Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011

Just a parliamentary inquiry: Since we are going back and forth, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized after Senator Murkowski.

Mr. President, I have the floor now to respond to some of the statements of my friend from Alaska, and also to be able to enter into some colloquies about this very dangerous and radical amendment. But before I do that, without losing my right to the floor, I yield for a moment to Senator Snowe to lay down an amendment.

Mr. President, I am happy my friend has her amendment lined up so we can get to that.

I commend, first of all, the Senator from Louisiana for her measure that is before us. It is a bill I support very strongly. Therefore, to say I was disappointed to see an unrelated amendment offered is an understatement. But that is the way it is. We are going to have to vote on this. Frankly, we have had votes similar to this before. I feel comfortable and hopeful that we will defeat this amendment.

In about 5 minutes I am going to yield for a question to my friend from New Jersey, but before I do that I want to make about 5 minutes worth of remarks.

The amendment that is pending on this bill has been named by Senators McConnell and Inhofe The Energy Tax Prevention Act. Good title. The bill doesn't do one thing to lower the price of oil--not one thing. We know what we can do right now to lower the price of oil. We know we should go after the speculators who are speculating on futures. We know we have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that the President is looking at. Every time we have taken some oil out of that it has had a salutary impact on the price of gas immediately. We know we should increase our investment in alternative clean fuels. We know what we have to do. We have to work for more stability in the Middle East. Most of all, we have to get off foreign oil. We cannot be hostage to what is going on in the world. This bill does nothing about it. It has a good title but it has nothing to do with the price of oil. We know what we have to do to do something about that. I hope we will.

Let me tell you what I would name this amendment. I would not name it what it has been called, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, because it doesn't do a thing about that. I would call it the Reliance On Foreign Oil Forever Act, because part of it says we can no longer look at fuel economy through the Clean Air Act and make gains on fuel economy.

We all now have the opportunity to buy gas-efficient cars. How do you think that happened? It did not happen without some leadership here. As a matter of fact, the Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, was very involved in that. My colleague Senator Feinstein was as well. We all worked on this--Senator Lautenberg. We said we are going to have more fuel-efficient cars. According to this, it is over and no State can step out and pass tougher fuel economy standards. It is stopping our States from acting. That is No. 1. So I call it the Reliance On Foreign Oil Forever Act because as long as we drive cars that do not do well on fuel economy, we will be stopping at the gas pump. Mark my words.

How wonderful is it for me. I drive a hybrid car. I go about 50 miles per gallon. I can wave at that gas station and say I am glad I don't have to stop here for a long time.

If you don't want to name the amendment the Reliance On Foreign Oil Forever Act, you can name it something else:

The More Air Pollution for Americans Act. The More Air Pollution for Americans Act. More air pollution. Now, we all ran for office and we all run for office. I never met one person who said: Please go back there and get me more air pollution. Not one person ever said that. What they tell me is that they know someone with asthma. They have asthma. Their kid has asthma.

So here is what happens here. This bill says, forever, the EPA can never, ever go after carbon pollution. Let me repeat that. This amendment, despite the fact that the Clean Air Act specifically says that carbon pollution is covered, says, no more. EPA cannot go after it. It is going to keep on keeping on, and there is going to be more air pollution for every American. That is what this amendment promises that they want to pass.

I have to tell you, my colleagues are playing scientist and they are playing doctor. They are deciding for us whether we should be exposed to pollution. When we hear from my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, we are going to hear what it is like to have a grandchild with terrible asthma and to worry about it 24/7.

So who are the real doctors and what are they saying? We got a letter in opposition to this terrible amendment from the American Lung Association. I guarantee you, Mr. President, even though you are an extremely persuasive person, if you went outside and just stopped people on the street and said: Well, who is really more trustworthy about your health, the American Lung Association or a Senator, I don't care what you say, they would take the American Lung Association. They oppose this.

The American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the Physicians for Social Responsibility and Trust for America's Health--they write to us.

I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

``We the undersigned write to express our strong opposition to the McConnell amendment known as the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. We believe this legislation would block the Environmental Protection Agency from setting sensible safeguards to protect public health and the effects of air pollution.''

So here is where we are. This is a terrible amendment. It is going to keep us reliant on foreign oil. It is going to overturn the endangerment finding, a health finding made by scientists and doctors that says carbon pollution is dangerous. It is even going to stop us from having a greenhouse registry where we know how much carbon pollution we are producing. This is a radical amendment. I trust we will defeat it.

I yield to Senator Lautenberg, without losing my right to the floor, for a question.

Absolutely.

Well, I say to my friend, not only do I generally agree, I agree wholeheartedly.

Let me show you a picture of a couple of kids. We have a couple of pictures. I would love my friend to look at this, these beautiful children.

They say a picture is worth 1,000 words. This is worth 1 million words. This baby has to go to a mask to breathe air because the air is so foul. We have another picture of another child. I am sure my colleague has seen it. I am a grandma. I would say we are talking maybe 3 years old, maybe even younger, a child knowing how to gasp for air. Here is another beautiful child. The answer I give to my friend is-- thanking him for his passion, because this is what he has dealt with with one of his grandkids, the fear, the blood-curdling fear, as my friend has said over and over, that when he is out and playing a sport, he might have to rush to an emergency room and my friend's daughter having to know in advance where the nearest emergency room is--this amendment is an attack on our children.

Let me prove it. We have the leading health experts who have just sent us a letter telling us it is an attack on our children. I put up any Senator against these groups for a debate. When I hear from the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation, from physicians across the country, the Trust for America's Health--they say: Beat this McConnell amendment; it is dangerous--I listen. So should every American. I don't care if one is a Republican or a Democrat.

The Senator from Alaska was railing against the Environmental Protection Agency. Let's see what the American people think of the Environmental Protection Agency. There was a bipartisan poll done by a Republican pollster and a Democratic pollster. Sixty-nine percent of Americans think EPA should update the Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution limits. The McConnell amendment says to EPA: You may not do this. You may not update air pollution standards as it relates to carbon pollution.

We are a country that is polarized by a lot of issues. I appreciate that. I often say, I just came out of an election that was tough. But 68 percent of the people believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards. Let me repeat: 68 percent of the American people--this poll was done February 16, very recently--believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards. Guess what the McConnell amendment does. It stops the EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards.

Sixty-nine percent believe EPA scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards. What does the McConnell amendment do? It says that Mitch McConnell and Jim Inhofe--my buddy, my pal, and we are friends. But on this one, we are on opposite sides. I stand with the American people on this one. Sixty-nine percent say EPA scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards.

Why would that be? These are people from Alabama, Florida, California, New Hampshire. It doesn't matter. This is a huge number. Why do they think that? Common sense. We trust doctors and scientists to tell us what is good for us, not politicians. Period. We have Members of Congress who are doctors. But I have to say, some of them come out against the science and the doctors because they have given that up. They are politicians now. Here is the deal. We have the McConnell amendment. It is taken straight from the Upton bill in the House and the Inhofe bill in the Senate that stops EPA in its tracks from updating Clean Air Act standards, so that we have a standard for carbon pollution which is dangerous. Who tells us it is dangerous? The doctors. Who tells us it is dangerous? The scientists. Who made an endangerment finding? The Environmental Protection Agency.

Do my colleagues know who actually came up with the idea of an Environmental Protection Agency in the 1970s? Richard Nixon. Everyone knows Richard Nixon was a Republican. By the way, I have the same Senate seat he once held. In this, we are in agreement. The EPA was a brilliant idea. Why? Because if we can't breathe, we can't work. My colleagues may think they are doing something for the economy by telling the EPA to go into their rooms and forget about their jobs. But when people start getting more asthma, when there are increased premature deaths, they will think about it again.

Let me show my colleagues what happened in Los Angeles since the Clean Air Act was passed. This is an amazing graph. I hope people can see this clearly. In the 1970s, when Richard Nixon and Congress voted the Clean Air Act in--and it was voted in with a huge majority, it was overwhelming--in Los Angeles, 166 days were lost where people were told they had to stay in, sensitive people. I remember those years. You used to go to the radio to make sure it was safe to go out, if you had a kid with asthma or you had a mom who had a breathing problem. More than half the year, in those years, you couldn't go out of the house. Think about what that says about the economy, when people are trapped inside their houses. Think about what it means to their freedom of movement and think about what it means to the economy when so many people have to stay home and not go to work, not go to school.

Over the years, as the EPA starts to do its job, we start to see fewer and fewer lost days where people could actually go out. I am proud to tell my

colleagues, in 2010, in Los Angeles, which was once the smog capital of the Nation, not one day was there an advisory, not one day. What more of a success rate can we have?

Do my colleagues want to see more success? I will show you some of the benefits in another way. The Congress said to the EPA: We want to make sure there are benefits that go along with your enforcement of the Clean Air Act, so that when you go to a company that is belching smoke and you say they have to install some cleanup devices, it is working. What did we find out? In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature death. We understand why the heart doctors and the lung doctors and the physicians and the public health doctors are telling us: Don't vote for McConnell. It will turn the clock back. We saved 160,000 lives in 2010 alone. Projected out, it is going to go way higher in the number of premature deaths averted, if we move forward with the Clean Air Act and we don't substitute politicians for doctors and scientists. Clearly, we are on the right track. In the future, we prevent even more deaths--230,000, to be exact, by 2020.

I don't care if one is a Republican or a Democrat, liberal, conservative, Independent, whatever, this has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with families. This has to do with health. That is why we see 69 percent of the people saying: Congress, butt out of this. Let the EPA do its work. That is why a defeat of the McConnell amendment means we are standing with the doctors, with the scientists and, more than anything else, we are standing with the kids. We are standing with these beautiful kids, these kids who at age 3 are having to learn how to breathe oxygen because they can't go outside because the air is dirty.

Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of this baby and his family or are we on the side of the biggest polluters in the country who are making billions of dollars? They are doing fine, and all they have to do is do a little bit more to clean up the air. We had lots of arguments over the years. Every time we had Clean Air Act amendments, people argued: Don't do it. The air is clean enough. Stop. Enough. Business can't do it.

