever had any communication
    was about the specific meeting to get together to compare notes
    on what was happening in the world.
        Mr. Zeldin. Did you have access, did you obtain any
    classified information during the Trump Administration?
        Mr. Kerry. No.
        Mr. Zeldin. Do you recall having a conversation with the
    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff at the Munich
    Security Conference?
        Do you recall having an extended conversation with the
    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff at the Munich
    Security Conference?
        Mr. Kerry. I think we had a, I think we had a beer in the
    Rathskeller underneath the thing. But I do not recall
    specifically very much.
        Mr. Zeldin. Okay. There was a main room--because I was
    there as well--there was a main room where there was a bunch of
    speakers. And I was there. I watched. And you guys had an
    extended conversation. You do not recall that conversation?
        Mr. Kerry. In the, in the main hall?
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes.
        Mr. Kerry. It is entirely possible. I just, I remember
    sitting with him and having a beer with him.
        Mr. Zeldin. But you do not recall having that conversation
    with the Chairman?
        Mr. Kerry. I do not recall the conversation. It is
    entirely--I think he, yes, I think he sat beside me. We sat on
    the right side of the hall looking toward the stage. And I
    think we sat there----
        Mr. Zeldin. Okay. Well, I mean, you guys were standing.
        But, when you guys met with Zarif, when you were talking
    about U.S. foreign policy would you advocate for your position
    on policy?
        Mr. Kerry. The only time--I did not advocate for my
    position. When I, during the period of time I met with Zarif we
    were in the agreement. From the time President Trump pulled out
    of the agreement in May 2018, and I do not recall having
    another conversation with him after.
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes. Well, we are running out of time.
        We have one president at a time, and those conversations
    weren't helpful.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Kerry. Well, one president at a time----
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative David Cicilline of Rhode
    Island for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your
    serVice to our country.
        I do want to correct my friend Mr. Keating. Of course,
    Rhode Island is the offshore wind capital of America. This
    project he is speaking about is the second one, and we welcome
    the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the industry. But,
    seriously, it is exciting for Rhode Island and Massachusetts
    but, obviously, particularly exciting for us in Rhode Island as
    we lead the industry in this area.
        You know, there has been a lot of discussion about the
    importance of climate, responding to the climate crisis because
    of the consequences to our planet, you know, our ability to
    maintain a habitable planet and, obviously, understanding the
    economic opportunities that renewable energies present.
        But I would also like you to spend a moment talking about
    what the implications are to conflicts around the world. We
    know climate change risks starting, prolonging, or exacerbating
    armed conflicts around the world. The U.N. Security Council
    meeting organized by the United Kingdom recently sought to
    expose the link between our warming climate and conflict. We
    have seen how drought has made the conflict in Syria that much
    more difficult. And how States like Mali face threats from
    insurgents because of issues like food insecurity.
        And I think it is one thing that people do not hear enough
    about. And so I would love to hear your thoughts on the nexus
    between climate change and conflict and why, if we do not
    invest in a real climate response, that we might risk further
    conflicts in the future.
        And then my second question, and I will give you time to
    answer both of them, is there was a recent report by the U.N.
    Environment Program that outlines the importance of
    dramatically and quickly reducing global emissions of methane
    and because of all the dangers that methane presents. And
    particularly since methane helps create smog, cutting emissions
    in half to present as many as 250,000 deaths each year
    worldwide if we do this.
        Can you speak about the UNEP report and what steps the
    Biden Administration is taking both here in the United States
    and in concert with our partners around the world to reduce
    methane emissions?
        Mr. Kerry. I will try to run through that really quickly.
    First of all, the implications of the climate crisis to all of
    us in terms of foreign policy and military are that you could
    have millions of people who are homeless, literally their
    habitat is no longer habitable.
        Last year in Pakistan it was 130 degrees in one community.
    In the Middle East it was 130 degrees. Here in California, in
    Death Valley, it was 130 degrees. The human body is not
    prepared or it is not meant to be living in 130 degrees. It is
    going to go up still in some of those places.
        We have seen heat, heat waves in the ocean literally, with
    massive die-off and impact on the food protein source for
    millions--billions of people actually.
        So, as that gets disrupted you are going to have downstream
    impacts. If the Himalayas cease to have the ice, or begin to
    reduce in its amount, you are already seeing water impacts.
    Rivers are going to start to dry up. Billions of people rely on
    those rivers for food in parts of the world. The Mekong, the
    Yellow River, the Yangtze, the Yang, the Ganges, these rivers
    are all sourced in places that rely on the ice sheet, the melt,
    the snow. As that changes you could have profound impacts.
        This is not conjectural. It is already happening in certain
    places. There are climate refugees today, just not yet in the
    millions depending on. But if you have a complete collapse in a
    region, those people are going to be knocking on the door of a
    place that is livable. And there will be, we have already had
    wars over water, we had fights over water, conflict as water
    becomes more of a problem.
        Our own reservoir, the Ogallala Reservoir which is the
    principal reservoir of the United States of America, has
    challenges. Go to the Four Corners of Nevada and Colorado, et
    cetera, and find out how development is already being impacted
    by lack of water.
        So, there are major challenges going forward as the world's
    climate changes, and where we can produce and what we produce
    also shifts with it.
        There are other potential conflicts. We saw in Syria about
    a million people come out of the desert into the Damascus area
    because there was a drought of several years. And that had a
    profound impact on the politics of the region. And it became
    part of the dynamics of what went on with Assad and Daesh and
    the exploitation of people as a consequence of their shifted
    locale and lack of integration to that particular new locale.
        On the subject of methane, methane is 20 to 80-plus times
    more damaging than CO2.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative Darrell Issa of California
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good to have you back, Mr. Secretary.
        During the 2-years that I was out of Congress and,
    similarly, you were not currently in government, I was involved
    with the Trade Development Agency which is established to
    basically export, if you will, infrastructure around the world.
