[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8094-8103]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4775, OZONE STANDARDS 
IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2016; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 
    89, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT A CARBON TAX WOULD BE 
      DETRIMENTAL TO THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY; AND PROVIDING FOR 
  CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 112, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS 
    OPPOSING THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED $10 TAX ON EVERY BARREL OF OIL

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

[[Page 8095]]

call up House Resolution 767 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 767

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4775) to facilitate efficient State 
     implementation of ground-level ozone standards, 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 and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments 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. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House any concurrent resolution 
     specified in section 3 of this resolution. All points of 
     order against consideration of each such concurrent 
     resolution are waived. Each such concurrent resolution shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in each such concurrent resolution are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on each such 
     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.
       Sec. 3.  The concurrent resolutions referred to in section 
     2 of this resolution are as follows:
       (1) The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 89) expressing 
     the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental 
     to the United States economy.
       (2) The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 112) expressing 
     the sense of Congress opposing the President's proposed $10 
     tax on every barrel of oil.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my 
good friend, 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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 767 provides a structured 
rule for the consideration of three bills. You heard the reading Clerk 
read them, but I will read them again: H.R. 4775, Ozone Standards 
Implementation Act; H. Con. Res. 89, Expressing the Sense of Congress 
that a Carbon Tax would be Detrimental to the United States Economy; 
and, H. Con. Res. 112, Expressing the Sense of Congress Opposing the 
President's Proposed $10 Tax on Every Barrel of Oil.
  It is a little unusual that we put three different bills into a 
single rule, but today has been a bit of an unusual day. It has been a 
bit of an unusual day.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to you, standing not 3 feet from where 
you were just 30 minutes ago was the leader of a democracy of 1.3 
billion people. That is 1.3 billion people. In the midst of his 
remarks, he commented on the reputation of the United States Congress, 
known far and wide around the globe. He commented on the comity--that 
is with an i-t-y, not an e-d-y--that we have been known for. And I hope 
this rule will be no exception, Mr. Speaker.
  We are not going to agree on all the underlying bills, all the 
underlying policy, but what we can agree on is that this Congress needs 
to have its voice heard.
  If we approve this rule today--and I recommend to all of my 
colleagues that we do approve this rule today--we will be able to get 
to the underlying debate. And in the underlying debate, Mr. Speaker, we 
have two senses of Congress and a piece of legislation--a piece of 
legislation for which amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee 
to say that we have ideas as Members of this body about how we can 
improve the underlying bill.
  One of them came from my friend from Colorado. I don't particularly 
support the idea that he is pushing, but I support his right to have 
the idea heard on the floor of the House. This rule makes the Polis 
amendment in order, along with every other non-duplicative amendment 
submitted. I add non-duplicative because virtually the same amendment 
was submitted by two different Members and we decided to debate it once 
instead of twice, as is customary.
  We are going to disagree, but we are going to have the debate over 
those disagreements. And my great hope is that the work product we 
produce will be a stronger work product because we have had an 
opportunity to discuss it here on the floor. My great hope is that, 
after we have had a chance to perfect that work product, we will send 
it on to the Senate with a big bipartisan vote from both parties.
  Mr. Speaker, it is easy to talk about taxes as if they don't come 
from someone. When we have an academic conversation about tax policy, 
what is the saying? Don't tax him, don't tax me, tax the man behind 
that tree.
  I have heard folks say: You are always trying to put the tax burden 
on somebody else.
  What the President proposed was $10 a barrel on every barrel of oil 
consumed in America. Now, historically, we have had some low oil prices 
of late. That $10 a barrel tax would have amounted to almost a 50 
percent increase in the cost of a barrel of oil. Today it is going to 
be closer to a 20 percent increase in the cost of a barrel of oil.
  This tax is implemented in the name of what, Mr. Speaker?
  It is in the name of improving our failing infrastructure because we 
do need to improve our failing infrastructure. We do have to have a 
conversation about user fees in this country and how it is we are going 
to build the best logistical system the world has ever known. But that 
is not what this tax would do.
  This is a tax that is part of what has been a long campaign against 
the consumption of any fossil fuels whatsoever. My great frustration, 
Mr. Speaker, is that if your goal is to reduce the consumption of 
fossil fuels, we have a lot of ways we can do that. We have a lot of 
very reasonable ways we can do that. And this proposal makes no effort 
to try to find the most efficient way to make that happen. It is a 
blanket $10 a barrel tax across the board.
  If you are using that barrel of oil to generate space-age plastics, 
Mr. Speaker, and you are going to use those space-age plastics to build 
the most efficient photovoltaic cell array the world has ever known, 
such as is going on in my district, there is no special dispensation 
for you.
  In the name of trying to create a better environment, we will tax the 
very

