could bring us back into a prescriptive approach to our federal energy policy. it could cause significant rate payer hikes on families and small businesses in eastern and southeastern ohio who simply cannot absorb higher electric bills and h.r. 9 was rushed through our committees. the energy and commerce committee held no hearings on it but simply put a full committee markup. members had no time to debate it. only vote. democrat leadership even expressed frustration over the expedited pace of this bill. because of these reasons and the issues raised by my colleagues i urge a no vote on h.r. 9 and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from -- the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to to a -- to another member of the energy and commerce committee, mrs.

dingell of michigan. the chair: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized. two minutes. mrs. dingell: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 9, the climate action now act, that is laid before the house now for final consideration. the earth's climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of mod erp civilization. his is a direct quote from the fourth national climate assessment issued by our top scientists from across 13 government agencies. sea levels are rising. average temperatures are warming. ice is disappearing. and the extreme weather is intensifying and becoming more frequent. and we know that in this chamber because we are dealing with the consequences of the hurricanes, the fires, too often because of our constituents that are being hurt. we know this is affecting the

lives of growing numbers of americans all across the country and either -- even as i stand here right now, we have floods in my district. . climate clange is a threat we all face and bold action is demand manned -- is demanded at this moment. we have to act together. not as republicans and democrats, but as americans. we don't change treaties, we don't change things because we've had a change in who has been electriced president. we respect that office. the consequences of inaction are real and not only are future generations put at risk each day, if we do nothing, so are we. this begins by assuring america honors its commitments under the paris agreement, withdrawing is not the answer. the climate action now act would simply prevent the united states from using federal dollars to withdraw from the paris agreement and calls on the

president to develop and make public a plan for how the united states will meet its nationally determined contributions submitted to the world in 2015. the bill is technology-neutral. so the president has the flexibility to set policies and marshall renewable forms of government. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. i'll continue to reserve time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. the gentleman from new jersey is ecognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield now two minutes to the

gentleman from california, mr. peters. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. peters: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to mr. pallone for yielding. president trump has made clear what climate action he doesn't like. he doesn't like the paris agreement, which contemplated that every nation in the world would set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. he doesn't like the clean power plan which encourages each state to create its own strategy to lower greenhouse gas emissions. and he doesn't like the cafe standards that required automakers to lower emissions from cars and trucks. last month the president's own e.p.a. administrator came to the energy and commerce committee and he testified and he agreed that climate change is happening and that it's driven largely by human activity. so the question is, what climate action does president trump support? and that's the point of the climate action now plan or act, which simply invites the president to tell us his strategy. there are many options, many

bipartisan options, many mentioned by my colleague, mr. walden from oregon. these are increasing research into energy storage technologies. pricing carbon, incentivizing more renewable energy. requiring or incentivizing energy efficiency. easing regulation for developing renewables. developing carbon capture and negative emissions technology. or investing in resiliency and more. and we don't even need the president to draft new ideas. we've got existing bills from the last congress and from this congress. we've assembled into a climate playbook which he can find right on my congressional website. mr. president, we get that you don't like mr. obama's climate action ideas. now, tell us your climate action plans. and i encourage each of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to join me in making that request to president trump by supporting and passing h.r. 9. congress has a climate playbook. mr. president, tell us yours. i yield back.

the chair: members are reminded to please direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chair. i'm now honored to recognize the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, for three minutes, to speak on this matter. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for three minutes. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. walden. i'm probably going to be a little different than some of the folks you're going to have come speak from our side. i actually like the goal that we agreed -- the president agreed to in 2015. i believe it's an abdication, though, of our responsibility to actually build what the plan is, we'll call can the options out there. because if you think about it, once again it's congress passing the buck saying, well, here's the goal, let someone else take the blows of it. if we're going to have an honest conversation, let's say i'm a

state that uses heating oil. heating oil is functionally filthy. ok. are you willing to encourage that community, that state, to allow more natural gas extraction, more pipelines so we can actually hit the numbers? or is it easier passing it on to the white house to let them take the slings and arrows of what it takes policy-wise? if you look at the reality, 2015, the year that president bama agreed to this, that year every functionally benefit from all this solar that was adopted in 2015 was removed because the amount of nuclear that went offline that year. are we ready here to step up and say, hey, if we want base load, clean, non-c.o., non-greenhouse-emitting, we're going to step up and get this nuclear back online, because just that one year of the number of nuclear facilities that closed equaled every solar panel in the country that was added. are we willing to continue to

do, as we did in ways and means last year, by moving forward with carbon sequestration tax credits? turns out there's new amazing technology of mining co-2 right out of the air. there is a utility scale, industrial scale facility going up in canada now that has broken the holy grail on the code of how to do it. these are pro-growth policies that we as this body should be adopting. not passing it off to the bureaucracy and the administration to make the hard choices. understand, we did some math a couple years ago that if we would do a pipeline loop in west texas to capture methane flair-off, capture that gas and make it -- utilize it, it had a huge effect in getting us -- like right now that last 13 points of gap we have to get in the next seven years, how many of my brothers and sisters on the other side are ready to

stand up and promote more natural gas, more pipelines, more tax credits -- credit mechanisms for carbon sequestration? those are policy decisions. that's our job here in the house. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes now to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, who is the chairman of our environment and climate change subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: i thank the gentleman from new jersey for yielding and i thank him for his leadership as chair of the energy and commerce committee. certainly as chair of the subcommittee on environment and climate change. i understand the prioritization that we need to make as a house, with climate change. we're doing it with this caucus, with the democratic caucus. we have languished without a policy or hearings in the committee for quite some time and finally the democrats are showing their forcefulness.

global problems require global cooperation and we accept this as a given when it comes to countless security, health and economic challenges. and climate change will impact all of these areas and more. but global climate action will not succeed without america at the table, leading by example. other nations understand this. as do thousands of united states cities, businesses, universities and nonprofit organizations. that is why we are still -- the we are still in campaign was formed and why its members will record their votes by electronic devices support this bill. the contributions of national actors can achieve 2/3 of our 2025 national commitment, but we need federal action to fill the gap. president trump has made it clear that he does not appreciate the previous administration's policies to achieve america's paris target. therefore, mr. president, we have a very question of you. what is your plan?