Guess what we found out. Not only did business step up to the plate and do it, but what was created was an incredible export business, exports of clean air products, technologies, machinery, the best available technology made in America. We are talking about taking the lead on clean air and keeping it, not retreating.

We remember when the Berlin Wall came down. Everyone said: Hooray. But then they could see the air settling on the other side. Germany did the right thing, and they said: We are going to clean up the air in Eastern Europe. Because without clean air, you can't have growth.

I am happy to see my friend from Washington State. I will yield to her for a question. I want her to know how much I rely on her leadership. Maria Cantwell has been a leader from the beginning on clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, cleaning up Superfund sites. She never flinches.

Before I yield for a question, I started off my debate by telling the Senate what my friends on the other side call their amendment. They call it the Energy Tax Prevention Act. I have already told my colleagues why it should be called the more air pollution for every American act or, if they don't like that, we could call it the relying on foreign oil forever act. That is what it truly is. It stops us from cleaning up our air, which the people definitely do not support, 69 percent of the people in a bipartisan poll.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this Truth-O- Meter Politifact. That is an independent Web site that judges the truth of these claims.

They looked at this amendment. They said the claim is false, that gasoline prices would go down. So beware of things that are called good names. But when we get behind them, we see they are not good. They are dangerous. This is a red flag coming from me to everybody watching the debate. This bill would tell the EPA they can no longer do their job--EPA, one of the most popular agencies in the Nation. Sixty-nine percent of the people say: Do your job.

It would, in essence, stop us from making more fuel-efficient cars because it would say States cannot do more, and that would mean reliance on foreign oil.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Washington for a question.

I have the floor, and I plan to proceed as long as colleagues want to come and ask questions. I could go until about 5.

She was already allowed to offer it.

I will continue yielding without losing my right to the floor because there will be a question.

I do not at this point. We are taking our time. I wish to say through the Chair to my friend, this amendment is so radical, it is so far beyond any other amendment we have ever had on this subject, so I am not going to yield the floor until I have given people a chance on my side to ask questions about it. I intend to hold the floor at this point. I cannot give you a time when I will stop. I am also very willing to have a vote on this at a time we can mutually agree to. But at this point, I will not be able to yield the floor.

I yield to my friend for a question or a series of questions--as many as she might have.

I will answer and then yield for further questioning. The Senator is making the case so clearly. The one area we know we can make progress on in terms of getting off foreign oil is cars that get better fuel economy. My friend worked so diligently on the Commerce Committee, along with Senator Snowe, Senator Feinstein, and others. We all worked. But my friend took a tremendous lead on it.

In this particular amendment, which is named something that has nothing to do with reducing or preventing gas taxes or something--it has nothing to do with that. If this passes--and I hope it will not pass--but if it were to be signed into law, it essentially takes the EPA completely out of the picture, in terms of fuel economy, which means that all the progress we have made in getting more fuel economy, cleaning up the air, will be gone.

This little child, shown in this picture, gasping for air, as it is, is going to be gasping for more air. Children are particularly vulnerable.

So the Senator is right on so many fronts. If we were to pass this, we would turn around from all our progress we just made. We would stop the States from being able to do more on their own. We would lose the competition in the world for the most fuel-efficient vehicles, which is so critical--everybody looks to us--and consumers, as my friend points out, would miss out on, frankly, thousands of dollars a year in savings.

I hope I have answered my friend's question.

Obviously, I cannot speak for my colleagues. I cannot. But I have to look at what would happen if this were to become law. EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, signed into law by Richard Nixon, a Republican, overwhelmingly--and, by the way, the Clean Air Act amendments were signed into law by George Herbert Walker Bush--they would say to the EPA: You are out. You no longer have the ability to do your job, which is laid out in the Clean Air Act. This particular amendment changes the Clean Air Act and says--I say to my friend--to the EPA: You no longer can look at carbon pollution. You cannot look at any pollution at all that relates to the climate change issue. In doing so, they are in a frontal assault against the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Trust for America's Health.

But I say to my friend, even more than that, they are going against the American people. I wished to share this poll with the Senator.

In February, 1 month ago--truly 1 month ago--there was a bipartisan poll. A Republican pollster and a Democratic pollster teamed up, and they asked the people what they thought about these very issues. Sixty- nine percent of the American people--this is not people in Washington State or California; this is all over the country--think EPA should update the Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution limits.

The McConnell amendment stops them, stops them from updating the Clean Air Act standards. As a matter of fact, it repeals the ability of the EPA to ever address carbon pollution, which, by the way, is a clear endangerment to the people. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record EPA's Endangerment Finding.

I say to my good friend and colleague from Washington State, in EPA's summary of the endangerment our people would face, they talk about the worsening of ground-level ozone pollution if the EPA is not allowed to enforce the law, which is what McConnell offers us today.

They say:

Exposure to ground-level ozone has been linked to

respiratory health problems ranging from decreased lung

function--

We know kids, even today, with all the progress we have made--kids who are born in areas that are close to freeways, I say to my friend, close to railroads, close to ports--have a reduced lung function. At birth, they have a lesser lung function. What are we doing? How dare people come and hurt the American people. That is what this is. This is about hurting the American people, hurting America's families, stopping the Environmental Protection Agency from cleaning up the air, cleaning up pollution.

Here is this poll: 69 percent say EPA scientists--not Congress-- should set pollution standards. Yet this amendment says: EPA, get out of the picture. We do not want you. We want to do this, the politicians. Well, the people do not want this. That is why I hope we will reject this terrible amendment that endangers the people.

I continue to yield for a further question.

Could the Senator repeat that, please?

Well, my friend is so right. If this is an economic argument, bring it on to us. We know the numbers. The Senator has laid them out. We know tens of thousands of firms are moving forward because we have these laws on the books. The clean air technologies and the clean water technologies and the safe drinking water technologies are wanted by the whole world.

I have to say to my friends who are pushing this--I wish to tell them something they do not seem to either understand or maybe they do not want to hear, but I am going to say it--the whole world is going green, no matter where you look. Walmart is going green. I have had my differences with them on their policies on workers.

Walmart is going green. And why? Because, as my friend said, it saves money. The whole world is going green. What does it mean? It means everyone wants to save money. Everyone is looking for better energy opportunities that are clean. And everybody wants clean energy. If we back away from that, we are saying to China: Go for it. You will get the whole market, and we will still be pumping for oil.

By the way, I have a message on that front: Oil companies have 57 million acres of land and offshore tracts they already have a permit to drill in. My friends on the other side, in another debate, keep saying: Let's drill, drill. Why don't they drill where they already have the leases and it is already approved? So that is not at debate here.

What is at debate here is why would we, as my friend asked me, turn away from policies that result in clean technologies that the entire world wants--clean technologies that support more than 100,000 businesses and tens of thousands of more jobs? Why would we do that? My answer is, to me, it would be a self-inflicted wound on our country, when this is an opportunity.

I think my friend from Washington knows John Doerr who is a venture capitalist. He has told us for years now that if we invest in clean energy, if we incentivize clean energy, the venture capitalists will come off the sidelines with more billions than they ever gave to high tech and biotech combined. So why would anyone support this amendment which would turn the clock back on fuel economy, as my friend said, on clean energy technology, and turn the clock back on our little kids who are struggling as it is with asthma?

I yield for another question.

Well, of course my friend from Washington is right on target when she points out that--first of all, the EPA is being very cautious in the way it moves on this. They are only going after the biggest, dirtiest polluters. I think most of the people I talk to out there say--my mother always said, Clean up your room. If you are belching all of this smoke into the air, you have to take some responsibility for it, especially when you are making billions and billions and billions of dollars of profit.

No one has come to me and said big oil is suffering because they were under the Clean Air Act all of these years. But it is true. There is no pressing matter before us. They are using the problems in Libya and the tragedy in Japan.

The Upton bill, as in this McConnell amendment, says--Upton: A bill that would halt the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases would help stop rising gas prices. That is what he says, that this amendment before us will help stop rising gas prices. The nonpartisan PolitiFact, which is an independent Web site, looked at this. When they came to the end of looking at Mr. Upton's claim that this would reduce gas prices-- and this is the same bill as the Upton bill--they say, We find this claim false.

I feel comfortable in this debate because I am on the side of the truth. I am on the side of the American people who are telling us: Stop, Congress. Don't tell EPA to stop enforcing the law. That is wrong. So I feel good about that. We are on the side of these children whom we are protecting. We are on the side of consumers. We are on the side of progress. We are on the side of business. We are on the side of exports. We want America to be the leader.

My friend from Washington is an innovator. My friend knows what it is to go to the capital markets and say, I have a great idea, and she knows what government can do to encourage this type of investment. Government can't do everything, but we can set the stage. One of the ways we set the stage for a great multibillion-dollar economy to take off is by having a Clean Air Act that saves our children from these terrible air-gasping days, but also creates technology that cleans up our air.

My friend is so right. The false claim that this amendment is going to lower gas prices has been debunked right now. That claim has been debunked by people who have no axe to grind.

I appreciate my friend coming here and engaging this. Does she have any further questions?

The Senator from Washington poses an important question, and that is: Why are we seeing this kind of amendment on a small business bill? It is ridiculous. It makes the American people lose faith in us, frankly. This is a bill about small business innovation. This isn't a bill that is about telling EPA they can no longer do their job in protecting the American people. This is ridiculous.

We already know from reports how many lives have been saved. We have it here, and I want my friend to see this. In 2010, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 cases of premature deaths. That is a fact. By 2020, that number is projected to grow to 230,000. So excuse me. If this amendment were to pass and stop EPA from cleaning up the air, people will die.

If this is what you want to do, don't hang it on a small business bill. Why don't you have a press conference and say, You know what, we don't think this is worth it: 160,000 deaths; win a few, lose a few, you know. They don't care at all. But we care, and that is why we are talking about this.

I yield again to my friend.

This is what they would turn away from: preventing 160,000 premature deaths--that is documented--in 2010 alone.

