[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6478-H6486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 119, EXPRESSING THE SENSE 
OF CONGRESS THAT A CARBON TAX WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE UNITED STATES 
                                ECONOMY

  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:

                              H. Res. 1001

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution 
     (H. Con. Res. 119) expressing the sense of Congress that a 
     carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy. 
     All points of order against consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution are waived. The concurrent resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the concurrent resolution are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution 
     and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question except one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  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

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  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, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H6479]]

  

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for 
debate.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a Republican sense of 
Congress resolution proclaiming that a carbon tax would be bad for the 
U.S. economy. That is it. That is how this majority is choosing to 
spend its precious legislative time. I mean, this is a big nothing 
burger.
  Instead of considering legislation to address the administration's 
horrific child separation policy at the border or addressing the 
surging cost of prescription drugs or taking action to address gun 
safety, or finally, finally holding Russia accountable for their 
interference in the 2016 election, something the President himself has 
trouble acknowledging, we are here considering a sense of Congress 
stating that a carbon tax would be bad for America.
  You know, I don't know how many of my Republican colleagues are 
scientists, but you might want to meet some and talk to some of them. 
They are smart people. They deal in facts. They deal in evidence. They 
deal in results.
  Look, Mr. Speaker, as any third grader knows, the Earth revolves 
around the Sun, and if I drop a pen, it will fall to the table because 
of gravity. We know that smoking causes cancer, and we know that the 
Earth is not flat. We also know that climate change is real and that 97 
percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause. But 
Republicans are burying their heads in the sand with this glorified 
press release attacking a potential tool to combat it.
  But even worse than what we are doing is what the Republican majority 
is blocking from consideration. This week they blocked an amendment 
that would have provided much needed funding to the Election Assistance 
Commission to protect our elections from further Russian interference. 
This is outrageous. Just days after President Trump sided with Putin 
over our own intelligence community, Republicans blocked funding to 
protect our elections. Essentially, the President sold out America in 
Helsinki.
  So Republicans want to vote on a sense of Congress, let's consider 
the resolution reiterating Speaker Ryan's statement in response to the 
President's terrible performance in Helsinki. It acknowledges Russia's 
role in interfering in our election, and it affirms our support for the 
intelligence community. But, of course, the majority has blocked that 
resolution.
  Instead, we are now debating our 92nd closed rule this Congress. This 
is the most closed Congress in history, with zero open rules. And for 
those in the gallery, the reason why this is important is because the 
majority of bills that have come to this floor have come in a way that 
nobody can amend them. Nobody can change even a word in the bill. I 
mean, this is supposed to be the people's House, not the Russia house.
  Mr. Speaker, this, what we are doing today, is a waste of time. We 
have real issues to address--substantive issues to address. The 
American people deserve more than show votes that throw red meat to the 
oil lobby. I would say to my Republican colleagues: Do your job. Listen 
to the American people. Start addressing some of their concerns, like 
the fact that we need to protect our election system from more Russian 
interference. That is a serious matter. All of our intelligence 
agencies have said it is a serious matter, that it happened.

                              {time}  1245

  And what is your response? You zero out money in an appropriations 
bill to help protect our election system. Then you block an amendment 
that would allow us to put the money back in.
  All we want is a fair fight. If you want to vote ``no'' on it, vote 
``no'' on it. But the American people are concerned, even if you are 
not. Do your job.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
referring to occupants in the gallery and are reminded to direct their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  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).
  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.

[[Page H6480]]

