Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service relating to "Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales".

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I want to take a few

minutes to thank Bob Nelson, the Small Business Administration's District Director for Massachusetts upon his retirement on Monday after 30 years of Federal service.

Bob is a paragon of public service--commuting each day more than 100 miles from Connecticut to Boston to serve Massachusetts' small businesses.

For 26 years, Bob has helped small businesses recover from everything from the economic downturn after 9/11 to the great recession of 2008 to the COVID-19 pandemic. Bob is known for giving small business owners his direct cell phone number so that they never have to go through a moment of uncertainty.

His career is a testament to the impact that steady and passionate public service can have on everyday people and local economies.

Everyone who has worked with Bob respects him; and that goes for me, my staff, and all of the SBA employees that he has worked with over all of the years and the thousands of small businesses that he has helped during those years.

Bob Nelson is a small business champion, and because of him, countless business entrepreneurs and communities are strengthening our Nation, creating jobs, and making our economy the envy of the world.

Thank you, Bob--thank you, Bob--for everything that you have done, for bringing a public servant's heart to your work, and for your many years of service making the Massachusetts Small Business Administration district office the best in the Nation.

Climate Change

Mr. President, over the last 2 months, the Trump administration has made one thing painfully clear: They do not have an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. They have an ``oil above all'' energy strategy--oil above the law, above the economy, above the health and wallets of working families in our Nation.

Gas prices are up. Electricity bills are up. Home heating costs are up. Yet instead of investing in working families, Donald Trump is launching a full-scale assault on the very programs designed to bring costs down and create jobs, all while spewing baseless lies that begin in the White House and then spread across his entire administration, but especially focused on his energy policy.

At the Department of Energy, staff have been ordered to draw up a hit list of clean energy programs--programs Congress already funded, programs workers are counting on.

These are not hypothetical investments. These are real dollars that could unleash real jobs and real benefits for communities across the country. And now they are being sacrificed to serve a political agenda that rewards polluters and punishes the public.

Nowhere was this agenda more proudly displayed than at this week's CERAWeek--or as I like to call it, the Olympics of oil--where Energy Secretary Chris Wright gave a speech that would make Big Oil blush. Although, it is more likely that they just turned with a flush because of the incredible way in which they were treated.

Big Oil had a big treat coming from the speech by Energy Secretary Chris Wright. Let's take a moment to fact-check Secretary of Energy Chris Wright's Big Oil-sponsored big lies at CERAWeek in Houston.

Chris Wright said:

The previous administration's policy was focused myopically

on climate change with people as simply collateral damage.

False. Chris Wright is wrong. When Democrats controlled the White House and Congress, we invested in solutions that centered smart communities and a livable future. Since the Inflation Reduction Act was passed in 2022, the clean energy boom has created more than 400,000 new jobs and spurred $420 billion in investments, most of it in red districts; 70 to 80 percent of the funding is in red districts. That is a people-powered economy.

That is an ``all of the above'' strategy. Everyone is included. So if we are talking myopic, look no further than Trump. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

Trump has been exclusively focused on tax breaks for the rich with extensive collateral damage. New reporting shows that more than 50,000 energy jobs have been lost or stalled since Trump was elected and that over $56 billion in U.S. clean energy investments were canceled or stalled in that same time.

If he continues down this road and guts the IRA, he will be driving an estimated 790,000 jobs off a cliff while wiping $160 billion from our economy by 2030 and raising household energy costs by $32 billion over the next decade.

In other words, President Trump and his energy policy are engaging in economic sabotage. So let's continue fact-checking Secretary Wright.

Secretary Wright also said in that speech:

Wind and solar . . . supply roughly 3% of global primary

energy.

The truth: Renewables powered 30 percent of the world's electricity in 2023. Got it? Not 3 percent; 30 percent of the world's electricity in 2023. And in the first 9 months of 2024, 96 percent of all new electrical generation capacity installed in the United States was renewable--wind, solar, battery--96 percent of all new electrical generation capacity installed, with the majority actually coming from solar. It is the fastest growing, cheapest energy out there.

Big Oil isn't just losing its monopoly; it simply cannot compete. The natural gas industry, they are petrified. Can you imagine if you are saying: Well, we are the only way in the future in which you can have predictable electricity which is generated; natural gas is the answer-- when in 2024, 96 percent of all new electrical-generating capacity was wind and solar and battery storage technology?

If you knew that, for 10 years in a row, the natural gas industry is facing an existential moment, that is what they are afraid of. They are afraid of competition. They are afraid of alternative energy sources. Oil, gas, and coal, they got a tax break for 100 years from the Federal Government, and they were able to squash all of the competition over all of those years.

But when finally we leveled the playing field and the alternatives show out that are nonpolluting, that don't have any greenhouse gases to go up into the planet, that don't warm the planet, all of a sudden, we are hearing: The Secretary of Energy in the Trump administration is lying about that? Because they have to lie. Otherwise, they would have to explain why they are planning on killing hundreds of thousands of new jobs in these industries, which are absolutely bursting at the seams.

But, wait, there is more. Here is what else Secretary Wright said at the SARA conference down in Texas:

The last administration recklessly pursued policies that

were certain to drive up electricity prices.

Once again, false. False. The fact, however, is that onshore wind is the cheapest source of new electricity in America. It has been for nearly a decade. It beats fossil fuels even without subsidies and costs half as much as new natural gas on average.

Again, existential threat to the natural gas industry--onshore wind beat it in the marketplace every day for 10 years in a row.

So what is Secretary Wright saying? He is saying he is going to lead the effort to kill it and to kill solar--to kill all of it. And building new solar? Well, it is cheaper than running existing coal or building new gas projects in the United States. Solar is winning in the marketplace, and it is frightening to the natural gas industry--just absolutely frightening. It is fossil fuel volatility that has hammered families at the pump and on their power bills, with fossil fuel exports going to the highest bidder abroad. Now, in my home State of Massachusetts, many gas bills are double what they were last year. That is unacceptable.

Let's keep going with the fact checks.

In a pathetic attempt to justify the benefits of deadly pollution, Secretary of Energy Wright said:

We've raised atmospheric CO2 by 50 percent in

the process of doubling human life expectancy.

Then he said:

Everything in life involves trade-offs.

Well, let me be clear. In the United States, climate-fueled disasters already kill more than 1,300 people every year. More CO2 doesn't mean more life; it means more floods, more fires, suffering, deaths. There was $300 billion worth of damage between Hurricane

Helene and Hurricane Milton last fall and $150 billion worth of damage in Los Angeles from climate-driven storms. By the way, only $50 billion of it was covered by insurance--catastrophic for all those communities.

So let's talk about the real tradeoffs. Clean air traded for asthma. Safe homes traded for billion-dollar climate disasters. Lower bills traded for Big Oil windfall profits. This administration has made its tradeoff clear: your future for their profit. That is Trump's art of the deal, and what a great deal for the oil, gas, and coal industry. All they have to do is just raise money for Donald Trump, and in return, they kill the competitors which are killing the oil, gas, and coal industry in the market.

Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so fast that he would actually qualify for a tax break under an IRA. That is how much they are lying about the marketplace and how it is responding to finally the incentives that are there to compete against oil, gas, and coal, which brings us to the Environmental Protection Agency because what is a fossil-fueled agenda without a full-on assault on the very Agency tasked with protecting our air and our water and our climate?

Two weeks ago, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that he is taking more than 30 actions to unravel our bedrock environmental safeguards in a nauseating attempt to shock and awe us into submission. These are the regulations that keep our air breathable and our water drinkable. These are the standards that keep us healthy instead of sick. And all so that their Big Oil BFFs can make a few more big bucks while the rest of us will foot the bill with our health conditions that will be created by these fossil fuels, these pollutants going up into the atmosphere.

These rollbacks are not a revolution for American progress and energy; they are a return to the same, tired fossil-fueled program of the past. For starters, they are attempting to eliminate EPA's authority to regulate dangerous greenhouse gases based on the threat they pose to public health or welfare--known as the endangerment finding.

This finding came from a Supreme Court ruling in my very own home State, which brought the case to the Supreme Court--Massachusetts v. EPA--in 2007, which said something we all know: Greenhouse gases pose an ``actual'' and ``imminent'' threat to people everywhere.

And it doesn't stop there. They are hoping to roll back air quality standards for particulate matter pollution that are projected to avoid 4,500 premature deaths and 800,000 cases of asthma over just 6 years. That is all going to get wiped out if they have their way.

We are going to fight them, by the way. We are going to fight them every single step of the way on this dangerous, health-endangering strategy which they are seeking to put on the books.

They are aiming to gut wastewater regulations so coal plants can contaminate the water we drink from and swim in. They are trying to pump the brakes on clean car and truck regulations that reduce harmful air pollutants and save families money at the pump. The list goes on and on.

They are dismantling the Federal Government before our very eyes. This isn't about efficiency; this is about sacrificing the health of our communities for the health of their pocketbooks.

And just like Energy Secretary Chris Wright's speech, we know it is a lie. They aren't making America great again; they are selling America to the highest bidder--to the oil and gas and coal industry. That is what they are doing. They are just selling us out. We must continue to speak up for the truth and continue to fight.

The natural gas industry--they are threatened by a wind and solar and battery revolution that will generate the electricity we need in our country. Natural gas doesn't like it. They want to kill it.

The oil industry--we put 70 percent of all the oil we consume into gasoline tanks. They don't want to see the all-electric vehicle revolution continue to grow exponentially. They are going to try to kill that, too, so that we do not have that reduction in the amount of oil we put into the cars we drive around our country that spew that pollution up into the sky.

So the oil and gas industry--they go to the White House, they go to Donald Trump, they go to Mar-a-Lago in order to get the protection they need against competition, the protection they need against clean energy, the protection they need against the creation of a million new clean energy jobs in our country that should be our future. And it is what young people want more than anything else. They want that revolution. They are the Green New Deal revolution. That is what they want. They want to see it happen.

Because it is happening, oil and gas are having, unfortunately, this White House, Secretary of Energy Christopher Wright, his entire Cabinet, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin--all of them just dismantle all of the protections which have been put on the books over a generation.

This is a historic moment, and all we can say to you, oil, gas, and coal; all we can say to you, Trump White House, is that we are going to fight. We are not going away.

There is a young generation out there that is rising up, and they are not happy with what is happening in this White House. They do not want to see their future sold for campaign contributions from polluters in our country.

So we are ready to fight, and we are going to align ourselves with the young people in our country that want a different future, a better future, a clean future, and that is what we are going to get because we will not lose.

I can't thank Senator Whitehouse enough for being our leader on the Environment and Public Works Committee and for bringing us out here this evening to have this incredibly important, historic discussion about the direction of our Nation.

Thank you.

I would love to have a conversation with the Senator from Rhode Island.

I think it is the most well-financed lobbying effort in Washington, DC. I think they have had an ownership of this building for a hundred years, and they are afraid it is about to slip away. Would the gentleman from Rhode Island agree with me?

You know, the Senator from Rhode Island is wise and precise in his analysis of the agenda of these companies.

The Senator from Rhode Island and I have for 12 years led the effort, along with the Senator from Connecticut, to have offshore wind all along the Atlantic coast, and the Biden administration put in place a plan to deploy 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind.

What Donald Trump, what Chris Wright, the Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of Interior are now planning is to kill that entire revolution capturing the winds that blew the Pilgrims to our shores, capturing the wind that had the whaling crews go out in order to fuel the energy of the 19th century. But when it wants to be used for the energy of the 21st century, the oil and gas and coal industry say: Absolutely not. We can't allow that to happen.

Why can't they allow it to happen? Because it would replace natural gas-

generated electricity that pollutes, it would just transform the way in which electricity powers our businesses and powers our homes all across the east coast of the United States, and we could wave goodbye to that natural gas-fossil fuel polluting future for the 21st century.

So what is Donald Trump doing? After receiving tens and tens of millions of dollars in contributions from the natural gas industry, led by Harold Hamm, who promised Trump--the No. 1 natural gas guy in America--that he would raise the money for him in the campaign, well, the payoff, the payback is, kill offshore wind.

So they say ``all of the above''--nah, they don't mean ``all of the above.''

Chris Wright, the Secretary of Energy, says: People really don't like wind, so we have to make an exception because people don't like wind.

Do you know who doesn't like wind? The natural gas industry. They hate wind. They hate it because it is the competition, because it is working, because it is cheaper, and because it is also cleaner, in the same way the oil industry hates the all-electric vehicle revolution because it kills oil as a business as we move to a renewable way of generating electricity that then powers the vehicles we have in America.

So the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee as usual has just put his finger right on the problem, and it is the money that is sloshing through Mar-a-Lago and Washington, DC, the White House. It is an absolute disgrace, and I can't thank him enough for bringing this up on the floor for a full exposition.

What does that mean by ``downwind,'' just so people can understand it? What do you mean by that?

And it blows into the lungs of the people in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

Would the Senator from Connecticut yield?

Thank you. What I would like to talk about a little bit, if I could, with you and Senator Whitehouse, is this pollution agenda that they have for us in New England, that they have writ large for the whole country as well.

Let's just take solar energy. In 2009, the total amount of solar ever deployed in the United States was 2,000 megawatts. That was it. In 2024, 40,000 megawatts was deployed. It is scaring the natural gas industry. Combined with battery storage, it is just saying that New England doesn't have to import any more natural gas, any more pollution. Slowly but surely, in other parts of the country, they, too, will deploy wind and solar with batteries and reduce the amount of pollution that is sent up into the atmosphere that blows our way on the east coast from the Midwest.

It actually is more economical for us. It is actually a job creator for us because the jobs are actually in New England, not in other States. We are doing it for ourselves offshore, on the roofs of people's homes, out along the highways as we deploy these renewable energy resources. It is absolutely frightening to them.