There have clearly been a lot of moves on the part of special interests in this country--the biggest polluters--to try to get their way, and they try every which way to try to get their way. If they were to present the case to the Senator from Washington or to me that what they want is good for the American people, that is great. Make the case. Who could ever make the case that stopping the EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act is good for the people? They can't. So what do they do? My friend is right to recall these other attempts. They couch it as: Oh, it is going to lower the price of gas, or it is good for business, or it is good for jobs. The truth is, it is devastating for all of those things.

My friend from Washington has been a leader on consumer protection. Oh, my goodness, we remember the fights when we had the Enrons of the world destroying people by raising the price of electricity behind closed doors, and the conspiracy to do that. Remember those battles we were in? These battles keep coming back at us. Does my colleague know-- my friend is asking me questions, but I would ask her one rhetorically. This amendment is so radical, it goes after fuel economy standards, and it says, No more. EPA, you are out of that. You can't deal with it ever again, even though we know fuel economy, when we get it done right, takes those toxins out of the air, plus we get better fuel mileage, and that will get us off of foreign oil. It takes that away. Chalk one up in the Middle East for oil barons. That is good for them. It is not good for America, but yes, chalk that up for them.

We already know what happens to kids. Let's show this picture because it shows the look on this child's face. This is what happens to our kids when the air is dirty.

The fact is, if we take EPA out of the business of cleaning up carbon pollution and all the co-contaminants that go into the air with it, such as mercury and others I could list, people are going to be sick. But here is beyond the pale what they do: In addition to those things, they even stop in this amendment the Carbon Registry, so that, America, you might as well cover your eyes, cover your ears, and cover your mouth, because you will not speak evil, you will not hear evil, you will not see evil. You will not see, you will not hear, and you cannot speak about the carbon pollution in the air.

That is what is going on here. So my friend is right to connect this to a whole line of faulty reasoning that the American people have been asked to swallow.

But I have news for you. They are smart. Madam President, 69 percent think EPA should update the Clean Air Act standards with stricter air pollution limits; 68 percent believe Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act; and 69 percent believe EPA scientists, not Congress, should set pollution standards.

So this vote we will have tonight--I hope we will have it tonight--is about whether Congress should play doctor and scientist and decide what is best for the people or allow that to be done by the physicians, by the scientists, and by an agency that is extremely popular in this country.

It is not popular right here, right now, I will tell you that, because the polluters don't want anything to do with it. But we don't represent polluters, we represent everyone--everyone. And a vast majority want us to say no to this McConnell amendment.

So I yield to my friend, if she has a final comment or question.

Before my friend leaves, I thank her so much, and I am going to leave the floor so my Republican friends have time to speak on this issue. America will hear a lot of different stories from a lot of different people. But, remember, this is pretty simple. This amendment stops the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job.

I thank my friend and tell her that we can't afford this amendment. This amendment will hurt America. It will hurt it in every way. It will hurt the health of Americans, it will hurt jobs in this country, it will hurt consumers, and I am proud to stand with her.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, it has been a remarkable April in the House of Representatives. Last week, the majority rewrote the Constitution with a bill stating that one House of Congress can deem a law made all by itself regardless of what the Senate or the President of the United States might think. And if that wasn't enough, today the majority is proposing to rewrite the laws of science itself, the definition of taxes, and the laws of economics.

Despite indisputable scientific evidence, the Republicans are seeking to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting Americans' health and safety from what the scientific consensus agrees is the worst environmental threat in the world's history: global climate change.

It's akin to telling Homeland Security to stop protecting the homeland. It denies scientific proof and logic. Even the Supreme Court stated that the EPA has a responsibility to act to keep the public safe. We're witnessing nothing less today than a full assault on four decades of progress in protecting Americans from environmental dangers.

Madam Speaker, for nearly 40 years the EPA and the Clean Air Act have protected the health of Americans from dangers both seen and unseen. Over the last 20 years, the Clean Air Act prevented an estimated 843,000 asthma attacks, 18 million cases of respiratory illness among children, 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 21,000 cases of heart disease, and 200,000 premature deaths--not only saving people from the human toll of dealing with illness among themselves and their family, but saving the economic costs to society and individuals from all of these conditions.

Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to ignore this progress and prevent the EPA by handcuffing it and preventing it from protecting us in the future.

Repealing the EPA's authority to limit pollution would have devastating consequences. It would increase the number of children and adults who suffer from asthma. It would increase the number of individuals with emphysema, lung cancer, bronchitis, and many other respiratory diseases driving up health care costs for all Americans significantly.

For this reason, 280 groups--including the American Heart Association, the American Public Health Association and many others-- sent a letter to Congress urging us to reject measures that would block or delay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job to protect all Americans from life-threatening air pollution.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Texas mentioned the word ``tax'' six times in his remarks, to my count. It's possible I missed a couple of instances of that word as well. And yet yesterday in committee, both Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman agreed that the EPA does not have the statutory authority to confer any taxes whatsoever.

Therefore, the name of this bill, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, is a complete misnomer. This bill has not even originated in or been passed out of the committee in Congress that has jurisdiction in tax matters, namely, the Ways and Means Committee. It's a completely inappropriate and misleading way to convey what this bill does.

Madam Speaker, America's science and environmental policy should be driven by science and science alone. The EPA should be allowed to move forward. And I urge my colleagues to reject the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Parliamentary Inquiries

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 1 minute to respond.

I know the gentleman from Florida mentioned the cow flatulence in our committee meeting last night, and it sounded like a topic that bore looking into. I did have a chance to look it up in the interim, and Fox News had reported the prospect of EPA regulating cow and livestock gas.

However, it never existed. FactCheck.org, which I looked it up on, dispelled the myth and EPA itself actually came out with a statement that said not only is there no such regulation that it discussed or was in the works, but even EPA admitted it's not under their authority to regulate that in any way, shape or form.

So it is a false accusation with regard to the issue regarding livestock.

Madam Speaker, it's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a former member of the Rules Committee and a former member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. He has racked up quite a few former memberships.

Will the gentleman yield?

I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, it's hard to figure out where to start with regard to refuting some of the statements that were made.

First of all, again, with regard to the information regarding methane emissions on the EPA Web site, there is a difference between a statement of fact and an action, and part of what the EPA does is it provides good scientific facts.

They, EPA itself, concedes and says they don't have the authority, nor should they have the authority, to monitor emissions from livestock. So they will publish good information. I don't refute the information the gentleman said, and I hope they publish more useful information about the impact of livestock, but they are not seeking to regulate it.

The gentleman said they are going to tax cattle. Again, very clearly, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, said the EPA does not have the ability to impose a tax.

I would ask my colleague from Texas a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' question: Does the EPA have the ability to impose a tax?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, it's a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' question. If there is an additional statement the gentleman would like to make, I would be happy to have him explain it on his own time. My time is limited and I have many speakers.

But I would be happy to enter into a dialogue with him on his time or allow him to respond to whether or not the EPA has the ability to impose a tax.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentlelady mentioned science. One of the expert witnesses the Republicans called for last week's congressional hearing on climate science was Professor Richard Muller of Berkeley. Now, this was a physicist who had gotten into the climate skeptic game. And I have to say, the climate skeptic game is a very lucrative one for people. Anybody who finds a way to deny climate change sells lots of books, gets booked on the conservative talk show circuit, and does very well for themselves. And yet, despite the intensive economic pressure for climate scientists to deny climate change, 99 percent have stayed true to the scientific method; and the conclusion of the vast majority is that climate change exists.

Now, Professor Muller reported that his group's preliminary findings were that the global warming trend is very similar to that reported by prior groups. Now, this took some courage. Because of his belief in science, no doubt it hurts his own earning potential. I think he had been doing very well as a climate skeptic. Now he is somebody who has put his scientific principles above his own economic need.

What science tells us is not always convenient. Every climate scientist that I know wishes that they could say that there is no danger from climate change, wishes there was no danger from carbon emissions. Nobody wants to be a harbinger of disaster--what a terrible thing to be--and yet they value the integrity of the scientific process.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 3, 2011]

The Truth, Still Inconvenient

(By Paul Krugman)

So the joke begins like this: An economist, a lawyer and a

professor of marketing walk into a room. What's the punch

line? They

were three of the five ``expert witnesses'' Republicans

called for last week's Congressional hearing on climate

science.

But the joke actually ended up being on the Republicans,

when one of the two actual scientists they invited to testify

went off script.

Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley, a physicist who has

gotten into the climate skeptic game, has been leading the

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort

partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation.

And climate deniers--who claim that researchers at NASA and

other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and

distorted the data--had been hoping that the Berkeley project

would conclude that global warming is a myth.

Instead, however, Professor Muller reported that his

group's preliminary results find a global warming trend

``very similar to that reported by the prior groups.''

The deniers' response was both predictable and revealing;

more on that shortly. But first, let's talk a bit more about

that list of witnesses, which raised the same question I and

others have had about a number of committee hearings held

since the G.O.P. retook control of the House--namely, where

do they find these people?

My favorite, still, was Ron Paul's first hearing on

monetary policy, in which the lead witness was someone best

known for writing a book denouncing Abraham Lincoln as a

``horrific tyrant''--and for advocating a new secessionist

movement as the appropriate response to the ``new American

fascialistic state.''

The ringers (i.e., nonscientists) at last week's hearing

weren't of quite the same caliber, but their prepared

testimony still had some memorable moments. One was the

lawyer's declaration that the E.P.A. can't declare that

greenhouse gas emissions are a health threat, because these

emissions have been rising for a century, but public health

has improved over the same period. I am not making this up.

Oh, and the marketing professor, in providing a list of

past cases of ``analogies to the alarm over dangerous manmade

global warming''--presumably intended to show why we should

ignore the worriers--included problems such as acid rain and

the ozone hole that have been contained precisely thanks to

environmental regulation.

But back to Professor Muller. His climate-skeptic

credentials are pretty strong: he has denounced both Al Gore

and my colleague Tom Friedman as ``exaggerators,'' and he has

participated in a number of attacks on climate research,

including the witch hunt over innocuous e-mails from British

climate researchers. Not surprisingly, then, climate deniers

had high hopes that his new project would support their case.

