Climate Action Now Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that the climate is changing and we need to take positive steps to address it. However, I oppose H.R. 9 because it is just a messaging bill that is dead on arrival in the Senate and that the President will veto.
I oppose H.R. 9 because, among other problems, it attempts to codify President Obama's unrealistic and unilaterally determined greenhouse gas reduction pledge under the Paris Agreement. This pledge was submitted on behalf of the United States without any notification, consultation, or role for Congress.
At a recent hearing, when we asked whether any of the witnesses agreed that President Obama should have submitted the Paris Agreement to the Senate for ratification, all four witnesses, including the three Democrat witnesses, agreed it should have been submitted to the Senate.
In addition to not involving Congress, the Obama administration also did not seek meaningful input from private-sector stakeholders, such as energy companies.
Not only that, the administration provided no cost-benefit analysis or economic justification to rationalize its pledge--its arbitrary pledge--to cut greenhouse gases by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
A recent study by the Chamber of Commerce estimates it could cost U.S. GDP $250 billion and 2.7 million jobs by 2025. By 2040, it could cost the United States economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs.
But the good news is that, even before the United States entered the Paris Agreement, the United States started making progress to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. According to the EPA, from 1990 to 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions per GDP declined by 40 percent, and we are at the lowest emissions levels since 2000.
In addition, over the last decade, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by 14 percent, Mr. Chairman, while China's emissions doubled. Sadly, China, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, under this agreement, will continue to increase its emissions through 2030 under its unenforceable Paris Agreement pledge.
Other major greenhouse gas emitters, like Russia, have signed the Paris Agreement but have not ratified it.
Instead of doubling down on a pledge that Congress had no role in setting that will have a potentially catastrophic impact on the United States economy and which will do nothing, Mr. Chairman, to address China and other countries' growing emissions, we should work on bipartisan legislation to boost research, advance technologies, promote innovation, and develop real solutions.
That is why I offered an amendment calling for bipartisan solutions to address this challenge, providing a meaningful role for Congress regarding the Paris Agreement, and requiring our greenhouse gas reduction commitments to undergo a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Sadly, this amendment failed by a party-line vote in the committee and the Rules Committee, denying it from even being debated on this House floor.
So for that, Mr. Chairman, and many other reasons, I oppose H.R.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to start off by saying that I respect the chairman. I respect his point of view, and I respect the arguments that have been made on this floor. I believe they are genuine. I believe that most Members of this Chamber agree that climate change is real and that climate change presents a risk.
I sat down with a scientist from NASA, which is in my home State. We talked about the data. He said: I am not a policymaker. Here is the data. Here is what is going to happen if we do nothing.
But I think, as the majority leader said, H.R. 9 does not solve this problem.
You have heard from my side of the aisle very genuine arguments about the cost to the economy, the fact that we have reduced our emissions but countries like China and India have doubled theirs. We want to get something done to solve this crisis, and I admit it is a crisis.
This bill is a messaging bill. It is a feel-good bill. It won't get through the Senate. It will be vetoed by the White House. I submit to all those listening to this debate that when that happens, we work on something real, that is bipartisan.
We heard the ranking member from the new House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis say that he found out about this bill in the press. That is no way to lead a bipartisan effort in the Congress.
So when this fails, and it will, I submit we go back to the drawing board and do things that we know do work, and that is let's work on innovation, clean energy technologies, and, yes, nuclear power.
We are showing we are being a leader reducing our emissions while other countries are not. Let's lead by example. Let's come back with some real legislation that is going to make a difference, reduce emissions, and get us out of this crisis.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me first commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, for quoting me. I do think we should lead as a nation in the world. I support the United States leading the world on the international challenges we face. But, again, this amendment has nothing to do with reducing our emissions.
We should be a leader on the bipartisan approach to solutions to this crisis, like boosting research, innovation, and technologies.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me first say, I agree with the premise of this amendment. Addressing sea level rise is a serious issue as well as saltwater intrusion and flooding.
I am a member of the House Oceans Caucus, but, again, it does not reduce our emissions. It is not, to me, germane to the underlying bill.
I think we should debate, once again, bipartisan solutions on boosting research, advancing technologies, and promoting innovation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, let me say first to the gentleman from California, that I appreciate the Californians and the California tech companies expanding to my home city of Austin, Texas, but I find this amendment contrary to the premise of this bill, which prohibits withdrawing from the U.S. Paris Agreement. In fact, it withdraws funding.
So for that reason, I am in opposition to it, and, again, I think, as the gentleman stated, we should be advancing--if this bill doesn't make it through the Senate, doesn't get signed into law--advancing the clean energy technologies I think both of our States want to advance.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, I am not opposed to this amendment. I think the international community should reduce emissions. I think the issue is that the international community is not living up to the expectations of this agreement, particularly China and India. While we have reduced emissions by 14 percent, they have doubled their emissions, and they have until 2030 to reduce any emissions. That is why fundamentally I think this is a flawed agreement.
But I am not opposed to an international consensus to reduce emissions. I don't think this is the right way to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I strongly support this amendment. It has been the thrust of our argument.
I support the U.S. Constitution Article I authority. This process circumvented that. I do believe it required Senate ratification. But not only that, the President didn't even consult with the Congress. There was not one hearing on this during the Obama administration and therefore circumventing the American people. For that reason, I strongly support this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, let me just say first, we all recognize the oceans' ecosystems, 70 percent of the Earth's surface. I am a member of the Ocean Caucus.
This really has nothing to do with reducing our emissions. It is simply a finding. We ought to be focused on bipartisan solutions and boosting research, advancing technologies, and promoting innovation.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, we all agree with the premise of this amendment--food security, ending hunger. Again, this amendment does nothing to reduce our emissions. We need to debate bipartisan solutions, such as boosting research, advancing technologies, and promoting innovation.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I agree with the premise that the world looks to the United States as a leader. Unfortunately, other countries are not leading--China and India, for instance.
This amendment, again, does not address reducing emissions. We need to look at leading as a nation on technology, innovation, and bipartisan solutions.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, again, I agree with the premise of this amendment. Clean energy technologies are important in my hometown of Austin.
We have a lot of clean energy in Irvine, California, a lot of clean energy, a lot of collaboration between our two States, but this is simply a finding and does not reduce our emissions.
I again would urge, since I do not think this will become law, that we work on a bipartisan solution, talking explicitly about what you are talking about. We can pass these bills out of the House; we can pass them out of the Senate; and if we can do it bipartisanly, we can get it signed into law.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, again, I agree with the premise of this amendment. Drought conditions, water scarcity are important in, I know, the gentlewoman's home State, certainly important in my home State of Texas. It will be--as climate change advances, the entire continent of Africa will face drought conditions.
But, again, this is a finding. It doesn't, in and of itself, reduce the emissions, and I would again urge bipartisan solutions to advancing technologies and promoting innovation.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source