Expressing the Sense of Congress That A Carbon Tax Would Be Detrimental to the United States Economy

Floor Speech

I am pleased to hear my friend from Louisiana with his impassioned presentation today; but his presentation, coming on the heels of what we all heard from the Prime Minister of India--calling for a low carbon, sustainable, innovative future--makes me sad.

If we would have had our economy take these issues seriously--maybe have a week of hearings--we would have been able to demonstrate to the gentleman with an impartial panel of independent experts all across the political spectrum--Conservative, Liberal, Republican, and Democrat-- that a carbon tax, revenue neutral, is, actually, the key to the innovative future they want.

There are all sorts of ways to design a carbon tax, to, actually, enhance the role--the economic status--of low- and moderate-income people, but we never had a hearing on that. It is just simply dismissed as something that we can't do, but they have done it elsewhere in the world. If the committee had done its job, we would be dealing with facts, not hyperbole.

If the committee had done its job, we would have heard that we have very real challenges today to American security, which our Department of Defense has pointed out.

Climate change, despite denial from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, is a threat today to the American military posture. Climate change is disrupting industries like fishing. It is producing unprecedented flooding, forest fires, and a wildly unpredictable weather future. The reduction of arctic ice at unprecedented levels ought to be of concern to my friends on the other side of the aisle. Maybe if we had some open, honest hearings that were balanced and independent, that case would have been made and they may support it.

But whether or not they care about climate change and global warming, a carbon tax makes sense for American innovation, the economy, and our competitiveness. It is the areas of low-carbon energy that have seen the job growth. There are now more people working in wind and solar than the coal industry by far. That is where the job growth has been undertaken.

A carbon tax would enhance America's global competitiveness. And if we had hearings, listening to independent experts across the board, that case would be made, and I don't think we would have this foolish resolution on the floor.

These are elements that would inject into our energy policy an even, balanced approach using market forces, which are much easier than some of the incentives that we have, which are important, which people on both sides of the aisle have supported in the past. But a carbon tax is a more effective way of achieving those objectives.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sad that we didn't have that debate in committee. I am sad that we didn't hear from independent experts. I think of our friend Bob Inglis, former Congressperson, who is on a personal crusade working with the evangelical community about the merits of a carbon tax. It would have been great to have heard from Bob and others like him to be able to present a balanced picture and be able to deal with meaningful policy.

I still hope that someday, that time will come that our Ways and Means Committee actually takes the time to dive into one of the most important issues of the day and to examine one of the tools that independent experts all across the spectrum agree would be a solid addition and actually simplify the Tax Code while we can help people in low income and small business and provide incentives for America's global competitiveness, like we heard from the Prime Minister of India from that very rostrum just 2 days ago.

I couldn't agree more with my good friend from Butler, Pennsylvania, that we can actually come together and fashion solutions. That is why it is such a tragedy that this resolution comes to the floor without ever having our committee work on it, because we could have had hearings that could have narrowed those gaps.

I include in the Record a letter from six conservative advocates for climate change action. June 7, 2016.

Dear Representative: Later this week Congress will take up a resolution sponsored by Congressman Scalise (R-LA1) that expresses the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the economy of the United States. We are concerned that this resolution offers a limited perspective on carbon taxes and is blind to the potential benefits of market-based climate policy. Legislation that incorporates a carbon tax could include regulatory and tax reforms to make the United States economy more competitive, innovative, and robust, benefiting both present and future generations.

We recognize that a carbon tax, like any tax, will impose economic costs. But climate change is also imposing economic costs. This resolution falls short by recognizing the cost of action without considering the cost of staying on our present policy course. There are, of course, uncertainties about the future cost of climate change and, likewise, the cost associated with a carbon tax (much would depend on program design and the pace and nature of technological progress). The need for action, however, is clear. A recent survey of economists who publish in leading peer-reviewed journals on these matters found that 93% believe that a meaningful policy response to climate change is warranted.

The least burdensome, most straightforward, and most market-friendly means of addressing climate change is to price the risks imposed by greenhouse gas emissions via a tax. This would harness price signals, rather than regulations, to guide market response. That is why carbon pricing has the support of free market economists, a majority of the global business community, and a large number of the largest multinational private oil and gas companies in the world (the corporate entities among the most directly affected by climate policy).

In reaching a conclusion, this resolution neglects the fact that the United States already has a multiplicity of carbon taxes. They are imposed, however, via dozens of federal and state regulations, are invisible to consumers, unevenly imposed across industrial sectors, unnecessarily costly, and growing in size and scope. The policy choice is not if we should price carbon emissions, but how.

