EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT A CARBON TAX WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 122
(House of Representatives - July 19, 2018)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H6563-H6569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                              {time}  0915
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT A CARBON TAX WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL 
                      TO THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY

  Mr. MARCHANT. 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Valadao). Pursuant to House Resolution 
1001, the concurrent resolution is considered as read.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 119

       Whereas a carbon tax is a Federal tax on carbon released 
     from fossil fuels;
       Whereas a carbon tax will increase energy prices, including 
     the price of gasoline, electricity, natural gas, and home 
     heating oil;
       Whereas a carbon tax will mean that families and consumers 
     will pay more for essentials like food, gasoline, and 
     electricity;
       Whereas a carbon tax will fall hardest on the poor, the 
     elderly, and those on fixed incomes;
       Whereas a carbon tax will lead to more jobs and businesses 
     moving overseas;
       Whereas a carbon tax will lead to less economic growth;
       Whereas American families will be harmed the most from a 
     carbon tax;
       Whereas, according to the Energy Information 
     Administration, in 2016, fossil fuels share of energy 
     consumption was 81 percent;
       Whereas a carbon tax will increase the cost of every good 
     manufactured in the United States;
       Whereas a carbon tax will impose disproportionate burdens 
     on certain industries, jobs, States, and geographic regions 
     and would further restrict the global competitiveness of the 
     United States;
       Whereas American ingenuity has led to innovations in energy 
     exploration and development and has increased production of 
     domestic energy resources on private and State-owned land 
     which has created significant job growth and private capital 
     investment;
       Whereas United States energy policy should encourage 
     continued private sector innovation and development and not 
     increase the existing tax burden on manufacturers;
       Whereas the production of American energy resources 
     increases the United States ability to maintain a competitive 
     advantage in today's global economy;
       Whereas a carbon tax would reduce America's global 
     competitiveness and would encourage development abroad in 
     countries that do not impose this exorbitant tax burden; and
       Whereas the Congress and the President should focus on pro-
     growth solutions that encourage increased development of 
     domestic resources: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that a carbon 
     tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses, 
     and is not in the best interest of the United States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable 
for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MARCHANT. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARCHANT. 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. NEAL. 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.

[[Page H6564]]

  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. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Marshall).
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for introducing this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution. This anti-
carbon tax resolution expresses the sense of Congress that a carbon tax 
will be detrimental to the United States economy and certainly is not a 
waste of anyone's time.
  As a physician, typically, what I like to do is examine the risk and 
benefit analysis of any treatment plan, and I apply that same standard 
to a situation like this.

                              {time}  0930

  I want to know the risk and benefit of any new tax that might be 
considered. A carbon tax would raise costs on everything Americans buy, 
from electricity and gasoline to food and everyday household products, 
with little or any benefit.
  Mr. Speaker, when we introduce a new tax or consider a new tax, I 
want to know who it would impact the most. Who I think this would 
impact the most is that single mom I delivered about 10 years ago. She 
has 2 children at home. She is working 60 hours a week. This is going 
to impact her more than anybody else, because she is just trying to get 
by with the income she is making.
  This is going to drive the cost up for her children's school lunches. 
It is going to drive the cost up for her gasoline to get to and from 
work. That single mom will be impacted by this carbon tax.
  This resolution will put Congress on record against a carbon tax, 
which would result in massive job losses, lead to higher prices for 
American families and small businesses, and jeopardize America's energy 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, this President and this Congress have been fighting for 
American energy dominance, and a carbon tax would undermine that goal. 
I am so proud of what my producers back home have done in the oil and 
gas industry to have a cleaner product. What the refineries are doing 
today compared to when I was growing up, a little boy in El Dorado, 
Kansas, living between two refineries, I am proud of how the electrical 
generation has improved ecologically as well.
  This resolution will affirm the position of Congress that a carbon 
tax

