[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]