[[Page 8096]]

inputs that we are encouraging folks to use in order to create a better 
environment. It doesn't make sense, Mr. Speaker. Folks use it as a 
bumper sticker line. It is a campaign year.
  That uncertainty has an impact on job creation. That uncertainty has 
an impact on where these funds around the globe go toward trying to 
create a better environment for us all--where those funds land, where 
those jobs are created.
  Today this House takes a stand. Today this House makes it clear, even 
in an election year, even in the uncertainty of a political season, 
even in this time of conflict on policy, that we can provide some 
certainty out there for not just the American business community, but 
the international business community.
  There is one thing I think that we can all agree on, Mr. Speaker, and 
that is that America has the most productive workforce the world has 
ever known. If given a level playing field, there is not a single 
opportunity that we cannot succeed in. If we commit ourselves to it, we 
can succeed.
  Lower-paying jobs, cheaper finger jobs are always going to go 
overseas, but the higher-paying jobs, the higher-skilled jobs, the 
energy-intensive jobs, those jobs can come here.
  We have an extraordinary disadvantage in this country in that we have 
the single worst Tax Code in the world. The single worst. If you want 
to create a business, if you want to grow jobs, don't come to America 
is the tag line that the Tax Code suggests. No one punishes 
productivity more than we do in America. It is nonsense. We can 
absolutely fix it. The Speaker and our Ways and Means Committee 
chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), are working incredibly 
hard to make that happen.
  If we go from worst to first in terms of a competitive job code, we 
bring more jobs to this country. But number two, we have an advantage 
that no one else does, in that we have gone from being worried during 
the Carter administration that we would exhaust all of our energy 
reserves to having the largest energy reserves this Nation has ever 
known.
  If you need to produce a product that requires high energy inputs, I 
challenge you to find a better location than the United States of 
America. Those jobs are coming here. We have an advantage for job 
creators here. And what the President would do in his budget is to give 
that advantage away. And for what? Not because of a coherent energy 
policy designed to make the world a better place, make the environment 
a better environment, and the health of American citizens better, but 
in the name of pursuing an agenda of no fossil fuels--nowhere, nohow.
  I am glad we are down here having this conversation today, Mr. 
Speaker. It is one that needs to be had. It is one that has been a long 
time coming. But we have an opportunity today to speak with one voice 
in this body. I hope we will speak with one voice in supporting this 
rule and speak with one voice in supporting the three underlying 
resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am excited to be here today discussing one of these 
resolutions because it really means something when Members of Congress 
see fit--and I am talking about the Scalise resolution, H. Con. Res. 
89, to say they are against a particular proposal.
  Quite honestly, this is the first sign of momentum for a carbon tax 
cut. And you will hear me referring to it as a ``carbon tax cut'' 
because that is essentially what it is. It is using carbon tax revenues 
to cut taxes for the American people, for American businesses.

                              {time}  1300

  You don't see these kinds of resolutions if a concept and an idea 
don't have momentum.
  For instance, my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) has long been 
a champion of a proposal to create a sales tax here in our country, a 
national sales tax of 19, 20 percent, and he is welcome to talk about 
it on his own time.
  But I think the gentleman will acknowledge, much to his frustration, 
that that idea does not seem to be advancing. Now, were it advancing, 
you might very well see this kind of resolution saying it is not a good 
idea.
  There are other Republicans who have ideas to raise the tax rates on 
low-income Americans or Americans that are so low-income they might not 
even be paying a Federal income tax yet. Again, those ideas don't 
generally have momentum, so you don't see this kind of resolution 
coming forward to try to stop it.
  This is the first real chance that Congress has had to vote, in many 
ways, on the merits of a carbon tax cut and, frankly, I think that this 
discussion moves us forward, because I fully expect there will be 
bipartisan opposition to this resolution which opposes, presumably, any 
and all carbon tax cuts, because what you see is, the oil and gas lobby 
or, I should say, some segments of the oil and gas lobby because, quite 
frankly, many international oil and gas industry players actually 
support a carbon tax cut as a way of their, therefore, getting around 
this kind of regulatory uncertainty that they see, like, in fact, the 
ozone rules itself. They see it better to simply establish a price for 
carbon.
  But let's say, of course, there are also those in the oil and gas 
industry who oppose this carbon tax cut. They are trying to run a 
strategy to try to lock people down, where, yes, maybe, 10, 5, 12 
Republicans will vote for this, whatever it is; but they want to be 
able to go back and remind Republicans who vote for this now that, in 
the future, when we are actually moving forward with the carbon tax cut 
proposal, that they were already on the Record in a particular way.
  That means they are worried, frankly. That is what that means in 
``inside the Beltway speak'' and ``Washington speak.''
  What does that mean? It means I am excited because I ran for 
Congress, in part, to pass a carbon tax cut.
  Let me quote some of the many prominent conservatives that have 
caused this resolution to come forward in many ways because of the 
great momentum that a carbon tax cut has.
  Former Secretary of State George Shultz, Secretary of State under 
Ronald Reagan, said: ``A carbon tax, starting small and escalating to a 
significant level on a legislated schedule, would do the trick. I would 
make it revenue-neutral, returning all net funds generated to 
taxpayers.''
  That is Former Secretary of State George Shultz.
  Jerry Taylor, of the Niskanen Center, formerly of the Cato Institute, 
said: ``A carbon tax at the levels presently discussed in Washington 
would not unduly burden the economy, and that's particularly true once 
we consider the non-climate environmental benefits that would follow 
from the tax as well as the benefits of any offsetting tax cuts.''
  So in a moment you will hear me talk about the many benefits of this 
carbon tax cut concept. But what Jerry Taylor at the Niskanen Center 
has rightfully latched onto is the economic stimulus that can actually 
be generated by lowering taxes on American businesses, on job creators, 
on middle-income families as an offset from the carbon tax cut.
  Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute says: ``The obvious lesson from 
economics is to increase fossil fuel prices enough through taxation to 
account for these effects.''
  My good friend, and a personal mentor of mine, Dr. Arthur Laffer, 
former Economic Adviser under President Reagan, said: ``When you add 
the national security concerns, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels 
becomes a no-brainer.'' And he has spoken out in support of, again, a 
carbon tax cut.
  Greg Mankiw, the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers 
to George Bush, said: ``I will tell the American people that a higher 
tax on gasoline is better at encouraging conservation than are heavy-
handed CAFE regulations,'' and ``I will advocate a carbon tax as the 
best way to control global warming.''

