tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN June 8, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
initiative to form an international solar alliance is one such effort. we are working together not just for better futures for ourselves but for the whole world. we have also been the goal of our efforts in g-20, east asia summit, and climate change summits. , as we deepen our partnership, there will be times when we will have
differing perspectives. but since our interests and the autonomy rge, if decisionmaking and diversity in our perspectives can only add values to our partnership. so, as we embark on a new journey, and seek new goals, let us focus not just on matters routine but also transformation of ideas. ideas which can focus not just n creating wealth but also creating value for our societies.
not just on immediate gains but also long-term benefits. not just on sharing best practices, but also shaping partnerships and not just on building a bright future for our people, but in being a bridge to a more united, humane, and pros pus world. -- prosperous world. and important for the success of this journey would be a need to view it with new eyes and new sensitivityities. when we do this, we will of ize the full promise
this extraordinary relationship. . speaker, in my final thoughts and words let me emphasize that our relationship is primed for a momentous future. the constraints of the past are behind us and foundations of he future are firmly in place. n the lines of walt whitman, he orchestra have sufficiently tuned their instruments, the aton has given the signal. d to that, if i might add,
also on capitol hill today covering a number of hearings, including one with transportation secretary anthony foxx, he'll explain the plan for fixing the nation's highways and bridges. the senate commerce committee is considering a five-year rethrsation of the transportation department that hearing live at 2:30 over on c-span3. >> madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states -- [applause]
♪ >> hillary clinton winning last night, saying a milestone has been reach for the first time a woman has won a major porte's nomination. she spoke to supporters from her campaign headquarters in brooklyn after winning the new jersey democratic pry mear. she thanked bernie sanders for running a, quote, extraordinary campaign, and criticized republican presidential candidate donald trump, saying he is unfit to be president of
smashing this one. thanks to you, we've reached a milestone. first time -- the first time in our nation's history that a woman will be a major party nominee. cheers and applause] tonight, tonight's victory is not about one person. it belongs to generations of women and men who struggled and sacrificed and made this moment possible. in our country, it started right here in new york, a place called eneca falls in 1849.
when a small but determined group of women and men came that er with the idea women deserved equal rights and they set it forth in something called the declaration ofsenments and it was the first time in human history that that kind of declaration occurred. so we all owe so much to those who came before, and tonight belongs to all of you. [applause] i want to -- i want to thank all the volunteers, community leaders, the activists, organizers who supported our campaign in every state and
territory. and thanks especially to our friends in new jersey for such a resounding victory. [cheers and applause] thanks for talking to your neighbors, for making contributions, your efforts have produced a strong majority of the popular vote. victories in a majority of the contests. and after tonight a majority of pledged delegates. [applause] i want to thank all the people across our country who have aken the time to talk with me. i've learned a lot about you and i've learned about those persistent problems and the unfinished promise of america that you are living with. so many of you feel leek you're
out there on your own. that no one has your back. well, i do. hear you. [applause] and as your president, i will always have your back. [applause] i want to congratulate senator sanders for the extraordinary campaign he has run. [cheers and applause] he has spent his long career in public service fighting for progressive causes and principles and he's excited millions of voters, especially young people. and let there be no mistake. senator sanders, hi campaign, and the -- his campaign, and the vigorous debate that we've had about how to raise incomes,
reduce inequality, increase upward mobility, have been very good for the democratic party and for america. cheers and applause] this has been a hard fought, deeply felt campaign. but whether you supported me or senator sanders or one of the republicans, we all need to keep working toward a better, fairer, stronger america. now i know it never feels good to put your heart into a cause or a candidate you believe in and to come up short. i know that feeling well. but as we look ahead -- cheers and applause]
as we look ahead to the battle that awaits, let's remember all that unites us. we all want an economy with more opportunity and less inequality. where wall street can never wreck main street again. we all want a government that listens to the people, not the power brokers. which means getting unaccountable money out of politics. and we all want a society that is tolerant, inclusive, and fair. we know that america zeeds when more people share in our prosperity. when more people have a voice in our political system. when more people can contribute to their communities. we believe that cooperation is better than conflict. unity is better than division. empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are
better than walls. it's a simple but powerful idea. we believe that we are stronger together and the stakes in this election are high and the choice is clear. donald trump is temperamentally unfit to be president. cheers and applause] he's not just trying to build a wall between america and mexico. he's trying to wall off americans from each other. when he says, let's make america great again, that is code for,
