[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 177 (Tuesday, December 8, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H9067-H9073]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1800
                     IMPORTANCE OF ABUNDANT ENERGY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 2015, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus) is recognized for

[[Page H9068]]

60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I want to take a little time this evening to take a 
different look at American energy, Mr. Speaker. As many of you know, 
one of my core convictions is the importance of upholding the dignity 
of human life. Our task here in Washington should be to promote ideas 
and policies that allow people to live longer, healthier, and more 
rewarding lives.
  It is in that spirit that I have joined with my fellow Pennsylvanian, 
Representative Kelly, and like-minded colleagues to host tonight's 
Special Order.
  Starting last week, world elites gathered in Paris to negotiate 
climate change commitments and promises that, if enacted, could undo 
generations of human progress, progress that has provided us with the 
affordable and reliable energy necessary for humans to truly flourish.
  I am here tonight to tell another side of the story, one that 
abandons the dogma of scarcity put forward by elites in Paris and 
climate change zealots in Washington. I want to shift this debate to 
focus on the remarkable story of human abundance. Affordable, reliable 
energy has been responsible for helping to improve and prolong the 
lives of billions of people around the world.
  Energy powers our businesses. It keeps the lights on in our homes. It 
allows us to have fresh food and clean water. It powers our schools and 
our hospitals. Energy is in many respects a life or death matter. It is 
a moral issue, and it deserves more careful consideration than it has 
been given by the President.
  I would like to highlight a little bit, just taking a look at some 
charts. In taking a look at what has been happening with the use of 
energy, a lot of the energy we get is carbon-based fossil fuel energy, 
whether it is coal, oil, natural gas. Yes, it has increased in recent 
history.
  What also has happened in recent history? As CO2 emissions 
have gone up, so has the wealth of this world and of this country. As 
the population has gone up, so has energy use. What is really striking, 
Mr. Speaker, is taking a look at how the increase in life expectancy 
has coincided with this energy revolution as well. As you can see, for 
much of human history, our lives were short, miserable, and lacking in 
fulfillment.
  Consider that, until the industrial revolution, people lived 27 
years, on average, earned little money, and faced limited 
opportunities. Again, though CO2 has increased, so has 
incredible wealth, lifting billions of people out of poverty and life 
expectancy.
  The point now is, in the United States, the average life expectancy 
is near 80 years old. As people learned to access the bounty of energy 
available, we turned it to our advantage. As we got better at it, 
incomes and populations soared.
  This is another interesting chart, Mr. Speaker. As we look at the use 
of world energy, just going back over the last 30 years, the bottom 
line is energy use. The top line is the world GDP, the increase in 
wealth that we have seen coinciding with this increase in energy. You 
could take a look at some specific countries and see how energy has 
benefited them.
  In China and India, both of which have industrialized and increased 
energy use over the last generation, life expectancy has increased by 
more than a decade. Infant mortality has plummeted by 70 and 58 
percent, respectively, in China and India. This is all correlated with 
increased energy use and the availability of affordable energy 
resources.
  As Alex Epstein argues in ``The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,'' 
hundreds of millions of people have gotten their first light bulb, 
their first refrigerator, their first decent-paying job.
  With all of our world problems, affordable energy has helped make 
this the brightest, most abundant time in human history. Some disparage 
the story as one of unseemly consumption and excess. I see it as a 
tremendous triumph of human ingenuity and a victory for those who put 
human well-being as our top priority.
  We can tell the same story about Western Pennsylvania, where, once 
again, we are witnessing increasing prosperity attracted by affordable 
and reliable energy. This entails better opportunities for 
Pennsylvania's youth and a better quality of life. That is why I am so 
troubled by the President's actions at home and in Paris.
  In negotiating a global compact, which will likely entail further 
restrictions on our access to energy, the President is unknowingly 
endangering our future well-being. By not taking his plans to Congress 
for approval, as should be the case with a treaty, the President is 
ignoring the will of the American people.
  This is not a trivial point. The American people will be denied the 
opportunity to weigh in on something that will drastically impact their 
daily lives. Remember, the President said when he was a candidate in 
2008 that electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket under his plan.
  All of this comes in addition to heavy burdens that the American 
people are already grappling with. The so-called Clean Power Plan is an 
example. By forcing more power plant closures and placing stricter 
requirements on those that remain, the President's plan will raise 
energy prices by $289 billion through 2030, hurting American families 
and businesses large and small.
  Research suggests that we will see 224,000 fewer American jobs being 
created each year because of this rule. We will also see reduced 
disposable income and weaker economic growth.
  Minority communities will be especially hard-hit. A study from the 
National Black Chamber of Commerce found that the Clean Power Plan 
would increase poverty among African Americans by 23 percent and 
Hispanics by 26 percent. This is unacceptable, and it is immoral.
  Real people will be hurt by these actions. Yet, few in Washington 
seem to be caring about these real human costs. That is why I have 
introduced a bill called the Fair Burdens Act. This bill would prevent 
the burden from endangering our prosperity and well-being until the EPA 
can verify that a sufficient number of countries have enacted similarly 
stringent policies.
  In other words, the Fair Burdens Act would ensure that Americans 
aren't made to needlessly suffer and that our jobs aren't forced 
overseas, as the President unilaterally slows the American economy.
  We can't just rely on legislation. We need to change the narrative 
and educate the public. Affordable, reliable energy is a vital 
ingredient for human prosperity and well-being. Ignoring this fact and 
taking ill-conceived policy actions as a result condemns millions of 
Americans and billions around the world to dimmer futures, higher 
energy costs, and less prosperity. We owe it to our constituents to 
defend their ability to live fulfilling, prosperous lives.

