[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 92 (Friday, June 10, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3669-H3677]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT A CARBON TAX WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL
TO THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 767, I call up
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 89) expressing the sense of
Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States
economy, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the
concurrent resolution is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 89
Whereas a carbon tax is a Federal tax on carbon released
from fossil fuels;
Whereas a carbon tax will increase energy prices, including
the price of gasoline, electricity, natural gas, and home
heating oil;
Whereas a carbon tax will mean that families and consumers
will pay more for essentials like food, gasoline, and
electricity;
Whereas a carbon tax will fall hardest on the poor, the
elderly, and those on fixed incomes;
Whereas a carbon tax will lead to more jobs and businesses
moving overseas;
Whereas a carbon tax will lead to less economic growth;
Whereas American families will be harmed the most from a
carbon tax;
Whereas, according to the Energy Information
Administration, in 2011, fossil fuels share of energy
consumption was 82 percent;
Whereas a carbon tax will increase the cost of every good
manufactured in the United States;
Whereas a carbon tax will impose disproportionate burdens
on certain industries, jobs, States, and geographic regions
and would further restrict the global competitiveness of the
United States;
Whereas American ingenuity has led to innovations in energy
exploration and development and has increased production of
domestic energy resources on private and State-owned land
which has created significant job growth and private capital
investment;
Whereas United States energy policy should encourage
continued private sector innovation and development and not
increase the existing tax burden on manufacturers;
Whereas the production of American energy resources
increases the United States ability to maintain a competitive
advantage in today's global economy;
Whereas a carbon tax would reduce America's global
competitiveness and would encourage development abroad in
countries that do not impose this exorbitant tax burden; and
Whereas the Congress and the President should focus on pro-
growth solutions that encourage increased development of
domestic resources: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that a carbon
tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses,
and is not in the best interest of the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable
for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
General Leave
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous materials on H. Con. Res. 89, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 89, which takes a strong stand
against the carbon tax that would hurt American families, workers, and
job creators.
As the President closes out his time in office, he would like nothing
more than to ram through more of his harmful energy agenda. Just look
at the President's budget this year. Among the $3.4 trillion in tax
hikes he proposed, the President included a $10 per barrel tax on oil.
This tax alone would cause gas prices to increase by an estimated 25
cents per gallon. With a carbon tax, there would be a tax hike on
production, distribution, and the use of not only oil but also of
natural gas and any other form of energy that emits carbon. Such a tax
would have many serious impacts on our economy by making day-to-day
life more expensive for families throughout this country.
First, a carbon tax could drive up the cost of energy for both the
producers and the consumers. This translates to larger energy bills
that eat up even more of Americans' take-home pay, especially during
the hottest and coldest months of the year.
Second, a carbon tax would destroy well-paying jobs throughout the
American energy sector--a sector that has fueled significant job growth
throughout the country.
Third, a carbon tax would deliver a direct hit to working families
and have compound effects that would reach all corners of the economy.
In fact, a carbon tax would increase the cost of, virtually, every good
manufactured or service performed in the United States, including
everyday necessities. If a good requires energy to make or transport,
which most do, taxes on that energy are, essentially, a tax on that
good. As a result, Americans would have to pay more for everything--
from milk to clothing to school supplies.
Finally, to make this bad idea even worse, we know that a carbon tax
would hurt those who are living in poverty and those who are on fixed
incomes more than anyone else.
Put simply, a carbon tax would make it harder for us to grow our
economy and help working families and small businesses succeed.
[[Page H3670]]
We all want an all-of-the-above energy approach that supports new
innovations, not a targeted tax hike on specific industries. Thanks to
the leadership of Whip Scalise, Congress will pass this bill today and
send it to the Senate, and we will send a clear message to the people
in our districts, as well as to the Obama White House, that we do not
support this extreme tax.
Instead, we will continue to pass legislation that grows our economy
and that helps more Americans get back to work. After all, last week,
we received the worst jobs report in almost 6 years. It is more
important than ever that we move forward with a bold, pro-growth
agenda, not another expensive Washington tax.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What is happening today is further evidence that the Republicans are
simply not doing their job. There is real work to be done. It is simply
inexcusable that action has not yet happened to prepare for the Zika
virus. That would be real action. Helping the people of Flint get clean
drinking water, in my home State, would be something real. There is no
budget resolution that has been considered here on the House floor.
Raising the minimum wage would also be real, and it would help lift
many families out of poverty. Closing tax loopholes and making the Tax
Code fairer would be real.
Instead, today, we are voting on two senses of Congress resolutions.
Doing so provides further evidence that the Republicans not only are
not acting on those real problems mentioned earlier but are in denial
on another real issue that needs action--climate change. The scientific
evidence of climate change is overwhelming, and the consensus is clear,
and we have seen the impacts of climate change, virtually, every day in
our country and around the world.
This week, the CBO, led by a Director appointed by the majority here,
released a report that identified the effects of climate change as a
potential risk to the Federal budget. According to that report, the
cost of hurricane damage is projected to be $35 billion more than it is
today because of climate change.
The report stated:
``Human activities around the world, primarily the burning of fossil
fuels and widespread changes in land use, are producing growing
emissions of greenhouse gases.''
Climate change requires all of us, including the Republicans here who
are in total denial, to come to our senses and to act on the challenge
of climate change.
This sense of Congress resolution, like the second one, completely
fails to meet that challenge. I urge its rejection.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) control the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of the Ways and Means Committee and
the chairman of the Tax Policy Subcommittee.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank my colleague and friend on the Ways and Means
Committee, Mrs. Black, for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 89, a
resolution expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be
detrimental to the United States economy.