  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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I tried to get the gentleman from Kentucky to yield, but 
I guess he didn't want to get into an exchange. But he said that he is 
worried about Kentucky jobs. There is nothing in this bill that will 
protect one job anywhere.
  We are not debating a carbon tax. This is a sense of Congress. This 
is a press release. This is not going to protect anybody's paycheck. 
This is ridiculous. Are you going to go home to your constituents and 
say, ``Oh, I did something for you. I passed a press release''? I mean, 
give me a break.
  The gentleman talks about the poor. If he is worried about the poor, 
then stop cutting Medicaid. If he is worried about the poor, stop 
cutting food assistance from people struggling in poverty, because that 
is what the Republican majority has been doing consistently in this 
Congress. So I don't need any lectures about that.
  To the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my colleague, let me 
again say, because I think people need to have this sink in, this is 
the most closed Congress in the history of our country: 92 closed 
rules. That means that the majority of bills--I want my Republican 
colleagues to listen to this as well--the majority of bills have come 
to the floor where nobody, even Republicans, are allowed to offer any 
amendments--nothing.
  Is this the people's House? Is this what you came to Washington to 
do, to shut out debate, to shut out good ideas?
  It is a disgrace. My hope is that the people of this country are 
watching and that they will send you a message in November.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up 
H.R. 12, the Voter Empowerment Act, introduced by my colleague, 
Representative  John Lewis, which would ensure equal access to the 
ballot, modernize the voter registration system, and take steps to 
eliminate deceptive practices that deter voters from casting their 
ballots.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), to discuss that proposal.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and to support the 
previous question.
  In a democracy, the right to vote is the most powerful nonviolent 
tool we have. Many people marched and protested for the right to vote. 
Some gave a little blood, and others lost their lives.
  Some of you have heard me say that the right to vote is precious, 
almost sacred. In my heart of hearts, I believe that we should make it 
simple and convenient for all of our citizens to be part of the 
democratic process. It should not matter whether you are Black or 
White, Latino, Asian-American, or Native American. We should be able to 
participate in the democratic process.
  On March 7, 1965, I gave a little blood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge 
for the right to vote. Before the Voting Rights Act in 1965 was passed, 
some people had to count the number of bubbles in a bar of soap or the 
number of jelly beans in a jar.
  All across America today, when people go out to attempt to vote, they 
stand in long, immovable lines. That is not right, that is not fair, 
and it is not just. We can do better, and we must do better.
  We have a moral obligation, a mission, and a mandate to empower all 
of the American people, not just a select few. We must do what is 
right, what is fair, and what is just.
  Today, our democracy is under attack, by forces within and forces 
abroad. We need to fix it and fix it now.
  For these reasons, I am proud to sponsor H.R. 12, the Voter 
Empowerment Act, with my friends and my colleagues. It is a good bill, 
a necessary bill, and a patriotic bill to protect and to preserve our 
voting system.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge each and every one of my colleagues to support 
the previous question.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins), my good friend.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my 
colleagues, as you have heard just a moment ago, in support of H. Con. 
Res. 119, which sends a strong message that a carbon tax would be 
devastating to the economy of the United States, and especially to my 
district in West Virginia.

  I am so proud to cosponsor this resolution, along with the leadership 
of Majority Whip Scalise, and thank him for his strong and powerful 
work on this important issue.
  West Virginia is a coal State, unapologetic. Our coal miners and coal 
communities suffered greatly under the prior administration of Barack 
Obama and that administration's anti-coal policies.
  But now, thanks to President Trump, West Virginia has hope for a 
better future. West Virginia is the second largest producer of coal in 
the country. Between January and March of this year, mines in southern 
West Virginia produced more than 12 million short tons of coal, a 
signal that the President's policies are having a positive impact on 
the people of my State.
  When miners are put to work in West Virginia, the State's economy 
flourishes. Check this out: West Virginia's 2017 gross domestic product 
growth rate was one of the highest rates in the entire country. What a 
game changer for West Virginia. It shows that the President's economic 
policies are working for everyday Americans.
  A carbon tax would undo many of these good economic results and would 
increase expenses for everyday Americans, including increasing power 
rates and the cost of groceries. A carbon tax is a bad idea.
  Wages could fall as much as 8.5 percent for American workers, and our 
manufacturers could see production halted by as much as 15 percent, 
stifling our economic recovery. Simply put, a carbon tax is an attack 
on the welfare of all Americans, especially on seniors and families on 
fixed incomes.
  A vote in support of this rule and resolution is a vote supporting 
the hardworking men and women of West Virginia and America who make 
this country great.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this week, Republicans have brought to the floor a bill 
that zeros out funding for a grant program to the Election Assistance 
Commission to help States and local governments secure our elections.
  Now, a news flash, Mr. Speaker--I hope my Republican friends are 
listening--Russia was just caught meddling in our election. In fact, 
meddling is not strong enough. They attacked our country.
  When we discovered this, Mr. Quigley offered an amendment to restore 
this critical funding, and it was blocked in the Rules Committee. My 
friends in the Rules Committee won't even let us vote on it.
  People may ask why, why can't we have a vote on putting money back in 
to secure our election system. Well, the reason why, I think, is 
because we might win and that Democrats--and there are probably a lot 
of Republicans--would join with us in supporting the amendment.