et's take america backwards. [cheers and applause] that's what -- back to a time when opportunity and dignity were reserved for some, not all. promising his supporters an economy he cannot recreate. we, however, we want to write the next chapter in american greatness. with a 21st century prosperity that lifts everyone who has been left out and left behind. including those who may not vote for us, but who the serve their chance to make a new beginning. cheers and applause] when donald trump says, a
distinguished judge born in indiana -- when donald trump says a distinguished judge born in indiana can't do his job because of his mexican heritage or he mocks a reporter with women pigss or calls , it goes against everything we stand for because we want an america where everyone is treated with respect and where -- cheers and applause] it's clear that donald trump doesn't believe we are stronger together. he's abused his primary opponents and their families, attacked the press for asking tough questions, denigrated muslims and immigrants. he wants to win by stoking fear
and rubbing salt in wounds. and reminding us daily just how great he is. well, we believe we should lift each other up, not tear each other down. [cheers and applause] we believe we need to give americans a raise, not complain that hard working people's wages are too high. we believe we need to help young people struggling with student debt, not pile more on our national debt with giveaways to the super wealthy. [cheers and applause] . we believe we need to make america the clean energy uperpower of the 21st century.
not insist that climate change is a hoax. to be great, we can't be small. we have to be as big as the values that define america. and we are. a big hearted, fair minded country. we teach our children that this is one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. cheers and applause] not just for people who look a certain way or worship a certain way or love a certain way. [cheers and applause] for all. this election is not, however, about the same old fights between democrats and
republicans. this election is different. it really is about who we are as a nation. it's about millions of americans coming together to say, we are better than this. we won't let this happen in america. cheers and applause] and if you agree, whether you're a democrat, republican, or independent, i hope you will join us. in just a few weeks, we will meet in philadelphia which gave birth to our nation. ack in that hot sum over 1776. those -- summer of 1776. those early patriots knew they would all rise or fall together. today, that's more true than ever. our campaign will take this message to every corner of our
country. we're stronger when our economy works for everyone, not just those at the top. with good paying jobs and good schools in every zip code and a eal commitment to all families and all places in our nation. we are stronger when we work with our allies around the world to keep us safe. and we are stronger when we respect each other, listen to a senseer, and act with of common purpose. cheers and applause] we're stronger when every family and every community knows they're not on their own, because we are in this together. it really does take a village to raise a child.
and to build a stronger future for us all. i learned this a long time ago. from the biggest influence in my life , my mother. she was my rock, from the day i was born until the day she left us. she overcame a childhood marked by abandonment and mistreatment. and somehow managed not to become bitter or broken. my mother believed that life is about serving others. and she taught me never to back down from a bully, which it urns out was pretty important. cheers and applause] this past saturday would have been her 97th birthday, because she was born on june 4, 1919, and some of you may know the
significance of that date. on the very day my mother was born, in chicago, congress was passing the 19th amendment to the constitution. cheers and applause] that amendment finally gave women the right to vote. i really wish my mother could be here tonight, i wish she could see what a wonderful mother chelsea has become and could meet our beautiful granddaughter charlotte. and of course i wish she could see her daughter become the democratic party's nominee for president. cheers and applause]
there are still feelings to break for women and men, but don't let anyone tell you that great things can't happen in america. barriers can come down, justice and equality can win. our history has moved in that direction slowly at times but unmistakably thanks to generations of americans who refused to give up or back down. now you are writing a new chapter of that story. this campaign is about making sure there are no ceilings, no limits on any of us and this is our moment to come together. so please, join our campaign,
volunteer, go to hillaryclinton.com, contribute hat you can. help us organize in all 50 tates. every phone call you make, every door you knock on is a step forward. i'm going to take a moment later tonight and in the days ahead to fully absorb the history we've made here. cheers and applause] but what i care about most is the history our country has yet to write. our children and grandchildren will look back at this time, at the choices we are about to make, the goals we will strive for the principles we will live
by, and we need to make sure that they can be proud of us. the end of the primaries is only the beginning of the work we're called to do. but if we stand together, we will rise together because we are stronger together. [cheers and applause] thank you, god bless you all! [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the
