[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 50 (Thursday, March 21, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H1309-H1314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT A CARBON TAX WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL 
                      TO THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY

  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
1085, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 86) expressing 
the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the 
United States economy, and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1085, the 
concurrent resolution is considered read.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 86

       Whereas a carbon tax is a Federal tax on carbon released 
     from fossil fuels;
       Whereas a carbon tax will increase energy prices, including 
     the price of gasoline, electricity, natural gas, and home 
     heating oil;
       Whereas a carbon tax will mean that families and consumers 
     will pay more for essentials like food, gasoline, and 
     electricity;
       Whereas a carbon tax will fall hardest on the poor, the 
     elderly, and those on fixed incomes;
       Whereas a carbon tax will lead to more jobs and businesses 
     moving overseas;
       Whereas a carbon tax will lead to less economic growth;
       Whereas American families will be harmed the most from a 
     carbon tax;
       Whereas, according to the Energy Information 
     Administration, the share of energy consumption during 2023 
     in the United States that was derived from fossil fuels was 
     approximately 80 percent;
       Whereas a carbon tax will increase the cost of every good 
     manufactured in the United States;
       Whereas a carbon tax will impose disproportionate burdens 
     on certain industries, jobs, States, and geographic regions 
     and would further restrict the global competitiveness of the 
     United States;
       Whereas American ingenuity has led to innovations in energy 
     exploration and development and has increased production of 
     domestic energy resources on private and State-owned land 
     which has created significant job growth and private capital 
     investment;
       Whereas the energy policy of the United States should 
     encourage continued private sector innovation and development 
     and not increase the existing tax burden on manufacturers;
       Whereas the production of American energy resources 
     increases the ability of the United States to maintain a 
     competitive advantage in today's global economy;
       Whereas a carbon tax would reduce America's global 
     competitiveness and would encourage development abroad in 
     countries that do not impose this exorbitant tax burden; and
       Whereas the Congress and the President should focus on pro-
     growth solutions that encourage increased development of 
     domestic resources: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that a carbon 
     tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses, 
     and is not in the best interest of the United States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable 
for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways

[[Page H1310]]

