[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 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.