                              {time}  1300

  They denied it because it makes sense. It is common sense.
  We should be funding this program and, instead, we are debating a 
press release that my friends on the other side are so passionate 
about, that will do nothing for anybody. It is just a press release. We 
are not debating a carbon tax. We are debating a press release. We 
ought to be protecting our election system.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) 
for

[[Page H6481]]

the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, standing under the revered E Pluribus Unum, I 
ardently plea for unanimous consent to amend the rules to make in order 
the Quigley amendment to restore desperately needed funds to prevent 
the pernicious and nefarious Russian interference in our elections.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). The Chair would 
advise that all time has been yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  Does the gentleman from Washington yield for purposes of this 
unanimous consent request?
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington does not 
yield; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Raskin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to make in order the 
Quigley amendment to restore funds indispensable to prevent Russian 
interference in American elections in 2018.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Washington has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CICILLINE. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Rhode Island will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, does the vote on the matter pending 
before us include restoration of funding to protect our elections from 
Russian interference?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the pending 
measure.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the pending 
measure.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am now proud to yield to the gentleman 
from my home State of Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy for the purpose of a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule 
and make in order the Quigley amendment to restore funds to prevent 
Russia from, again, interfering in our elections.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Washington has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Ms. Gabbard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule 
to make in order the Quigley amendment to restore funds to help our 
States secure their vulnerable election systems.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Washington has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to 
make in order the Quigley amendment to restore funds to prevent Russian 
interference in our elections.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Washington has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to 
make in order the Quigley amendment to restore funds to prevent Russian 
interference in our elections.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Washington has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Veasey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule in 
order that the Quigley amendment restore funds to prevent Russian 
interference in our elections.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Washington has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule 
to make in order the Quigley amendment to prevent the Russians from 
interfering in American elections.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Washington has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gonzalez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend 
the rule to make in order the Quigley amendment to restore funds to 
prevent Russian interference in our elections.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Washington has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Welch) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to 
make in order the Quigley amendment to restore funds to prevent Russian 
interference in our elections.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Washington has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Cicilline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule 
in order to make the Quigley amendment in order to restore urgently 
needed funds to prevent Russian interference in our upcoming elections.
  And I would just ask the gentleman from Washington if he would yield 
for purposes of considering this unanimous consent amendment so that we 
can, together, Democrats and Republicans, work together to protect the 
integrity of our elections. Restore funding so we can look our voters 
in the face and say, ``Your vote counted. We are going to protect it 
from Russian interference.''
  I am imploring my friend on the other side of the aisle to permit 
this unanimous consent question so we can restore this urgent funding. 
This shouldn't be a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is an American 
issue. This is the integrity of our democracy.
  Will the gentleman yield to a unanimous consent request?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Washington----
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleague be permitted to 
answer the question. I have asked him will he yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be in order.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I have asked the gentleman from Washington: Will he 
yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not in order and is no 
longer recognized.
  Mr. CICILLINE. * * *.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Washington has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  As the Chair advised on January 15, 2014, and March 26, 2014, even 
though a unanimous consent request is not entertained, embellishments 
accompanying such requests constitute debate and will become an 
imposition on the time of the Member who yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the hell else we can do 
over