    It has a mandate that includes virtually all of Africa, much of
    South America, and much of Asia.
        That organization competes directly with the Belt and Road
    Initiative of the Chinese, but with less than 2 percent as much
    money as they operate on. Isn't it fair to say that if what we
    want to do is enable developing nations, including those in
    Africa, to reduce their carbon footprint as they grow their
    economy, we are going to have to be the country that delivers
    that type of infrastructure, because China certainly is not
    doing that today?
        Mr. Kerry. China is not delivering that kind of
    infrastructure today. We need to, I think, be in the game, and
    we need to help deliver it. But not alone. There are plenty of
    countries that know how to do it and will do it well that are
    engaged.
        Mr. Issa. And we do partner with Japan and other countries.
        Mr. Kerry. Correct.
        Mr. Issa. And I am glad to see us doing that because we
    are, of course, delivering a smaller footprint.
        You mentioned that China produces 73 percent of, if you
    will, the renewable assets, wind and solar. If they had used it
    themselves rather than building those coal-fired plants, would
    they have gone up or down likely in their CO2 emissions?
        Mr. Kerry. They actually are using it themselves,
    Congressman. They are the largest--they have the largest
    deployment of renewable as anybody else in the world.
        Mr. Issa. But they also use twice as much coal as we do,--
    --
        Mr. Kerry. That is correct.
        Mr. Issa [continuing]. And continue to grow.
        Mr. Kerry. That is correct.
        Mr. Issa. As we look at a number of countries, I want to
    quickly go to India.
        During the last Administration, India negotiated numerous
    times to acquire LNG capability and convert some of their coal-
    fired plants, future coal-fired plants to natural gas. At the
    end of the day, they reneged and did not buy anything.
        Isn't it true that part of the challenge you face with
    India and China is the attitude we cannot afford to be clean,
    and that that is one of the reasons both of those countries
    will continue to peak up in CO2 emissions while the United
    States has been dropping for more than a decade?
        Mr. Kerry. I would say to you, sir, with all respect that
    there is an attitude, but that is not it. The attitude is we
    are less developed countries, and we have to still develop. And
    according to the original Paris standard, there is a thing
    called common but differentiated responsibility. So----
        Mr. Issa. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, and I think you
    are exactly right. There are two different ways to say the same
    thing: we are not developed enough; we are not rich enough.
    But, at the end of the day they believe they have a right to
    continue producing more CO2 in order to catch up with our
    economy----
        Mr. Kerry. They do.
        Mr. Issa [continuing]. While we do it down.
        So, domestically for a moment, isn't it true that we are
    going to have to find ways to reduce our carbon footprint while
    in fact not putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage to
    our competitors around the world who are using lower cost
    energy, lower currently than most renewables?
        Mr. Kerry. Yes.
        Mr. Issa. So, if we are to do that, wouldn't the Biden
    Administration have to continue a trajectory that began with
    the Bush Administration and continued through the last two
    Administrations, which is to convert from coal to natural gas,
    to increase efficiencies, to use all of the above, and to
    ladder our way down in the consumption--or the production of
    CO2, rather than a draconian one?
        And I want to followup with one quick question. You said--
    you quoted, I think, the LA Times, and you said that California
    had 95 percent renewable at one point on 1 day. Oddly enough,
    my district in Southern California has had repeated blackouts
    as a result of having not enough energy because on a hot
    afternoon when the sun starts going down we run out of power.
        So, isn't all of the above and a blended solution what the
    United States should do, while at the same time laddering down
    our CO2 emissions?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, the key, I think, Congressman, is to do it
    in a way that is integrated so that you cannot have any of
    those challenges.
        Now, this was 1 day. And I think they were pushing the
    curve to try to find out what happened. It is obviously not a
    long-term situation.
        Mr. Issa. But the blackouts were many days.
        Mr. Kerry. No, I get it.
        But, but that is why we need to have a smart approach that
    is integrated. At the same time, gas is a challenge.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Kerry. Naturally. Maybe we will have more time so we
    can followup.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now acknowledge Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas,
    who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on International
    Development, International Organizations, and Global
    Corporation Social Impact, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Castro. Secretary Kerry, great to see you again. Thank
    you for joining us today.
        Climate change is an existential threat that the United
    States must lead on. And your appointment is a welcome sign.
        Most of the work on the Paris Agreement and our efforts to
    strengthen the agreement focus on controlling carbon emissions.
    And this is critical. But I want to ask you what we are also
    doing to address the effects of climate change which are
    already occurring.
        Current laws on refugees and international migration are
    not well-suited to address the needs of people displaced by
    climate. And the effects of climate change on crops and
    livelihoods have contributed to migration in Central America,
    the Middle East, and West Africa.
        And I know in response to Mr. Cicilline's question you
    touched upon this. But I wanted to ask you, does the United
    States and other countries that have disproportionate emitted
    carbon have a responsibility to take in those displaced by
    climate change?
        Mr. Kerry. I think, commensurate with our overall
    innovation goals and targets, they have to be included. It is
    not an automatic license that you are going to be able to take
    everybody, obviously. But within our appropriate limits, we
    have to.
        But I think the more important thing, frankly, Congressman,
    is, you know, rather than wait for these effects to hit us the
    way we do, I mean, for the spending, for instance, of the $265
    billion I talked about, I talked in my opening comments about
    22 separate events last year, a record, all of which required a
    billion dollars of expenditure.
        If we do not start to think ahead and apply some vision to
    our making of policy, we are going to wind up paying, paying,
    paying, and not getting any real consequence for it. We have
    got to start investing in the future now.
        And that is the theory of what President Biden has put on
    the table: invest. It is not just an expenditure, it is an
    investment. And if we do that, then we have an ability to get
    to the root causes, the root challenge for why people are
    moving and why this pressure is growing, otherwise it is going
    to be a, you know, like a firehose actually coming at you.