and Means or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, working families are struggling to make ends meet, to 
afford to put food on their table, clothes on their backs, and gasoline 
in their cars, all because of the inflation crisis that has been fueled 
by Washington Democrats' runaway spending and President Biden's failed 
economic policies.
  The last thing America needs is a carbon tax. It would raise energy 
prices and harm American competitiveness. It would put American workers 
and job creators at a disadvantage to appease the President's wealthy 
environmentalist donors and their far-left agenda.
  The Biden administration is already giving billion-dollar 
corporations and big banks massive tax breaks under the so-called 
Inflation Reduction Act. This is the same administration that is 
celebrating spending over a trillion dollars and counting on special 
interest green energy handouts, including electric vehicle tax credits 
for wealthy households, while funneling American tax dollars to 
countries like China.
  For working families, a carbon tax would not only raise prices at the 
pump but also at the grocery store. It would raise the cost of doing 
business on Main Street at a time when America's small businesses are 
struggling under the highest interest rates in over two decades. Those 
who can least afford to pay more, like seniors on fixed incomes, would 
suffer the most.
  Today, Congress can send a loud and clear message to the American 
people and the Biden administration that says: Not on our watch. Not on 
our watch will there be an anti-American family, anti-American worker, 
pro-China carbon tax, while trillions of those same hardworking 
Americans' tax dollars go to line the pockets of the wealthy and well 
connected.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am listening to my dear friend from Missouri, and it 
is an example of sort of being disconnected from reality.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, for instance, refuse to 
accept a compromise that is on a bipartisan basis that would make a 
difference in dealing with immigration. I think that will rank along 
with Speaker Boehner's refusal to accept the bipartisan Senate 
compromise for immigration and not even allow it to come to the floor 
to be voted on.
  Today, we are having an exercise in futility. There is no carbon tax 
pending, and Republicans have nothing here that would be significant. 
It is a nonbinding resolution, and as I say, it is disconnected from 
the reality.
  The reality, for example, for those of us on the West Coast, is that 
the climate crisis is real. It becomes more apparent and urgent every 
day. This winter was the warmest winter on record in the United States, 
5.4 degrees higher. 2023 was the world's warmest year on record. In 
fact, the 10 warmest years have occurred in the last 10 years.
  What is the response from our Republican friends? They make stuff up 
and move away from solutions that would make a difference.
  Every independent analyst, Republican and Democrat alike, agrees that 
the way that we are going to deal with carbon pollution, 
notwithstanding some of the climate deniers on the other side of the 
aisle, is a carbon tax. The rest of the world is moving in this 
direction.
  Having a price on carbon is the most efficient, cost-effective, and 
fair way to deal with this crisis. However, the majority is having none 
of it. As I say, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
making stuff up in the face of things that have real consequences.
  There are people dying in the Pacific Northwest from the 
unprecedented heat wave. We have had unprecedented events in 
California, extreme weather events. The costs of those extreme weather 
events dwarf the costs that my Republican colleagues are dreaming up in 
fantasy.
  In 2022, the climate disasters totaled more than $165 billion. The 
United States needs to double down on our investments in the Inflation 
Reduction Act to halt the worst and most expensive consequences of the 
climate crisis.
  Instead, my Republican colleagues put forth a nonbinding resolution 
that doubles as a love letter to Big Oil. It paints a grim picture of 
the impacts of a tax on carbon, a picture that is, in fact, completely 
divorced from reality. Areas that have placed taxes on carbon have 
fostered innovation, and it is a preferred approach for most of the 
thoughtful business community.
  The global cost of climate change is estimated to be over $3 trillion 
per year by 2050. Further investments in oil and gas without accounting 
for the true costs of carbon will overly drag down our economy and 
increase this sum.
  Moreover, this resolution purports to show concern about the costs to 
American families associated with a carbon tax, particularly the poor, 
the elderly, and those on fixed incomes. Those are the people who are 
going to pay the cost most dramatically from continued efforts to allow 
the climate crisis to move forward.
  Every single Republican voted against the Inflation Reduction Act, a 
bill that has already saved households hundreds of dollars in energy 
costs, not to mention hundreds more on prescription drugs. The 
Republicans all voted against it, yet the majority's constituents are 
benefiting. My colleagues didn't care about reducing the costs back 
then, and we shouldn't fall victim to Republicans' attempts to pretend 
about reducing costs now.
  The longer we fail to deal meaningfully with the climate crisis, the 
defining question of the 21st century, our answer will determine the 
lives of our children and grandchildren.

                              {time}  1230

  We have made already significant strides in lowering costs and 
investing in clean energy. This love letter to Big Oil is absolutely 
the wrong step, and it is one they will be unable to justify to their 
children and grandchildren. It is a wrongheaded, inaccurate approach, 
one that is sadly not where we should be now, not where they should be, 
and it defies reality.
  I strongly urge--even though it is nonbinding and doesn't make a 
difference, we will go ahead and play this out--but I urge its 
rejection.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to President 
Biden's planned carbon tax, which would, quite frankly, kill the 
American economy.
  Now, nobody can dispute that America produces cleaner energy than our 
adversaries or allies. That is not a dispute.
  When I was Secretary of the Interior, we were producing 8.3 million 
barrels a day and declining.
  After 2 years of President Trump, we were the world's largest 
exporter of energy and, by the way, we reduced emissions. We had the 
record in safety because nobody produces energy more cost-effective and 
cleaner than we do.
  So the answer is not to punish American producers or Americans for 
having a resource and using it wisely, but there are three absolutes on 
the carbon tax: first, the environment.
  It is undisputed that it is better to produce energy in this country 
under reasonable regulation than watch it get produced overseas with no 
regulation. That is not in dispute.
  Second: manufacturing and economy. My good friend from Oregon reminds 
us that perhaps hundreds have saved on their electric bills. I can tell 
you that millions have not.
  When I was Secretary, gas was about $2 a gallon. I think it is a 
little over