[[Page H6482]]

here. I mean, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Washington 
only wants to yield for debate only, but how about yielding so that we 
can act?
  I mean, I think the American people want us to do something. I mean, 
what happened in the 2016 election, what Russia did to our country, was 
a serious matter. And I am going to tell you, it is not just Democrats 
that are concerned. I know Republicans and Independents are concerned 
as well.
  This is an American issue, and when our Nation is attacked, we come 
together. We put partisanship aside. We act. We just don't talk. We 
act.
  We have been trying, using every procedural means we know. We have 
been appealing in the Rules Committee. We have been trying to bring 
these issues to the floor, and we get shut down every single time. This 
is unbelievable.
  I mean, history is going to look back on the inaction of this 
Congress with great shame.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the facts of the case tend to find 
themselves to the surface at some point or another, and, in fact, there 
was a vigorous debate at the Rules Committee last night, yesterday. 
There was a vigorous debate, and I do recognize that my Democratic 
colleagues simply lost the vote. It did not stop the debate, however, 
because an amendment was brought forward that each member of the 
Democratic Party voted for it at the Rules Committee.
  And under testimony that was given last night, it would be a counter 
play for the Democratic Party. When Republicans said we should not have 
a carbon tax, my Democratic colleagues came to the Rules Committee and 
argued they would be for a bill that would raise hundreds of billions 
of dollars in taxes that would be placed on energy in this country, 
hundreds of billions of dollars, at minimum. That is what they stood 
for.
  So the policy behind what we are talking about here is, we said we 
believe that America should have a robust energy policy that is not 
taxed, that harms the American people. We should have a system of not 
just economics, but of energy policy that would also include green 
energy; would also include nuclear energy, which I consider pretty 
clean since it is a non-emitting source; that we would also allow the 
marketplace to have natural gas and something which they vigorously 
want to defend, and that is, home heating fuel, which is diesel fuel to 
be dumped by the billions of gallons in the Northeast.
  Mr. Speaker, what we talked about yesterday also included the 
discussion about the Election Commission. In fiscal year 2018, funding 
provided $380 million across the country for the Election Assistance 
Commission, which was a final payment that was made in 2002, of $3.65 
billion, because, you see, way back in 2002, just before that, there 
was an election that many people thought the outcome was wrong; so 
Republicans agreed we would put $3.65 billion available for States to 
buy what they would choose for brand new voting machines to ensure the 
assistance was given from the Federal Government to States for the 
security of the voting public.
  Of the 2018 funds this year, only weeks before the election, 39 
percent of those dollars are still available. Thirty-nine percent has 
not even been asked for this year, and 19 States have yet to even ask 
for any application to be able to go in and update or change their 
system.
  The House Administration and the Homeland Security Committees are 
working diligently with law enforcement to find out what, if any, 
difficulty there was in the balloting process.
  I have no doubt--none, no doubt--that there was interference in this 
last campaign election by outside forces, maybe even Russians. And it 
might not have just been Russians. It might have been a number of 
people.
  Special Counsel Robert Mueller said we were duped; the American 
people were duped. We did not recognize the interference.
  But I don't know whether it was at the ballot box or getting people 
to the ballot box, their will or desire to vote, or how they would 
vote. I am not sure we know that yet. But the special counsel is going 
to let us know that.
  So, as we were talking about funding for 2018, 2019, Mr. Speaker, at 
this time there is no request for even 40 percent of the funds that we 
have. It is at the end of $3.65 billion. The States have had this fund 
available.
  So we think that the facts of the case, as we give them today, should 
be enough evidence, not only to you, Mr. Speaker, but for the American 
people that there is not at this time a request necessary for more 
money.

