John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, we appreciate this amendment. A lot of these amendments are putting the cart before the horse. It would have been interesting to have these debates about resiliency and efficiencies prior to the administration going into the Paris accord. You do the research first and then you make a decision. Now what we are trying to do is say, okay, we have this Paris accord that the President has stepped away from, so now let's evaluate what impacts are happening. We did accept an amendment yesterday in this debate to look at both positive and negative aspects, which I think is a fair balance. There are going to be some areas of the country that are going to benefit; there are going to be some areas of the country that are going to be disadvantaged. So I think that is helpful in this debate. There is a lot of talk about an infrastructure bill coming up. We hope that would be something we would move in a bipartisan manner. I know that it is always going to be asked how to pay for it. I am willing to make the tough calls on how to pay for it. But in that infrastructure bill, it would be great if the resiliency of communities and these concerns that are being addressed could be wrapped up in something like that. Again, for this bill, Leader McConnell just said on the floor that they are not going to address it. Even if they did, the President wouldn't sign it. We will get to a point in time in this Congress when we will work together. Republicans believe in conservation, innovation, and adaptation. This is part of the adaptation portfolio, and we look forward to working with you as we move forward. This amendment does nothing to affect CO2 reductions, so I will oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, again, first of all, I appreciate my colleague, one whom I have gotten a chance to know. I look forward to working with him on some issues down the road. I want to take this time to kind of reject the premise that nothing has been done. In the debate a little while ago, I mentioned the 15 or 20 bills that had passed the House in a bipartisan manner. These were signed into law, a lot of the hydroelectric extensions in H.R. 2122 and H.R. 2292 to extend the project of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission involving the Cannonsville dam. Hydroelectric power is clean, renewable. I can go through a whole list of things that were done. As I said in debate earlier, just because we don't put the stamp of ``Paris'' or ``climate change'' on a piece of legislation doesn't mean that it is not going to help reduce our carbon exposure. In fact, our country has the largest reduction of CO2 of any industrialized nation from 2015 to 2018. Having said that, I also would readily admit, and the Chair has heard me say this many times, that in 2019, our emissions went up. But that was because we have a thriving economy with more manufacturing. So this debate is still very important. This amendment suggests that the measures that the Obama administration were putting in place to meet the commitments in the Paris Agreement were affordable. A lot of us would reject that premise when you look at the cost per kilowatt hour of major generation, baseload versus the green. We have always tried to be kind of an all-of-the-above. Actually, in part of my congressional district, which is very large, I have one of the biggest wind farms in Illinois. That is in the Champaign County, Vermilion County, Ford County area in southern Illinois. Also, solar power. Because of the actions our State General Assembly has done, we have a lot of solar power construction going on in the State of Illinois. An all-of-the-above approach is what we would hope for. We look forward to the time when this, too, shall pass, this debate on this bill, which will then go to the Senate and die, and then we work back with my friends in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairman Engel is also on the Energy and Commerce Committee, so he knows that we will eventually get to the aspect where we can move in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I also thank my colleague for his service. I, too, served in the Army infantry during the Cold War. They are a band of brothers, and we do appreciate his service to the country. Also, I do appreciate that the National Defense Authorization Act, passed in the last Congress, has been helpful. That is another example of, it wasn't couched in climate change, but it was couched in national defense. That is where, again, I will continue to make the arguments and the comments that things have been going on. I don't want to read the first list of bills and stuff that we have passed over the last Congress. The military is also looking at small modular nuclear reactors in some isolated locations. That will be part of the issues in the innovation area that Republicans could be very, very supportive of. We look forward to having those debates. I also know forward operating bases of solar technology and of solar power help keep our warfighters prepared and able to communicate. It is just the smart thing to do versus trying to haul crude oil or generators and stuff to places where it would not be in the best interest of our warfighters to have. So the focus is good. The Republicans, again, believe in conservation, innovation, and adaptation. When we move a bill that will get a chance to be heard by the Senate and that we work together, the goal would be to get something on the President's desk that he will sign. This is not the venue, because the Senate is not going to move it and the President is not going to sign it. But I would encourage my colleagues to stay engaged, not just with the Armed Services Committee, but the Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues on this side because I do think there is merit to the debate. Acknowledgement of what the Department of Defense has done was focused on by the previous Commander in Chief. The Paris climate mandates instituted by the Obama administration through the Paris Agreement and the outdated executive order would have increased energy prices and wasted taxpayer dollars. As a result, we cannot support the amendment that would condone and reinstitute some of these costly measures. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I will read into the Record a statement. This is from the International Energy Agency, Global Energy and CO2 Status Report 2018, published March of 2019, so it is pretty much fresh off the press. It addresses some of these issues that I have mentioned during this debate today about how we have been doing things; how, overall, missions are decreasing; and how public policy has helped, and the like. This is on page 10: ``In the United States, the emission reductions seen in 2017 were reversed with an increase of 3.1 percent in CO2 emissions in 2018.'' That is what we addressed about the economy going up, more CO2 emissions. ``Despite this increase, emissions in the United States remain around their 1990 levels, 14 percent and 800 metric tons of CO2 below their peak in 2000. This is the largest absolute decline among all countries since 2000.'' So I think that is instructive when we are here debating a bill that is not going to be reviewed by the Senate and the President is not going to sign it. We look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce on things that we can do to work together to even make better strides than what we already have in this country. We don't get a lot of credit because we don't couch it in, as I said before, Mr. Chairman, ``climate change,'' ``Paris accord.'' But, you know, facts are important, data is important, and the Energy Information Agency is an independent agency underneath the Department of Commerce, so it is evaluating all countries and all emissions. Republicans believe in conservation, which would be energy efficiency, new source review, force management, innovation, advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, sequestration, utilization. To the colleague who brought the amendment up, I don't believe coal will be dead. I think if we bring technology and we use carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration and get it captured, we can still have a coal mining sector. We can still have energy electricity generated by coal. I hope so, because I am from a coal mining region, and I am not going to walk away from the jobs in southern Illinois. And the adaptation which we have had a lot of debate about today, which is grid modernization, resiliency, crops, and the like. The amendment of my colleague is opposite to what Dr. Burgess and I tried to do in the committee when we marked up this bill. We wanted to have the research and the analysis done before we go back to a climate agreement. I mean, what good does it do if you go to an agreement and then you find that jobs have been lost, wages have gone down? It is too late. You are in the agreement. So let's do the research prior, which was our amendment, Dr. Burgess and I--it wasn't made in order for the floor----to say let's do this research. So if we are going to move and go back into the climate Paris accord, if we are going to affect jobs in the economy negatively, we should know that beforehand. This amendment does not do that. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I think that is the first time I have been directed to my region of the State of Illinois, and I appreciate it. Illinois has 102 counties. I represent 33 of those, or parts of 33, so it is a little different than north of I-80, as the Chairman knows and as does the author of this amendment. And, of course, you had me at a disadvantage because I have great kinship and friendship with my colleague who is offering this amendment. I would pause to say sometimes we have a hard time defining ``clean.'' What is clean energy? For me, some of this debate is no CO2 or very limited CO2 emissions. I think that is in the Paris accord, in the climate change, global warming debate. It is all about CO2. We have some colleagues come here and talk about the four criteria pollutants and stuff, but this is really about CO2. So we also think not just solar, but we ought to make sure we do geothermal provisions. We ought to look at pump storage provisions. We should do the hydroelectric provisions. As my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, the Chicagoland area of Illinois has the largest production of electricity through the use of nuclear power--six locations, 11 reactors. How much does it emit of CO2 into the atmosphere? Zero. Major baseload energy that is beneficial in this debate, because we can't meet these standards unless we have some major generation, some major baseload. So I think if we look forward to moving forward with a bill that would have a chance to move to the Senate floor that we eventually want to get to the President, we actually look forward to working with my colleagues on provisions and helping us grapple with the definition of clean. If the definition is little to no CO2 emissions, solar is great; wind is great. They are small parts of a large portfolio of nuclear energy and hydroelectric, which are the predominant clean energy electricity producers if that definition is CO2. So, with that, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, respectfully. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I will close after the gentlewoman yields back. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I didn't get a chance to come down during the debate on the underlying bill, and the committee, of course, raised this issue. 