[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8362-8363]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         CARBON TAX AND OIL TAX

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Newhouse). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my friend 
from Texas. They are important to consider.
  I am going to shift gears for a moment. I have another issue to talk 
about today. To a certain extent, I have great sympathy for my 
Republican colleagues. They have been stuck with a standard-bearer for 
their party, who is a bigot, a bully, a liar, a misogynist, with no 
discernible qualifications for the high office that he seeks. But they 
are not helping themselves by trying to shift the subject of debate 
here on the floor of the House.
  Tomorrow, we are going to be taking a stand against a couple of what 
they think are unpopular ideas. It is too bad that the proposals we 
will be debating on were never considered by our Ways and Means 
Committee. One, a sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be bad for 
the economy. And the other, opposition to the President's proposal for 
a $10 a barrel fee on oil.
  The carbon tax ironically is something that most of the economists 
who have studied it--whether they are conservative, liberal, Republican 
or Democrat--agree would be a good policy for this country. A carbon 
tax is the most efficient way to deal with the serious problems of 
carbon pollution that is already harming the economy.
  Look at the disruption of the fishing industry and the widespread 
flooding we have seen that has been unprecedented. We are about to go 
into another egregious forest fire season with huge costs economically, 
as well as to forest health. We have wildly unpredictable weather--
unprecedented heat. In Portland, Oregon, last weekend, it was 100 
degrees for both days.
  A carbon tax would harness market forces to be able to change that 
direction more effectively than other initiatives. A carbon tax 
actually can be designed to cushion impacts on low- to moderate-income 
people. In fact, it actually could be designed to help low- to 
moderate-income people. A blanket dismissal of what economists think is 
our best economic environmental protection is shortsighted. It is too 
bad that we didn't debate it in committee.

[[Page 8363]]

  The other resolution, the opposition to the President's barrel tax, 
misses the point entirely. It suggests that that is somehow going to be 
detrimental. Wait a minute. The barrel fee would be used to rebuild and 
renew America. We have been in a desperate situation. We haven't raised 
the gas tax since 1993. It has made it almost impossible to move 
forward with a robust transportation bill to deal with the problem. 
America is falling apart while we are falling behind. That is why seven 
red Republican States last year raised the gas tax. We couldn't even 
talk about it here in Congress.
  Using a barrel fee of $10 per barrel will enable us to make 
significant investments in rebuilding and renewing America. The 
Standard & Poor 500 research report of a couple of years ago pointed 
out that investment in infrastructure has a significant impact on the 
economy. $1.2 billion creates almost 30,000 jobs, creates $2 billion 
worth of economic activity, reduces the Federal deficit $200 million, 
and we get the benefit of improved infrastructure.
  That is why every major interest group supported raising revenues for 
transportation. When I introduced the gas tax increase, it was 
supported by the American Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, by 
truckers, AAA, engineers, and contractors. Virtually everybody who 
builds, uses, maintains, or owns American infrastructure said, Raise 
this fee, help us rebuild and renew America.
  I think the only thing wrong with the President's proposal is that it 
is several years too late. We should have been debating this from the 
outset, particularly when petroleum prices have fallen precipitously, 
and when America's infrastructure continues to deteriorate. It is sad 
that we didn't have a robust debate in committee. We will have a little 
bit of discussion tomorrow. But it is too little and too late.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for the 
Office of President.

                          ____________________