Providing for Consideration of H. Con. Res. Expressing the Sense of Congress That A Carbon Tax Would Be Detrimental to the United States Economy

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1001 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1001, providing for further consideration of the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 119, expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy. The rule provides for consideration of the concurrent resolution under a closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, my district in central Washington demonstrates the strength in utilizing a diverse portfolio of energy sources, while also working on the forefront of energy innovation in clean energy solutions for the future.

From the mighty Grand Coulee Dam, which is the largest hydroelectric power producer in the United States, to the Chief Joseph Dam, to the series of lower Snake and lower Columbia River dams, our region is undoubtedly blessed with low-cost, clean, reliable, and renewable hydropower.

In fact, hydropower provides our State with almost 70 percent of our energy needs. Improvements made to this technology to improve the efficiency, the safety, and the productivity of hydro demonstrate the importance of constantly improving our energy technologies.

Now, while we do rely heavily on hydropower, Washington also utilizes an array of other energy sources, both produced and imported, including oil, natural gas, coal, and a number of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

My district is also blessed with the only nuclear generating station in the Pacific Northwest, and that is the Columbia Generating Station, which is operated by Energy Northwest. Columbia produces 10 percent of the electricity generated in Washington and is a reliable, clean energy producer not dependent on weather conditions like some renewables are.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, while I am sure you are fascinated by this brief rundown of Washington State's source of energy, you may be wondering why I am speaking about such matters with the resolution before us today.

The resolution says, quite simply, that it is the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy--a simple statement. And while I could be spending my time listening to many ways a harmful tax would harm our economy and the American people, I thought I would also offer a demonstration of the many resources we have at our disposal for strengthening America's energy dominance.

Many of my colleagues, much like myself, support what we can call an ``all of the above'' energy approach. We believe government should not be picking winners and losers and should not be placing the thumb on the economic free-market scale. A carbon tax would be exactly that, a devastating hammer to what is currently an economy on the rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution offered by the majority whip, Representative Steve Scalise from the great State of Louisiana, to oppose a carbon tax carbon tax as a solution to address carbon emissions and climate change, because, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it simply is not a solution.

However, that is not to say that I oppose reducing carbon emissions. My constituents and the people of the great Pacific Northwest most certainly want a clean, healthy environment, and we should be doing everything we can to limit emissions. But a burdensome new tax that would fundamentally bring our innovative energy sector and growing economy to a standstill is not the answer.

Further, a carbon tax fails to recognize the diversity of our Nation and the different energy resources that exist in the United States. Quite frankly, the resources that exist in the State of Washington certainly may not be present in the State of North Dakota or Louisiana or Massachusetts.

We should be making clean energy more affordable, not making traditional energy sources more expensive. We should be cutting burdensome regulations that constrain the development and deployment of energy, whether it be nuclear, fossil fuels, or hydropower. These regulatory burdens should be removed and reformed to spur clean energy innovation with the power of markets, not within the hands of government bureaucrats.

Mr. Speaker, we, in central Washington, have another prize gem in our backyard. I am proud to represent the people that work at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. This premier Department of Energy lab is on the forefront of energy innovation. From enabling safe and sustainable fossil fuel exploration production, transportation, conversion, and end use, to transforming the U.S. power grid to meet economic, environmental, and security priorities for the 21st century, our national labs like PNNL delivers distinctive science and technology solutions for efficient and sustainable energy.

I am a proud member of the House Appropriations Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee where we continue to prioritize strategic energy research and development that will increase U.S. economic growth, innovation, and competitiveness.