>> we'll leave this and take you lye to the u.s. house, two by this is afternoon, including one delaying. p.a. rules on ozone standards, lye coverage here on c-span. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, by the grecks of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 767 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 121, house resolution 767, resolved, at that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, 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 ithout instructions. section 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. section 3, the concurrent resolutions referred to in section 2 of this resolution are as follows, one, the concurrent resolution h.con.res. 89 expressing the sense of congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the united states economy. two, 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 one hour. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only and i would like to yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself
such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: i'd also like to ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: house resolution 767 provides a structured rule for the consideration of three bills. you heard the reading clerk read them but i'll read them again, 4775, h.con.res. 179, expressing that a carbon tox would be detrimental to the economy, and h.con. -- and h.con.res. opposing the president's $10 tax on every barrel of oil. it's unusual to combine three lls like this but this is an unusual day. just an hour ago, three feet
from where you are, the leader of a democracy of 1.3 billion people he feel commented on the reputation of the united states congress, known far and wide around the globe, commented on w the comity, that's with an i-t-y, not e-d-y that we have been known for. we're 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 my colleagues that we do approve this rule today, we'll get to the underlying debate. in that, 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 we have ideas as members of the body about how we can improve the underlying bill. one came from my friend from
colorado. i don't particularly support the idea that he's 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 nonduplicative amendment submitted. i nonduplicative 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're going to disagreeful but we're 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've had an opportunity to discuss it here on the floor. my great hope is that after we've had a chance to perfect that work product, we'll seend it -- we'll send it on to the senate with a big bipartisan vote from both -- from both parties. mr. speaker, it's easy to talk about taxes as if they don't come from someone.
when we have an academic conversation about tax policy, what's the saying? don't tax him, don't tax me, tax the man behind that tree. i've heard folks say you're always trying to put the tax burden on someone else. what the president proposed was $10 a barrel on every barrel of oil consumed in america. now, historically we've had some low oil prices of late. that $10 a barrel tax would have amounted to almost a 50% increase in the cost of a barrel of oil. today it's going to be closer to a 20% increase in the cost of a barrel of oil. and this tax is implemented in the name of, what, mr. speaker? in the name of improving our failing infralk -- infrastructure? because we do need to improve our failing infrastructure and we need to have a conversation about user fees and how we'll build the best logistical system
the world has ever known. but that's not what this tax would do. this is a tax that's 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've got a lot of ways we can do that. we've got a lot of very reasonable ways to do that this proposal makes no effort to try to find the most efficient way toake that happen. it's a blanket $10 a barrel across the board. if you're using that barrel of oil to generate space age plastics, mr. speaker, are you going to use those space age plastics to build the most efficient photo voltaic cell array the world has ever known such as is going on in my district? there's no special dispensation for you. in the name of trying to create a better environment, wie tax the very inputs we're
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, and in a campaign year that uncertainty has an impact on job creation. that uncertainty has an impact on where these funds around the globe are going 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's one thing i think we can all agree on, mr. speaker. and that is that america has the most productive work force the world has ever known. if given a level playing field,
there is not a single opportunity that we cannot succeed. if we commit ourselves to it. at which we cannot succeed. lower-paying jobs, cheaper jobs, those are going to go overseas, but the higher paying jobs, higher skill 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. single worst. you want to create business, want to grow jobs, don't come to america is the tag line to that cacks -- is the tag line that tax code suggests. no one punishes productivity more than we do in america. it's nonsense. we can fix it. our speaker, and the gentleman in the ways and means committee, mr. brady, working hard to make that happen. we go from worst to first in terms of 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, the environment a better environment, the health of american citizens better health. but in the name of pursuing an agenda of no fossil fuels, nowhere, no how. i'm glad we're down here having this conversation today, mr. speaker. it's one that needs to be had. it's one that has been a long
time coming. but we have an opportunity to today to speak with one voice on this body. i hope we'll speak with one voice in supporting this rule and then in one voice supporting the three underlying resolutions. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm excited to be here today discussing one of these resolutions because it really means something when members of congress see fit, and i'm talking about the scalise resolution 89, to say they're against a particular proposal. honestly, this is the first sign of momentum for a carbon tax cut and you'll hear me referring to it as a carbon tax cut because that's essentially what it is, using carbon tax revenues to cut taxes for the american people, for american businesses.