At a time when 80 percent of domestic energy consumption comes from
natural gas, from oil, from coal, it is, clearly, counterproductive to
make these necessary resources more expensive by imposing an indirect
tax on these fuels. A carbon tax means higher utility bills for
families, more expensive goods and services for consumers, decreased
economic activity, and it would really hurt job creation. We already
heard about the dismal numbers last week that were released--38,000
non-farm-related jobs.
Let me just be clear. When we were in the recession, one of the prime
drivers economically that took us out of the recession was the shale
revolution--a real energy renaissance in this country.
Mr. Speaker, this type of tax is not just a tax on carbon--it is a
tax on working families; it is a tax on the American economy; it is a
tax on American competitiveness; it is a tax on our energy security. It
strikes right at the foundation of our national security. It is the
wrong thing to do. It is a regressive tax. It hurts the people who are
most dependent on fixed incomes--seniors. It hurts them most.
Why would we even consider doing this?
There are better ways to set up taxation for this country that meet
our needs. I just don't understand why one would propose this type of
tax, other than the fact that there is a radical environmental agenda,
which would hurt manufacturing and American competitiveness. We can't
do this. We need to grow this economy. We need growth around 3 to 4
percent minimum to create jobs, to let American business create value,
to assert American leadership globally. We are not going to do this
with a carbon tax. We won't do it. We need pro-growth policies.
Mr. Speaker, the American people understand this. A recent study by
the Institute for Energy Policy found that over 60 percent of Americans
oppose this type of idea.
I applaud Whip Scalise for offering this sensible resolution because
it then puts forth a very strong, affirmative statement that we are not
going to disarm the American economy, that we are not going to strike a
blow at American competitiveness when we are struggling already as it
is.
I am sick and tired of the fact that American leadership is eroding
around the world. I am sick and tired of the fact that we are walking
around with timidity. We ought to be embracing the concept of American
leadership. This gives us an opportunity, based on American innovation
and energy--the clearest example of which I know of American
exceptionalism--to rewrite the rules of energy security based on open
markets, transparent pricing, and diversity of supply source.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am pleased to hear my friend from Louisiana with his impassioned
presentation today; but his presentation, coming on the heels of what
we all heard from the Prime Minister of India--calling for a low
carbon, sustainable, innovative future--makes me sad.
If we would have had our economy take these issues seriously--maybe
have a week of hearings--we would have been able to demonstrate to the
gentleman with an impartial panel of independent experts all across the
political spectrum--Conservative, Liberal, Republican, and Democrat--
that a carbon tax, revenue neutral, is, actually, the key to the
innovative future they want.
There are all sorts of ways to design a carbon tax, to, actually,
enhance the role--the economic status--of low- and moderate-income
people, but we never had a hearing on that. It is just simply dismissed
as something that we can't do, but they have done it elsewhere in the
world. If the committee had done its job, we would be dealing with
facts, not hyperbole.
{time} 0930
If the committee had done its job, we would have heard that we have
very real challenges today to American security, which our Department
of Defense has pointed out.
Climate change, despite denial from some of my friends on the other
side of the aisle, is a threat today to the American military posture.
Climate change is disrupting industries like fishing. It is producing
unprecedented flooding, forest fires, and a wildly unpredictable
weather future. The reduction of arctic ice at unprecedented levels
ought to be of concern to my friends on the other side of the aisle.
Maybe if we had some open, honest hearings that were balanced and
independent, that case would have been made and they may support it.
But whether or not they care about climate change and global warming,
a carbon tax makes sense for American innovation, the economy, and our
competitiveness. It is the areas of low-carbon energy that have seen
the job growth. There are now more people
[[Page H3671]]
working in wind and solar than the coal industry by far. That is where
the job growth has been undertaken.
A carbon tax would enhance America's global competitiveness. And if
we had hearings, listening to independent experts across the board,
that case would be made, and I don't think we would have this foolish
resolution on the floor.
These are elements that would inject into our energy policy an even,
balanced approach using market forces, which are much easier than some
of the incentives that we have, which are important, which people on
both sides of the aisle have supported in the past. But a carbon tax is
a more effective way of achieving those objectives.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sad that we didn't have that debate in
committee. I am sad that we didn't hear from independent experts. I
think of our friend Bob Inglis, former Congressperson, who is on a
personal crusade working with the evangelical community about the
merits of a carbon tax. It would have been great to have heard from Bob
and others like him to be able to present a balanced picture and be
able to deal with meaningful policy.
I still hope that someday, that time will come that our Ways and
Means Committee actually takes the time to dive into one of the most
important issues of the day and to examine one of the tools that
independent experts all across the spectrum agree would be a solid
addition and actually simplify the Tax Code while we can help people in
low income and small business and provide incentives for America's
global competitiveness, like we heard from the Prime Minister of India
from that very rostrum just 2 days ago.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a colleague of mine and a member of the Ways
and Means Committee.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Black). We see eye to eye on almost everything in our
lives, and it is really good to be able to stand here today and speak
so strongly in favor of H. Con. Res. 89. I really do appreciate the
passion and sincerity of my colleagues across the aisle.
What we are talking today is about policy. What we are talking about
today is the all-important, unintended consequences that so often are
put to blame for bad things that happen to American people. They are
well intended, yes, at their conception, but very harmful.
We are talking about a carbon tax, $10 a barrel on oil. And we are
saying: Well, don't worry about that because that is going to be
charged upstream. That is going to be charged when it is taken out of
the ground.
But we all know that every single tax, every single cost is paid
downstream.
What do I mean by that?
Every day hardworking Americans get up in the morning and want to put
a roof over the heads of their families, food on the table, clothes on
their back, and a little bit of money put away for their future. But
every day we continue to come up with policies that somehow, although
well intended, make it harder for them to make a living, make it harder
for them to live the American Dream, make it harder for them to get
ready for the future.
