On the recordJune 10, 2016
I am delighted to be on the floor and join in this debate. I must, along with my colleague from Oregon, express frustration. This body should be about the vitality of ideas. Whatever those ideas are, in a democracy, there ought to be the willingness to express them. Mr. Blumenauer has detailed, at length, the lack of public hearings. Listen, I get it. This is a messaging opportunity. This has no force of law. All this does is say what the sensibilities are of the Congress. Now, what does the public think of the sensibilities of the Congress? What the public thinks is that we are all bluster and no solution and that we never take the time to sit down and measure twice and then cut. We just simply don't do that in our committees. And so the vitality of ideas, a very noble idea expressed by a Republican, Mr. Inglis, many sessions ago and embraced by many conservative economists in the Reagan, in the Nixon, and in the Bush administrations about providing certainty in terms of what we need to do and a revenue stream that has this at its core: tax pollution--tax pollution--at its source, and pass the savings on to the consumers. We know the volumes that are produced. We know the science behind this. There should be an open and clear-eyed debate on this; but not only a debate about the pros and cons, but how about something refreshing for the American people--a solution.…
