[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3323-H3330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                PARIS AGREEMENT IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cox of California). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Gosar) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may

[[Page H3324]]

have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the topic of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lead a Western Caucus Special 
Order to voice our vehement opposition to H.R. 9, which aims to prevent 
President Trump from withdrawing from the fundamentally flawed Paris 
Agreement.
  In 2015, more than 170 countries signed a nonbinding agreement at the 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris. While 
most countries set a target reduction of carbon emissions below its 
2005 level, the Obama administration sought to dramatically reduce the 
United States' carbon emissions by between 26 and 28 percent below its 
2005 level by 2025.
  Before I proceed any further, I yield to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs). He is a tireless advocate for small 
businesses in his district, many of whom have been harmed by this type 
of legislation.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Gosar, and I appreciate his 
leading the Western Caucus Special Order hour of the day and all that 
he does, and the members of the Western Caucus, on these issues.
  President Obama attempted to implement the Paris Agreement 
domestically through an executive order he issued in September 2016, 
but the Paris Agreement was never ratified by the United States Senate 
as is constitutionally required for a treaty to exist and, therefore, 
is not a legally binding treaty.
  In June 2017, President Trump announced that the U.S. would cease all 
participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which is fully in its power 
to decide because, again, U.S. involvement is not legally binding. I 
applauded that decision then; I continue to applaud it now, and this is 
one of the reasons why.
  This Paris accord has little efficacy. It will not save the world. 
Even if we take at face value the assumption that climate change poses 
an existential threat to the planet, U.S. compliance with the Paris 
Agreement, or even a full embrace of a far more expansive Green New 
Deal, would do little to avert that result.
  The U.S. is no longer the primary source of global CO2 
emissions. In fact, between 2005 and 2017, our Nation has reduced 
CO2 emissions by 862 million tons, and market forces are 
increasingly pushing us toward using cleaner and more efficient fuels.
  Meanwhile, during roughly the same period, China increased its 
emissions by 4 billion tons and India by 1.3 billion tons. It is 
extremely unlikely that either China or India are going to fulfill 
their requirements within the Paris Agreement.
  But even if they and every other country in the world, including the 
U.S., were to comply, we would still only succeed in reducing global 
temperatures by less than one-half of 1 degree Celsius by the year 
2100. That is according to the National Center for Atmospheric 
Research.
  Like the Green New Deal, H.R. 9 is nothing more than cynical partisan 
messaging. I urge everyone in this Chamber to vote ``no.''
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Biggs for his 
comments.

  H.R. 9 seeks to mandate implementations of those same technically 
implausible and unrealistic emissions goals in order to appease 
extremists. The bill also seeks to prevent Federal funds from being 
used to withdraw from the flawed Paris Agreement.
  Americans for Tax Reform estimates the Paris Agreement will cost the 
U.S. an estimated 6.5 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our gross 
domestic product by over $2.5 trillion.
  NERA Consulting estimates those numbers are even higher and that the 
Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 31.6 million jobs by 
2040 and reduce our GDP by over $3 trillion.
  In June of 2017, President Trump announced he will withdraw the 
United States from the Paris Agreement, stating: ``The Paris climate 
accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an 
agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit 
of other countries, leaving the American workers and taxpayers to 
absorb the costs in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttering 
factories, and vastly diminishing economic production.''
  There are other significant flaws of the Paris Agreement. MIT found 
the Paris Agreement will only result in a global temperature reduction 
of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. Under the Paris climate agreement, 
China and India will actually increase emissions until at least 2030.
  The Climate Action Tracker, a group of European research 
organizations, found that participating parties will not meet their 
commitments, and those are the goals of the Paris Agreement.
  The European Climate Action Network reported that no single country 
in Europe is performing sufficiently to meet Paris Agreement goals, and 
those that have been making the most progress on their promises did not 
make large commitments in the first place.
  A recent United Nations Emissions Gap report found all participating 
countries will have to at least triple their efforts in order to meet 
the Paris Agreement's basic goals.
  Given how unrealistic and illogical the Paris Agreement is, the U.S. 
should not inflict monumental harm on our economy chasing a white 
unicorn.
  Fortunately, there is an alternative. Members of the Western Caucus 
support personal responsibility, less government intervention in our 
daily lives, and freedom. They defend property rights and believe that 
private ownership of property is a fundamental right in America. Our 
vision encourages innovation and less burdensome mandates.
  Members of the caucus support local control and believe that 
stewardship of our environment and natural resources is best 
accomplished by empowering local stakeholders, not victimizing them.
  The people who depend on the land to provide security for their 
families and communities understand these resources best. States and 
municipalities are best suited to deal with local issues than the 
distant, out-of-touch Washington bureaucrats.
  The caucus seeks to promote access to our Nation's energy and 
resource potential while pursuing a truly all-of-the-above energy 
approach that aims to ensure the U.S. is a global energy leader.
  Our vision utilizes the current energy renaissance and the American 
energy dominant policies currently being implemented by the Trump 
administration. America's energy renaissance is the backbone of our 
economy; it is a story of freedom, prosperity, and opportunity.
  After decades of reliance on other countries to meet our energy 
needs, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that America 
will export more energy than it imports starting in 2020. We are no 
longer dependent on volatile foreign sources produced in Russia and 
Saudi Arabia.
  Recent innovations and technology improvements associated with 
hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have allowed shale 
resources previously deemed uneconomical to be developed and the main 
reason the U.S. was the world's leader in carbon emissions reductions 
in 2015, 2016, and 2017.
  That is right. Fracking, demonized by environmental extremists 
without justification, has proven to be the best energy solution for 
our environment.
  Abundant oil and natural gas have reduced electricity bills, kept gas 
prices low, and provided the largest share of U.S. electric power 
generation in recent years.
  The United States is the world's top energy producer, and the 
American Dream is thriving. Passing H.R. 9 and staying in the Paris 
Agreement threatens that dream.
  This is not a partisan issue. This is about doing what is right for 
America and about protecting freedom and opportunity for our children 
and grandchildren. I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to 
reject H.R. 9.
  Now, with that, I yield to my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop). As the 
Republican leader on the Natural Resources Committee and previously as 
its chairman, he has been one of the biggest leaders in promoting 
American energy dominance.