You can guess what happened when those hopes were dashed.

Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent

climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and

piously declared himself ``prepared to accept whatever result

they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.'' But never

mind: once he knew that Professor Muller was going to present

those preliminary results, Mr. Watts dismissed the hearing as

``post normal science political theater.'' And one of the

regular contributors on his site dismissed Professor Muller

as ``a man driven by a very serious agenda.''

Of course, it's actually the climate deniers who have the

agenda, and nobody who's been following this discussion

believed for a moment that they would accept a result

confirming global warming. But it's worth stepping back for a

moment and thinking not just about the science here, but

about the morality.

For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have

been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue

with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps

catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you're going to

assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral

responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness

and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right,

you'll be doing a great deal of damage.

But what we had, instead of high seriousness, was a farce:

a supposedly crucial hearing stacked with people who had no

business being there and instant ostracism for a climate

skeptic who was actually willing to change his mind in the

face of evidence. As I said, no surprise: as Upton Sinclair

pointed out long ago, it's difficult to get a man to

understand something when his salary depends on his not

understanding it.

But it's terrifying to realize that this kind of cynical

careerism--for that's what it is--has probably ensured that

we won't do anything about climate change until catastrophe

is already upon us.

So on second thought, I was wrong when I said that the joke

was on the G.O.P.; actually, the joke is on the human race.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up Senate bill 388, a bill that prohibits Members of Congress and the President from receiving pay during government shutdowns.

It is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a sponsor of a bill to do the same, Mr. Moran.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear that we can in this body take up and pass Senate bill 388 if we can defeat the previous question, and this will go directly to the President's desk. There is still time.

I think the American people don't know that if government shuts down at the end of the day Friday as it might--it seems increasingly likely--Members of Congress will still continue to receive their paycheck. I had a tweet from one of my constituents that said, ``If there is a government shutdown, are Congressmen and Senators considered essential employees?''

I responded that we had a bill, Senate bill 388, that would make sure that Members of Congress don't get paid in the event of a shutdown, but Speaker Boehner refuses to bring it to the floor of the House in spite of passing the Senate unanimously.

My constituent responded, ``Maybe if the rulemakers had to live by the same rules they created, a solution would come faster. Gridlock is not governance.''

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I thank the gentleman. I am the last speaker for my side, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would like to submit into the Record a Nature editorial entitled, ``Into Ignorance: Vote to Overturn an Aspect of Climate Science Marks a Worrying Trend in U.S. Congress.''

Madam Speaker, time and time again we've heard our colleagues cry wolf and make outlandish claims about what the Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to do. But the American people aren't fools. They know that every time the EPA stands up to big polluters, big polluters claim the sky is falling.

That's exactly what happened when the EPA tackled the acid rain problem. Polluters claimed new safeguards would end their industries, increase the price of consumer goods, and cause massive job loss. In reality, acid rain has been dramatically reduced and the limits on pollution were met faster and at roughly a tenth of the cost that industry estimated--all without driving consumer prices up.

A recent MIT study even suggests that implementing the EPA safeguards we are debating today would create 1.4 million jobs as companies invent, build and install newer and cheaper pollution control tools and renewable energy.

Rather than discussing ridiculous and already disreputable and refuted claims of cow flatulence and other elements that aren't even considered by the EPA, let's discuss science and the facts.

Republicans have claimed that the EPA has found carbon dioxide to be dangerous, the same gas we exhale. They say, how can carbon dioxide be dangerous? In reality, the endangerment finding was based on sound science and found that as climate change increases, so does ground- level ozone, longer pollen seasons, and more mold allergies. These affect health problems like asthma and heart disease. Once again, Republicans were oversimplifying a serious problem to support their big polluter buddies at the cost of public health.

Science will guide us in the right direction, and science is a blind goddess. It doesn't care what we want science to

say. What matters is what good science done actually says.

The supporters of this legislation want to present a false dichotomy that somehow protecting the environment would hurt job creation. Instead, the exact opposite has been proven to be true.

Since 1970, the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act have been shown to outweigh all costs associated with the law, and the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act are expected to reach nearly $2 trillion in 2020--exceeding costs by more than 30 to 1.

That's why a number of business organizations representing over 60,000 firms wrote to President Obama and congressional leaders urging them to support the EPA's mission and to reject efforts to block, delay or weaken implementation of the Clean Air Act. In their letters, the groups note that studies consistently show that the economic benefits of implementing the act far exceed the costs of controlling air pollutant emissions.

The EPA's rule is strictly tailored to only the country's biggest power plants and industrial polluters. These safeguards apply to about 700 of the top polluting power plants and oil refineries, facilities that need new permits, anyway, under current law.

It's been proven countless times that we can protect the environment and public health and grow and strengthen our economy at the same time. To say otherwise simply ignores the facts.

Madam Speaker, I want to make sure that no one is misled by the title of the bill we're considering, the Energy Tax Prevention Act. The only amendment that would have actually prevented energy taxes was offered by my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and was denied even a floor discussion and debate or a vote under this rule. The only thing this bill is taxing is our patience. As serious issues confront America, including the government shutdown, the majority seems intent on legislating by false bumper-sticker slogans.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider Senate bill 388.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that actually does something useful, ensures Members of Congress don't get paid during a shutdown of government and has a real chance of being enacted into law and signed by President Obama, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

[From Nature]

Into Ignorance

Vote to overturn an aspect of climate science marks a worrying trend in

US Congress

As Nature went to press, a committee of the US Congress was

poised to pass legislation that would overturn a scientific

finding on the dangers of global warming. The Republican-

sponsored bill is intended to prevent the US Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse-gas

emissions, which the agency declared a threat to public

welfare in 2009. That assessment serves as the EPA's legal

basis for regulation, so repealing the `endangerment finding'

would eliminate its authority over greenhouse gases.

That this finding is scientifically sound had no bearing on

the decision to push the legislation, and Republicans on the

House of Representatives' energy and commerce committee have

made clear their disdain for climate science. At a

subcommittee hearing on 14 March, anger and distrust were

directed at scientists and respected scientific societies.

Misinformation was presented as fact, truth was twisted and

nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists, let

alone learn from them. It has been an embarrassing display,

not just for the Republican Party but also for Congress and

the US citizens it represents.

It is tempting to write all of this off as petty

partisanship, a populist knee-jerk reaction to lost jobs and

rising energy prices by a well-organized minority of

Republican voters. After all, US polling data has

consistently shown that, in general, the public accepts

climate science. At a hearing last week, even Ed Whitfield

(Republican, Kentucky), who chairs the subcommittee, seemed

to distance himself from the rhetoric by focusing not on the

science but on the economic effects of greenhouse-gas

regulation. ``One need not be a sceptic of global warming to

be a sceptic of the EPA's regulatory agenda,'' said

Whitfield.

``The US Congress has entered the intellectual

wilderness.''

Perhaps, but the legislation is fundamentally anti-science,

just as the rhetoric that supports it is grounded in wilful

ignorance. One lawmaker last week described scientists as

``elitist'' and ``arrogant'' creatures who hide behind

``discredited'' institutions. Another propagated the myth

that in the 1970s the scientific community warned of an

imminent ice age. Melting ice caps on Mars served to counter

evidence of anthropogenic warming on Earth, and Antarctica

was falsely said to be gaining ice. Several scientists were

on hand--at the behest of Democrats on the subcommittee--to

answer questions and clear things up, but many lawmakers

weren't interested in answers, only in prejudice.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress

has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of

affairs in a country that has led the world in many

scientific arenas for so long. Global warming is a thorny

problem, and disagreement about how to deal with it is

understandable. It is not always clear how to interpret data

or address legitimate questions. Nor is the scientific

process, or any given scientist, perfect. But to deny that

there is reason to be concerned, given the decades of work by

countless scientists, is irresponsible.

That this legislation is unlikely to become law doesn't

make it any less dangerous. It is the attitude and ideas

behind the bill that are troublesome, and they seem to be

spreading. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who chairs the

full energy and commerce committee, once endorsed climate

science, but last month said--after being pinned down by a

determined journalist--that he is not convinced that

greenhouse-gas emissions contribute to global warming. It was

yet another blow to the shrinking minority of moderate

centrists in both parties.

One can only assume that Congress will find its way at some

point, pressured by voters who expect more from their public

servants. In the meantime, as long as it can fend off this

and other attacks on the EPA, President Barack Obama's

administration should push forward with its entirely

reasonable regulatory programme for reducing greenhouse-gas

emissions where it can, while looking for ways to work with

Congress in other areas. Rising oil prices should increase

interest in energy security, a co-benefit of the greenhouse-

gas and fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles that were

announced by the administration last year. The same advice

applies to the rest of the world. Work with the United States

where possible, but don't wait for a sudden change of tenor

in Washington, DC.

One of the scientists testifying before Whitfield's

subcommittee was Christopher Field, director of the Carnegie

Institution's global ecology department in Stanford,

California. Field generously hoped that his testimony at last

week's hearing took place ``in the spirit of a genuine

dialogue that is in the best interests of the country''.

Maybe one day that hope will be justified.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. President, I understand Senator Inhofe and Senator Vitter are both on the floor to offer amendments to the SBIR and STIR Program. Are we under a consent agreement?

Yes, I yield to Senator Inhofe.

Is that Senator Vitter's amendment? Senator Vitter was here, so I wanted him to have the opportunity to offer his. It doesn't matter to me in what order.

Mr. President, let me just add a word. I see the Senator from Oklahoma. Again, as the managers of this bill, Senator Snowe and I have worked across party lines to bring the SBIR bill to the floor. We want to have as open an amendment process as possible. We think that is fair. We would like to really ask people to focus on amendments specific to this legislation. I know time on the Senate floor is precious, and we don't get as much time as we would like to offer our bills and amendments, but we do ask that of everyone so we can try to get this bill to the House and, hopefully, to the President's desk.

Senator Inhofe is here to offer an amendment. We agreed earlier to allow that to happen, so I will turn the floor over to him.