our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken the opposite approach, throwing up their hands and saying this bill is a waste of time because the president would veto it. i could not disagree more. this vote will show the american people and the international community who in washington understands and acknowledges the threat of climate change, who recognizes the importance of building global cooperation to address it, and who will work to enact the policies that will result in a safer, healthier planet, a planet that will be safer for future generations. based on the president's statements, the answer is clearly not him. and the clock is ticking. i hope next time we're on the floor, we will be debating concrete solutions that will lead to meaningful emissions reductions and accelerate the clean energy transition. we can start that process today by stating in clear and resounding fashion, we are still in, support the bill, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman. it's now a great privilege to recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. arrington, for 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas has 2 1/2 minutes. argearge i thank my friend and the -- mr. arrington: i thank my friend and the ranking member. at the heart of america's economic prosperity, unrivaled security is abundant, affordable and reliable supply of domestic energy. the lion share of the country's energy supply comes from fossil energy resources and the hardworking energy producers of west texas are leading the way. this thanks to the great american work ethic, entrepreneurial spirit, and drive for innovation. the basin in west texas, we went from producing a million barrels of oil a day in 2012 to four million to date, and we're on a path to producing eight million barrels a day within just a few years. the blessings of these natural resources have allowed us to

become the most powerful and prosperous nation on the face of the planet, it's allowed to us build the largest middle class in the world, helped us to produce the new technologies and innovations that v.i.m. proved the quality of -- that have improved the quality of life and given us the highest standard of living in the world. it's been the life blood of this land of opportunity where we now have more jobs than we actually have people to fill them. having an abundant supply of energy doesn't just fuel this economy. it also is an overwhelming advantage in terms of national security, energy independence gives us choices that many nations would be envious of. it allows us to export that same freedom to our allies and to democracies around the world. forcing our president to stay in this terrible deal would undermine many of those advantages. and it would penalize the american people. it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

it would cost us millions of jobs. at best the paris agreement is a feel-good, do-nothing political window dressing. at best. at worst, it's a tax on the middle and working class. it's a millstone around the neck of our job creators. and it's a gift to our enemies and we must oppose it. it would punish the american people, it would punish our children and their future in this country. look, i want responsible stewardship of the environment like everybody in this chamber. and i want clean water and clean air for my kid. but i also want them to grow up in the safest, strongest, freest nation in the world. and the irony of this discussion is that the united states is leading this debate. we're leading in our actions. mr. walden: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. arrington: the irony is the innovations and technology that created the shale revolution

have also resulted in significant reduction in carbon. since 2000 the u.s. has led the way by cutting emissions by almost 20%. we need policies that are not hostile to america's main source of energy. instead, we should put forth solutions that encourage the continued development of all energy resources. while sitting high and re-- setting high and responsible standards for environmental quality and human health. we should carry out this mission in partnership, not in hostility, in partnership with states and industry. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. arrington: thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, can i inquire about how much time remains on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has 4 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from oregon has a minute and a half. mr. pallone: i yield now one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized.

mr. schrader: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 9, the climate action now act. i'm a proud co-sponsor of the bill and a long-time supporter of the paris climate accords. with the northwest on catastrophic fire alert, every year, everyone out west knows full well that climate change is a real and serious threat that needs addressing. to that end, we cannot abdicate the united states' very serious responsibility to lead the world in curb the effects of climate change. that is why i have strongly opposed the president's reckless decision to withdraw from the paris agreement. which has seriously damaged u.s. credibility on the world stage. . the importance of international cooperation in combatting the climate crisis. we must work together with countries around the world if we are to achieve any dent in greenhouse gas emissions. one state's efforts cannot

combat climate change alone. we need this to keep the entire country committed to the paris agreement. i urge support for the bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. walden: i don't believe we have any other speakers on our side, so i'll conclude my comments and be happy to hear from the chairman of the committee. i yield myself the remaining time. i think we have had a good debate here, a thorough debate. at the end of the day it is important to remember that america is actually leading through new innovation and technology in the energy sector, the reduction in emissions. again, we are leading as a country. and you look at what other countries, competitors of ours like china, wouldn't have to begin making reductions until 200. they could keep adding emissions, power plants shes all

kinds of things until 2030. and we are supposed to shut down our economy in a lot of ways if we go down certain paths. we don't think we have to take that bargain. republicans believe we should continue to rely on our debate innovators in america to develop new technologies to reduce emissions and produce power like we have done in the energy sector, like my friend from texas described and like my friend from arizona described, there are companies around the world that are removing carbon from the atmosphere and use it for another person. republicans used tax credits, put carbon into other use or into the ground and put a bigger incentive. and we should look at battery research. and get to where we can harness these renewable intermittent power sources and with hydro,

pump storage, there are lots we can do to work together and make sure we have a safe, reliable grid to make this work together. because at the end of the day, we want to make sure we don't have riots in the streets like they are having in france today. we want to create jobs and technology. it should be us. this bill is going no where after this vote today and i would urge opposition. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for the remainder of his time. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the last two speakers, and they are trying to invent something that doesn't exist. they talk about jobs, innovation, 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, ok, maybe coal is not as competitive as it used to, but we'll find a way to make it competitive and make a way to say fossil fuels have a future where they can be used even more so. overnment policy has to lead innovation. that's what it's all about. what we're seeing is that our competitors like china, for example, they realize that renewables are the future. they realize that the fossil fuels and continued use of coal for example are actually polluting the environment. they are taking the lead and creating innovative technologies and creating the jobs that go along with it. if i could use my home state of new jersey when governor christie was first elected, he started out by saying he was

going to have wind turbines built in new jersey and have us manufacture solar panels and have us be the renewable center for the country. when he decided to run for president he dropped all of that and pulled out of our regional agreement. what happened? the other states or the other countries and started developing these new technologies and they then cornered the market on wind turbines or solar panels and more and more are being manufactured in china and shipped over here. so we lose the competitive edge that we would have had through innovation driven by good government policy. we lose the jobs and our economy falls behind. the same thing is true with climate disasters. my district was impacted by superstorm sandy than any other district in the country.

what happens? we lose our -- our tourism industry was destroyed because there was so much damage and destruction. they had to look elsewhere. this notion that 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's not true. it's, in fact, just the opposite. i don't want our country to fall behind. i don't us to look towards 19th solutions while other countries are looking towards 21st century innovations. can't be like an ostrich and put our head in the sand and everything will be the same in the future. that is not the case. and i don't care whether it's the european union, china, japan, they understand where the future is and these new technologies have to be fossterd

at the federal level as the state and local level. let's not kid ourselves that 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's all we're saying. we have to send a message with h.r. 9, withdrawal from the paris agreement is not good for our country, jobs or our economy. please support this bill. let us be on the right path again. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in house report 116-4 2. if such amendment may be offered in the amendment ordered in the report by a member designated in the report shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the

time specified in the report equally controlled by a proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment or division be subject to of the question. the chair understands that amendment number 1 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 116-42. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 116-42 by new by mr.es pay yant york. the chair: the gentleman from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman -- the chair

recognizes the gentleman from ew york. mr. espaillat: communities of color across this great nation and in fact, across the world are lease responsible for climate change. they contribute far less to the carbon footprint of the world. they don't drive as many cars. in fact, they most often take public transportation, so they contribute less to climate change. and yet, they suffer the most harm from its impact. the most vulnerable among us from my home in washington heights and harlem and the northwest bronx communities and around the world, they are all experiencing greater impacts and stand to suffer even more. at home, i see the worsening of