[[Page 8097]]

  So, I mean, what you have is many conservatives, free market 
conservatives lining up to say yes, let's cut taxes and let's do it by 
passing a carbon tax cut.
  I have a letter, Mr. Speaker, that I will include in the Record, 
signed by Niskanen Center, Republican, American Enterprise Institute, R 
Street Institute, Evangelical Environmental Network in opposition to 
this resolution by Representative Scalise.
  In fact, in part, this letter says, which will be available in the 
Record: ``The least burdensome, most straightforward, and most market-
friendly means of addressing climate change is to price the risks 
imposed by greenhouse gas emissions via a tax.''

                                                     June 7, 2016.
       Dear Representative, Later this week Congress will take up 
     a resolution sponsored by Congressman Scalise (R-LA1) that 
     expresses the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be 
     detrimental to the economy of the United States. We are 
     concerned that this resolution offers a limited perspective 
     on carbon taxes and is blind to the potential benefits of 
     market-based climate policy. Legislation that incorporates a 
     carbon tax could include regulatory and tax reforms to make 
     the United States economy more competitive, innovative, and 
     robust, benefiting both present and future generations.
       We recognize that a carbon tax, like any tax, will impose 
     economic costs. But climate change is also imposing economic 
     costs. This resolution falls short by recognizing the cost of 
     action without considering the cost of staying on our present 
     policy course. There are, of course, uncertainties about the 
     future cost of climate change and, likewise, the cost 
     associated with a carbon tax (much would depend on program 
     design and the pace and nature of technological progress). 
     The need for action, however, is clear. A recent survey of 
     economists who publish in leading peer-reviewed journals on 
     these matters found that 93% believe that a meaningful policy 
     response to climate change is warranted.
       The least burdensome, most straightforward, and most 
     market-friendly means of addressing climate change is to 
     price the risks imposed by greenhouse gas emissions via a 
     tax. This would harness price signals, rather than 
     regulations, to guide market response. That is why carbon 
     pricing has the support of free market economists, a majority 
     of the global business community, and a large number of the 
     largest multinational private oil and gas companies in the 
     world (the corporate entities among the most directly 
     affected by climate policy).
       In reaching a conclusion, this resolution neglects the fact 
     that the United States already has a multiplicity of carbon 
     taxes. They are imposed, however, via dozens of federal and 
     state regulations, are invisible to consumers, unevenly 
     imposed across industrial sectors, unnecessarily costly, and 
     growing in size and scope. The policy choice is not if we 
     should price carbon emissions, but how.
       Unfortunately, this resolution also fails to differentiate 
     between proposals that would impose carbon taxes on top of 
     existing regulations (chiefly the Obama Administration's 
     Clean Power Plan), and proposals that would impose carbon 
     taxes in place of those existing regulations. Conservatives 
     and free market advocates should embrace the latter, 
     regardless of how they view climate risks.
       An economy-wide carbon tax that replaces existing 
     regulatory interventions could reduce the cost of climate 
     policy and deregulate the economy. It could also provide 
     revenue to support pro-growth tax reform, including corporate 
     income or payroll tax cuts, which could dramatically reduce 
     overall costs on the economy. Revenues could be applied to 
     compensate those who suffer the most from higher energy 
     costs; the poor, the elderly, and individuals and families 
     living on fixed incomes.
       Unfortunately, none of those options are presently 
     available because Members of Congress have neglected 
     opportunities to design and debate market-friendly climate 
     policies in legislation. Instead, they have yielded authority 
     in climate policy design to the Executive Branch. By 
     discouraging a long-overdue discussion about sensible carbon 
     pricing, this resolution frustrates the development of better 
     policy.
           Sincerely,
     Jerry Taylor,
       President, Niskanen Center.
     Bob Inglis,
       Executive Director, RepublicEn.
     Aparna Mathur,
       Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
     Eli Lehrer,
       President, R Street Institute.
     The Rev. Mitchell C. Hescox,
       President, Evangelical Environmental Network.
     Alan Viard,
       Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.