                              {time}  1315

  I will cease my discussion now, Mr. Speaker, but will tell you that 
the resolution that is directly in front of us says we should not tax 
the middle class of this country, we should not tax further disabled 
people or the community of elderly people who have enjoyed the price of 
fuel going down because of what the Republican policy initiatives have 
enabled us to achieve.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, sometimes I can't believe what is said on this House 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the distinguished chair of the 
Rules Committee, if he is so sure of his arguments on this issue, then 
bring the amendment to the floor, present your case, and let the 
majority of this House determine what we should do. I guarantee you the 
majority of this House would vote to provide the money to the States 
and to local communities, because they are hearing from their 
constituencies about how concerned they are about potential Russian 
meddling in our election.
  They are doubly concerned after the President's horrific performance 
in Helsinki where he seemed to go out of his way to cozy up to Putin. 
So people are concerned.
  So the vote that we lost in the Rules Committee was not to enact this 
amendment, the Quigley amendment, to put the money back in so that the 
grants could go to States and local communities, the vote we lost--
people need to understand this: the vote we lost was to have the 
ability to debate it and vote on it.
  This is the United States House of Representatives. That is what we 
are supposed to do. Stop the obstructionism, especially on an issue 
like this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask Mr. McGovern a question so we 
can get some clarity on where we are right now.
  As I understand it, one position is that the State election systems 
are fine, they don't need any infusion of Federal help. And then there 
is another position, which you are advancing, which is that we need to 
put in hundreds of millions of dollars in order to secure the elections 
to prevent a repeat of the cyber sabotage and the cyber invasion that 
we experienced in 2016. And yet we are not getting a chance to vote on 
that. Is that right?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RASKIN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. That is correct, we cannot vote on that.
  Mr. RASKIN. Well, why can we not vote on that? The American people 
are demanding that we defend our elections against foreign attack. Why 
can we not even vote on that in the House of Representatives?
  Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, when I offered 
the Quigley amendment, which would have allowed us to have this vote, 
all the Republicans voted ``no.''
  Mr. RASKIN. I just saw dozens of our colleagues ask unanimous consent 
that they reconsider that position so the American people can have a 
hearing on whether or not we are going to have real elections in 2018. 
Have you been able to discuss it with the other side about whether they 
would be willing to entertain another unanimous consent motion so we 
can actually have a debate on this?
  Mr. McGOVERN. We can try one more time. We have been trying and

[[Page H6483]]

trying and trying, but they are insistent on blocking this amendment 
from even being considered.
  Mr. RASKIN. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this, but 
this is a point of national emergency right now. This is our democracy, 
this is our Constitution that is at stake. And as I understand it, 
every State of the Union wants election infusion funding coming from 
the Federal Government and needs it in order to fortify against cyber 
attack.
  In my State, in Maryland, we just were able to determine that a 
private vendor that is one of the lead contractors in our election 
system has Russian ties and is being controlled by someone very close 
to Vladimir Putin. So we need an infusion of Federal help to fortify 
our election.
  So please continue and do whatever you can with the Republicans just 
to allow us a vote on the floor.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. 
What this House needs is a little democracy.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

