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. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 119, expressing 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.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend from Massachusetts just said that we need to be addressing real concerns. Well, I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the loss of paychecks of tens of thousands of Kentuckians over the last decade, as a result of a war on fossil energy, is a major concern. Maybe not in Massachusetts, but men and women who have lost paychecks, whose lives have been devastated by overregulation, that is a real concern, Mr. Speaker.

This Congress, fortunately, in cooperation with this administration, is now leading our country back, not just toward energy independence, but energy dominance and strong economic growth, and, finally, jobs as a priority, and energy security, by rolling back onerous regulations that have harmed livelihoods and threatened our grid resiliency.

Mr. Speaker, implementing a carbon tax would not only harm these efforts, but it would result in massive job losses, lead to higher prices for families and businesses, and jeopardize our energy security.

My home State of Kentucky relies heavily on fossil fuels, as our coal resources provide our State thousands of jobs and deliver more than 83 percent of our electricity. This allows Kentuckians to enjoy some of the lowest average electricity rates in the Nation.

A carbon tax, Mr. Speaker, would be an attack on the poor. It would be an attack on people who cannot afford high electricity bills.

The implementation of a carbon tax would be detrimental not only to Kentucky's economy, but to the progress of our Nation, and the progress we are making toward energy resilience and freedom.

Instead of increasing government mandates and regulations on industries, and picking winners and losers, we should look for new, innovative ways to promote air quality and address environmental concerns. The best way to do that is not through central planning from Washington. It is to unleash free enterprises to encourage innovation and to harness the carbon cycle.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a climate denier. I am not a science denier. I am a climate thinker. I am a science thinker. Real science is not just about assessing cost only. It is about looking at benefits as well. Those supporting a carbon tax look only at costs, but not benefits, of coal and other fossil energy.

Coal provides cheap, plentiful, reliable energy over the long term. We should not want the most carbon-free energy. We should want the best energy. We should want the most reliable energy. We should want the most effective energy, energy that best facilitates human life, human flourishing, and human progress. And that is what fossil energy is.

Government mandates and central planning, like a carbon tax, add costs to private sector innovation, resulting in poor air quality and more, not less, global pollution.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the goal should not be green energy. The goal should be the advancement of the human condition.

Mr. Speaker, I support H. Con. Res. 119, and I thank Representative Scalise, our whip, for his efforts on this important issue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source