Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 119) expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1001 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1001, providing for further consideration of the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 119, expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy. The rule provides for consideration of the concurrent resolution under a closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, my district in central Washington demonstrates the strength in utilizing a diverse portfolio of energy sources, while also working on the forefront of energy innovation in clean energy solutions for the future.

From the mighty Grand Coulee Dam, which is the largest hydroelectric power producer in the United States, to the Chief Joseph Dam, to the series of lower Snake and lower Columbia River dams, our region is undoubtedly blessed with low-cost, clean, reliable, and renewable hydropower.

In fact, hydropower provides our State with almost 70 percent of our energy needs. Improvements made to this technology to improve the efficiency, the safety, and the productivity of hydro demonstrate the importance of constantly improving our energy technologies.

Now, while we do rely heavily on hydropower, Washington also utilizes an array of other energy sources, both produced and imported, including oil, natural gas, coal, and a number of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

My district is also blessed with the only nuclear generating station in the Pacific Northwest, and that is the Columbia Generating Station, which is operated by Energy Northwest. Columbia produces 10 percent of the electricity generated in Washington and is a reliable, clean energy producer not dependent on weather conditions like some renewables are.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, while I am sure you are fascinated by this brief rundown of Washington State's source of energy, you may be wondering why I am speaking about such matters with the resolution before us today.

The resolution says, quite simply, that it is the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy--a simple statement. And while I could be spending my time listening to many ways a harmful tax would harm our economy and the American people, I thought I would also offer a demonstration of the many resources we have at our disposal for strengthening America's energy dominance.

Many of my colleagues, much like myself, support what we can call an ``all of the above'' energy approach. We believe government should not be picking winners and losers and should not be placing the thumb on the economic free-market scale. A carbon tax would be exactly that, a devastating hammer to what is currently an economy on the rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution offered by the majority whip, Representative Steve Scalise from the great State of Louisiana, to oppose a carbon tax carbon tax as a solution to address carbon emissions and climate change, because, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it simply is not a solution.

However, that is not to say that I oppose reducing carbon emissions. My constituents and the people of the great Pacific Northwest most certainly want a clean, healthy environment, and we should be doing everything we can to limit emissions. But a burdensome new tax that would fundamentally bring our innovative energy sector and growing economy to a standstill is not the answer.

Further, a carbon tax fails to recognize the diversity of our Nation and the different energy resources that exist in the United States. Quite frankly, the resources that exist in the State of Washington certainly may not be present in the State of North Dakota or Louisiana or Massachusetts.

We should be making clean energy more affordable, not making traditional energy sources more expensive. We should be cutting burdensome regulations that constrain the development and deployment of energy, whether it be nuclear, fossil fuels, or hydropower. These regulatory burdens should be removed and reformed to spur clean energy innovation with the power of markets, not within the hands of government bureaucrats.

Mr. Speaker, we, in central Washington, have another prize gem in our backyard. I am proud to represent the people that work at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. This premier Department of Energy lab is on the forefront of energy innovation. From enabling safe and sustainable fossil fuel exploration production, transportation, conversion, and end use, to transforming the U.S. power grid to meet economic, environmental, and security priorities for the 21st century, our national labs like PNNL delivers distinctive science and technology solutions for efficient and sustainable energy.

I am a proud member of the House Appropriations Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee where we continue to prioritize strategic energy research and development that will increase U.S. economic growth, innovation, and competitiveness.

Congress should continue to work on utilizing and empowering public- private partnerships to rapidly develop new technologies and then let the market catalyze its growth and commercial liability. There are great examples of these efforts taking place in the innovative high- tech communities of the Tri-Cities, Washington, where experts from the private sector are partnering with research and support offered by PNNL to develop grid-scale storage solutions and small modular reactor technologies, fundamentally transforming the future of nuclear power generation and battery storage technologies.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents want energy security and want a clean environment. They want economic growth, job creation, and they want to keep their low-cost electricity. The way to a cleaner, more prosperous future for our Nation's energy needs is not through more government bureaucracy. It is through empowering American innovation. That is why a carbon tax is wrong for my district in central Washington State. It is wrong for the entire State of Washington, and it is wrong for the United States of America. We need to innovate, rather than regulate the future of America's energy dominance.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side seem to be focused on closed versus open rules. We hear that time and time again. They are ignoring that the structured amendment process has routinely been used by both parties when they were in the majority.