  I want to thank my colleagues who have joined me here tonight to do 
just that. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I think tonight is a great 
night for us all to get together. While we are very concerned about the 
cost to American taxpayers and the fact that we will be going away from 
our fossil fuels, which are so abundant, so accessible and so 
affordable, there is another issue that takes place at the same time.
  In the Paris protocol, we have heard the President say very clearly--
and he has used this many times before--that things aren't getting done 
at the pace that he would like and that he has a phone and he has a pen 
and, if Congress can't act, he will act.
  Well, I would like to suggest to the President, in fact, it is kind 
of shocking and stunning that a former professor of constitutional law 
would have a total disregard for the Constitution. I would like to tell 
the President that the Constitution is not a suggestion. It is who we 
are. It is what makes us an exceptional Nation.
  Now, the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change is 
taking place right now in Paris. It is stunning that the legacy of one 
man would

[[Page H9069]]

overshadow what is good for not only our country, but the world.
  Decisions made by this President and the commitments made by this 
President, he looks at it as an executive decision, not as a treaty, a 
treaty that requires him returning to the House and to the Senate. 
Particularly treating this as a treaty, it would take two-thirds of the 
Senate to concur with whatever it is that we are proposing. Again, as I 
said, this is a former professor of constitutional law. Yet, he 
continually defies it. He makes the House irrelevant.
  This is not, by the way, a Republican or Democrat issue. This is an 
American issue. This goes to the very framework and the very foundation 
of who we are as a Nation. So when you look at this, it is really hard 
to believe that there is such disregard.
  I would just say to the President that, if you go to article II, 
section 2, clause 2, it is very clearly stated: ``The President . . . 
shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to 
make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . 
.''
  Again, this is an overreach by an executive. It doesn't matter if it 
is a Republican sitting in the White House or a Democrat sitting in the 
White House or an Independent or a Libertarian sitting in the White 
House. It clearly is defined in our Constitution how these powers work.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if one were to ask a question of 
some high school students in a civics class--if you have an agreement, 
let's say, between two countries or three countries or four countries 
and those countries are agreeing to do things that are going to bind 
their respective citizens, you would ask those students, I would think, 
Mr. Speaker: What would you call that type of agreement?
  I think every one of those students in a civics class might say a 
treaty. If it looks like a treaty, if it smells like a treaty and it 
works like a treaty, it is a treaty.
  To just highlight what my colleague here has been saying, we have a 
process in our Constitution for when it is a treaty. It needs to get 
submitted to the Senate with a two-thirds vote.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
contribution.
  I mean, it really does come down to, well, tonight we are talking 
about energy and we are talking about setting targets and timetables 
that will be very expensive for hardworking American taxpayers' money. 
I would like to remind the President that the money he is talking about 
committing is not his. It belongs to hardworking American taxpayers.
  This insane idea that somehow there is an endless amount of money to 
be thrown around the world for whatever reason possible and knowing 
that, really, the Paris protocol is nothing more than a conversation 
taking place in Paris.
  There is no commitment from these countries to do all these things. 
There is an ask for these countries to do these things. What they are 
asking is: If we do comply with these suggestions, these targets, these 
timetables, will we be subsidized by the United States of America?
  The President has been unbelievable to make the commitments that he 
continues to make. He does not have that power. Our Constitution 
clearly defines the separation of powers. It is clearly structured so 
that no one body can run roughshod over the other body. This has been a 
concern forever. Yet, this President consistently time after time 
disregards the House and the Senate.