asthma rates among african-american and latino children when parents come to my office looking for help on ballooning health care costs. i see with seniors who have an array of respiratory diseases contributing to long illnesses if not death. i see it in central america where extreme drought has led to violence. i see in the caribbean and even here in the united states where climate change has increased the magnitude of hurricanes affecting millions who do not ave the capacity for worsening storms. i see it in southern africa and south asian small island developing states where climate change affects food scarcity and

access to clean water, damaging public health and increasing political instability and regional violence. mr. chairman, in the united states and around the world, limate change has an unequal impact of communities on color because it compounds racial and economic disparities. and this is fundamentally unjust, mr. chairman. and that is the amendment that i bring before you today. it is a very simple amendment, one that says that poor communities that are very often communities of color suffer disproportionately from climate change, although they do not contribute more to that ill. my amendment, my amendment makes it clear that the paris agreement seeks to address issues of environmental justice and the the impact that climate change is having and will

continue to have on vulnerable communities and if adopted, it will send a very strong message that with this bill, the united states of america's commitment to remain in the paris climate agreement also means our agreement to address environmental injustices. because when it comes to mitigating climate change, we annot forget disenfranchised communities or communities color or indigenous communities or low-income communities, we cannot forget climate refugees or forget the children who will bear this burden when we are all gone. in every piece of legislation on climate change considered by this house, in every bill on environmental issues we pass and at every hearing we hold regarding this important matter, we must ensure that issues of environmental justice are

equally addressed and that the disenfranchised and communities of color are hurt. because, mr. chairman, they contribute far less to the carbon footprint. they contribute far less to climate change and yet, they suffer tremendously. so this is fundamentally an injustice. thank you. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. > i'm asking him to yield. mr. pallone: i would like to say we support this amendment. it's a good amendment and i want to thank him for working with the committee to make changes to his amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek

recognition? mr. mccaul: i reserve my time and will close once the gentleman yields back. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. espaillat: i thank chairman engel, the leadership, chairman pallone to work with me to advance this issue and i want to thank my colleagues who have co-sponsored this amendment and similarly to advancing i want total justice, thank many of the groups in my district that continue to advocate for environmental justice, a strong and diverse coalition that i am proud to represent. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: let me first say, i like everyone in this chamber supports human rights and climate justice, but this

amendment does nothing to reduce our emissions. we should debate bipartisan issues and advancing technologies and promoting innovation. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- in the opinion f the chair, the ayes have it. -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 16, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 116-42.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? ms. omar: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 116-42 offered by ms. omar of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 329, the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. omar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from minnesota. ms. omar: i rise today in support of my amendment to h.r. 9, climate action now act. my amendment includes finding and recording the importance of the paris climate agreement's task force addressing the impact of climate change on displacement and the global refugee crisis. the united states is responsible for nearly 1/3 of access carbon

dioxide in the atmosphere today. and thus bears more responsibility for climate crisis than any other country. but the climate crisis is a major contributing factor of yet another devastating crisis we are facing today. the global refugee crisis. in 2017, more than 60% of the internal displaced -- displacement in the world were a result not of conflict, but of natural disasters. since 2008, an average of 24 million people have been displaced by the catastrophic weather disasters each year. within three of the most vulnerable regions of the world, sub-saharan africa, south asia and latin america, 143 million people could be displaced by climate change impact by 2050. we also do noo not need to look

that -- do not need to look that far from home to know this. at least 400,000 residents of new orleans were displaced by hurricane katrina for at least a few days. many were displaced permanently, a disproportionate amount of them were black americans. and we saw that happen last year in puerto rico. when 3,000 people died because of hurricane maria. and our current administration failed to help them recover. at a time when climate change is making droughts and famines worse, making conflicts fiercer, and repression more brutal, our country is resettling historically low numbers of refugees. the united states should be offering protection and support to climate change refugees. instead, we have capped the number of refugees that we resettle to only 30,000 people next year. and citizens of some of the

countries that have been hit hardest by climate change, including yemen, iran and somalia, are currently subject to an arbitrary muslim ban. we cannot be willing to turn our backs on those suffering because of the effects of global catastrophes. we have to acknowledge that this tragedy is not going to go away any time soon. as food security, drinking water and energy supplies become scarcer, more and more families are going to be forced to leave their homes. countries that are responsible for perpetuating the climate crisis, like the united states, should rise as leaders in offering protection, and refuge for displaced communities. it is our duty as one of the richest countries in the world to support the paris agreements and its task force on the impact of climate change, on displacement and the global refugee crisis. i ask for support for this

amendment, mr. speaker. i yield back and reserve my time. the chair: does the gentlewoman reserve? the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i claim time knoppsition to this amendment and i reserve -- in opposition to this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from minnesota. omaha i yield back the balance of my time -- ms. omar: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> let me first say, mr. chairman, again, i agree with the premise of this amendment. i just met today with u.n. officials on the refugee crisis. i've been to the camps in jordan and turkey. and so i agree with the premise of this amendment. but again, it does nothing to reduce our emissions. mr. mccaul: we should be

debating, i think, bipartisan solutions such as boosting research, technology and innovation. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 116-42. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? ms. houlahan: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 116-42 offered by ms. houlahan of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to he's -- pursuant to house resolution

329, the gentlewoman from pennsylvania, ms. houlahan, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from pennsylvania. ms. houlahan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of my amendment to h.r. 9. inaction on climate change will lead to the demise of the human species. science is not a partisan issue. and the science ins i -- in this case is crystal clear. climate change is happening and we as humans are causing it. the amendment that i'm offering today would require the president to include in the administration's strategy how the united states will be able to use all of the diplomatic tools available to help our partners around the world meet their own goals. it's simple. their success is our success. their failure is our failure. we all share the same planet, the same environment, and the same atmosphere. we cannot fight this alone. but we have to be in this fight with every tool available to us and that includes our diplomacy. my amendment recognizes our leadership role that the country

can play and can and should play in addressing global climate change. this administration has taken it back -- taken a backseat to facing one of our most pressing national security threats and this amendment puts us back in the global arena, leading this vital charge. some naysayers and doubters have expressed concern that developing countries are and will take advantage of the paris agreement. placing the burden of addressing climate change on the u.s. this is misleading. the agreement requires all parties to develop their own plans to reduce carbon emissions, and rather than retreat from that effort, we should lead it. i serve on the foreign affairs committee and just today ranking member mc caller: said that we have always been leaders -- mccaul said we have always been leaders on the global stage and when we are not involved, we leave a power vackual -- vacuum. this applies militarily, diplomatically, with respect to humanitarian aid, and in the case of climate action as well. the best way for us to secure the safety and health of our planet is for us to be an aggressive leader in the fight against climate change.