you don't see these kinds of resolutions if a concept and an idea doesn't have momentum. for instance, my good friend from georgia, mr. woodall, has had a -- has long been a champion of a proposal to create a sales tax here in our country a national sales tax of 19% or 20%. he's welcome to talk about it in his own time but i think the gentleman will acknowledge much to his frustration that that idea does not seem to be advancing. now now, were it advancing, you wee so this resolution saying it's not a good idea. you have them raising tax rates on solo incomes, they may not be paying a federal income tax yet. those ideas generally don't 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 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. what you see the oil and gas lobby -- or i should say some segments of the oil and gas lobby because frankly many energy and oil players see a carbon tax cut as a way therefore getting around the regulatory uncertainty they see like the ozone rules them self. let's say, of course, there are also those in the oil and gas industry that oppose this carbon tax cut. they are trying to run a strategy to try to lock people down where, yes, maybe five, 10, 12 republicans will vote for it but they want to go back and remind republicans who vote for this now that in the future when we're actually moving forward with the carbon tax cut proposal that they were already on the record in a particular
way. that means they're worried, that means inside the beltway and washington speak. i'm excited because i ran for congress in part to pass a carbon tax cut. let me quote many of the prominent conservatives that have caused this resolution to come forward in many ways because a great momentum a carbon tax has. george schultz under ronald reagan said a carbon tax starting small and escalating to a significant level on a legislative schedule would do the trick. i would make it revenue-neutral, returning all net funds generated to the taxpayers. that's george schultz. one of the cato institute said a carbon tax at the levels presently discussed in washington radio not burden the -- would not burden the economy and that's particularly true when we look at the environmental benefits that would follow from the tax as well as the benefits of any offsetting tax cuts. so in a moment you'll hear me
talk about the many benefits of this carbon tax cut concept. what jerry taylor has rightfully latched on is the economic stimulus that can actually been 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, quote, the obvious lesson from economics is to increase fossil fuel prices enough to taxation to account for these effects, end quote. my good friend and a personal mentor of mine, dr. arthur laffer, former economic advisor under president reagan said, quote, when you add the national security concerns, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels become a no-brainer. and he has spoken out in support of, again, a carbon tax cut. greg, former chairman of the
economic council of george bush said, i will tell the american people that a higher gas price is better than heavy-handed cafe regulations and i will advocate a carbon tax is the best way to control global warming. 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'd like to submit to the cord signed by ne scanan center, r street institute, american enterprise institute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: 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. 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's 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, 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's exactly what we want people to do. that's exactly what we want companies to do on behalf of their shareholders and their stakeholders. so why not take something that regardless of what 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 are not -- you don't want to look at the science, you turned a blind eye to it, you are not at all concerned about climate change or you don't think it's manmade. let's look at carbon usage in our economy and the negative consequences of it. air pollution, air quality, increased asthma, increased cancer risk. national security concerns. relyant on importing it from -- reliant on importing it from foreign companies. or if we are producing domestically, knowing it will run out in the worst case scenario. once you take it out of the ground it's gone. you know, you'd say, we'd rather have income, americans of all income levels, whether they're earning $1 or $20,000 a year, $1 million a year or $20,000 a year, we'd rather have them keep their hard-earned money 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 let americans keep more of their hard-earned money. that's what excites so many free market conservatives and centrists about the concept of a free market, of a carbon tax cut. that's frankly why this great momentum coming from american enterprise institute, from cato, from r street, all of this intellectual fuel, intellectual fuel for a carbon tax cut. that's why sensing that some republicans, in this case, mr. scalise has brought this forward and co-sponsors 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 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 our leadership folks in our district about how we can do something to act on climate from a republican perspective. i'm 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 would have the president, i'd encourage us to move forward and implement some kind of carbon tax cut but frankly it's an unlikely scenario. it's more likely that a scenario will require support from both sides of the aisle. so we should be talking what it takes to get that kind of support. that's the discussion, the national discussion that former representative bob inglis wants and it's the fear of that discussion that has led this
body to consider this resolution in had opposition to a carbon tax cut that i'm proud to say will likely have bipartisan opposition. meaning there will be some republicans, i hope, i expect that will stand up and say, wait a minute. i don't want to go on the record saying i'm against any kind of carbon tax cut because of the great benefit that this can provide to the american eople as articulated by arthur laffer, as articulated by r street institute. we have the ability with some of that revenue to 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. and 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 tax credits and tax returns for low-income family to make sure everything we do is not regressive. i think it's given. i think obviously in the same way the speaker of the house put out his agenda on poverty, i'm sure he and many others would not want -- the last thing they would want to do is burden lower income americans with any kind of additional tax. of course we want to take care of that. the good news is that's a small fraction from the windfall of 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. 35% corporate tax rate. the developed country average is somewhere in the 18%, 20% range. last time i checked. it's one of the reasons corporations are moving overseas. they are not repatriating their earnings because they don't want to pay that income tax. in a global economy you have to be competitive.