In the same way--I will add this number, too--in 2009, there were a grand total of 2,000 total all-electric vehicles in the United States. That was all we had from Henry Ford to 2009, 2,000 all-electric vehicles. Why? Because the auto industry said we can't figure it out. It is just too hard.

Then we put the incentives in place. The battery technologies were given incentives. There were incentives to buy all-electric vehicles. Last year, there were about one and a half million all-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids sold in America, not just 2,000 total sold a year ago.

So the direction is absolutely vertical. It is just taking off exponentially. And, again, with it goes a reduction in greenhouse gases, especially as each year goes by and more and more of those technologies are employed.

I think that what Senator Whitehouse has done on the floor over and over again, just bringing out the fundamental corruption of how policies are made in the energy and environment sector, it just becomes more and more true as we are only 8 weeks into the Trump administration. But we can see that, almost like an Old Testament prophet, Sheldon Whitehouse has been shining a light on this corruption, and now it has all come to pass.

I can't thank the Senator from Connecticut enough for his great leadership on these issues. We kind of consider ourselves to be innovation States. We are going to figure this out. And as we figure it out, it is absolutely frightening to those States that have been producing energy for generations--good for them and good for their citizens--but if we figure it out as well, we should not be stopped any more than we stopped them in the 20th century. We should be allowed to innovate in the 21st century what they are trying to put in place.

The policies purchased from the Trump administration that block us from those issues, which were not just for ourselves, but like many other things invented in New England over the years, we can export them around the world. We can be the world leader in the development of and then export of all these technologies.

I can't thank you enough, Senator Whitehouse, for your great leadership on the floor.

Mr. President, earlier this month, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced he would reconsider over 30 rules and policies that protect human health and the environment, calling it ``the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen.'' With a barrage of press releases, Administrator Zeldin threatened to replace the central mission of EPA--to protect the environment and the health of Americans--with a newer and more sordid mission: to protect the financial interests of President Trump's Big Oil polluting mega donors.

EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment has guided the Agency for more than 50 years, with bipartisan support. The Agency was created by Republican President Richard Nixon, and conservative Presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush chose administrators like Bill Ruckelshaus and Christine Whitman, who took the Agency's mission seriously.

EPA's bipartisan pedigree and mission matter little to Trump, Zeldin, and their crew of fossil fuel donors.

Administrator Zeldin claims that slashing these protections will ``unleash American energy.'' Huh. In reality, these rollbacks will keep Americans dependent on expensive dirty fossil fuels, while other countries keep moving forward with energy innovation, developing cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient energy. We are deliberately losing a competition.

Trump is exalting an antiquated polluting fossil fuel industry and degrading the lives of the American people.

Administrator Zeldin gleefully declared, ``We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.'' But the protections EPA threatens to roll back mostly relate to keeping air and water clean. In the wealthiest country in the world, does it make sense to increase uncertainty about whether water is safe to drink?

Administrator Zeldin likely can't juice substantially more fossil fuel production, but slashing these protections will unleash tons more pollution--more pollution from oil and gas producers, powerplants, manufacturers, cars and trucks; fewer protections for drinking water, wetlands, and streams.

Coal-fired powerplants will release more mercury into the air we breathe, settling into our water and our soil and eventually finding its way into our food.

We will experience more bad air days like we get in Rhode Island from upwind out-of-State polluters, when the air is thick with soot and other pollutants, triggering asthma attacks and respiratory diseases.

They threaten even to overturn the good neighbor rule that gives States the ability to push back when upwind States foul the air, as happens to us in Rhode Island.

The ability to pollute another State with impunity deliberately is a core thing for EPA to stop, and yet they are caving in to the polluter States.

And, yes, these rollbacks do threaten to remove limits also on carbon pollution from powerplants, oil and gas facilities, and vehicles, turbocharging the ongoing heating of our planet.

Let's be clear: Climate change ain't religion; it is science--and well-understood, established, mature science at that.

My Republican colleagues in this building all have home State universities that teach climate science.

Greenhouse gas emissions--science knows--from the production and combustion of fossil fuels are heating our planet, raising sea levels, increasing the severity and frequency of violent storms, worsening droughts, and causing more intense wildfires. Even the fossil fuel industry's own scientists understood the climate risks of unchecked fossil fuel emissions. Exxon's own climate scientists warned that the burning of fossil fuels was changing our planet's climate and correctly modeled the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on global temperatures.

When Zeldin testified in January before the Environment and Public

Works Committee, he pledged to ``work with the scientists'' and ``leave the science to the scientists.'' What happened to that Lee Zeldin? Where did he go? Because the Lee Zeldin of January has been replaced by a Lee Zeldin willing to ignore his own scientists and ignore the facts for the benefit of President Trump's Big Polluter donors.

These fossil fuel industry favors will increase costs for American families. The fossil fuel industry spent almost $100 million--that we know of--to boost Trump in the last election and hundreds of millions more on Congress. Trump famously asked industry executives for $1 billion in exchange for delivering an industry wish list, and here is Zeldin producing that industry wish list. But for people who are not fossil fuel billionaires, the growing exposure to hazardous pollutants and the increase in carbon pollution will increase costs.

Tonight, colleagues will talk in more detail about various protections that Zeldin threatens to end and the safety and health policies he is curdling. I will discuss Zeldin's mischief with the social cost of carbon.

What is the social cost of carbon? It is a measure of the costs of each additional ton of carbon pollution released--increased mortality, for instance, from heat and storms; increased sickness from heat and air pollution; damage to agriculture and infrastructure from droughts and floods; even insurance collapse.

The Biden EPA estimated the social cost of carbon at around $190 per ton, which is consistent with most knowledgeable estimates, and the Office of Management and Budget ordered that this number be used in cost-benefit analysis for regulations as well as in a wider suite of government actions.

This analysis is nothing more than common sense. If the government is considering taking a step that would increase carbon pollution, it should consider the costs of doing so. If it is doing something that would decrease carbon pollution, it should understand and enjoy the economic benefits.

Zeldin is proposing to have the government ignore the facts. He wants to ignore the science, he wants to ignore the economics, and he wants to utilize a social cost of carbon whose value is deliberately and falsely set close to zero. If he succeeds, the Federal Government will no longer accurately assess the true costs and benefits of climate decisions.

This isn't new math or even fuzzy math; this is fake math--fake math to benefit Trump's oil and gas donors, who get to pretend, falsely, that the American people aren't picking up the tab for their industry's carbon pollution.

The International Monetary Fund, which is not a green institution, pegs the costs the public bears from fossil fuel pollution at more than $700 billion every year in the United States alone.

Last Congress, as chair of the Senate Budget Committee, I organized hearings on the economic and financial costs of climate change. We heard warnings from economists, scientists, medical professionals, insurance and investment executives, the new Prime Minister of Canada, a former Prime Minister of Australia, and even a former Republican Senate majority leader. Throughout the hearings, witnesses emphasized the systemic economic risks that climate change poses and warned that if we don't shift away from our dependence on fossil fuels, things will get much worse.