pulling out of the paris agreement would send a resounding message to the international community that the united states is not in this fight to save this planet. and that is unacceptable. and let us be clear. the fight to stop climate change is not just a fight to save our environment. it's a fight for our economy, it's a fight for the health of everyone and for social justice. it's a fight for national security. and, yes, it's a fight for the next generation, for our children and for future generations. it's a fight for humanity. i introduced this amendment because the threat is too grave for us as a country to be doing the bare minimum as laid out in the paris agreement. we must also work aggressively with each country to combat climate change at every turn. inaction is a death sentence for us all. we have the opportunity before us to stand up for our fellow americans and brothers and sisters around the world and i assure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of congress would agree , this country we call home and this planet we call home are

worth fighting for. i served our country in the air force and i believe in this country. i believe it is a fight worth fighting for. yes, climate change poses one of if not the greatest existential threat to our country. but its threats are not insurmountable. just two days ago, my pennsylvania became the this 24th state to join the u.s. climate alliance, committing to work toward cutting greenhouse emissions gas in line with the paris agreement. we in pennsylvania are still in. i'm proud of our commonwealth for joining this fight for our country. we in pennsylvania know america is worth it. to vote for my amendment is to commit to our necessary leadership on climate change. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the of the aisle to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. mccaul: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time and will close once the gentlelady yields back.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and reserves his time. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. houlahan: i just want to thank chairman pallone as well as chairman eliott and ranking chair mccaul for all of the leadership and guidance on this very, very important issue. i also want to thank the members of my community who have brought me here to serve in this way. this issue couldn't be more fundamental to our existence in my community, our commonwealth, our country, and our planet. thank you. i yield. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. call tchaul, mr. chairman -- mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chairman. let me first commend my colleague for quoting me. the gentlelady from pennsylvania. and i do think we should lead as a nation in the world. and i support the united states leading the world on the international challenges we face. but again, this amendment does nothing to do with reducing our emissions. we should be a leader on the bipartisan approach to solutions

like boosting research, nnovation, technologies. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. so the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 116-42. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire eek recognition? ms. kuster: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 offered by ms. kuster of new hampshire. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 329, the gentlewoman

from new hampshire, ms. kuster, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new hampshire. ms. kuster: thank you, mr. chair. and thank you to ms. cass for your tireless in-- ms. castor for your tireless leadership on this landmark legislation. nearly two years ago the united states ceded global leadership when president trump announced plans to withdraw from the paris climate agreement, a sweeping accord amongst the overwhelming majority of nation states to curb carbon pollution and mitigate the damaging effects of climate change. the climate action now act reverses this misguided decision by ensuring that america honors its commitments to the paris agreement. and prevents any taxpayer dollars from being used to take any action to advance the united states' withdrawal from the agreement. i am proud to support this

legislation and to offer an amendment that would require the president to produce a report examining how rejoin the paris agreement -- rejoining the paris agreement will bolster clean nergy jobs creation in rural communities. contrary to the claims that have been made here today by my colleagues across the aisle, we have seen positive impact all across my district and across new hampshire that the deployment of clean energy can have on our communities. both for our economy and our environment. our rural communities are home to some of the hardest working americans who are committed to securing good paying jobs to support themselves and their families. clean energy jobs are good paying jobs. in new hampshire a clean energy job pays 50% more than the

state's median wage. rejoining the paris climate agreement will spur new clean energy economy that weans america off fossil fuels from countries that do not share by reducing carbon pollution, and creates good paying jobs. my amendment is straightforward. if we're going to rejoin the paris agreement, we must ensure that rural communities benefit from the subsequent job creation and manufacturing. my amendment w america can thrive and climate change -- and combat climate change. we know that rural communities face unique economic challenges and it's imperative that they are not left behind as we move toward the 21st century clean energy economy. i'm very proud to represent five

communities that have made a commitment to use 100% renewable energy by 2030. concord, keene, plainfield, hanover and cornish. i'm proud and proud and pleased to offer this amendment with congressman chris pappas and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment and underlying bill and with that, i will yield. mr. pallone: i want to say on behalf of the energy and commerce committee and foreign affairs committee, this is an excellent amendment. i thank the gentlewoman for her changes and working with the committee. ms. kuster: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. >> i claim the time in opposition and i reserve until my colleague closes.

the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new hampshire. ms. kuster: i thank the committee chair and ms. castor for her leadership on this issue and i want to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help us create good-paying jobs in our rural communities and with that, i yieldack. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i didn't get a chance to come down during the debate on the underlying bill. in the committee, i raised this issue. the underlying bill -- the hope is that the president is going to sign a bill to go back into an agreement that he already decided to get out of. mr. shimkus: so, when the statement is made -- it only reverses the president's action if the president signs the bill. president isn't going to sign this bill. so why are we spending a whole

week? i understand we need to get this climate debate off our chest and move forward and i hope we will do that in a bipartisan manner. to the amendment that we're debating here, not bad. i think trying to understand the green jobs that will occur, but i think those of us from fossil fuel areas, coal mining areas, we would probably like to see an evaluation of job losses that could occur as part of this. you can tout the job creation. et's look at the areas where coal mines were closed, coal-fired power plants were closed and the economic impact that will be impacted there. we are pretty excited working with the energy and commerce committee as i think the ranking member of the foreign affairs

committee, conservation, innovation, adapttation, our focus is going to be less effect of the carbon dioxide emissions and slowing the economic activity. we have one of the best economies that i have ever served in. and we have an increase in carbon dioxide this year because the economic activity is so great. if you believe that which is true, the reverse would be if you delay and raise energy costs you could really hurt economic growth. with that, i would ask for a no vote and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new hampshire. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 116-42. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. torres: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 116-42 offered by mrs. tores of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 329, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. tores and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. torres: mr. chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume and i rise today to offer an amendment to h.r. 9, the climate action now act. my grand sons' generation will

remember president trump's decision to leave the paris agreement as the day that he condemned them to a world of manmade devastation. today, we have a chance to change that. which side do we want to be on? the side of future generations or the side of those who would profit at their expense? h.r. 9 mandates that the united states government honor the commitments we made in the paris agreement. we also need to protect the rights of cities and states to go above and beyond to meet the nique strains climate change puts on their regions. for example, california has committed to source 100% of its electricity from renewable

sources by 2045. this is necessary considering the toll climate change has taken on california, including historic droughts, deadly fires and terrible flooding. despite this, president trump has tried to make it harder for california to regulate its own greenhouse emissions. i have offered an amendment to h.r. 9 that would stop president trump from using the plan mandated in this act to limit cities and states like california from taking a more ambitious action to reduce greenhouse emissions. mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves.

for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. shimkus: i claim time in opposition and would like to reserve until my colleague yields back. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. torres: mr. chair, i yield one minute to the the gentleman from from california, mr. gomez. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gomez: thank you, mr. speaker, i rise in support of this amendment. i would like to point out that oftentimes the opposition party talks about states' rights, but when it comes to fighting for climate, cleaning up our air and water and making sure that people can combat a climate crisis, you know what? we are going to get involved and stop these states from doing what they have been doing. california is a leader in combatting climate change. a leader.