[[Page H1311]]

that. If anyone looked at their last year's heating bills or around the 
kitchen table at Thanksgiving, I think we have paid a price.
  On our economy: What drives manufacturing? First of all, it is labor. 
We are not going to be competitive paying wages that China or India can 
pay. Second of all, it is resources. The cost of steel is about the 
same in South Korea as it is in Pittsburgh.
  Where America has the edge are two things: innovation and energy. 
Today's energy is going to be different than tomorrow's energy needs. 
Data storage, robotics, all require more and more energy, and that 
energy is not going to come from pixie dust and hope.
  National security is an area I am familiar with. I have lost a lot of 
friends and colleagues overseas, primarily fighting for other people's 
oil and energy. I think it is immoral to send our troops overseas to 
fight for a resource we have here.
  A carbon tax makes America less competitive. It forces families to 
pay more for groceries that they are already struggling with. It also 
forces our allies, who now depend on low-cost American energy to do a 
transition, to where? EV in Chinaland?
  Does anyone realize that 85 percent of the critical minerals that 
power EV--such as lithium and nickel--and the processing are all in 
China?
  The very idea that we would make ourselves less competitive and give 
the advantage to our adversaries--and who is going to produce energy if 
it is not us? Who will? I can make a list: perhaps Iran, perhaps 
Venezuela, perhaps Russia.
  We either produce the energy in this country under our regulations 
for the environment, for national security to run our country, or we 
cede. We retreat.
  This carbon tax is a terrible idea.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am listening to my dear friend from 
Montana and the University of Oregon, and I couldn't disagree more.
  We have the opportunity to produce clean energy in the United States. 
The cost today of alternatives with wind and solar is cheaper than 
fossil fuel, and this is where the world is going. Having our 
technological edge to produce cleaner energy and not be susceptible to 
those international forces is absolutely essential.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, today, I stand in strong opposition to this 
foolish and useless resolution while my Republican colleagues rush to 
support Big Oil instead of America's seniors, children, and workers.
  It is not rocket science. We all know that carbon-intensive 
industries harm our planet. It is also clear from air and water 
pollution, to floods, to wildfires that lower income communities face 
the greatest risks tied to climate change.
  Families of color often have access to the fewest resources to 
prepare for or recover from extreme weather events and other 
environmental emergencies. So much for looking out for the costs of the 
little people.
  As a mom and as a legislator, I will never stop fighting to help 
ensure that our Nation's children inherit a greener and healthier 
world.
  My Republican colleagues want to choke this planet in carbon dioxide.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this 
GOP effort to prop up oil and gas companies who, by the way, make 
record profits year after year while American families continue to 
struggle.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. 
Con. Res. 86, which would express the sense of Congress that a carbon 
tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.
  This resolution makes it clear to the American people that we oppose 
policies that would drive up energy prices for families, businesses, 
and undermine U.S. energy security, and make Americans more dependent 
upon China.
  A carbon tax would be a gift to our adversaries. It would restrict 
U.S. energy producers' ability to provide reliable energy to the grid 
and reduce exports to our allies. It further supports China's goal of 
dominating and profiting from Biden's green technologies and radical 
climate agenda.
  In addition, the cost of this tax would be borne by the most 
vulnerable: the poor, the elderly, and those who are living on a fixed 
income.
  Americans are already suffering from the effects of Bidenflation and 
the President's attack on U.S. energy. If this carbon tax took effect, 
Americans would feel the pain when they buy their gas for their cars, 
turn on their lights, or adjust the thermostats in their home.
  The burden of a carbon tax would increase the price of everyday 
necessities, consumer goods, and anything that requires energy 
resources in their production, manufacturing, transport, or 
distribution.
  This resolution makes it clear that we oppose policies that would 
drive up energy prices, damage the United States' economy, reduce the 
American GDP, and hurt American jobs.
  I will fight tooth and nail to make sure that our God-given natural 
resources remain the foundation of America's energy economy, while 
promoting innovation and an all-of-the-above energy policy.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this love letter 
to Big Oil.
  The Republicans' myopic focus on extreme policies has undermined our 
ability to enact broader tax reforms to support Americans.
  Rather than pushing this propaganda against green energy and climate 
change, Congress should be focused on advancing tax policies that 
support children, families, workers, and businesses.
  Above all, Congress should be focused on restoring the 2021 child tax 
credit that halved child poverty in 1 year. The progress we made in 
2021 shows that we can slash child poverty when we have the political 
will to do so.
  Congress should restore the 2021 child and dependent care tax credit 
that gave up to $8,000 to working parents for childcare costs for two 
or more children, which was much better than the current maximum of 
2,100.
  Congress should restore the 2021 earned income tax credit that helped 
foster and homeless youth, as well as single workers from being taxed 
into poverty.
  Congress should remove income as a barrier to adoption, restore the 
above-the-line charitable deduction to help nonitemizers and support 
the amazing charities that support our communities, enact critical 
improvements to the low-income housing tax credit, and help cost-
burdened renters by implementing a refundable renter's tax credit.
  Workers, families, and businesses need our help. Today's resolution 
represents hollow extremist talking points and lacks the political will 
to cut child poverty in half. Every day we delay action, poverty 
poisons the futures of millions of children.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I just have to note that my dear friend 
from West Virginia, a woman I deeply respect, would have reliance on 
fossil fuel for energy security.
  In her own State of West Virginia, the cheapest sources of power are 
renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which we incentivized 
with our policies and all of our Republican friends voted against.
  The market has made a judgment that these are the most cost-effective 
ways to generate energy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 86, 
a disingenuous resolution that wastes our time while it misleadingly 
attacks a carbon tax.
  Continuing with yesterday's shameless giveaways to Big Oil and Gas, 
Republicans' next energy week bill asserts that a carbon tax would 
raise food prices and the cost of every good in America, while ignoring 
the cost of climate change to communities hit hardest by flooding, 
wildfires, and other climate catastrophes, all while oil and gas 
executives maximize their profits. This is unacceptable.
  The reality is that when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and