Mr. President, I sincerely appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Delaware and thank him for his support not only of this program but for his expertise and leadership in the whole area of small business innovation and technological advancements. He was quite a leader in his previous positions in Delaware, and he brings a great deal of expertise to the Senate.

I know the Senator from Alaska is on the floor to speak about an amendment that is pending for debate and consideration. We may have amendments that are called up for votes today--that has not been finally decided--but we can come to the floor, of course, and offer amendments and debate several that are pending.

One thing I want to say before I turn it over to Senator Murkowski is that I think Senator Coons hit the nail on the head when he said a smart budget plan is going to work to meet the challenges of this extraordinary debt we have that has been caused for multiple reasons. It is important we address that correctly and not just one-sided.

This bill addresses a significant aspect of smart budgeting and debt reduction by creating jobs that generate revenues for governments at the local level that are looking for those revenues, at the State level where they are desperate for those revenues, and at the Federal level that could most certainly use some additional tax revenues so we can maintain our leadership in strategic investments.

Now, there were some on the floor this morning and in the Senate who said the only way to get to a balanced budget is by slashing some of the important programs that help create the atmosphere in America for businesses to thrive. Some of that would be strategic investments in infrastructure; some of that would be strategic investments in education. But even the Business Roundtable would say the last programs we should be cutting from the budget are effective job training and education programs. Yet, according to the philosophy of some, those are the first programs that get slashed.

That is not smart budgeting. That is not closing the budget gap. That is not putting your head to the problem. What the Senator from Delaware said is, it is a combination of some strategic cutting and some discretionary budgets. We are going to have to pare down the defense budget appropriately and find some cuts in some savings.

Even Secretary Gates acknowledges there is waste, fraud, and abuse in the Defense bill. But, most importantly, I think Democrats and Republicans are coming together to say we can grow our way out by producing jobs, and this reauthorization bill is one of the bills that can actually do that. So I just wanted to put a little exclamation point on that part.

I see the Senator from Alaska, who is going to be expressing her views on one of the amendments that is pending. Then Senator Boxer is also on the Senate floor, as is Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey. I think Senator Snowe may want to say just one word.

Senator Snowe is here to offer an amendment. So why don't we turn to Senator Murkowski.

Madam President, can I just inquire?

How long does the Senator think the Senator from Washington will proceed and how long will the Senator herself proceed?

OK. Because Senator Snowe has an amendment.

She would like to speak on it.

Do you think Senator Snowe can go after Senator Cantwell?

Let me see what we can do.

I will object. I know the Senator is very interested in offering this amendment, and we are very interested in hearing about it, but we have now six amendments pending. So if the Senator would like to go ahead and speak about the amendment, explain the amendment, and when we can get an agreement about how we should proceed with these amendments, we will move forward.

Will the Senator yield for a clarification?

This most certainly is an open process. What I was trying to explain to the Senator is there have been about a half dozen other Senators who have come to the floor during the day--such as Senator Hutchison, who came down earlier--and we are trying to be accommodating in the order the Senators come. So if the Senator doesn't mind explaining his amendment, I commit to him that Senator Snowe and I will try to get a pending list as soon as we can.

Mr. President, I know Members are following this debate carefully, and their amendments. Let me bring everybody up to date. It is about 5 after 5. We hope to have a vote around 6 o'clock, potentially two

votes. We have about five amendments pending. Senator Cornyn would like his amendment pending, Senator Hutchison is here to speak about I think two amendments she may want to have pending, and Senator Barrasso is on the floor to speak on the underlying McConnell amendment.

I will ask unanimous consent in a few minutes to try to get one or two votes set up for 6 o'clock, potentially get these other amendments pending, and set a time for votes tomorrow so we can move through it. We want to have as open a debate as possible, but we also really want to focus on the bill at hand, which is the Small Business Reauthorization Act and related measures. Many of these are somewhat related to jobs and the economy, so we are trying to be liberal in our views here. But we do want to try to be as orderly and as appropriate, as Members have come down to the floor, in the order they have come.

Why don't we turn now to Senator Hutchison, and Senator Cornyn--we will get back to the Senator as soon as we can about getting his amendment pending, if we can do that before the night ends.

I thank the Senator from Texas. I appreciate the patience of my colleagues who are on the floor. Because we have had two or three colleagues from this side of the aisle speak, I thought it would be appropriate to go to the Senator from Oregon, then recognizing Senator Barrasso to speak on his amendment and Senator Paul to then speak on his amendment.

If no one objects--I do not see anyone on the floor--if we can go in that order, I think everyone can be accommodated before the vote at 6 o'clock.

Is that okay with everyone?

Thank you.

I object to making it pending but not for discussion.

Please let me correct myself. Earlier today I said that Senator Coons is from Connecticut. Clearly he is from Delaware. And Senator Johanns is not on the floor, but Senator Barrasso is. It has been a long day and I apologize to my colleagues. But the Senator from Wyoming is going to speak for a few minutes, and then the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders.

I am still hoping we can have a vote on one or two amendments at 6 o'clock.

Mr. President, I see two Members on the floor. I ask unanimous consent for Senator Johanns to go next and Senator Rockefeller, who wanted to speak, and then we will try to get some sort of consent for one or two votes tonight. We are still hoping to do that around 6. We will try to keep Members posted.

Amendment No. 161

Mr. President, I thank Senator Rockefeller and all of the Members who have come to the floor today debating this important bill and to share their thoughts about other amendments that are--some directly but some indirectly--related to our discussion. It doesn't look as if we are going to vote tonight, but we are going to continue to work throughout the evening as Members want to come to the floor and speak on their amendments, so we can try to work something out for tomorrow.

I thank Senator Snowe and her staff for their good work today. I see Senator Whitehouse on the floor. He may wish to speak about an amendment. But I remind everyone that we are on the SBIR and STTR Reauthorization Act. It is a very important piece of legislation that has been sputtering for a reauthorization now for over 6 years, and there are literally thousands of entities--small businesses, dozens of Federal agencies, many, many organizations from the Chamber of Commerce to the American Small Business Association--that are depending on us to do our work and actually get this program reauthorized. It is important to give consistency and permanency. So we are going to continue to work to do that.

I look forward to speaking in more detail about the bill later tonight and tomorrow. But it looks as though we are not going to have votes tonight;

but, hopefully, we can get some order and some agreement to proceed.

At this time I see Senator Whitehouse on the floor.

Madam President, this has actually been a very invigorating debate on the bill that is pending before the Senate. We have heard a few amendments that have been filed that are directly related to the reauthorization of this important program, and there are others who have an arguably indirect impact on small business jobs and the creation of opportunity for research and technology investments for small business in America. But we are unable to vote tonight and to come to any consensus about the order of votes. Hopefully, we can do that sometime this evening.

Let me take this moment to again thank the 84 Members of the Senate who voted yesterday to give us an opportunity to get to this important bill. As people have watched this debate throughout the day and continue to watch this evening, one of the reasons the leadership likes to sometimes put appropriate limits on the debate is to keep people focused on the underlying issue. But Senator Snowe and I decided to urge our leaders to have a really open debate because we understand there are Members who feel very strongly about the EPA issues and the climate change rules and regulations and about the 1099 provision. Senator Nelson feels strongly about reducing legislative spending. Senator Hutchison and I in particular have strong feelings about the LEASE Act. So we are going to be as inclusive and incorporate as many of these ideas as we can.

But I really want to ask, since we have looked at the amendment list just within the hour and we have 48 amendments pending on this bill-- and some people have half a dozen--if Members and their staffs will please look and see what is absolutely essential for them to offer as an amendment on this bill so that we don't miss this opportunity. That is really what I want to express right now, that this will be a missed opportunity to reauthorize one of the best programs at the Federal level.

We have heard a lot of talk about programs that don't work, about programs that are wasteful, programs that are full of fraud and abuse. This is not one of them. This is the Federal Government's largest investment program in research and development. This gives small businesses in America--businesses we all represent on main streets everywhere, whether North Carolina, Louisiana, California, or Massachusetts, small businesses with cutting-edge technology and new and exciting science, with very bright people who have graduated from some of the finest universities in the world--this gives them an opportunity to put their technology and their know-how in front of Federal agencies for the sole purpose of saving taxpayer money, creating jobs, and increasing the revenues paid to governments at the local, State, and Federal level to solve our deficit problem.

We are not going to solve our debt and deficit problem by cutting, slashing recklessly, domestic discretionary spending alone. No one in America believes that. I don't know why people come to the floor to continue to promote that idea. It is not going to happen. We are going to get to a balanced budget when we bring our revenues and our spending, in appropriate order, in line and when we pass bills such as this that literally help create thousands of jobs in America. That is what is going

to end the recession. That is what is going to close this budget gap. And that is why I will stay on the floor all week with Senator Snowe, who has been wonderfully helpful today, and we will continue until we can get this bill passed.

I don't want us to miss this opportunity because it has been three Congresses--not one, not two, but three Congresses--that have tried and failed. We are not going to fail this week. We are going to pass this bill this week in the Senate. We are going to get a bill out of here and over to the House. It is very likely that the House will take up our bill as it is generally written.

Why do I say that? Because we have already incorporated so many of the House views and thoughts over the last several years. This is not new language to them. We have a new chairman--Chairman Graves--and he understands perfectly that we are working hard in the Senate to get this bill over to him and to his good committee.

We have literally thousands of businesses kind of on hold because they do not know whether this program is going to be here from week to week. We have agencies that don't know if they should put out solicitations for new technologies. Why wouldn't we want to take this opportunity when we clearly know this is one of the most effective programs? Let me give a specific example. We have used it before, but it is worth using again, although we have hundreds.

Qualcomm is a company that is very well known. It developed the software primarily that allows wireless communication. Twenty years ago, nobody ever heard of Qualcomm, and very few people had cell phones that weighed less than 3 pounds each, as I remember. But 25 to 30 people came together with Dr. Jacobs. They sat in his den, as he testified before our committee just last week. He said that through the SBIR Program, their initial idea got a couple hundred dollars. In phase II, they got $1.5 million.