we reduced greenhouse gas emissions and we are on top of our goals. and reducing carbon neutrality. zero emission vehicles and cushing greenhouse gas emissions. more from the money gas emission fees must go to the most disadvantaged and impacted communities. not only are we we reducing our carbon footprint but giving resources back to these communities. let's not stop california's progress, because as a leader, so i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. torres: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. rouda.

mr. rouda: i stand today to co-sponsor this amendment. our state and many others across the country are showing the world how to take meaningful steps to meet our paris climate agreement commitments. while the current administration continues to do everything in its power to prioritize industry conflicts of interest over sustainability and future of our planet, i am proud of the work being done in our cities, like the ones in my district in orange county and states like the one i call home, california. these important efforts must not be prohibited. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognize dollars. mrs. torres: i reserve. mr. shimkus: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. torres: i'm prepared to

close. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. torres: mr. chair, if we don't take an aggressive step to deal with this problem, our grandchildren and their grandchildren will pay the price . united states government report found that our economy will lose over a trillion dollars by the end of this century due to climate change. clean energy is an investment not only for our communities, but for future generations. jobsornia has over 500,000 created within the clean energy sector. that is about 10 times the number of coal jobs nationwide. this amendment ensures that california's progress and

commitment will not be sabotaged. i would like to thank the gentlelady from florida, ms. castor for offering this critical legislation. thank you, mr. chair. and i urge passage of my amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: i urge opposition to this amendment. n the transmission world, no other than texas, no state is alone. california is in the western interconnect. so we have great support for states' rights, but decisions made by california will affect nevada and will affect arizona. for example, we have seen how decisions in some areas benefit the fossil energy and in other reas for support of fossil and

arizona for california's electricity requirements. the basic underlying amendment doesn't do things this that we would like to support, adaptation, to try to address carbonl issue and reduce emissions which protects the economy and grows the economy. because we also feel that our citizens are better served when they have good-paying jobs and working versus a risk of not on an hat if you moved unchecked path. i urge no and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by gentlelady california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 116-42. shale shale i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 116-42 offered by ms. shalala of florida. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the air recognizes gentlewoman from florida. ms. shalala: the sea level in florida has risen eight inches and only speeding up. by 2030, the sea level in south florida is projected to rise up to 12 inches. and by the end of the century, perhaps 80 inches.

if we continue to do nothing on climate change, my community and in fact, my district will disappear. we have a moral obligation to mitigate and adapt immediately as we are already seeing the effects of climate change and sea level rise. the international community came together to sign the paris agreement and i was deficient stated when this administration announced the united states' withdrawal. the paris agreement strengthens the international response to climate change adapttation, mitigation and capacity building. it is our best collective effort to combat climate change. so withdrawal from paris and the failure to act on climate is a mistake with global implications and catastrophic consequences for my south community.

i'm proud to support h.r. 9 because it rejeggets the decision to withdraw from paris and requires the president to develop a plan to meet the united states' commitment under the agreement. my amendment strengthens the bill because it makes clear that addressing climate change means addressing its effects that are ravaging our coastal communities, sea level rise, saltwater instrution and flooding. my region's drinking water is seriously threatened as the sea rises and the saltwater reaches further inland and gets dangerously close. . in south florida is no longer takes a strong hurricane to flood our streets. they now flood just from a particularly high tide, such as the king tides. in fact, tidal flooding has become three times as common in

south florida in just the past 19 years, causing so-called sunny day flooding. we simply cannot wait. coastal communities around the world, including my south florida community, are counting on us. i urge support for this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you. i represent a coastal district, so the threat of worsening sea level rises is especially important to me. so i'm glad my colleague from florida offered this amendment. it is a good amendment and speaking on behalf of the energy and commerce committee and the foreign affairs committee, we support its adoption. i yield back. ms. shalala: thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. mccaul: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to this amendment and i reserve my time and will close once the

gentlelady yields back. the chair: the gentleman is recognized and the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from florida. ms. shalala: i think i've completed my statement. this is absolutely critical to my south florida community. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. ms. shalala: i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chairman. let me first say i agree with the premise of this amendment. addressing sea level rise is a serious issue. salt water intrusion, flooding, i'm a member of the oceans caucus. but again, it does not reduce our emissions. it's not, to me, germane to the underlying bill. i think we should debate, once again, bipartisan solutions on boosting research, advancing technologies, promoting innovation. and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 116-42. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. desaulnier: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 116-42 offered by the gentleman from california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 329, the gentleman mr. california, mr. de-- desaulnier, is recognized. he chair: --

mr. desaulnier: thank you, mr. chairman. having spent a long time in california on air regulation is an appointee to the california air resources board by three governors, republicans and democrats, where we worked in a bipartisan fashion under federal regulation and the clean air act and california regulation, first to improve the air quality for californians, but other states that followed us under the u.s. clean air act, on criteria and pollutants. but now to do it on carbon. so my amendment would direct the administration to work with the national academy of sciences to evaluate the negative economic impacts to the united states global competitiveness and to our work force by leaving the paris treaty. our experience in california has been, by transitioning to renewables and alternative fuels, one of the best arguments, of course secondary to savingle planet in my view, is -- saving the planet in my

view, is the economic benefit. i hear and respect some of the conversations from prospe -- perspective froms -- perspectives from people from different parts of the country, that hasn't been our experience. our experience has been that we passed a bill in 2006 that called for the air resources board to drop co-2 emissions by 2020 to 1990 levels. we were told by industry that there was no way we could do that. we're actually on track to do that. in fact, the last governor, governor brown, signed legislation to decrease our co-2 and direct the california air resources board to implement a strategy to do that in regulations to 40% by 2030. on the renewable side, we went to 33.33%. a third of our renewables by 2020 on the stationary source side and the industry came, when i was in the legislature, and said we want do this. we want your help. we went through with it and in fact we did it. so now there's legislation

saying by 2030 we should decrease it or only have 50% renewables. so, what's that done to the economy? our economy is the fifth largest in the world. we get more venture capital in the united states for renewables and alternative fuels than the total combined research investment in venture capital in the other 49 states. we get half of the venture capital in total in the whole country into california. and it continues to provide for a transition to new jobs. many of our work force are transitioning to -- from fossil fuel to renewables. and when we get mass produced electric cars, and i'm fearful that my grandchildren will drive chinese electric cars and we know that our car companies are transitioning, and being somewhat successful, and we hope that they will continue to be as general motors has indicated it would, that it's in our best interest to continue this movement. my hope is that we would work

collectively about the people who are being displaced, whether they're coal miners in west virginia, or refinery workers in the four refineries in my county, as we make sure that they don't lose out as this new economy takes over. the world benefits and the economy benefits. so that's the purpose of this amendment. i do want to say that right now 3.3 million americans now work in clean energy jobs. 2.3 million different jobs are energy efficient. and 318,000 jobs in california. the world trade bank, the world bank has an analysis that says the paris accord will contribute $23 trillion to the world economy. so on the basis of that and the fact that there are three times more jobs in the renewable and alternative fuel right now in the world than there are in the fossil fuel industry, i think that my colleagues should support this amendment so that we get the facts from the national academy of science and the administration can see that