[[Page H1312]]

White House, we did not pursue a carbon tax. Instead, we passed 
historic tax credits that are incentivizing and fueling the clean 
energy transition.
  The Inflation Reduction Act was the largest climate investment in 
history and through it, we are powering economic growth, creating 
hundreds of thousands of jobs, and advancing environmental justice.

                              {time}  1245

  While asserting a carbon tax would raise food prices, Republican 
leadership refuses to disavow their own Members' proposals, like the 
FairTax Act, which would actually be a 30 percent sales tax on 
everything, including groceries, medical bills, tuition, insurance, 
and, yes, fossil fuel products like gas that you buy at the pump, 
hurting the very same people they are purporting to help.
  Ultimately, this resolution represents yet another attempt by House 
Republicans to favor corporate interests, including Big Oil, over job-
creating clean energy policies and climate solutions that benefit 
American families and our planet. They are trying to distract from the 
reality that the U.S. is hitting record levels of domestic energy 
production under President Biden.
  We welcome Republican support in facilitating the transition to clean 
energy. Instead, they remain focused on doing everything they can do to 
undo this progress. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Republicans used to believe in market 
forces. They were part of a bipartisan effort to reduce acid rain, 
which had a cap, which in the short term increased price, but drove 
innovation. We solved that problem for a fraction of the alternative 
costs.
  Denying the ability to price carbon is turning our back on 
innovation, turning our back on what the rest of the world is doing, 
and providing more opportunities for Americans.
  I hope at some point they will rediscover the power of market forces 
and join us in efforts with the legislation that we have passed to 
harness those market forces and promote American innovation, as we are 
seeing now under the Inflation Reduction Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Carbajal).
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out just how out of 
step this House Republican majority is; not just with the American 
people, but with their own party.
  This resolution denounces the free market, capitalist solution to 
lower carbon pollution that originally was introduced by Republicans. 
That is right, Republicans, the GOP.
  Are we not for a free market anymore?
  I am old enough to remember when it was Republicans in this Chamber 
who came to the well, as I am doing today, to speak in support of 
carbon pricing, but now it is a radical idea.
  Even today, there are bipartisan bills, including some that I am co-
leading, that would put a price on carbon, protect our markets from 
pollution-intensive foreign goods, and put money back in the American 
people's pockets.
  Americans support putting a price on carbon by a 3-1 margin, with 
twice as many Republicans supporting the idea than opposing it.
  I urge you, Mr. Speaker, do not just take my word for it. Take the 
word of the vast majority of the American people. Hundreds of mayors 
from all over America, every single former Federal Reserve Chair, 28 
Nobel Prize-winning economists, Republican Members of Congress, and 
veterans of the Ronald Reagan administration. If that is not enough, 
take Elon Musk's word for it: Carbon pricing is ``the obvious move'' 
and worthy of consideration, not condemnation.
  What has happened to the Republican Party? I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate the gentleman's tutorial on 
economics and history, and I could not agree with him more. I hope at 
some point our Republican colleagues rediscover the power of the 
market, like what would happen with the carbon tax, which we are seeing 
around the world moving in this direction.
