[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 1, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3346-H3347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Curtis) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, Utahns believe in being good stewards of our 
planet, leaving the Earth better than we found it.
  When I served as the mayor of Provo, we pursued policies to construct 
LEAD-certified buildings, create more environmentally friendly transit 
options, and educate our residents on how they can be better stewards 
of the environment. We considered these efforts to be meaningful steps 
in the right direction.
  But, imagine my surprise when I arrived in Congress and learned of 
the dangerous winner-take-all system of governing that has overtaken 
Washington, especially on issues impacting the environment.
  Instead of a pragmatic approach to a positive change through small 
and consistent consensus, an all-or-nothing approach dominates the 
debate and villainizes all but the most extreme positions.
  Congress is a place where ideological purity is rewarded more than 
results. It is easy to vote on a messaging bill that the sponsor knows 
will never be passed into law and then go home and take the applause 
from the like-minded constituents, but it is difficult to leave the 
echo chambers and work across the aisle with individuals who have 
different backgrounds than yourself and find common ground.
  The most obvious example of this is the climate change debate in our 
country where, today, my Democratic colleagues have taken the easy 
path. The

[[Page H3347]]

bill we are voting on today has 224 Democratic sponsors and not a 
single Republican sponsor.
  Instead of working with Republicans on our four-part approach to 
addressing climate change through innovation, conservation, adaptation, 
and preparation, we are sending a partisan bill to die in the Senate.
  I attempted to work with my colleagues on this bill. I offered a 
good-faith amendment that would increase transparency and competition 
by comparing emissions produced by all the countries in the Paris 
Agreement. This amendment wasn't even allowed a vote by the Democratic 
leadership, although there was no problem allowing votes from their 
Democratic friends' amendments.
  In fact, only three Republican amendments will be considered, and 26 
Democratic amendments will be offered for debate.
  It is as if my colleagues on the other side are afraid of hurting the 
feelings of China and Russia by pointing out that they are not pulling 
their weight.
  I have long been a proponent for the environment, and I was proud to 
receive the Utah Clean Air Partnership Person of the Year award in 
2017. I have championed hundreds of thousands of acres of bipartisan 
conservation in Utah.
  I, like all Utahns, care deeply about conserving our planet and our 
way of life for future generations, but I cannot vote for H.R. 9 
because I believe it further divides us apart, reinforcing the false 
narrative that all Republicans don't care about the environment because 
they are unwilling to get on board with an all-or-nothing, unrealistic 
approach to addressing climate change.
  H.R. 9 completely ignores the serious and legitimate concerns about 
the cost and effectiveness of the Paris Agreement.
  H.R. 9 ignores that President Obama's pledge to the Paris Agreement 
could cost the United States $250 billion and nearly 3 million jobs in 
this next 6 years; and it ignores that, in the next 20 years, this 
commitment could cost us $3 trillion and 6.5 million American jobs.
  H.R. 9 also ignores that, because of innovation and technological 
improvement, the United States is already leading the world in reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2000, the United States has decreased 
annual carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 800 million tons, the largest 
absolute decline among all countries since 2000.
  H.R. 9 ignores the fact that, if the United States cut CO2 
emissions to zero, it would not even come close to offsetting the 
emissions coming from the rest of the world.
  H.R. 9 even ignores that the Paris Agreement allows China, the 
Earth's largest greenhouse gas polluter, to increase their emissions 
through 2030 with little evidence to show that they plan to comply in 
the future.
  I have heard over and over that the U.S. must remain in the Paris 
Agreement to show leadership. And I ask you: What kind of leadership 
leads to double-digit unemployment in rural America but lets China off 
the hook?
  I agree that America must continue to show leadership, but let's 
focus on leadership that goes back to the core principles of 
innovation, conservation, adaptation, and preparation. This bill fails 
to do any of that.
  Let's continue leading the world and bettering our environment, but 
let's not pretend that H.R. 9 is a silver bullet to our evolving world.
  I hope that we can stop with the easy, cheap rhetoric that offers 
false promises and divides our country even further and focus on those 
things that make meaningful change.

                          ____________________