  Mr. POLIS. Now, let's take this back to basic economics. The Supreme 
Court itself said something along the lines of: power to tax is the 
power to destroy. That is from an early 19th century case.
  Whatever you tax, you discourage in the economy. Whatever you don't 
tax, you encourage. So you have to look at what you tax. It's 
important.
  Let's take an example from corporations. We tax corporate profits. 
Well, it turns out corporate profits are a good thing. We tax 
individual income. It turns out individual income is a good thing.
  As policymakers, we shouldn't seek to discourage activities that help 
people earn money or help companies earn money. That is exactly what we 
want people to do. That is exactly what we want companies to do on 
behalf of their shareholders and their stakeholders.
  So why not take something that, regardless of what with you think of 
the science on climate change--and that is not central to this debate 
on a carbon tax cut. So let's even start from the assumption that you 
don't want to look at the science. You have turned a blind eye to it. 
You are not at all concerned about climate change, or you don't think 
it is manmade.
  Let's look, again, at carbon usage in our economy and the negative 
consequences of it: pollution, meaning air quality--not talking climate 
change--air quality, increased asthma, increased cancer risk.
  National security's concerns, reliant on importing it from foreign 
companies or, if we are producing it domestically, utilizing a resource 
that we know will return out in the very best-case scenario. It is a 
perishable resource. Once you take it out of the ground, it is gone.
  So if we can find a way to say, you know what? We would rather have 
income. We would rather have Americans of all income levels--whether 
they are earning $1 million a year, or $20,000 a year--we would rather 
have them keep more of their hard-earned money. We would rather have 
companies keep more of their money to re-invest in job growth here, 
rather than seek elaborate tax shelters overseas, or inversions, where 
they move their corporate headquarters overseas because we have one of 
the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
  The carbon tax cut presents us with the opportunity for pro-growth 
economic policies that make America more competitive and lets Americans 
keep more of their hard-earned money.
  That is what excites so many free-market conservatives and centrists 
about the concept of a free market, of a carbon tax cut. That is, 
frankly, why this great momentum, coming from the American Enterprise 
Institute, from Cato, from R Street, all of this intellectual fuel, 
intellectual fuel for a carbon tax cut, that is why, sensing that, some 
Republicans--in this case, Mr. Scalise and his cosponsors--have brought 
forward as a response. This kind of thing only happens in Washington 
when an idea has momentum.
  I couldn't have been more excited when I was back home recently to 
talk to several of my constituents who are strongly dedicated to a 
bipartisan solution on climate change.
  Former Representative Bob Inglis actually came to my district and met 
with me, met with some of the leadership folks in my district about how 
we can do something to act on climate from a Republican perspective. 
And I am firmly of the belief that any action has to be bipartisan.
  Just looking at the way our country is balanced, I mean, certainly, 
if the Democrats were in a position where we had 60 seats in the 
Senate, where we had a majority in the House, where we had the 
President, I would certainly encourage us to move forward and implement 
some kind of carbon tax cut; but, frankly, that is an unlikely 
scenario.
  It is more likely that a solution will require support from both 
sides of the aisle, so we should be talking about what it takes to get 
that kind of support. That is the discussion, the national discussion 
that former Representative Bob Inglis has dedicated

[[Page 8098]]