That is what this program does--incentivizes or gives grants or contracts to emerging technologies well before a bank would take a look, well before a venture capital fund would even look in their direction. You have to develop the technology to a point and then have it launched. This is where there is what he described as the valley of death--great ideas, but there is just not a lot of venture capital out there and particularly in this recessionary period. So he says we helped, that without this program, it would have been very difficult to grow their company.

Today, that company employs 17,500 people in about 22 countries in the world, including right here in the United States, and it pays in taxes, in 1 year, $1 billion. That is 50 percent of the cost of this entire program. So one company--Qualcomm--in its 25-year life, has grown so much that it pays enough taxes that it supports 50 percent of the cost of this program annually.

I can give dozens of examples of other companies that have been launched through this program.

Let me say that our Federal departments are getting better at this. It was a little touch-and-go at first. The Federal agencies weren't quite used to it. Senator Rudman helped to create this program. He was very passionate about it, as were others, so we sort of pushed the Federal agencies to do this. They were more comfortable doing research and development with the big companies. They felt more comfortable. They felt they weren't taking as much risk. No one likes to fail. So they thought: Well, I have this project, and I am going to give it to IBM. If it doesn't work, nobody can blame me. The problem was that IBM didn't have all the answers. We have come to find out that sometimes they had very few during parts of their career as a company.

Not to be disrespectful to that company, but right down the road there were 10 small businesses, but nobody ever heard of them; scientists nobody ever heard of. Senator Rudman knew this, so he said: We are going to mandate a certain percentage of your research and development money, you have to push it out to small business. And some of them, yes, failed. But as the folks testified, if they are not failing, this program isn't working. I want to repeat. If they are not failing, this program isn't working because this program is front-end, high-risk, but with great returns for the American taxpayer and great returns for small businesses.

I might say, as I said earlier today, it is the envy of many other countries in the world. The gentleman who has done the most research and looking over at this program testified before our committee that he travels around the world, and he is called by other nations that ask: How is it that the Federal Government sets up programs that allow the small businesses to enter into research and development?

So Senator Snowe and I have taken this on as our first priority for this year and for this Congress. We know there are many important bills pending before our committee, but we believe this is the right bill to present to the Congress in the right order. The Chair is on the committee, so she knows this very well. But we are trying to think of what we could get out of our committee to the floor, to the President's desk, that has the most immediate impact, creates the most jobs, and this is the program.

This program extends the authorization for 8 years. It updates the award sizes for the program from $100,000 to $150,000. It takes the phase II awards from $750,000 to $1 million. It increases investment in small businesses by increasing the percentage from 2.5 to 3.5 percent of the research and development monies at all agencies over 10 years, including NIH and the Department of Defense.

These are very significant numbers for the Department of Defense. It is $1 billion. It is $1 billion this bill will sort of set aside and say: Defense Department, if you are looking for that new radiator for that tank, if you are looking at ways to cool or looking at ways to sort your ammo more efficiently or looking at ways to come up with new software to help that warfighter, here is $1 billion of research money, and we want you to ask not just the big companies in America and around the world but the small companies, the innovators out there. Give them a chance to show you what they have. That is what this program does, and we have reams and reams of data supporting its effectiveness.

It also includes this compromise between the biotech, the venture capital industry, and the small business community. We had a big fight over the last several years, but we have come to a compromise. Neither side is ecstatic, which means it is a good compromise. They are all sort of just understanding that without this compromise, this bill could fall apart, and they know how important it is. So they have come to terms on the basic portion that can be invested by venture capital funds, leaving the integrity of this program as a small business program, which is the way it was created, but allowing an appropriate level of involvement with the venture capital industry.

It also creates Federal, State, and technical partnerships. It improves the SBA's ability to oversee and coordinate this program. It adds some metrics and measurements so we can really get some good data about how it is working and where it is not working. And as we authorize it for 8 years, we will be able to really say that we got down to business and we got serious about reauthorizing this important program, while leaving this debate open and flexible and allowing the Members to have an opportunity to speak about things they feel strongly about.

I am hoping that sometime tomorrow we can vote on some of the amendments we discussed today--the McConnell amendment, the Johanns amendment, potentially, the Vitter amendment, and the Nelson amendment. Senator Cornyn, Senator Hutchison, and others were down here to speak. We hope to get their amendments in the queue. But again, if the Members would just be cooperative and let Senator Snowe and me know whether you could choose one or two and not offer six or seven amendments, that would be extremely helpful to us. Just let us know and our staffs know, and we will work as hard as we can to have the votes that are necessary to move this bill off the floor and get it to the President's desk.

For those who say, why aren't we talking about the budget and debt, my answer is, we are talking about the budget and debt. This is part of closing the budget gap. This is about creating jobs that generate revenue that closes

that gap. It is not just about discretionary domestic spending cuts. We will never get where we need to be going down that road. We are going to get to it by a combination of things, and that is why Senator Snowe and I feel very strongly about bringing this bill to the floor to talk about growing and encouraging job creation, particularly by small businesses, innovators, entrepreneurs, inventors, and risk takers who need and rely on this program to launch new and exciting businesses that benefit us all.

Whether it is in the State of Oregon, the State of Louisiana, or, as I said, Massachusetts, New York, or California, we have literally thousands of companies that have used this program successfully to grow. Our people are employed, and America is continuing to lead in many areas. Unfortunately, we don't lead in every area, but in many areas in new emerging technology, depending on the field, of course, we are very proud of this Federal program, and it is an example of a program that works.

If we could work as well as this program does in doing our work this week and getting this bill actually off the floor intact--with some amendments, of course, that will be voted on--and get it over to the House, let them do their work, and get this bill to the President's desk, we will have done some good work this week.

Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum. I don't see anyone else on the floor. There may be Members who will want to come to talk about amendments. There will be nothing that will be pending for the next few hours, and hopefully we can get an agreement later on tonight.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 203 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 203 provides for a structured rule designated by the Rules Committee for consideration of H.R. 910. This rule allows for 12 amendments--that is, 12 amendments, Madam Speaker--submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, including the open process that is taking place, not just in the Rules Committee, but also on the floor, where Members will be allowed to come and debate these 12 amendments, as opposed to a closed rule with no amendments.

This legislation, introduced by the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), has gone through regular order. There were hearings held on this issue. H.R. 910 was marked up in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, provided for a structured amendment process for 12 additional Democrat amendments to be considered.

The bill we are discussing today, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, would stop the Environmental Protection Agency--also known as EPA--from imposing a national energy tax in the form of carbon emission regulations.

Today, I will explain what the underlying bill does, and I will discuss the EPA's agenda, what this agenda would do to the Nation's job market and economy, the need for a stronger energy policy from not just our President, but also from the administration and also, as the guidepost that begins with this legislation today, from the United States Congress on behalf of the American people.

H.R. 910 prohibits the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and repeals the steps the agency has already taken to begin this process. In this bill, we only focus on greenhouse gases and we leave EPA's authority to monitor and regulate pollutants intact.

In short, the underlying bill clarifies that the Clean Air Act is not a vehicle for regulatory taxing. The decision about whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases should be made by Congress and only by Congress, not the regulatory body of a President who wishes to place his overriding answers on unelected bureaucrats to fulfill this role.

The EPA has been aggressively pursuing a national cap-and-tax energy agenda through regulation and legislation for years.

After cap-and-trade failed in Congress last year, the EPA accelerated its efforts to regulate this controversial policy through a series of new rules on hundreds of thousands of buildings all across the United States. In other words, because the President couldn't get his political agenda through Congress, he's taking his political agenda in the administration to overlay the American people.

We disagree with that, and that is why we are on the floor of the House of Representatives today.

Regulating greenhouse gas emissions--primarily the carbon dioxide emissions that come from coal, oil, and natural gas--will increase the cost of everything from gasoline to household utilities and, of course, groceries.

Additionally, regulating and taxing emissions will ship American jobs overseas to countries that understand and recognize stable, affordable and energy policies that are vital for their economic growth.

According to a letter from the Chamber of Commerce on March 9 of last year to the Energy and Commerce Committee: ``These regulations will impose significant burden across the United States economy, including sectors that will create jobs and lead us in our economic recovery.''

Additionally, the letter references that the American Council for Capital Formation has ``estimated that EPA's greenhouse gas regulations could reduce business investment between $97 billion and $290 billion in 2011 and as much as $309 billion in 2014,'' a tremendous hit on the economy when it comes from the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his administration. This is not a way for America or our future to be successful.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity also references the American Council for Capital Formation in a press release just last month that estimates that a greenhouse gas tax ``could result in the loss of between 476,000 to 1.4 million jobs.''

Republicans are committed to putting Americans back to work, and our Democratic colleagues continue to pursue a reckless agenda that puts more Americans out of work, drives business overseas--all the while limiting U.S. energy production and use.

So, Madam Speaker, today the Republican Party is on the floor of the House of Representatives with good news not just for the taxpayers but for the American people, in particular, not just consumers, but those who have lost their job or who are underemployed. We believe that what we're doing today is a jobs-saver bill.

The House Natural Resources Committee reported last month that the Obama administration policies have caused domestic oil production to drop by 16 percent versus projected levels and future projections show continued decreases in domestic production and more foreign imports to make up for this difference.

A recent Rasmussen poll from March 3, 2011, shows that three-quarters of Americans believe this country does not do enough to develop its own oil and gas resources.

So whether through greenhouse gas regulation permit delays or permitting moratoriums, which the President stands behind in his administration, this administration should change their policies and their direction.

We must find new sources of energy and not tax those that exist for the freedom of this country.

So while energy prices soar and continue to soar and projections estimate a $5-a-gallon gasoline by summertime, this administration wants to inflict more costs on consumers.

The bill today would help to ease the cost of energy prices. It would assist in the global competitiveness of America.

It would help ensure that this Nation does not lose millions of more jobs and does not threaten the intent of the Clean Air Act.

No, Madam Speaker, the Republican Party is here because this is yet another opportunity at a jobs bill that is pro-consumer and pro the American people who want and need to be able to help in a desperate time when we're losing our jobs and things are tough back home to do something positive on behalf of the American public.