  Mr. Speaker, all these excuses. As the gentleman knows, hundreds of 
Members of this House don't sit on the Appropriations Committee. Should 
they not have a voice on this issue?
  And, by the way, since that vote in the Appropriations Committee, a 
lot has changed in this country. If you are reading the news, 12 
Russians were indicted for meddling in our election. The President of 
the United States went over to Helsinki and made nice with Vladimir 
Putin. That shocked not only the citizens of the United States, but the 
entire world.
  So I disagree with the gentleman when he says there is no crisis. 
There is a crisis and we need to address it. We need to do everything 
we can to prepare ourselves for another attack. All we are asking for 
is a vote.
  If the gentleman doesn't think there is a crisis, doesn't want to 
vote for this, he can vote ``no,'' that is his right, but for the 
hundreds of Members of this Chamber who would like a debate and a vote 
on this, give them that opportunity.
  The Rules Committee ought not to be a place where democracy goes to 
die, especially on issues like this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lowenthal).
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I want 
to return to the fact that it is a scientific fact that climate change 
is occurring and that human activity is the primary cause of that 
change.
  Its destructive physical and economic effects are already being felt 
throughout the United States and, in fact, throughout the world. This 
resolution simply denies that reality.
  Entire American towns are beginning to be displaced due to sea level 
rise, and desperate attempts to save these communities through costly 
infrastructure projects are costing American taxpayers millions of 
dollars a year.
  In my home State of California, wildfire seasons are becoming longer. 
Actually, it is not a season. It is now year-round. They are stronger, 
they are more destructive, and they are costing, thereto, American 
taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
  Yet despite these rising costs, rather than working on a solution 
towards this pressing problem, House Republicans have put forth a 
resolution that denies that climate change is a costly problem and that 
we are passing it on to our kids and our grandkids. They put forth a 
resolution that attempts to shut the door on any conversation about 
policies that can both promote economic growth and at the same time 
curb harmful pollution and protect the planet.
  Mr. Speaker, let's deal with reality rather than denying reality. The 
Safe Climate Caucus members have been calling for real conversations on 
the causes, impacts, and solutions of climate change for years.
  Instead of proposing ways to reduce carbon pollution or allowing 
constructive congressional dialogue on how to avoid costly climate 
damages, the Republican majority continues to refuse to even have this 
conversation about how to address one of the greatest threats to human 
survival on this planet. We have not seen any serious solutions put 
forth by Republicans in Congress in nearly a decade.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a waste of time, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Americans across our country are very much suffering the negative 
effects of climate change. They expect Congress to respond with a plan. 
We may not agree on all the details, but our constituents deserve a 
serious debate.
  This resolution is not serious. It reflects an extreme rightwing 
climate inaction plan: embrace denial, sow disinformation, and cash 
checks from polluters.
  This resolution reveals the hypocrisy of the Republican energy 
strategy.
  They claim to care about innovation, but support budget cuts to 
critical research programs like ARPA-E and EERE.
  They claim to care about economic growth, but ignore the millions of 
jobs that have been created in the clean energy universe and fail to 
see the opportunities to add millions more.
  They claim to care about low-income Americans, but cheer the rollback 
of environmental standards that would protect them.
  They claim to support free markets, but fail to speak out when 
President Trump suggests unprecedented market interventions to bail out 
uncompetitive coal plants at great expense to Americans, especially 
manufacturers.
  Make no mistake: greenhouse gases are serious pollutants that will 
have long-term consequences. America needs a climate plan, not a love 
letter to polluters.
  Members that support this resolution are sending a clear message to 
the American people that they care more about polluters' interests than 
the people we are asked to serve.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided 
resolution.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today we speak about the most 
egregious acts from this administration, one after another after 
another, but I will not forget about our children.
  I rise today to tell my fellow Members of Congress that I am appalled 
over reports of the mistreatment and abuse towards children at the 
Shiloh Residential Treatment Center.
  The facility is under contract with the U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services and located just south of Houston, Texas. The Shiloh 
facility is owned and operated by the same entity that formerly 
operated Daystar Treatment Center in Manvel, Texas.

[[Page H6484]]

  You may remember this place. Daystar was closed because of the way in 
which they physically restrained children that led to the death of 
three teenagers. In most cases, children were hog-tied.
  Now, instead of being hog-tied, they are drugging children into 
submission. One child was prescribed ten different shots and pills, 
including the antipsychotic drug Latuda, Geodon, and olanzapine. We are 
giving them Parkinson's medications, we are giving them pain 
medications, antidepressants, and cognizant enhancers. This is a 
disgrace.
  Federal District Judge Laughrey recently explained: ``Psychotropic 
drugs are powerful medications that directly affect the central nervous 
system. They are particularly potent when administered to children. . . 
. They are more vulnerable to psychosis, seizures, irreversible 
movement disorders, suicidal thoughts, and aggression. . . . ''
  This is a disgrace and this is un-American and it must stop now.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a carbon tax. It is invisible, it is relentless, 
it is punitive, and it is entirely avoidable.
  According to NOAA, in 2017, the U.S. had 16 disasters with damage 
exceeding a billion dollars each. With three devastating hurricanes, 
extreme wildfires, hail, flooding, tornados, and drought, the United 
States tallied a record high bill for weather-related disasters, $306 
billion. That is a carbon tax.
  Western wildfires, fanned by hot, dry conditions, racked up $18 
billion in damage, triple the previous U.S. wildfire record. That is a 
carbon tax.
  The U.S. has sustained, between 1980 and 2017, we had an average 
billion-dollar events of six a year; in the last 5 years, it has been 
close to 12.