himself to and, frankly, it is the fear of that kind of discussion that 
has led this body to consider this resolution in opposition to a carbon 
tax cut that, I am proud to say, will likely have bipartisan 
opposition; meaning, there will be some Republicans, I hope, I expect, 
who will stand up and say, wait a minute. I don't want to go on the 
Record saying I am against any kind of carbon tax cut because of the 
great benefit that this can provide to the American economy.
  As articulated by Arthur Laffer, as articulated by R Street 
Institute, we have the ability, with some of that revenue, to really 
pass pro-growth tax cuts to offset the income and the revenue from the 
carbon tax cut.
  So the carbon tax cut can reduce the income tax for American families 
of all income levels. I should point out, Democrats care that lower-
income families spend a higher percentage of their income on fuel, on 
energy. And we have, in many of the bipartisan concept proposals that 
are out there, tracked tax credits and tax refunds for low-income 
families to make sure that anything we do is not regressive. I think 
that is a given.
  I think, obviously, in the same week that the Speaker of the House 
put out his agenda on poverty, I am sure that he, and many others--the 
last thing they would want to do is burden lower-income Americans with 
any kind of additional tax. So of course we want to take care of that.
  The good news is that is only a small fraction of the windfall from 
the carbon tax cut. It also provides sufficient revenue to reduce 
corporate tax rates currently among the highest in the world. Of all 
the developed countries, a 35 percent corporate tax rate. The developed 
country average is somewhere in the 18, 20 percent range last time I 
checked. It is one of the reasons that corporations are moving 
overseas. They are not repatriating their earnings because they don't 
want to pay that American income tax.
  In a global economy, you have to be competitive. It doesn't mean we 
have to be the lowest. That is not the value proposition of our 
country. We have the rule of law. We have a highly educated workforce, 
but we have to be competitive.
  So if we can find a way to reduce that corporate tax rate to 25 
percent or 20 percent--I applaud the work of Dave Camp, the former Ways 
and Means chair last session, who boldly proposed a 25 percent income 
tax rate. The President of the United States, Barack Obama, has 
proposed a 28 percent corporate income tax rate. So in that range. And 
that is, by the way, without a carbon tax cut.
  With a carbon tax cut you can go lower on the corporate income tax. 
You could run the numbers. You could probably get down to 20 percent. 
Maybe you could get down to 15 percent. It depends how you allocated 
it. But that is one of the things that excites many of the strong free 
market advocates of the carbon tax cut.
  You could also reduce the individual tax burden for families across 
all income levels, after we make darn sure that low-income families are 
not in any way disproportionately hit. And in no way is this 
regressive. In fact, Democrats' preference would prefer this to be 
accretive for low-income families, and maybe that is something we can 
come together around. Certainly something that Democrats and 
Republicans care about are those who live in poverty and making sure 
that they, too, see the benefits of the windfall from the carbon tax 
cut.
  But, of course, we are also very open--I am, and my Democratic 
colleagues--to sharing the benefits of the carbon tax cut across the 
entire spectrum of income earners, with a focus, we hope, on the middle 
class, with a focus, we hope, on those in poverty.
  But it does provide an opportunity for Republicans who come to the 
table around climate, around carbon tax cut to say, you know what? Our 
priorities include job creators and others which, of course, we all 
care about job creators, we all about care about S Corps, we all care 
about all those things.
  It is simply a matter of priorities. You have to get the revenues to 
run the government from somewhere. And, separately, we have the 
discussion about what those appropriation levels are, how much we 
spend; we have that discussion.
  Then we have to, somehow, get so much in taxes. It is a question of 
where it is from. And I believe it should be from things that, 
regardless of what you believe on climate, we want to discourage, 
rather than things that we want to encourage.
  So if we can stop discouraging people from earning money and income, 
stop discouraging corporations from domiciling their earnings here, 
from growing, from expanding and, instead, discourage something that, 
even if you throw out the science on climate, is polluting, and runs 
out, and is a national security danger because it forces us to rely on 
other countries, that is something that we should discourage in our 
economy.
  So, look, I join George Shultz, Jerry Taylor, Peter Van Doren, Dr. 
Arthur Laffer, Greg Mankiw, the American Enterprise Institute, and so 
many others, in saying: the time is now to have this discussion.
  I applaud Representative Scalise for initiating this discussion. This 
is the first sign of momentum that this bill has. And the day that this 
body considers a bill condemning my friend from Georgia's national 
sales tax proposal, I will actually start worrying about it. I will 
actually start saying wait a minute.
  I have had many discussions with him, and I have to say it does have 
its merits. My issues and concerns with it have been around whether or 
not we can make it progressive rather than regressive and, of course, 
the potential for black market transactions when you have that level of 
taxation. It's a hypothetical discussion at this point.
  But the day that a resolution comes forth like H.R. 89 around the 
national sales tax, I will know that that discussion has become a 
serious one. And I couldn't be more proud and excited that the 
discussion around a national carbon tax cut has now become a serious 
one, a bipartisan one, an inevitable one, one that we will see through 
with the next President of the United States into law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, with that level of agreement, I am prepared 
to tell my friend I don't have any speakers remaining, and if he is 
prepared to close, we will get right to the underlying bill and 
exercise that enthusiasm.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other speakers, so I will be 
happy to close.
  I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to address some of the issues in this rule 
and in this bill. This rule, which I oppose, and I also oppose all 
three underlying bills, contain a number of concepts that aren't going 
to move forward into law, that are put there for political reasons and, 
again, very excitingly, the first real discussion of a national carbon 
tax cut, because that idea has so much bipartisan momentum from the 
left and the right.

                              {time}  1315

  Many of these ideas are simply recycling old ideas, the same ideas 
that we have discussed before, that they have complained about before 
that if somehow they were to make it out of the Senate, the President 
would veto them, particularly, obviously, one that undoes what the 
President wants to do, so we are simply going through the motions on a 
lot of these bills. The most notable one is truly the resolution on a 
carbon tax cut because what this means is that idea has scared enough 
people, presumably, who oppose it that it is moving forward in some 
form and some discussion, which is exciting.
  So let's start with discussing the proposed $10-per-barrel fee on 
oil. Now, this is, again, kind of a reaction to something that isn't 
happening. It is not going to change any current policy. There is no 
$10-per-barrel fee on oil. This is simply about a Chamber saying that 
they disapprove of something that Obama has said and wants to do.
  We all agree our country has serious problems with transportation and 
infrastructure funding. There are many

[[Page 8099]]

