[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 1, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3351-H3361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 9, CLIMATE ACTION NOW ACT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 329 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 329
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 9) to direct the President to develop a plan
for the United States to meet its nationally determined
contribution under the Paris Agreement, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed 90 minutes, with 60 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 30 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No
amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ted Lieu of California). The gentleman
from Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 329. It provides for the
consideration of H.R. 9 under a structured rule that makes 30
amendments in order.
It also provides for 90 minutes of general debate, with the chair and
the ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
controlling 60 minutes, and the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce controlling 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the measure we are considering today makes clear that
under this Democratic majority science is once again respected here in
the House of Representatives, that facts matter, and that the word of
the fossil fuel lobby is not going to rule the day, because there is no
debate on our side about something as basic as climate change.
The evidence is overwhelming. It is happening, Mr. Speaker, and human
beings are playing a defining role.
Now, you don't have to take my word for it. You can ask virtually any
scientist working in the field today, because 97 percent of all climate
scientists agree that it is happening--97 percent.
There is a United Nations body charged with looking at the science
here called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Do you know what it has found? That the evidence is unequivocal.
The facts are as clear as day.
But you don't even need to read the report to know that something is
happening here. Just look out your window. Once-in-a-generation
hurricanes are becoming commonplace; record-breaking storms are
becoming the norm; and drastic temperature swings are now just the way
it is.
My district is home to more than 1,800 farms, and I visit with
farmers often. Climate change isn't just an issue on their minds; it is
sometimes the top issue on their minds when they are asked about the
challenges that they face.
These farmers have told me about how heat waves disrupt what was once
a reliable growing season and how unexpected frosts have completely
wiped out their crops. Rainfall that once ran like clockwork has given
way to droughts that could wipe out their entire profits.
They don't question what is going on. They are not debating the
science of whether climate change is real. They know. They know.
{time} 1230
They can see it, seemingly every day as it impacts their livelihoods.
I wish the Republicans took climate change as seriously. But instead of
treating it as a threat, they treat it as a punch line.
A Republican Senator once brought a snowball onto the Senate floor,
trying to prove that climate change isn't real because it still snows
sometimes. You can't make this stuff up.
Just the other day, President Trump mocked clean energy by suggesting
that windmills cause cancer. Are you kidding me? That is the President
of the United States.
I won't pretend to know what goes on in the President's head, but I
know this: His announcement in June 2017 that he would be pulling the
United States out of the Paris climate agreement was indefensible.
This agreement set an ambitious goal of keeping warming below 2
degrees Celsius and established binding commitments for countries to
meet to reduce emissions. It recognized climate change is a global
problem that requires a global solution.
If the President gets his way and actually withdraws the United
States, we would stand alone as one of the only nations in the world
not to be part of it. Even Syria, a nation embroiled in war, announced
that it would sign on.
Thankfully, we are not out of it yet, but we could be starting as
early as 2020.
H.R. 9 would ensure the President wouldn't get his way by requiring
him to develop a plan to meet our commitments under the Paris
Agreement.
It is called the Climate Action Now Act because we can't wait, Mr.
Speaker. Climate change isn't some far-off threat. It is not a problem
for our great-grandchildren or even our grandchildren to solve. It is
our problem. It is here today, impacting our Nation and our future.
It is not just about the weather. Climate change also negatively
impacts public health and our national security. Experts have even
developed a new term to describe those displaced by its destructive
impacts, ``American climate refugees.''
This is not the time for handwringing or indecisiveness and not the
time to let the fossil fuel industry that funds some campaigns outweigh
the facts. It is certainly not the time for more stunts or snowballs on
the floor.
This is the time to act boldly, to listen to what the scientists are
telling us, and to protect our planet for future generations. That is
what H.R. 9 is all about.
[[Page H3352]]
I ask my colleagues to let the facts rule the day once again in the
people's House of Representatives. Let's support this rule and the
underlying legislation and send an undeniable message that, under this
majority, we value science and recognize the urgent need to act on
climate change.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman McGovern for yielding me
the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves on the floor, yet again, to consider a
rule for a piece of legislation that is nothing more than another
messaging bill against the President of the United States.
This new Democratic majority has spent nearly 20 percent--20
percent--of the time debating bills on the floor that are nonbinding
messaging pieces of legislation. H.R. 9 is just another example of this
majority's intent on messaging against the President and the lack of
any true agenda for the American people.
The reality is that we all want clean air, clean water, and a healthy
environment. Who doesn't? However, this bill isn't the solution.
Addressing environmental policy should not include extreme policies
like the Green New Deal, nor should it involve binding ourselves to
international agreements that put the United States at a disadvantage
to its main security and economic competitors in the world, and with no
regard to cost for American consumers and ratepayers.
Republicans have a better approach. We can protect our environment by
promoting policies favoring clean energy, like nuclear, hydropower,
natural gas, wind, solar, and carbon capture, and removing barriers to
the deployment of new technologies and innovation.
The United States is already leading the world in reducing greenhouse
gas emissions through innovation and technological development. Between
2000 and 2014, in fact, the U.S. reduced emissions more than 18
percent.
We should be focused on continuing to reduce emissions, developing
and exporting clean energy technologies, and making our communities
more resilient, all while ensuring affordable and reliable energy
prices and prioritizing the consumer and American security and
prosperity.
We have serious questions concerning costs, effectiveness, and the
feasibility of the U.S. commitments made by the Obama administration
under the Paris Agreement 4 years ago. Even then-Secretary of State
Kerry noted during the Paris negotiations that if the United States cut
its CO2 emissions to zero, it would still not offset the
emissions coming from the rest of the world.
The Obama administration's commitments in Paris were made without a
clear plan to meet those promises, without a full view of the costs to
American consumers, and, certainly, without a strategy that had broad
bipartisan support of Congress.
If H.R. 9 were enacted into law, it would put the United States into
a position where it could not enforce any other country's action and
would put us at a disadvantage.
I have heard from some of my Democratic colleagues that their energy
policies are good for consumers, that it creates many jobs and benefits
the economy. When they argue this, they point to States like
California, with their renewable energy mandates.
However, California finds itself in the precarious situation where it
actually pays Arizona to take their energy. This is not good energy or
economic policy.
If Democrats were serious about solving big problems for the American
people, they would partner and work across the aisle to find bipartisan
solutions that they knew would have a chance to pass in the U.S. Senate
and be signed by the President.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, let me make a couple of
points.
First of all, just so the Record is clear, under President Trump's
policies, which are now taking effect and are now reversing some of the
advances that we made under previous administrations, basically, these
policies have consequences. In 2018, our emissions rose by 3.4 percent.
We are going in the wrong direction.
When the gentlewoman talks about all these other alternative energy
sources that are clean and green that my Republican friends support,
she neglects to point out that this President hasn't seen a fossil fuel
that he hasn't wanted to embrace. In fact, he wants to go back and
invest more in coal, which is hard to believe, given all the scientific
evidence that exists about the dangers of coal for our atmosphere.