[[Page H3325]]

  


                              {time}  1430

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Gosar for yielding me 
time. I appreciate this opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, look, I was listening to a lecture the other day about 
the old Romans, the Roman Empire. The Romans' success in creating their 
empire was that they were incredibly creative and adaptive. They saw 
situations that needed to be changed, something new, and they did it.
  They had perfected the phalanx approach. They learned from the Greeks 
how to fight. Yet when they came against the Samnites who were living 
in the hills, that phalanx approach was totally useless. So what the 
Romans did is created a way around that, another source, to have a very 
flexible, highly mobile type of attack force, which they called the 
Legions. They simply became adaptive to the new situation.
  This is where I wish the other side of this body would try to become 
less dogmatic and more adaptive, to try to find solutions.
  Instead of bringing another resolution to the floor that has no 
chance of passing in the Senate and would be vetoed by the President, 
we should spend our time trying to come up with creative solutions that 
would be a win-win-win situation. We can do it. We need to.
  It would be nice if the other side of the aisle could also understand 
what Article I actually means. In the last administration, instead of 
taking this accord through the normal constitutional process of having 
it ratified in the Senate and doing it by executive fiat, they have to 
realize what can be done by executive fiat instead of the 
constitutional way can be undone by executive fiat.
  Rather than now trying to go back to the old document that has 
questionable efficacy, let us try to move forward.
  This is happening all over the place. The State of California has a 
lot of talk about green talk, yet they have increased their dependence 
on foreign oil in the last year by 57 percent. That is foreign oil.
  We have to do things in a way different than simply talking about it. 
We had a bunch of hearings in our committee about climate change. We 
heard from the Hip Hop Caucus. We even heard from people who thought 
NFL concussions were a problem and needed to be solved somehow through 
climate change. I don't know how that fit, but it was an interesting 
day.
  Let me try to talk to you instead about something that is in the 
purview of our government, that can be done and that can be a creative 
and adaptive solution to this problem of too much carbon in the 
environment: simply, carbon sequestration.
  I would refer you to a guy, a doctor by the name of Williams, who 
took 1,000 acres of land in Mississippi that had been farmed for 150 
years, most of that in cotton. Instead, he turned it into rangeland, 
grazing rangeland.
  He had had no herbicides, no pesticides, no seeding, no artificial 
fertilizer. The only management technique he used was intensive grazing 
followed by periods of rest so that the soil, the plant life, could 
recover. That is the only thing he did.
  They tell me that the results after 4 years was simply an increase in 
the number of foraged species that were there, an increase in the 
number of native species that were reappearing, and an increase in the 
general biodiversity of insects and wildlife and everything else.
  He told me, in technical talk that I don't understand, that for every 
0.6 percent increase in soil C per acre in 1 foot of soil, whatever 
that means, you can take 35 metric tons of CO2 out of the 
atmosphere. That means nothing to me.
  What this guy in Mississippi was able to do is come up with a 2.3 
percent increase in that soil carbon, I am assuming, which would equate 
to 140,000 metric tons of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere. 
Those numbers also mean nothing to me; I don't know what it means.
  What I do understand is that what he was able to do was the 
equivalent of taking out emissions from 7,600 automobiles every year 
and sequestering it into his 1,000 acres of ground. That is the 
equivalent of burning 13,000 tons of coal that he was able to take out 
of the atmosphere and sequester it into the ground.
  Mississippi alone has 10 million acres of land that is farmland of 
all types. If you were able to use all of that, Mississippi alone could 
take out of the atmosphere 7 percent of all the emissions that we have 
and sequester it into their ground in that State simply by itself, 
which means, if you extend that out mathematically to 150 million 
acres, the United States could be a net negative emitter. We could be 
taking more carbon out of the atmosphere and putting it into the ground 
than we are sending into the atmosphere.
  Approximately 5.1, I am told, gigatons of CO2 emissions 
are automatically sequestered into the oceans and our terrestrial 
sinks. If you understand what that means, you are a better man than I 
am. That is what I have been told. That means, to become net zero, we 
would only have to have 75 million acres of land being used for carbon 
sequestration, 75.
  In the United States, we have 527 million acres of pasture and 
rangeland. Twenty-seven percent of the land that we have is in pasture 
and rangeland. We have 410 million acres, which is 21 percent of all 
land, in forestry.
  Simply by having an aggressive way of grazing, improving grazing and 
improving the quality of our forests, we can suck carbon out of the 
atmosphere, which would be far easier and far better than anything in 
the questionable efficacy of the Paris accord.
  You could do it with no cost. You wouldn't have to cost jobs or 
energy increases. You can do it with virtually no cost except for the 
initial cost of buying the livestock to put on the land, which is why 
it is there.
  We could have the benefits of a better watershed, better wildlife, 
better biodiversity, and economic productivity of our rural lands. All 
those things are easily within our reach.
  We could help solve the food shortage. We could help solve drought 
resistance in agricultural lands. We could have watershed integrity, 
which would provide abundant and cleaner water for us all, as well as 
biodiversity for wildlife.