This majority has made it a priority to make in order amendments for floor consideration, which, I might point out, a majority of those amendments have been Democratic-sponsored or cosponsored. In fact, as of July 12 of this year, Republicans in this Congress, the 115th Congress, provided for the consideration of more than 1,650 amendments on the House floor: 745 of those were Democrat amendments; 630 were Republican amendments; and 280 were, proudly, bipartisan amendments, Mr. Speaker. So by no means are we stopping the process. That doesn't even count the thousands and thousands of submissions that Members make, both Republican and Democrat, to committees for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the fact that this is a totally closed process. It is open for participation by every Member of the House who represents constituents across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate my earlier announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I will not yield for any other purpose.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to the resolution at hand about moving away from regressive taxes and top-down, Big Government regulation, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on this side of the aisle, but before I reserve my time, I just want to remind my good friends on the other side of the aisle that my colleague and good friend from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, did offer this amendment in the Appropriations Committee just last week. We did spend a great deal of time debating and discussing this idea.

As the good chairman from the Rules Committee said, and I will repeat, of the funds that were appropriated, there were $380 million appropriated for the Election Assistance Commission, which was the last of the final payment of the $3.65 billion originally authorized under the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Of these 2018 funds, there are still 39 percent of these dollars available to the States.

There is no crisis. The money is available to States that want those dollars for assistance. In fact, to date, my latest information, Mr. Speaker, there are still 19 States yet to submit an application.

So there is no crisis. There is help available. States have an opportunity to receive the resources necessary to make sure we have what all American people want, that our elections are held with the utmost honesty and integrity.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have no more speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, as tempting as that sounds, I think that the adequate 30 minutes per side is enough for both of us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Maine, as well as the gentleman from Vermont, getting back to the debate at hand.

I just want to share a few things that I have learned from a recent poll conducted by the Institute for Energy Research. They found that a resounding 85 percent of respondents agreed that we should not make energy more expensive.

Even more tellingly than that, though, when asked whether they trusted the Federal Government to spend the money from a tax on carbon emissions wisely, only 18 percent of the respondents felt that they would, while 74 percent said that they did not feel that way.

An overwhelming 73 percent of respondents agreed that the last thing that we need is higher taxes or more bureaucracy. And, lastly, 85 percent of respondents feared that consumers will wind up paying the cost associated with a tax or regulation, exactly what we have been saying.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the American people remain profoundly skeptical of government intrusion into the free markets, and like I said before, a carbon tax would be wrong for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

MR. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

We are prepared to close on the Republican side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage with my good friend and colleague from the State of Massachusetts, especially on a particularly important issue such as carbon tax.

It is my feeling and the feeling of the majority of this House that we need to move away from aggressive taxes and top-down Big Government regulation. We need to get behind innovative-centric solutions that remove bureaucratic barriers to clean, affordable, and reliable energy technology and allow for real global carbon emission reductions.

Our affordable and reliable energy supply must be the focus, along with a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. A carbon tax simply would not yield those kinds of results.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying legislation, H. Con. Res. 119, which is simply this: Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows

An Amendment to H. Res. 1001 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to

clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into

the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union

for consideration of the bill (H.R. 12) to modernize voter

registration, promote access to voting for individuals with

disabilities, protect the ability of individuals to exercise

the right to vote in elections for Federal office, and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and

controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority

members of the Committees on House Administration, the

Judiciary, Science, Space and Technology, Veterans' Affairs,

Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 12.

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a

vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous

question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an

immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no

substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''

But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the

Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in

the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,

page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous

question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally

not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a Republican sense of Congress resolution proclaiming that a carbon tax would be bad for the U.S. economy. That is it. That is how this majority is choosing to spend its precious legislative time. I mean, this is a big nothing burger.

Instead of considering legislation to address the administration's horrific child separation policy at the border or addressing the surging cost of prescription drugs or taking action to address gun safety, or finally, finally holding Russia accountable for their interference in the 2016 election, something the President himself has trouble acknowledging, we are here considering a sense of Congress stating that a carbon tax would be bad for America.