There is no question where this President is coming from. He doesn't
believe in climate change, and that is what is so shocking, that the
whole world, the scientific community all over the world, has warned us
time and time again that this is a real problem, and we have a
President who doesn't believe it. It is stunning. It is stunning, but
that is what we are dealing with.
Basically, this is an attempt to try to get us back on the right
track, to take this problem, which is already having significant
negative consequences in our country, and do something about it.
It is time to come together and tell the President, who doesn't
believe in science, that science is real, that it is something we ought
to take seriously, and that we ought to do something about it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, climate change is already wreaking economic
and security havoc: deep freezes; an incredible 5 feet of water dumped
on Houston, Texas, by a hurricane; in other areas, droughts, amazing
wildfires, and extensive disease.
What we need is alternative energy, not Trump ``alternative facts,''
and decisions that are based on science, not on mythology. President
Trump's rejection of sound climate change facts only makes Chinese
clean energy great again.
We need to lead on the road to clean green energy, not get run over.
Fighting climate change is an existential challenge, but it is also an
amazing economic opportunity. We can create green jobs right here with
technology that is exported to the world, instead of letting our
international competitors prevail.
Recommitting to the Paris climate agreement is more than bipartisan.
It is joining 2,000 American businesses. It is joining 23 States. It is
joining cities across America, like San Antonio and Austin, that have
already pledged that they want climate action, not more nonsense and
climate denying.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. It is joining 21 senior Defense officials who identify
climate change action as a way to address a major national security
challenge.
President Trump continues to block meaningful environmental action by
clogging the corridors of power with fossil fuel industry cheerleaders.
A Green New Deal is an alternative to the same old dirty deal
threatening our planet with dark money, where the only thing green is
that money clogging and polluting our democracy.
Climate action does bear some costs, but inaction has even greater
costs. Let's embrace the simple truth that preserving the Earth is
worth it. Let's embrace an America that is leading on a green economic
revolution.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend and the Republican whip.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona for
yielding and for leading on this issue for the economy of the United
States of America and for hardworking families.
If you look at what getting back in the Paris accord would do, Mr.
Speaker, it would wreck our economy in many different ways.
The people hardest hit by the United States getting back in the Paris
accord are the very people who don't need to be hit the most, those
with the lowest income in our country, because it would increase energy
costs. By outside estimates, this bill, complying with the unachievable
requirements that they have in this bill, would cost up to 2.7 million
American jobs.
[[Page H3353]]
Those jobs wouldn't just evaporate, Mr. Speaker. Those jobs,
ironically, if we were to get back into the Paris accord, would go to
China and India because China and India, according to the accord, are
exempt until 2030. They don't even have to comply.
By the way, why don't we look at the countries that are begging us to
get back into the Paris accord? Not one of the countries in the entire
European Union is in compliance with the unachievable targets set in
the Paris accord. In fact, France, which Paris is in, is not even in
compliance with the target.
Then they tell us: Hey, America, why don't you come into this thing,
this disaster of an agreement that none of the countries in Europe are
in compliance with?
Then you look at what it would do, again, to wreck America's economy.
Let's talk about carbon emissions. If this is really about carbon
emissions, like the Green New Deal and other crazy ideas that would
wreck the American economy, get rid of fossil fuels. You don't have to
fly around on planes anymore. You don't have to worry about missing a
flight because there wouldn't be any flights. That is how ludicrous
their ideas are, yet they believe in them.
They all do this under the guise of carbon emissions. As they say on
the other side, climate action does have some cost. Let's talk about
that cost: $250 billion in higher taxes, as well as lower wages for
American families.
You wonder why they are rioting in the streets of France. In Paris,
where the accord was signed, they are having riots over this radical
idea. By the way, again, they are not even in compliance with it.
Then you look at where these jobs would go. The jobs would go to
China and India, which are not only exempt, Mr. Speaker, but those
countries actually emit four or five times more carbon than we do here
because we have good environmental standards in America.
{time} 1245
We have been decreasing our carbon emissions in America. In fact, we
have decreased our carbon emissions down to the level that they were at
in the year 2000.
We are doing it not by signing some radical job-killing accord; we
are doing it through American ingenuity, something we have always
celebrated in this country, something that we are the world leader at.
Why would we want to give that advantage away? And not just giving it
away in the name of saving the planet, giving it away to countries like
China and India, who are increasing carbon emissions dramatically
higher than us.
This is a disaster for our economy. We need to reject this bad deal.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words from our distinguished minority
whip, but I would point out that the cost of climate inaction will far
outweigh the cost associated with acting now.
According to the Fourth National Climate Assessment, by 2090, lost
wages will reach $155 billion, mortality from extreme temperatures will
surpass $140 billion, and coastal property damage will approach $120
billion. All told, the U.S. economy could lose more than 10 percent of
its GDP under the worst-case scenario.
So people can deny that this is a problem all they want, but they do
so at great economic risk for our country and for other economies
around the world.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. DelBene).
Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9, the Climate
Action Now Act.
Washington's First District is home to some of our Nation's most
beautiful parks, mountains, and waterways, and we are already seeing
the consequences of climate change:
Snowpack in the north Cascades is currently 20 to 40 percent below
normal amounts;
Last year, wildfires ravaged the West Coast, resulting in poor air
quality and public health issues;
Washington State just had the second driest March on record, and
there is a greater likelihood of more fires through the summer.
This is why Congress must take action and pass H.R. 9. We need to be
moving forward, not backward.
President Trump's statement of intent to withdraw from the Paris
climate agreement is a grave mistake that would have lasting effects on
our planet and our economy.
H.R. 9 is an important step forward, ensuring the United States
upholds our commitments under the agreement and leads in the green
economy.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and
the underlying legislation.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend and the ranking member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, Mrs. Lesko, for
yielding.
Well, we are here again, Madam Speaker, on yet another bill that
isn't going to pass the Senate, isn't going to become law, and doesn't
really do anything.
As they have done over and over again over the past few months, my
Democratic friends seem content to bring up virtue-signaling messaging
bills as a substitute for passing real bipartisan legislation to solve
problems facing the American people.
Today's bill purports to force the President to return the United
States to the Paris Agreement on climate change, never mind that he
hasn't actually pulled the United States from that agreement yet, nor
can he until the day after the next Presidential election in 2020. But
on that day, to be fair, I think he will.
Ineffective though it may be, the bill does nothing to address the
serious fundamental flaws in the Paris Agreement, nor does it offer any
substantial legislation to consider the problem of our own changing
climate.
Instead, like many other bills the majority has offered in Congress,
today's legislation is all talk, no action. It is simply another
messaging bill to allow the majority to go on record in opposition to
President Trump. That is not legislating.