Now, I know there are always going to be existential threats. I get
that. My grandson is afraid to get out of bed at night because he
thinks there is a monster under it. He thinks that if you get up in the
middle of the night, maybe there is somebody in the closet or maybe
there is something else.
Now, I am not a climate change denier. Of course, the climate
changes. I have seen it happen in my life. I have seen it where people
say it is getting too cold and now it is getting too warm.
Well, you know what?
It just changes. I get that.
What doesn't change is the assault on the American people to pick up
the tab on all of these costs. There is nothing that makes less sense
to me than what we are doing. And back home where I come from, there is
an old saying that goes something like this: Measure twice and cut
once.
Why?
Because once you do that cut, it is permanent. That is why you want
to measure twice to make sure that the cut you make is the right cut.
That is why you need to take the policies that affect everyday American
people and make sure that you are not hurting them.
Well intended, I get it. I know it is well intended. I just don't
think the American people have to pay the brunt of this.
I am very aware of the Prime Minister of India being here Wednesday.
And I also know that between India and China, that is where the
greatest pollution comes from. I get it. I get it.
Putting $10 a barrel on oil coming out of the ground just doesn't
make sense. I would just like my friends on both sides of the aisle to
think about somebody named Steven Jobs. Steven Jobs did not invent the
PC because we taxed typewriters too high and caused the cost of that.
Innovation, of course, is the answer. And we have seen great
innovation.
I know where I am from in western Pennsylvania, that clean coal is
real. But the President promised, when he was running as a candidate,
that he would put those who chose to make electricity by burning coal
out of business. So we regulate them to the point where it is no longer
cost efficient to do that, but we keep moving that way.
The fact that 40,000 Pennsylvanians make a living that way, well,
don't worry about that, they will have to find something else to do.
You can go down to West Virginia and you can hear where candidates told
them: Listen, you are going to be out of business, but we will find
something else for you to do and we will just get to that later.
Look, we have an opportunity today. This is a sense of Congress to
tell the American people what it is that we think goes on with this
policy. For far too long we have turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to
the people who sent us here to represent them. We talk very loftily
about what it is that we would like to see, how it is that we would
like it to go, our dream for the future. But we forget that every day,
hardworking American taxpayers get up, throw their feet out over the
side of the bed, and go to work for a very particular reason: their
families, their churches, their schools, their communities and, more
importantly, all of America.
Well intended, yes. But the results would be devastating.
And who would pay this carbon tax? Who would pay this $10 a barrel?
It would be any man or woman who has to go out and buy anything for
his or her family. It would be reflected in the cost of everything we
put on our backs and everything we put in our mouths. It would affect
everything we do when we travel from one point to another, but we say
it is necessary. It is necessary because we have to tax this so high
that we drive people away from it.
I would hope that we could come together in America's House and do
what is right for America's people, to do what is right for the people
who sent us here to represent them because they are working so hard to
make sure that there is a future for their children.
In the last month when we created one job for every 8,000 Americans--
one job for every 8,000 Americans, are you kidding me?--in the greatest
country the world has ever known, in a Nation that leads the world in
defending freedom and liberty, in a Nation that knows that the best way
to help others is through American participation----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I do want to make sure that
this final point comes across: We can work together for solutions. We
can work together to do the same things for the same people that we all
came here to represent. I do not think that there are ill-intended
ideas on the other side. I think they are well-intended. I just think
they are wrong. I think they are wrong for the times, and I think they
are wrong for the American people.
As I said earlier, where I am from, there are a lot of old adages.
And one of them is: don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
I will tell you right now that the mule is trying to find a way to
unhook
[[Page H3672]]
itself from the wagon because that load has gotten too heavy to pay. I
know that the people who are loading the wagon think it is okay because
at some point, that is going to have to be delivered somewhere. The
truth of the matter is it is not.
We have put too heavy a burden on American taxpayers, hardworking
American taxpayers, hardworking Americans. 1.4 million American lives
have been sacrificed for the freedom and liberty not just of this
country--our country and our Nation--but for the whole world. So I say
let's be careful before we do these well-intended but careless things.
Let's be careful before we turn our backs on the people who we actually
represent here, and that is hardworking American people.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I couldn't agree more with my good friend from Butler, Pennsylvania,
that we can actually come together and fashion solutions. That is why
it is such a tragedy that this resolution comes to the floor without
ever having our committee work on it, because we could have had
hearings that could have narrowed those gaps.
I include in the Record a letter from six conservative advocates for
climate change action.
June 7, 2016.
Dear Representative: Later this week Congress will take up
a resolution sponsored by Congressman Scalise (R-LA1) that
expresses the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be
detrimental to the economy of the United States. We are
concerned that this resolution offers a limited perspective
on carbon taxes and is blind to the potential benefits of
market-based climate policy. Legislation that incorporates a
carbon tax could include regulatory and tax reforms to make
the United States economy more competitive, innovative, and
robust, benefiting both present and future generations.
We recognize that a carbon tax, like any tax, will impose
economic costs. But climate change is also imposing economic
costs. This resolution falls short by recognizing the cost of
action without considering the cost of staying on our present
policy course. There are, of course, uncertainties about the
future cost of climate change and, likewise, the cost
associated with a carbon tax (much would depend on program
design and the pace and nature of technological progress).
The need for action, however, is clear. A recent survey of
economists who publish in leading peer-reviewed journals on
these matters found that 93% believe that a meaningful policy
response to climate change is warranted.
The least burdensome, most straightforward, and most
market-friendly means of addressing climate change is to
price the risks imposed by greenhouse gas emissions via a
tax. This would harness price signals, rather than
regulations, to guide market response. That is why carbon
pricing has the support of free market economists, a majority
of the global business community, and a large number of the
largest multinational private oil and gas companies in the
world (the corporate entities among the most directly
affected by climate policy).