``Systemic'' was the word I emphasized in that last sentence. ``Systemic'' may sound like a bland academic term, but a systemic risk in economics is one which threatens to bring down the entire economy, much the way failures in the mortgage market led to the great recession of 2008.

Zeldin's promised rollbacks will have real economic consequences for families. American families will bear increased healthcare costs. Even with an honorably functioning EPA, healthcare costs from fossil fuel air pollution and climate change are estimated to total nearly $820 billion in the United States each year. Doctors appointments, emergency room visits, rehab and home health support, and prescription drugs all strain the pocketbooks of American families. Lost work and school days and reduced labor productivity cost both families and the broader economy.

Last year, the United States suffered a recordbreaking 27 separate billion-dollar disasters, pushing up prices, damaging insurance markets, and burdening the families who were in harm's way. Economic losses from natural disasters reached more than $200 billion.

Climate-related extreme weather--hurricanes, wildfires, and floods-- damages property, damages infrastructure, damages agriculture, and damages supply chains. These recurring disasters are disrupting insurance markets across the country.

Turmoil in the insurance markets bleeds over into turmoil in the mortgage and housing markets. If you can't get insurance on your house, the next buyer can't get a mortgage on your house, and that reduces the pool of buyers and results in plunging property values. If your insurance premium quadruples, say from $2,000 a year to $8,000 a year, your home's value will fall, as the carrying costs associated with owning it have dramatically increased.

Last year, the Budget Committee obtained county-level data for the entire country, showing the evolution of nonrenewal rates for homeowners insurance from 2018 to 2023, and what we showed is that nonrenewal rates were rising--indeed, skyrocketing--as insurers retreat from areas of the country battered by the storms and wildfires that climate change makes both more likely and more intense. While the usual suspects are Florida, California, and Louisiana, nonrenewals are also skyrocketing across areas of southern New England, the Carolinas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, the Northern Rockies, and Hawaii.

We found that nonrenewals increased the most in the counties most exposed to climate risk--not surprising--and also that where nonrenewals were spiking, premiums were surging as well.

Earlier this year, the nonpartisan First Street Foundation took a look at the data we had looked at in the Budget Committee and looked forward and made some prediction about what increasing premiums and declining availability of insurance will mean for property values. They looked at the 30-year period of a mortgage entered into today, and they found that property values will decrease--decrease--in many counties by 20, 40, 60, or even 100 percent. Change in home value due to insurance costs: minus 100 percent. If you are in that category--and there are a few of them and more coming in the future--your home will lose all its value during the period of your mortgage, and you can bet the people selling you that mortgage are going to notice.

Let's not forget that for most Americans, their largest asset is their home. Home ownership is how most families build wealth. So something that is going to systemically reduce home values is hurting Americans. In a future gripped by climate change, the home ownership path to economic security breaks. What Zeldin is proposing will accelerate that danger forward, bringing the inevitable day of reckoning closer.

In Administrator Zeldin's home of Suffolk County, NY, for instance, nonrenewals nearly tripled from 2018 to 2023 and annual premiums have already increased by almost $800. And that is just a taste of what is to come.

By the way, it is not just me saying this. Fed Chair Jerome Powell warned the Senate Banking Committee that in 10 to 15 years, there will be entire coastal and wildfire-exposed regions of the United States in which it will no longer be possible to get a mortgage. That is our future.

When your insurance premium goes up by hundreds or by thousands of dollars, that is Republican climate denial in action. When your grocery bill goes up because orange juice, sugar, coffee, chocolate, and olive oil are more expensive because of climate-related extreme weather, that is climateflation in action.

Before I yield, I will close with one last thought. We are where we are, entering the era of climate consequences, because American politics failed to get this right. Our political system failed because the American political process became corrupted by the big money influence of the fossil fuel industry. Our politics got corrupted, and that is why we have so grievously failed at addressing climate change.

We have Senators here from States whose State universities teach climate

science pretending that climate science isn't real.

Mr. President, history will look back at us with anger and disgust, justifiably.

I yield the floor to my wonderful senior colleague from Rhode Island.

Would the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts yield for a question?

Well, you referenced the value to the fossil fuel industry of being able to run to Congress or run to the White House and throw money around and, as a result of that expenditure on politicians, earn the right to pollute for free and get enormous competitive advantage against clean energy.

The industry clearly spends a lot of money. We know they spent a hundred million dollars getting Trump elected. He asked them for a billion dollars, which could have come through dark money, in order to deliver on this subsidy program they want.

How lucrative do you think the fossil fuel political operation is?

I would not be surprised, actually, if the political lobbying and dark money influence operation of the fossil fuel industry was not actually its most lucrative line of business because for the $1 billion or $6 billion or $7 billion spent manipulating our politics, they protect a $700 billion annual subsidy, according to the International Monetary Fund. That is a $100 return every year for every $1 invested. They don't make that much off their tar sands. They don't make that much off their oil wells. They don't make that much off their methane leaks.

And we welcome our colleague from Connecticut to join the festivities here on the Senate floor.

All three States are downwind States from the pollution of the Midwest, of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio. There is nothing we can do about it, other than breathe in the waste that they don't clean up.

Well, it means that the prevailing winds that blow over West Virginia, that blow over Pennsylvania, that blow over Ohio, blow over their smoke stacks that have been deliberately built high into the air so that the pollution coming out of the smoke stacks gets caught up in those prevailing winds and ends up falling down in the form of ozone and particulate matter in Massachusetts, in Connecticut, and in Rhode Island. And the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection can do nothing about it because those States have chosen to put it up into the sky above them so that it lands on us.

I am delighted to be joined by all of you.

I would make an observation of my own. I think Senator Blumenthal wants to join in. The observation I want to make is our three States are known for great universities--Yale University in New Haven, CT; Harvard University in Cambridge, MA; and Brown University in Providence, RI. They all teach climate science, and they all teach economics as well.

But it is not just those three universities. If you go across the aisle and check in with our Republican colleagues, with their Republican home States, they have great universities in their own States, including State universities. And their State universities in their home States teach the very climate science that Republican Senators deny on the Senate floor.

I have been through the syllabuses of home State universities for Republican colleagues and gone through the classes that teach climate science, and they teach economics. And you can go to Milton Friedman, the famous free market conservative economist, and what does he say about pollution? He says the cost of the pollution has to be in the price of the product or else it is a big fat subsidy, and it is not market economics any longer. It is a government

subsidy; it is corporate welfare; and that is what we see in this dispute.

The climate science is real. Their own State universities teach it, and the economics is real. Their own State universities teach Milton Friedman. And what they are doing in this building, contrary to what their universities know, is to fight with political power, to keep polluting, and have the public bear all the cost of their pollution-- have the public bear all the cost of their pollution, not be a real market economy--which the price of the pollution, as a negative externality, gets baked into the price of the product--but pollute for free.