[[Page H6565]]

would counter the goals of American energy dominance, economic growth, 
and national security.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson), a very important member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be real clear. There is not a carbon tax bill 
before us today. This is a political stunt, and this stunt comes at the 
same time that the Republican majority is undermining access to 
affordable healthcare for all our constituents.
  They are working with this administration to sabotage the healthcare 
marketplaces and drive up prices, legislating away coverage and 
protections for our constituents. They have gutted resources that help 
people enroll in the plans that are best for them. They are expanding 
junk healthcare plans that don't provide care if you are sick or 
injured, that can charge more for preexisting conditions, that charge 
more for older people.
  Their scam of a tax bill eliminated the individual mandate, driving 
healthier folks away from coverage. That means risk can't be spread and 
prices go up. Kids born with heart problems or young adults diagnosed 
with cancer will pay a penalty for the rest of their lives.
  On top of all of that, the administration has frozen the risk 
adjustment payments, which prevent insurance companies from cherry-
picking only the healthiest people to cover.
  According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, Republican sabotage efforts will 
increase the cost of health insurance by as much as 24 percent this 
year alone.
  These are some of the issues that are hurting the middle class now, 
and these are some of the issues that we should be focusing on. We 
should be holding hearings on these issues.
  If you have concerns with other issues, have hearings on them. But 
don't bring some political malarkey on the floor and pretend that we 
are doing something for the American people.
  This is a failure by the majority party. We should be working for our 
constituents on real bills that are before us now.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for 
yielding and for bringing this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support as the lead author of H. Con. 
Res. 119, along with my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  Mr. Speaker, the question is real simple, and that is, do we support 
or oppose a carbon tax? I think the case is very clear by anybody who 
looks objectively at what a carbon tax will do to the economy. It will 
be devastating to our manufacturing base. It will kill jobs. I think 
most devastating, Mr. Speaker, it would raise and increase costs for 
families all across this country.
  If you look at this chart right here, it talks about the estimate, 
what this would do to families. There would be an increase by an 
estimated $1,900 per family on the cost of things that they buy all 
across this country.
  The resolution is simple. It says: ``Be it resolved by the House.'' 
That is, it is the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be 
detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best 
interest of the United States.
  ``Yes'' or ``no,'' it is a clear ``yes'' vote if you are concerned 
about families. Why don't we talk about some of the groups in support. 
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste says that: ``A carbon 
tax would harm the U.S. economy by raising the cost of all goods and 
services, imposing an unfair burden on the lower and middle class, and 
deterring new investment, thereby killing jobs.''
  Why don't we listen to what the American Farm Bureau Federation said 
about a carbon tax: ``Agriculture is an energy-intensive sector, and a 
carbon tax levied on farmers and ranchers would be devastating.''
  Then, Mr. Speaker, let's listen to what Grover Norquist from 
Americans for Tax Reform said: ``A carbon tax would kill American jobs 
by the millions.''
  Why would we want to allow the possibility? Believe me, there are 
some people in Washington who are talking about trying to bring a 
carbon tax. To act like, oh, there is no talk about it at all, clearly, 
there are people here in this Chamber that want to impose a carbon tax. 
Let's be clear about how devastating that would be to the American 
economy.