In reaching a conclusion, this resolution neglects the fact
that the United States already has a multiplicity of carbon
taxes. They are imposed, however, via dozens of federal and
state regulations, are invisible to consumers, unevenly
imposed across industrial sectors, unnecessarily costly, and
growing in size and scope. The policy choice is not if we
should price carbon emissions, but how.
Unfortunately, this resolution also fails to differentiate
between proposals that would impose carbon taxes on top of
existing regulations (chiefly the Obama Administration's
Clean Power Plan), and proposals that would impose carbon
taxes in place of those existing regulations. Conservatives
and free market advocates should embrace the latter,
regardless of how they view climate risks.
An economy-wide carbon tax that replaces existing
regulatory interventions could reduce the cost of climate
policy and deregulate the economy. It could also provide
revenue to support pro-growth tax reform, including corporate
income or payroll tax cuts, which could dramatically reduce
overall costs on the economy. Revenues could be applied to
compensate those who suffer the most from higher energy
costs; the poor, the elderly, and individuals and families
living on fixed incomes.
Unfortunately, none of those options are presently
available because Members of Congress have neglected
opportunities to design and debate market-friendly climate
policies in legislation. Instead, they have yielded authority
in climate policy design to the Executive Branch. By
discouraging a long-overdue discussion about sensible carbon
pricing, this resolution frustrates the development of better
policy.
Sincerely,
Jerry Taylor,
President, Niskanen Center.
Bob Inglis,
Executive Director, RepublicEn.
Aparna Mathur,
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
Eli Lehrer,
President, R Street Institute.
The Rev. Mitchell C. Hescox,
President, Evangelical Environmental Network.
Alan Viard,
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Pennsylvania could have
heard them talk about the need for action and how you can design a
carbon tax that meets the objectives he is talking about, but we never
did that. We didn't listen to experts across the spectrum--Republican,
Democrat, conservative, liberal, economists, and scientists--to be able
to examine the facts.
Instead, we have a cartoon proposal that they are arguing against as
opposed to something that we could have worked on together that is
promoted by most of the independent experts in the field. And someday
within our lifetime this Congress will consider and, I think, probably
approve.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Seattle, Washington (Mr.
McDermott), who has looked at some of these challenges around the
globe.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as I come to speak on the floor, I think
I am in the House of the deniers. Now, in 2007, that liberal journal,
National Geographic, had an article called ``The Big Thaw.'' And it
says:
``It's no surprise that a warming climate is melting the world's
glaciers and polar ice. But no one expected it to happen this fast.''
That was in 2007. That was 9 years ago.
I was taken, along with Gerry Connolly, up to the Arctic with the
Norweigian Government. They are worried about what is happening.
This resolution is just burying your head in the sand. I think you
are thinking that if you put your head in the sand long enough, it will
go away and, when you pull your head out, it won't be there.
The CBO just put a report out: Texas, Louisiana, and Florida are
going to have hurricane damage that is unbelievable. FEMA already
accounts for 45 percent of money spent on hurricane damage, $95 billion
since 2000.
Now, if you think the insurance companies are going to keep insuring
against hurricanes, you have another thing coming. At some point, they
are going to say: We are not doing hurricane insurance in Florida,
Louisiana, Texas, and a whole bunch of other places. That is the
economics.
You say: Let's not pay anything right now, let's not change anything,
let's not work on it.
But if we don't work on it, we are going to pay later. I am old
enough to remember a FRAM commercial on the television. It was an air
cleaner on your car, and it said: Pay me now or pay me later. And this
is what this is about today.
Now, there are things going on in this country which just absolutely
boggle my mind. In North Carolina, the assembly got together and they
said: You know what? We are not going to spend any money to measure the
sea levels.
Now, you have hundreds of miles of coastline in North Carolina where
the sea is rising and property values are going to be lost. We are
talking money here. We are not talking soft, liberal stuff. This is
real, and people don't want to even look at it.
In Florida and Wisconsin, they took a novel approach and they said:
We are not even going to use the words ``climate change'' in anything.
Now, here in Congress, the climate deniers take many forms, from
blocking the words ``social cost of carbon'' to directing the
Department of Defense to ignore climate change. All the while, the DOD
itself highlights the threat of climate change to national security.
Republicans like to talk about national security.
{time} 0945
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. McDERMOTT. If you are serious about talking about national
security,
[[Page H3673]]
you better start talking about the climate change that is going on in
the world. Sea lanes across the North Pole are coming, boats are
already coming, we are building the Panama Canal wider, and it is
opening up on the north end of the globe.
Now, this absurdity cannot last, and we have got to begin to do what
Mr. Blumenauer suggested. There have to be hearings. Bob Inglis, I knew
him when he was here. God, he was a wild-eyed liberal. I couldn't
believe what a wild-eyed liberal he was. He came down here talking
about a carbon tax. I had a carbon tax. Mr. Larson had a carbon tax.
This is not a partisan issue, Democrat versus Republican; it is
whether or not you are going to look at the science of what is
happening on the globe. I urge people to vote ``no'' on this. You will
come back and do it in a couple of years.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our majority whip.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for
yielding. I am proud to bring forward this legislation, Mr. Speaker,
that expresses the strong sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be
detrimental to the United States economy.
If you look at what this administration has done through radical
rules and regulations, through all of its agencies, starting with the
EPA, with the IRS, with the NLRB, the whole alphabet soup of Federal
agencies that every morning wake up trying to figure out how to make it
harder for our economy to get moving again, how to make it harder for
people to create jobs in America, frankly, the results of these radical
regulations are shifting and running jobs away, out of our country to
foreign countries like China, like India, and they want to keep it
going.