that doesn't mean we have to be the lowest. we have the rule of law. we have a highly educated work force, but we have to be competitive. so if we can find a way to reduce that corporate tax rate to 25% or 20%, i applaud the work of dave camp, the former ways and means chair last session who bowledly proposed a 25% -- boldly proposed a 25% tax rate. the president of the united states, barack obama, proposed a 20% tax rate. with a carbon tax cut you can go lower on the corporate income tax. you can run the numbers. you can probably get down to 20%. maybe you can get down to 15%. depends how you allocate it. but that's one of the things that excites some of the strong free market advocates of the carbon tax cut. you can 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 it would be something for low families. come we need to make sure they see the benefits of the windfall from the tax credit, the poor. i am 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 the focus we hope 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 care about scorps. we care about all those things. it's simply a matter of priorities. you have to get the revenues to run the government from somewhere. certainly we have 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's a question of whether it's from. and i believe it should be from things regardless what you believe on climate we want to discourage rather than things we want to encourage. so if we can stop discouraging people from earning money and income, stop discouraging corporations from domiciling their earnings there, 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 dangers because it forces to rely on other countries, that is something we should discourage in our country. so, look, i join george schultz and peter taylor and american enterprise institute and so many others in saying time is now to have this discussion. and i applaud representative scalise for initiating this discussion. this is the first sign of momentum this bill has. and the day this body considers a bill condemning my friend from georgia's national sales
tax proposal, i'll actually start worrying about it. i'll actually start saying wait a minute. i had many discussions with him. i will 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. but 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 three with the next president of the united states into law and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, with that level of agreement, i'm prepared to tell my friend i
don't have any speakers remaining, and if he's prepared to close, we'll get right to the underlying bill and exercise that enthusiasm. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i don't have any other speakers. so i will be happy to close. i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'm 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. again, very excitingly, the very excitingly, the first discussion of the national carbon tax cut, because this has so much bipartisan momentum. many ideas are simply recycling old ideas, the same ideas we've discussed before, that they've 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're simply going through
the motions on a lot of these bills. the most notable one is truly the resolution on a car bhon tax cut. what that means is that idea has scared enough people, presumably, who oppose it, that it is moving forward in some form in some discussion. so that's exciting. let's start with discussing the proposed $0 per barrel fee on oil. now this is again kind of a reaction to something that isn't happening. it's 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's many different ways we can meet the need to fund those. if people don't like the per barrel fee on oil, there's plenty of other twice do it. the real discussion should be about how do we fund transportation? i'm a fan of our bipartisan
proposal to allow a repatriation window for funds and corporations have income overseas which they have not brought back to our country because they effectively face another tax. with that, a one-time window for doing that we can create a national infrastructure bank to fund infa structure. a lot of great ideas. ok it's clear this will probably pass, the republicans don't like a $10 a barrel tax on oil. that's fine. if you don't like it what do you like? how do we want to fund nfrastructure? the proposal came from the president's 2017 budget. there's probably a lot of things in the budget the republicans don't like, they could probably run a resolution every week about thing they don't like in the president's budget. but that's not a goodus of the chamber's time. 245 budget wasn't passed. it wasn't put up this year
because the republican vnts put up any budgets for our body, haven't offered a budget. but the last time the republicans put budgets forward, i believe the last budget, i'm not mistaken, did not contain a $10 a 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 i mean, this vote at best is repet ty because already this body has rejected the president's last budget. ere the republicans to bring forward the budget for 017, it would likely -- they would leekly ject that budget. that's because we believe, i believe as a member of congress, but the intudget a legislative prerogative. i don't think there has been a presidential budget that's been passed. i, and i think most if not all of my democratic colleagues, joined in opposing the president's budget because we had our own presidential democrat's budget. not only one, there were two or