You know, I don't know how many of my Republican colleagues are scientists, but you might want to meet some and talk to some of them. They are smart people. They deal in facts. They deal in evidence. They deal in results.

Look, Mr. Speaker, as any third grader knows, the Earth revolves around the Sun, and if I drop a pen, it will fall to the table because of gravity. We know that smoking causes cancer, and we know that the Earth is not flat. We also know that climate change is real and that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause. But Republicans are burying their heads in the sand with this glorified press release attacking a potential tool to combat it.

But even worse than what we are doing is what the Republican majority is blocking from consideration. This week they blocked an amendment that would have provided much needed funding to the Election Assistance Commission to protect our elections from further Russian interference. This is outrageous. Just days after President Trump sided with Putin over our own intelligence community, Republicans blocked funding to protect our elections. Essentially, the President sold out America in Helsinki.

So Republicans want to vote on a sense of Congress, let's consider the resolution reiterating Speaker Ryan's statement in response to the President's terrible performance in Helsinki. It acknowledges Russia's role in interfering in our election, and it affirms our support for the intelligence community. But, of course, the majority has blocked that resolution.

Instead, we are now debating our 92nd closed rule this Congress. This is the most closed Congress in history, with zero open rules. And for those in the gallery, the reason why this is important is because the majority of bills that have come to this floor have come in a way that nobody can amend them. Nobody can change even a word in the bill. I mean, this is supposed to be the people's House, not the Russia house.

Mr. Speaker, this, what we are doing today, is a waste of time. We have real issues to address--substantive issues to address. The American people deserve more than show votes that throw red meat to the oil lobby. I would say to my Republican colleagues: Do your job. Listen to the American people. Start addressing some of their concerns, like the fact that we need to protect our election system from more Russian interference. That is a serious matter. All of our intelligence agencies have said it is a serious matter, that it happened.

And what is your response? You zero out money in an appropriations bill to help protect our election system. Then you block an amendment that would allow us to put the money back in.

All we want is a fair fight. If you want to vote ``no'' on it, vote ``no'' on it. But the American people are concerned, even if you are not. Do your job.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I tried to get the gentleman from Kentucky to yield, but I guess he didn't want to get into an exchange. But he said that he is worried about Kentucky jobs. There is nothing in this bill that will protect one job anywhere.

We are not debating a carbon tax. This is a sense of Congress. This is a press release. This is not going to protect anybody's paycheck. This is ridiculous. Are you going to go home to your constituents and say, ``Oh, I did something for you. I passed a press release''? I mean, give me a break.

The gentleman talks about the poor. If he is worried about the poor, then stop cutting Medicaid. If he is worried about the poor, stop cutting food assistance from people struggling in poverty, because that is what the Republican majority has been doing consistently in this Congress. So I don't need any lectures about that.

To the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my colleague, let me again say, because I think people need to have this sink in, this is the most closed Congress in the history of our country: 92 closed rules. That means that the majority of bills--I want my Republican colleagues to listen to this as well--the majority of bills have come to the floor where nobody, even Republicans, are allowed to offer any amendments--nothing.

Is this the people's House? Is this what you came to Washington to do, to shut out debate, to shut out good ideas?

It is a disgrace. My hope is that the people of this country are watching and that they will send you a message in November.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, the Voter Empowerment Act, introduced by my colleague, Representative John Lewis, which would ensure equal access to the ballot, modernize the voter registration system, and take steps to eliminate deceptive practices that deter voters from casting their ballots.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this week, Republicans have brought to the floor a bill that zeros out funding for a grant program to the Election Assistance Commission to help States and local governments secure our elections.

Now, a news flash, Mr. Speaker--I hope my Republican friends are listening--Russia was just caught meddling in our election. In fact, meddling is not strong enough. They attacked our country.

When we discovered this, Mr. Quigley offered an amendment to restore this critical funding, and it was blocked in the Rules Committee. My friends in the Rules Committee won't even let us vote on it.

People may ask why, why can't we have a vote on putting money back in to secure our election system. Well, the reason why, I think, is because we might win and that Democrats--and there are probably a lot of Republicans--would join with us in supporting the amendment.

They denied it because it makes sense. It is common sense.