different ways that we can meet the needs to fund those. If people 
don't like a per-barrel fee on oil, there are plenty of other ways to 
do it.
  The real discussion should be about how do we fund transportation?
  I am a fan of our bipartisan proposal to allow a repatriation window 
for funds that corporations have income overseas which they have not 
brought back to our country because they effectively face another tax 
with that and a one-time window for doing that. We can create a 
national infrastructure bank to fund infrastructure.
  There are a lot of great ideas. It is clear--and this will probably 
pass--the Republicans don't like a $10-per-barrel tax on oil, and that 
is fine.
  If you don't like it, what do you like? How do we want to fund 
infrastructure?
  This proposal and this concept came from the administration's 2017 
budget. Frankly, there are probably a lot of things in the President's 
budget that my Republican friends don't like. They could probably run a 
resolution every week, they could probably run 10 resolutions every 
week about things that they don't like in the President's budget, but 
that is not really a productive use of this Chamber's time. That budget 
didn't pass. As far as I know, I don't think that budget got a single 
vote.
  It wasn't put up this year because Republicans haven't even put up 
any budgets for our body. They haven't offered a budget. The last time 
the Republicans put budgets forward--and I believe the last budget, if 
I am not mistaken, did not contain the $10-per-barrel tax on oil. That 
was in the President's budget for fiscal year 2017, but the prior one 
did not receive any votes from Democrats or Republicans.
  So this vote, at best, is repetitive because already this body has 
rejected the President's last budget. Were the Republicans to bring 
forward the President's budget for 2017, they would likely--again, as 
has traditionally occurred, as far as I know, throughout history--
overwhelmingly reject that budget.
  So, in part, let me be clear, that is because we believe, I believe 
as a Member of Congress, that the budget is a legislative prerogative. 
I don't think there has been a Presidential budget that has been 
passed. In fact, I and, I think, most, if not all, of my Democratic 
colleagues joined in opposing the President's budget because we had our 
own congressional Democrats' budget. Not only one, there were two or 
three congressional Democratic budgets, and there were several 
Republican budgets, but that is a matter of legislative prerogative. 
We, of course, want to hear ideas from the chief executive, whoever she 
is, but we also want to implement our own budget because it is our 
prerogative as the United States Congress with the power of the purse 
to do that.
  But considering the fact that Big Oil and Gas get huge tax subsidies 
every year, I personally believe that this kind of modest oil fee is a 
reasonable way to look at and have in the mix when talking about how to 
fund infrastructure.
  If there are other ideas--people have talked about vehicle miles 
driven, people have talked about a number of different ways. There is 
no Republican or Democratic road. We all drive on roads. We all need 
roads. We all need bridges. I know the Republicans in good faith, along 
with Democrats, know we need to fund our national infrastructure. And 
if you don't like a particular way of doing that, by all means, put 
other ideas on the table. But it isn't productive, and it doesn't move 
anything forward just to take one item from a President's budget that 
you didn't even allow to have a vote and that very few people support 
and say: We don't like that.
  I think we knew that before you had the vote. I think we knew you 
didn't like the President's budget overall. You are welcome to have the 
vote. It isn't going anywhere. It won't pass the Senate. It isn't a 
matter for actual consideration.
  Next, we have the sense of Congress on the carbon tax cut. Again, I 
couldn't be more excited. I have been feeling from my friends on the 
right that there has been more interest in this concept of a carbon tax 
cut. I really see that coming to fruition that it is actually serious 
enough and mainstream enough that those who don't like the concept are 
putting up some kind of proactive defense. So I really think it is a 
matter of time. I think it is going to be great for our economy that we 
can cut taxes for American businesses, for job creators, and for middle 
income. We can make sure it is progressive and doesn't additionally 
burden many of those in poverty. It can be a net benefit to incomes of 
individuals below the poverty line. I couldn't be more excited about 
this concept of a carbon tax cut.
  Frankly, it is the first discussion on the floor of that concept, I 
believe, since Republicans have taken control of this body, and I think 
it is a harbinger of many things to come on something that can be great 
and, frankly, supported from across the ideological spectrum to make 
our country more competitive.
  Finally, I want to move to what is being called the Ozone Standards 
Implementation. Now, this also feels like we have been here before and 
done that before. It feels a little bit like deja vu because this bill 
essentially repackages a bunch of bills attacking Ozone Standards and 
the Clean Air Act that we have seen here and voted on over the last 
several years.
  Again, this bill won't pass the Senate. It certainly wouldn't be 
signed by the President. It is not clear why we are doing it. It seems 
to be filling our time, but I would hope that we have more important 
issues to work on on behalf of the American people. Like, for instance, 
the public health threat of the Zika virus is one.
  How about bringing up a bipartisan constitutional amendment that will 
help us move towards a balanced budget? How about improving our 
entitlement programs to make sure they are there for the next 
generation of Americans? How about passing comprehensive immigration 
reform to restore the order of law and allow 10 million people to come 
out of the shadows and work legally and abide by their responsibilities 
under American law that we can enforce going forward?
  I am glad that one of my amendments to the ozone bill was made in 
order. My colleague from Georgia mentioned that. He said he may not 
personally be supportive of it. I will certainly be making the case for 
my fourth time and hoping to gain his support, because what my 
amendment does is it would close an oil and gas industry loophole to 
the Clean Air Act's aggregation requirement, which I will be talking 
more about today.
  Currently, under current law, the oil and gas industry doesn't have 
to aggregate its small air pollution sources, even though cumulatively 
they release large amounts of air pollutants. Again, what that means in 
a district like mine where there are many fracking pads, there is, of 
course, an emission profile to each of these, but because they are 
small sites, they are not aggregated. We happen to have a county, Weld 
County, Colorado, with over 20,000 operating wells. When you get up to 
that kind of number, you can no longer round down to zero. In the 
aggregate, those wells look a lot more like a number of large, 
industrial plants that otherwise would fall under the Clean Air Act 
than simply small sites that can be rounded down to zero.
  I couldn't be more excited to have the opportunity to finally bring 
up my amendment and hopefully adopt it so we can improve the Clean Air 
Act instead of many of the other provisions of the bill which would 
eviscerate the Clean Air Act.
  This is a serious issue. Between 1980 and 2014, emissions of six air 
pollutants controlled by the Clean Air Act have dropped by 63 percent. 
That is good news. We should be doing more, not less, to encourage 
clean air with the long-term savings of the health of the American 
people as well as a reduction of costly diseases like asthma.
  A recent peer-reviewed study estimates that the Clean Air Act will 
save more than 230,000 lives and will prevent millions of cases of 
respiratory problems. But instead of strengthening that act, the 
provisions of the bill will delay the implementation of the updated 
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards by States, a position 
that is