Madam Speaker, it didn't have to be this way. We had an opportunity
to improve this bill both at the committees of jurisdiction and again
at the Rules Committee this week, and we could have made the bill
better if we had made more amendments from both sides of the aisle in
order for consideration on the floor. Legislating is better and more
effective when all Members can have their ideas considered before final
passage.
Making more amendments in order is a pledge that we have heard time
and time again from my good friend and my good chairman, Mr. McGovern,
so it is unfortunate that this rule misses a perfect opportunity to
have robust debate on ideas from both sides of the aisle.
At the Rules Committee Monday night, 91 amendments were proposed and
considered. Of those, 45 were proposed by Democrats, 44 by Republicans,
and 2 were bipartisan. Of the 44 Republican amendments, 35 had no
points of order against them or any parliamentary issues, yet when the
final rule was proposed and passed out of committee, it made in order
30 amendments: 1 bipartisan amendment, 26 Democratic amendments, and
just 3 Republican amendments.
Is that really how the majority wants to operate going forward, 58
percent of the Democratic amendments allowed to come to the floor, but
just 6 percent of the Republican amendments and just 8 percent without
points of order? That is an abysmal result.
For example, my good friend Rodney Davis of Illinois proposed an
amendment that simply would have noted that the 2018 farm bill is
relevant to achieving the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and would have required the President to add the Committee on
Agriculture to any reports he sends on this topic to the Foreign
Affairs and Energy and Commerce Committees. This is a commonsense
amendment that takes into account the role agriculture can play in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, yet the amendment was blocked from
consideration on the floor.
What is the harm, I ask, in debating that amendment here on the floor
and
[[Page H3354]]
bringing our Nation's farmers into the discussion?
Dr. Burgess, my fellow member of the Rules Committee and a member of
the Energy and Commerce Committee, submitted two amendments that
required the President to consider how carbon emission-free nuclear
power and other forms of renewable energy with zero emissions, like
hydropower, could contribute to meeting the United States' obligation
under the Paris Agreement.
It seems logical to me that, when you are seeking to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, using energy sources that are emission-free
makes sense, yet the majority didn't even want to discuss that on the
floor and blocked both of Dr. Burgess' amendments. What harm was there
in discussing them?
I could go on and on, but the reality is that the majority has used
its power at the Rules Committee to block consideration of dozens of
amendments that could have and should have been discussed on the floor.
When the Democrats took majority control in the House, they promised
a more inclusive process with more minority voices heard, more
Republican amendments considered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Castor of Florida). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
additional time.
When the Democrats took majority control of the House, they promised
a more inclusive process, more minority voices heard, more Republican
amendments considered. If today's action is any indication, we have a
long way to go in making that promise a reality. Instead, we are moving
forward with a deeply flawed bill that could and should have been
improved through the amendment process.
I have been a member of the Rules Committee for a long time,
including many years in the majority. It is fair to ask: How did we do
when we were in the majority? Let's look at the record.
In the 115th Congress, under Republican control of the Rules
Committee, 45 percent of the amendments made in order were Democratic,
38 percent were Republican, 17 percent were bipartisan. The statistics
for today's rule is a far cry from the fairness of that record.
If the majority truly wants to address the environment and wants to
legislate, then we can all certainly do better than the bill before us
today, and we can do better than the process we saw with this bill. All
Members should have an opportunity to be heard, and we should all have
an opportunity to make the bill better today.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, let me just say to my ranking member, whom I have
great respect for, that I think we always need to figure out a way to
do better and to be more accommodating, and I will continue to work
with him to try to do that. But I will point out for the record that
the committee has made in order 30 amendments, a total of 31 pages of
amendments on a 6-page bill.
I think we have a long way to go to achieve the record of closed
rules that the previous Congress had, well over 100 closed rules. That
broke, I think, every closed rule record in history. We certainly don't
want to get there, but we need to continue to figure out ways we can be
more accommodating, and he has my word that I will do that.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine
(Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for his good work
and for yielding me the time.
Greenhouse gas emissions did not happen in isolation. They have
widespread impact and will not be curbed without global coordination.
The Obama administration understood that fact, and that is why they
entered America into an international compact to curb emissions on a
global scale.
When the Trump administration retreated from the Paris accord last
year, it meant the effects of climate change would only get worse in my
home State of Maine. In Maine, climate change isn't an abstraction, it
is not a silly floor debate that has no meaning. It is a very real
threat to our economy and to our way of life.
I recently met with farmers in my State who told me climate change is
here now and we need real solutions to adapt and to mitigate.
I met with climate scientists from the University of Maine who told
me invasive species are threatening the livelihoods of our foresters.
I also met with shellfish growers and harvesters who are grappling
with the effects of ocean acidification, of extreme weather events, and
of the very real fact that the Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 95
percent of the Earth's other waters.
This is real, and I don't want my grandchildren looking back and
saying: ``Why didn't Congress fix the problem when they could?''
H.R. 9 is the first piece of positive climate change legislation to
receive a vote in the House in years. The bill will reaffirm America's
commitment to fighting climate change and will put this Congress on a
course to take on the climate crisis before it is too late.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my good friend.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that is before us
today. As Democrats in the House bring forward legislation in the name
of supporting the environment and climate, I would like to talk a
little bit about the process.
My good friend Chairman McGovern and the Democratic majority of the
House Rules Committee received a total of 91 amendments submitted for
consideration on the legislation that we have before us, and as you
just heard from Mr. Cole, of the 45 Democratic amendments, more
than half were made in order, 26 of those; but of the 44 Republican
amendments submitted for consideration, only 3--let me repeat that--3
of those were made in order.
Myself, I offered 2 of those 44 amendments. They were
noncontroversial. They were ruled germane to the legislation before us
by the House Parliamentarian, and all they did, simply, was recognize
the clean, renewable benefits of hydropower and the clean emissions-
free benefits of nuclear power, but Chairman McGovern and his committee
refused to allow this recognition.
So we have got to ask ourselves, Madam Speaker:
Why? Why, if we are supposedly here to debate policy affecting our
environment and our climate, why would they not want to discuss the
clean energy that comes from hydroelectric dams like those in my
district along the Columbia and Snake Rivers?
Why would they not want to discuss the emissions-free energy produced
by nuclear power plants like the Columbia Generating Station in my
district in central Washington.
It is because the efforts put forward by Democrats in the House, be
it the flawed Paris agreement legislation that is before us or the
radical Green New Deal proposal--which, I might add, has no mention of
hydropower and actually calls for the end of nuclear power in our
Nation--have nothing to do with science and everything to do with
politics.
The majority party, the Democrats, with these proposals, is more
focused on pushing a mandated top-down system that will inevitably do
nothing to help our environment.
What we should be doing, and what my Republican colleagues continue
to advocate for, is focusing on the free market approach spurred by
collaboration and innovation between our national laboratories,
research universities, Federal partners, and the private sector.
Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend Mr. McGovern that, when
Republicans were in the majority, we made a conscientious effort on the
Rules Committee to provide equitable treatment of amendments offered to
legislation. With the process before us today, it is disappointing to
see the chairman not following in that good faith effort, and I would
urge a ``no'' vote.
[[Page H3355]]
{time} 1300
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, oh my God, just listening to the gentleman from
Washington State give his remarks. He was on the Rules Committee when
the Republicans were in charge last time and voted for a record number
of 103 closed rules. That meant that not a single amendment, Republican
or Democrat, could be made in order. Never once, never once, did I hear
him express reservation about the historic closed process that the
Republicans embraced.
And as far as his amendment goes, as the gentleman knows, the Paris
climate agreement operates under the theory that parties should be able
to satisfy their compliance plans any way they choose. There are
neither preferred nor prohibited ways to reduce emissions.
Since the Paris Agreement is fuel and technology neutral, we think
this bill should be too. But I just find it hard to sit here and to
listen with any level of seriousness to the gentleman's complaints.
When he was on the Rules Committee, they broke every record in the
history of Congress being the most closed Congress in the history of
our country. Can we do better? Yes, we can, and we should do better.
But I will remind the gentleman, again, that there were 30 pages of
amendments made in order on a 6-page bill, a bill, by the way, that the
gentlewoman, Mrs. Lesko, said is not a serious bill anyway. So, I am
not quite sure what the messaging is here: that it is not serious or
that it is serious enough where we need to have more amendments. I
can't quite figure their logic out here.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his important work on this urgent bill.
It is too late to overstate the urgency of the climate crisis. It has
already assumed emergency status in parts of the world, including parts
of States like Florida.
The threatened withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris climate accord
should be considered an international crime. The United States is the
only nation to threaten to withdraw from the agreement, but others,
such as Brazil, seem willing to follow our lead.
I am encouraged, though, that in our country, even though we have
record polarization today, Americans overwhelmingly want the United
States to remain in the agreement. The absurdity of sealing our own
fate by faking blindness to the climate catastrophe is not lost on the
American people we represent. This is the most serious issue faced by
the Congress of the United States in our history. We must vote for the
life, not the end of the planet.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my good friend.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 9.
Madam Speaker, if we are really going to speak about what makes
sense, what doesn't make sense, or what does have a relevance, let's
not forget about who bears the brunt of the cost of what we are talking
about. It is hardworking Americans.
I find it interesting that we talk about: Well, do you know what, you
guys did stuff the last time that prevented us from getting amendments
in, so we are following along with the same thing. I have great respect
for the chairman of the Rules Committee, but I have to say that if the
whole purpose of this is what I think it is, then I would like to go
back to the actual beginning where this should have been treated as a
treaty and it should have gotten the advice and consent of the Senate.
Why did President Obama not do that? Obviously, he did it because he
couldn't get the advice and consent of the Senate, so he decided to do
it this way.
If our whole job in coming to the people's House is to defend the
American people, then we need to take a real long look at what it is
that we are trying to defend. This bill today is a messaging bill,
there is no question about it.
If you look at the damage that could be done to the American people--
I am talking about the American people now, not a philosophy that is
out there, not an agenda that is out there, but I am talking about
hardworking Americans: a loss of nearly 400,000 jobs--this is according
to the Heritage Foundation--an average manufacturing loss of over
200,000 jobs, a total income loss of more than $20,000 per family, a
GDP loss of over $2.5 trillion, and increases in household electricity
expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. The biggest offenders
in the world are China and India, and they aren't part of this so-
called agreement.
If we are really concerned about protecting the people who sent us
here to be their voice, then we ought to look at what their voice is
and who bears the burden of a philosophy, a failed philosophy, that has
no chance of working itself into law. We know that, and yet today we
will come here, and we will rail against something that isn't really on
the list of what the American people have the greatest concerns over.
The people who I represent back in Pennsylvania, they thank me every
day for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act because it has reduced their utility
bills.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues that the impact on
our economy is astronomical if we do nothing. We are already seeing the
negative impacts on our economy because of climate change. It is hard
to believe that we are having a debate on the floor of the House of
Representatives where people are denying that climate change is a real
threat or that our constituents somehow don't care about this issue,
which they do.
And just one other thing. I want to make sure that the Record is
clear on process. This bill went through two committee hearings--
Foreign Affairs and Energy and Commerce--and two markups before it went
to the Rules Committee where we granted a structured rule and we are
having a debate here on the floor. That is called regular order. I know
some of my Republican friends don't know what regular order is, because
when they were in charge bills routinely came to the Rules Committee
that bypassed committees of jurisdiction and then were closed up and
sent to the floor with no amendments at all.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the distinguished chairwoman of the Energy
and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
Climate change is the greatest, the greatest, and most urgent
challenge of our time and this government should never put corporate
profits and those kinds of concerns ahead of the health and safety of
our children and our future.
Climate change isn't just a Democratic or a Republican issue. It is
an existential issue for our species on this planet.
I am hearing so many mischaracterizations of what the Paris accord
is. These standards that are applied to the United States are not from
the outside, not coming from across the pond. We agree to reduce carbon
emissions on our own terms. Every country develops its own plan and its
own program.
This issue about jobs is just ridiculous. Everyone understands that
our future is not in the fossil fuel industry. The future is in the
green technologies that are being developed by entrepreneurs. Young
people get it. The 21st century jobs of the future are clean
technologies that make sure our planet is good and that entrepreneurs
can actually succeed.
The costs of not doing this right now are so enormous. We are seeing,
practically every year, what are called 500-year floods. They are only
supposed to happen once every 500 years, and now we are seeing State
after State, in my own Midwest, under water, and it happens all the
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman.
[[Page H3356]]
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. What is the cost that we are bearing in all of our
States and at the Federal level to mitigate the problems that are
caused by climate change? And I want to just say to my colleagues:
These words are on the Record. You might want to consider not
embarrassing your children and your grandchildren and future
generations of yours with making the kinds of statements you are.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), my good friend.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule and the
underlying legislation that is both ill-advised and misguided.
The environment in the United States isn't getting dramatically worse
as those on the other side claim. We are using more while actually
reducing air pollutants.
The total emissions of the six major air pollutants has dropped by 68
percent since 1970. This is a feat no other country has accomplished.
How did we do this? These milestones have been reached due to free-
market innovation and technological advances only possible in a
capitalistic society.
This is how to solve problems, not through disastrous plans like the
Paris climate accord that imposes burdensome and costly regulations not
approved by Congress. Remember that: not approved by Congress.
The accord, which was negotiated unilaterally by the Obama
administration with little congressional oversight, was flawed in both
process and substance. The Obama administration skipped the
ratification process in the Senate and tied the American people's hands
through executive power.