        Mr. Castro. And just to followup to that, two questions
    that I will put together.
        What will the Biden Administration do to update and
    strengthen international rules for resettling people displaced
    by climate change?
        And, do you support amending U.S. law and conventions at
    the United Nations to include climate refugees?
        Mr. Kerry. I do believe we have to have formal acceptance
    of the concept of climate refugees. Yes, I do.
        I do not have an answer to the first part of your question.
    I would have to get that from those folks in the Administration
    working on that.
        Mr. Castro. Yes. Thank you very much.
        I yield back, Chairman.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize Representative Ann Wagner of Missouri, who
    is the Vice Ranking Member of the full committee, for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Wagner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Kerry, on April 25th, the New York Times
    published Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif claimed
    that you, as Secretary of State, revealed classified
    information regarding Israel's covert attacks on Iranian
    interests in Syria. These allegations are extremely disturbing.
        Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, a key U.S.
    ally. And it has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to
    attack Israel directly, both through proxy and from its
    position in Syria.
        Given the gravity of the security threat Iran poses to the
    U.S. and allied interests, I believe the report should be
    investigated in full. If true, Javad Zarif's claims raise
    serious questions regarding your ability, sir, to unreservedly
    protect U.S. interests as Special Presidential Envoy for
    Climate. The degree and the nature of U.S. participation in
    international climate change agreements must, and I underscore
    must, be informed by our national security interests.
        An overly narrow focus on left wing action items like the
    deeply flawed Paris Agreement, and the Iran Nuclear Deal,
    cannot blind us to the malign intentions of adversaries like
    Iran, Russia, and the People's Republic of China.
        On April 28th I sent a letter, this letter, to the Acting
    Inspector General of the Department of State, and to the
    Secretary of State, requesting an investigation into your
    relationship with Iran's foreign minister. Are you aware of
    this letter, sir?
        Mr. Kerry. No, I am not.
        Ms. Wagner. I will make sure you have a copy.
        Mr. Kerry. Well, obviously I am aware of it now.
        Ms. Wagner. The letter also requested a response to several
    very specific questions by today, May 12th. As I have not
    received answers--and, Mr. Chairman, I would like this entered
    into the record.
        Chairman Meeks. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Wagner. I would like to ask you now, what were the
    circumstances surrounding your alleged leak of information to
    Javad Zarif, including the timing of this conversation; what
    role have you had in formulating U.S. policy on re-entering the
    Iran Nuclear Deal, sir?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, I think the premise is incorrect. The
    story did not allege that I transferred classified information,
    it did not even characterize it as classified. It simply said
    that on a tape Javad was overheard in a long, long lamentation
    about how he was out of the loop in Iran and in the policy, and
    how he had learned this and learned that from somebody. And
    then popped in saying----
        Ms. Wagner. He said he learned it from you, sir, and it is
    over 200 instances.
        Mr. Castro. He said he learned one thing from me. And I
    have already answered that question. I never said that. I do
    not know how he came up with that. Don't know where it came
    from.
        And it was not, there was no--nothing stated in there about
    my having released anything on classified information. And in
    28 years in the U.S. Senate, and in 6 years on the Intel
    Committee, and as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee,
    and as Secretary of State in 4 years, never has anybody
    suggested I did not protect classified----
        Ms. Wagner. Well, I would like a full investigation. And I
    would like my questions answered. I will see that you have a
    copy.
        The Biden Administration seems to be copying the same
    climate rhetoric and policies as California. Like, California
    has some of the highest electricity prices in the country, is
    the largest importer of energy, and rolling blackouts are not
    uncommon. In fact, the State has been sued by civil rights
    groups for the impact of their climate policies on low income
    and communities of color.
        And to top it off, according to the Department of Energy,
    California performance since 2010 in reducing energy-related
    carbon emissions ranks 43d among all States.
        What is your opinion of the California approach? And do you
    think it is a model for the rest of the country, sir?
        Mr. Kerry. I think California has done an incredible job.
    It is pushing the curve. It is try----
        Ms. Wagner. Forty-third. Ranked 43d in the country.
        Mr. Kerry. In? Forty-third in what?
        Ms. Wagner. Among all States in reducing energy-related
    carbon emissions. And they are doing a great job?
        Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        I now recognize Representative Dina Titus of Nevada for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary Kerry, for being with us today. We
    certainly appreciate your efforts in this area, and commend you
    for the work that you are doing.
        We have heard a lot about the major focus of COP21 and the
    Paris Agreement being on reducing global emissions. And that
    sounds great. But it seems to put us in a position of working
    from behind.
        Could you address some of the things that we need to do to
    be proactive around the world so we can meet long-term gains,
    not just cleanup the mess that exists but make the future
    better.
        Mr. Kerry. Well, I think the single most important thing
    that we need to do, we are doing, which is the United States of
    America under President Biden has put forward an extremely
    thoughtful, achievable, and aggressive reductions level so that
    we are leading by example, which the President has talked about
    a great deal.
        So, we are, we are going to be striving for over the next
    10 years a 50 to 52 percent reduction in our emissions. I will
    tell you that that has really helped us to come back to the
    table with credibility on an international basis.
        Now, I emphasize, no one nation can solve this problem. I
    mean, we can sit here and lament. We can, you know, be talking
    about America's preeminence in one sector or another, but the
    truth is that there are 89 percent of the global emissions
    coming from other countries, and 20 countries are responsible
    for 73 percent of all emissions.
        So, 20 countries, this was the theory of our summit, it
    brought those 20 countries together. The majority of them have
    stepped up and are stepping up with new reduction targets. But
    we need other countries to do that.