This is a huge pollute-for-free scam, running to about $700 billion every year. So no wonder it has taken a while for wind and solar to take off fighting the headwinds of a multihundred billion-dollar subsidy from an industry that gets to pollute for free.

And who bears all those costs? How are your fishermen doing in Long Island Sound as that water has warmed or mine or yours? And that is just one example.

I will.

I thank my colleagues for their colloquy.

I see the Senator from South Carolina, whose time we are intruding on, has come to the floor.

We yield to Senator Scott.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this 1-year continuing resolution. It is not a simple stopgap that keeps the lights on and the doors open. This is Republican leadership handing over the keys of the government and a blank check to Elon Musk and to President Trump.

As the White House has said, this bill creates more flexibility for this administration to continue to undermine the Constitution and the countless spending laws by stealing promised investments from American families, children, and businesses, unlawfully dismantling agencies, arbitrarily firing civil servants, and canceling union contracts.

Read the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: The power of the purse resides with the Congress and not with the executive. In fact, the President has no legitimate authority to meddle in the appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle have gone to their districts and witnessed rage from their constituents at these actions. They have been advised by their political consultants not to do townhalls altogether. Why bother listening to the American people?

It was President Lincoln who said public sentiment is everything, and without it, you can do nothing. They do not have public sentiment.

Now, what should we do? The answer should not be cutting nondefense programs by $15 billion and defense by $3 billion, as compared to the Fiscal Responsibility Act agreement for 2025.

They are in violation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. There was an agreement with Senator Schumer and Speaker Johnson. We all voted for it here. This is a violation that cuts nondefense by $15 billion and defense by $3 billion.

Why do they want to shortchange defense investments by $3 billion, I ask them. Not only is it bad for our military--there is a reason the Department of Defense has never operated for an entire year under a continuing resolution--but, above all, it transfers more power to the administration to shut off and repurpose funding as they see fit.

The will of the Congress and the people would be ignored. Elon Musk and President Trump would be able to fire thousands of employees.

Yes, we do not oversee Social Security. That is in the purview of the Ways and Means Committee. However, we do have control over the administration on Social Security, and the President and Elon Musk would be able to fire thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration. Just witness, they are talking about 7,000 positions gone.

What does that result in? Office closures, longer wait times, and unacceptable backlogs for Americans trying to access their earned benefits. In effect, you remove the staff and personnel, thereby crippling the agency to be able to do its job and, yes, to provide benefits.

It is nice if you can individually negotiate with the administration on your own to keep your Social Security office open. There are 47 on the docket to get closed. If one stays open, why not all 47?

Army Corps of Engineers construction projects would be cut by $1.4 billion, 44 percent, and President Trump, not the Congress, would determine who gets the funding--what cities, States, and localities-- and how much money that is there.

Instead of helping to address housing costs, the bill cuts rent subsidies by over $700 million. It leaves landlords to foot the bill or to evict. We will evict more than 32,000 households.

This bill breaks promises to veterans. House Republicans wisely proposed $23 billion in advance funding for the toxic exposures fund to care for veterans who were exposed to burn pits, Agent Orange, and other toxic substances. In their bill last summer, it was in there. We voted for the PACT Act on a bipartisan basis, but that $23 billion in advance funding has now disappeared. It is gone.

We do advance funding here. We do it with veterans programs and others. We do it with the Indian Health Service. We do it for public broadcasting. Why do we not want to do it for veterans' care, their healthcare and treatment? Why? If I were a veteran and they said no to my advance funding--and we do advance funding so that issues like veterans' medical care don't get caught up in the political whims of this organization, of this body. Veterans today have to understand that that $23 billion for them is not there. There is uncertainty about that.

There is no emergency funding in this bill for disaster relief. It abandons American families who have had their lives turned upside-down by extreme weather. The funding for the disaster relief runs out in the spring.

What about Kentucky that just had a winter storm in February? Families will not be able to get back on their feet and recover. Neither will businesses that have been shut down because of a natural disaster.

The decisions about investments that we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder. This Congress must decide: Do we have the authority to control spending as we were granted and as laid out in Article I of the Constitution?

Why would we want to relinquish this, to give power to this administration, which is already doing massive harm by dismantling agencies, firing people, telling them today they are no longer needed? With the chaos and confusion that has been caused by Elon Musk and President Trump, why would we want to turn over our authority to appropriate bills?

I implore my colleagues to join me and stand up for our constituents against an unelected billionaire, Elon Musk, who is stealing taxpayer dollars from American families, children, and businesses. Oppose this giveaway to the administration. Pass a short-term CR, which I introduced yesterday, which would take us to April 11, to continue negotiations. Let us finish the regular bills that we agree on. That would be such an improvement over a full-year continuing resolution.

I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that a shutdown will be the result of the Republican majority walking away from negotiations. We were that close. They pulled the rug out from under us and said to stop negotiating because Musk and Trump want to have the control with a full-year continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, the President has no legitimate authority by the Constitution to insert himself into the appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguishing ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, the President did make a promise to drive down the cost of living. Instead, he has driven up prices.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the distinguished ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the distinguished ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman confirms what we have been saying all along: impoundment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Speaker, we can pass a 1-month CR and do that and do what we need to do to keep the government open. There is an alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, let's have the 1-month CR that has been introduced as an alternative and do the business of the House and pass appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), who is the distinguished ranking member of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the distinguished ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, for all of American history, it has been understood that Congress, not the president, has the ultimate power to determine how government funds are spent. Few principles are as fundamental to the structure of government enshrined in the Constitution.

From time to time, this authority has been challenged by the Executive Branch, and each time Congress has responded by rejecting the executive's encroachment on the fisc to further underscore the legislative branch's primacy over spending matters. Those conflicts have led to bedrock laws that further bolster the Congress's fiscal authority. The collection of statutes known as the Antideficiency Act (currently codified in title 31 of the United States Code) placed controls and safeguards on top of Congress's constitutional power, reiterating the Executive Branch's inability to spend without Congressionally approved legislation.

Similarly, on the other end of the fiscal law spectrum, Congress enacted the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to establish an orderly process by which the executive could request legislative action by Congress to limit already-enacted spending--simply put, affirming the existent requirement that the executive branch carry out provisions of law that require spending (that is, appropriations).

Both the Antideficiency Act and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provide safeguards for a legal reality that existed before either law was enacted, and which carries on to this day: When a law is enacted providing an appropriation for a purpose in an amount, the executive branch is required to take care that the appropriation is fully and prudently obligated and expended to carry out its intended purpose unless Congress provides discretion in statute to do otherwise.

Congress may provide such discretion, for example, by setting a minimum amount for an appropriation that serves as a floor or by setting a maximum level that serves as a ceiling. Certain appropriations in H.R. 1968 provide this flexibility. But in the absence of such discretion being expressly provided in legislation, when Congress provides an appropriation for a specific amount, that level is both a floor and a ceiling. These appropriations and levels stipulate an exact amount for a specified purpose and are therefore a directive to the executive branch to prudently obligate and expend that specific amount for the purposes specified within the timeframe allowed. Such is the case for the vast majority of the appropriations in H.R. 1968.