  There are two basic approaches we can take. One is to use market 
forces, like putting a price on carbon, or simply being the handmaiden 
to Big Oil.
  I can't think of a more dramatic example of the fallacy of that 
approach than to look at the home State of our Speaker that has done 
the bidding of Big Oil for decades.
  What is the result of that impact in Louisiana? It hasn't been a 
hotbed of economic development. To the contrary. But there are other 
consequences that are serious.
  A recent study by the Environmental Integrity Project found that 
Louisiana is home to eight of the worst polluting refineries in the 
entire country. Their refineries make up half of the top 10 ammonia 
polluters. A region on the banks of the Mississippi River between New 
Orleans and Baton Rouge is known as Cancer Alley because of the 
negative consequences of the petroleum industry and the refusal of the 
State to provide regulation.

  The untrammeled growth of the fossil fuel industry has resulted in 
cutting up the landscape, the loss of about one football field a day 
into the Gulf of Mexico. Parts of the State are sinking. Their low 
birth rates and preterm births are double the national average, and 
respiratory ailments are nearly triple. The vast majority of the 
residents who suffer are Black.
  Look at New Orleans and the consequences of Louisiana to what happens 
when you just do the bidding of the oil companies. It is not better 
environmentally and it is not better economically. It has been, pure 
and simply, a disaster.
  An alternative is to use market forces, to tax what we would like 
least of. A carbon tax would raise prices for some, but it would foster 
innovation. That is exactly what we did with our approach to acid rain. 
It sparked innovation and cured that problem much more cost effectively 
than other solutions.
  It is time for the Republican Party to rediscover market forces and 
be able to do what the vast majority of economic experts--Republican 
and Democrat, conservative and liberal--agree is the best solution. 
Rather than lots of rules and regulations, use market forces. We have 
done that with our Inflation Reduction Act, sparking innovation and 
investment, even though all my Republican friends voted against it.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two approaches: Give in to Big Oil, abandon 
your principles for environmental protection, market forces for 
innovation, or look at alternatives that will help us deal with the 
crisis of our age, the climate crisis.
  I appreciate the opportunity to share those observations with you, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, 
and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  I would hope at a time when it looks like we are starting to see some 
adjustment on the other side of the aisle, we are starting to see some 
of the people in the governing wing of the Republican Party moving 
forward to try and rein in some of their more extreme elements, we may 
actually deal with what we should have done months ago, which is fund 
the government according to the agreement that 149 Republicans signed 
onto last spring.
  I have had a little fun tweaking some of my Republican friends, but 
we know how this is ending up, and that is exactly what is happening. 
Some people in the more extreme elements of the Republican Party may 
feel a little pinched, but this is what we agreed to.
  This is an approach that solves the problem. It is not a good 
solution. It is not the solution we would have done, but it is the only 
one that the extreme elements of the Republican Party will allow us to 
move forward with. It is better than having a collapse of the economy, 
our agreements moving forward.
  I hope that we will have the governing wing of the Republican Party 
moving forward and that this might be a path forward because there are 
so many things that we ought to be able to agree upon: innovation; 
protecting the American public; lowering costs,