  I was recently in Arkansas, if I can go on with this. The State 
forestlands, they had 2 pieces that they were working on. One they just 
let go on so they could see what would happen, let nature run its 
course. The other they went through with active management by thinning 
the trees.
  What happened in the one that they just left alone? It was crowded. 
It was dark. There was no sunlight getting to the ground, which was 
barren of all kinds of foliage.
  On the portion that the State managed, where they allowed the 
sunlight to get to the ground, there was vegetation. There was forage. 
There was the ability to have food. Wildlife had a habitat they could 
use.
  That has also been replicated in my home State, where on private 
property, some of my sheep ranchers did the exact same thing. They 
improved the ground.
  Not only have they improved the ground, but they can also now suck 
more carbon out of the atmosphere into that ground, which you don't do 
if you just leave it alone.
  We had a hearing in our committee one time, and they simply said the 
idea was that plants need carbon, so you have plant life sucking the 
carbon out of the atmosphere. It goes down into the root system, which 
makes the plant healthier, the land healthier, and you are taking 
carbon out of the atmosphere. That is a wonderful idea.
  We had four witnesses. Even the Democratic witnesses were saying that 
grazing helps us to accomplish this.
  One of our good Eastern members said: Well, look, if plant life sucks 
the carbon out of the atmosphere, why don't we take the cows out, and 
then you will have more plant life. They won't eat any of it.
  Even the Democratic witness said, no, that is not the way it works.
  If you allow the plant just to grow, it grows large and sprouts out 
and hides the ground so that you don't have any kind of new plant life 
coming on. You take the cows out, and their hooves don't claw up the 
land as they walk around, so nothing is germinating. All you have is a 
bunch of dry, dead leaves that are easy bait for wildfires. What you 
have to do is allow them to eat and then move them off the land.
  Can we destroy the land with bad grazing practices? Of course. But if 
you do it the right way, we can easily solve the problems.

[[Page H3326]]

  We have two kinds of problems with carbon: one is emissions and the 
other is concentration, stuff already out there.
  If we just do grazing practices and carbon sequestration on the lands 
that the Federal Government owns now, we can easily not only solve our 
problem of emissions but take the concentration out and put it back 
into the ground, where it does good for plant life and expands and 
grows that.
  We have here the resources that we need to solve this problem. What 
we need to do is free up people to be able to solve this problem by 
themselves and not insist that the government tell us what to do, when 
to do it, and how to do it. It doesn't work that way. This can be a 
win-win situation.
  H.R. 9, I am sorry, does not have anybody winning. It has all of us 
losing. That is why it would be nice to see that there are solutions 
out there.
  All we need to do is be like the old Romans and be a little bit 
creative and adaptive, find something that works with material we 
already have. We can do that. There is a better way to go forward than 
H.R. 9.
  H.R. 9 is simply more dogma to try to rehash the past. It doesn't 
move us forward at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Gosar for having this Special Order 
here so we can talk about these kinds of issues as well as the costs 
that would be involved.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, to the Member, to the gentleman, we are also 
getting another benefit because the catastrophic wildfires that we are 
seeing out West are a contributor. There is more carbon and pollution 
that occurs during these catastrophic wildfires in one day than in a 
year of exhaust from cars.
  What we do is we get a benefit there because we have a much more 
dynamic forest, much more dynamic interfaces. The fires are smaller. 
They are not as catastrophic, so we don't go further in debt.
  This is something that the Natural Resources Committee has been 
pushing under Mr. Bishop's watch, and I thank the gentleman. There is 
plenty of benefit in regard to understanding the natural cycle of 
plants and trees.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Gosar) is spot-on accurate. I thank him for bringing this up.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I also want to bring up the point that the 
Western Caucus was dynamic in going to Houston to see Petra Nova in 
Texas. It is the only carbon sequestration coal plant in the United 
States, one of only two in the world.
  Basically, what they do is they capture the carbon sequestration and 
pressurize it into pipes. They pipe it down to their oil fields. Once 
they frack the oil fields, they take this pressurized carbon and force 
it into the oil field. What it does is it forces out the rest of the 
gas and oil with it that is still remaining and then solidifies in the 
ground.
  What amazing technology. Once again, going back to the whole 
application that technology, innovation, the private sector is right 
there to answer the call.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa). 
Mr. LaMalfa knows firsthand the negative effects that policies like 
H.R. 9 can have, given the proposals that have gone into effect in 
California.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona, Mr. 
Gosar, for hosting this Special Order on this important topic and for 
his very good work on the Congressional Western Caucus.
  As we know, this week, the House will vote on H.R. 9, the Climate 
Action Now Act. In light of the United States' incredible efforts and 
achievements in becoming more energy independent and a global leader in 
energy development and production, we should call it the U.S. Energy 
Disadvantage Act.