This is a bipartisan bill that provides good policy for our Nation, and we're asking every single Member of Congress to understand clearly and see this for what it is. It is a jobs-protection bill.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Beaumont, Texas, Judge Poe.

I appreciate the gentleman engaging me in a colloquy, and I will just give him a straight answer.

We did not offer any waivers. All 12 amendments offered by Democrats were germane. This, and perhaps others that were submitted to the Rules Committee, were not germane to the House rules, so we did not offer any waiver. But the others that we did, the 12, were all germane and did not have to have a waiver.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of our brand- new freshmen, a gentleman who is not only on what is called an A committee but an exclusive committee of the United States Congress, who has had a distinguished career as a sheriff in Florida and who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, there was a dialogue back and forth about cows, cattle, and that the EPA really is not after that issue. But if you go to the EPA Web site, epa.gov, and you look under the portion called ``Frequent Questions'' where it deals with livestock, in fact, the EPA is trying to talk about methane produced by livestock. And it ends up saying, as I read from my BlackBerry, that essentially 20 percent of all the methane content in the air comes from livestock.

Well, that's what they want to regulate, which means they would get in the business whether we said this or not.

The gentleman will have his own time in a minute, and I'm sure he will be very effective.

But I encourage the gentleman to get on his BlackBerry and go to the Web site and look this up. They're going to blame it on cattle. They're going to tax cattle. They're going to tax the output because that's what they are proposing.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my, oh my, we've heard this tirade before. If it wasn't just Republicans and the House, which we've had now for about 4 months, it was something else. The Democrats are looking for somebody to blame their woes on, their tax increases, their overregulation, all the big spending and the debt. Madam Speaker, we know what it is. If they search quickly enough, they can find out what the American people know: It is pin the tail on the donkey. We know how this happened.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Madam Speaker, we are talking about 1.4 million jobs, a lot of cattle, and a lot of bull.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Melbourne, Florida (Mr. Posey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, there was a discussion a few minutes ago about Republicans and oil companies and a lot of very interesting comments. Yet many on our side have alluded to President Obama supporting the Brazilian Government and people by supporting their oil drilling, drilling for natural resources that they have. The President is willing to go down and back up a 2009 commitment to proposing $2 billion from the Export-Import Bank to the Brazilian company that is their energy company.

And I would like to quote what he said, if I can, because I think it's very interesting: ``At a time when we've been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect prices, the United States could not be happier for a new, stable source of energy.''

Madam Speaker, what he just spoke of was the United States' ability to produce our own oil so we don't have to look to foreigners to get that done.

[From The Hill, Mar. 21, 2011]

Overnight Energy: Republicans Pounce on Obama's Brazilian Oil Support

(By Andrew Restuccia and Ben Geman)

State of Play: Republicans and the oil industry are working

to translate President Obama's weekend comments in support of

Brazilian oil development into political ammunition in their

battle against the White House's U.S. drilling policies.

The American Petroleum Institute, the country's most

powerful oil and gas trade association, and Republicans,

including House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Monday

that the administration should be doing more to develop U.S.

oil-and-gas reserves.

Here's Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who is among the

lawmakers pushing for wider U.S. offshore drilling: ``It's

ridiculous to ignore our own resources and continue going

hat-in-hand to countries like Saudi Arabia and Brazil to beg

them to produce more oil,'' Vitter said in a statement. ``We

need to get serious about developing our resources here at

home and working toward lower gas prices and long-term energy

independence.''

But President Obama said Saturday during his visit to

Brazil that an energy partnership with the nation will offer

major benefits for the United States. Obama, in announcing a

``Strategic Energy Dialogue'' with Brazil, noted that the

country has nearly twice the oil reserves as the United

States and lauded its stability compared to some other oil-

exporting countries.

``We want to work with you. We want to help with technology

and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when

you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best

customers,'' Obama told a group of business leaders Saturday.

``At a time when we've been reminded how easily instability

in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the

United States could not be happier with the potential for a

new, stable source of energy.''

Under the Strategic Energy Dialogue, the United States will

work with Brazil ``in the environmentally responsible and

technologically advanced development'' of Brazilian oil

resources, according to a White House summary of the plan.

Administration officials also say they are working

diligently to expand U.S. oil-and-gas development. The

Interior Department has recently issued three deepwater

drilling permits for the type of projects halted after last

year's Gulf oil spill. And the department on Monday approved

an exploration plan that paves the way to expanded Gulf

drilling.

Still, it's not the first time Republicans have criticized

the administration for its oil dealings with Brazil. Vitter

and others railed against a 2009 proposed $2 billion

commitment from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to the Brazilian

oil company Petrobras to ensure the purchase of U.S. goods as

the company explores for oil.

Many Republican claims about the Export-Import proposal

have been shown to be overblown.

Forbes ran a handy fact-check Monday on Republicans' claims

about the proposed Petrobras loans. And the Export-Import

Bank takes on Republican charges here.

Progress and setbacks at stricken Japanese nuke plant

``Tokyo Electric Power Co. continued to report progress in

restoring order at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors,

but finishing the job is turning out to be a painstaking

process plagued by damaged equipment and unexpected

incidents,'' The Wall Street Journal reports.

Court ruling hits California climate program

``California did not adequately consider alternatives to

its plan to create a cap-and-trade market for carbon

emissions, a judge ruled on Monday, throwing a wrench into

the most aggressive U.S. effort to combat climate change,''

Reuters reports.

U.S., Chile strike green deals

President Obama's trip to South America is bearing green

fruit, according to the White House, which is touting

expansion of work with Chile on energy and climate change.

The White House noted several areas of cooperation. Under

the existing Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas,

``the United States intends to support the establishment of a

regional research network for glacier monitoring and modeling

led by Chile's world-class researchers,'' the White House

said.

``This network will inform policy and decisionmaking by

providing a more robust understanding of how glacial retreat

will impact water security in Andean glacier countries,'' a

summary states.

President Obama lauded the various areas of cooperation

during a press conference with Chilean President Sebastian

Pinera. ``I want to commend President Pinera for agreeing to

take another step, hosting a new center to address glacier

melt in the Andes. In addition, a new U.S.-Chile energy

business council will encourage collaborations between our

companies in areas like energy efficiency and renewable

technologies,'' Obama said at a joint news conference in

Santiago.

Three days ago the two nations also inked a formal

``memorandum of understanding'' on peaceful uses of nuclear

energy.

House vote on pesticides looms

House lawmakers will vote next week on a bill to limit the

Clean Water Act's jurisdiction over pesticide applications.

The Hill's Floor Action blog reports:

The House is expected to take up legislation next week that

would reverse a court decision that said pesticide use is

regulated by the Clean Water Act, in addition to a federal

pesticide law.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last

week marked up the bill, H.R. 872, and Republicans want to

move the measure quickly so it can take effect before April

9. That date is the deadline by which the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is due to announce a new permitting

process for pesticides that takes the court ruling into

account.

Staff for Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), who sponsored the bill,

said they expect it to be considered next week in order to

meet that deadline.

The bill is a reaction to a decision by the 6th Circuit

Court of Appeals in the case National Cotton Council v. EPA.

According to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,

that decision vacated an EPA rule that said using pesticides

in compliance with federal pesticide regulations means a

permit is not required under the Clean Water Act.

Chamber to host discussion on regulatory process

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event Tuesday

called ``restoring balance to the regulatory process.'' The

event will focus in part on the Obama administration's energy

and environmental regulations.

``Tuesday's discussion, hosted at the Chamber, will focus

on how we implement more checks and balances to improve the

process and guarantee sensible regulation, while also

ensuring that federal agencies are held accountable to the

people,'' said Bill Kovacs, senior vice president for

environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the

Chamber.

State Department, World Bank look to boost water security

The State Department will mark World Water Day by expanding

cooperation with the World Bank. Secretary of State Hillary

Rodham Clinton will sign a memorandum of understanding with

the bank at its headquarters.

``The MOU will strengthen support to developing countries

seeking a water-secure future,'' an advisory states.

Think tank gets efficient

The Center for Strategic and International Studies will

host Obama administration officials and other experts at a

forum on energy efficiency. Speakers will include Rick Duke,

the deputy assistant secretary for climate change.

Group to release nuke poll

The Civil Society Institute will release polling that

explores attitudes about nuclear power amid the crisis at

Japan's stricken reactors.

The poll is the ``first major survey to look at the views

of Americans on the broad policy implications of the

Fukushima reactor crisis--including support for federal loan

guarantees for new U.S. reactors, the merits of shifting

federal resources from nuclear to less renewable energy

alternatives and whether or not to end federal

indemnification of the nuclear industry against nearly all

cleanup costs,'' the group said.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to notify the gentleman that I have no further speakers on this side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for this wonderful discussion and debate that we've had here today.

Madam Speaker, the bill we're discussing today does not weaken the Clean Air Act or the regulation of air pollution. It does not interfere with the EPA's longstanding authority to protect the environment. In fact, as I stated in the very beginning, it simply clarifies that the Clean Air Act was never designated, designed or shown to be for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, we would be removing authority that the EPA has not had, should not have, and would not have because this Congress will not pass what is called cap-and-tax regulations.

By gaining control of government spending and eliminating government regulations, the private sector believes that the Republican Congress can be here for the interests of not only the taxpayer but also to make sure that jobs and investment in this economy in the future are very bright.

I applaud my colleagues for coming down to help debate this bill. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President.

I thank my colleague from California, who is the chair of the committee, for working so hard on this important amendment to try to articulate and help colleagues understand what is the basis of it.

I too was surprised to learn that the McConnell-Inhofe amendment would overturn what has been the hard-won future gains in fuel economy we passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis just a few years ago. I don't get it, EPA's clean car standards through 2016 will save so much gasoline that car buyers will actually save as much as $3,000 over the life of the car. That is because of the hard work we have done in the Senate on a bipartisan basis.

