[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 6, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6435-S6438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, with respect to the Hunsaker nomination, I 
ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1743

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my 
concern and my disappointment over the decision by the President to 
formally withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement.
  Though the President announced this decision over 2 years ago, this 
past Monday marked the first day his administration could send a letter 
to the United Nations formalizing the year-long withdrawal process. Of 
course, we know that they did that.
  American leadership on climate action is being ceded to other 
countries before our very eyes. With this move, the President is 
betraying the trust of the American people and betraying the trust of 
our international allies in the fight against climate change.
  Climate change is a very real and present threat to our environment, 
to our national security, to our economy, to our health, and to our 
very way of life. That is why I introduced the International Climate 
Accountability Act, to prevent the President from using funds to 
withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. This 
bipartisan bill would also require the administration to develop a 
strategic plan for meeting the commitments we made in Paris in 2015.
  We can see on this chart that the House passed legislation over 6 
months ago. It has been 188 days since the House passed their 
legislation, the Climate Action Now Act. Yet in the Senate the majority 
leadership has refused to call up this bill for a vote.
  The administration's withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and 
the general refusal to bring climate change legislation to the floor is 
out of step with the desires of the American people.
  Approximately two out of every three Americans believe it is the job 
of the Federal Government to combat climate change, according to a 
recent poll from the Associated Press. The same poll found that 64 
percent of Americans disapprove of the President's climate change 
policies.
  Unfortunately, the Senate majority leadership continues to refuse to 
act on climate change. Yet what we hear from our scientists and experts 
is that they tell us that we need to act and act now on climate change 
before it is too late. This poll shows us, as others have, that a 
supermajority of the American public wants us to do just that.
  I have come before this body a number of times in the past to 
highlight the impact of climate change in my home State of New 
Hampshire. We see very directly the effects of climate change. The 
farther north you go, the more you see those impacts. Our fall foliage 
season is shortened. Our maple syrup production season is disrupted. 
Our outdoor recreation industries are hampered. Our ski and our 
snowmobiling industries are hampered. Our lobsters are moving north to 
colder waters. Our moose population is

[[Page S6436]]

down 40 percent, and Lyme disease is on the rise.
  But today what I really want to highlight are the revelations that 
have been made clear in recent weeks by our national security experts. 
A report entitled ``Implications of Climate Change for the U.S. Army,'' 
which was commissioned by the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, GEN Mark Milley reads: ``The Department of Defense is 
precariously unprepared for the national security implications of 
climate change-induced global security challenges.''
  The Pentagon's ``Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the 
Department of Defense'' reads, as we can see right here: ``The effects 
of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential 
impacts to Department of Defense missions, operational plans, and 
installations.''
  When former Secretary of Defense James Mattis was before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing in 2017, his 
testimony read, in part: ``Climate change is impacting stability in 
areas of the world where our troops are operating today.''
  I had the chance to ask him in that hearing: ``Do you believe climate 
change is a security threat?''
  He responded this way: ``Climate change can be a driver of 
instability, and the Department of Defense must pay attention to 
potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon.''
  He went on to say: ``Climate change is a challenge that requires a 
broader, whole-of-government response.''
  I could go on detailing the calamitous conclusions of our national 
security experts, but, instead, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
addressed to the President from nearly 60 national security and 
military leaders be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        American Security Project,