[[Page 8100]]

opposed by a broad coalition of scientists and many other groups that 
care about public health.
  The connection between air quality and asthma, of which our country 
has 25 million sufferers, is well established. Clean air is integral to 
quality of life, and the last thing we should do is tear down the 
protections that allow kids to play outside, and that allow adults to 
recreate outside and enjoy themselves while continuing to breathe clean 
air.
  Again, I am not worried about this bill becoming law. It won't pass 
the Senate, and, obviously, since it undoes some of President Obama's 
actions somehow were it to reach his desk, I am confident that it would 
be vetoed.
  The problems go on and on with this bill. I do hope that my amendment 
passes. It is the first opportunity that I have had to bring forward my 
BREATHE Act, which has over 50 cosponsors to actually bring it forward 
for a vote and a discussion. We haven't been able to get that floor 
time until now.
  So, all in all, I think this is an encouraging week. On the one hand, 
we finally get to discuss a carbon tax cut--how exciting--and also, we 
finally realize that people are actually worried enough about this 
happening that they are running some kind of proactive strategy to try 
to lock people down. Wow. This is happening. We are going to have a 
carbon tax cut sometime in the next few years. This is great.
  Second, I finally get the BREATHE Act, for it is an amendment to 
close a loophole for oil and gas in the Clean Air Act. Again, I don't 
expect that to pass. I hope to have good support, and, of course, I 
call upon my friends to reject the underlying bills.
  Instead of continuing the climate-denying work of the majority that 
these three bills kind of double down on, we should be focusing on 
creating jobs, tax reform, which, again, a carbon tax cut would allow 
us a foray into cutting taxes for corporations, cutting taxes for 
individuals. And yet again, instead of focusing on the needs of middle 
class Americans, instead of focusing on shrinking the deficit, instead 
of focusing on reducing subsidies for oil and gas companies, we are 
furthering our reliance on legacy, dirty energy systems to power what 
we hope is an economy of the future. It is the wrong way to go.
  I encourage Members to look in the mirror, think about the health of 
themselves, of their children, of their parents, the elderly, and those 
most at risk and ask about how those bills would impact them. The 
answer is obvious, and I think that, hopefully, the answer that this 
body gives to these bills will also be obvious.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that fully funds the 
administration's effort to mount a robust and long-term response to the 
growing Zika crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question so we can focus this body on Zika and the 
public health risk to the American people, to vote ``no'' on the rule, 
to vote ``no'' on the underlying bills, but, frankly, to move forward 
with the door having been opened for this discussion and this coalition 
between left and right on a carbon tax cut proposal. Let's take 
advantage of that door being opened a crack, and let this be the start 
of something really great and the start of something really special 
that can help launch the next decade and more of stronger, pro-growth 
economic policies letting American families keep more of their hard-
earned income and encouraging American companies to stay put rather 
than move overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when you turn on the television, when you open up a 
newspaper here in the election season, it seems like folks are pretty 
angry. I enjoy coming down to the floor on rules to work with my friend 
from Colorado because I genuinely enjoy him. If we are going to get 
anything done across the aisle, I have no doubt that he is going to be 
a part of that solution. As you listen to his words down here today, 
you heard that. Time and time again, there are things we can do 
together, there are ways we can be better together. Let's find some 
commonsense alternatives.
  Sadly, in an election year like this, oftentimes that is as far as 
the conversation goes. If you can't fit it on a bumper sticker, you 
don't have that conversation. You heard the gentleman say--for example, 
with respect to my own tax bill, H.R. 25, the FairTax, the most widely 
cosponsored fundamental tax reform bill in the entire United States 
Congress, he had favorable things to say. But if you look at any 
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee-run advertisement, they 
skewer the men and women who take a chance on growing the economy with 
the FairTax. They skewer the men and women who take a chance on 
repealing the taxes, the most burdensome tax on the 80 percent of 
American working families who have to pay it. In the name of politics, 
folks don't get past the bumper sticker to the real substance.
  I listen to my friend from Colorado. He gives me hope. He gives me 
hope that we are going to be able to get over that line, Mr. Speaker. 
But the truth is, we have to get past the bumper sticker slogan. My 
friend from Colorado is going to be part of whatever fundamental tax 
reform change is made here. But we ought to be able to agree that just 
adding more taxes to an already broken system--as the President 
proposes--can't possibly be the right answer.
  My friend is absolutely right that we need to fund American 
infrastructure, and I would argue the user-fee system is the way to do 
it. Not repatriation, which takes completely unconnected dollars, but 
user fees which say that, if you are on the roads, you should pay for 
the roads. But that is a discussion we will have to have.