This is not a new concept, Mr. Speaker. They tried this years ago
when they brought through the cap-and-trade bill. Passed out of the
House, it couldn't even pass in the Senate when they had a
supermajority in the Senate with 60 votes because it was such a
detrimental idea that would devastate our economy. Yet even with that
defeat, President Obama still tries to come back with a carbon tax
through other means, whether it is regulations or whether it is
superimposed carbon taxes through the EPA and some of the other things
they are doing.
We have had hearings on this, Mr. Speaker. There is data all around
that confirms how devastating a carbon tax would be to the United
States economy. You can just look at what some of the outside groups
that look at this said. The National Association of Manufacturers, the
people that make things in America, have confirmed we would lose more
than a million jobs in America if a carbon tax was imposed.
Where would those jobs go? They would go to countries, ironically,
that don't have the good environmental standards we already have. So
they would go to countries like China and India where, if you are
concerned about carbon going into the atmosphere, the things that they
do to produce the same things we produce here in America, it creates
more than five times the amount of carbon in those countries. So you
are shifting jobs out of America to send it to countries where you
would actually create more carbon.
They talk about somehow being able to create policy that will stop
hurricanes and change the sea level rising, for goodness sake, as if
some policy is going to do that.
By the way, the result of their policies will increase carbon in the
Earth's atmosphere. But let's not even talk about that. Let's actually
talk about the track record of this administration that now wants to
control the Earth's temperature.
They spent over $500 million and couldn't even create a Web site to
take your health insurance requests, healthcare.gov. Remember that?
Well, this same group now thinks they can control the Earth's
temperature through radical policies.
Again, let's look at the devastating impact these policies would
have. They wouldn't work, first of all, but they would have a
devastating impact on the middle class of this country. The
Congressional Budget Office, our own Congressional Budget Office that
looked at this, said a carbon tax would actually hit low-income people
the hardest, even harder than high-income people.
It would have a devastating impact on those people who are least able
to afford it because it would increase the cost of everything they do.
It would increase your food costs at the grocery store. It would
increase, of course, what you pay at the pump. It would increase your
electricity prices.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman.
Mr. SCALISE. The Heritage Foundation looked at this and said that
this kind of carbon tax would actually increase the cost of everything
that families buy by over $1,400 per family. Families are going to pay
$1,400 more every year for the cost of a carbon tax that the other side
wants to defend. And to yield what? To just yield an opportunity for
countries like China and India to grow their economies at the expense
of ours.
So, Mr. Speaker, if you look at what they are trying to do--and,
again, if you want to do this, bring it forward as an idea in
legislation. They tried it with cap-and-trade, and it got defeated when
Democrats controlled everything. There is bipartisanship on this issue,
and the bipartisanship is in opposition to a carbon tax.
So why don't we go on record and be very clear about it, not just
that it is bad policy, but also to reaffirm how devastating it would be
for the United States economy.
It shouldn't move forward. The President needs to stop this radical
agenda and instead focus on reversing the depressing economic activity
that we have seen in this country since he has been President because
of these kinds of policies.
Let's get real economic growth. Let's bring those jobs back to the
United States. Let's reject a carbon tax.
I urge adoption of this resolution.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my friend from Louisiana's impassioned
presentation. It is too bad that the Committee on Ways and Means didn't
actually sit down and go through the elements that would be in a
balanced carbon tax. He is debating a cartoon version, not one that we
worked on.
I am going to yield, in a moment, to one of the gentlemen who,
earlier in this carbon debate several Congresses ago, has been involved
with crafting a realistic carbon tax.
We had the reference to the inability to move the cap-and-trade,
which I don't think is as good as a carbon tax. It failed because there
were a minority of the Senate who were opposed to allowing it to go
forward. It wasn't that we didn't have a majority that were interested.
In the Senate, you can have a veto with 41 people who are decided that
they are not going to allow things to move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Larson). He has been a student of a carbon tax, who has listened to
those people across the political spectrum and has been a champion of a
reasonable, thoughtful approach to promote American innovation.
I would just point out the areas where we have had the greatest job
growth in the energy sector have not been petroleum or coal. It has
been solar and wind. A carbon tax would help accelerate that by
leveling the playing field and allowing the forces of economics to
dictate the next steps.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be on the
floor and join in this debate.
I must, along with my colleague from Oregon, express frustration.
This body should be about the vitality of ideas. Whatever those ideas
are, in a democracy, there ought to be the willingness to express them.
Mr. Blumenauer has detailed, at length, the lack of public hearings.
Listen, I get it. This is a messaging opportunity. This has no force of
law. All this does is say what the sensibilities are of the Congress.
Now, what does the public think of the sensibilities of the Congress?
What the public thinks is that we are all bluster and no solution and
that we never take the time to sit down and measure twice and then cut.
We just simply don't do that in our committees.
[[Page H3674]]
And so the vitality of ideas, a very noble idea expressed by a
Republican, Mr. Inglis, many sessions ago and embraced by many
conservative economists in the Reagan, in the Nixon, and in the Bush
administrations about providing certainty in terms of what we need to
do and a revenue stream that has this at its core: tax pollution--tax
pollution--at its source, and pass the savings on to the consumers.
We know the volumes that are produced. We know the science behind
this. There should be an open and clear-eyed debate on this; but not
only a debate about the pros and cons, but how about something
refreshing for the American people--a solution. It may not be the bill
that I proposed or that Bob Inglis proposed or that any number of
people have embraced, but you have major companies, including major oil
companies that will be taxed, say, no, this is a sensible way for us to
embrace this, and we are enjoined by the very people who this would tax
and by conservative economists who say, yeah, we ought to take a look
at this not only from the standpoint of the certainty that it will
provide, but the known certainty of what pollution does. And it is not
just about climate change. It is about the health of the air that we
breathe, what we are poisoning in the atmosphere for our children, what
happens with respect to the effects of asthma and what happens in terms
of the people in coal mines from black lung disease.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. These debilitating diseases scream out for
the Congress not to have a message opportunity that may or may not
advantage one side or the other in the realm of politics, but how about
a solution?