  This shortsighted legislation would seek to prevent President Trump 
from withdrawing from the misguided 2016 Paris Agreement enacted by 
President Obama. Of course, this agreement was passed without consent 
from Congress and no economic impact or cost-benefit analysis.
  The American people deserve to know what a plan like this is going to 
cost them. According to several reports, the Paris Agreement could cost 
the U.S. $250 billion and 2.7 million jobs by just 2025 and many more 
jobs over a longer period, and even as much as $3 trillion by 2040.
  Furthermore, this bill is completely one-sided. It received no 
congressional hearings or feedback from the administration, 
stakeholders, or outside experts.
  Bottom line, this bill would result in an unfair economic playing 
field against the United States and in favor of all the other 
countries.
  We have already seen the results of this agreement in the city of 
Paris itself, where protests have erupted over their own gas price 
increases.
  Just like the Green New Deal boondoggle, enacting this legislation 
would have an almost insignificant effect on decreasing global 
emissions. Indeed, the United States is already by far the leader in 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has lowered our levels of 
emissions by 18 percent between 2000 and 2014, leading other major 
countries and producers.
  Why do we need to be in the Paris accord when we are already leading 
the way? We need to drag the others along in this process and have them 
do more about their own emissions, such as China, which emits more 
carbon dioxide than the U.S. and the European Union combined.
  Why are they let off the hook in this until the year 2030? Why is 
India let off the hook until 2030? I guess American consumers and the 
higher prices they are paying at the pump, especially Californians at 
over $4, would like to know the answer to that question.
  It is another attack by the left to undermine the responsible 
production of energy in America. We don't need to be in the accord to 
achieve these reductions, as we have already seen these results.
  If forced to stay in the Paris climate agreement, the U.S. economy 
will suffer while achieving no meaningful benefits or reduction in 
global emissions.
  This is like many climate change schemes that are focused on 
transferring power via taxation and regulation to the government away 
from the producers of this country.

                              {time}  1445

  Are we going to have the power in the hands of elected officials and 
bureaucrats or the people that innovate better ways of doing things, 
better forms of energy, and more efficient forms of energy, and have 
them produced right here in the U.S., including California, which is a 
leading producer of energy?
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this measure and 
any other climate change scheme that hurts our economy and our energy 
production when we are the innovators of doing things better around the 
world.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Fulcher). With his background in the technology industry, he knows 
firsthand how businesses in his district and across the country are 
already innovating and helping to reduce our carbon emissions.
  Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the members of the 
Western Caucus for this important Special Order.
  Let me start by saying that my home State of Idaho has been a good 
example of how to utilize renewable energy resources.
  According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2017, 82 
percent of Idaho's net electricity generation came from renewable 
energy sources, and 60 percent was supplied by hydroelectric power.
  Idaho's use of renewable energy technology came about because we are 
blessed with bountiful natural resources in our State. But, Mr. 
Speaker, not every State is blessed with those renewable natural 
resources and many have to rely on nonrenewable sources of energy.
  However, because the Federal Government controls 63 percent of the 
land in Idaho, many of those resources are not accessible and, all too 
often, literally go up in smoke.
  Sole Federal control of resources inhibits economic growth, harms the 
environment, and has created numerous obstacles for our citizens due to 
inadequate management.
  H.R. 9 and the Paris Agreement represent a similar obstacle to every 
State and every district my colleagues represent.

[[Page H3327]]