Unfortunately, this resolution also fails to differentiate between proposals that would impose carbon taxes on top of existing regulations (chiefly the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan), and proposals that would impose carbon taxes in place of those existing regulations. Conservatives and free market advocates should embrace the latter, regardless of how they view climate risks.

An economy-wide carbon tax that replaces existing regulatory interventions could reduce the cost of climate policy and deregulate the economy. It could also provide revenue to support pro-growth tax reform, including corporate income or payroll tax cuts, which could dramatically reduce overall costs on the economy. Revenues could be applied to compensate those who suffer the most from higher energy costs; the poor, the elderly, and individuals and families living on fixed incomes.

Unfortunately, none of those options are presently available because Members of Congress have neglected opportunities to design and debate market-friendly climate policies in legislation. Instead, they have yielded authority in climate policy design to the Executive Branch. By discouraging a long-overdue discussion about sensible carbon pricing, this resolution frustrates the development of better policy. Sincerely, Jerry Taylor,

President, Niskanen Center. Bob Inglis,

Executive Director, RepublicEn. Aparna Mathur,

Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute. Eli Lehrer,

President, R Street Institute. The Rev. Mitchell C. Hescox,

President, Evangelical Environmental Network. Alan Viard,

Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Pennsylvania could have heard them talk about the need for action and how you can design a carbon tax that meets the objectives he is talking about, but we never did that. We didn't listen to experts across the spectrum--Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, economists, and scientists--to be able to examine the facts.

Instead, we have a cartoon proposal that they are arguing against as opposed to something that we could have worked on together that is promoted by most of the independent experts in the field. And someday within our lifetime this Congress will consider and, I think, probably approve.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott), who has looked at some of these challenges around the globe.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my friend from Louisiana's impassioned presentation. It is too bad that the Committee on Ways and Means didn't actually sit down and go through the elements that would be in a balanced carbon tax. He is debating a cartoon version, not one that we worked on.

I am going to yield, in a moment, to one of the gentlemen who, earlier in this carbon debate several Congresses ago, has been involved with crafting a realistic carbon tax.

We had the reference to the inability to move the cap-and-trade, which I don't think is as good as a carbon tax. It failed because there were a minority of the Senate who were opposed to allowing it to go forward. It wasn't that we didn't have a majority that were interested. In the Senate, you can have a veto with 41 people who are decided that they are not going to allow things to move forward.

He has been a student of a carbon tax, who has listened to those people across the political spectrum and has been a champion of a reasonable, thoughtful approach to promote American innovation.

I would just point out the areas where we have had the greatest job growth in the energy sector have not been petroleum or coal. It has been solar and wind. A carbon tax would help accelerate that by leveling the playing field and allowing the forces of economics to dictate the next steps.

I really appreciate this little window of an opportunity to talk about a carbon tax. I hope that the day will come when we will have an opportunity to have that discussion in a robust and thoughtful way in our Ways and Means Committee. Heaven knows it is important.

Lots of people have opinions and ideas. I think we would benefit from it, but I hope that we will have that discussion after we hear from a balanced, wide-ranging group of independent experts across the spectrum to be able to give us meaningful information about it.

I include in the Record a letter from Greg Dotson, who is the Vice President for Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress. Center for American Progress, Washington, DC, June 8, 2016.

Dear Representative: Later this week, the U.S. House of Representatives will consider H. Con. Res. 89, a resolution that rejects the pricing of carbon pollution. On behalf of the Center for American Progress, I am writing to urge you to oppose this resolution. It is time for Congress to develop sensible policies that address the serious and potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change. Science informs us that we need an urgent solution to this problem. Although the current Administration has made historic progress on climate change, it is clear that we need to do more to achieve additional carbon pollution reductions and lead the world in responding to this global challenge.

Top economic advisors to both Democratic and Republican Presidents have expressed their support for putting a price on carbon as an effective and efficient approach for reducing pollution. Joseph Stiglitz, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) under President Bill Clinton, has stated, ``Economic efficiency requires that those who generate emissions pay the cost, and the simplest way of forcing them to do so is through a carbon tax.'' Gregory Mankiw, former Chairman of the CEA under President George W. Bush, has stated, ``Basic economics tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax.''

In fact, carbon pollution is already priced in a significant portion of the world. In total, about 40 national jurisdictions and more than 20 cities, states, and regions on five continents--representing almost a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions--have placed a price on carbon. In the United States, 25 percent of the population lives in a jurisdiction where carbon pollution is currently priced and where one-third of the country's economic activity takes place. The price on carbon in California is the highest of any state in the country at almost $13 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent, and yet the California economy is projected to grow at a faster pace than the rest of the United States over the next two years.

