Climate Action Now Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act.
President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is unjustified and, I believe, dangerous. It abdicates U.S. leadership on climate action and puts the health and safety of our communities at great risk. It also jeopardizes our national and economic security.
We can't live in the past. China, the EU, and others are moving towards a low-carbon economy, building solar panels, wind turbines, and cornering the market on renewable industries.
We can and should be a leader in that transition so that our industries, our workers, and our communities benefit from the new opportunities created.
The United States has always been at the forefront in the creation of new technologies and new jobs; but, rather than leading right now, President Trump and his administration are simply sticking their heads in the sand, acting like this is the 19th century.
We have to be future oriented, not live in the past, or we will simply be left behind.
The President is actually making the climate crisis worse. The Trump administration gutted regulations to control methane pollution from the oil and gas sector, rolled back stronger fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and illegally blocked improved appliance efficiency standards.
These actions led to a rise in greenhouse gas emissions last year.
Now, back in my district, I want you to understand, this is not a partisan issue. Everyone sees the harm climate change is doing to our shoreline, our oceans, and the health and well-being of our residents.
States and local governments are taking action on climate change. They are concerned about the health of their constituents, asthmatics who are negatively impacted by dirty air, cancers that are aggravated by increased toxicity.
I have a lot of Republican mayors and county and State legislators, and I don't know one of those Republican mayors or elected officials who thinks that the Federal Government should withdraw from climate action.
It is the cost of inaction that is really painful. We have all seen them. In 2017, the United States experienced 16 natural disasters with costs totaling $360 billion. Superstorm Sandy hit my district very hard.
But I want to say that we still have time to avoid a deeper climate crisis, while strengthening and modernizing our economy at the same time, and H.R. 9 is an important step in that regard.
So--please--I call on my colleagues, I beg my colleagues, let's take this opportunity to prevent the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and, at the same time, call upon this administration to come up with ways of achieving the goal of the Paris Agreement.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, particularly the last two speakers, and it just seems that they are trying to invent something that doesn't exist.
They talk about jobs. They talk about innovation. They talk about the freedom to let people do what they want, but what is really happening here is the Trump administration is actually trying to force the old ways, saying, well, okay, maybe coal is not as competitive as it used to be, but we will find a way to make it competitive. We will find a way to say that fossil fuels have a future where they can be used even more so.
Government policy has to lead innovation. That is what it is all about. What we are seeing is that our competitors like China, for example, realize that renewables are the future. They realize that the fossil fuels and continued use of coal, for example, are actually polluting the environment, so they are taking the lead and they are creating innovative technologies, and they are creating the jobs that go along with it.
A few years ago, if I can use my home State of New Jersey, when Governor Christie was first elected, a Republican Governor in New Jersey, he started out by saying that he was going to have wind turbines built in New Jersey. He was going to have us manufacture solar panels. He was going to have us be the renewable center for the country. Then, very quickly after that, when he decided to run for President, he dropped all that and actually pulled out of RGGI, our regional agreement.
And what happens? The other States or the other countries, they start developing these new technologies, and they then corner the market on things like wind turbines or solar panels. More and more of those are being manufactured in China and then shipped over here. So we lose the competitive edge that we would have had through innovation that is essentially driven by good government policy. Then what happens is we lose the jobs and our economy falls behind.
You know, the same thing is true with climate disasters. My district was more impacted by Superstorm Sandy than any other district in the country. What happens? You know, we lose jobs. Our tourism economy was destroyed in the summer because there was so much damage and destruction. People lost their jobs; they had to look elsewhere; their income was reduced.
So this notion that somehow if you do nothing or if you withdraw from international agreements because of your fear of the future, that this is going to help you, help your economy, help your jobs, it is not true. It is, in fact, just the opposite.
I don't want our country to fall behind. I don't want us to look towards 19th century solutions while other countries are looking towards 21st century innovations. We can't be like an ostrich where we just put our head in the sand and we assume that everything is going to be the same in the future. That is simply not the case.
I don't care whether it is the European Union. I don't care whether it is Japan, China, or India. They understand where the future is. They understand that these new technologies have to be fostered at the Federal level, the same way they are being fostered at the State and the local level.
So let us not kid ourselves and think that somehow actions in Washington don't make a difference. They do. One of the purposes of government is trying to find ways to innovate and create jobs for the future and not rely on the past, and that is all we are saying.
So we have to send a message with H.R. 9: Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is not good for this country; it is not good for our jobs; it is not good for our economy.
Please support this bill. Let us be on the right path again.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Will the gentleman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I just want to say, on behalf of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, we support this amendment. It is a good amendment.
Mr. Chair, I also want to thank Mr. Espaillat for working with the committees to make changes to his amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Congressman Moulton of Massachusetts, and Congresswoman Hayes of Connecticut, and I express my appreciation to them for their assistance and support.
This amendment improves the bill by adding a finding which emphasizes the importance of international cooperation and multilateralism in responding to the global challenges facing the international community.
Mr. Chair, the Paris climate accord was an example of the international leadership commitment and resolve that defeated fascism, created NATO, the European Union, the Marshall Plan, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and most importantly, preserved peace and freedom for the last 75 years.
Collective international action is also needed to combat growing international challenges such as terrorism, human trafficking, and black-market sales of illegal weapons, drugs, and tobacco.
No one country can solve these problems on its own, and this amendment emphasizes the importance of collective international action.
The landmark Paris climate accord was established to combat climate change and to accelerate and intensify the actions and investments needed for a sustainable, low-carbon future. This also brings all Nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so.