three democratic budgets, several republican budgets. that's a matter of legislative prerogative. we want to hear from the chief executive, whoever she is, but we want to put forward our own budget because it is our prerog ty. but considering the fact that big oil and gas gets huge subsidies every year, i believe with this kind of modest oil fee is a reasonable way to look at it and having the mix when talking about how to fund infrastructure. people talk about vehicles, 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 of good faith along with democrats know we immediate to fund our national infrastructure. if you don't like a particular way of doing that, by all means, put other ideas on the table. but it doesn't move anything forward to take one item from the president's budget that you didn't allow to have a vote that
that no one would support, and say you don't like it. next we have the sense of congress on the carbon tax cut. i couldn't be more excited. i have been feeling from my friends on the right that there's been more interest in this concept of the carbon tax cut. i 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's a matter of time, i think it's going to be great for our economy that we can cut taxes for american businesses, for job creators or middle income. we can make sure it's progressive and doesn't additionally burden any of those in poverty. it cabinet benefit to incomes of individuals below the poverty line. and i couldn't be more excited about this concept of a carbon tax cut and frankly the first discussion on the floor of that concept, i believe since the republicans have taken control of this body, and i think it's 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, toicht move to what's being tchailed ozone standards implementation. this also feels like we've been here before. and done that before. feels a little like deja vu. this bill essentially repackages a bunch of bills attacking ozone standards and the clean air act that we've seen and vote on over the last several years. again this bill will pass the senate, wouldn't be signed by the president new york city clear why we're doing it. seem to be filling our time. i would hope 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 constitution, a bipartisan constitutional amendment to help us move toward a balanced budget? how about improving entitlement programs to make sure they're there for the next generation of americans? how about passing comp rehence i immigration reform to allow 10
million people to come out of the shadows and work legally and abide by their responsibilities under american law we can enforce going forward? i am glad that one of my amendments to the ozone will -- bill was made in order , my colleague from georgia mentioned that. he said he may not be supportive of it, i'll be making my case and hoping to gain his support. what my amendment does is would close an oil and gas industry loophole in the clean air act aggregation requirement which i'll be talking about later. 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 paths, there are of course emotion profiles to each of these but because they're small sites, they're not aggregated. we have a county, bell county, colorado, over 12,000 operating wells. when you get to that kind of number udge no longer round down
to zero. in the aggregate, they look more like a number of large industrial plants that would fall under the clean air act rather than small sites that could be rounded down to zero. i couldn't be more excited to have the opportunity to finally breng 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 control by the clean air act dropped by 63%. that's good news. we should be doing more, not less, to encourage clean air with the long-term savings and health of the american people as well as reduction of costly diseases like asthma. a recent peer-reviewed study estimates it will save 230,000 of live -- 230,000 lives and prevent millions ofs repri-for-problems. instead, the provision of the bill will delay the implementation of the updated
2015 ambient air standards by state, a proposal supported by a broad coalition of scientist and other groups that care about health. air and etween clean asthma is well established. the last thing we should do is tear down the protections that allow kids to play outside, allow adults to reck cree -- recreate outside and enjoy themselves while continuing to -- continuing to breathe clean air. i'm not worried thabt bill becoming law. it won't pass the senate and obviously since it undoes several of president obama's actions, were it to somehow reach his desk, i'm confident it would be vetoed. i do hope that my amendment passes, it's the first opportunity i've had to bring forward my breathe act which has over 50 co-sponsors to actually bring it forward for a vote, which -- and a discussion. we haven't been able to get that floor time until now. l 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're running some kind of proactive strategy to lock people down. wow, this is happening. we're going to have a carbon tax cut in the next few years. this is great. second, i finally get the breathe act for it as an amendment to close a loophole for oil and gas in the clean air act. i don't expect that to has, 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 bills kind of double down on, we should be focusing on creating jobs, tax reforms, again a carbon tax cut would allow us a to ray into, cutting taxes for corporations, for individuals. and yet again, instead of focusing on the needs of middle class americans, instead of focusing on shrinking the