We should be funding this program and, instead, we are debating a press release that my friends on the other side are so passionate about, that will do nothing for anybody. It is just a press release. We are not debating a carbon tax. We are debating a press release. We ought to be protecting our election system.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) for

the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am now proud to yield to the gentleman from my home State of Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the hell else we can do over

here. I mean, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Washington only wants to yield for debate only, but how about yielding so that we can act?

I mean, I think the American people want us to do something. I mean, what happened in the 2016 election, what Russia did to our country, was a serious matter. And I am going to tell you, it is not just Democrats that are concerned. I know Republicans and Independents are concerned as well.

This is an American issue, and when our Nation is attacked, we come together. We put partisanship aside. We act. We just don't talk. We act.

We have been trying, using every procedural means we know. We have been appealing in the Rules Committee. We have been trying to bring these issues to the floor, and we get shut down every single time. This is unbelievable.

I mean, history is going to look back on the inaction of this Congress with great shame.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I can't believe what is said on this House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee, if he is so sure of his arguments on this issue, then bring the amendment to the floor, present your case, and let the majority of this House determine what we should do. I guarantee you the majority of this House would vote to provide the money to the States and to local communities, because they are hearing from their constituencies about how concerned they are about potential Russian meddling in our election.

They are doubly concerned after the President's horrific performance in Helsinki where he seemed to go out of his way to cozy up to Putin. So people are concerned.

So the vote that we lost in the Rules Committee was not to enact this amendment, the Quigley amendment, to put the money back in so that the grants could go to States and local communities, the vote we lost-- people need to understand this: the vote we lost was to have the ability to debate it and vote on it.

This is the United States House of Representatives. That is what we are supposed to do. Stop the obstructionism, especially on an issue like this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Will the gentleman yield?

That is correct, we cannot vote on that.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, when I offered the Quigley amendment, which would have allowed us to have this vote, all the Republicans voted ``no.''

We can try one more time. We have been trying and

trying and trying, but they are insistent on blocking this amendment from even being considered.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. What this House needs is a little democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, all these excuses. As the gentleman knows, hundreds of Members of this House don't sit on the Appropriations Committee. Should they not have a voice on this issue?

And, by the way, since that vote in the Appropriations Committee, a lot has changed in this country. If you are reading the news, 12 Russians were indicted for meddling in our election. The President of the United States went over to Helsinki and made nice with Vladimir Putin. That shocked not only the citizens of the United States, but the entire world.

So I disagree with the gentleman when he says there is no crisis. There is a crisis and we need to address it. We need to do everything we can to prepare ourselves for another attack. All we are asking for is a vote.

If the gentleman doesn't think there is a crisis, doesn't want to vote for this, he can vote ``no,'' that is his right, but for the hundreds of Members of this Chamber who would like a debate and a vote on this, give them that opportunity.

The Rules Committee ought not to be a place where democracy goes to die, especially on issues like this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, may I make an inquiry of the gentleman from Washington?

I know the gentleman said he has no further speakers, but we are being inundated with speakers on this side. Does the gentleman want to maybe send a few minutes our way?

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thought I would ask.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, can I just double-check and inquire of the gentleman whether he has any additional speakers over there?

Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that I have 1\1/2\ minutes remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that we are here debating a press release. We are not debating a carbon tax. We are debating a press release.

I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you are against the carbon tax, go back to your office and issue a press release and send it to your local newspapers, because that is what this is.

We are wasting precious time on this floor when there are other issues. We have children being separated from their parents at the border. We have prescription drug prices that are skyrocketing. We need an infrastructure bill. We have gun violence in this country that is out of control, where there are massacres occurring on a regular basis. And what are we doing? We are doing a press release. This is shameful.

And on the issue of Russian interference in our elections, we ought to be having a debate on an amendment to provide more funds to States and local authorities to protect their election systems.

The gentleman from Washington says: Oh, there is still 39 percent of the money left. They don't need it. I think his information is old, because we are told that every single State has put in a request for additional assistance. Why don't we debate that and vote on it and do the right thing?

I am looking at a New York Times article that just appeared today where the President of the United States, Donald Trump, says Russia is no longer targeting the U.S. I mean, is this for real? What is wrong with him?

It is time for Congress to stage an intervention with him and tell him to listen to his intelligence agencies who contradict what he has just said this morning. This is urgent.