[[Page H1313]]

like we did with our legislation for prescription drugs, like we are 
doing now in terms of energy innovation.
  The record is pretty strong. We have the lowest rate of inflation of 
any developed economy in the world. We have watched the inflation rate, 
which my Republican friends are focused on, and I think it is okay, but 
they deny reality. No major country has done a better job of 
controlling inflation.
  It was 6 percent in 2021. It dropped to 5.6 percent, and this last 
year, 3.1 percent. Those are the facts; the best performance in the 
world. All the railing, yelling, and finger pointing don't change those 
facts.
  We have opportunities that we could do on a bipartisan basis to help 
solve the immigration problem that was worked out on a bipartisan basis 
in the other Chamber. In fact, we were moving toward an agreement that 
would put more investment in border security, beefing up opportunities 
that could have bipartisan support that would help the public. It is 
not our solution. We would like to do better, but we thought it was the 
best we could do with our Republican allies.
  As it was moving toward enactment, Donald Trump went gunnysack: We 
can't do that. It would not help my reelection campaign. Afterwards, we 
have seen Republicans retreat from a bipartisan solution on 
immigration.
  I think this will be as shameful as my friend John Boehner's refusal 
to allow us to vote on a bipartisan solution from the Senate on 
immigration back in 2012. We can do better than that if the other side 
of the aisle will listen to some of the governing wing of the 
Republican Party, not be held hostage by the most extreme, and work 
with us on these elements that are already bearing fruit.
  What will not bear fruit is tilting at an imaginary windmill of a 
carbon tax, misrelating what it is, and denying the reality of the 
costs for failure to deal with the climate crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge rejection of this proposal. It is not 
going anywhere. It is not real. It is a sad distraction and an 
opportunity to misrepresent what we could do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time to close.
  Mr. Speaker, America's working families have paid more than their 
fair share for the failed economic policies of Washington Democrats and 
the Biden administration. Prices are up over 18 percent since President 
Biden took office.
  Why is that?
  I say it is because the President is willing to sacrifice the well-
being of working families to reward the wealthy and well connected.
  In the very first month of President Biden's term, inflation was 1.4 
percent, and then Washington Democrats, under one-party control of the 
White House, the House, and the Senate, added more than $10 trillion of 
new spending, which fueled the inflation fire that has now caused 
inflation to rise almost 20 percent since Joe Biden took the oath of 
office.
  That is why every American is paying more to put food on their table, 
clothes on their backs, and gasoline in their car, because of the 
failed economic policies of the Washington Democrats and the Biden 
administration.
  This, a carbon tax, would simply add insult to that injury for so 
many Americans. It would raise the cost of raising a family and the 
cost of doing business. It would dull America's competitive edge and 
penalize American job creators and innovators against China.
  The American people, Mr. Speaker, cannot afford, nor should they be 
forced to pay for, a liberal agenda that imposes a carbon tax on 
American families and American small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in opposition 
to the proposed legislation, H. Con. Res. 86--Expressing the sense of 
Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States 
economy.
  Days away from a shutdown of their own making, my Republicans 
colleagues are focused on their political agenda over the needs of the 
American people.
  It is important for the American people to know and to be reminded 
that Democrats made significant strides in unlocking the clean energy 
economy with the Inflation Reduction Act, while House Republicans are 
only concerned with undoing that progress and blocking those 
achievements.
  Year after year, research comes out supporting what we have known for 
years:
  Climate change is one of the biggest threats to the survival of our 
nation and the welfare of our people.
  Scientists have warned us about the devasting reality that would 
follow if we failed to act as a nation.
  It is clear that some of us have heeded these warnings with great 
