On the recordJune 8, 2016
I don't have any other speakers, so I will be happy to close. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am going to address some of the issues in this rule and in this bill. This rule, which I oppose, and I also oppose all three underlying bills, contain a number of concepts that aren't going to move forward into law, that are put there for political reasons and, again, very excitingly, the first real discussion of a national carbon tax cut, because that idea has so much bipartisan momentum from the left and the right. {time} 1315 Many of these ideas are simply recycling old ideas, the same ideas that we have discussed before, that they have complained about before that if somehow they were to make it out of the Senate, the President would veto them, particularly, obviously, one that undoes what the President wants to do, so we are simply going through the motions on a lot of these bills. The most notable one is truly the resolution on a carbon tax cut because what this means is that idea has scared enough people, presumably, who oppose it that it is moving forward in some form and some discussion, which is exciting. So let's start with discussing the proposed $10-per-barrel fee on oil. Now, this is, again, kind of a reaction to something that isn't happening. It is not going to change any current policy. There is no $10-per-barrel fee on oil. This is simply about a Chamber saying that they disapprove of something that Obama has said and wants to do.…





