The House, Thursday, March 31, 2022

Rep. Timothy Horrigan (D - Straf 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Our Congressional delegation cares a lot about what we do in Concord. Three of them are former state legislators and the fourth is a former lobbyist. But they know better than to pay any attention to House Resolutions. None of them will change their votes on carbon taxation, or any other issue, just because the Speaker of the House forwards them a copy of a House Resolution. HR 17 is especially irrelevant because it is ill-informed. I would like to specially highlight the last "Whereas," which goes, "The sole purpose of the tax code should be to fund necessary government functions rather than to manipulate consumer decisions." That's not true at all. Encouraging desirable decisions and discouraging undesirable ones is a legitimate function of the tax code. This is also inconsistent with just about every tax policy debate we have here in Concord about tax policy, where every proposed tax cut is always promoted as an incentive for getting more of something or other which we want more of. Similarly, although tax increases are almost unthinkable here in Concord, a tax increase can legitimately serve as an incentive for getting less of something we want less of. Reducing fossil fuel consumption is a desirable goal for many reasons. There is a finite amount of oil and gas on the earth. It is often located in inconvenient places, such as Putin's Russia. Fossil fuel consumption causes an immense amount of pollution, including but not limited to greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide. HR 17 is also ill timed. Yes, gas prices are almost double what they were two years ago, but back then demand was at an all-time low because no one was driving or flying anywhere. Demand is back to normal now but the fossil fuel supply has been disrupted and will continue to be disrupted for quite some time by the Russian-Ukrainian War. A moment ago I referred to "Putin's Russia." Russia's brutal dictator Vladimir Putin is the same Vladimir Putin who was a good friend of former President Donald Trump. Trump still is his friend. He is the only person outside of Russia who has praised Putin and as recently as the day before yesterday, Trump was urging his friend Putin to "release dirt" on President Biden. Be that as it may, yes, Putin may be a madman, but he is a madman who is motivated in part by his desire to take advantage of Ukraine's fossil fuel resources and Putin's Russia is paying for this disastrous war by selling oil and gas to the West. Reducing fossil fuel consumption was a desirable goal even in peacetime, but it is even more desirable now during a time of war. Please vote no on the Ought to Pass motion on HR 17 so an alternative motion can be considered. Thank you very much.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Welkowitz to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Lawrence Welkowitz (D - Ches 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I rise in opposition to this theoretical ban on all carbon pricing. HR 17 came to the State-Federal Committee because the resolution includes banning the federal government from imposing any tax on carbon. I would like you to oppose HR 17. It's a bad out of state polluter idea. It's bad for New Hampshire's citizens. It's bad for our businesses, economy and our future. The public opposed it 149 to 4 in the committee hearing. At first glance you might say any tax is bad so a carbon tax must be bad too. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, which is making its way through Congress is an example of legislation which would be theoretically banned. This is a federal, border adjusted, cash back carbon fee on fossil fuel production, including a tax on foreign producers. Economic analysis show that it will bring cash back to most New Hampshire citizens, except for big corporations and people who fly around in private jets. Most economists, including Milton Friedman, agree that this type of carbon pricing is critical toward reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Carbon assessments are made at critical choke points. For example, the points at which foreign producers of oil or gas create the fossil fuel when they put the gas, when they put the oil in a barrel, for example. The EU, Canada and other nations are adopting these types of levies, but if we can't reciprocate, it is Americans and American businesses that will be hurt. Explicit carbon pricing is the only climate policy that enables us to protect U.S. businesses while holding other countries accountable for their pollution. If this resolution is adopted, it will hurt not help most New Hampshire citizens. So the next question that we have to ask is do we need to reduce CO2 resulting from pollution? There is a report that just came out a few days ago by the United Nations reviewed line by line by over 200 of the top scientists from around the world. They pressed code red, as you should press the red button on this one. They pressed the code red button on CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. We are simply at a critical part in history, but HR 17 says otherwise. Don't worry, everything is okay. We are going to be fine. Yet not one scientific organization in the entire world, not one scientific organization in the entire world claims that CO2 does not present a clear and present danger. I was born at 347 parts per million CO2. We are now at 420 parts per million CO2 and rising. Global temperatures are rising, not going down. My neighbor, Charlie Daloz, who I just spoke to the other day has been a New Hampshire farmer and gardener his whole life. His father was a state rep. from Hancock, a Republican, back in the 60's. Charlie knows the climate is changing. He sees that the lilacs are blooming three weeks early. He sees that the sap is starting early and isn't running until April. He knows that tick borne illnesses are on the rise. There are cardinals flying around at a weird time of year. He also knows that humans are contributing to this problem. If we can all agree that pollution is bad, that humans are creating pollution and that pricing carbon is a way out, why wouldn't we agree that it is our responsibility as parents, grandparents, stewards of the state, to vote against this really bad resolution? HR 17 suggests a bad that is unreasonable. I urge you to vote no, red button. We can. We must do better.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Bernardy to speak for the committee report.