In these efforts, we promote the importance of continued international cooperation that has sustained the global community through epidemics, famines, and natural disasters.
Mr. Chairman, a collection of rational actors acting in a selfless manner to achieve a rational result, such as this, requires leadership and systematic reasoning. Without this type of collective action and selfless resolve, we leave ourselves vulnerable to a tragedy of the commons.
When countries act solely in their own best interests without regard to combating international threats, everyone suffers. That is why a great person and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton so eloquently said, ``We are stronger together.''
The Jackson Lee-Moulton-Hayes amendment reflects this important insight by Mrs. Clinton, and I urge support of this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, we have heard this argument over and over again. The Republicans said the same thing in the markup before the Energy and Commerce Committee, but these Republican arguments are not going to change the facts.
The fact is the Paris Agreement itself is not a treaty. It is an agreement under an existing treaty, and that is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, that is UNFCCC, pronounced UNF triple C, and that was signed by President George H.W. Bush and approved by both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate in 1992.
There is no requirement for the Senate to approve subsidiary agreements around already approved treaties.
In fact, the vast majority of international agreements to which the United States is a party are not treaties. According to the Congressional Research Service, more than 90 percent of international legal agreements which the United States supports are agreements that do not require Senate ratification.
Now, President Obama did not have to submit the Paris Agreement to the Senate for ratification for two reasons: first, because the emissions targets are not legally binding; and, second, because the legally binding commitments, which are almost entirely procedural, generally either elaborate or repeat obligations under the UNFCCC.
It is also not true that an agreement with any legally binding provisions must be ratified by the Senate. There are many ways in which the United States can enter into international agreements with legally binding commitments.
As I previously mentioned, the vast majority of international agreements the United States enters into are not approved by the Senate. Using examples of that, we have the U.S.-Canada Air Quality Agreement, the Minamata Convention on Mercury, and the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.
Arguments that the GOP are using, that the Paris Agreement needs to be ratified are disingenuous. They are, frankly, trying to avoid climate action at all costs. I really find it unfortunate that rather than arguing on the merits, that they use these arguments about ratification that are simply disingenuous.
For those reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to Mr. Gosar's amendment, which would gut the heart of the bill, the section that prevents the President from withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.
Now, the Paris Agreement sets a strong foundation for action that will accelerate the shift to a clean energy economy and put us on the path to a safer, healthier planet for generations to come. It is the most ambitious climate change agreement in history and builds upon the unprecedented participation of roughly 200 parties to the convention, including India and China, something that my Republican colleagues have wanted for many years.
It provides a framework for reducing U.S. carbon pollution, while also growing our economy. More energy-efficient appliances, buildings, and vehicles will result in lower energy costs for consumers, all while lowering emissions of harmful air pollutants and keeping our manufacturing industries competitive in this global transition towards low carbon practices.
So, first and foremost, what H.R. 9 is doing is stopping President Trump's reckless withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the very agreement our country was instrumental in negotiating. But this move has real diplomatic consequences, further diminishing America's credibility around the world.
Let me be clear, the Paris Agreement will still stand with or without the United States; but not meeting our commitments doesn't hurt the Paris Agreement, it just hurts the United States diplomatically and economically. Other countries, not to mention U.S. cities and States, are still moving forward on climate action, making the Trump administration only appear more isolated and irrelevant as the world moves past us.
But beyond the diplomatic consequences around the world a decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement hurts Americans at home.
The U.S. is in the midst of a major transition to clean energy. As consumers demand access to cleaner energy and cleaner air, prices for renewables are falling across the board. With market forces increasingly favoring renewables, dirty energy is no longer a smart investment.
Ceding the leadership role on the global stage means losing economic opportunities in a global clean energy economy, hurting American workers and businesses. China, India and other countries will lead if America does not.
Leaving the Paris Agreement is just another bad Trump deal for the United States. H.R. 9 is trying to prevent this bad Trump deal from becoming our reality. The Gosar amendment would all but guarantee that the United States feels the full weight of the economic and diplomatic consequences of abandoning our friends and allies.
This amendment ensures we lose the clean energy development race to China or India.
This amendment locks the United States and the world into a future of catastrophic warming that puts all of our lives and livelihoods at risk.
I said this earlier when we spoke on the bill: We cannot look backwards. We can't look back into the 19th century. We have to look forward, with new innovation, with an economy that creates more jobs.
Don't let us fall behind the rest of the world and not lead on such an important issue. It is a huge mistake. That is why we are saying in H.R. 9, in this bill, that the President should not be allowed to withdraw and should put together a plan that leads us forward toward a clean economy and meeting the Paris goals.
So, I oppose the Gosar amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Let me explain. I am only claiming the time in opposition. I actually support the gentleman's amendment.
In the interest of increasing transparency and public participation in the development of the President's climate plan, I believe that Mr. Bost's amendment actually is a good one.
Speaking on behalf of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, we support its adoption and would accept the amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, let me say, this is a good amendment, and speaking on behalf of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, we support its adoption.
Madam Chair, I thank Miss Gonzalez-Colon for working with the committees to make changes to her amendment. It has already been mentioned by my colleague, Mr. Shimkus, that she was our gracious host when we went to Puerto Rico and also to the Virgin Islands in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, where we saw the devastation of the hurricane.
Of course, part of the reason why we as Democrats support the Paris Agreement is that we are very concerned about these severe and more severe weather conditions that are occurring because of climate change.
Madam Chair, this is a good amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source