Though H.R. 1968 is a full-year continuing appropriations Act in a format unlike a traditional appropriations Act, the legal principles underlying every appropriation in the bill are the same: an appropriation, whether explicitly spelled out in the legislation or incorporated by reference from a prior-year appropriation Act (such as those included in section 1101 of H.R. 1968) is a direction from Congress to prudently obligate and expend that specific amount, for the applicable purposes and within the timeframe defined unless discretion is provided in statute to do otherwise. H.R. 1968, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 (FYCAA), effectuates these appropriations chiefly through section 1101. That provision appropriates anew for fiscal year 2025 each appropriation in the referenced bills from fiscal year 2024, under the same authorities and conditions as were included in those same bills, except as specified otherwise in the FYCAA. That is, each new appropriation from section 1101 is for the same amount, and purpose, as in last year's bill except as directed otherwise in provisions in the FYCAA.

Congress is explicit about any such deviations. For example, section 1103 states that the appropriations provided by section 1101 retain a ``comparable period of availability.'' That means an appropriation provided in a referenced bill that was available for obligation for two fiscal years (for fiscal year 2024 and remaining available through the end of fiscal year 2025), that is appropriated anew by section 1101 would be available for obligation for two fiscal years as well (for fiscal years 2025 and 2026). The FYCAA also includes some specific and explicit negations of authorities and conditions in last year's bills, such as section 1503(a), which loosens the requirements under which the Army Corps of Engineers is required to spend the appropriations provided in this bill to that agency. These are only a couple examples of the deviations (called ``anomalies'') specified in the bill.

The FYCAA is also distinguishable from the short-term continuing appropriations Act contained in division A of Public Law 118-83. which is currently applicable through March 14, 2025. The FYCAA for example, contains no provision comparable to section 109 of division A of Public Law 118-83: whereas Congress contemplated limited funding actions from the continuing appropriations provided in section 101 of such division, that instruction does not extend to the appropriations provided in the FYCAA, nor other appropriations that were previously enacted, either in this fiscal year or in prior fiscal years.

The appropriations contained in the FYCAA directly renew the appropriations with the applicable authorities and conditions from Public Laws 118-42 and 118-47--except where explicitly directed in this law otherwise--and are a reaffirmation of Congress's intent to provide for those activities in full. That intent was made clear by the original enactment of the appropriations in those laws and the accompanying Joint Explanatory Statements in March of 2024, and by the affirmation and continuation of additional funding for those same purposes under the same authorities and conditions (except where otherwise revised in statute) in September and December of 2025 through the enactment and amendment of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025.

Fully acknowledging the change in Administration on January 20, 2025, the Congress has observed dramatic changes in how duly enacted appropriations have been executed over the last 50 days. I note that the current Administration's actions to defy Congress's specific appropriations have been rejected by the Judicial Branch to date. The FYCAA also represents a rejection by the legislative branch of the current Administration's unlawful refusal to take care that enacted appropriations be faithfully executed.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 211, I call up the bill (H.R. 1968) making further continuing appropriations and other extensions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1968, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act 2025.

Today's bill comes about at a critical time for this institution and this Nation. As Members are well aware, government funding all runs out at midnight on Friday. That means that Members are faced with a stark but clear choice: Will they vote in favor of this bill and thereby keep the government open and operating, or will they vote ``no'' thereby affirmatively choosing to shut down the government? This choice is the choice we face today.

We are now nearly 5\1/2\ months into the fiscal year 2025. Congress has previously passed two short-term continuing resolutions, both of which extended government funding and kept the status quo in place, ensuring the government can remain open.

Today's bill is really no different than the CR passed in December. Other than the most essential and critical anomalies, it simply maintains current conditions through the end of the fiscal year.

For those that supported the CR in December, you should have no qualms about voting the same way on today's bill. There are no policy differences, no poison pills, and no reason to vote against keeping the government open and operating.

A yearlong CR is not how I hoped the FY 2025 appropriations process would end. The Appropriations Committee and the House did their work. Indeed, the committee reported out all 12 appropriations bills by midsummer and the House passed five of those bills covering over 70 percent of discretionary spending across the floor by the end of July.

Sadly, despite our best efforts, we were unable to come to a final agreement on the full-year appropriations bills. Although we were very close on a final dollar figure, my colleagues in the minority made additional demands that would restrict the legitimate authority of the executive and the appropriations process. These are restrictions that the minority would never accept for a Democratic President, nor are they provisions that President Trump would or should sign into law.

It is deeply unfortunate and disappointing that the minority chose to make these unreasonable demands. Republicans never left the negotiating table and indeed worked diligently with Democrats to reach a bicameral, bipartisan deal.

Sadly, the minority allowed their opposition to the President to cloud their judgment, giving in to a political temper tantrum rather than voting to keep the government open.

That truly is the choice before us, Mr. Speaker. Today's bill is a simple, straightforward continuing resolution, funding the government and keeping it open through September 30. It maintains the status quo, providing flat funding for the government, and including only legitimate anomalies.

Importantly, this bill does not contain a single poison pill policy rider. It is a clean CR, fully funding our government. This includes our military and defense needs, and indeed we have accomplished this while also fully funding the Department of Defense, including the largest pay raise for junior enlisted personnel in over 40 years.

We are also maintaining funding for other critical functions of government, including border defense, roads, parks, childcare, water infrastructure projects, biomedical research, job training, and countless others.

I know Members have heard some fear-mongering about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This bill

makes no changes to any of these programs, leaving them intact, as is, and with the funding they need to operate through the end of the fiscal year.

Let me say that again. There are no changes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, period.

Mr. Speaker, the outcome of the fiscal year 2025 appropriations process is not what I wanted, but at the end of the day, it is significantly better than the alternative: a government shutdown.

The choice is clear: Either Members will vote for this bill and for keeping the government open, or they will vote to shut the government down. I know which option my constituents expect, and I know which I will choose.

I urge all my colleagues to do the same and vote for this bill. I urge all my colleagues to vote to keep the government open and operating.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), my very good friend and a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Democratic leader and certainly great respect and personal friendship for the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

I don't know what bill the leader read, but it certainly wasn't this bill. We heard a lot about Social Security. There is not a single thing in this bill on Social Security. We heard a lot about Medicare. We don't deal with Medicare under the Appropriations Committee. It is not in here. We heard a lot about Medicaid. It is not in here either. If it will be dealt with, it will be dealt with in a reconciliation bill but not this bill.

This bill is about keeping the government open, something my friends pride themselves on and have often patted themselves on the back on. They have the opportunity to do it today because that is all this bill does. It also does a couple of other interesting things.

My friend said we cut funds for food support. It doesn't do that. It actually adds $500 million to WIC.