We can't count on the President of the United States to do the right thing. Congress needs to stand up. Congress needs to be counted.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am discouraged to come to the floor today as we squander the valuable time of this body arguing over a pointless resolution that will accomplish nothing for the people of America, whether it is accepted or rejected--nothing.

Let's be clear about what this resolution does and does not do.

We are not arguing today over whether this body will or will not adopt a tax on carbon emissions. This resolution, and I am quoting, expresses the sense of Congress about a carbon tax.

So what we are trying to achieve, apparently, this morning is a discussion of the mood of Congress. Well, we should hold some hearings about the mood of Congress, because I would submit that it is not a very pleasant time to be working on Capitol Hill. Nothing in this exercise is going to have anything to do with a carbon tax. This is better suited to a high school debate than it is to the United States House of Representatives.

There are plenty of people across the country who need real help and real action from this Congress. Every day, American families, people far from this building, far from this city, are struggling with real problems and real challenges.

They feel their standard of living has not improved. They want to feel some security, security that their jobs will stick around--how about holding some hearings on pensions?--security that they can count on health insurance, security that one day they will be able to retire with dignity, security that they will be able to launch their kids into a successful and happy life.

So, on this Thursday morning, the Republican leadership has brought up a sense of the mood of Congress on carbon. We could choose to bring forward legislation that actually would help American families today. We could help them meet many of the challenges that they have. Instead, we are using our precious remaining legislative days to hold an amateur hour on a debate about something that is not going to happen.

This is a vacuous gesture, empty in every form. It is a political stunt. It is not worthy of the time or the attention of this body.

When I go home and talk to my constituents and my neighbors, they want to hear what I, along with the Members of this Chamber, intend to do to ensure that their hard work still translates into a decent life.

Something around us is clearly out of step. There is a growing anxiety around the country that is bigger than our political differences and divide. It is a building sense that, at some point when we all perhaps were not looking, the system became stacked against ordinary people; the rules changed, and hard work isn't enough any longer to guarantee that you can make it in America.

The unemployment rate, for sure, is low, but 65 percent of Americans worry about having enough money to pay their bills. Yes, we can say this morning that downward pressure on wages, essentially, has kept those wages flat for the American people despite the fact that the unemployment rate is advertised at about 4 percent. One in five Americans has more credit card debt than emergency savings. Less than 40 percent of the people in this country have enough savings to cover a $1,000 emergency room visit or, for that matter, car repair.

It is plain to see in my own district. We have seen the challenges that the people back in western Massachusetts face every single day. Despite the talk of growth in the stock market--which, by the way, has been going up since October of 2009--their salaries have barely moved.

Home prices have gone up by 9 percent in our market last year. A gallon of gas costs 28 percent more than last year. Electricity bills in Massachusetts are up 21 percent over last year. Childcare, saving for college, and, again, retirement and pensions, healthcare premiums-- Mr. Speaker, people are having trouble keeping up. Teachers have to pick up jobs waiting on tables or driving for Uber. Families need to juggle multiple jobs just to get by.

But today's economy, apparently, isn't hard on the top 1 percent in America. Last year, the average bonus on Wall Street--and listen to this number, average--$185,000. It rose 17 percent after our Republican colleagues passed their tax bill last year. That is three times what most American families bring home in an entire year.

It seems like things used to be easier. Do you know why? Because they were easier. Americans born in the 1940s had a 92 percent chance of earning a higher income than their parents had at age 30. Those born in the 1980s have a 50 percent chance of doing so. The tax bill that Republicans passed last year, without a single hearing in all of 51 days--and not, incidentally, with one Democratic vote--will make things substantially worse for these families.

People don't really need to hear these statistics. Intuitively, they know what has happened. Three out of four Americans are not confident that their children will grow up to be better off than they were, and they have every right to be worried.

Healthcare used to be easier to afford. The new Republican tax law raised premiums by 15 percent and weakened protections for millions of Americans with preexisting conditions.

Then Republicans wanted to slash $500 billion out of the Medicare program so that many of our family members who depend on it will be even more challenged.

What have families gotten from the Republicans on healthcare? Higher deductibles, higher costs, and plans that cover much less.

The cost of a 4-year degree at a public college has doubled since 1996. The basic ticket into the middle class is out of reach for too many of our young people today. The ones who do manage to scrape by far too often accumulate debt that makes homeownership or starting a family a long way off.