                              {time}  1330

  In the coming decade, economic losses from extreme weather, combined 
with the health cost of air pollution, spiral upwards to at least $360 
billion every single year. That is a carbon tax.
  The second thing I want to say is this: A confident nation faces its 
challenges. It doesn't deny them. If we acknowledge that we have a 
climate crisis, we can create jobs by solving it. Energy efficiency, 
renewable energy, storage batteries, all of these things that are being 
embraced by Vermont entrepreneurs are resulting in the biggest growth 
of jobs in our State, which is in the renewable energy sector. So we 
can make a better economy by acknowledging our problem.
  And, third, I want to speak to Mr. Jenkins because he represents some 
of the hardest working, best people in this country, and those are the 
West Virginia coal miners. They kept the lights on in Vermont for us 
for a century, and I thank them. And it is why I worked with Mr. 
McKinley to make certain those coal miners got their healthcare 
benefits and why I am continuing to fight so that those coal miners get 
their pensions.
  But we can help them with a carbon tax that returns all of whatever 
it is they contributed back to them and their communities so they can 
have a future.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I make an inquiry of the gentleman 
from Washington?
  I know the gentleman said he has no further speakers, but we are 
being inundated with speakers on this side. Does the gentleman want to 
maybe send a few minutes our way?
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  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. McGOVERN. I thought I would ask.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. 
Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and 
to the underlying bill. But as my colleague from Massachusetts said, 
this isn't really a bill. It is a press release. It is a love note to 
the fossil fuel industry.
  We should have an open rule on the floor for this resolution so that 
we can talk about the real issues around climate change, so that we can 
talk about the effects of a changing growing season and the effects of 
extreme weather on our farms and fishing communities, so that we can 
talk about sea level rise and ocean acidification on our coastal 
communities, so that we can talk about the impacts of changing climates 
on health and healthcare costs.
  We are seeing these problems in my home State and in the Gulf of 
Maine, in particular, where the water is warming at a rate 90 percent 
faster than the rest of the world. We don't know what impact that will 
have on the lobsters, groundfish, and future fisheries, but the 
fishermen are worried, and we are already starting to see the changes.
  We are putting our heads in the sand if we just do nothing, if we 
keep supporting fossil fuels, and if we keep preventing even a simple 
debate on the costs of carbon and possible climate solutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and oppose this 
bill.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, a debate on the topic of climate change 
on the floor of the House is long overdue. Those who care about the 
future of our planet and our species have waited for Congress to begin 
working on negotiating some sort of sensible solution to climate change 
for years. A topic of this gravity deserves our attention.
  Now, Republicans have been in charge of Congress for the 5\1/2\ years 
that I have been here, but have they brought a new idea to the floor 
today? Have they proposed a solution? Are they taking the threat 
seriously? Do they believe in science? Today's debate makes it clear 
that the answer is no.
  Instead of a proposed solution, we are wasting our time with an empty 
partisan resolution, a misleading and false resolution that doesn't do 
anything more than thoughtlessly swat away an idea that deserves 
careful consideration.
  Solutions do exist. We can design market-based climate policies that 
would greatly reduce greenhouse gases. If we design the policy right, 
it can help low-income and middle class citizens, while creating jobs 
and spurring innovation.
  I believe it is important for us to focus our attention on things 
like immigration, on the economy, on healthcare.

  Well, climate change is impacting immigration. In 2017, The New York 
Times reported that 10 percent of Mexicans age 15 to 65 could 
eventually try to emigrate north as a result of rising temperatures.
  Climate change is impacting the economy. Hurricanes Irma and Harvey 
cost this Nation $280 billion.
  That is just the beginning. Climate change is impacting our health. 
This includes extreme weather events, vector-borne diseases, chronic 
conditions, and things like that.