  H.R. 9 would reinstate the one-size-fits-all mandates of the Paris 
Agreement and require the U.S. to drastically change the only ways that 
we generate electricity.
  What has enabled the United States to lead the world in reducing 
carbon emissions is locally-driven solutions that fit the need of our 
local citizens, whether it be clean, liquid natural gas in Texas, 
hydropower in Idaho, or solar facilities in Arizona.
  The Paris Agreement is an attack on our national sovereignty and 
received no congressional input when it was enacted in 2015. In fact, 
we are one of only 12 countries that signed the agreement that did not 
include their legislative branch in that adoption process. Mr. Speaker, 
even China's legislature was consulted in the adoption of the 
agreement.
  The flawed Paris Agreement has committed the United States to getting 
billions of dollars to the Green Climate Fund while many countries 
don't contribute at all. All too often, that money ends up in the hands 
of governments who have no intention of using it to reduce their carbon 
emissions.
  This agreement forces jobs to relocate to areas with the poorest 
environmental records, like China, which only makes matters worse. 
Instead of focusing on spending money paying for projects to reduce 
carbon emissions in other countries, the Democrat majority in this 
House should focus on the immediate pressures facing this country, like 
border security and healthcare reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this terrible proposal.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Idaho for those 
remarks. You can see where this is going. The right way is not this 
Paris accord, but through technology and through innovation.
  Mr. Speaker, a point that has been brought up multiple times by my 
colleagues is how the Paris Agreement is a direct violation of our 
Nation's sovereignty. I could not agree more. Article II, section 2 of 
the Constitution states that 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.''
  President Obama took unilateral action when he signed the Paris 
Agreement back in 2015 and failed to consult Congress. There were no 
committee hearings leading up to the adoption of the agreement and no 
vote was held by the Senate, as mandated by our Constitution.
  Members on the other side will say that the Paris Agreement does not 
constitute a treaty. But when the Foreign Affairs Committee held a 
hearing on this very bill, every witness believed the agreement was a 
treaty. This included multiple Democratic witnesses.
  The practice of avoiding congressional approval was nothing new for 
the Obama administration when it came to natural resources and energy 
policy.
  Fortunately, Members will have a chance to correct this 
unconstitutional action by voting for my amendment that was made in 
order this week instructing the Senate to take a vote as to whether the 
Paris Agreement is a treaty or not.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), my good friend. He has some background on 
this information.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Part of what happened was that they danced through a 
lot of different hoops to try to make sure that they didn't have to 
have it be a treaty. If they could at least make the argument that it 
was not a treaty, because they knew they couldn't get Senate 
confirmation.
  And, in fact, the Democrat champion, Senator Pell, who was the 
chairman at the time of the appropriate committee, actually put in 
their committee report that should there later be a conference--and 
they were talking about the original conference that we had entered 
into, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which 
this is not an extension of--many people say it is, but they had to 
adopt all new rules and all new aspects, because they knew they 
couldn't just add this on to the original one.

  But Senator Pell says, ``The committee notes that a decision by the 
conference of the parties''--referencing the U.N. commission--``to 
adopt targets and timetables would have to be submitted to the Senate 
for its advice and consent before the United States could deposit its 
instruments of ratification for such an agreement.''
  Now, the Paris accord, the Paris treaty, ostensibly says that there 
are targets and timetables. But even the Democrats recognized in 1992 
that if you were to put in targets and timetables, you had to have that 
document submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. So, a 
decision by the conference to adopt targets and timetables would have 
to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent before the 
United States could deposit its instruments of ratification for such an 
agreement.
  Clearly, they anticipated that someday there might be timetables and 
targets and they wanted to make sure that everybody knew that in 1992, 
just because we joined that conference, did not mean that we had agreed 
to later being bound to timetables and targets.
  Now, we are doing very well on those timetables and targets without 
having announced we are leaving. And even if we are not a member of the 
Paris accord, agreement, treaty, whatever you end up calling it, we are 
doing very well at reducing our carbon footprint.
  The Chinese are producing about twice as much carbon dioxide as we 
are today. They have the number two economy and we have the number one 
economy per job, and from a production standpoint we are doing a lot 
better. They are not even bound until 2030 under this so-called treaty 
agreement. But it is very clear that in order to bind us to anything, 
it had to be approved by the Senate and it has not been approved by the 
Senate.
  So, what we are arguing about, in essence, is merely a political 
point for the people on the other side of the aisle, because these 
targets, as they currently exist without ratification from the Senate, 
are merely suggestions. We are doing what we can in a reasonable way. 
We need to do more on research so that we can continue to have the jobs 
and have the wealth and be the number one economic nation and continue 
to reduce our carbon footprint.
  Now, I've got to tell you, I get a little amazed sometimes at some of 
these folks, because the World Bank decided they weren't going to 
invest in any more coal-fired power plants--now I know I am going off 
subject, but let me run. The World Bank decided they weren't going to 
invest in any more coal-fired power plants. The top ten donors to the 
World Bank include nine western countries and Japan. So, basically, the 
west and Japan decided that they were not going to invest in those 
things. So guess who is investing? You can guess.
  Mr. GOSAR. Russia.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. It is China. And Russia is probably doing some, too. 
But China is heavily out there. And they are getting a two-for because 
the developing world, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, want to have 
power and energy for their people, because they want their people to 
not live in the dark and have electricity. They want their people to 
have jobs. They know that in order to have better jobs, they have got 
to have electricity in their country across the board, not just in the 
big cities. They have got to have a source of power, and they have 
coal. For them, that is their most affordable source.
  So what the Chinese are doing, they are basically laughing at us. We 
are going to agree to these timetables that haven't been ratified by 
the Senate and these targets, while they get to continue increasing. 
Even though they are the number two economy in the world, they are 
going to continue to increase their carbon footprint, and they are 
going to build coal-fired power plants in sub-Saharan Africa for which 
they get a lot of goodwill in the foreign affairs and foreign relations 
department. But wait, there is more.
  In many of these cases--I can't say all, but the ones I have read 
about--they are, for a fee, going to run those coal-fired power plants 
for the nations that they are building them in. So not only are they 
going to build goodwill and good relations around the world using coal 
in contravention of these goals set forth in the Paris accord, but they 
are going to make a profit at it, as well.