Other family budget essentials just keep climbing, too. As I noted, gas prices are up 27 percent from last year. Childcare costs rose for the fifth year in a row. This year, a week of infant childcare at a daycare center is $211.

Mr. Speaker, there are concrete actions that we might take right here in this Chamber to support these families. We could spend today working on college affordability. How about some pension hearings to talk about what is happening in the central States as well as the challenges that retirement faces for the American family? And how do we help more people afford that first home or help their parents, once again, prepare for a secure retirement?

We are nearly out of time to get things done in this Congress. We are down to less than 25 legislative days before the midterm elections. If we plan to do anything about the pressing issues facing Americans, this is the time to step it up. But, instead of trying to broker solutions or offer ideas, the Republican leadership has opted to hold a shadow debate.

It doesn't matter how this vote turns out. Let me repeat that. It doesn't matter how this vote turns out. The outcome is going to be identical. Nothing on this issue will change because of what we are doing this morning. Nothing will change.

That contentment with the status quo may be fine for my Republican colleagues, but it is not going to help the families whom I represent. In fact, it pretty much reinforces their doubts about the very work of Congress.

Listen, if you want to debate a carbon tax, let's hold some hearings. Let's hold some discussions about a carbon tax. Let's find out what it would mean for the economy. We might use that moment to test what offshore drilling does for oil as part of the carbon tax discussion or for the families in western Massachusetts. Let's find out what impact it would have on fossil fuel emissions and economic growth. Let's think strategically about how it might affect our geopolitics. If you want to have this debate, then let's have a real debate through hearings in the regular order.

This resolution is really meaningless. The outcome will be nothing, no matter what the final vote turns out to be. It is a waste of all of our time this morning, and we ought to be devoting that time to meeting the challenges that the American people expect us to meet.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a very important member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the Farm Bureau says about the tariffs on agricultural products across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), my neighbor and good friend, a well-informed member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody was demeaning the work that people do, on this side. I think we were talking about the challenging nature of our economy. I don't think the gentleman would dispute the fact that the gig economy has created a downward pressure on wages.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), the voice of Chicago and a well-known and well- regarded member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), a very knowledgeable woman from the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a well-regarded member of the Ways and Means Committee. We are certain he will add clarity to this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to compliment the previous speaker, my friend, Mr. Shimkus, on the notion of process, calling up the notion of process.

So here we have had a debate where we have sparred for the better part of an hour, and we are debating a topic on which there have been no hearings.

Now, let me guess. This is consistent with how the tax bill was done in, incidentally, 51 days, without a hearing or without a witness.

So we are being asked to vote on something today, here, on which there has been no opportunity to place the magnifying glass of critical scrutiny on the proposal that is in front of us because, the truth is, what is in front of us is a question about the mood of Congress.

I think all 435 of us could testify to what the mood of Congress is right now, so I don't think it would be one of the more challenging events that we would confront.

But the idea that this is brought in front of the Congress without any opportunity for anybody to examine the underlying legislation and the thrust of what the regular order might impel contributes to the frustration that the American people feel about the institution and its priorities.

So as we have wrapped up this debate over a piece of legislation that will accomplish zip, zero, nothing, it literally does not matter how the vote turns out because the sole purpose of this resolution is to express, once again, the mood of Congress.

I am happy to express the mood of Congress any time that they want, happy to have a hearing on the mood of Congress if that is what they think might get us to a more sound proposal of energy independence, the use of renewables. But no, instead they bring up a piece of legislation here that is going to test how we feel about things this morning.

I think that the mood we should focus on is the mood of the American people. The people I talk to are under stress. They are tired. They are exhausted from working one, two jobs. Labor participation rates at 62.9 percent, 2 million people with opioid addictions, I wonder what their mood is as they listen to the discussion that we have had here on this floor.

They are anxious about their future. They are feeling squeezed because, for years now, the economy has been leaving them a little bit further behind. And I say that about wage growth.

Wages have flatlined for the better part of almost 13 years in America. And now, even as we see some glimmer of hope, the truth is the cost of gasoline and the cost of inflation is going to stagnate their wages again.

So paychecks have been stuck at the same level, and all the things that families need to get by have been getting more and more expensive. Housing, healthcare, college, childcare, utilities, those bills keep growing, but the salaries somehow don't keep up.