  Everybody gets to take a position on this today, Mr. Speaker. You are 
either for a carbon tax or against it. I would urge strong support for 
H. Con. Res. 119.
  Mr. NEAL. 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. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, let me associate myself with 
the remarks of Mr. Neal and talk about what a fraud this whole process 
has become.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from Louisiana, but can you 
imagine never having a hearing on this. Let me tell you who would like 
to come to that hearing: Jim Baker, a devout, you know, liberal. You 
have George Shultz, Martin Feldstein, Greg Mankiw, Hank Paulson, Art 
Laffer, Gary Cohn, Rex Tillerson, to name a few, who say that Congress 
ought to at least be open to looking at a carbon tax.
  According to the other side, it is a choice between a carbon tax or 
not a carbon tax. They don't talk about passing on the benefits to the 
consumer. They don't talk about the transition that is needed or 
strengthening the pension funds or even from the standpoint of an 
infrastructure bill that they have never addressed in 8 years while 
China moves ahead of us every single day. Nothing gets done in the 
House of Representatives.
  Here we have a fake debate and fake legislation that is going nowhere 
instead of actual, real hearings. We don't have real hearings on Social 
Security and its outcome. We don't have real hearings on gun violence. 
We don't even have real hearings here on the state of what is going on 
with this administration and the FBI and our intelligence people.
  This is the sad state of affairs that we find ourselves in. So if you 
see frustration on this side of the aisle, it is primarily because, in 
the most demonstrative democracy in the world, not even a hearing, a 
suggestion about bringing experts to talk about what this could 
possibly do. What a sham.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I came down to the floor today to address 
the resolution we have talked about regarding the carbon tax, but since 
then, I think something else has come up.
  We just heard one of my colleagues, I think, kind of belittle Uber 
drivers and waiters and waitresses. I tell you, when I take an Uber, I 
don't think it is something that you have to resort to, to take that 
job. I think it is a very hard job, going all about the city, being 
able to get along with sometimes difficult people, working nights. 
Waiters and waitresses, same thing. I have worked in kitchens. I don't 
think one should say that one has to resort to these jobs.
  It is kind of a thing that some Congressmen have around here that I 
don't like. They become removed, and they sometimes think that they are 
more important than people doing other jobs.
  I think those are both fine jobs. I respect the Uber drivers who 
drive me around this city. I used to work in a kitchen, and I respect 
the waiters and waitresses. I don't believe one should describe working 
as an Uber driver or a waiter and a waitress as something people have 
to resort to. They are fine jobs.
  Now, I guess I came down here for the carbon tax. I will point out 
that I think the carbon tax, if implemented and people throw it out 
there, the carbon tax will fall on the average guy the most. It is 
something that falls on people who drive a car, which will be a 
regressive tax. It falls on people who heat

[[Page H6566]]

their homes, which will be a regressive tax.
  It bothers me, particularly when disproportionately it comes from the 
party that purports to represent the average guy, that when they think 
of a new tax to apply out there, they are going to promote a tax that 
disproportionately affects the average guy, because everybody has a 
heat bill, almost everybody has a car.
  I think, among the other things that would cause a damper on the 
American economy, I don't like taxes that disproportionately hit the 
average guy.
  Mr. NEAL. 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. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express strong 
opposition to this resolution, which is nothing more than political 
posturing. This nonbinding resolution does nothing to control increases 
in healthcare premiums.

  Republican actions have wreaked havoc in the healthcare market, 
driving up healthcare costs for Americans, especially older Americans. 
This nonbinding resolution does nothing to limit skyrocketing drug 
prices after giving tens of billions of dollars in tax cuts to the drug 
industry.
  The Chicago Fire Department was in to see me this week, and they 
talked about the high cost of drugs. For example, the cost of 
nitroglycerin tripled over 4 years from $37 to $120. The cost of 
naloxone more than doubled during this time period. If the Chicago Fire 
Department is having trouble paying for pharmaceuticals, then you can 
imagine what smaller entities would be experiencing.
  This resolution does nothing to increase jobs, nothing to help 
parents afford the high cost of childcare and college. It is indeed a 
do-nothing resolution. That is exactly what it does. I will vote 
against it.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of my 
colleague's resolution, H. Con. Res. 119, which expresses the sense of 
Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States.
  A carbon tax is a tax on the American consumer and our economy. A 
carbon tax would significantly--I want to repeat that--significantly 
drive up the cost of the fuels that drive our way of life, and result 
in millions and millions of jobs lost.
  This burden would be unfairly shouldered by the lower and middle 
class incomes. The nonpartisan--I want to say that--the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, in 2013 stated: ``A carbon tax would 
increase the price of fossil fuels in direct proportion to their carbon 
content. Higher fuel prices, in turn, would raise production costs and 
ultimately drive up prices for goods and services throughout the 
economy.''
  A study from the National Association of Manufacturers found that a 
carbon tax could drive up gasoline costs between $6 and $14 per gallon, 
and lead to as many as 21 million jobs lost, a continually shrinking 
economy, and lowering our Federal revenue, all without doing anything 
to improve global greenhouse gas emissions.