[[Page H3328]]

  

  Mr. GOSAR. Absolutely. The one road initiative. They are taking and 
leveraging resources across the world and, at the same time, being paid 
for it. And I dare you not keep up with your payments because it 
rescinds right back to them.
  Going back to your first point, the gentleman from Virginia, what you 
are telling me is that this body will have that opportunity, with my 
amendment, to get this right, instructing the Senate to take a vote on 
the Paris accord to actually see if it can become a treaty, would you 
agree?
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, your amendment would certainly do that, and I 
will support that amendment. While I can't support the underlying bill, 
I can support that amendment because that does make the underlying bill 
better. If we are going to bind our hands and seal our fate to be the 
number two or number three or number five economy in the world, instead 
of being the number one economy in the world, if that is what we are 
going to do, then there ought to be votes taken down the hall. Men and 
women in the United States Senate should put their name on the line and 
say yes or no. The American people then will know who has voted yes and 
who has voted no. They won't be hiding behind any games or 
circumstances or procedural maneuvers. Then the American people can use 
the power that was given to them by our Constitution and an inalienable 
right granted by God to use the ballot box to make a decision as to 
whether or not they wanted to be bound, whether or not they wanted to 
have their economy reduced, and have their children and grandchildren 
to be lesser than what we have today in our economic wealth.
  Mr. GOSAR. So, what you are really telling me is when you have good 
process, you build good policy, which builds good politics. It is kind 
of that simple, isn't it?

  Mr. GRIFFITH. It is that simple. You shouldn't hide behind games or 
trickery to say, well, this is not really a treaty that has to go to 
the Senate because the targets are merely aspirational. If they are 
merely aspirational, why are we spending billions of dollars on it and 
why are we participating at all, which I think was the President's 
point.
  Why would we spend billions of dollars to send to countries, some of 
whom might actually be kleptocracies, and the money is never getting to 
where it is supposed to go? Why would we spend billions of dollars on 
something that we know is not going to be effective? Let's spend our 
billions of dollars on research and find new technologies.
  You may have heard me tell the story, because it has been my favorite 
story the last couple of weeks, but I have a professor at Virginia Tech 
who has been working on technology to separate coal from rare Earth 
minerals. But there is a side effect. It also can make poor coal better 
coal. And they are selling that technology.
  Now they are licensing a company in India for two steel mills--steel, 
for those who don't speak southwest Virginian, steel mills--and they 
are licensing them to use this technology, so they can take Indian coal 
and make it better and then reduce their carbon footprint and still 
produce the steel.
  The Indians aren't going to say they are not going to use the coal 
and we are not going to produce steel. They want what everybody wants. 
They want a better economy. They want jobs. They want those people in 
their country--and I understand there are hundreds of millions--who 
don't have electricity to have electricity in their homes.
  Like everybody else, they want clean air and clean water, too. But it 
is not going to happen by an edict of the Paris accord. It is going to 
happen by research that makes sense and that economically says you can 
have the steel to build new factories, to build new cities, to build 
new things in your country to make your country better, wherever you 
are: sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Europe, America, South America, North 
America, wherever you are. But you can do it better and you can do it 
cleaner and you can do it where it is cost effective. That is what we 
have to focus on, not arbitrary, capricious goals set with different 
countries having different standards. As an American, as U.S. citizens, 
we have a higher target, and there is no target for the Chinese.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. GOSAR. The gentleman brings up that when we look at coal, the 
separation of rare earths, that is the technology that is so important. 
This is the technology that is driving this renaissance of technology 
in our country, that plethora of energy where we can geopolitically 
decide to help other countries become more independent, away from 
China's and from Russia's jurisdiction.
  The entrepreneurial spirit is bred with having energy independence. 
This H.R. 9 kills jobs.
  I also want to bring up to the gentleman, with technology, there is 
another technology at the same time that takes up pulverized coal and 
infuses it into oil. When they burn it, they get a 50 percent 
additional Btu factor and a cleaner burning application, once again 
reducing the carbon footprint.
  Once again, talking about new technologies is what saves us. It is 
that entrepreneurial spirit making things better. The infusion of new 
technology helps us get an advancement of cleaner technology.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, what is exciting for the American people, 
what is exciting for me, I would say to the gentleman, is that we have 
just mentioned a couple of areas where technology is working, making 
things better, and reducing our carbon footprint. In our universities 
and our think tanks across the country, there are hundreds and 
thousands of ideas percolating out there that can help us move forward.
  You may not agree with me on this, but I think we can spend more 
money from the Federal Government on research to find better ways to 
use fossil fuels. Wave energy, wind, solar, whatever it is, we need to 
be leading on the research end of this.
  If we think we are going to eliminate fossil fuels, Mr. Speaker, we 
are mistaken, because the world is going to continue to use fossil 
fuels. If you say to a developing economy that they have to rely on 
wind, they are going to know that you are full of hot wind.
  Mr. GOSAR. That is right.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. If you say to them, however, that we are going to try 
to do all of the above, so we are going to help you burn the coal you 
have; we are going to help you find the fuels that work for you, but we 
want to try to help you do it in a cleaner fashion; and we want to make 
that coal a little bit better, to make that oil a little bit better, to 
make it burn hotter, to make it burn more efficiently, that is how you 
lower your carbon footprint.
  I like what the gentleman from Utah had to talk about in grazing on 
our Federal lands. If we started using different techniques, we can 
absorb a lot of carbon. We should probably spend some research money to 
find out if those crops and those plants that can be utilized to suck 
up more carbon can maybe produce other products as well.
  These are things that we need to do, instead of saying we are not 
going to use any of this in the future because we might do that to the 
detriment of our jobs here in the United States. We are going to shift 
those jobs to other countries where they will use dirtier coal, dirtier 
oil, dirtier techniques for burning fossil fuels to produce the 
products that we then buy back, making them the richer nations in the 
world and we the lesser.
  When I am on my deathbed, I want to be able to look my kids in the 
eye--hopefully, I will have grandkids some day--and say: You know what? 
We kept the United States of America number one in the economic 
situation, and we looked out for the planet at the same time.
  It can be done, but it can't be done if all you say is, no, we are 
not going to look at fossil fuels.
  Mr. GOSAR. The gentleman brings up a great point, along with the 
former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, not only in the 
grazing application but in the stewardship of our natural resources 
called our forests, dynamic forests. Instead of being victims of these 
catastrophic wildfires that put so much of the emissions and pollution 
into the air, we then relegate it, so when we do have fires, it is 
relegated to low-level type fires that are not as devastating and 
catastrophic.
  I want to bring up one other point. Included in the Paris Agreement 
was the creation of a slush fund called the Green Climate Fund, which 
the Obama