They said we cut support for housing. It doesn't do that. It actually adds money to the housing accounts.

If we actually go through the bill, the charges made simply don't have much to do with what is in this bill.

The simple reality is we are either going to keep the government open or we are going to shut it down. If we want to keep the government open and keep working on these problems, vote ``yes.'' If we want to shut the government down and throw the country into chaos, vote ``no.''

It is certainly the privilege of my friends on the other side to vote how they care to vote, but don't say there are things in this bill which simply are not there. That is just fear-mongering of the worst sort.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my friends to keep the government open. By the way, just for the record, neither the President nor the Speaker ever asked me to leave the negotiating table. It was quite the opposite. The Speaker said to keep going, to keep trying, and to keep at it.

We are 4 days away from the shutdown. My friends introduced a lot of things in the negotiations that aren't normally appropriations issues. They chose to do that. We couldn't come to a deal. We are pretty close on the top-line number. We were right there, but we are not going to have a Republican Senate and a Republican House restrict a Republican President from the legitimate exercise of executive authority and then, oh, by the way, ask him to sign the bill.

How do my colleagues think that is going to work out? That is not a very reasonable request. We resisted it. My friend, Senator Collins, who is my negotiating partner from the Senate, resisted it and will continue to resist it. That is not going to happen.

This bill is about none of those things. This bill is about keeping the government open. If they choose to shut it down, then that is their prerogative. They are allowed to do that, but I don't intend to do that. I don't think my colleagues on my side of the aisle intend to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Democrats who actually read the bill to reflect on it and avoid shutting down the government as well and working with us in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican majority leader and my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), my good friend and a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), my very good friend and a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my very good friend and a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), who is the chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in that case, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate. There have been a lot of things said that are exaggerations and a lot of things said, in my view, that are fabrications. I will talk about a few of those.

There is nothing in this bill about Social Security. There is nothing in this bill about Medicare. There is nothing in this bill about Medicaid.

There aren't cuts in nutrition for the poor. There is a $500 million increase in WIC, at the request of the President. There are no cuts in housing. There is an increase in housing to try to adjust for inflation.

We probably would have been better off if we had negotiated a deal, but that didn't happen. We did the proactive thing. There is more money in here to take care of junior enlisted personnel. I don't think that is probably an article of much dispute. It certainly shouldn't be.

Mr. Speaker, I can go charge by charge.

On the Toxic Exposures Fund, we are going to deal with that in the fiscal year 2026 bill. It is for 2026. Everything is funded for 2025. That is what this bill covered. It is an appropriations bill for fiscal year 2025. That is what we are covering here.

We are going to deal with the fiscal year 2026 bill, and then we will deal with that issue. I voted for the Honoring our PACT Act. I believe in it. I voted for additional funding for it. I suspect we will find common ground there.

There are a lot of fireworks around this bill. Let's just talk about what it does.

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty simple. It is a CR. It is a continuing resolution. The Democratic leadership came out against it before they ever saw it. Maybe that is why we have all these fabrications and hallucinations about what is in it. It is pretty short. It is 99 pages. Read it.

Now, I am sorry that everybody didn't get their projects. I really am sorry about that. We don't do that in CRs.

The big cuts here mostly are an elimination of congressional projects. I think most of those are worthy projects. I support them. I actually support the reforms my good friend, the ranking member, put in there. I think she did a great job for that for this institution, but we can't do them in a CR. We just don't do them. People are upset about that. I am sorry about that.

At the end of the day, there is only one important thing that matters here. Members can vote ``yes'' and keep the government open. Whatever my Democratic colleagues' problem is and whatever the minority's concern is, it is going to be worse in a government shutdown, not better. It will be worse. Whatever my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are worried about, shutting down the government is not the answer to their concern. My colleagues are only going to make it worse.

Keeping the government open is the right thing to do. I wish we could have gotten a deal, but we are not going to sit here and concede the executive authority of a Republican President because it upsets the minority. It is not going to happen.

We made that crystal clear, and I think that was the biggest thing. It wasn't a top-line number. We basically got to a top-line number. We are here, and the government shutdown is 4 days away.

If Democratic Members want to vote ``no'' and succeed in shutting down the government in 4 days, that is their choice. I respect every Member's vote.

I have never voted for a government shutdown. I have always voted to reopen the government. I don't like government shutdowns. I don't think they work. I think the minority will find that if they succeed in shutting down the government it won't work very well for them either.

It never works. I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be better advised to vote ``yes'' than to

have to defend a vote to shut down the government, personally.

Actually, this body will not have the final say. It is going to go to the United States Senate, and the minority has the power in the Senate to shut down the government if they choose because they have a filibuster over there. They have 60 votes. If Democratic Members are worried about it, just let it go over there. They have the power in that body to do it.

If my colleagues want to shut down the government, it is their choice.

Mr. Speaker, I think the choice is crystal clear. If we took a poll on it and the American people were asked: Do you want to shut down the government? The overwhelming answer would be: No.

Do you think we should keep the government open and keep working on our problems? That would be an overwhelming yes.

I choose to do what the American people want to do: keep the government open. That is what my constituents want. Maybe Democratic Members' constituents want to shut it down. Mine don't, and I suspect theirs don't, either.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest we set aside the rhetoric and the intense feelings and just do the right thing, and the right thing is to vote ``yes'' and keep the government open.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I urge them not to vote to shut down the government, and I yield back the balance of my time.

A perfect segue to my remarks, if I may be recognized, Mr. President?

Mr. President, it is the perfect segue to my remarks because ``downwind'' means we are the recipient of their air and their pollution, which are the small particulates. They are often the size of, literally, a quarter of the head of a pin, and the reason that they are so dangerous is that they are inhaled to the very deepest parts of our lungs, where they do the most damage.

And so I am grateful to be talking about the good neighbor rule. That is actually the purpose of my coming to the floor, to talk about the rule that applies to those powerplants and States that are supposed to be good neighbors. And, according to this rule, they would be good neighbors, but the EPA is rolling it back, withdrawing it.

And so I am grateful to be here with two champions, my great friend and neighbor the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, who has made this battle a constant struggle from his seat on the floor, in meetings, in townhalls, in forums, literally, around the world; and my neighbor from Massachusetts, the author of the Green New Deal, which I was proud to join in its first day and still represents a milestone in environmental advocacy. And we are here today to advocate.

I am joyous, even though saddened by the need to be here--joyous--to be amongst this band of brothers and sisters who are going to stand strong and steadfast against the Trump administration's sellout.

You heard it from Senators Whitehouse and Markey: These rollbacks are a gift. They are literally a payback to the lobby--the anti-environment lobby, the fuel and oil and gas lobby--that has so infiltrated and permeated our government, including, now, the Environmental Protection Agency.

And so let me begin by highlighting for people who care, and that should be everyone. It really should be everyone who has children, who will inherit the mess we are creating. It should be everyone who cares about the planet and what we are leaving for others, our stewardship of the environment.