what we are supporting not only benefits the planet and public health, but it benefits the economy and the future of american competitiveness. ith that, i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek reck fission? mr. mccaul: yes, mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the amendment. let me say first to the gentleman from california -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mccaul: thank you. i appreciate the californians and 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 -- u.s.-paris agreement. in fact, withdraws funding. so for that reason, i'm 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 make it into law, advancing the clean energy technologies that i think both of our states want to advance. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. so the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 116-42. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: speak in support of the amendment. i am offering this amendment -- the chair: does the gentleman rise as a designee of the gentlewoman from texas? pallone employee yes. ms. sheila jackson lee.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 fingerprint offered by mr. pallone of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 329, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, and a member opposed each will crove fines -- control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield myself such consume. may the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm offering this amendment on behalf of myself, congresswoman sheila jackson lee, congressman moulton of massachusetts, and congresswoman hayes of connecticut, and 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. speaker. the paris climate accord was an example of the international

leadership commitment and resolve the defeated fascism, created nato, the european union, the marshall plan, the world bank, the international monetary fund, and most importantly preserve 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 adopt to its effects with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. and in these efforts, we promote

the importance of continued international cooperation that has sustained the global community through epps, famines and natural disasters. -- mr. speaker, a collection of rational actors acting in a selfless manner to achieve a rational result such as this requires leadership and systemic reasoning. without this type of collective action and selfless resolving, we leave ourselves vulnerable to a tragedy of commons. when countries act solely in their best interests, without regard to combating international threats, everyone suffers. that's why a great person in former secretary of state hillary clinton so eloquently said, and i quote, we are stronger together, unquote. the jackson lee-moulton-hayes amendment reflects this insight by mrs. clinton and i urge support of this amendment and at this time i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. mccaul: mr. chairman, i

claim time in opposition to this amendment but i am not opposed to this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time and will close once the gentleman yields back. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i would yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from new york, a member of the energy and commerce committee, ms. clark. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman of our committee for yielding me some time. you know, the paris agreement will still stand, with or without the u.s. -- the u.s. not meeting our commitments. and doesn't hurt the paris agreement. it just hurts the u.s. diplomatically and economically. so it's so critical that we use this opportunity to express to the world, to express to our own

nation that climate change is a priority for this congress. beyond the diplomatic consequences around the world, a decision to withdraw from the paris climate agreement hurts americans right here at home. the u.s. is in the midst of a major transition to clean energy . as consumers demand access to cleaner energy, cleaner air, prices for renewables are falling across the board. with the market forces increasing favorable renewable -- favoring renewables, dirty energy is no longer a smart investment. . so i want to thank my colleague, kathy castor. i want to thank the members of the house energy and commerce committee for continuing to stand strong, stand firm in our commitment to the american people because ceding the

leadership role on the global stage means losing economic opportunities in the global clean energy economy, hurting american workers, and businesses. as we talk about the international framework, we see china, india, and other countries that will lead if america does not. this decision is just another bad trump deal for the united states of america. it won't bring the coal industry back, and it cedes ground to creating renewable energy jobs that put americans to work. this is the new industrial revolution of the 21st century. let us not cede our leadership to others in the global -- let us lead them. let us provide the technology that the world will utilize to make sure that we save and preserve this planet, not only for our generation, but generations to come.

with that, i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. chairman. as i stated, i am not opposed to this amendment. i think, you know, 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, particular hely china and india. while we have reduced emissions by 14%, they have doubled their emissions, and they have until 2030 to reduce any emissions. that's why fundamentally i think this is a flawed agreement. though i am not opposed to an international, you know, consensus to reduce emissions, i don't think this is the right way to do it. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields his time back, so the question

is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider endment number 10 printed in house report 116-42. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 116-62 offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, 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 2, section 2 of the constitution states that the president shall, quote, have the power by, and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties provided 2/3 of the senators concur, end of quote. my amendment simply states the paris agreement is a treaty, and before anything can be implemented, to abide by the agreement, it shall be submitted to the senate for approval. 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's what we're going to do, then we ought to be taking votes -- taking place down the hall and the men and women of 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. hey won't be hiding behind any games. and then the american people will give the power that was given to them in our constitution in inalienable right granted by god to use the ballot box to make a decision whether or not they want it to be bound, whether or not they want their economy to be reduced and have their children and grandchildren to be lesser than they are today in our economic wealth, end of quote. 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 c.r.s. the george h.w. bush administration stated that article 4.2 of the unfccc,

which commits the parties to interalia adopt national policies and, accordingly, mitigate climate change by limiting the greenhouse gas emissions did, quote, not require any new implementing amendment or adding regulatory programs. 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 the subsequent report, senate committee on foreign relations wrote, quote, a decision by the conference of the 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 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 by reducing emissions of

greenhouse gases in the united states would alter, quote, the shared understanding of the convention between the senate and the executive branch and would, therefore, require the senate's advice and consent, end of quote. the previous administration purposely ignored the will of congress by refusing to send the paris agreement to the senate. i often hear members on both sides of the aisle to lament about the executive overreach. well, here we have a clear case of the executive branch telling congress it doesn't matter. if they want to exercise its constitutional authority and not let the paris agreement to be sent to the senate, this body is telling future presidents there are no checks and balances. i urge the adoption of my amendment, that preserves the constitutional checks and balances, and with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pallone: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pallone: i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: yes. i yield to the chairman for 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccaul: thank you, madam chair. the chair: did you say 30 seconds? mr. gosar: yes. mr. mccaul: thank you, madam chair. i strongly support this amendment. it's been the thrust of our argument. i support the article 1 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, circumvented the american people, and for that reason i strongly support this amendment and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: may i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. gosar: i'll finish that up. you know, the state department has a circular 175, and there's 10 opportunities that tell things whether they are in agreement or whether they are a treaty. so let me highlight four or five of these. number one, the extent to which the agreement involves commitments of 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 allstate laws, because they have to fulfill the ratification based upon that activity. so, therefore, once again, it has to be a treaty. whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by congress. this agreement obligates u.s. taxpayer fund to the slush fund but still obligates those applications and that money to that fund. therefore, it must be fulfilled

by a treaty. i ask for everybody to adopt my amendment, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: madam speaker, we've 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's an agreement under an existing treaty, and that is the united nations framework convention on climate change, that was c, and signed by president george h.w. bush, and approved by both republicans and democrats in the senate in 1992. there's no requirement for the senate to approve subsidiary

agreements under 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% of international legal agreements with the united states -- 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 emission targets are not legally binding. second, because the legally binding commitments, which are almost entirely procedural, generally either elaborate or peat obligations under the unfcc. and 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 minimada convention on mercury and long-range trans-boundary pollution. arguments that the g.o.p. are using that the paris agreement need to be ratified are disinjen which is and frankly trying to -- disingenuous and frankly trying to avoid this at all costs. i find it rather unfortunate that they use these arguments about ratification that are simply disingenuous. for these reasons i oppose this amendment, and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- e opinion of the chair