concern while others have taken them lightly.
  My colleagues on the other side insist that a carbon tax would harm 
American families, specifically the poor, the elderly, and those on 
fixed incomes.
  But what do they have to say about the impacts of emissions on those 
groups?
  We know that the effects of climate change are not equally 
distributed, instead affecting the elderly, low-income communities, and 
people of color the most.
  Climate change is no longer a distant threat--we are seeing the 
direct impacts of our inaction right now across the United States.
  In countless neighborhoods throughout Texas and across the country we 
are already seeing the devastating effects of climate change on our 
coasts, our forests, our farmland, and through extreme weather patterns 
and ever-more destructive natural disasters.
  Just last summer, Texas had the second hottest summer on record, with 
Texans being asked to conserve power as the state grid struggled to 
keep up with the demand for air conditioning due to scorching 
temperatures.
  Heat is deadly, often killing more people each year than hurricanes, 
tornadoes, or floods.
  Last summer, at least 97 Texans died from heat-related illness, 
according to the Texas Department of State Health Services.
  These record-breaking temperatures put the lives and livelihoods of 
Texans at risk.
  As a representative from Houston, where millions of jobs are created 
from the fossil fuel industry, I understand the concerns my colleagues 
on the other side have about the economy.
  However, I assure them that the economy will not be spared if we fail 
to act.
  According to a 2023 study, the summer heat cost the Texas economy 
about $24 billion dollars.
  Texas is twice as vulnerable to heat-related economic slowdowns than 
the rest of the country.
  Studies using data from the last two decades found that for every 
degree of higher temperature in summer, Texas sees a slowdown of 0.4 
percent in economic growth.
  Extreme heat hurts businesses as customers stay home rather than 
going out to shop or dine.
  According to the Texas Tribune, industries whose workers are 
frequently outdoors--including the oil and gas industry and 
construction--I saw a notable slowdown in employment growth related to 
the heat, as construction projects became delayed.
  When considering national disasters, the monetary burden grows even 
larger.
  According to the Houston Chronicle, Texas has felt some of the most 
severe consequences of climate change than any U.S. state or territory, 
costing the state at least $401 billion in hazard-related damage.
  The cost estimates account for more than a dozen factors, including 
physical damage to buildings and infrastructure, decreases in earnings 
from interruptions to businesses and loss of agricultural assets.
  Climate change is expected to impede the rate of economic growth of 
our Nation over this century.
  To do absolutely nothing to counter climate change would have damning 
consequences for my district, my state, and the Nation.
  Tackling climate change is looking out for wellbeing of our most 
vulnerable communities and our economy.
  To do this, we must reduce carbon emissions in our atmosphere.
  Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas contributing to this 
most recent climate change.
  When large amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the air from 
man-made sources, our planet grows warmer, affecting the quality of 
every species on the planet, including us.
  A carbon tax price provides the economic incentive for the quickest 
and most comprehensive emission reductions across the entire economy.
  Democrats have continuously fought for climate solutions that would 
put our nation in the path of energy security, lower energy costs for 
Americans, and thousands of clean jobs.
  It is time my Republicans colleagues put political games aside and 
join Democrats in supporting environmentally conscious solutions.

[[Page H1314]]

  The time calls for fresh determination and urgency.
  We must work side-by-side with the American people to create a future 
of sustainability for our children and grandchildren, and prosperity 
and opportunity for our families and communities, for generations to 
come.

                              {time}  1300

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1085, the previous question is ordered 
on the concurrent resolution.
  The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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 are postponed.

                          ____________________