How about us doing what Mike Kelly suggested, to work together in the
committee to come up with a positive solution as to how to address
this? Pass the savings along to the consumer. Develop a revenue system
that will, in fact, allow us to rebuild our country that is crumbling
around us.
Let's take those steps and the responsibility that we all have to the
citizens to provide them with solutions, not bluster.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the Committee on Agriculture and
Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Black and Mr. Boustany on
these two concurrent resolutions that are being offered today. I
appreciate the time.
I recall in this debate here that there was a whole movie back in the
1960s called ``If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium.'' Well, if it is
tax-raising time, this must be Washington, D.C., because there are more
schemes all the time to come hit not just big, evil corporations and
big energy producers; this always ends up hitting the bottom line of
American working families and the economy.
The President's plan to raise a tax on each and every barrel of oil
produced by $10 translates out to 25 cents at the pump. We heard
earlier some of my colleagues talk about what the carbon tax would mean
to working families--much more than they can afford in this bad economy
and a time where the jobless rate is higher than is even measurable by
this administration.
This continues the antidomestically produced energy narrative of this
administration. It only hurts U.S. energy jobs and takes productive
U.S. fields, such as what we have in California, out of production that
are on the margins of being profitable. Instead of having domestically
produced energy, we are going to shift more of that burden to other
sources: foreign energy or the need for exploring more here or
offshore.
Why don't we allow the profitable energy and oilfields we have in
California and this country to continue to be productive and not hamper
them with another additional tax that will take them out of production
and rely more on foreign oil?
Now, how popular is this amongst regular people? In my own district,
we conducted a survey recently where people actually took time to send
postcards back into my office that came in at approximately a 90
percent rate in opposition to this $10-per-barrel oil tax, which they
understand means 25 cents, again, per gallon at the gas pump.
This really, really hurts all Americans. It hurts working families,
people on the lower end of the income scale, but even more so,
districts like mine that are very rural and all the other rural
districts around this country where people have to travel farther to
get to their work, to take their kids to school or to healthcare
appointments, their ball games, maybe even save up occasionally in this
economy for a travel vacation they might like to take and visit the
beauty of America.
{time} 1000
So the rural economy is even more devastated by this--the rural
economy that also would be productive with energy--with these schemes
that are being pondered.
Additionally, there are other ideas, like a tax on every mile driven,
which is being contemplated at some level here federally as well as in
my own State. Tax people for every mile they drive, tax them at the gas
pump, tax them for carbon. Again, this hits real people in America, not
just some idea of a big, evil corporation.
The answer in Washington always seems to be more government and
taxation that hurts working families. Perhaps first, these dollars
should be channeled into projects that people can use. Not more
environmental projects, but more highways, more bridges, more water
storage. Not boondoggles like we have in California, such as the high-
speed rail money pit, or the cost of frivolous environmental measures
that drive up the costs of construction projects and sometimes even
completely eliminate them.
We talk about a green economy a lot, especially on that side of the
floor over there. Why don't we focus on a green economy that is not
based on importing solar panels from China or wind machines from
Europe? How about we get out and do the forestry that is needed to be
done to thin the forests?
We are talking about the air we breathe. Each summer, for months, the
air is brown in northern California--lots of California--and lots of
the Western States from forests that are burning because they are not
managed, because they are not thinned. Instead, they are overgrown.
That would be a green economy. We could turn this into biomass if you
want to have real energy that works for the equation of renewable
energy. Channel that effort into that instead of chasing these wind
machines and solar panels.
Mr. Speaker, this is why I support H. Con. Res. 112 and H. Con. Res.
89, to send a message that this is more job-killing taxes and schemes
that will fix our economy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. LaMALFA. It is the freedom to explore for and produce low-cost
domestic energy that will help Americans and our economy to recover
once again.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Delaney), a gentleman who brings his private sector
business success to commonsense solutions in policy.
Mr. DELANEY. I want to thank my friend from Oregon for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today, my friends on the other side of the aisle are
making four points.
The first point they are making is that they don't believe in
science, because the science around climate change is unassailable.
The second point they are making is that they don't worry about
American prosperity, because from an economic perspective and national
security, the military, we should be reminded, has called climate
change a threat multiplier. This is a very significant risk to long-
term American prosperity.
The third point they are making is that they don't believe in the
power of markets to change behavior at its core. They are not
acknowledging the power of a capitalistic economic model to change
people's behavior.
And the fourth thing they are saying is that they don't trust U.S.
businesses to innovate into opportunities and around challenges.
[[Page H3675]]
These are extraordinary statements. And contrast that with our
approach. I have a piece of legislation called the Tax Pollution, Not
Profits Act, which puts in place a carbon pricing mechanism, which has
been proven to be the most effective way--more effective than a
regulatory approach--to change behavior and reverse some of the trends
and bend the curve on climate change.
We take the revenues that are generated by that bill and we use it to
offset all of the costs that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle say exist through tax credits to individuals. We set aside money
to take care of the retirement of all the coal workers in the United
States of America for the rest of their lives, and then we take the
remaining revenues and we pay for a significant and substantial cut to
business taxes.
So this piece of legislation, unlike what my colleagues are
proposing, has a double bottom line. It will reverse the negative
effects of climate change and the threat to our prosperity, and it is a
pro-growth policy because it puts money back in the economy and it
makes a bet on U.S. businesses that they can innovate and grow into
opportunities and around challenges. It is reflective of the view of
businesses in 2016, not the view of businesses from the 1950s.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 9\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Huffman), my friend, who has spent a lot of time
thinking about these environmental issues and acting on them.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to these two
resolutions.