I know our colleagues from both sides of the aisle worked to get that last agreement that we did in 2008, and while we are doing this, we will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil. So I was surprised to hear that this legislation--the McConnell-Inhofe amendment--would overturn all that progress we have made in the last couple decades on having cleaner air and more opportunities for fuel efficiency.

When I look at this, I look at our domestic automakers in Detroit who are making much more progress based on this new generation of technology. Our domestic automakers are getting back to profitability based on a new generation of vehicles offering much better fuel economy. So they are actually--because we have said you have to have more fuel-efficient cars--they are actually now winning in the marketplace with consumers because of those offerings. I know the Department of Energy, for the first time, has said we have reduced our dependence on foreign oil because of these fuel economy improvements.

So I say to my colleague from California, it was not because of ``drill, baby, drill'' that we got fuel efficiency and got off foreign oil. It was because we had fuel efficiency in automobiles that we were able to reduce our dependence.

So I ask my friend from California why we would want to go backward on that if we have made progress and better cars out of Detroit, if they have become cheaper for consumers over the life of the car. If we have made advancements in reducing our dependence on fossil fuel, why would we want Americans to pay more at the pump and have cars that do not go as far per gallon of gas as they do today? So I do not understand what kind of scheme this is, to keep the oil companies in business? Why would we want to go back on that level of fuel efficiency and override that by this amendment?

Am I correct in understanding that?

I am amazed because my predecessor, a Republican from Washington, was fighting for fuel efficiency standards in the 1990s. So I do not know why we would be here in 2011 with a radical proposal to basically erase the ability for fuel efficiency standards.

But I have a question about public health too because I think my colleague from California has articulated something that is greater than any economic issue; that is, health and clean air and healthier children because of that. I do not understand why we would want to go back on the Clean Air Act as it relates to adverse health outcomes.

Why would you want to have more problems with asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, visits to the emergency room, hospitalization, premature deaths, all these things? EPA just came out with a comprehensive cost-benefit study on the Clean Air Act, and their findings were stark. They said the Clean Air Act will save our society $2 trillion through 2020. That is amazing.

So when I look at that, and we are going to say to polluters do not have to pay or adhere to the law, we are going to cause ourselves more costs in the future with health care. Yes, some polluters need to pay more, but as members of Congress we need to think of what's good for America, not just special interests. And the Clean Air Act

creates $30 for every $1 investing in reducing pollution.

I ask my colleague from California, what is it that Senators McConnell and Inhofe think they know about this that is different than what the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Trust for America's Health--what is it they know that those organizations do not know? Because those organizations are saying we have a serious health problem, and let's make sure it is addressed through the Clean Air Act. Are they just ignoring this issue?

I thank my colleague because my next question deals with technology. One thing I appreciate about working with the Senator from California is that we certainly share an interest in innovation and the innovation economy and making sure we do not do things to damage it, since so much job creation has happened from the technology sectors and from our improvements.

So I was surprised to think about this amendment from the perspective of that it would kill a wide range of jobs in America, including many that can't be outsourced. If we basically say we are going to allow people to continue to pollute and not adhere to the Clean Air Act, all those technologies that are about to get us off those pollutants and diversifying our energy sources would no longer be incented. The Senator and I probably would say we need to do a lot more to incent those and stop incenting those that cause so much harmful pollution.

But the United States is the largest producer and consumer of environmental technology, goods, and services. The environmental technology industry has approximately 119,000 firms and generates $300 billion in revenues and $43.8 billion in exports.

That is just the environmental technology industry. So that is 119,000 firms, $300 billion in revenue, and $43 billion in exports. So it is a very vibrant part of our economy that is based on that we want to do something about toxic pollutants. If all of a sudden you pass a bill in the Senate saying we do not want to do anything about these toxic pollutants, even though the Clean Air Act says we should, and the Supreme Court said, yes, EPA you should, then all of a sudden we are basically saying: OK. How far are we willing to go in saying we do not need to deal with toxins and pollutants?

To me, the foreign markets in developing countries that are already getting an edge on some of the clean energy technologies would worry me that they would continue to make advancements even more with these technologies.

I do not understand why people would think this radical measure would somehow help us, when the foreign technology market would continue to grow, and we would lose market share.

But foreign markets, particularly those of developing countries offer the most opportunity for U.S. companies.

The U.S. share of foreign environmental technology markets has continued to grow from 5.7 percent in 1997 to 9.8 percent in 2007, giving the U.S. environmental technology industry a positive trade surplus for the past decade.

I ask my friend from California, doesn't it make more sense to think about the future jobs we are trying to attract--because they are so much bigger--than thinking about this in the sense of 20th century jobs? That is almost what we are advocating: Let's go back to saying, if you are a pollutant, it is OK because somehow you are creating jobs.

I ask my colleague, isn't the market opportunity more in these technology jobs and environmental technology jobs?

I thank my colleague from California.

I am also interested in the Senator's opinion about this as it relates to gas prices because people are--I think House Republicans, anyway, and maybe even the minority leader, feel that if we pass this amendment, somehow gas prices are going to come down. Well clearly they don't believe this radical measure will actually pass because then they would have to worry about misleading their constituents.

We all know this: It seems about every summer we have these debates about the impact of gas prices. But this measure is so radical. When I think about even if EPA continued to act on their fulfillment of the Supreme Court decision that they must act in regulating pollutants--and rules on oil refineries won't even go into effect until December of 2011 and the final rules aren't even due until July 2011. So we are talking about rules that don't go into effect until 2013, 2014, 2015.

I ask my colleague from California, how would that have an impact? We don't even know what they are going to be. We have to wait until July, hopefully, to hear from EPA about that. So, somehow, that is going to affect gas prices today?

I think what we know to be true is that getting off of oil and having more fuel-efficient cars has reduced our dependence, saved consumers money, and allowed them to have a choice in the marketplace. We ought to continue in that direction, not this direction. But does the Senator think those rules going into effect are somehow having an effect today? Aren't we talking about people who have already written about this as false rhetoric in the debate, that it is not accurate and that this will impact the price at the pump tomorrow?

I do, if the Senator from California would indulge me on this. Because I see our colleagues on the floor, and as a member of the Small Business Committee I am as frustrated as they are that this important legislation that would help small businesses in America grow is being now held hostage by this amendment.

I look at this issue, the broader issue of discussion, as some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said, as a major policy issue. Well, if it is a major policy issue and it is a major policy change, why should we try to hang it in an amendment onto the small business bill? Is that making some industry happy? Is that why they are doing it? Because if this is, as they are saying, a major policy issue, then let's have a major policy discussion. I know my colleague and I support legislation that would instigate a major policy discussion here. Some of that legislation has gotten bipartisan support. I think some of our colleagues on

the other side of the aisle have been saying we should address climate. Well, if that is the case, let's have that broad debate. Is that the understanding of my colleague, that some Republicans wish to address it and are saying now that we need to address it and not leave it all to EPA? If that is the case, then let's have that debate, but let's not have a rifle shot amendment that basically guts the law as it is being implemented. Let's have a discussion about what would be a more flexible approach to implementation of the requirements to regulate pollutants.

I have one last question for my colleague. I think these attempts that try to carve out pollutants and give them exemptions are never good policy, because there is so much at stake for the American people who believe our job is to protect them with clean air and clean water and to make sure that polluters are regulated. But it reminds me of that 2003 energy bill that was kind of done behind closed doors when the whole MTBE debate--you know, the additive to fuel--came up. I remember one newspaper ended up dubbing the bill the ``hooters and polluters and corporate looters'' bill or something like that, because it ended up trying to carve out for the manufacturers of that product that they would be exempted. It was a bipartisan effort on the Senate floor. My colleagues from the Northeast, from New Hampshire, I believe, and there may have been the Senators from Maine, all said, Wait a minute. We are not going to exempt MTBE from this legislation as a way to get an energy policy for the future.

I ask my colleague from California if she remembers that and other attempts to try to do this without the public fully understanding what is at stake for clean air and clean water, and if she remembers that failure because of doing this. It left the public vulnerable. Are there other instances of that debate she could recall for us? Because I think it is very similar.

I thank the chair of the EPW Committee, a great legislator, for protecting the interests of consumers on this issue. I serve with the Senator on the Commerce Committee, and I see her fight for consumers every day. Her passengers' bill of rights for the airlines on the FAA bill is another perfect example of how she is thinking about how all legislation impacts individuals and their rights, and this is about the right to clean air and clean water and to make sure we are not going to cut EPA out of the regulation of pollutants business. I don't know why we would do that. That is their day job. They are supposed to regulate pollutants. The Supreme Court says they are supposed to regulate pollutants.

So I thank my colleague for waging this battle against this amendment that, as she has outlined, has these radical notions in it. But I guess I go back and say: We can try to keep hanging on to the past and saying the past is going to take us somewhere, but that usually doesn't work.

My colleague from California understands probably more than any other because of the efficiency gains her State, California, has made in creating jobs and in getting more out of our current energy supply. The initiative that was just run in California, I think that was about going back to the past, too, wasn't it? That was the initiative where people said: Do we want to go backward or forward? The people spoke in California, and they said let's move forward.

So I would conclude by thanking my colleague and asking her just one last time, from an economic perspective, if America can afford this amendment. How can we afford this amendment if it is going to cost us that much in health care costs; if it is going to cause the loss of the advancements we have seen in the automobile industry? I would think Detroit alone, if we pass this amendment, would stop and say: Wait a minute. Do we even have to comply with the mile-per-gallon already on the

books because it seems as if Congress is saying they are out of the business.

So I would just say to my colleague from California, how can we afford this amendment? They would like to try to claim that as the only high ground of their debate, that somehow they are protecting jobs. But they are not protecting jobs. They are basically trying to take 18th-, 19th-, and 20th-century jobs and somehow saying they do not have to comply with the Clean Air Act. So I, again, ask my colleague whether we can afford that kind of amendment and just thank her for her leadership and tremendous support.

We all come here for different reasons, and we are all motivated by different reasons, but I know the Senator from California is motivated by doing what is right for the consumer and consumer interests. So I thank her for standing up for that voice that may not be heard today on this important issue.