Michael McCaul

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that the climate is changing and we need to take positive steps to address it. However, I oppose H.R. 9 because it is just a messaging bill that is dead on arrival in the Senate and that the President will veto. I oppose H.R. 9 because, among other problems, it attempts to codify President Obama's unrealistic and unilaterally determined greenhouse gas reduction pledge under the Paris Agreement. This pledge was submitted on behalf of the United States without any notification, consultation, or role for Congress. At a recent hearing, when we asked whether any of the witnesses agreed that President Obama should have submitted the Paris Agreement to the Senate for ratification, all four witnesses, including the three Democrat witnesses, agreed it should have been submitted to the Senate. In addition to not involving Congress, the Obama administration also did not seek meaningful input from private-sector stakeholders, such as energy companies. Not only that, the administration provided no cost-benefit analysis or economic justification to rationalize its pledge--its arbitrary pledge--to cut greenhouse gases by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. A recent study by the Chamber of Commerce estimates it could cost U.S. GDP $250 billion and 2.7 million jobs by 2025. By 2040, it could cost the United States economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs. But the good news is that, even before the United States entered the Paris Agreement, the United States started making progress to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. According to the EPA, from 1990 to 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions per GDP declined by 40 percent, and we are at the lowest emissions levels since 2000. In addition, over the last decade, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by 14 percent, Mr. Chairman, while China's emissions doubled. Sadly, China, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, under this agreement, will continue to increase its emissions through 2030 under its unenforceable Paris Agreement pledge. Other major greenhouse gas emitters, like Russia, have signed the Paris Agreement but have not ratified it. Instead of doubling down on a pledge that Congress had no role in setting that will have a potentially catastrophic impact on the United States economy and which will do nothing, Mr. Chairman, to address China and other countries' growing emissions, we should work on bipartisan legislation to boost research, advance technologies, promote innovation, and develop real solutions. That is why I offered an amendment calling for bipartisan solutions to address this challenge, providing a meaningful role for Congress regarding the Paris Agreement, and requiring our greenhouse gas reduction commitments to undergo a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Sadly, this amendment failed by a party-line vote in the committee and the Rules Committee, denying it from even being debated on this House floor. So for that, Mr. Chairman, and many other reasons, I oppose H.R. 9, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I will close once the gentlewoman yields back. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, again, I agree with the premise of this amendment. Drought conditions, water scarcity are important in, I know, the gentlewoman's home State, certainly important in my home State of Texas. It will be--as climate change advances, the entire continent of Africa will face drought conditions. But, again, this is a finding. It doesn't, in and of itself, reduce the emissions, and I would again urge bipartisan solutions to advancing technologies and promoting innovation. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I will close once the gentlewoman yields back. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, again, I agree with the premise of this amendment. Clean energy technologies are important in my hometown of Austin. We have a lot of clean energy in Irvine, California, a lot of clean energy, a lot of collaboration between our two States, but this is simply a finding and does not reduce our emissions. I again would urge, since I do not think this will become law, that we work on a bipartisan solution, talking explicitly about what you are talking about. We can pass these bills out of the House; we can pass them out of the Senate; and if we can do it bipartisanly, we can get it signed into law. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I will close once the gentleman has yielded back. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, again, I agree with the premise of this amendment, but it does not address reducing emissions. We should debate bipartisan solutions, as I stated in the past. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, let me say first to the gentleman from California, that I appreciate the Californians and the California tech companies expanding to my home city of Austin, Texas, but I find this amendment contrary to the premise of this bill, which prohibits withdrawing from the U.S. Paris Agreement. In fact, it withdraws funding. So for that reason, I am in opposition to it, and, again, I think, as the gentleman stated, we should be advancing--if this bill doesn't make it through the Senate, doesn't get signed into law--advancing the clean energy technologies I think both of our States want to advance. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chair, I will close after the gentlewoman closes. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me first say, I agree with the premise of this amendment. Addressing sea level rise is a serious issue as well as saltwater intrusion and flooding. I am a member of the House Oceans Caucus, but, again, it does not reduce our emissions. It is not, to me, germane to the underlying bill. I think we should debate, once again, bipartisan solutions on boosting research, advancing technologies, and promoting innovation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment, but I am not opposed to this amendment.