[[Page H3329]]

administration unconstitutionally utilized to shift $1 billion in 
taxpayer funds without authorization from Congress. Once again, we were 
imposed upon by having the money, Uncle Sam Warbucks.
  The Green Climate Fund was a goal of raising $100 billion a year 
through voluntary contributions from countries that signed the Paris 
Agreement. While developed countries are expected to finance their 
respective agreements under the Paris Agreement, the Green Climate Fund 
aims to subsidize the agreements of developing countries that cannot 
afford the commitments they made when signing the Paris Agreement.
  In fact, since the United States ratified the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, the United States has 
given hundreds of millions of dollars to developing countries to help 
them mitigate climate change. Amazing.
  We know that much of the money we have given over the years has gone 
to some of the most corrupt countries in the world. My question is, how 
can we rely on these countries to spend the money properly? When you 
look, for example, in 2014, the top recipients for climate funds all 
received failing grades in Transparency International's Corruption 
Perceptions Index. Amazing.
  What has been the return on investment for the money that we were 
giving to these countries? It is nice to be able to fund this, but what 
are the results? What are we getting from that?
  Mr. GRIFFITH. If the gentleman would tell me.
  Mr. GOSAR. The facts are that carbon emissions from the developing 
countries have gone up. We know that much of the money was not used to 
reduce carbon emissions.
  Once again, we are not solving it.
  It is clear that H.R. 9, that is what it will do. It will put the 
country back on the road to job losses, higher electric bills, and more 
government regulations while wasting significant amounts of taxpayer 
money in the process.