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. gosar: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. gosar: i do. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider endment number 11 printed in house report 116-42. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: madam chairwoman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 116-62 offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 329, the gentleman

from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, madam chairwoman. 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 said this before and i'll say it again. either the paris agreement is a treaty or it's not. if it's not a treaty, then the current administration may independently terminate the agreement without congressional approval as the previously administration entered into 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 the executive action and constitutes a treaty, then it should be presented to the senate and put on the floor for

a 2/3 vote per article 2, 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 can force the senate to agree to only take up appropriations bills if they don't include political riders. riders have not been included in appropriation bills as a result. well, folks, section 3 is a political, none of the funds rider whose sole ability for the administration to do something they currently have the right to do. the hypocrisy is outrageous and this should be passed on that. we heard folks on the other side of the aisle say 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 040 and reduce our g.d.p. by over $2.5 trillion. a consulting firm estimates that is higher and will cost

the -- will reduce our g.d.p. by over $3 trillion. to does killing 6.3 million 0 million 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 emission gap found that all participation -- emission report gap found that all participating countries would have to do it to meet the goals. china and india, the two biggest polluters, said they won't reduce carbon emissions until 2030 at the earliest while still pledging -- while we are still pledging to reduce our emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025. how does tying ourselves to a nonbinding agreement that puts us at a competitive disadvantage and the countries

throughout the world are failing to implement protect the american people? . this is not a partisan issue, this is about doing what's 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 section 3 political rider being debated here today. since the united states senate has failed to take up the paris agreement and weigh in on it 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're for the constitution or you're 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 this bill, allows any decision made on the paris agreement to be based on merits, not politics. nd with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his ime. who yields time in opposition? -- claims time in opposition? mr. pallone: i would claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. pallone: i rise in opposition and i reserve the balance of my time at this time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i would like to reserve the balance of my time. chair umpire: -- the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: once again, madam chairwoman, you know, this is be a important application. once again, you have to realize that we're talking about the constitution. the other side talks out of both sides of their mouth. they want it one way when they're in the nye mortgage, they want it the other way when -- minority, they want it the other way when they're in the majority. they can't have that. this is about the rule of law and about good policy. good policy builds -- good process builds good policy builds good politics. that's just not what's here today. when we start looking at the applications here, let's make sure the american taxpayer, that

the american family is treated fairly, not put at a disadvantage by the rest of the world. tunche we've taken the short end of the -- too often we've taken the short end of the stick. it's time for us to stand up. by the way, if i'm not mistaken in, -- mistaken, in 2015, 2016 and 2017, we led the world in carbon emissions reductions. it's 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. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: madam speaker, 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. the paris agreement sets a strong foundation for action that will accelerate the shift to a clean energy economy and

put us on a path to a safer, healthier planet for generations to come. it's 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 to 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. so 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 abeen a do -- abandoning our friendses and allies. this amendment ensures -- friends and allies. this amendment ensures we lose the clean energy development race to china or india and 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's a huge mistake. that's why we are saying in this 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 towards 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. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has yielded. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 116-42.

for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii, mr. case, seek recognition? mr. case: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report 116-42 offered by mr. case of hawaii. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 329, the gentleman from hawaii, mr. case, and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from hawaii. mr. case: madam chair, i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 9, which would recognize the importance of the oceans to our global climate system and the international efforts under way o include our oceans and nationally determined contributions under the paris agreement. when we talk about the impacts of man-made climate change, we focus on the worlds of our lands and air, but we tend to forget the largest world of all, our oceans. yet some of the foremost negative consequences of climate

change, as well as the positive vital processes that have kept our climate on an even keel until recently, and can continue to do so, lie in the ocean. we cannot forget the oceans. no climate change solutions can work if our oceans are not in the room. the ocean covers more than 70% of the earth and directly effects whether our -- weather around the globe. the temperature and currents of the ocean determine storm patterns and strength. we have seen increases in measures of intensity, frequency and duration as well as the number of the strongest category 4 and 5 storms since the 1980's. the ocean also absorbs many of the most immediate consequences of carbon pollution, buffering us from some of its most damaging impacts. the ocean has absorbed 93% of the total excess heat energy taken up by greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. additionally, the ocean is the largest sink for carbon dioxide or co-2, absorbing roughly 1/3

of co-2 emissions. the increase in tsh in carbon in the atmosphere and oceans are directly impacting communities throughout the world. according to the 2018 fourth national climate assessment released by the global change research program made up of 13 federal agencies, and i quote, human-caused carbon emissions influence ocean ecosystems through three main processes. ocean warming, acidification, and de-oxygenation. additionally, the nca -- n.c.a. states that, quote, the social, economic and environmental systems along the coast are being affected by climate change. threats from sea level rise are exacerbated by processes such as high tide and storm surge, erosion, waves and their effects. salt water intrusion into coastal aquifers and elevated ground water, local rainfall, river runoff, increasing water and surface air temperatures, and acidification. in just one compelling instance of many from around the world, my state of hawaii's oceans and coast lines are on the front

lines of dealing with the impacts of climate change in our oceans and coasts. for example, the honolulu tide gauge, a constant over at century -- over a century now, has measured a sea level rise of nearly half a foot since 1905. over 70% of our beaches in hawaii are in a state of chronic erosion, likely caused by a combination of shoreline hardening and ongoing sea level rise. the frequency of high tide flooding in honolulu since the 1960's has increased from six days per year to 11 per year. and we have also seen in hawaii sea level rise impact traditional and customary practices, including fish pond maintenance, cultivation of salt and gathering from near shore fishery. 550 cultural site, 38 miles of major roads and more than 19 billion in assets will be vulnerable to chronic flooding resulting from a 3.2-foot increase in sea level. such widespread flooding had change the character of the islands by affecting cultural heritage and daily commerce and

lifestyle and this is chronic throughout the entire pacific. we also in hawaii face just one example of the impacts of ocean warming acidification on our reefs. we've seen globally average sea surface temperature increase by 1.8% fahrenheit over the past 100 years. we've seen over nearly 30 years of oceanic p.h. measurements based on data collected from station aloha, hawaii, show roughly 8.7% increase in ocean acidity over this time. we've seen increased ocean acidification, reduce the ability of marine organisms to build shells and other hard structures. adversely impacting coral reefs and threatening marine ecosystems. and we have seen extended periods of corral bleaching which did not even occur first until 2014, but now are becoming much longer. this is, again, true throughout the entire pacific ocean. and we are not alone. because the ocean is interconnected throughout our world and we are a clear example