The EPA is becoming a shell. Literally 65 percent of its workforce has been fired; 65 percent are planned to go. There is no way that the EPA, as a law enforcement Agency, can function with the remaining 35 percent of its staff.

But perhaps most egregiously, the Administrator of the EPA announced, just 2 weeks ago, that he was targeting 31 climate and health protections to roll back. He called it ``the largest deregulatory announcement in U.S. history.'' He said it was the most momentous day in the history of the EPA. In my view, it is a day that will live in environmental infamy. It marks a step back by decades.

And for people who think, well, we need some disruptors like Elon Musk, who is behind these steps to decimate the Agency, disruption can sometimes be constructive, but not when you burn down the house, burn down an Agency, burn down a framework of laws that have been carefully built and reflect not only an intellectual commitment but also a deliberately constructed way to balance the needs of environment and energy and other interests that serve the public.

This administration is destroying that balance. It is easy to destroy things. It is easy to burn down a house. It is much harder to construct it. And this administration is blatantly and malignly and cruelly destructive, firing 65 percent of a workforce that has dedicated itself to caring about the environment and acting on our statutes to protect the environment.

So let's just call it what it is. Elon Musk and Donald Trump are using Lee Zeldin--I am tempted to say he is their puppet; certainly, he is their instrument--to take a wrecking ball to environmental protections that have safeguarded Americans from toxic air and water pollution for decades.

And so, far from ensuring clean land, water, and air for all, Elon Musk and EPA are giving Donald Trump's big polluters a carte blanche to trash the planet--no exaggeration, really. I mean, come right down to it. Let's call it for what it is. The administration is running roughshod over our Federal environmental protection laws, writ large.

I am going to focus today, as I mentioned just moments ago, on one of the rules that EPA is rolling back: the Good Neighbor Plan. And it is appropriately called the Good Neighbor Plan because it is a landmark environmental protection law that literally safeguards Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New York, and other States of New England against the pollution generated in Ohio and other Midwestern States that is brought by the prevailing winds.

The polluters didn't create those prevailing winds, but, nonetheless, the pollution is carried on them toward the east coast. The funny thing about those little pieces of soot created in fuel-burning powerplants is they have no respect for State boundaries, none.

I don't know why. You know, we have in Connecticut--as Rhode Island and Massachusetts do--strong laws that protect our air and water. And those pieces of soot, the nitrogen, the other pollutants have no respect for our boundaries.

The Clean Air Act, through its good neighbor provision, empowers the EPA to step in when States' emissions are significantly contributing to the air quality problems of another State.

In 2023, the EPA released its final Good Neighbor Plan, which would ensure 23 States meet the Clean Air Act's good neighbor requirements by reducing pollution that significantly impacts downwind States, like Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

Connecticut has some of the worst air quality in the country--let's be honest here--largely due to pollution traveling from powerplants in the Midwestern States. Data shows that anywhere from 90 to 95 percent of air pollution impacting Connecticut on high ozone days originates from outside our State, and it is causing serious harm to Connecticut and our residents. Last year, Connecticut exceeded the Federal health standards for ozone on 23 different days. That is almost a month out of the year.

Three of Connecticut's cities--Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport-- rank within the top 100 most challenging cities to live with asthma last year. That is according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America Annual Report. One of the top 100 most challenging cities in which to live with asthma is a pretty lamentable distinction.

These consequences are cumulative. They mean more hospital visits, more healthcare costs, more missed school and workdays, and, ultimately, more serious illnesses, more premature deaths.

They are the equivalent of imposing second-hand smoke on children or people with asthma or other kinds of respiratory problems.

Zeldin, Musk, and Trump's rollback was touted as lowering the cost of living for Americans--lowering the cost of living. It is going to do just the opposite.

Not only is protecting the environment the right thing to do for our planet; it also benefits America economically. The EPA projected: In 2026, the first year the Good Neighbor Plan was set to be implemented, Americans would see significant health benefits because of this rule, including preventing approximately 1,300 premature deaths, avoiding more than 2,300 hospital and emergency room visits, cutting asthma symptoms by 1.3 million cases, and avoiding 430,000 school absence days and 25,000 lost workdays.

One estimate found that this Good Neighbor Plan would provide over $16.2 billion in net monetary benefits when you count the hospital visits, the lost workdays, the school days, the doctors' treatments-- all that adding to $16.2 billion. That is no bargain for the United States of America. What you may say on day 1, you pay in multiples on day 5 or 10, throughout the year.

Only the Federal Government is empowered to protect the people of the United States who live downwind from these powerplants. Connecticut cannot do it, nor can Massachusetts, nor Rhode Island on their own. It is legally and physically impossible.

But protection is impossible if Musk and Trump, through Lee Zeldin, roll back this rule. And let's be, again, honest about what is happening here. This Good Neighbor Plan rollback is part of a larger pattern and practice to undermine and undercut and eventually eviscerate environmental protections. It is the reason they are firing 60 percent of the EPA's workforce. It is the reason why they are slashing and trashing other Agencies that are vital to environmental protection. It comes as Trump's EPA has moved to cancel hundreds of grants for climate projects across the country.

For every action they take to chip away at our bedrock environmental protection, the world is less healthy. The world is less healthy and our planet is more endangered.

I urge my colleagues to stand in strong opposition to the Musk-Trump- Zeldin shameless attack on the Environmental Protection Agency and on our environment.

I yield the floor.

Absolutely.

If the Senator from Rhode Island would yield.

I would add a footnote to that important conversation, which is they teach economics, and they teach that those externalities are, in effect, a subsidy if they aren't charged to the consumer and made transparent. But they can also distort the market.

When those subsidies caused consumers to buy cars that are more polluting or to use fuel that is more contaminating to our environment, they also avoid the benefits, the public-interest benefits, of cleaner fuel and better cars.

Just to give you an illustration, for many years, Senator Markey and I crusaded for safer cars--cars that were better built, cars that had seatbelts, cars that had airbags. The industry resisted--almost comically now in retrospect--because once they started installing these devices, once they made cars safe, you know what they found? Consumers wanted safer cars. They also wanted cars that were more energy efficient.

Lo and behold, when they saw the benefits of these kinds of energy- saving and environmentally friendly measures, consumers voted with their feet and their wallets and their dollars.

If we did not have these kinds of hidden subsidies, consumers would vote for electric cars if there were more charging stations, if there were batteries that took them longer distances without having to recharge.

I am kind of surprised that the President of the United States isn't having a showroom on the White House lawn for all electric vehicles, not just for Elon Musk's Tesla. Why not provide that kind of boost and elevation for electric vehicles generally? And the car manufacturers would bet on cleaner cars if they were given the true cost and enabled to enjoy the true benefits of electric cars generally, not just the ones produced by a billionaire--unelected, unappointed official, unconfirmed official--acting, in effect, on behalf of Donald Trump with Lee Zeldin as his instrument to fire hard-working people at the EPA and to roll back rules that benefit consumers.