                              {time}  0945

  Just yesterday, the House passed my amendment to prohibit funds from 
implementing the Obama administration's social costs of carbon rule.
  The facts are clear. A carbon tax is not the way to protect our 
environment and economy. The social costs of a carbon tax far outweigh 
the potential benefits.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu), a very knowledgeable woman from the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to H. Con. Res. 119. This resolution is nothing more than an election 
year stunt by Republicans to distract from the growing list of issues 
they failed to address this Congress.
  Let me be clear: This vote is a sham. If Republicans truly wanted to 
debate the merits of a carbon tax, they would allow the Ways and Means 
Committee to hold hearings with expert testimony and robust discussion. 
In fact, multiple members of our committee have already introduced 
bills that tackle the ever-pressing issue of climate change, which is 
impacting the health and well-being of American families and future 
generations more and more each day.
  This is not just a Democratic concern either. There is even a 
Republican carbon tax bill expected to be introduced in the coming 
days.
  Instead, here we are, wasting what little time we have left this 
Congress, debating a pointless resolution while there are urgent 
problems waiting to be resolved. Congress should be passing legislation 
to address the double-digit increases in healthcare premiums caused by 
the repeal of the individual mandate by the GOP tax scam or reuniting 
immigrant children with their parents.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this vote is a wasted opportunity and just 
another example of Republicans placing political expedience over 
regular order.
  As a member of both the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition 
and the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, I would love to 
participate in a real debate about how we can address climate change. 
My constituents are clamoring for us to act. But if Republicans are 
going to continue to ignore and deny the existence of this crisis, the 
least they can do here, in Congress, is to use this time to legislate, 
not electioneer.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in strong support of the resolution, 
and I thank my good friend and colleague from Louisiana,  Steve 
Scalise, for bringing it to the floor.
  The carbon tax is one of those endlessly recycled bad ideas. A carbon 
tax would put a tax and increased costs on coal, oil, and gas carbon 
dioxide emissions from power plants and other sources.
  In simpler terms, a carbon tax is a tax on productivity. As anyone 
with the slightest familiarity with economics will tell you, the more 
you tax something, the less you get of it. It is just common sense.
  Late last year, Congress was able to deliver historic tax reform. 
Just 7 months after we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, nearly every 
economic indicator is showing record-breaking success.
  The free market has been unleashed again, and our economy is thriving 
as a result. We are on pace for a quarter of economic growth that we 
haven't seen in more than a decade.
  Imposing a job-killing carbon tax minimizes the gains we have made 
and will stunt our economic growth. Of course, the carbon tax would run 
counter to the goals of American energy dominance and national 
security, another priority this administration and this Congress have 
been able to make great progress in.
  A carbon tax would have a negative effect on consumption, investment, 
and jobs; increase the cost of coal, natural gas, and petroleum 
products; and lead to lower real wage rates, lower labor productivity, 
and decreased worker incomes.
  Imposing a carbon tax on hardworking Americans sets the Nation 
backward. After all the accomplishments we have made in the last year 
and a half, that is something we simply should not tolerate.
  A carbon tax asks the entire Nation to make enormous sacrifices, and 
the only thing we get in return is falling behind our competitors in 
the global marketplace.
  We have a broad array of leaders across the spectrum in the economy 
who support and agree with these principles.
  Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Congress, 
said: ``Our great Nation is at a crossroads. We can continue to reduce 
regulations and watch our economy rise with the recent tax reform. 
Bringing unnecessary hurdles before us like a