The first one, H. Con. Res. 89, says that a carbon tax would
necessarily be detrimental to the United States economy. This is false.
Plain and simple.
The truth is that we can and we must design carbon pollution
reduction strategies to spur advancements in clean energy technology,
reduce carbon pollution, and fight climate change.
These strategies, including a carbon tax or a fee, can easily be
designed to be revenue-neutral, and we know from long experience at the
State and Federal level that fighting pollution is good for jobs and
good for the economy. California is a perfect example. If anyone has
questions about this, come to California, where you will see that
climate leadership is actually also good economics.
It doesn't seem to matter to my colleagues who have offered these
resolutions. In the year 2016, they continue to deny the reality of
climate change. Literally, our friends across the aisle are the last
policymakers on the planet Earth to hold this view. Even in other oil-
producing companies, the conservative parties in those countries
acknowledge climate change, and they have positions in their party
platforms that acknowledge we need to do something about it.
Now, the other resolution, H. Con. Res. 112, similarly demonstrates a
lack of leadership by opposing President Obama's proposal to finance
infrastructure investments. Those who don't support the President's
infrastructure financing mechanism, I think, have a responsibility to
offer their own solutions for our infrastructure crisis. This bill
doesn't do that. Instead, it simply describes a desire to support Big
Oil.
So here we have it: climate denial; the party that doesn't want to
fill vacancies on the Supreme Court; a party that doesn't want to do
its job to respond to public health crises, like Zika; a party that
prefers not to offer any solutions on our critical infrastructure
funding needs.
Is this how we are going to make America great again?
I don't think so. Let's move forward in the 21st century and not let
our energy and infrastructure policies be driven by 18th century
thinking.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose both of these bills.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, we are here debating H. Con. Res. 89,
which purports to express the sense of Congress. But really, nothing
could be further from the truth, because what it does is express the
nonsense of Congress.
We are here witnessing the latest example of climate denial brought
to the floor by the majority. The entire world agrees that climate
change is a pressing problem, except this extreme wing of the
Republican Party.
Climate change is already affecting people across the globe. As Dr.
McDermott from Washington pointed out already, the nonpartisan CBO
recently noted the increasing and enormous budgetary impact future
storms will have on our Nation, and attributed the majority of this
problem to climate change. And I am here to tell you these costs will
fall disproportionately on low-income people, low-income communities,
and people of color in our country.
Are we here on the floor debating a real solution brought forward by
the majority? Are we here having hearings?
No, we are not. We are here debating a resolution cutting off a
solution that economists from all corners of the Earth believe is the
most efficient way to address climate change.
A properly designed price on carbon can improve the overall
performance of the U.S. economy, protect competitiveness, create jobs,
promote investment, and lead us toward American energy independence.
The gentleman from Oregon is right: instead of debating this
resolution, we should be having hearings discussing ways that we can
sensibly lead the transition to renewable fuels and clean energy
sources.
Even big oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell and BP have voiced
support for carbon taxes in recent years, acknowledging that climate
change is real and that we should be doing something about it.
And I say, Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on H. Con. Res. 89, and let's
start a real debate, a sensible debate on this existential threat to
our Nation and to the globe.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I really appreciate this little window of an opportunity to talk
about a carbon tax. I hope that the day will come when we will have an
opportunity to have that discussion in a robust and thoughtful way in
our Ways and Means Committee. Heaven knows it is important.
Lots of people have opinions and ideas. I think we would benefit from
it, but I hope that we will have that discussion after we hear from a
balanced, wide-ranging group of independent experts across the spectrum
to be able to give us meaningful information about it.
I include in the Record a letter from Greg Dotson, who is the Vice
President for Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress.
Center for American Progress,
Washington, DC, June 8, 2016.
Dear Representative: Later this week, the U.S. House of
Representatives will consider H. Con. Res. 89, a resolution
that rejects the pricing of carbon pollution. On behalf of
the Center for American Progress, I am writing to urge you to
oppose this resolution. It is time for Congress to develop
sensible policies that address the serious and potentially
catastrophic impacts of climate change. Science informs us
that we need an urgent solution to this problem. Although the
current Administration has made historic progress on climate
change, it is clear that we need to do more to achieve
additional carbon pollution reductions and lead the world in
responding to this global challenge.
Top economic advisors to both Democratic and Republican
Presidents have expressed their support for putting a price
on carbon as an effective and efficient approach for reducing
pollution. Joseph Stiglitz, former Chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisors (CEA) under President Bill Clinton, has
stated, ``Economic efficiency requires that those who
generate emissions pay the cost, and the simplest way of
forcing them to do so is through a carbon tax.'' Gregory
Mankiw, former Chairman of the CEA under President George W.
Bush, has stated, ``Basic economics tells us that when you
tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to
reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon
tax.''
In fact, carbon pollution is already priced in a
significant portion of the world. In total, about 40 national
jurisdictions and more than 20 cities, states, and regions on
[[Page H3676]]
five continents--representing almost a quarter of global
greenhouse gas emissions--have placed a price on carbon. In
the United States, 25 percent of the population lives in a
jurisdiction where carbon pollution is currently priced and
where one-third of the country's economic activity takes
place. The price on carbon in California is the highest of
any state in the country at almost $13 per ton of carbon
dioxide equivalent, and yet the California economy is
projected to grow at a faster pace than the rest of the
United States over the next two years.
In recent years, momentum to expand the adoption of carbon
pricing policies has been growing. More than 400 investors
with more than $24 trillion in assets have called on
governments to establish ``stable, economically meaningful
carbon pricing.'' Already, more than 1,000 businesses apply a
price on carbon to inform their investments and operations or
plan to do so in the next two years. In addition, at the
United Nations climate talks in Paris last December,
governments, businesses, and nongovernmental organizations
announced the new Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition to
accelerate and expand the adoption of carbon pricing
worldwide.