        But what the United States is trying to do now under
    President Biden's leadership is to reach out to those countries
    and work with them. We have a working group that is literally
    sitting with these nations and trying to articulate to them in
    a thoughtful and respectful way how they might be able to
    transition faster off of some coal, or how they may be able to
    implement and deploy more renewables faster. And it is only by
    that kind of help from the developed world that we have a
    prayer of winning this battle.
        So, the key here is for the U.S. to be on target.
        The second thing we need to do--which is exciting--I mean,
    we are looking at the biggest transitional opportunity since
    the Industrial Revolution. The United States of America does
    not even have a grid yet, folks. We do not have a grid. We can
    go to the moon, but we cannot send an electron from one part of
    the country to another.
        We have got to build the transmission capacity. We have got
    to use AI, quantum computing, be able to instantaneously--and
    the Congresswoman talked about where California sits--we could
    send California clean energy, windmill, wind power, or solar,
    or Nevada or any other place somewhere else in the country at a
    given time, with our time difference of 3 hours, and with
    battery storage at utility scale that already gets 4 hours, you
    could begin to really manage a system as you wait for daylight
    and as you wait for the wind.
        So, this could be managed. And artificial intelligence and
    quantum computing give us a huge advantage in our ability to do
    that.
        So, that is the way we can help lead the world. We should
    be leading on all of these technologies. Historically, that is
    what has made America so strong. Now we have to get back into
    that race. And I think we are looking at huge opportunities of
    providing hydrogen, and storage, and perhaps even on this other
    front, fourth generation next modular nuclear. Who knows what
    it is going to be.
        I am for an all-of-the-above effort because we do not know
    which of the best of these technologies is yet going to work
    until we have to do it.
        One last word. Even if we get to net-zero by 2050, we are
    still going to have to suck carbon monoxide out of the
    atmosphere. A lot of people do not stop to think of that. We
    still need the technology that is going to enable us to do it.
        So, I think there are great possibilities here for
    discovery. We are creating more jobs in this sector already in
    America. And as I mentioned in the beginning, there are already
    more people working in this new, clean energy sector than there
    are working in fossil fuel or in many other sectors.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        Chairman Meeks. I now acknowledge Representative Brian Mast
    of Florida for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, you just quite literally contradicted
    yourself. You said you are for all of the above, but you are
    not. We spoke earlier, Representative Issa asked a question
    about the Keystone Pipeline. You are fundamentally in
    disagreement with delivering that fuel into the United States
    of America. It would beg the question, did the hack on the
    Colonial Pipeline save you the trouble of having to shut that
    one down?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, Congressman, I appreciate your question.
    And may I, as a matter of personal privilege, just say how much
    I admire your personal serVice to our country.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Kerry. I would say to you this: I do not think it is a
    contradiction. Yes, we are going to use gas for some period of
    time. And I am not one of those that comes in and says you have
    to shut down today, tomorrow. We cannot do that.
        What we can do is begin to take steps that reduce reliance,
    even as we keep alive the ability to have sufficient gas for
    the purposes we need.
        Mr. Mast. It is a fair point, Mr. Secretary. But to the
    point that you made to my friend, Mr. Issa, to quote it, ``That
    is true. The pipelines are more carbon delivery efficient than
    rails and trucks. They deliver the fuel by using less carbon in
    order to deliver that fuel--````
        Mr. Kerry. But, Congressman, here----
        Mr. Mast. Let me finish the quote.
        Mr. Kerry [continuing]. Here is the challenge.
        Mr. Mast. Let me finish the quote and I will let you
    respond.
        Mr. Kerry. Yes.
        Mr. Mast. ``--but it does not mean that you want to be
    adding another line, another one of these more efficient
    routes. There are alternatives. But, yes, pipeline is better
    than trains and trucks.``
        Mr. Kerry. So, let me tell you why we can do better in
    meeting our goal of reducing our emissions.
        All the gas we burn, first of all gas is 87-point-some
    percent methane. Gas leaks. If you--in the Permian Basin, for
    instance, we have a leakage, you have it around 2.7 percent.
    Scientists say that can be more damaging than CO2.
        Our leakage is at about 5 percent or 10 percent in some
    places in America. Now, if that is the leakage in America,
    think what it is in other places.
        Because of the melting of permafrost and the melting of the
    tundra, the thawing of the tundra, we are now seeing methane
    being released around the world that isn't tapped, it isn't
    used. President Biden has put an effort into his legislation to
    start capping open wells and open mines that are giving off
    methane in the United States.
        Mr. Mast. Mr. Secretary, could I summarize your----
        Mr. Kerry. Here is the challenge----
        Mr. Mast. Could I summarize your position by saying you
    want no crude or petrol use. Would that be an accurate summary?
        Mr. Kerry. For what?
        Mr. Mast. You want no crude, no petrol used in the future.
    Would that be an accurate summary?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, it depends what you mean by the future. We
    are going to be doing that. We are going to be using crude. We
    are going to be using crude, we're going--well, crude, first of
    all, is used for lots of other things than fuel and power. So,
    we are going to use crude well into the future.
        Mr. Mast. Not delivered by pipeline though?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, no, it could well be delivered by
    pipeline. Already we are doing that. But our source of power,
    President Biden has already made this decision, and the
    utilities are already accepting it.
        Mr. Mast. I want to ask one more question because I----
        Mr. Kerry. By 2035----
        Mr. Mast [continuing]. I want to yield some time to one of
    my friends here who may not be able to ask you some questions.
        Mr. Kerry. By 2035, though, President Biden has determined
    we will be carbon free in our power production.
        Mr. Mast. You are talking about not allowing these new
    avenues to deliver them, even though they are more efficient,
    like the Keystone Pipeline. Would there also be an effort to
    not promote other forms of delivery, that is to say, not permit
    a new railcar that is being used to deliver that because
    Colonial is down right now? Not permitting a new truck to go
    over the road, which is what is being used to deliver those,
    those fuels right now, would that also be a part of the----
        Mr. Kerry. No.