of what the world is facing. these impacts are happening all over the world and our country. 39 countries conspicuously not including the u.s. have embraced the challenges and promise of our oceans in facing complimet change -- climate change by signing the because the ocean initiative, which -- has encouraged progress on the ocean in a policy debate with a special focus on the inclusion of ocean action into nationally determined contributions under the paris agreement. the efforts of these countries and their partners will be invaluable as we face the crisis of climate change. we must engage with countries -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mccaul: madam chair, claim time in opposition to this amendment. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. mccaul: i yield back. let me just say first, we all recognize -- it's been a long day, i'm losing my voice, madam chair. all recognize the oceans'

ecosystems. 70% of the earth's surface. i'm a member of the ocean caucus . but this really has nothing to do with reducing our emissions. it's simply a finding. we ought to be focused on bipartisan solutions, inducing research, advancing tech nothings, and promoting in-- technologies and promoting innovation and with that i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from hawaii. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment 13 printed in house

report 116-42. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. bost: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report 116-42 offered by mr. bost of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 329, the gentleman from illinois, mr. bost, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. bost: thank you, madam chairman. anytime congress considers legislation that will erratically change our economy, the american people deserve an opportunity to be heard first. make no mistake, the underlying bill is a radical change for our economy and not for the better. so my amendment is simple. before congress can consider legislation to comply with the paris climate agreement, let's give the american people 90

days of public comment. that's a standard exception for our legislation as big as this. and who would dare deny our job creators, working families, farmers, coal miners, and manufacturers, the opportunity to be heard? if you support the underlying you then i would think would need to hear from this agreement and how it will impact people's jobs and their bottom line. no one will escape higher prices for energy, food, housing, transportation, or ust about anything else. coming from an industrial state, like my home state of illinois, you can be especially hard hit. according to recent studies, the paris agreement will devastate employment in steel, iron, cement, oil refining by

killing over one million jobs. manufacturing jobs are good jobs, and they are jobs that are multipliers. for every new steel job leading to seven additional jobs in the region in which they're created. we just worked our tail off with the president, president trump's administration to help bring nearly 2,000 jobs back to the steel jobs that were in granite city that were lost. the underlying bill would throw these jobs right back out the window. and what about our farmers? they have to face tougher times and more uncertainty than any other time, and this would cripple them. coal miners have a proud heritage in my district. they're barely hanging on, and this would be the final nail in their coffin. ll of this risk, and for what,

a global climate agreement that holds america to a higher standard than china, india, and other emerging nations with bigger emissions and pollution problems. look, i have 11 grandchildren. i want to leave a healthier world for them. i want future generations to look back and say that we cared about the future of our planet, but we also have to worry about the people's security in the present. we need to work together to find solutions that protect jobs and protect the planet. so before the people's house considers the underlying bill, let's hear from the people themselves. support my amendment and give our constituents the opportunity to be heard on just how bad the paris agreement could be for them. i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. pallone: madam chair, i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pallone: thank you. let me explain, i am only claiming the time in opposition, i actually support your amendment. in the interest of increasing transparency and public participation in the development of the president's climate plan, i mr. bost's amendment is actually a good -- i believe mr. bost's amendment is actually a good one. behalf of the foreign affairs committee and energy and commerce committee, we support it. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. bost: i thank the gentleman for supporting the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in house report 116-42. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. meng: yes, madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 116-42 offered by ms. meng of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 329, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. meng, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. meng: thank you, madam chair. my amendment adds language that

recognizes the fundamental link between climate change and food security, as recognized in the paris agreement. the administration's plan to leave the paris agreement is a betrayal of america's global leadership and threatens food security for hundreds of millions of people in the united states and around the world. vulnerable communities, including children, the elderly, and low-income individuals are at a greater risk of malnutrition or chronic hunger if the effects of climate change are not mitigated. according to the 2018 national climate assessment, climate change will lead to reduced agricultural productivity and fruit production will decline in u.s. regions that experience increased frequency and duration of droughts, floods, and severe storms. climate change will cause irreparable damage to new york's agriculture sector,

which is a dominant ag state in the northeast. according to the science clearing-house, climate change may affect food production by increasing heat stress days above 90 degrees fahrenheit, which could stress livestock and some crops, increased river flooding, which is likely to call soil erosion, soil loss and crop damage, and wetter springs, which could delay planting for crops and reduce yields. these are just the few examples of how climate change may affect new york's agriculture sector. however, climate change isn't just an american problem, it is a global problem that will cause already vulnerable communities to face increased malnutrition and chronic hunger. according to the united nations' food and agriculture organization, chronic hunger is on the rise. the number of people facing chronic food deprivation increased to nearly 821 million in 2017 from around 804 million

in 2016. food insecurity is already a challenge across the globe and is likely to become an even greater threat as climate change impacts agriculture production. food insecurity can also further strain communities that are already facing challenges, from conflict to job scarcity. the 2014 worldwide threat assessment noted that the lack of adequate food will be a destabilizing factor in countries important to u.s. national security. the president's plan to withdraw the u.s. from the paris agreement is misguided and will contribute to food insecurity here and abroad. it is imperative the president understands the consequences of climate change for food security and ending hunger. again, my amendment simply ecognizes the critical and

inextricable link between climate change and food insecurity. i ask support of my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. mccaul: thank you, madam chair. i claim time in opposition to this amendment. i reserve my time and will close once the gentlelady yields back. the chair: the gentleman reserves -- does the gentleman yield back or reserve? reserves? mr. mccaul: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman has reserved. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. meng: i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i reserve my time and will close once the gentlelady yields back. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining. ms. meng: yes. once again, i yield the remainder of my time. the chair: just a moment,

please. the gentleman from texas has the only time remaining. mr. mccaul: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: thank you, 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 and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider the amendment -- the amendment house 15 printed in report 116-42. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from puerto rico seek recognition? miss gonzalez-colon: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 116-42 offered by miss gonzalez-colon of puerto rico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 329, the gentlewoman from puerto rico, miss gonzalez-colon, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from puerto rico. miss gonzalez-colon: thank you,

madam chair. i rise today to speak on behalf of my bipartisan amendment, amendment number 15. this bill will provide -- have a target of reducing greenhouse s emissions by 26% and 28% below its 2005 levels by 2025. while i share of my colleagues' concerns about how effective these targets are in the underlying bill, i strongly believe it's vital that congress and the federal government pay particular attention to the needs of 3.5 million american citizens living in all five u.s. territories. whenever one is considering policies that tackle climate risks, my amendment will help us achieve just that. specifically, it directs the government accountability office to study and submit a report to congress on the impact of the president's plan on the u.s. territories, including the potential positive and negative

implications on our economies. in conducting this analysis, the government accountability office will have to consider our unique energy needs and systems and the climate risk vulnerabilities faced by communities across our islands. u.s. territories are at the forefront of climate risks given our geographic location. we are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events. hurricanes irma and maria, for example, completely devastated puerto rico and the u.s. virgin island. another did the same thing in the northern mariana islands. we are also vulnerable to rising sea levels and coastal erosion. in fact, it is estimated that approximately 60% of puerto rico's beaches show some sign of erosion, negatively impacting critical infrastructure, communities, properties, and economies and livelihoods