                              {time}  1815

  As I said earlier, this is not about Republicans or Democrats. This 
is about America and America's future. In this case, it is about 
energy. But as we go forward, what other overreaches will this 
Executive take? What other things will he do because it is about his 
legacy and not about the well-being of our country and our people. It 
is shocking. It is stunning that he would continue on this path.
  What is even more stunning to me is that the American people sit idly 
by and watch this happen day after day, week after week, month after 
month. In 7 years of watching this, they sit back and say: I am not 
sure that he doesn't have the power to do this. Well, let me tell you, 
it is clearly defined in our Constitution that this President does not 
have this authority. In fact, no President, no Executive has the 
authority to do what this President is continuing to do.
  As we meet here in America's House and we look at what can you do, 
because people back home tell me all the time, ``Look, I agree with 
you, but what can you do about it?'' and I know that for myself and my 
colleagues, we refuse to sit by idly and watch our Nation be given away 
and watch our Constitution be run over roughshod because of one man's 
legacy. This is not what is good for America. This is what is good for 
this administration and this President. That is not only shameful, it 
is unconstitutional and cannot be tolerated.
  That is why, with Senator Lee in the Senate and myself, we have come 
up with H. Con. Res. 97 that states any commitment of funds, 
hardworking American taxpayer funds, has got to come before the Senate 
for its advice and consent.
  As I said earlier, we can debate and we can talk and we can amend, 
but what we cannot condone is an Executive who has a total disregard 
for this House and for the Senate. As I said earlier, we need 
colleagues on both sides. This is not a Republican issue or a Democrat 
issue. This comes down to the very foundation of who we are as a 
country.
  If we turn our back on this, what will be next? The continual 
disregard for the Constitution is not only of grave concern to me, to 
my colleagues, but every single American, regardless of how you vote or 
how you register. That is not the issue, my friends.
  The issue is, when do the American people in America's House, with 
the Senate, stand up and say there will be no commitment of hardworking 
American taxpayer dollars unless it comes before the Senate as a treaty 
and gets the advice and consent of the Senate, two-thirds of which are 
required to pass this?
  I know we are coming to an end in Paris, and I know there is great 
concern of getting to Paris to find out exactly what the Paris Protocol 
is structured with, but I would just say this: Before you pack your 
bags and leave, take a copy of your Constitution with you.
  For those folks sitting back home and watching this happen, please, 
get out your Constitutions and look. For our schools, please start to 
preach and teach the Constitution, of which too many Americans are 
woefully uninformed.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. It struck me as my colleague from Pennsylvania was 
talking about the Constitution. What he was getting at, Mr. Speaker, 
was a simple concept of authority and whether the President has 
authority to do what he is doing in Paris. The President is allowed to 
negotiate certainly. He can conduct foreign affairs. It is pretty clear 
in the Constitution that he has that authority to do so. But the 
President, on his own, does not have the authority to obligate American 
taxpayers to pay into any kind of fund. It is the House and the Senate 
that do the appropriations.
  I am mindful that my colleague came out of the auto business, where 
he sold cars. I can imagine a situation where you might have a customer 
coming in, let's say a 15-year-old, who wants to go in and buy a car. 
Of course my colleague might welcome this individual to the showroom, 
and this individual, a 15-year-old kid, might make an offer, but I 
think he is going to be asking: Well, does this person have the 
authority at the age of 15 to make an offer? Maybe the kid will say: 
Well, I am doing it for my mom and my dad. Well, you are going to want 
to see what authority he has. I am mindful that our Constitution gives 
the authority to spend money to the Congress, which would then be 
signed by the President.
  I yield to my colleague if he wants to close.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I would tell you this, and I think if 
there is anything more telling of the view that this administration 
has, all you have to do is go back in time to March of 2015 this year 
when Josh Earnest, who represents the White House in all the briefings, 
was asked by a reporter in regard to the Paris Protocol and in regard 
to the climate control conference that would be taking place.

[[Page H9070]]