        Mr. Mast [continuing]. Program?
        Mr. Kerry. No. No, I do not--I really think we are talking
    much more reasonably, Congressman, in a way that we have to try
    to accelerate the transition to clean fuels. That is what we
    have to try to accelerate. It is not going to happen overnight.
    So, we are going to need--now, I would rather see gas used
    rather than coal anywhere in the world. And I think there are
    ways to try to assist in doing that.
        But even gas----
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am going to yield my
    time to Mr. Pfluger for a moment.
        Mr. Kerry. Thank you.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you for yielding.
        Mr. Secretary, for the first time in 70 years our country
    is energy independent. It is a lever of power, it is national
    security. Energy security is national security. And so you have
    mentioned that we need to take steps. We have taken steps, as
    you have clearly highlighted today, from being 15 percent down
    to 11 percent. That is huge.
        Do you believe that wind and solar can provide baseload
    capacity for this country?
        Mr. Kerry. Not alone.
        Mr. Pfluger. No. That is absolutely right.
        Mr. Kerry. Not yet. Not yet.
        Mr. Pfluger. We saw it in Texas windstorms, and we have
    seen it in California.
        Mr. Kerry. I should amend that by saying, Congressman, not
    yet alone. If we break through on storage,----
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Kerry [continuing]. The answer is yes.
        Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Susan Wild
    of Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Secretary Kerry,
    thank you for your lifelong serVice to our country and for
    appearing before our committee today.
        I want to switch gears a little bit and talk about the
    Amazon rainforest which has often been referred to as the lungs
    of Earth because of its crucial role in sustaining human life
    and biodiversity across the globe. But, unfortunately, under
    the Bolsonaro Government in Brazil, as I am sure you are aware,
    deforestation has surged to record highs as the Government has
    rolled back environmental protection mechanisms and emboldened
    those who are engaged in illegal logging and mining.
        We saw the culmination of these actions in the catastrophic
    mass-scale fires in the Brazilian Amazon in 2019, just as we
    see unchecked deforestation contributing to the climate crisis
    for our entire planet today.
        President Biden has expressed interest in attempting to
    negotiate an agreement to protect the Brazilian Amazon, clearly
    an imperative for combating climate change. And I was wondering
    if you could update us on the status of those negotiations and
    address the issue of verification mechanisms?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, we are in the midst of that negotiation
    now. We have just started it really a few weeks ago.
        We have had some positive conversations, and we are hopeful
    that we can translate intent into action that will wind up
    being effective and verifiable. Obviously, there have been
    challenges in that, and we are very aware of those challenges.
        The fact, as I mentioned earlier, that the Amazon was doing
    relatively well up until I think around 2012, and then suddenly
    took a surge in the amount of cutting that took place, and the
    land grabbing that took place. We have got to create--the
    imperative here is to create a verifiable enforcement structure
    that everybody has confidence in. That is the goal. And that is
    what we are working toward. And if we can get there, you know,
    it may be possible to have an agreement that works for
    everybody.
        I mean, the truth is there is a value in the Amazon that a
    country, Brazil, looks at and says, well, maybe we do not
    accept the theory of this, we want to do it this way. And there
    are assets within there, not to mention the great asset of
    indigenous people who live there and who need to be
    significantly taken into account with regard to their future.
        Ms. Wild. I am going to ask you----
        Mr. Kerry. All of those are the equities.
        Ms. Wild. I am going to ask you to stop right there because
    you just touched on something that I wanted to ask about, and
    that is the role of the indigenous communities in the
    negotiations and any subsequent agreement.
        Can we assume that they will be included? Has the
    Administration been consulting with local indigenous leaders at
    all?
        Mr. Kerry. We are certainly consulting with representatives
    thereof. None of us have been down there or have any personal
    meetings at this point in time. But the answer is their
    concerns are paramount. And they have a huge voice in this and
    they need to be heard.
        Ms. Wild. And you agree then that protection of indigenous
    communities has to be one of the paramount concerns?
        Mr. Kerry. Everywhere. Wherever we are engaged in this
    President Biden is super-focused and targeted on justice, on
    fairness, and on a process that is sensitive, where sometimes
    in the past it has not been.
        Ms. Wild. So, let me just switch gears with just over a
    minute left.
        The EU has approved the principle of imposing basically a
    carbon tariff on imports from countries that do not price for
    taxed carbon, and is expected to design a directive to attempt
    to implement this policy. You know, those of us in districts
    like mine with a very intensive manufacturing sector as part of
    our local economy are strongly committed to protecting the
    interests of our workers and businesses as well.
        But my question is just to comment that this policy should
    be a last resort, could you update us on the status of this
    issue with the Europeans.
        Mr. Kerry. The status. I did not hear the original piece.
    Of which issue?
        Ms. Wild. Of the carbon tariff that the EU is intending to
    propose.
        Mr. Kerry. Sure. Well, they are calling it a border
    adjustment mechanism.
        Ms. Wild. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Kerry. They are looking right now at exactly how it
    would work in order not to be disruptive, but at the same time
    to be effective.
        I honestly do not have an answer to that at this point in
    time. We are looking at it. President Biden has instructed us
    to understand it and to thoroughly vet whatever the impacts
    might be. That is what we are going to do.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you very much. Thank you.
        Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Brian
    Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who is the Ranking Member of the
    Subcommittee on Europe, Energy, the Environment and Cyber, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Kerry,
    thank you for being here with us today.
        According to a recent report by the Rhodium Group, China
    emits close to 30 percent of global emissions. China's share of
    global emissions has grown more than all of the OECD nations
    combined. In fact, today, by comparison, the United States'
    emissions are a billion tons less than they were in 2005, and
    our trajectory is going down, while Chinese emissions are well
    over 4 billion tons higher than they were in 2005, and their
    trajectory is going up.