In recent years, momentum to expand the adoption of carbon pricing policies has been growing. More than 400 investors with more than $24 trillion in assets have called on governments to establish ``stable, economically meaningful carbon pricing.'' Already, more than 1,000 businesses apply a price on carbon to inform their investments and operations or plan to do so in the next two years. In addition, at the United Nations climate talks in Paris last December, governments, businesses, and nongovernmental organizations announced the new Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition to accelerate and expand the adoption of carbon pricing worldwide.

In order to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, the United States needs to consider all possible tools at its disposal, including the effective market-based mechanisms of carbon pricing. Members of Congress need to work together on a bipartisan basis to find ways to cut carbon pollution rather than advance polarizing measures that take useful tools off the table. I urge you to reject this ill-advised resolution. Sincerely, Greg Dotson, Vice President for Energy Policy, Center for American Progress.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Let me just read a couple of items from Mr. Dotson's letter.

He points out that ``top economic advisors to both Democratic and Republican Presidents have expressed their support for putting a price on carbon as an effective and efficient approach for reducing pollution.''

He cites Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, who says: ``Basic economics tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax.''

``In fact, carbon pollution is already priced in a significant portion of the world. In total, about 40 national jurisdictions and more than 20 cities, states, and regions on five continents-- representing almost a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions--have placed a price on carbon. In the United States, 25 percent of the population lives in jurisdictions where carbon pollution is currently priced and where one-third of the country's economic activity takes place.''

That is in America right now. There is no acknowledgment of that in this debate. We could have talked about that in the committee.

``The price on carbon in California,'' referenced by my friend, Mr. Huffman, ``is the highest of any state in the country at almost $13 per ton . . . yet the California economy is projected to grow at a faster pace than the rest of the United States over the next two years.''

They reference the fact that ``more than 400 investors with more than $24 trillion in assets have called on governments to establish `stable, economically meaningful carbon pricing.' Already, more than 1,000 businesses apply a price on carbon to inform their investments and operations or plan to do so in the next two years. In addition, at the United Nations climate talks in Paris last December, governments, business, nongovernmental organizations announced the new Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition to accelerate and expand the adoption of carbon pricing worldwide,'' in keeping with what we heard from Prime Minister Modi in this Chamber just 2 days ago.

Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle are not involved with our being able to discuss this in depth, being able to bring in the experts, being able to work together to design a pricing mechanism that avoids some of the cartoon characteristics that they establish here. We had that chance, and we haven't done it.

But this will not be the last word. This meaningless resolution will undoubtedly pass today. It is not going to have any impact in terms of the long term. The long term, we are on a path to price carbon, and we have the capacity to do so in a thoughtful and an effective way, like the conservative leaders, whose correspondence I put into the Record earlier, suggest.

It can be revenue neutral. It can be effective. It can help reverse the more damaging effects of climate change, and it is a way to promote economic opportunity and global competitiveness.

I appreciate the opportunity to express my views on this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter from opponents of H. Con. Res. 89: June 7, 2016.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 89. This resolution is the latest example of climate action denial being advanced by extreme members of the House of Representatives. Instead of listening to the national security experts, faith leaders, scientists, energy innovators, health professionals and many others who are sounding the alarm on climate change and have implored our nation's elected officials to support action, Rep. Scalise and the co-sponsors of H. Con. Res. 89 appear to be looking for another way to say ``no.'' The sponsors of the resolution have no plan to address climate change and have opposed every proposal to do something about the planet's gravest environmental problem. Many of them don't even accept the scientific fact that climate change is occurring.

H. Con. Res. 89 ignores the huge costs that our country is already experiencing due to climate change--costs that fall disproportionately on low-income communities and communities of color. It is clear this resolution is meant to put the interests of the polluting fossil fuel companies ahead of the American public's best interest.

Instead of holding another just-for-show vote against climate action, the U.S. House of Representatives should be debating how it can best position our country to lead the global transition to clean energy sources. Last year more than half of the world's new energy came from renewable energy sources and the landmark Paris climate agreement sends a powerful signal to investors that this trend toward low- carbon energy will accelerate. More and more countries and hundreds of forward-looking companies are adopting policies to limit carbon pollution and correct the markets failure to capture the health and environmental costs of burning fossil fuels.

At a time when the American taxpayer is already paying to move vulnerable American communities to higher ground because of climate-driven sea level rise, we have no time to waste on empty resolutions that seek to take potential climate solutions off the table. Sincerely, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Environment America, Environmental Defense Action Fund, Fresh Energy, League of Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Union of Concerned Scientists.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source