[[Page H6567]]

carbon tax will preclude that growth and hurt our economy immensely.''
  I have pages and pages of these.
  Heather Higgins, CEO of the Independent Women's Voice, said: ``A 
carbon tax would be devastating to millions of American women and their 
families, causing their electricity bills and transportation costs to 
skyrocket, as well as suppressing their wages.''
  Chet Thompson, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical 
Manufacturers, said: ``Energy is the engine of progress. Making it more 
expensive will hurt our economy and disproportionately impact middle- 
and low-income families who can least afford it.''
  If we had time, Mr. Speaker, I could be here all day. I have pages 
and pages of these quotes in support of the principle that we are 
advocating here this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to support this resolution, and I urge my 
colleagues to do that.
  Mr. NEAL. 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. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in this very troubling week, when these same Republican 
enablers here in Congress have endangered our national security by 
failing to confront Donald Trump's surrender to Vladimir Putin in 
Helsinki, today, we again witness their total indifference to another 
very serious national security concern. Unfortunately, just as their 
refusal to stand up to Trump's denial of this ongoing Russian 
aggression won't make it go away as a grave threat to our democracy, 
neither will their ignoring the national security challenge of climate 
change eliminate reality.
  In recent years, the war, the challenge, that these Republicans have 
been most willing to fight is the war on reality. They particularly 
find troubling any scientific fact that conflicts with their last 
campaign rally or their rigid ideology.
  This Administration actually prohibited the Centers for Disease 
Control from including, in its budget documents to Congress, the terms 
``evidence-based'' or ``science-based.'' They don't want to rely on 
science as fact. They have questioned and harassed scientists across 
America so much that you have to begin to wonder whether they still 
believe in gravity.
  Across America, we are seeing, with our own eyes, what they refuse to 
acknowledge: soaring temperatures, severe and erratic records being set 
in our weather, massive 100-year floods that seem to recur every 100 
months, deep freezes, and ravaging hurricanes that dumped 60 inches of 
rain in one short period of time on the City of Houston.
  Often at the same time that these disasters are occurring in other 
parts of America we see: record droughts, and wildfires destroying 
thousands of acres, livelihoods, and homes. All across the country, 
particularly in the southern States, seldom seen diseases, like West 
Nile virus and Lyme disease, are afflicting more and more of our 
neighbors.
  During the lifetime of my grandchildren, I know that my home State of 
Texas, America's number one greenhouse gas polluter, is on schedule to 
become a very different place, with more of the State looking like the 
Sonoran Desert. At the same time, our coastal areas, like those that 
stretch all the way to New England, will find themselves submerged and 
major metropolitan areas subject to serious harm from storm surges.
  Meanwhile, we will see, not in the future, but right now, thousands 
of premature deaths every year because of air pollutants that are 
associated with carbon emissions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, around the world, the very severe impact of 
climate change has already been identified as a major contributing 
factor to the disaster in Syria, conflict in Africa, and what is 
becoming a growing number of climate refugees. Trump's own Defense 
Secretary has acknowledged the need to address climate change and the 
impact on our military.
  The Scientific American has reported that climate change presents a 
significant and direct risk to the U.S. military, its readiness, 
operations, and strategy.
  We must treat this as a national security threat. When you have a 
security threat, you don't just rely on one weapon. A carbon tax that 
is revenue neutral, that does not take any new tax revenue than the tax 
it replaces, is one of the tools that should not be rejected without 
even having a hearing to evaluate it.
  The likelihood of a carbon tax in our future will not be changed by 
this silly resolution. But as Republicans continue to reject all ways, 
any ways, of addressing the climate change national security challenge, 
the future of our planet and our families remains endangered every bit 
as much as they endanger us by yielding to Vladimir Putin.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), who was an original cosponsor of this 
resolution.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank Majority Whip Scalise for his work on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, as the lead cosponsor on this legislation, I, obviously, 
rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 119.
  Throughout the years, despite what we are hearing from the other 
side, there have been numerous efforts promoting a carbon tax. There 
have been bills debated in committees; hearings held; and, 
subsequently, time devoted on the House floor. None were passed. Carbon 
taxes, however, create uncertainty in the marketplace.
  Such a tax might reduce the amount of energy produced from coal and 
natural gas. I understand that. But as you have heard, it will also 
raise the cost of everything else Americans consume: gasoline, diesel 
fuel, food, clothing, and supplies. All would become more expensive.
  We heard also that CBO and Stanford studies have warned that a carbon 
tax is the most regressive tax that could be implemented. And its 
impact on the poor and the middle class is at a rate of twice others.
  This is a simple resolution stating that a carbon tax would be 
detrimental to American families and businesses, and it is not in the 
best interest of this country.
  Now, just last Congress, this very same resolution passed 237-163, 
and it is our hope that this year's effort will reflect the same 
bipartisan level of support.
  Thanks to tax cuts and regulatory reform, America's economy is 
clearly on the rise. Implementing a carbon tax at this juncture could 
very well put the brakes on that progress.
  So instead of reverting to put an ideologically driven tax on 
everything, there are better ways to address environmental concerns. We 
could invest strategically in research and innovation to deliver clean 
energy technologies, like has been done at NET Power, Petra Nova, or 
Longview. We could provide incentives, like 45Q, to capture and utilize 
carbon emissions. Or, lastly, we could advance energy efficiency.
  Mr. Speaker, America doesn't need more taxes. I urge my colleagues to 
support this resolution.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARCHANT. 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.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, to my friend Richard Neal, I understand the 
frustrations of this debate and some of the processes, but this gives 
us a chance to come down to the floor and just talk about the basic 
policy of: Is a carbon tax good, or is it not good?
  I can't speak to the process. All I can talk about is the policy.
  Congressman Doggett was down here talking about national security 
issues. I deal with this quite a bit in my role as the chair of the 
Baltic Caucus and doing some NATO Parliamentary Assembly things.
  Let me just speak briefly about a concern of what a carbon tax does 
in international energy fights and disbursements.
  Here I hold a picture--and I wanted to get it on the chart, but I 
wasn't able