In fact, I offered an amendment in committee to delay this
legislation until the Senate performed their constitutional duty, but
the other side would rather send billions of taxpayer dollars to other
countries without congressional approval. If the American people are
forced to put aside their personal needs in order to help the global
good, the Constitution should be followed, and the Senate should
perform their proper role.
The substance of the Paris climate accord was equally flawed and
would have significantly damaged the American economy. It is estimated
that the Paris climate accord would result in a loss of 400,000 jobs, a
total income loss of $20,000 or more per family of four, and an
aggregate gross domestic product loss of over $2.5 trillion.
While causing harm to the U.S. economy, the accord does nothing to
hold the biggest offenders of the emissions accountable, nations like
Russia and China. Again, an amendment was offered in committee to hold
these nations--Russia and China--to the same standards the United
States would be held to and it was shot down by the other side.
We can't have effective climate policy that puts the United States at
a disadvantage to its main security and economic competitors in the
world. This is not an America First agenda. This legislation is more of
a redistribution of wealth scheme than actual sound environmental
policy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. DUNCAN. I think it is telling when former U.N. climate official
Ottmar Edenhofer said regarding international climate policy, ``We
redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.''
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and defeat
the underlying legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Washington
Post article entitled ``Trump on climate change: `People like myself,
we have very high levels of intelligence but we're not necessarily such
believers.' ''
[From the Washington Post, Nov. 27, 2018]
Trump on Climate Change: `People Like Myself, We Have Very High Levels
of Intelligence but We're Not Necessarily Such Believers'
(By Josh Dawsey, Philip Rucker, Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney)
President Trump on Nov. 26 reacted to a major report issued
Nov. 23 that said climate change will challenge the economy,
environment, and human health. (The Washington Post)
President Trump on Tuesday dismissed a landmark report
compiled by 13 federal agencies detailing how damage from
global warming is intensifying throughout the country, saying
he is not among the ``believers'' who see climate change as a
pressing problem.
The comments were the president's most extensive yet on why
he disagrees with his own government's analysis, which found
that climate change poses a severe threat to the health of
Americans, as well as to the country's infrastructure,
economy and natural resources. The findings--unequivocal,
urgent and alarming--are at odds with the Trump
administration's rollback of environmental regulations and
absence of any climate action policy.
``One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we
have very high levels of intelligence but we're not
necessarily such believers,'' Trump said during a
freewheeling 20-minute Oval Office interview with The
Washington Post in which he was asked why he was skeptical of
the dire National Climate Assessment his administration
released Friday.
``As to whether or not it's man-made and whether or not the
effects that you're talking about are there, I don't see
it,'' he added.
Trump did not address the fundamental cause of climate
change. The president riffed on pollution in other parts of
the world. He talked about trash in the oceans. He opined on
forest management practices. But he said little about what
scientists say is actually driving the warming of the
planet--emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of
fossil fuels.
``You look at our air and our water and it's right now at a
record clean. But when you look at China and you look at
parts of Asia and you look at South America, and when you
look at many other places in this world, including Russia,
including many other places, the air is incredibly dirty, and
when you're talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very
small,'' Trump said in an apparent reference to pollution
around the globe. ``And it blows over and it sails over. I
mean we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all
the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down
the Pacific. It flows and we say, `Where does this come
from?' And it takes many people, to start off with.''
Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech
University, said in an email Tuesday that the president's
comments risk leaving the nation vulnerable to the ever-
growing impacts of a warming planet. ``Facts aren't something
we need to believe to make them true--we treat them as
optional at our peril,'' Hayhoe said. ``And if we're the
president of the United States, we do so at the peril of not
just ourselves but the hundreds of millions of people we're
responsible for.''
Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at
Texas A&M University, struggled to find a response to the
president's comments. ``How can one possibly respond to
this?'' Dessler said when reached by email, calling the
president's comments ``idiotic'' and saying Trump's main
motivation seemed to be attacking the environmental policies
of the Obama administration and criticizing political
adversaries.
In his comments, Trump also seemed to invoke a theme that
is common in the world of climate-change skepticism--the idea
that not so long ago, scientists feared global cooling,
rather than the warming that is underway today.
``If you go back and if you look at articles, they talk
about global freezing,'' Trump said. ``They talk about at
some point, the planet is going to freeze to death, then it's
going to die of heat exhaustion.''
This may refer to an oft-cited 1975 Newsweek article titled
``The Cooling World'' or a 1974 Time magazine story titled
``Another Ice Age?'' But researchers who have reviewed this
period have found that while such ideas were indeed afoot at
the time, there was ``no scientific consensus in the 1970s''
about a global cooling trend or risk, as there is today about
human-caused climate change.
In other words, scientists' understanding of where the
planet is headed, and the consequences, is far more developed
now than it was in the 1970s.
At present, Earth has warmed roughly one degree Celsius
(1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above late-19th-century,
preindustrial levels. Multiple analyses have shown that
without rapid emissions cuts--well beyond what the world is
undertaking--the warming will continue and could blow past
key thresholds that scientists say could lead to irrevocable
climate-related catastrophes, such as more-extreme weather,
the death of coral reefs and losses of major parts of
planetary ice sheets.
On Tuesday, a U.N. report underscored again how the world
is far off course on its promises to cut greenhouse-gas
emissions. The report found that, with global emissions still
increasing as of 2017, it is unlikely they will peak by 2020.
Scientists have said carbon emissions must fall sharply in
coming years if the world is to have a chance of avoiding the
worst consequences of climate change.
Trump also made reference to recent devastating wildfires
in California, which scientists say have been made more
intense and deadly by climate change. But the president
instead focused on how the forests that burned have been
managed. Previously, he has praised Finland for spending ``a
lot of time on raking and cleaning'' its forest floors--a
notion that left the Finnish president flummoxed.
[[Page H3357]]
``The fire in California, where I was, if you looked at the
floor, the floor of the fire, they have trees that were
fallen,'' Trump said. ``They did no forest management, no
forest maintenance, and you can light--you can take a match
like this and light a tree trunk when that thing is laying
there for more than 14 or 15 months. And it's a massive
problem in California.''
``You go to other places where they have denser trees, it's
more dense, where the trees are more flammable, they don't
have forest fires like this because they maintain,'' he said.
``And it was very interesting I was watching the firemen, and
they were raking brush. . . . It's on fire. They're raking
it, working so hard. If that was raked in the beginning,
there would be nothing to catch on fire.''
Trump wasn't the only administration official on Tuesday to
shrug off the federal government's latest climate warnings.
In a television appearance in California, Interior Secretary
Ryan Zinke acknowledged that fire seasons have grown longer
in the state but added, ``Climate change or not, it doesn't
relieve you of responsibility to manage the forest.''
Meanwhile, asked Tuesday about the findings of the nearly
1,700-page climate report the administration released on
Black Friday, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders echoed
her boss.