deficit, instead of foe cushion on reducing the subsidies to 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's the wrong way to go. i encourage members to look in the mirror and think about the health of themselves, of their children, of their parents and 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 to this bod -- that this body gives to these bills will also be obvious. if we defeat the previous question i'll 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. 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: without objection. mr. polis: 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 for the american people. and to vote no on the rule, to vote no on the underlying bills. but to frankly move forward. we have 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, 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. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: when you turn the
television and open up a newspaper in election season, seems like folks are pretty angry. i enjoy coming down to the floor to work on rules with the gentleman from colorado because i enjoy it. if we are going to get anything done, he's going to be part of it. you heard him say it time and time again, let's find some commonsense alternatives. sadly, in an election year like this, oftentimes that's 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 fair tax, the most widely co-sponsored, fundamental tax reform bill in the entire united states congress, he had favorable things to say. but if you look at any democratic campaign committee-run advertisement, they skewer the men and women who take a chance on growing the economy with fair tax. they skewer the men and women
who take a chance on repealing the most burdensome tax on the 0% 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, gives me hope. gives me hope that we'll 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 add manager taxes to an already broken system, as the president proposes, can't possibly be the right answer. my friend's absolutely right that we need to fund american infrastructure. i would argue that user -- that the user fee system is the way to do it, not repatriation, which takes unconnected dollar, but users fees, which say if you're on this road, you should pay for the road. that's a discussion we have to have. s the right place tv that discussion. we'll have that discussion.
i hope we'll come to a conclusion. my friend says job creation is job one. but supporting complete reregulation of industries that's destroying jobs across this country. give you an example, mr. speaker. and it's what's so frustrating to folks back home, again, when prime minister modi stood where you're stand , 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 in the 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 and finalized in march of 2015. i'll 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 cunigan to scramble to comply with -- across the country began to scramble to comply with those rules, mr. speaker, and then in october of 2015, the administration said, oh, no wait. we have a much better idea. let's do owe zeen compliance part -- ozone compliance part 2. march, 2015, the administration finally gets around to addressing it. as soon as folks begin to spend the money and the intellectual effort to begin to comply with those rules, by october of that same year, the administration says, oh, no, yet, we have 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 carbon tax, they don't support a carbon tax in addition to the nonsensical regulatory structure that i 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 ove in the marketplace, we move quickly and we maximize for every dollar that compliance cost, for every dollar that environmental stewardship cost, for every dollar it cost, we get the maximum return for every american family. i think there's a pathway there. i think there's 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 those overseas. golly, we got opportunity to come together, and 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 duplicative of virtually the exact same as another. we didn't want to be tuesday plick tiff of the member's -- we didn't want to be duplicative of the members' time. made every amendment in order, including the member from colorado. our sense of congress today say we don't need to tax fossil fuels as an answer to anything,
that taxes are just taxes. and in absence of a coherent environmental policy and in absence of a coherent stewardship policy, in absence of men and women on the ground who are balancing the needs of jobs and the needs of community, it's just a bumper sticker slogan. let's reject bumper sticker slogans today. let's take advantage of the serious men and women who serve in this institution, like the gentleman from colorado. let's get together and do the heavy lifting. mr. speaker, if it was easy they would have done it already. the reason you're here, the reason my friend from colorado is here and the reason i'm here is not to do the easy things, it's to do the hard things. what i've come to know in this 5 1/2 years in this institution, there is not one person i didn't know 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's an election year, but let's not squander it. we can make these next eight months count for the american people. with that, mr. speaker, i urge a 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. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, the 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-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. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]