In order to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change,
the United States needs to consider all possible tools at its
disposal, including the effective market-based mechanisms of
carbon pricing. Members of Congress need to work together on
a bipartisan basis to find ways to cut carbon pollution
rather than advance polarizing measures that take useful
tools off the table. I urge you to reject this ill-advised
resolution.
Sincerely,
Greg Dotson,
Vice President for Energy Policy,
Center for American Progress.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Let me just read a couple of items from Mr. Dotson's
letter.
He points out that ``top economic advisors to both Democratic and
Republican Presidents have expressed their support for putting a price
on carbon as an effective and efficient approach for reducing
pollution.''
He cites Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers under President George W. Bush, who says: ``Basic economics
tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So
if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global
carbon tax.''
``In fact, carbon pollution is already priced in a significant
portion of the world. In total, about 40 national jurisdictions and
more than 20 cities, states, and regions on five continents--
representing almost a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions--have
placed a price on carbon. In the United States, 25 percent of the
population lives in jurisdictions where carbon pollution is currently
priced and where one-third of the country's economic activity takes
place.''
That is in America right now. There is no acknowledgment of that in
this debate. We could have talked about that in the committee.
``The price on carbon in California,'' referenced by my friend, Mr.
Huffman, ``is the highest of any state in the country at almost $13 per
ton . . . yet the California economy is projected to grow at a faster
pace than the rest of the United States over the next two years.''
They reference the fact that ``more than 400 investors with more than
$24 trillion in assets have called on governments to establish `stable,
economically meaningful carbon pricing.' Already, more than 1,000
businesses apply a price on carbon to inform their investments and
operations or plan to do so in the next two years. In addition, at the
United Nations climate talks in Paris last December, governments,
business, nongovernmental organizations announced the new Carbon
Pricing Leadership Coalition to accelerate and expand the adoption of
carbon pricing worldwide,'' in keeping with what we heard from Prime
Minister Modi in this Chamber just 2 days ago.
{time} 1015
Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle are not involved with
our being able to discuss this in depth, being able to bring in the
experts, being able to work together to design a pricing mechanism that
avoids some of the cartoon characteristics that they establish here. We
had that chance, and we haven't done it.
But this will not be the last word. This meaningless resolution will
undoubtedly pass today. It is not going to have any impact in terms of
the long term. The long term, we are on a path to price carbon, and we
have the capacity to do so in a thoughtful and an effective way, like
the conservative leaders, whose correspondence I put into the Record
earlier, suggest.
It can be revenue neutral. It can be effective. It can help reverse
the more damaging effects of climate change, and it is a way to promote
economic opportunity and global competitiveness.
I appreciate the opportunity to express my views on this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
You know, although my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
made this a conversation about climate change--which I agree that we
can have and we should have in another venue, and that is in the
committee structure--this is about a President who decided on his own,
without coming to Congress to discuss this tax, this $10 tax on a
barrel of gasoline, because he was unable to get this carbon tax, when,
by the way, the House and the Senate were both in his own party, he
couldn't even get this passed. So this is a discussion for another day
about climate change, which we can all have, and have in a very gentle
way.
However, let me sum up what this would do if this were to pass, the
impact that this carbon tax would have on the American people:
It would drive up the cost of energy, which would most affect those
at the lower income.
It would destroy well-paying jobs in the energy industry, well-paying
jobs. Right now, when we look at what our loss of jobs are here in this
country, we have the lowest rate of jobs in 6 years.
Number three, it would directly hit working families the most, those
at the very lowest income, and especially those who are elderly.
None of these help to grow our economy and get our economy moving or
people back to work or raise their incomes. Therefore, I urge a ``yes''
vote on H. Con. Res. 89.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter from
opponents of H. Con. Res. 89:
June 7, 2016.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to
oppose H. Con. Res. 89. This resolution is the latest example
of climate action denial being advanced by extreme members of
the House of Representatives. Instead of listening to the
national security experts, faith leaders, scientists, energy
innovators, health professionals and many others who are
sounding the alarm on climate change and have implored our
nation's elected officials to support action, Rep. Scalise
and the co-sponsors of H. Con. Res. 89 appear to be looking
for another way to say ``no.'' The sponsors of the resolution
have no plan to address climate change and have opposed every
proposal to do something about the planet's gravest
environmental problem. Many of them don't even accept the
scientific fact that climate change is occurring.
H. Con. Res. 89 ignores the huge costs that our country is
already experiencing due to climate change--costs that fall
disproportionately on low-income communities and communities
of color. It is clear this resolution is meant to put the
interests of the polluting fossil fuel companies ahead of the
American public's best interest.
Instead of holding another just-for-show vote against
climate action, the U.S. House of Representatives should be
debating how it can best position our country to lead the
global transition to clean energy sources. Last year more
than half of the world's new energy came from renewable
energy sources and the landmark Paris climate agreement sends
a powerful signal to investors that this trend toward low-
carbon energy will accelerate. More and more countries and
hundreds of forward-looking companies are adopting policies
to limit carbon pollution and correct the markets failure to
capture the health and environmental costs of burning fossil
fuels.
At a time when the American taxpayer is already paying to
move vulnerable American communities to higher ground because
of climate-driven sea level rise, we have no time to waste on
empty resolutions that seek to take potential climate
solutions off the table.
Sincerely,
Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Water Action,
Earthjustice, Environment America, Environmental
Defense Action Fund, Fresh Energy, League of
Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, Sierra Club,
Southern Environmental Law Center, Union of Concerned
Scientists.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 767, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
[[Page H3677]]
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________