                          The Center for Climate and Security,

                                                    March 5, 2019.
       Dear Mr. President: We write to you as former US national 
     security leaders to offer our support to our uniformed 
     military, civilian national security professionals, and 
     members of the scientific community, who across the past four 
     Administrations have found that climate change is a threat to 
     US national security.
       Climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven 
     by humans, and it is accelerating. The overwhelming majority 
     of scientists agree: less than 0.2% of peer-reviewed climate 
     science papers dispute these facts. In this context, we are 
     deeply concerned by reports that National Security Council 
     officials are considering forming a committee to dispute and 
     undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat 
     posed by climate change. This includes second-guessing the 
     scientific sources used to assess the threat, such as the 
     rigorously peer-reviewed National Climate Assessment, and 
     applying that to national security policy. Imposing a 
     political test on reports issued by the science agencies, and 
     forcing a blind spot onto the national security assessments 
     that depend on them, will erode our national security.
       It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform 
     to politics. Our officials' job is to ensure that we are 
     prepared for current threats and future contingencies. We 
     cannot do that if the scientific studies that inform our 
     threat assessments are undermined. Our national security 
     community will not remain the best in the world if it cannot 
     make decisions based on the best available evidence.
       When extreme weather hits the United States, it degrades 
     the fighting force. Just last year, Hurricane Florence caused 
     $3.6 billion in damages to Camp Lejeune, home of the Marines' 
     expeditionary units on the East Coast. You called Florence 
     ``One of the biggest to ever hit our country.'' Stronger 
     storms and storm surges have long featured in predictions 
     about a changing climate. Around the world, climate change is 
     a ``threat multiplier''--making other security threats worse. 
     Its effects are even used by our adversaries as a weapon of 
     war; ISIS used water shortages in Iraq, in part driven by a 
     changing climate, to cement their hold on the population 
     during their reign of terror from 2014 to 2017.
       We support the science-driven patriots in our national 
     security community who have rightly seen addressing climate 
     change as a threat reduction issue, not a political one, 
     since 1989. We support the bipartisan finding of the US 
     Congress, which you signed into law on December 2017, stating 
     that ``climate change is a direct threat to the national 
     security of the United States.'' We urge you to trust and 
     heed the analysis of your own national security agencies and 
     the science agencies on which their assessments depend, 
     including the 21 senior defense officials that have 
     identified climate change as a security threat during your 
     Administration. A committee designed to undermine the many 
     years of work they have done will weaken our ability to 
     respond to real threats, putting American lives at risk.
       Our climate will continue to change, and the threats will 
     continue to grow. We spent our careers pledged to protect the 
     United States from all threats, including this one. Let's 
     drop the politics, and allow our national security and 
     science agencies to do their jobs.
           Sincerely,
         Hon. John Kerry, Former Secretary of State; Hon. Ray 
           Mabus, Former Secretary of the Navy; General Gordon R. 
           Sullivan, US Army (Ret), Former Chief of Staff of the 
           US Army; Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, USN (Ret), 
           Former Commander, US Pacific Command; Admiral James 
           Stavridis, USN (Ret), Former Supreme Allied Commander 
           Europe; Nancy Soderberg, Former Deputy Assistant to the 
           President for National Security Affairs; Hon. Sharon 
           Burke, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
           Operational Energy; Hon. David Goldwyn, Former 
           Assistant Secretary of Energy and Special Envoy for 
           International Energy Affairs; Hon. Miranda AA 
           Ballentine, Former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
           (Installations, Environment, and Energy); Leon Fuerth, 
           Former National Security Adviser to the Vice President.
         Dr. Geoffrey Kemp, Former Special Assistant to the 
           President for National Security Affairs; General Paul 
           Kern, USA (Ret.), Former Commanding General, US Army 
           Materiel Command; Lieutenant General John Castellaw, 
           USMC (Ret), Former Chief of Staff, US Central Command; 
           Lieutenant General Arlen D. Jameson, USAF (Ret), Former 
           Deputy Commander, US Strategic Command; Lieutenant 
           General Norm Seip, USAF (Ret), Former Commander, 12th 
           Air Force; Hon. Sherri Goodman, Former Deputy Under 
           Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security); Hon. 
           Chuck Hagel, Former Secretary of Defense; Vice Admiral 
           Richard Truly, USN (Ret), Former Administrator of NASA; 
           Admiral Paul Zukunft, USCG (Ret), Former Commandant of 
           the Coast Guard; General Stanley McChrystal, USA (Ret), 
           Former Commander, US and International Security.
         Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, USA (Ret), Former 
           Deputy National Security Advisor to the President of 
           the United States; Tom Hicks, Former Acting Under 
           Secretary of the Navy and Deputy Under Secretary of the 
           Navy for Management; Hon. John Conger, Former Principal 
           Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and 
           Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, 
           Installations and Environment; Eric Rosenbach, Former 
           Chief of Staff, Department of Defense, and Assistant 
           Secretary of Defense for Global Security; Vice Admiral 
           Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret), Former Assistant Secretary of 
           the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment; 
           Hon. Alice Hill, Former Special Assistant to the 
           President and Senior Director for Resilience Policy, 
           National Security Council; Major General Randy Manner, 
           USA (Ret), Former Acting Vice Chief, National Guard 
           Bureau; General Ron Keys, USAF (Ret), Former Commander, 
           Air Combat Command; Vice Admiral Philip Cullom, USN 
           (Ret), Former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Fleet 
           Readiness and Logistics.
         Lieutenant General Kenneth E. Eickmann, USAF (Ret), 
           Former Commander, Aeronautical Systems Center, 
           Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command; Vice Admiral 
           Robert C. Parker, USCG (Ret), Commander, Coast Guard 
           Atlantic Area; Greg Treverton, Former Chair, National 
           Intelligence Council; Major General Jerry Harrison, USA 
           (Ret), Former Chief, Office of Legislative Liaison, 
           Army Staff; Rear Admiral Leendert R. Hering USN (Ret), 
           Former Commander, Navy Region Southwest; Major General 
           Jeff Phillips, USA (Ret), Executive Director, Reserve 
           Officers Association; Rear Admiral Michael Smith, USN 
           (Ret), Former Commander, Carrier Strike Group 3; Rear 
           Admiral Jonathan White, USN (Ret), Former Oceanographer 
           & Navigator, US Navy; Captain James C. Goudreau, SC, 
           USN (Ret), Former Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
           the Navy (Energy); Brigadier General Steven Anderson, 
           USA (Ret), Former Director, Operations and Logistics 
           Readiness, Headquarters, Department of the Army.
         Brigadier General Donald Bolduc, USA (Ret), Former 
           Commander, Special Operations Command-Africa; Brigadier 
           General Robert Felderman, USA (Ret), Former Deputy 
           Director of Plans, Policy and Strategy, United States 
           Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense 
           Command; Brigadier General Carlos Martinez, USAF (Ret), 
           Former Mobilization Assistant, Chief of Warfighting 
           Integration and Chief Information Officer, Office of 
           the Secretary of the Air Force; Joan VanDervort, Former 
           Deputy Director, Ranges, Sea, and Airspace, Office of 
           the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness); 
           Commander David