``We think that this is the most extreme version and it's
not based on facts,'' Sanders said of the National Climate
Assessment. ``It's not data-driven. We'd like to see
something that is more data-driven. It's based on modeling,
which is extremely hard to do when you're talking about the
climate. Again, our focus is on making sure we have the
safest, cleanest air and water.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I do that because I want the Record to
reflect this President's ignorance on an issue that is not only of
national concern but of international concern.
In the past three annual worldwide threat assessments, the U.S.
intelligence communities have cited climate change as a national
security threat and a multiplier of threats that create instability,
food and water shortages, refugee and population migration, and
economic disruption. This is a matter that we can't ignore anymore. We
need to pass this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, climate change is a crisis
that demands our immediate attention. Its effects are ongoing. It will
impact all of us eventually, whether through worse storms, bigger
wildfires, less food and water, or conflicts over resources.
The good news is, we still have the time and ability to halt the
worst effects. That is what the Paris climate agreement achieved. This
landmark agreement was the first ever to unite 195 countries around the
common goal of protecting our planet from the worst impacts of our own
actions. That is why we must pass H.R. 9, to keep the President from
pulling us out of this deal and require the administration to develop
concrete plans to meet our emissions reduction targets.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country agreed to meet our own goals
to keep global temperatures from raising more than 2 degrees Celsius.
Despite Trump's step backwards, I am proud that my State of California
shows change can be made with commonsense steps.
Investments in important technologies like renewable energy, clean
cars, and green buildings mean that California is on track to drop our
emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. Now the Federal
Government must follow.
The urgency of fighting climate change cannot be in question. Neither
can our commitment to the Paris Agreement. I urge passage of this bill.
{time} 1315
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how many minutes I
have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Arizona has 10 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11 minutes remaining.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me
the time.
Madam Speaker, it has been nearly 2 years since President Trump
recklessly announced the United States' withdrawal from the Paris
climate accord. We are now the only country in the world not firmly
behind this agreement.
There are times where we must stand alone. This is not one of them.
Climate change and its impacts are an existential threat, and American
leadership has an important role to play, but under the Trump
administration, we are retreating from our responsibility and giving up
our seat at the table.
Two years ago, more than 180 Representatives joined my resolution
condemning President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, but
the Republican leadership refused to let this body vote its will.
Today, that changes. That is because this House is finally reflecting
the will of the American people, which, by a 5-to-1 margin, support
staying in the agreement.
We need to work with the rest of the world, and the nations of the
world are looking to us to lead. Staying in the Paris Agreement and
developing a plan to meet emission reduction targets agreed to would be
an important first step.
As this House takes action to pass H.R. 9, I hope the Senate will
follow our lead and promptly take up the legislation, and I hope
today's vote--this vote--represents just the first of many efforts to
reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and prevent a global climate
disaster.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9, the
Climate Action Now Act.
Climate change is here, and it is worth highlighting some of the
impacts that are underway.
This year, we have seen record flooding in the Midwest, unprecedented
wildfires in the West, and record temperatures across the country.
In Vermont--and talk about economic impacts--the ski season is
getting shorter. In one study, it has noted that, even under the most
optimistic climate change models, all the ski areas in southern New
England will no longer be economically viable by 2040. That would be
thousands of jobs melting away as a result of climate change.
We have had 16 disasters in 2017 with damage exceeding $1 billion,
spending $306 billion on weather-related disasters that year.
Climate change is a priority for young people and local officials. It
now must become a priority for Congress.
The Climate Action Now Act takes an important step in this direction
by keeping us--or getting us back into the Paris climate agreement and
not taken out by the action of a single person. This bill is just the
start of fulfilling our obligations and our opportunity to slow climate
change.
Now, some folks are fearful about the economic consequences of
addressing climate change, but a confident nation faces its problems;
it doesn't deny them. It is in facing these problems that we are
actually going to create jobs, not lose jobs.
So, Madam Speaker, I commend Representative Castor for her leadership
on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as the
beginning of undertaking the opportunity that we have economically to
build a stronger and safer environment.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, climate change is an
existential threat that requires the entire international community to
solve. The Paris Agreement was a monumental achievement, rightly
praised across the world and in Congress. The President's impulsive
decision to pull out of the agreement was one of the most dangerous
acts of his Presidency.
My district, Ventura County, knows all too well the devastating
economic and human toll of climate change, which has increased the
frequency and severity of deadly wildfires in our community.
Climate change is also a threat to our national security and military
readiness.
I am the proud Representative of Naval Base Ventura County, and I
know that climate change will increase problems with coastal corrosion
at our Navy base and other U.S. military installations worldwide. In
Ventura
[[Page H3358]]
County, the Army Corps of Engineers must replenish sand regularly or we
will lose land for military exercises, and buildings on the base could
literally fall into the sea.
As sea levels rise and the severity of coastal storms increase, these
problems will only grow more acute. Fortunately, House Democrats have
recognized these threats, and we have developed plans to address them
through the creation of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, on
which I proudly serve.
The Climate Action Now Act is our pledge to the world that many in
the United States Congress want our Nation to be a global leader in
solving this crisis. I urge my Republican colleagues to vote to protect
our children's and our grandchildren's future and our national
security. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the bill.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from
leading public health advocates in support of H.R. 9, as well as a
letter signed by many of the leading environmental organizations in
support of this legislation.
April 29, 2019.
Dear Representative: The undersigned public health and
medical organizations urge you to support H.R. 9, the Climate
Action Now Act. The bill would help ensure that the United
States adheres to the science-based targets in the Paris
Agreement and develops a plan to meet them, both essential
steps to protecting public health from the impacts of climate
change.
Climate change is a public health emergency. The science
clearly shows that communities across the nation are
experiencing the health impacts of climate change, including
enhanced conditions for ozone and particulate air pollution,
which cause asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease and
premature death; increased instances of extreme heat, severe
storms and other destabilizing weather patterns that disrupt
people's access to essential healthcare; increased spread of
vector-borne diseases; and longer and more intense allergy
seasons. These threats are no longer hypothetical, and
Americans across the country have experienced them firsthand.
Every American's health is at risk due to climate change,
but some populations are at greater risk, including infants,
children, seniors, pregnant women, low-income communities,
some communities of color, people with disabilities and many
people with chronic diseases. Evidence and experience shows
that these populations will disproportionately bear the
health impacts of climate change without concerted action to
both mitigate and adapt to climate change.
The science is also clear that limiting increase in global
temperatures to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius is
essential. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
found dramatic differences in health impacts between 1.5 and
2 degrees, including in heat-related morbidity and mortality,
ozone-related mortality, and vector-borne diseases. The Paris
Agreement's goals are to keep the world well under 2 degrees
Celsius and to pursue efforts to further stay below 1.5
degrees.