        So, a couple questions.
        First, is this dramatic increase in emissions consistent
    with China's Paris Accord pledge?
        And, No. 2, what are the effective accountability
    mechanisms in place to certify that countries like the PRC
    follow through on their climate commitments?
        Mr. Kerry. I did not hear the very last part of that. But
    the simple answer is no, no, the current level rate of
    reduction is not consistent with the pledge. As it is not, I
    might add, for quite a few countries.
        There just are too many countries not yet in compliance.
    And that will be one of the major--that is why we, President
    Biden summoned the Climate Summit he held is precisely to get
    people focused on a raising of ambition. And that will be our
    goal over the course of these next 5 months.
        We cannot look at where we are today, we have got to look
    at it as where we could be in the next, you know, beginning
    this September, October and head to Glasgow.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Understood, sir. But, obviously, China is
    in the center of a lot of different issues from the
    intelligence standpoint, the foreign affairs standpoint,
    economic.
        Mr. Kerry. For sure. No question.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. And there has been a lot of comments
    coming out of the PRC regarding their plans to basically
    exploit the parameters of Paris by amping up rather than
    reducing as we approach that date, amping up their coal
    production, their carbon emissions, almost making a mockery out
    of the whole intent of Paris.
        So, I was just curious as to what your thoughts are,
    specific as it pertains to China and their good faith as far as
    good faith commitments and the level of good faith commitments
    to Paris?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, let me speak to that this way:
        I have said to you I agree that there are big challenges,
    there are major issues that we have with China. My focus is,
    obviously, to deal with the China crisis and to get us,
    hopefully, in a place where it is constructive and we are
    moving in the right direction.
        So, with respect to that we need, obviously, to get greater
    cooperation from China. We are talking about that now. That is
    on the table as a critical component.
        Now, China believes that they are doing a certain amount. I
    know they know that they are seized by the issue of having to
    do greater reductions. We are hopeful we can get China in a
    place where we respect the common but differentiated, so that
    China is doing not exactly what we are doing, but China is
    doing enough that it is clear they are seriously reducing, and
    they are making their best effort to hold to 1.5 degrees.
        And if we can get into a place where that is actually
    happening and we have the ability to know it is happening and
    trace it, then we will have advanced this ball. We are not
    there yet, and we have a lot of work to do to try to get there.
        One other thing I will say to you is, one of the new
    benefits of technology is that we have an ability through space
    and satellite tracking to now measure quite precisely what a
    particular company is doing, or whether its food, its supply
    chain is behaving the way they promised. And we can look even
    at governments and whole countries and have almost realtime
    readout on exactly what is happening with respect to their
    emissions.
        So, the planet will have much greater transparency and
    accountability than it has ever had as a result of technology's
    assist in here.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. One last question, sir.
        What should the consequences be to China if they are
    proceeding in bad faith and we determine that to be the case?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, I mean, one of them obviously already
    raised by several Members is the challenge of the border
    adjustment mechanism and the possibility of some kind of
    tariff. That is out there.
        And, you know, and China is not the only country affected.
    By the way, every country would be subject to that. So we, too,
    would have to make sure we are in alignment and subject to it.
        So, we are examining exactly how it might work, how it
    could be fair. For the moment, we would like to not----
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        And I will recognize Representative Dean Phillips of
    Minnesota for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And as a Gold Star son who lost his father in Vietnam, I
    want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your sacrifices there and
    for your serVice as a Senator and Secretary of State and, of
    course, now in this capacity. And I have to say I am saddened
    that some of my colleagues would seemingly put their faith in
    the word of the Iranian foreign minister over that of yours. I
    am sorry for that. The irony is not lost on me.
        My questions are about climate change. And you are aware of
    President Biden's interest in what he calls foreign policy for
    the middle class. And with that in mind, I would love it if you
    would speak for a few moments about how you and the
    Administration are approaching decarbonization of our economy
    while also mitigating the incremental costs to American
    families that might result from that transition?
        Mr. Kerry. That is a great question, Congressman. And thank
    you for your personal comments. I appreciate it. And, you know,
    obviously wish life had been otherwise for you.
        With respect to decarbonization and the foreign policy for
    families, the President--and I think this is where this gets
    exciting``is convinced, as I am, that the opportunities here
    are so much greater than any deficit in this transformation. We
    have transitioned historically many times. The industrial
    revolution was a transition. When the steam engine came along,
    and the cotton gin, and life changed and great communities were
    built.
        Bill Keating, Representative Keating and I understand how
    Massachusetts was changed by that, and Rhode Island, and other
    States, the textile industry, the shoe industry. So, and then
    it moved. But other things came and replaced it. Our economy
    still remains strong in America, despite these transitions. And
    we grow stronger, and we build out a larger middle class.
        I think that is going to happen here in amazing ways. I
    mean, already it seems there is a prediction by the Labor
    Bureau statistics that there are three jobs that are going to
    grow more than 50 percent this next year. One, the No. 1 is
    wind turbine technician. That is at 62 percent growth.
        The second job is nurse practitioner. And we all know why
    that is growing, unfortunately.
        The third is solar panel installer, which is going to grow
    at about 51 percent.
        Now, what we see is, and in vehicles, I just talked the
    other day with the Senator from South Carolina, we were talking
    about the transition in South Carolina and how, you know, folks
    who are making the internal combustion engine car now are going
    to not only be making an electric vehicle, but they are going
    to be growing, the number of plants that are there and the job
    opportunities are going to grow.
        I think if you look at what is already happening in the
    early clean tech markets of solar wind, battery, there are
    dozens of emerging clean tech markets here in the United States
    that are going to enlarge economic opportunities for people.
    And people are earning, without a high school degree, in some
    of these early jobs, 24 bucks an hour which, as we know, is
    more than double the minimum wage, so.
