H.Con.Res.29 is a single‑clause concurrent resolution that declares Congress' support for the President’s action to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. The text includes a short definitional sentence identifying the “Paris Agreement” as the COP21 decision adopted December 12, 2015.
Although concise, the resolution matters because it is an explicit legislative expression of backing for an executive step with broad foreign‑policy and domestic economic implications. Even if nonbinding, the resolution functions as a formal congressional signal to federal agencies, state and local governments, foreign partners, and private-sector actors about the legislature’s posture on U.S. participation in international climate governance.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adopts a single operative sentence: Congress supports the President’s withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement. It also defines the term “Paris Agreement” in a one‑sentence definitional clause.
Who It Affects
The resolution directly signals to federal agencies involved in climate diplomacy, state and local governments coordinating climate actions, international partners, and industries exposed to climate policy (energy, manufacturing, finance). It also communicates Congressional intent to executive branch officials and agency leadership.
Why It Matters
As a concurrent resolution, it does not change law or treaty obligations but shapes political and policy expectations. That signaling can affect regulatory choices, international negotiations, investor confidence in climate‑related markets, and the political cover available to executive and agency decision‑makers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.Con.Res.29 contains a single operative sentence that states Congress supports the President’s withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement. The resolution adds a short definitional sentence that ties “Paris Agreement” to the COP21 decision adopted on December 12, 2015.
There are no further clauses, funding provisions, deadlines, or directives to agencies.
Because the resolution is concurrent (adopted by both chambers to express a collective view) it is a statement of position rather than a law. It does not amend statutes, revoke obligations, or change the United States’ standing under international law; it simply records Congress’s declared support for withdrawal.
That distinction matters for implementation: no federal agency gains new statutory powers or constraints from this text, and no private right of action or administrative requirement is created.Where the document exerts influence is political and normative. By formally endorsing withdrawal, the resolution can be used as leverage in internal executive deliberations, in diplomatic messaging, and in private‑sector planning.
Regulators, investors, state officials, and foreign governments may treat it as a political indicator of likely federal policy direction, even though it does not by itself change regulatory rules or budgets.Finally, the resolution’s narrow definition of “Paris Agreement” (referring specifically to COP21) limits interpretive ambiguity about what Congress is endorsing, but it does not address the mechanics of withdrawal, potential re‑entry, or the administrative steps required by relevant statutes or executive procedures. The measure is short on implementation detail and long on political signal.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution consists of one operative sentence: “Congress supports the action of the President to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement.”, It is a concurrent resolution — a formal expression of congressional position that does not create binding legal obligations or alter treaty status.
The text defines “Paris Agreement” specifically as the COP21 decision adopted December 12, 2015, rather than using broader or alternative descriptions.
The resolution contains no directives to federal agencies, no funding authorizations, and no timetable or procedural requirements for withdrawal or re‑entry.
The sponsors are Rep. Garland Barr (R) and Rep. Moore of West Virginia, and the measure was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title and identify subject
The header and title establish the resolution’s subject—support for withdrawal—and locate it within the House of Representatives as a concurrent resolution. Practically, this section frames the document for legislative recordkeeping and citation; it does not add operative content but signals that the measure addresses international climate policy.
Congressional expression of support for presidential withdrawal
This single operative sentence is the core of the measure: it states that Congress supports the President’s action to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. The language is declaratory rather than prescriptive—there is no command, prohibition, or statutory change—so its immediate effect is rhetorical and political. It creates a formal record of congressional posture that can be cited in committee reports, floor debates, or diplomatic communications.
Clarifies which instrument 'Paris Agreement' refers to
The resolution adds a one‑sentence definition tying the term “Paris Agreement” to the COP21 decision adopted on December 12, 2015. This limits interpretive disputes about what the resolution covers (for example, whether it references subsequent UNFCCC decisions or implementing protocols). The definitional choice narrows the scope of the expression but leaves open numerous legal and administrative questions about withdrawal mechanics.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Domestic fossil fuel producers and related trade groups — the resolution strengthens political backing for federal policy that deprioritizes multilateral greenhouse gas commitments, which can ease pressure for accelerated regulation.
- Coal and heavy industry‑heavy states — elected officials and local economies in states reliant on fossil energy can point to the resolution as legislative validation when opposing state or federal measures tied to international climate commitments.
- Members of Congress who favor executive withdrawal — sponsors and cosponsors gain a formal Congressional record that they can use to signal alignment with constituents and industry allies.
- Domestic businesses opposing carbon constraints — firms concerned about economy‑wide emissions obligations can use the resolution’s signal to justify slower corporate climate targets or to lobby against new federal climate regulations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Climate‑vulnerable communities and health advocates — the resolution’s political effect could slow federal and international mitigation efforts that reduce exposure to climate hazards, imposing long‑term social and economic costs.
- Renewable energy and clean‑tech investors — political signals against international climate commitments can increase regulatory and policy uncertainty, affecting investment timelines and project financing.
- U.S. diplomatic partners and multilateral climate institutions — withdrawal endorsement complicates negotiation leverage and may require diplomats to rebuild trust or make concessions in other international fora.
- State and local governments with ambitious climate plans — jurisdictions that rely on federal alignment with Paris goals may face coordination challenges and potential funding frictions as federal posture shifts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is symbolic authority versus substantive change: the resolution gives Congress a visible way to endorse executive withdrawal without legislating the detailed policy, legal, or budgetary steps required to implement or sustain that withdrawal—solving the problem of political alignment while leaving open the question of how to translate that alignment into durable policy outcomes.
Two core implementation puzzles arise from this short resolution. First, because it is purely declaratory it produces political effects without creating legal obligations: agencies and contract counterparts will react to the signal, but the resolution does not change regulatory texts, appropriations, or international legal status.
That gap creates a disconnect between rhetorical posture and operational change—useful to some stakeholders, worrying to others—and raises questions about how durable the signal will be in the absence of statutory or regulatory follow‑through.
Second, the document narrows its scope by defining the Paris Agreement as the COP21 decision, but it leaves untouched the procedural and legal mechanics of withdrawal or re‑entry, and it says nothing about related domestic policy choices (carbon pricing, emissions standards, federal funding for resilience). That silence creates implementation risk: executive branch actors may treat the resolution as political cover for withdrawal while leaving subordinate policy instruments in flux, which can increase uncertainty for states, investors, and foreign partners.
Finally, because concurrent resolutions are nonbinding, the measure’s primary power is signaling; readers should assess whether that signal meaningfully changes administrative behavior or only serves as partisan messaging.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.