[[Page S6437]]

           Slayton, USN (Ret), Executive Director, the Arctic 
           Security Initiative The Hoover Institution; Hon. 
           Richard Morningstar, Former Ambassador to the European 
           Union; Major General Richard T. Devereaux, USAF (Ret), 
           Former Director, Operational Planning, Policy and 
           Strategy, Headquarters US Air Force; Rear Admiral 
           Sinclair M. Harris, USN (Ret), Former Commander, United 
           States Fourth Fleet; Rear Admiral Michael G. Mathis, 
           USN (Ret), Chief Engineer to the Assistant Secretary of 
           the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition); Rear 
           Admiral Fernandez L. Ponds, USN (Ret), Commander, 
           Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) 3.
         Rear Admiral Kevin Slates, USN (Ret), Former Director of 
           Energy and Environmental Readiness Division, US Navy; 
           Rear Admiral David W. Titley, USN (Ret), Former 
           Oceanographer & Navigator, US Navy; Joe Bryan, Former 
           Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy); 
           Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret), Former Deputy 
           United States Military Representative to the North 
           Atlantic Treaty Organization Military Committee; 
           Brigadier General Joseph R. Barnes, USA (Ret), Former 
           Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Army; Brigadier 
           General Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret), Former Commanding 
           General Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island; 
           Brigadier General Gerald E. Galloway, USA (Ret), Former 
           Dean of the Academic Board, US Military Academy, West 
           Point; Brigadier General Stephen Xenakis, USA (Ret), 
           Former Commanding General, Southeast Regional Medical 
           Command; Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, USA (Ret), 
           Former Chief of Staff to the US Secretary of State.