                              {time}  1330

  This is the right place to have that discussion. We will have that 
discussion, and I hope that we will come to a conclusion.
  My friend says that job creation is job one, but supports complete 
re-regulation of industries which is destroying jobs across this 
country. I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker, and it is what is so 
frustrating to folks back home.
  Again, Prime Minister Modi stood where you are standing. He spoke for 
1.3 billion people. I only speak for about 700,000. But those 700,000 
open up the newspaper when they get into their office on a Monday 
morning, trying to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards, the ozone standards.
  Those standards, released in 2008, finally got around to having the 
regulations for how to comply with them finalized in March of 2015. I 
will say that again. This crisis of human health that my friend has 
described, we identified in 2008, and the administration got around to 
telling folks what the rules were by March of 2015.
  So all the job creators across the country began to scramble to 
comply with those rules, Mr. Speaker. And then in October of 2015, the 
administration says: Oh, no, wait. We have a much better idea. Now 
let's do ozone compliance, part two.
  In 2008, we decided we had an issue we wanted to address. In March of 
2015, the administration finally got around to addressing it. As soon 
as folks began to spend the money and the intellectual effort to comply 
with those rules, by October of that same year, the administration 
says: Oh, no. We have got a better idea. Scrap that.
  When my friend reads from all of the conservative economists, the 
libertarian economists, the folks who care about making sure our 
limited resources do the most good for the American people and those 
folks support a

[[Page 8101]]

carbon tax, they don't support a carbon tax in addition to the 
nonsensical regulatory structure that I have just described. They 
support a carbon tax instead of that structure.
  If we monetize harms in this country, we don't have to have a 
bureaucracy that guesses at what the issues are; we don't have to have 
a bureaucracy that moves not in a day or a week or a month, but takes 
years, almost decades, to move in the marketplace. We move quickly, and 
we maximize. For every dollar that compliance costs, for every dollar 
that environmental stewardship costs, for every dollar that NG 
exploration costs, we get the maximum return for every American family.
  I think there is a pathway there. I think there is a pathway there. 
But understand, more of the same won't get us there. The power to tax 
is the power to destroy. Stop destroying job creation. The power to tax 
is the power to destroy. Stop destroying American corporations and 
moving them overseas.
  Golly, we have got opportunity to come together. I believe these 
three provisions before us, Mr. Speaker, are going to move us in that 
direction.
  Make no mistake; our ozone bill that we have before us today makes 
every amendment from this body in order--save one that was virtually 
exactly the same as another, and we didn't want to be duplicative here 
of the Members' time--made every discussion in order, including the one 
from the gentleman from Colorado.
  The sense of Congress today says we don't need to tax fossil fuels as 
an answer to anything, that taxes are just taxes; and in the absence of 
a coherent environmental policy, in the absence of a coherent 
stewardship policy, in the absence of men and women on the ground who 
are balancing the needs of jobs and the needs of community, it is just 
a bumper sticker slogan.
  Let's reject bumper sticker slogans today. Let's take advantage of 
the serious men and women that serve in this institution, like the 
gentleman from Colorado. Let's get together and do the heavy lifting.
  Mr. Speaker, if it were easy, they would have done it already. The 
reason you are here, the reason my friend from Colorado is here, and 
the reason I am here is not to do the easy things; it is to do the hard 
things.
  What I have come to know in my 5\1/2\ years in this institution is I 
have not met a man or a woman who is serious about making a difference 
for the country who wouldn't take their voting card and turn it in 
tomorrow if they could make that kind of lasting difference that would 
serve not just this generation, but generations to come. We have that 
opportunity, Mr. Speaker. It is an election year, but let's not 
squander it. We can make these next 8 months count for the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the rule. I urge support for 
the underlying resolutions as well, but I urge strong support for the 
rule that will begin this discussion.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 767 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     5044) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2016 
     to respond to Zika virus. 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 chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Appropriations and the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 5044.
                                  ____


        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. WOODALL. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered; 
the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3826; and agreeing to the 
Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 163, not voting 40, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 273]

                               YEAS--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum

[[Page 8102]]


     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurd (TX)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--163

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--40

     Black
     Cardenas
     Cummings
     Deutch
     Duffy
     Ellison
     Ellmers (NC)
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hardy
     Herrera Beutler
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Hurt (VA)
     Jeffries
     Lee
     Lieu, Ted
     McCarthy
     Miller (FL)
     Nadler
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pompeo
     Rooney (FL)
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott, David
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Takai
     Walters, Mimi
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine

                              {time}  1357

  Mr. COOPER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. RIGELL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 273, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall 
vote No. 273 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 767, 
Providing for consideration of H.R. 4775, the Ozone Standards 
Implementation Act of 2016; providing for consideration of H. Con. Res. 
89, expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be 
detrimental to the United States economy; and providing for 
consideration of H. Con. Res. 112. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 163, not voting 35, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 274]

                               AYES--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--163

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney

[[Page 8103]]


     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--35

     Black
     Cardenas
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Duffy
     Ellison
     Ellmers (NC)
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hardy
     Herrera Beutler
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Lee
     Lieu, Ted
     Luetkemeyer
     McCarthy
     Nadler
     Payne
     Pittenger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sires
     Takai
     Walters, Mimi
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
       
       

                              {time}  1403

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 274.

                          ____________________