H.R. 9 is an important step toward what must become a
comprehensive set of policies protect public health from the
worst impacts of climate change. The nation urgently needs to
implement strong, science-based measures to reduce the
emissions that cause climate change. The U.S. must also
invest in health adaptation strategies to help communities
address the varied health impacts they are already facing.
On behalf of the patients and communities we serve, we urge
you to vote YES on H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.
Sincerely,
Allergy & Asthma Network, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy
Environments, American Lung Association, American Public
Health Association, Association of Schools and Programs of
Public Health, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America,
Children's Environmental Health Network, Climate for Health,
Health Care Climate Council, Health Care Without Harm,
National Association of County and City Health Officials,
National Environmental Health Association, National Medical
Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public
Health Institute.
____
April 29, 2019.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters across the country, we urge you to support
H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act, to ensure the U.S. meets
its commitments under the Paris Agreement and to reinforce
our national resolve to address climate change.
The Paris Agreement is a global response to the greatest
environmental challenge of our time. It includes, for the
first time, specific commitments from all major countries and
a pathway for each country to strengthen its own domestic
climate actions in the years ahead. United States leadership
and participation was crucial in bringing the world together
to act. But now, by threatening to exit the agreement, the
Trump administration risks isolating itself, undermining
global climate action, and weakening America's international
influence on a broad array of critical foreign policy issues.
Americans are experiencing climate change here and now in a
rising tide of extreme weather disasters, from hurricanes in
the southeast, to wildfires in the west, to flooding right
now in the country's heartland. It's no surprise that polls
consistently show that concern over the climate crisis is
rising across generational, geographic, and partisan lines.
Americans' personal experience is underscored by a raft of
new scientific reports. Last fall the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed that climate change is
already happening, and ambitious action to curb carbon
pollution is needed starting now to stave off steadily
worsening impacts in the U.S. and across the globe. The last
four years have been the hottest on record since global
measurements began in 1880, according to the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration. And the National Climate
Assessment--prepared by 13 federal agencies and released by
the Trump Administration last year--lays out the stark
reality of current climate impacts in all regions of the
nation and projects how much worse they could get.
Without significant global action, the National Climate
Assessment concludes: ``rising temperatures, sea level rise,
and changes in extreme events are expected to increasingly
disrupt and damage critical infrastructure and property,
labor productivity, and the vitality of our communities.''
``[C]oastal economies and property are already at risk,''
especially communities disproportionately comprised of low-
income and minority Americans. In short, climate change is
already here in America and it's already harming Americans'
lives.
Despite these dire forecasts, we can still stave off the
worst effects of climate change. Congressional leadership is
more important than ever, and the Climate Action Now Act will
go a long way to ensure that the United States fulfills our
commitments under the Paris Agreement and stays on the path
to serious action on climate change.
This legislation demonstrates leadership and vision needed
to tackle the climate crisis. We urge you to support the
Climate Action Now Act to help make the future climate safe
for our children and grandchildren and honor America's
commitments to help confront this global challenge.
Signed,
Alaska Wilderness Action, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy
Environments, Arizona Parks and Recreation Association, Blue
Future, Bold Alliance, Chispa, Chispa Arizona, Citizens'
Climate Lobby, Clean Water Action, Climate Hawks Vote,
Climate Law & Policy Project, Climate Reality Project,
Colorado Farm and Food Alliance, Conservation Colorado,
Defend Our Future, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice,
Earthworks, Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine
Reclamation, Elders Climate Action.
Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America,
Environment Colorado, Environment North Carolina,
Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Justice Center of
Chestnut Hill United Church, Environmental Law & Policy
Center, Friends of Ironwood Forest, Gasp, Green The Church,
GreenLatinos, Hispanic Access Foundation, Hispanic
Federation, Interfaith Power & Light, Kids Climate Action
Network, League of Conservation Voters, League of Women
Voters of the United States, National Hispanic Medical
Association, National Parks Conservation Association,
National Wildlife Federation.
Natural Resources Defense Council, NC League of
Conservation Voters, Oxfam America, Partnership for Policy
Integrity, Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania,
Public Citizen, Sierra Club, The Healthy Environment Alliance
of Utah (HEAL Utah), The Trust for Public Land, The
Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, Voices for
Progress, World Wildlife Fund.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action
Now Act.
The simple fact of the matter is that climate change is real, and it
is creating enormous consequences for the United States. It is a threat
to coastlines and property values, to public health, and to our
economy.
But it is also affecting our military readiness, our national
security, and it is changing the strategic environment in which our
country and our troops operate. That is why I added language to the
fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act making it clear
that Congress acknowledges climate change is a threat to our national
security.
My amendment also requires the Department of Defense to assess the
military bases most threatened by climate change, including an analysis
of future costs of how to deal with and mitigate
[[Page H3359]]
those challenges. Only through sober and rigorous analysis can we
recognize the true cost of climate change to American strength and
capabilities.
Madam Speaker, it is absolutely imperative that we address the
impacts of climate change now, and we have more work to do. This year,
on the Armed Services Committee, we will continue to require the
Pentagon to better assess and report on the climate threat.
Madam Speaker, the Climate Action Now Act is about honoring our
global commitments. As Americans, we rise to meet our challenges; we do
not hide from them. We solve problems. We develop new technologies, and
we innovate to create a more sustainable world. That is our Nation's
proud heritage, and that is the spirit that we should bring toward
engaging this climate threat.
The Paris Agreement was crafted through the work of American
negotiators with other countries around the world. It was signed by an
overwhelming 174 countries, plus the European Union. This agreement
represents a clear consensus to get serious and combat climate change.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. The
threat is real. Time is of the essence. The time to act is now.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to provide additional consideration of H. Res.
109, the notorious Green New Deal.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, it is about time that the American people
know where Members of Congress stand on this radical proposal of the
Green New Deal, which will change nearly every aspect of Americans'
lives. Even the sponsor of this legislation has requested hearings on
this proposal since the Speaker and the Democratic leadership refuse to
give the Green New Deal any legislative hearings. I would like to lay
out some of it here.
Estimations show energy bills under the Green New Deal would spike by
as much as $3,800 per year, per family.
The resolution calls for upgrading all--all--existing buildings in
the United States and constructing new buildings to achieve maximal
energy efficiency, which could range between $1.6 trillion, with a t,
and $4.2 trillion in cost.
What is the estimated total price tag for the Green New Deal? Up to
$93 trillion. That is with a t, trillion dollars.
So where is this money going to come from? The Green New Deal could
cost nearly $65,000 per year, per household, much higher than the
average family income.
We have seen the Democratic majority bring messaging bill after
messaging bill to the floor. Why not this one? Why not the Green New
Deal? Why not truly let the American people know where the Democrats
stand on what I believe is a radical proposal that will hurt our Nation
and kill jobs?
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Hice), my good friend.
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mrs.
Lesko, for yielding some time.