Why don't we have a hearing about the mood of people who have not seen any real wage increases--then we would get a better flavor for the debate that we are having today--rather than the mood of Congress on a piece of legislation that has had no hearings and no vetting?

So what about a hearing on the mood of our retirement system?

What about a hearing on the mood of a child's education?

Why don't we begin to talk about some of those issues? Why don't we just have some hearings on some of these issues?

Young people are going tens of thousands of dollars into student loan debt just to try to get a decent start in life. What about their mood?

Seniors are seeing their fixed incomes stretched until they break, forcing far too many to choose between paying for their prescription drugs and their groceries. Let's have a hearing on their mood.

Parents cope with high childcare costs that can eat up most of their paycheck, but the small margin that is left over is important to keep that family going. Let's have a hearing about their mood.

The people I talk to, they are not asking for too much. Their expectations for their families aren't out of line. Nobody is asking for a handout. They are asking for a hand up for opportunity.

Everybody is working hard, but people feel like they are running as fast as they can up the down escalator. Let's have a hearing on how they feel about those costs.

It takes us an unreasonable amount of effort to stay in exactly the same place. Getting ahead feels more challenging and more difficult all the time.

Last December, Republicans passed a catastrophic tax bill that gave away $2.3 trillion over 10 years--without a hearing, without a witness--in 51 days. What about the mood of the American people as they examine it? And we have seen the mood in public polling.

The legislation we have today could have offered some relief to low- and middle-income families, but Republicans chose to leave them out in the cold. In fact, it did so little for the average family that their cuts won't begin to keep up with the rise in healthcare premiums or, for that matter, gasoline prices at the pump.

Instead, the tax bill heaped giveaways on people who are already completely comfortable and thriving--more concentrated wealth.

The people who elected us sent us here to do a job on their behalf, and we ought to take into consideration their mood. They have hired us to get things done for them, and we all take, I hope, that responsibility seriously.

Our activity today has been unworthy of the trust they have placed in us. It has really been a hoax. They have just wasted all this time arguing over a sense of Congress about a carbon tax and the mood of Congress. I could have told them what the mood was here; they just have to ask me.

This is going to be a pointless vote, meaningless in stature, and there will be no outcome whatsoever. This is political theater. It is not governing like responsible Representatives.

I urge my colleagues in the majority to focus this body on accomplishing things in the future that really might help people who sent us here to do precisely that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct conferees at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of anxiety out in the countryside because of trade, because of RFS, because of low prices, and because of weather in my area. What we are trying to do here is avoid another potential problem, and that is what can happen with an animal disease outbreak in this country.

In Minnesota, we suffered the biggest animal disease outbreak we have ever seen in this country when we got avian influenza in our turkey flock. It was devastating. The producers lost $113 million. We lost $3 billion in the country, and we saw the effect of not being prepared.

This isn't just a poultry problem. This also relates to foot-and- mouth disease, to PEDv, to cattle fever tick that Congressman Vela has informed me about, and to other diseases that present a serious threat for the viability of the livestock operations in the communities and supply chains across the country that depend on them.

In the House bill, we have a provision for $450 million of permanent funding over 5 years for programs, including the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, the National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program, and the National Animal Vaccine Bank. The Senate provides an authorization for appropriations, but there is no permanent funding in the Senate bill.

While the appropriations committees deserve credit because they have put some funding into these programs over the years, the problem is that APHIS and the people who deal with this at the State level can't depend on it because you never know what it is going to be from year to year because the appropriators are the ones who have to decide. We want to make this permanent, and we are hoping that the Senate will accede to our ideas.

Animal disease programs are important investments in the health of our Nation's animals, our people, and the security of our food supply. As part of their work on the farm bill, conferees should insist on 10- year mandatory funding for animal disease preparedness and response programs to provide the certainty for both the farmers, for the consumers, and for the people who deal with this at the regulatory level.

Mr. Speaker, I include my full statement in the Record.

The mood in farm country is bad. It's bad because of the Administration's trade war; it's

bad because of declines in farm income; and it's bad because of volatile weather like the floods in the southern part of my district. Farmers and ranchers are staring a historically bad year in the face, and another hit would mean devastation for many of them.