  This is so typical of this administration. The reporter looks to Mr. 
Earnest and says to him: Is this the kind of agreement that Congress 
should have the ability to sign off on?
  Now, you would think that somebody who works for a former 
constitutional law professor would have a little bit of an idea when it 
comes to speaking; and even while they may feel in their heart that 
they have a total disregard for this body, I don't think that they 
would be encouraged to speak out the way Josh Earnest did that day. Let 
me read what Josh Earnest said when the reporter asked him: Is this the 
kind of agreement that Congress should have the ability to sign off on?
  He looks him right in the eye and says: I think it is hard to take 
seriously from some Members of Congress who deny the fact that climate 
change exists that they should have some opportunity to render judgment 
about a climate change agreement.
  Is that not stunning? And not only stunning, but chilling that, 
coming out of the White House, the spokesman for the President of the 
United States again consistently expresses the attitude of this 
President in that: Are you kidding me? We are actually going to have 
the people's House, the people's Representatives weigh in on a climate 
change initiative? They are not qualified. They only represent the 
people. No. We will make that decision. And he again totally trashes 
the House of Representatives.
  By the way, for my friends who don't speak up when this happens to 
them, you got trashed, too, my friends. I have watched you stand and 
applaud a President who says consistently that: I do not need the House 
of Representatives to effect change. I will use my phone and I will use 
my pen, and I am tired of waiting for these people.
  Well, Mr. President, once again I say to you that the Constitution is 
not a suggestion. It is who we are as a nation. It is what makes us 
great. It is what allows the people to decide how they will be 
governed, not the government to decide how the people will be governed. 
This is such upside-down thinking.
  While I am concerned, as you are, with the abandonment of our fossil 
fuels and turning our economic revival upside down, I am more concerned 
with an administration that consistently turns upside down our 
Constitution, runs roughshod over the House of Representatives, 
disregards the Senate, and then sits back and says: This is the way it 
is going to be because I am the President of the United States.
  I tell you, Mr. President, you are the President of the United 
States. You take the same oath all of us take. If for some reason you 
can't remember what it is, please take a look at it and remind yourself 
who you are, what you are, and whom you represent.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to engage in 
personalities toward the President, and Members are reminded to address 
the Chair and not a perceived viewing audience or other Members in the 
second person.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his 
observations about our Constitution and what it requires.
  I yield the floor to my colleague from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who 
has been a very strong advocate for her constituents and for the energy 
policy that we need to have in this country.
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join with 
Representatives Rothfus and Kelly and all my colleagues here tonight 
expressing concern about the reports coming from the Conference of the 
Parties, or COP 21, talks in France of a planned end-around of the 
Senate.
  It is unacceptable to me that this administration is negotiating a 
major international agreement, promising vast sums of taxpayer dollars, 
with no intention of allowing the people's representatives to weigh in 
on a final agreement. While the President's team is in Paris trying to 
finalize a deal, we have been here listening to our constituents. That 
should be our goal: to listen to Americans and to fight to lower their 
electricity costs, not obligating taxpayers to send billions of their 
hard-earned dollars overseas to implement climate change schemes.
  Nor should we continue down this path of forcing rate increases on 
the hardworking families in America, yet that has been the President's 
plan all along, Mr. Speaker. In 2008, President Obama proudly announced 
his vision for energy costs in our country. He said: ``Under my plan of 
a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket . 
. . coal . . . natural gas . . . you name it . . . whatever the plants 
were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their 
operations. That will cost money, and they will pass that money on to 
consumers.''
  His plan: make them pay more. Even though his cap-and-trade 
legislation failed in Congress, the administration has not given up and 
continues to ignore the voices of the American people by passing rules 
that implement them, despite the law, and by traveling to Paris to work 
a deal to inflict more mandates on the American people.
  Even now, with little support here at home, negotiators are working 
every angle to make sure a deal is secured, no matter how onerous it is 
to senior citizens and low-income families living paycheck to paycheck 
and for whom a rate increase will hurt the most.
  This agenda has been a hallmark of the administration when it 
finalized the EPA's recent Clean Power Plan rules on existing and new 
power plants, which amount to a disguised cap-and-trade program.
  But we are listening to the American people. Upon the start of the 
Paris talks, both Chambers of Congress passed joint resolutions against 
the EPA's Clean Power Plan rules for new and existing power plants to 
nullify the rules put in place which were done by ignoring the will of 
the people.
  Twenty-seven States have also taken the EPA to court over these two 
rules. It is important that we do this. Missourians rely on affordable 
energy. Americans everywhere rely on affordable energy, and to ignore 
their needs and wishes is irresponsible.
  We do not need extreme, arbitrary mandates that will cost hundreds of 
billions of dollars over the next 15 years, close power plants across 
the Nation, eliminate jobs, and close off access to reliable, 
affordable energy for the most vulnerable in our society.
  We need to promote policies that increase access to affordable 
energy, tap into the abundant energy supply, and create a reliable 
infrastructure supported by American labor and ingenuity.
  We need to make sure that Americans' voices are heard, which is why I 
proudly stand with my colleagues in support of Congressman Kelly's 
concurrent resolution requiring the President to send any agreement 
stemming from these talks in Paris to the Senate as a treaty for advice 
and consent from those sent here by the people to represent them.
  We need American energy policy that works for the American people, 
not against it. They deserve a fair process that upholds the 
constitutional authority of checks and balances envisioned by our 
forefathers.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for the American people and support 
this resolution so the people's voices will be heard.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, those who disagree with us and our 
colleagues point to the wisdom of the experts on the potential impacts 
of climate change, but we know that many of the so-called experts have 
historically been wrong, often significantly wrong.
  In 1986, John Holdren, a senior adviser to President Obama on science 
and technology issues, predicted: ``carbon dioxide, climate-induced 
famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.''
  Since then, we have added almost 2\1/2\ billion people to the planet, 
an increase of almost 50 percent, and we aren't seeing a billion people 
dying from famine. We continue to make significant progress with 
improved technology, and we are feeding more people than ever, and 
people are living healthier and longer. We could not have done this 
without accessing abundant, affordable, and consistent energy.
  Paul Ehrlich, another so-called expert on this issue, predicted in 
1970, that: ``By the year 2000, the United Kingdom will be simply a 
small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million 
hungry people . . . If I were a gambler, I would take even more money 
that England will not exist in the year 2000.'' Well, England