[[Page H6485]]

  Today, instead of posing a sensible solution, instead of seeking a 
productive discussion on the options at our disposal, Republicans have 
decided utterly to reject a possible market-based solution without any 
evidence or justification, without any hearings or real debate, without 
regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and this resolution, and I encourage 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule that would permit a 
House vote on the most shortsighted, antimarket sense of the House on a 
carbon tax.
  For decades, economists across the ideological spectrum have argued 
that carbon price is the most efficient way to discourage the use of 
fossil fuels and the best way to encourage the growth of energy 
efficiency measures, alternative energy sources, and market decisions 
on everything from housing to transportation.
  Indeed, this is the preferred solution to climate change by those on 
the right, by the Republican public intellectuals and think tanks, 
which is why it is baffling that a Republican congressional leadership 
would want to attack their preferred policy option.
  It is axiomatic economics that we tax the things we want to 
discourage. The scientific evidence continues to accumulate in 
prodigious amounts that carbon pollution is profoundly changing the 
climate of our Earth. The costs of inaction are staggering, into the 
billions.
  Carbon pricing is the most market-oriented policy action we can take 
to combat this. Designed well, the economic dividend will put much more 
money into the hands of the American people and will grow our economy 
more quickly.
  History will look back on this House resolution with sadness and 
regret. Once again, we will have chosen short-term profits of the 
fossil fuel titans over the long-term survival and prosperity of 
mankind on our planet.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Delaney).
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, the scientists have spoken. Climate change 
is happening, human behavior is contributing to it, and it is a long-
term threat to our prosperity and our national security.
  But climate change is also the ultimate, very large problem that 
moves very slowly, which makes it particularly poorly matched with the 
political system we have today. And what causes me great concern is 
when wrongheaded resolutions which I oppose--and I oppose the rule 
associated with it--are put to the floor of this House to discourage 
this House from proposing the most effective and most successful way of 
dealing with climate change, which is to put a price on carbon.
  We can take all of those revenues and return them to the American 
people. We can wall them off from government spending. There is a whole 
variety of approaches we could take to ensure that the revenues 
generated from taxing carbon pollution are returned to the American 
people.
  As a Congress, wouldn't we rather tax pollution than tax hardworking 
Americans? That is what a carbon tax will do. I encourage my colleagues 
to reject this resolution and allow us to have the real debate the 
American people deserve on this floor.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution encapsulates what is 
wrong with the Republican management of this Congress. It is a cartoon 
that doesn't deal with the underlying issues. They conjure up an 
imaginary carbon tax when there are real proposals to price carbon 
before committees in Congress now.
  Instead of engaging in fantasy, we could have a debate about real 
legislation that would satisfy their answers and be able to deal with 
what our responsibilities are in the future.
  What we are talking about today encapsulates the failure of 
Republican leadership in this Congress. They can't deal with 
immigration. They can't deal meaningfully with climate change and 
carbon pollution. Instead, we are dealing with empty gestures.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly suggest we reject this rule and get down to 
business.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I just double-check and inquire of the 
gentleman whether he has any additional speakers over there?
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Will the gentleman yield?
  MR. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. We are prepared to close on the Republican side.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that I have 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that we are here debating a press 
release. We are not debating a carbon tax. We are debating a press 
release.
  I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you are 
against the carbon tax, go back to your office and issue a press 
release and send it to your local newspapers, because that is what this 
is.
  We are wasting precious time on this floor when there are other 
issues. We have children being separated from their parents at the 
border. We have prescription drug prices that are skyrocketing. We need 
an infrastructure bill. We have gun violence in this country that is 
out of control, where there are massacres occurring on a regular basis. 
And what are we doing? We are doing a press release. This is shameful.
  And on the issue of Russian interference in our elections, we ought 
to be having a debate on an amendment to provide more funds to States 
and local authorities to protect their election systems.
  The gentleman from Washington says: Oh, there is still 39 percent of 
the money left. They don't need it. I think his information is old, 
because we are told that every single State has put in a request for 
additional assistance. Why don't we debate that and vote on it and do 
the right thing?
  I am looking at a New York Times article that just appeared today 
where the President of the United States, Donald Trump, says Russia is 
no longer targeting the U.S. I mean, is this for real? What is wrong 
with him?
  It is time for Congress to stage an intervention with him and tell 
him to listen to his intelligence agencies who contradict what he has 
just said this morning. This is urgent.
  We can't count on the President of the United States to do the right 
thing. Congress needs to stand up. Congress needs to be counted.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  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

[[Page H6486]]

     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. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. 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.

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.

                              {time}  1345

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

                          ____________________