  We become victims in this economy. We should be leading the way. 
Freedom comes with technology and opportunity, and that is what the 
American people want.
  This is something where we should show the way by leadership, by 
saying: Listen, follow us by the way that we do things.
  That seems like a better approach, doesn't it, to the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, it absolutely is a better approach. It 
really does bother me that we are just handing cash over to these 
countries.
  As you said, they don't have transparency. Some of them are known to 
have corrupt governments, which means that at least a portion of that 
money is probably ending up in the pockets of the rulers' friends, 
neighbors, and cousins.
  If we are going to spend the money, let's go in and spend the money 
on something that will make a difference for the folks in those 
countries.
  I am not saying as the richest nation in the world that we don't have 
a responsibility, but let's make sure that we don't cripple ourselves 
in the process. Let's make sure that if we are going to spend the 
money, which I am okay with spending some of it, that we make sure it 
is going to projects that will improve the environment in those 
countries and help lower the carbon footprint in those respective 
nations.
  They are not going to sit back and have their people be impoverished 
just because a group of Western nations got together or a group of 
nations got together that already have some money and said: You stop 
using fossil fuels so that the world won't get warmer.
  They may be concerned about that, and I think they probably are, but 
they are not going to impoverish their people to target 1.5 degrees 
centigrade.
  If we can show them a way to get more wealth for their people, to 
bring electricity to all regions of their countries, and to lower their 
carbon footprint, they are all in. That is where we can lead.
  We don't have to spend money by just handing cash to potentates 
around the world. We can spend that money on research right here in our 
own colleges, in our own universities, in our own think tanks with 
people. Some of them will fail, but some of them will come up with new 
technology. Like when looking for a way to separate rare earth from 
coal and they figure out a way to lower the carbon footprint at steel 
mills in India, those kinds of things happen when you are looking for 
answers to problems instead of looking for problems.
  Mr. GOSAR. Right, the carrot versus the whip. What you are looking at 
is the opportunity for solutions, that incentivization to find a new 
opportunity. I think that is the value. We are protecting 6.5 million 
jobs here.
  It scraps the unconstitutional application of the treaty, and it 
ensures safe, reliable, affordable energy.
  Everybody has to have energy. When we start looking at this Paris 
accord, it is accomplished in so many different ways that H.R. 9 is not 
something that is a valid or constitutional agreement.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman.
  Mr. GOSAR. Having said that, the Paris Agreement may have been their 
most egregious breach of constitutional authority. Many Members on the 
other side have stated in the past that President Trump does not have 
the authority to unilaterally withdraw the United States without the 
consent of Congress.
  By virtue of the executive's role as the sole organ of the government 
charged with making official communications with foreign states, it is 
responsible for communicating the United States' intention to withdraw 
from international agreements and political commitments.
  In the case of this executive agreement, President Obama had 
independent authority to enter into an executive agreement. President 
Trump may also independently terminate the agreement without 
congressional approval.
  In addition to there being no congressional input on the agreement, 
there was no congressional input when drafting the agreement. This is 
not the way an agreement as wide-reaching as the Paris Agreement should 
have been agreed upon.
  Passage of H.R. 9 will bring us back to the foreign policy of 
President Obama and the practice of putting other countries' interests 
above our own. This is the same foreign policy that brought us 
Benghazi, the rise of ISIS, and the disastrous Iran nuclear agreement.
  President Trump's promise to withdraw the United States from the 
Paris Agreement marked a dramatic change in America's foreign policy--
for the better, I might add. The Paris Agreement fails to put America 
first, and President Trump is right to withdraw us from this 
sovereignty-sacrificing agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, the facts are becoming clearer about the realities and 
failures of the Paris climate agreement.
  First of all, let's talk about the good news. The United States 
reduced its carbon emissions by 40 million metric tons in 2017. Yes, 
our emissions did rise slightly in 2018 due to increased domestic 
manufacturing, but the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects 
that our carbon emissions will continue to fall in 2019 and 2020.
  Now for some bad news. The United States' reductions in carbon 
emissions are totally erased when you account for China's dramatic 
increase in carbon emissions. Several speakers have talked about that. 
In fact, China's increase in emissions is three times larger than the 
U.S.'s decrease in emissions.
  Mr. Speaker, this highlights two of the fundamental failures in the 
framework of the Paris Agreement, which is the fact that there are no 
mechanisms in place to hold countries accountable for not reaching 
their emissions reduction targets, and there are no requirements or 
required countries to establish equitable emissions reductions over the 
same period.
  It is not just China, either. India, for example, saw its emissions 
rise 4.8 percent in 2017. Forty-seven of the 50 most polluted cities in 
the world are located in either China or in India.

  Well, you may say, let's look to Europe. They are probably on the 
forefront of following the standards set forth in the agreement.
  People would think that, but that would be wrong, as all EU countries 
are off-target in reaching the goals set forth by the Paris Agreement. 
Germany, for example, has spent almost

[[Page H3330]]

$600 billion in renewable energy subsidies and has seen no meaningful 
decrease in carbon emissions.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States was already a leader in reducing 
carbon emissions before the Paris Agreement was signed. Since 1970, the 
United States has reduced six key air pollutants by 73 percent and has 
seen the largest absolute reduction of CO2 of any country in 
the world since 2000.
  Instead of focusing on bringing us back to the past, we should focus 
on encouraging innovations that we are already seeing in the energy 
sector today. Whether it be carbon capture technology, clean coal, or 
taking advantage of the liquid natural gas revolution that is taking 
place across the country, the private sector is leading the way in 
creating a cleaner energy future for this country.
  That is the way it should be, not through a heavy-handed government 
imposing unrealistic, top-down mandates.
  Requiring the U.S. to follow the requirements of the Paris Agreement 
will stifle innovations and return us to the policies of the past when 
energy was more expensive and economic growth was abysmal.
  It appears that I am running out of time, so what I will do is 
implore my folks to, first, relook at this.
  I thank all the Western Caucus members who contributed to the Special 
Order. It is truly a privilege to be chair of the caucus, which is now 
74 bipartisan members strong.
  Mr. Speaker, we will continue to lead the fight against the extreme 
agenda, which is why we organized the Special Order in opposition to 
H.R. 9.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Speaker, I will close with a quote from the National Federation 
of Independent Business, who oppose this legislation.
  Under this legislation,

       Small businesses would face significant future government 
     mandates, additional regulatory and legal burdens, and 
     unworkable government policies that would result in 
     skyrocketing energy prices.
       At a time when the small business economy is booming with 
     small business owners reporting record hiring of new 
     employees and historically strong compensation increases for 
     their employees, Congress should be considering policies that 
     will allow this economic boom to continue, not bring it to a 
     halt.

  I hope this legislation is voted down by the House this week and we 
get serious as a Congress about promoting energy dominance for the 
betterment of our economy, energy consumers, the environment, and 
geopolitically across the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________