[[Page H9071]]

still exists, and it is doing better than ever.

                              {time}  1830

  England's Chancellor of the Exchequer was recently published in The 
Wall Street Journal bragging about the nation's turnaround under 
conservative leadership: ``How Britain Got Its Mojo Back.''
  To paraphrase Mark Twain, the report of Britain's death is greatly 
exaggerated, to say the least. If we had listened to the inaccurate and 
dire predictions of these experts and chicken littles and curtailed 
energy usage, our world would certainly look differently than it does. 
It would be poorer, less well fed, and billions of people would be 
generally worse off.
  I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), and I want to commend my colleague and 
friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), for his eloquent 
and passionate defense of constitutional government.
  It is not just the administration's efforts here to ratify something 
and bypass Congress without any input from us, but they are also making 
laws through agencies, such as the EPA. We are engaged right now in a 
debate over the Clean Power Plan, which is a reiteration of cap-and-
trade. It is all about regulating greenhouse gases. They have started 
this process because in 2007, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, 
said that the Clean Air Act gave the EPA the authority to regulate 
greenhouse emissions. Not everyone agrees with that.
  As you see here on the easel, I have a quote from former 
Representative John Dingell. This is what he had to say about the 
Supreme Court's decision in EPA v. Massachusetts. He said:
  ``Like most members of this committee, I think the Supreme Court came 
up with a very much erroneous decision on whether the Clean Air Act 
covers greenhouse gases. Like many of the members of this committee I 
was present when we wrote that legislation. We thought it was clear 
enough that we didn't clarify it, thinking that even the Supreme Court 
was not stupid enough to make that finding.''
  I want to state for the record, Mr. Speaker, that I am in no way 
making personal references to the members of the Court, particularly 
the five who voted for that decision. That is Mr. Dingell's opinion. 
But I think it is clear that it was never Congress' intent to allow the 
EPA to do this.
  The point here is that we have had a debate over regulating 
greenhouse gases. We did that in 2010 in the form of the cap-and-trade 
bill. And Congress, with Democrat majorities in both Houses, said 
``no.'' Yet the President is intent on making the United States a party 
to a legally-binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that 
will have almost no measurable impact on global temperatures. The EPA 
has admitted that in testimony before the Science Committee.
  This is basically a public relations effort to encourage other 
nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. As Mr. Rothfus has 
pointed out, the cost on the American economy, and particularly on low-
income families, will be enormous. Also, on single-income households 
and senior citizens.
  Even the former lead author of the International Panel on Climate 
Change, Philip Lloyd, asserted in a new paper that there is strong 
likelihood that the major portion of observed warming is due to natural 
variation. If it is due to natural variation, there is little to 
nothing that we can do about it.
  Congress has been bypassed by the EPA and other Federal agencies for 
too long. Is time to stand up and reassert ourselves as the sole body 
empowered to make law under the Constitution.
  The debate over greenhouse gases and climate change is not the 
central issue. This is really about the EPA and this administration 
usurping the authority of Congress to make a law.
  As my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) explained, the issue is 
that the authority of Congress, and consequently the right of American 
citizens to representation and the making of our Nation's laws is being 
seriously diminished.
  Under our Constitution, Congress makes the law and is held 
accountable by the people through elections. The effort to restrain the 
EPA is more than a policy position on an issue, but a matter of 
fidelity to the Constitution and the clear separation of powers 
doctrine that is essential to the successful functioning of our 
government.
  As the people's elected Representatives, and I want to emphasize it 
is elected Representatives, not elected bystanders, it should be one of 
our top priorities to reassert Congress as the originator of law and 
reestablish congressional accountability for the regulations issued by 
Federal agencies, by requiring a vote on the regulations that have a 
significant impact on the economy. This would have a devastating impact 
on the economy. By doing so, not only will the economy benefit, but the 
Representative and accountable government will be restored in the 
process.
  I urge all my colleagues to support my friend from Pennsylvania's 
resolution to require that the President submit any agreement reached 
in Paris to the Senate for their advice and consent.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank my colleague for his comments.
  Let's take a look at where we are at in this debate over energy use 
and what has been going on in Paris. Again, it always seems to be a 
one-sided conversation about all the negatives and all the dire 
consequences. I highlighted a few of the examples before of what some 
of the advocates have been saying, and how their dire predictions did 
not come to pass.
  Too often, Mr. Speaker, we take for granted how easy it is to live 
with constant access to reliable sources of energy. Our health, indeed 
our lives, and the lives of those who we love, often depend on our 
access to reliable energy available to us at every hour, every day. 
People in the developing world cannot yet say the same.
  There is a powerful story of an unborn child who suffocated in utero 
in Gambia comes to mind. This tiny, three-pound little girl could not 
be saved, because the hospital did not have access to a reliable source 
of energy. Her mother required an emergency C-section, but the surgery 
could not begin until a generator was powered on. Precious minutes were 
lost, so precious life was lost. Without a reliable, consistent form of 
energy, the hospital did not even own an incubator, which would have 
also been necessary to save this baby's life.
  We cannot forget how important affordable, reliable energy is for 
every human person, and how attacks on these sources of energy are 
attacks on life itself.
  I yield to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Weber).
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the 
President's actions to regulate our power plants and his efforts to 
commit the United States to such onerous regulations through the United 
Nations. At no other time in our history has a President been more 
wrong more times on so may issues that this country is facing today 
than President Obama, Mr. Speaker.
  At a time when our country is being attacked from inside our borders 
and radical Islamists are gaining ground all over the world, this 
administration is obsessed with climate change? And, he refuses to 
admit the radical Islam is our enemy? It makes me wonder if he thinks 
that Syed Farook in English means ``global warming.''
  It is clear that he is intent on regulating our Nation's economy and 
hurting its citizens instead of focusing on the immediate threat. You 
can't make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker. I guess you could say the threat 
he should be focused on is global swarming. He just doesn't seem to get 
it, Mr. Speaker.
  The sad fact, Mr. Speaker, is even if every country abided by its 
greenhouse gas emissions reduction commitments, temperatures would 
continue increasing 2.7 to 3.7 degrees Celsius. Without these 
reductions, temperatures would increase 3.0 to 4.0 degrees Celsius. The 
difference is miniscule.
  Mr. Speaker, there are no positive economic or environmental benefits 
to the President's unlawful regulatory actions. Instead, the 
administration's pledge to the U.N. threatens job creation and economic 
growth right here in the United States of America.
  According to one independent analysis, the economic cost to Americans