Rep. JD Bernardy (R - Rock 16)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Renewable energy sources suffer from two significant problems. One, they are not cost effective for base load power. Two, they are not dispatchable, meaning the sun is not always shining. There is night. There's clouds. There's rain. There's snow. There's fog. The wind doesn't always blow or it blows too hard. Small scale hydro streams dry up for part of the year. You cannot always rely on them. Peak power demand in the coldest four months of the year in New England occur at night. Wind turbines need to be shut down during major storms or a Nor'easter. Base load net zero carbon is impossible unless it is nuclear. There is a climate change. Then there is climate change. Our climate is always changing. Twenty thousand years ago we would have been under one mile of ice. We've had global cooling, global warming and now it's climate change and the predictions from the IPCC climate models have been wrong for more than 30 years. There's been no increase in catastrophic weather or storms. The North Pole did not melt and the polar bears are still thriving. To be sure, that mile of ice that was above us, did not melt from excess carbon dioxide. I trust the ability of man to use technology, engineering and scientific knowledge to adapt to the very slow climate changes, warming or cooling that the planet experiences. Over the last 100 years, the planet did get one degree warmer. We survived. We adapted. We will adapt to any slow warming or cooling in the future. Climate change leadership appears to agree to this. Al Gore, Barrack Obama and John Kerry all have substantial ocean front properties. Watch what they do, not what they say. Yet, in order to push a more rapid uptake of green technology in the U.S., despite carbon limits not being considered for China or India, advocates propose an economy crushing carbon tax to make fossil fuels more expensive, thereby improving the relative economic viability of renewable sources of power. This concept is fiscally bankrupt. All you need to observe is the disastrous impact of the current administration's actions in throttling gas and oil exploration, production and transportation. It is the major contributor to tremendous fuel and electricity price hikes we now see. This policy is effectively a carbon tax and our citizens do not need an expansion of that pain. Advocates propose to mitigate the pain by rebating the tax to our citizens. I only ask you to consider what happened to the social security lockbox. When more revenue was needed to finance growing financial debt, the lockbox was broken. We are so lucky we don't have a significant national debt now. Vote yes and push the green button to send this resolution to our federal delegation. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe House will be in order. Representative Al Baldasaro has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. The House will come to order. The Chair recognizes Rep. Welkowitz for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Lawrence Welkowitz (D - Ches 4)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that HR 17 would deprive working- and middle-class citizens of New Hampshire from cash back from these penalties on fossil fuel production. If I know that HR 17 would hurt most of our citizens, but help only the wealthiest. If I know that reducing pollution is a high priority. And if I know that the world's scientists are a better source of information than YouTube videos, would I then press the red button and oppose this resolution? Speaker Packard: The Chair recognizes Rep. Vose for a parliamentary inquiry

Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that a carbon tax would increase the cost of gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane, aviation fuel, even butane. And Mister Speaker if I further know that increasing the cost of these fuels would increase the cost of every product and every service that uses those fuels, would I now press the green button to protect the taxpayers and the ratepayers of New Hampshire? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe question is on the majority motion of Ought to Pass on HR 17. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 178 voting Yea, 159 voting Nay, the committee report is adopted.