And that's exactly what an animal disease outbreak would cause. Minnesota is the nation's largest producer of turkeys. Following an outbreak of avian influenza in 2013 and 2014, it is estimated that poultry producers in my state lost $113 million in existing production, approximately $3 billion nationally, and it cost taxpayers almost $1 billion.

Hungry consumers are affected too. The price of a dozen eggs in 2015 was double what it was before the outbreak.

This isn't just a poultry problem. Foot and Mouth Disease, PEDv, Cattle Fever Tick and other diseases present a serious threat to the viability of livestock operations and the communities and supply chains across the country that depend on them. Outbreaks mean culling animals and suspending production, and because fewer animals come into processing facilities, layoffs in local communities.

Disease outbreaks also impact farmers who grow feed. One study estimates that a future outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease could cost corn growers $44 billion and soybean growers nearly $25 billion. And there's a national security aspect to animal disease preparedness. The bipartisan Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense found that our current commitment to animal disease outbreaks leaves us vulnerable to attack on our food supply.

If we are serious about addressing these outbreaks, we must invest in preparation and response tools to tackle these diseases early. That level of effort is impossible without long-term funding certainty.

Currently, the House bill provides $450 million in mandatory funding over five years for programs including the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, the National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program, and the National Animal Vaccine Bank. The Senate provides an authorization for appropriations, but no mandatory funding. While the Appropriations Committees deserve credit for providing some funding for these programs in their bills, animal health is not a short-term issue or an issue we should short change. APHIS, state officials, and producers need to know that adequate funding for these programs is going to be available for their work to pay off.

Animal disease programs are important investments in the health of our nation's animals, our people, and the security of our food supply. As part of their work on the farm bill, conferees should insist on ten- year, mandatory funding for Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Programs to provide the certainty that both farmers and consumers need. I am submitting for the Record a letter in support of these provisions from the Animal Agriculture Coalition, which represents livestock producers and animal health professionals nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1001, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 119) expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 119, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank leadership for bringing this resolution to the floor for consideration. I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 119, which would express the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the U.S. economy.

This resolution will send a clear signal to the American people that we oppose policies that would drive up energy prices for families and for businesses. A standalone carbon tax generally would have such detrimental effects on the economy and would be an unwarranted and transparent grab for revenue.

The adverse economic effects of such a tax would be felt throughout the economy, falling hardest on the most vulnerable: the young, the poor, the elderly, and those living on fixed incomes.

An Obama administration proposal in 2016 for a $10 tax on every barrel of oil would have translated into an increase at the gas pump of approximately 25 cents per gallon for every American consumer. Similarly, a standalone carbon tax would increase the price of gasoline, natural gas, home heating oil, and electricity.

American families would feel the pain immediately when they buy gas or diesel to get them to their jobs every day. American families would also feel the pain when they turn on the lights or adjust the thermostat in their homes every day.

The cost burden of a carbon tax also would, correspondingly, increase the price of everything consumers buy every day--in short, everything from a carton of milk to a pair of shoes, to a bicycle, to an automobile.

The price increases on goods with fixed demand that would result from such a tax would directly harm millions of Americans whose incomes mean that they must budget carefully in advance to afford just the basic necessities of life.

In addition, a carbon tax would hit at a time when the industries that it targets are just now recovering from a very damaging economic period of our lives.

With a reformed Tax Code built for growth and rollback of burdensome regulations, American businesses and their workers are finally making a comeback, and we are seeing great optimism about our economic future. Now is not the time to debate placing additional burdens on industries that are trying to help us keep the lights on.

This resolution makes clear that we oppose policies that would drive up energy prices, damage the U.S. economy, reduce the American GDP, and hurt American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), who was an original cosponsor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman from Illinois an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

For many years now, Republicans in Congress have been clear: A new stand-alone carbon tax will raise consumer costs and hurt the economy. It is not a solution to any challenge but, rather, it would create additional challenges.

If American businesses and workers in industries are targeted by a carbon tax, they will suffer economically under such a policy. They are just now recovering from the recession that we went into, and they are just now, because of the tax bill that was passed this past year, just now beginning to see a brighter economic future. We should not debate putting new obstacles in front of them at this time.

Together, we should be focused on working to advance policies that hold down energy costs, improve the U.S. economy, its GDP, and create jobs. That is what we did last year, and that is what we are doing today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.