[[Page H9072]]

will be approximately $29 to $39 billion each year. Electricity prices 
for consumers in 40 States could increase by at least 10 percent, or 
more. He has already been quoted during his campaign saying that under 
his administration, electricity prices would, by necessity, skyrocket. 
These are his words, not mine.
  This represents nothing less than a war, Mr. Speaker, on low-income 
families, and would further increase economic inequality.
  Mr. Speaker, our country is in a crisis. Instead of its foolhardy and 
unconstitutional plan to regulate our climate, this administration 
should be focusing on the livelihood and safety of this Nation and 
Americans.
  It is no secret that there are people around the world who hate the 
United States and wish to see its demise. There are attacks being 
planned and plotted even as we speak, Mr. Speaker. Yet this 
administration claims that that threat is contained and global warming 
is our main threat. Tell that to the 14 people who were tragically 
murdered while celebrating Christmas in San Bernardino.
  That is how I see it here in America, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank my colleague.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for doing this very 
important Special Order. I commend Mr. Rothfus and Mr. Kelly for doing 
this.
  I have got several things I would like to talk about. The first thing 
is that 190 countries are meeting in Paris to negotiate a new 
international agreement on climate change at the 21st session of the 
Conference of Parties.
  According to the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, President 
Obama intends to commit the U.S. to giving tens of billions of dollars 
per year to finance green energy initiatives in developing countries to 
reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below levels by 2025.
  America, wake up. These tens of billions of dollars are coming out of 
your money. We have seniors that can't buy health insurance or pay 
their rent or insurance. We have seniors and other families that are 
suffering here in America. But yet, the President wants to commit tens 
of billions of our hardworking American taxpayers' money, and mine, 
too, to these other countries.
  The Obama administration has indicated that the President does not 
intend to submit the Paris agreement to the Senate for its advice and 
consent as an article II treaty. This is a clear violation of the 
constitutional laws and ideals of America, and it will not be 
tolerated. We will hold him accountable.
  The lack of progress becomes even more apparent when you start 
looking at the country level. China, for its part, offered to reach 
peak carbon dioxide emissions around 2030, while reducing emissions per 
unit of Gross Domestic Product by 60 to 65 percent by that time from 
its 2005 levels. But the U.S. Government's Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory has already predicted China's emissions would peak on their 
own around 2030, even without climate change initiatives. So they don't 
have any skin in the game.
  A Bloomberg analysis found that China's 60 to 65 percent target is 
less ambitious than the level it would reach by continuing business as 
usual. All this came before the country admitted it was burning 17 
percent more coal than previously estimated. That is more coal than the 
entire country of Germany.
  So, our government, our President, and this administration want to 
bind America to a United Nations treaty.
  And let's look at the facts. America has been blessed with an 
abundance of energy sources. We should utilize all those sources to the 
best of our ability--from coal, petroleum, natural gas, solar, wind, 
hydro electric, and even manmade nuclear energy. We should use those to 
the best of our and society's advantage.