  This letter very directly rebukes the attempt by the President to 
create a committee within the National Security Council that would 
undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threats that are 
posed by climate change. So instead of recognizing those and developing 
a plan to address them, what the President has been trying to do is to 
figure out how to undermine those very judgments.
  At this time, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 1743 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and 
passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I am reserving the right to object.
  With all due respect to my good friend and colleague from New 
Hampshire, we both served on the Foreign Relations Committee. The 
Foreign Relations Committee is, as it has been noted, the committee of 
jurisdiction on this matter. We are talking about the Paris climate 
agreement. What Senator Shaheen is attempting to do with this--and, 
again, with all due respect, I understand where she is coming from on 
it--is to stop the President from withdrawing from the Paris climate 
agreement that was made by his predecessor, President Obama.
  Let me say, first of all, that the Senator is right that the changes 
we are experiencing are great. They have large effects. They are of 
great magnitude. Just as importantly, the changes we make attempting to 
address this are going to have great magnitude. In a great magnitude, 
they are going to affect the American people both financially and in 
the quality of life and the lifestyle they enjoy.
  We can't do anything about the changes that are occurring right now, 
but what we can do is to do something about the way we attack this, the 
way we make changes to our lifestyle and what we will give up and what 
people are willing to give up in order to address this.
  The way this is done is nations get together to talk about this--the 
200 nations get together. They did, and they came up with the Paris 
climate agreement. Under article II of the U.S. Constitution, section 
2, the President is given the power to make treaties with other 
countries, and that is what President Obama attempted to do with this. 
However, section 2 goes on to say that the President can make these 
treaties provided two-thirds of the Senate present concur. So that is a 
treaty, and that is how ordinarily agreements are made between nations.
  Obviously, we can do things ourselves without having a two-thirds 
vote--with a 60-percent vote in the Senate and a simple majority vote 
in the House. We can do that amongst ourselves if we want to change 
U.S. law as to how we are going to change the way we do industry and 
the way we lead our lives. We can do that with that kind of a vote. If 
we are going to agree with other countries, on the other hand, it takes 
a two-thirds vote.
  Now, at the time this was negotiated, I disagreed with President 
Obama, and I disagree with the accord at this time. The reason I do is 
I really believe this is a bad deal for the people of the United 
States. I really believe we can get a better deal. I think what we need 
to do, if we are going to do that, is we need to do it on a bipartisan 
basis. There is not going to be a two-thirds vote without a bipartisan 
agreement on this issue.
  I would like to see this addressed. I would like to see us, as the 
Foreign Relations Committee, and us, as the first branch of government, 
constitutionally protected as such, be a part of this and not just the 
second branch negotiating and then entering into the agreement.
  The President has, No. 1, every right to withdraw from this 
agreement, just as President Obama had the right to enter into this 
executive agreement. I, for one, agree that he should withdraw from the 
Paris accord. In fact, I encouraged him to do so personally when he was 
running and then when he was elected and continuously since then. That 
doesn't mean we should walk away from this by any stretch of the 
imagination. I think what we should do is do what the U.S. Constitution 
envisions; that is, you have a negotiation between us, the United 
States, and other countries, and then the matter is submitted to the 
U.S. Senate for a vote to see if two-thirds of us can agree that this 
is the way to do this.
  So based on that, with all due respect to my good friend from New 
Hampshire, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am not surprised by my colleague's 
objection. I am, however, disappointed, and I have to disagree, to some 
extent, with the rationale because in fact this was not a treaty. It 
was a voluntary, nonbinding agreement that the United States entered 
into voluntarily.
  I am not saying President Trump doesn't have the authority to 
withdraw from the agreement. I am saying he is wrong to withdraw 
because it is not in the U.S. national interest to withdraw from this 
agreement.
  There is an international race to develop clean energy technologies 
and practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this race 
exists, in large part, because of the goals that were established in 
the Paris climate agreement.
  Instead of leading the pack in this race, which the United States 
should be doing, the President has chosen to put us on the sidelines. 
We are going to watch our allies and our adversaries clamor to fill the 
void he has created. After decades of American leadership in clean 
energy technology innovations, other countries are now poised to 
develop new low-carbon technologies to help countries throughout the 
world meet their Paris commitments. Those could be American 
technologies. Those could be American jobs. Instead of being developed 
in the United States, too many of these new technologies and the jobs 
that go with them will be developed outside of our shores. This is a 
missed opportunity for the United States. It is a setback for the 
American economy and for American workers.
  The scientists are in agreement worldwide. Climate change is the 
single greatest environmental public health and economic challenge our 
world has ever faced. Right now, watching this President withdraw the 
United States from the Paris Agreement, sitting idly by, this Congress 
is surrendering American leadership in the fight against climate 
change.
  I hope that as time goes by, the President and our Republican 
colleagues will rethink the position and acknowledge the need to do 
something to address the climate challenge we are facing and to make 
sure the United States is in line for those jobs and the new energy 
economy that is being created.
  With that, I yield the floor.

[[Page S6438]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, first of all, I don't question the 
sincerity whatsoever of my good friend from New Hampshire. Indeed, she 
is quite correct that the United States has been a leader as far as 
developing methods by which we clean up the air and clean up the water.
  There is nothing that is happening here today, at this moment, that 
is going to affect that at all. American companies are going to 
continue to be on the front edge of this, on a very innovative basis, 
and I have every confidence that American businesses will rise to the 
occasion and will continue to actually be the world leader in this 
regard.
  What I object to is making an agreement with other countries that 
truly binds U.S. citizens by doing it without going through the 
constitutional process of submitting the agreement that is between our 
country and others, as is specifically--very specifically provided in 
article II, section 2.
  I think if we did that, I think we would wind up with a better 
agreement. I think we would wind up with a bipartisan agreement. We all 
know that when we have a bipartisan agreement, we do substantially 
better as far as rising to the occasion and all getting behind the 
effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, yesterday a bipartisan group met with 
seven Fortune 500 companies. They were all on the cutting edge of new 
energy technologies, and everyone around the table said what they need 
is to see policies at the Federal level that encouraged the development 
of new energy technologies and what we can do to address climate 
change.
  I like what my colleague said about being able to work together to 
address this. I hope we can do that, and I am ready to sit down anytime 
he is to look at things we might be able to agree on that will help us 
move forward to address climate change. I appreciate his willingness to 
work in a bipartisan way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.