        Mr. Phillips. Yes. Sir, and I would like to reclaim some
    time. I just want to, I do want to call attention to those
    effects and ensure that we do look after those who will suffer
    from incremental costs.
        I want to talk about pipelines, too. As you well know, the
    State Department manages Presidential permits for cross-border
    pipelines. In my home State of Minnesota, Enbridge is currently
    replacing over 330 miles of its Line 3 crude oil pipeline that
    runs from Alberta across the border all the way to Wisconsin.
    It is a pipeline that is older than me, first used in 1968
    before the National Environmental Policy Act was enacted in
    1970.
        So, there are serious concerns about the lack of
    environmental reviews on the project. In fact, when Enbridge
    sought to replace Line 3 in 2014, the State Department
    determined that it did not require a new permit, as you are
    probably aware.
        So, how are you and the Biden Administration approaching
    decisions on cross-border pipeline construction, replacement,
    and upgrades? And have you spoken with Minister----
        Mr. Kerry. I confess to you I have not had that
    conversation at this point in time.
        Mr. Phillips. Okay.
        Mr. Kerry. And so I would rather get you an answer but have
    it be informed.
        Mr. Phillips. All right. Well, I see my time is
    unfortunately----
        Mr. Kerry. What we will do is we will come back to you with
    that.
        Mr. Phillips. I welcome that. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Kerry. All right.
        Mr. Phillips. Thank you.
        Chairman Meeks. The last questions will be from
    Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee. You are now
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Before we go into this I wanted to ask, call your attention
    to some legislation. My colleague Bruce Westerman from
    Arkansas--he is an Ivy Leaguer like you, but he sounds more
    country than me; he is from Arkansas--he has some legislation
    called The Trillion Trees Initiative. And that is the ultimate
    sequester of carbon. And I would appreciate you looking at that
    after you finish with your notes. I would appreciate that,
    brother, if you would, if you could have one of your staffers
    if they would, it is truly a good piece of legislation.
        How do we trust the Chinese Communist Party to do anything
    they say they are going to do with their increased coal power
    capacity and everything else that they are doing, and their
    violations of human rights in the world?
        Mr. Kerry. Congressman, we will take a look at that
    legislation.
        And, second, as I have said several times here, it is not a
    matter of taking things by trust. We have to have a mechanism
    where we are both measuring, where we are accountable to each
    other, where we are actually able to know what is happening.
    And it would be stupid and malpractice if we just sort of set
    up a China trust thing.
        Mr. Burchett. Okay. I know that we did that, you know, we
    did that with Iran. And I do not want to dig you, but it seems
    like we kind of got it handed to us on that deal. And I would
    just hope that we could follow through with that. Also----
        Mr. Kerry. Well, even, in all fairness, we did not pull out
    of that deal. I mean----
        Mr. Burchett. I mean, you cannot trust them to do anything.
    They are the leading proponents of terrorism in the world.
        Mr. Kerry. No, and we, by the way----
        Mr. Burchett. I mean, they got more American blood on their
    hands than anybody in the last 20 years probably.
        Mr. Kerry. I understand all of that. Which is why we put in
    place the most severe, most extensive, singularly most
    accountable verification system ever put into any nuclear
    agreement.
        Mr. Burchett. Okay.
        Mr. Kerry. And that was there until the former President
    pulled out.
        Mr. Burchett. And I appreciate that. I am not trying to dig
    you, but I want to know a straight answer.
        Mr. Kerry. Yes.
        Mr. Burchett. Why does your office position even exist,
    given that the State Department already has an entire bureau
    devoted to oceans, and international environment, and
    scientific affairs; another devoted to energy resources, and
    that has ensured that the climate policy will be a priority in
    every bureau, office, and post?
        Mr. Kerry. That is a very fair question. And the answer is
    because we are in such a crisis globally, and because President
    Biden wanted to find somebody who was experienced and had
    credibility within this arena to try to raise the profile of
    his efforts and accelerate movement.
        We, President Biden came in on January 20th. We have
    probably one of the most important negotiations we have ever
    engaged in globally on November 1st of this year.
        Mr. Burchett. Okay. Thank you, brother.
        Mr. Kerry. And we wanted to accelerate it.
        Mr. Burchett. And I want to appreciate you on your Purple
    Heart. My dad said that is the only medal he was glad he never
    got in the Pacific. So, thank you, brother.
        And I want to yield 2 minutes to my good friend Andy Barr,
    if that is possible, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you for being here.
        Mr. Barr. I thank my friend from Tennessee.
        Envoy Kerry, in your current role you said that your goal
    is to ``change the allocation of capital with respect to fossil
    energy.'' Press reports suggest you pressured major U.S.
    financial institutions to align their lending practices with
    the Administration's climate goals.
        In your response to my letter on this issue you said there
    was no pressure.
        I am the Ranking Member of the Financial SerVices oversight
    and Investigations Subcommittee. The CEOs of the six largest
    U.S. banks will be testifying in my committee on May 27th. I
    plan to ask them about this. Of those six banks, my
    understanding is that three have joined your efforts, and three
    did not.
        Did any of these bank CEOs or their representatives receive
    a term sheet for the commitments required to be part of the
    Net-Zero Banking Alliance? And did you provide them with a term
    sheet?
        Mr. Kerry. I did not. I did not create the Net-Zero
    Alliance. That was created----
        Mr. Burchett. No, I understand. But the press report----
        Mr. Kerry. So I do not know what their--that is Mark
    Carney, who is a former Governor of the Bank of England. And
    he, he has put the Alliance together, together with some other
    people.
        These other banks joined it.
        Mr. Burchett. Yes.
        Mr. Kerry. They joined it without any discussion.
        Mr. Burchett. Reclaiming my time, though. After the
    Alliance, and regardless of what the Bank of England did, your
    office, either you or any representative of your office, did
    you in your efforts to promote the climate finance agenda of
    the Administration provide a term sheet to any of the banks?