                              {time}  1845

  We should not cripple the American power companies that supply energy 
to the manufacturers of America that employ the American citizens at 
the whim of an administration's green agenda and is paid for on the 
backs of hardworking American citizens in the way of lost jobs that go 
overseas because of higher regulations and energy costs, decreased 
wages because of a decrease in competition in the job market, higher 
energy costs felt by all of our citizens, but more on the lower end, as 
has been mentioned here, on the economic income scale because a higher 
percentage of their money goes to pay their utility bills.
  Look at the facts. Geologists think the world may be frozen up again, 
1895.
  Disappearing glaciers--disappearing glaciers--slowly with a 
persistence that means there is going to be complete annihilation. That 
is in 1902.
  Professor Schmidt warns us of an encroaching new ice age, 1912.
  Scientists say Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, 1923.
  The discoveries of changes in the Sun's heat and the southward 
advances of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures 
of the possible advent of a new ice age, 1923 again.
  Most geologists think the world is growing warmer and that it will 
continue to get warmer, 1929.
  The point of this is the consensus of scientists has been wrong over 
the course of the years. If you look at recent facts, that 2-degree 
Centigrade benchmark that the scientific community says we can't get 
warmer than 2 degrees or life on Earth is going to stop to exist as we 
know it, that is not a scientific number. That is an arbitrary number. 
I did the research on it.
  That number comes from an economist in 1970 that the environmental 
community has gravitated to. They have used that as a benchmark, and it 
is a fallacy.
  The Earth's temperature has increased approximately one-half of a 
degree Centigrade over the past 20 to 30 years. This comes from the 
NASA Web site. I encourage the American people that are watching this 
to go to the NASA Web site. Look at the facts.
  Also look at that half-a-degree Centigrade increase in our 
temperature in the world. It partly is attributed to the new way they 
are measuring things today. They are more accurate than they were 20 or 
30 years ago. So that is a variation.
  The other thing is they predict and they estimate that over 50 
percent of that half-a-degree Centigrade increase--over 50 percent of 
that--comes from solar activity, not manmade or anthropogenic causes.
  So what does that mean? That means do we just not really even look at 
the causes of these? No. Not at all.
  Let's look at the facts. Even in left-leaning publications--in fact, 
I brought one here. I don't want to call them left-leaning, but the 
article in The Economist has a 14-page ``Clear thinking needed'' on 
climate change.
  Even in this article they had some fallacies. One of them was saying 
the warming in the world is 100 percent by human activity. That is a 
fallacy. That is false reporting.
  The other thing is they go in there and they say that, with all the 
wind power that we have put into the world, around the globe, and all 
the solar activity around the globe, and the massive government 
programs to supplement these, it has failed to make a dent in the so-
called manmade CO2 output on a global scale, and it is not 
reliable.
  All those other forms of energy, the renewables, they are not 
reliable for baseline production, which is needed for national 
security.
  As I close, I just want to say this: As I said, America has been 
blessed with an abundance of energy sources. So let us, as leaders of 
this great Nation, make energy policies that are common sense in nature 
and don't entangle us, as a Nation, with other nations that cripple us 
as a Nation not just economically, but they weaken our national 
security, and they are going to be paid for by all Americans and, 
again, felt mostly by those that can't afford it.
  This treaty is a bad deal, and the President owes the respect to the 
American people to go through the people's House and the Senate to have 
any agreement binding.
  I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, and I ask him to continue the 
good work.
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his remarks.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just talk about this word denial 
that we hear thrown around a lot in this debate. There has been no 
denial, Mr.

