Climate Action Now Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment ensuring the constitutionality of the Paris Agreement. The previous administration refused to abide by the Constitution and called this an agreement, not a treaty, despite the agreement having an impact on every American.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President shall ``have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.''

My amendment simply states that the Paris Agreement is a treaty, and before anything can be implemented to abide by the agreement, it should be submitted to the Senate for approval.

My good friend from Virginia, Representative Morgan Griffith, said it best yesterday in our Special Order when he eloquently stated: ``If we are going to bind our hands and seal our fate to be the number two or number three or number five economy in the world instead of being the number one economy in the world, if that is what we are going to do, then there ought to be votes taken down the hall. Men and women in the United States Senate should put their name on the line and say yes or no. And the American people then will know who has voted yes and who has voted no. They won't be hiding behind any games or circumstances or procedural maneuvers. Then the American people can use the power that was given to them by our Constitution and an inalienable right granted by God to use the ballot box to make a decision as to whether or not they wanted to be bound, whether or not they wanted to have their economy reduced, and have their children and grandchildren to be lesser than what we have today in our economic wealth.''

Many radical environmental groups are saying the Paris Agreement does not need to go to the Senate, that the agreement reiterates obligations already contained in article 4 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or the UNFCCC. This is completely a falsehood.

The Congressional Research Service has already proven them wrong.

Let me quote the CRS: ``The George H.W. Bush administration stated that Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC, which commits the parties to, inter alia, adopt national policies and, accordingly, mitigate climate change by limiting GHG emissions did `not require any new implementing legislation nor added regulatory programs.' Perhaps, most importantly, it stated that an amendment or future agreement under the UNFCCC to adopt targets and timetables for emissions reductions would be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent.''

Furthermore, in a subsequent report, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations wrote:

``A decision by the conference of parties to adopt targets and timetables would have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent before the United States could deposit its instruments of ratification for such an agreement. The committee notes further that a decision by the executive branch to reinterpret the convention to apply legally binding targets and timetables for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to the United States would alter the `shared understanding' of the convention between the Senate and the executive branch and would therefore require the Senate's advice and consent.''

The previous administration purposely ignored the will of Congress by refusing to send the Paris Agreement to the Senate. I often hear Members from both sides of the aisle lament about executive overreach.

Here we have a clear case of the executive branch telling Congress it doesn't matter.

If Congress refuses to exercise its constitutional authority and not demand the Paris Agreement to be sent to the Senate, then this body is telling future Presidents that there are no checks and balances.

Madam Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment that preserves the constitutional checks and balance, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I will finish that up.

The State Department has a Circular 175, and there are ten opportunities that tell us whether they are an agreement or whether they are a treaty.

So let me highlight just four or five of these.

Number one, the extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole.

This obviously impacts everybody across this country, therefore, ratification by the Senate.

Whether the agreement is intended to affect State laws.

This will bind all State laws, because they have to fulfill the ratification based on that activity. So, therefore, it, once again, has to be a treaty.

Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress.

This agreement obligates U.S. taxpayer funds to the Green Climate Fund, which is a slush fund, but it still obligates those applications and that money to that fund. Therefore, it must be fulfilled by a treaty.

Madam Chair, I ask Members to adopt my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that strikes section 3 of the bill. Section 3 prohibits the use of funds to advance the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement. My amendment ensures any decision made on the Paris Agreement will be based on the merits, not politics.

I have said this before, and I will say it again: Either the Paris Agreement is a treaty, or it is not. If it is not a treaty, then the current administration may independently terminate the agreement without congressional approval, as the previous administration entered into the agreement without congressional approval.

Makes sense, right?

What one administration does by executive action can be undone by the next administration by executive action.

If the Paris Agreement is not an agreement entered into by the United States by executive action and constitutes a treaty, then it should be presented to the Senate and put on the floor for a two-thirds vote per Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution.

For the last several years, Democratic Members have crowed at the top of their lungs about none of the funds provisions and forced the U.S. Senate to agree to only take up appropriation bills if they don't include political riders. Riders have not been included in the final appropriations bills signed into law as a result.

Well, folks, section 3 is a political, none-of-the-funds rider, whose sole ability is to try and prevent the administration from doing something they currently have the authority to do. The hypocrisy here is outrageous, and this amendment should pass based on that precedent utilized over the last several years alone.

We have heard folks on the other side of the aisle claim we need to stay in the Paris Agreement in order to protect future generations. Americans for Tax Reform estimates the Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 6.5 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our GDP by over $2.5 trillion.

NERA Consulting estimates those numbers are even higher, and that the Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 31.6 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our GDP by over $3 trillion.

How does killing 6.5 to 31.6 million jobs and costing our economy more than $3 trillion protect future generations? I don't know.

The European Climate Action Network reported that no single country in Europe is performing sufficiently to meet the Paris Agreement goals.

A recent United Nations Emissions Gap report found that all participating countries will have to at least triple their efforts in order to meet the Paris Agreement's basic goals.

China and India, the world's two biggest polluters, have said they will not even consider reducing carbon emissions until 2030 at the earliest, while we are pledging to reduce our emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025.

How does tying ourselves to a nonbinding agreement that puts us at a competitive disadvantage and that countries throughout the world are failing to implement protect the American people?

This is not a partisan issue, Madam Chairwoman. This is about doing what is right for America and about protecting freedom and opportunity for our children and grandchildren.

If the administration didn't already have the authority to withdraw the United States from the fundamentally flawed Paris Agreement, then there should be no reason to include the section 3 political rider being debated here today.

But since the United States Senate has failed to take up the Paris Agreement and weigh in one way or the other whether the Paris Agreement is a treaty or not, this body should not attempt to tie the administration's hands with a political none-of-the-funds rider.

Either you are for the Constitution or you are not. Either you believe executive action can be taken to enter and leave the Paris Agreement or you don't.

I urge adoption of my amendment, which removes the politics from the bill and allows any decision made on the Paris Agreement to be based on merits, not politics.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Once again, Madam Chairwoman, this is an important application. Once again, you have to realize that we are talking about the Constitution.

The other side talks out of both sides of their mouth. They want it one way when they are in the minority, they want it the other way when they are in the majority, and they can't have that.

This is about the rule of law and about good policy. Good process builds good policy builds good politics, and that is just not what is here today.

So when we start looking at the applications here, let's make sure the American taxpayer, the American family, is treated fairly, not put at a disadvantage by the rest of the world.

Too often we have taken the short end of the stick. It is fine for us to stand up.

And, by the way, if I am not mistaken, in 2015, 2016, and 2017 we led the world in carbon emissions reductions. Yes, it is that very application of entrepreneurialism and technology that has driven that boat. Let's continue doing it that way. Let's get back to good process.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source