Congress should continue to work on utilizing and empowering public- private partnerships to rapidly develop new technologies and then let the market catalyze its growth and commercial liability. There are great examples of these efforts taking place in the innovative high- tech communities of the Tri-Cities, Washington, where experts from the private sector are partnering with research and support offered by PNNL to develop grid-scale storage solutions and small modular reactor technologies, fundamentally transforming the future of nuclear power generation and battery storage technologies.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents want energy security and want a clean environment. They want economic growth, job creation, and they want to keep their low-cost electricity. The way to a cleaner, more prosperous future for our Nation's energy needs is not through more government bureaucracy. It is through empowering American innovation. That is why a carbon tax is wrong for my district in central Washington State. It is wrong for the entire State of Washington, and it is wrong for the United States of America. We need to innovate, rather than regulate the future of America's energy dominance.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side seem to be focused on closed versus open rules. We hear that time and time again. They are ignoring that the structured amendment process has routinely been used by both parties when they were in the majority.

This majority has made it a priority to make in order amendments for floor consideration, which, I might point out, a majority of those amendments have been Democratic-sponsored or cosponsored. In fact, as of July 12 of this year, Republicans in this Congress, the 115th Congress, provided for the consideration of more than 1,650 amendments on the House floor: 745 of those were Democrat amendments; 630 were Republican amendments; and 280 were, proudly, bipartisan amendments, Mr. Speaker. So by no means are we stopping the process. That doesn't even count the thousands and thousands of submissions that Members make, both Republican and Democrat, to committees for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the fact that this is a totally closed process. It is open for participation by every Member of the House who represents constituents across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate my earlier announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I will not yield for any other purpose.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, getting back to the resolution at hand about moving away from regressive taxes and top-down, Big Government regulation, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on this side of the aisle, but before I reserve my time, I just want to remind my good friends on the other side of the aisle that my colleague and good friend from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, did offer this amendment in the Appropriations Committee just last week. We did spend a great deal of time debating and discussing this idea.

As the good chairman from the Rules Committee said, and I will repeat, of the funds that were appropriated, there were $380 million appropriated for the Election Assistance Commission, which was the last of the final payment of the $3.65 billion originally authorized under the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Of these 2018 funds, there are still 39 percent of these dollars available to the States.

There is no crisis. The money is available to States that want those dollars for assistance. In fact, to date, my latest information, Mr. Speaker, there are still 19 States yet to submit an application.

So there is no crisis. There is help available. States have an opportunity to receive the resources necessary to make sure we have what all American people want, that our elections are held with the utmost honesty and integrity.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have no more speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, as tempting as that sounds, I think that the adequate 30 minutes per side is enough for both of us.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Maine, as well as the gentleman from Vermont, getting back to the debate at hand.

I just want to share a few things that I have learned from a recent poll conducted by the Institute for Energy Research. They found that a resounding 85 percent of respondents agreed that we should not make energy more expensive.

Even more tellingly than that, though, when asked whether they trusted the Federal Government to spend the money from a tax on carbon emissions wisely, only 18 percent of the respondents felt that they would, while 74 percent said that they did not feel that way.

An overwhelming 73 percent of respondents agreed that the last thing that we need is higher taxes or more bureaucracy. And, lastly, 85 percent of respondents feared that consumers will wind up paying the cost associated with a tax or regulation, exactly what we have been saying.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the American people remain profoundly skeptical of government intrusion into the free markets, and like I said before, a carbon tax would be wrong for our Nation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Will the gentleman yield?

MR. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. We are prepared to close on the Republican side.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage with my good friend and colleague from the State of Massachusetts, especially on a particularly important issue such as carbon tax.

It is my feeling and the feeling of the majority of this House that we need to move away from aggressive taxes and top-down Big Government regulation. We need to get behind innovative-centric solutions that remove bureaucratic barriers to clean, affordable, and reliable energy technology and allow for real global carbon emission reductions.

Our affordable and reliable energy supply must be the focus, along with a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. A carbon tax simply would not yield those kinds of results.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying legislation, H. Con. Res. 119, which is simply this: Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows An Amendment to H. Res. 1001 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 12) to modernize voter registration, promote access to voting for individuals with disabilities, protect the ability of individuals to exercise the right to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority members of the Committees on House Administration, the Judiciary, Science, Space and Technology, Veterans' Affairs, Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 12. The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source