[[Page H9073]]

Speaker, of the benefits that humanity has enjoyed because of fossil 
fuel use over the last decades.
  Again, I am going to pull up this chart here. The benefits are clear. 
The lower left graph is GDP per person in the world. It has 
skyrocketed, coincidentally, with the increase of energy use.
  But life expectancy has skyrocketed over the last 200 years, again, 
coincident with increased energy use, access to reliable, clean energy.
  It is no wonder. You consider how energy is deployed. Take water, for 
example. The tremendous progress that we have made with clean water and 
pumping stations and ways to pull water in and to clean it, that is all 
done using fossil fuel-based energy, whether it is coal, gas, oil. 
There has been a tremendous success over the last 200 years as humanity 
has looked for energy and used fossil fuels-based energy products.
  Mr. Speaker, if President Obama and the unelected Federal bureaucrats 
at EPA had installed today's regulatory regime in the 19th century, my 
district and this country would look vastly different.
  Access to reliable, affordable energy has improved the quality of 
life of people wherever it is available, which is why the Clean Power 
Plan is so deeply misguided.
  It will also raise energy prices again by $289 billion through 2030, 
fulfilling a promise that the President made in 2008 when he said 
electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
  But minority communities will be especially hard-hit. Again, a study 
from the National Black Chamber of Commerce found that the Clean Power 
Plan would increase poverty among African Americans by 22 percent and 
Hispanics by 26 percent. This is not acceptable.
  In addition, the President's energy agenda constrains our energy mix 
and distorts the market to benefit certain politically favored 
technologies, regulations that reduce Americans' access to reliable, 
affordable energy sources, endangers our grid stability, putting 
millions at risk of losing power during times of peak demand.
  Meanwhile, the Clean Power Plan will avert only two one-hundredths of 
a degree Celsius of warming over the next 85 years. That is less than 2 
percent of 1 degree Celsius. It is not a fair tradeoff.
  American energy policy should promote economic growth and prosperity 
so that we can tackle our debt. This is such an important point, Mr. 
Speaker.
  When we have these debates and conversations about whether it is 
going on in Paris, whether it is going on in Congress, and we talk 
about American energy and coal and gas, nuclear, other forms, it is not 
all pain, the pain that those who are running around and saying the sky 
is falling, the sky is falling. Time and again, their predictions have 
been proved false.

  It is undeniable, Mr. Speaker, that access to affordable, reliable 
energy has greatly advanced humanity. And humanity can figure it out. 
We have made tremendous, tremendous progress with the environment over 
the last 50, 60 years.
  Certainly we have seen that in Western Pennsylvania, and that 
progress is going to continue. It continues, in part, because we have 
access to great, reliable, abundant, cheap electricity. Fossil fuels 
have enabled that progress and will continue to enable that progress.
  As we meet the challenges of a changing climate, Mr. Speaker, it is 
human ingenuity that is going to pull us through, human beings, 
persons, empowered to live lives freely.
  Look what Holland has been able to do with the sea over the last 400 
years. Before the advent of all the huge machines that can move dirt 
around, they have been holding back the sea and building levees and 
dikes. It has been remarkable what the people of Holland have been able 
to do, even more so now that we have access to the technologies that we 
have.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be leading the world in heavy technology, as 
we address concerns with rising sea levels.
  There is no reason, Mr. Speaker, to doubt the capacity of the human 
person and human ingenuity to overcome these challenges that may face 
us. But we can't be in denial about the fact that fossil fuel energy 
has been a tremendous boon to humanity.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, we have tremendous challenges--tremendous 
challenges--ahead in the coming years. We are $18 trillion in debt as a 
Nation, and we have tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liability.
  We need to be growing like you have never seen before. With access to 
cheap, reliable energy, we will be able to pull ourselves out of debt. 
We will begin to have that renaissance in our economy.
  We have to meet those challenges we have. But if we expect to meet 
those challenges, if we expect to meet the commitments we have made on 
Social Security for Grandma and Medicare and meet the commitments we 
have made to our veterans, tens of thousands who have sustained life-
changing injuries over the last 14 years, we need to be growing again.
  A key access to that growth is to have access to abundant, reliable, 
cheap energy. We know what it has done historically: increasing 
incomes, lifting people out of poverty, increasing life expectancy, 
increasing food production, increasing water purity.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a success story that needs to be told.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________