        Mr. Kerry. No.
        Mr. Burchett. If not, if the banks are changing their
    allocational--allocation of capital on a voluntary basis, why
    are you even engaging with these institutions?
        Mr. Kerry. Well, we were--what happened is, just to get at
    it directly, one of the banks actually reached out to me. They
    came to me and said, we believe it would be a great public
    thing if we were to allocate a certain amount of funding--and
    they had a very significant amount--to climate-related
    investment.
        And I said, whoa, that is fantastic. I think it is great.
        And other banks who I knew were already engaged in some of
    this----
        Mr. Burchett. My time has expired. But the fact is simply--
    --
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Burchett [continuing]. If they have felt pressure from
    your office.
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Kerry. All we did, all we did----
        Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Let me thank all. That concludes all of the questioning for
    today as we hit our stopping point.
        Mr. Steube. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kerry. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to take some questions
    for the record if people wanted to put some in. I could do
    that.
        Mr. Steube. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of parliamentary
    inquiry.
        Chairman Meeks. Go ahead.
        Mr. Steube. We have a 5-minute rule on this committee and
    in Congress. And Mr. Levin, Ms. Houlahan, Mr. Malinowski, Ms.
    Jacobs, Manning, Costa, Vargas are all Democrats who were
    denied their ability under the 5-minute rule to ask questions
    today.
        On the Republic side, Mr. Green, Mr. Barr got yielded time
    but did not get his full 5 minutes, myself, Mr. Meuser, Ms.
    Tenney, Mr. Pfluger got yielded a minute but was denied
    otherwise his 5 minutes, Ms. Malliotakis, Mrs. Meijer--Mr.
    Meijer, Jackson and Kim were all denied their ability under the
    5-minute rule to question former Secretary, the Envoy.
        Also, we were also cutoff under Secretary Blinken. By the
    time they got to me we only had 3 minutes. This committee has
    subpoena authority. So, my question and my inquiry would be
    when we are bringing Members from the Administration, all of
    those Members that I just named all got denied their ability to
    represent their districts and ask Mr. Kerry questions because
    he has to leave and do other things.
        So, I do not understand why Members of the Administration
    do not feel like it is appropriate to schedule their time when
    they request--you have requested them to come, and come to this
    hearing and give opportunity to only, I do not know what the
    number is, but half of the Members of this committee to ask
    questions.
        What I would ask moving forward, is it the Chair's
    intention to, one, when we bring Members of the Administration
    here that they are going to be here for ample time, to not be
    denied the 5-minute rule under the rules of this committee and
    this Congress to have their ability to ask questions.
        Chairman Meeks. Yes. It has been the tradition of this
    committee, and we will continue. We have this Administration
    here, under any Administration, whether it was this
    Administration, the prior Administration, since the time that I
    have been here that Members from the Administration come and
    give us and accept the time limits which we have, generally we
    have. Sometimes there is unlimited time. Other times, as today,
    we knew that there was a hard stop at 12:30.
        Mr. Steube. Was that----
        Chairman Meeks. Part of the reasons why I was strict with
    the time was to get as many Members to testify, to ask their
    questions as possible.
        Mr. Steube. Well, we weren't told, as a member of this
    committee we weren't told ahead of time that he was leaving at
    12:30.
        Chairman Meeks. Well, it had to be. It happened with past
    Administrations.
        Mr. Kerry. Congressman, I will be happy to make an
    appointment with you to come up and have a chat with you for
    more than 5 minutes. If you want to have a talk, I am happy to
    do it.
        Mr. Steube. Well, I think it is important to do it in front
    of the American people so that they get to hear your responses
    to the questions made.
        Chairman Meeks. And let me just to that, and I am sure that
    the Secretary will have ample opportunity to come back at a
    time, and maybe we will start then from the bottom of the row
    and come up. So, and trying to be in all fairness for another
    time.
        So, I understand your frustration, particularly all of us
    used to be down at the bottom of the line at one point. That is
    now taking place, so that is the tradition that is happening in
    the U.S. House of Representatives.
        Thirty seconds to close. I know he has got to go.
        Go ahead.
        Mr. McCaul. Well, Secretary, thanks for being here. And
    just let me say I think, Chairman, we heard from my side and
    your side that China is going to be paramount in the success of
    your negotiations.
        And good luck catching your flight, sir.
        Chairman Meeks. Let me thank the witness. I know he has to
    catch a commercial flight headed over to Europe.
        But I want to close the record by saying that climate
    change is no longer a crisis on the horizon, it is an
    existential threat that will displace populations, imperil
    economies, fuel conflict, and forever change our planet.
    America cannot singlehandedly overcome climate change alone,
    but we can, however, lead the international community into
    collective action.
        My first trip as a Member of Congress 23 years ago was not
    anywhere abroad, but far away to Alaska. And me, a boy from
    Queens more accustomed to riding the subways of New York, took
    three flights on even smaller planes to learn about the
    environment, energy, the Arctic, and our beautiful country. It
    changed my life and connected issues in Queens to Anchorage
    while showing me what that will cost our children and our
    grandchildren--and I have two--if we do not act.
        We have a duty to be responsible stewards of our
    environment and which is God's gift to us. And I say this as
    Chairman of this committee, I am immensely proud of the
    seriousness with which the new Administration has approached
    this challenge.
        And I want to thank Special Envoy Kerry for his expert
    testimony today on the path ahead. We are in good hands with
    his leadership and the leadership of President Joe Biden.
        And I also want to thank Ranking Member McCaul for his
    partnership with me, as always, on conducting in the manner we
    have moved this hearing and this committee together. I really
    thank you and appreciate you for your serVice, sir.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Meeks. I want to thank all of the Members of the
    Foreign Affairs Committee for their participation today.
        And with that, this hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]