[[Page H6568]]

to--of an LNG terminal called Independence. Now, this terminal is in 
Lithuania, and they are able to decrease their reliance on Russian 
natural gas because they have built this import terminal.

                              {time}  1000

  They are able to now have two folks in which to import natural gas, 
thus relieving themselves of being extorted by the Russian Federation. 
A carbon tax would increase the cost of our exported goods to countries 
like Lithuania, making them more susceptible to energy extortion by the 
Russian Federation.
  So in an international debate of an energy policy which the Russian 
Federation does extort--how do I know this? I know this because, in the 
early days of the reestablishment of freedom, a U.S. company bought a 
refinery in Lithuania.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARCHANT. I yield the gentleman from Illinois an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. So the Russians didn't like a U.S. company buying an old 
refinery, so what did the Russians do? They turned off the flow of oil.
  So just in the international world, if we want to help our allies 
decrease their reliance on imported crude oil from the Russian 
Federation or, in this case, liquefied natural gas, a carbon tax will 
make that more difficult. So that is why I think it is important that 
we have this debate on the international perspective.
  I also know that a lot of the organizations that are important to 
me--the American Energy Alliance, Americans for Tax Reform, the Farm 
Bureau, Western Energy Alliance, American Fuel & Petrochemical 
Manufacturers, National Black Chamber of Commerce, Competitive 
Enterprise Institute, and FreedomWorks--all support the resolution that 
says a carbon tax is kind of the wrong way to go because it increases 
costs on everybody, from the goods that we sell till we transport them 
to the market, across the board.
  So I appreciate the time. And again, we want to be the world leader 
in oil and gas exports, and a carbon tax will prohibit us from being 
able to do that.
  Mr. NEAL. 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. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page H6569]]

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1001, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 180, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 363]

                               YEAS--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hollingsworth
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Costello (PA)
     Lujan Grisham, M.
       

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bergman
     Black
     Brady (PA)
     Cardenas
     Crowley
     Ellison
     Fudge
     Garrett
     Granger
     Hanabusa
     Jones
     Lawson (FL)
     Peterson
     Richmond
     Royce (CA)
     Speier
     Walz

                              {time}  1037

  Messrs. CARBAJAL and GOTTHEIMER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. LONG changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for missing this vote. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 363.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LAWSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 363.

                          ____________________