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. So, when the statement is made--it only reverses the President's action if the President signs the bill. The President is not going to sign this bill. So why are we here? Why are we spending a whole week? I understand we need to get this climate debate off our chest and eventually move forward, and I hope we will do that in a bipartisan manner. As to the amendment that we are 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, marginal oil, well, we would probably like to see an evaluation of job losses that could occur as part of this. They are going to tout the job creation. Let's look at the areas--and they touted rural America. Let's look at the areas where coal mines will close, coal-fired power plants will close, and the economic impact that will be impacted there. We are pretty excited about working with the Energy and Commerce Committee on, as is, I think, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, conservation, innovation, adaption. Our focus is going to be: Let's affect the carbon dioxide emissions without raising energy costs and slowing the economic activity. I think we have one of the best economies that I have ever served in, and we do have an increase in carbon dioxide this last year because the economic activity is so great. So if you believe that, which is true, the reverse would be, if you delay and raise energy costs, you could really hurt economic growth. Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I will close after my colleague yields back her time. I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. Listen, in the transmission world, 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 actually benefit the fossil energy in other areas, such as support of fossil and nuclear power in Arizona for California's electricity requirements. The basic underlying amendment really does nothing to address things that we would like to support--conservation, innovation, adaption-- trying to, in a bipartisan approach, address the real issue, which is how do we reduce carbon dioxide emissions in a way that protects the economy, grows the economy. We also feel that our citizens are better served when they have good paying jobs and they are working versus a risk of not doing that if you move down an unchecked path. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I also thank Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon and, actually, Congresswoman Plaskett. I was able to visit the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico during the last hurricane, and it was devastating. I appreciate the hospitality shown in difficult times. Madam Chair, while this is a ``let's do an evaluation of good and bad,'' versus one of the amendments we talked about earlier, I am pleased to support it. The only caveat we would say is that we would rather have these reports done prior to making major decisions versus making a decision and then seeing how it is going to impact. But I am pleased to support it, and I thank the gentlewoman for bringing it forward.

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I will close after the gentleman closes. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, bravo for our States and bravo for our communities. I think the only problem I have with the amendment is you seem to have to believe that the United States has to be involved in an international agreement for us to lead. We are the largest carbon reducer since 2015 in the world. I think the Energy and Commerce Committee over the last Congress has led with bipartisan solutions that have come to the floor. That is where we need to get to eventually, instead of the ``he said, she said,'' point fingers, ``you are bad.'' What can we do that gets across to the Senate? What can we do to get it to the President's desk? Moving an amendment and a bill that says, ``Mr. President, you got out of the Paris accord, now sign this bill to undo what you just did,'' no one believes he is going to sign that. We also know that even if he vetoes that bill, we will be able to sustain it on this side. We look forward to doing things that we did in the last Congress. We can address carbon capture, sequestration, utilization; advanced nuclear reforms; hydropower; and clean natural gas, which has also enhanced our national security; and energy efficiency. Republicans are willing to work with my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee on conservation, things like energy efficiency, new source review, and forest management. We are willing to talk about innovation, things like advanced nuclear power, as I mentioned; carbon capture, utilization, sequestration, pumped storage; battery technology through research and development; adaptation addressing the grid, adapting to the climate change issues; resiliency of our communities; genetically modified crops, if we have weather conditions or drier conditions. There are things that we think we can move to address this debate that could get through the Senate and could get to the President's desk, but haranguing and harassing a President who has already decided to leave the accord and think he is going to sign a bill is just not going to happen. That is why I oppose this amendment. I disagree with the basic premise of the amendment. I agree that communities are doing great things. States are leading. When you argue that States are leading, that is contrary to your argument that we have to lead. If the States and local communities are doing it, why does it take the Federal Government to do that? We don't have to bash to work together and move a policy forward. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.