H.R. 9 is an attempt simply to force the President to reenter an
ineffectual international agreement, one that pushes the United States
to adopt burdensome, painful measures and hold us to a standard that no
other country that is a part of the agreement has bothered to meet
themselves, all to do something that we are already doing, and that is
lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
But H.R. 9 is not the real agenda of our Democratic colleagues. To
understand what the real Democratic Party wants to do, one need look no
further than H. Res. 109, better known as the Green New Deal.
Look, people in my district are not asking where I stand or what I
think about the Paris climate agreement, but they are asking, eagerly,
where I stand on the Green New Deal. Everywhere I go, people are asking
about it.
Last night, on a telephone townhall, several questions were asking
where I stood on this. They are concerned that their Representative
might support a proposal that would drastically increase their energy
bills.
And businesses I talk to want to know whether or not I would support
what amounts to a torrent of heavyhanded regulations.
I assure you, as I did them, that I do not. I strongly oppose the
Green New Deal, but I cannot say the same for my colleagues across the
aisle.
Madam Speaker, 92 Democrats have cosponsored the Green New Deal, and
nearly every Democrat running for President has endorsed it. It seems
clear that this really is the new policy platform for the Democratic
Party.
I know that many of my Democratic colleagues disagree with me. They
believe strongly in the policies of the Green New Deal, and I am sure
some of their constituents would agree as well.
But I am also positive that their constituents, Democratic
constituents, want to know where their Representative stands on this
issue just as much as mine want to know where I stand. So let's have a
vote.
But let's be frank with each other. The Speaker would not allow a
recorded vote. Speaker Pelosi knows very likely that to have a vote on
the Green New Deal could cost the Democrats the majority.
So, look, here is the deal. We Republicans are more than happy to go
on record with our opposition to the Green New Deal, and we are more
than happy to help our Democratic colleagues go on record with their
support for the Green New Deal. So help us defeat the previous
question.
As my friend, Mrs. Lesko, has said, if we defeat the previous
question, then we will amend the rule and enable a vote on the Green
New Deal, and I hope to have support in that regard.
But I understand it may be difficult for some of my colleagues across
the aisle to do so, and if they are unable to help support us on this
previous question, then I have another opportunity.
{time} 1330
If we do not defeat the previous question immediately following this
vote series, I am going to file a discharge petition to ensure a vote
on the Green New Deal. I encourage all Members here to vote against the
previous question, vote against the rule, and sign the discharge
petition. Let's have a vote on the Green New Deal.
Again, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, in closing, we all want to protect the environment,
both Republicans and Democrats, and ensure that we are leaving a better
world for on our children, grandchildren, and future generations.
Unfortunately, H.R. 9 is not, in my opinion, a legitimate solution.
H.R. 9 is little more than a messaging bill that is intended to
undermine the President and message to the Democratic base.
We do have an opportunity to get things done here, but it takes a
willingness from those in power to work with us in a bipartisan fashion
for a solution.
Republicans want to focus on clean and affordable energy solutions
that will create stability for consumers at affordable rates. We should
be working together on these solutions and on real pieces of
legislation that have the ability to pass the U.S. Senate and be signed
by the President.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a
``no'' vote on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is like the theater of the absurd, when I listen to my
Republican colleagues. We have a bill, H.R. 9, that says that the
United States should not remove itself from the Paris climate accord. I
have one colleague saying that it is a messaging bill that means
nothing. I have other Republican colleagues saying that if we pass
this, it is the end of the world because it is going to have all these
implications.
Then we get lectured to by my Republican colleagues for almost an
hour
[[Page H3360]]
now that 30 amendments are not enough on a 6-page bill, that we need
more and more amendments in order. Then, the gentleman from Georgia
comes to the floor and says: I want to offer the Green New Deal, and I
want to offer it under a closed rule where nobody can amend it.
I mean, you can't make this stuff up. The Republicans are saying: We
don't want hearings, and we don't want markups. We want nothing. We
just want to bring it to the floor under a closed rule so that nobody,
Democrats or Republicans, can amend it.
I support the Green New Deal. I have some ideas to make it a little
bit better. I would like to have some amendments made in order. But my
Republican friends say no amendments, closed rule, shut it all down.
Old habits die hard.
When the Republicans were in charge, they presided over the most
closed Congress in the history of our country, and they just can't
break that old habit.
Well, you know what? We want to move on a Green New Deal, but we want
to do it right. We want to do hearings, and you can have some of your
friends and allies who are climate-change deniers come to testify
against it if you want. We will bring experts and scientists because we
believe in science. We will have them come to talk about why it is
important and how we can improve it.
We look forward to that, but not under a closed rule with no hearings
and no markups. This is embarrassing.
Madam Speaker, the United States has a unique role to play in
fighting climate change, not just because we should be leading the way
on innovation or because we have the largest economy anywhere but
because we played a major role in furthering this crisis.
Between 1970 and 2013, the U.S. ranked number one in total carbon
emissions. We released more carbon into the atmosphere than China,
Japan, or any of the other 40 global nations. That is according to the
Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research. I don't think we
should be turning our back on a problem that we helped create.
It isn't a radical or partisan idea. Experts consider 1988 to be the
year that the science behind climate change became widely known and
accepted, and that is the year when a Republican Presidential nominee,
George H.W. Bush, pledged that he would fight the greenhouse effect
with the ``White House effect.''
We have come a long way since then, Madam Speaker, and I don't mean
positively. There was a time when Republicans cared about the
environment, when they understood that issues like the climate crisis
were something that we needed to work on in a bipartisan way. Now they
have become the party of climate change deniers.
This is the challenge of our generation. It is more important than
petty partisanship.
President Trump seems obsessed with dismantling anything that Barack
Obama has ever done. That doesn't mean that Congress should sit idly by
when it comes at the expense of the future of our planet.
With climate change, public health is at risk and our national
security is endangered. The President may be unwilling to rise to the
challenge, but this Democratic majority is not. Congress shouldn't let
another one of his temper tantrums ruin our planet.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question, and I
urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
The text of the material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as
follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 329
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
resolution (H. Res. 109) recognizing the duty of the Federal
Government to create a Green New Deal. The resolution shall
be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of
the question except one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or
their respective designees. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not
apply to the consideration of House Resolution 109.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 191, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 172]
YEAS--228
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--191
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
[[Page H3361]]
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--12
Abraham
Adams
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Harris
Hastings
Norman
Perry
Rooney (FL)
Titus
Vargas
Woodall
{time} 1401
Mr. STEUBE, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Messrs. CURTIS, STEWART, GROTHMAN
and ROGERS of Alabama changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. WILSON of Florida and Mr. ESPAILLAT changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 188, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 173]
YEAS--226
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--188
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--17
Abraham
Adams
Blumenauer
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Harris
Hastings
Higgins (LA)
Himes
Marchant
Norman
Perry
Rooney (FL)
Scalise
Titus
Vargas
Woodall
{time} 1410
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 173.
____________________