Floor Statements

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of the amendment.

We understand that this is a huge 2.5 million-acre park and that what we're talking about here is a 158-mile-long river in the middle of this park, so we're talking about a huge area.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

I reclaim my time to say that the 158-mile area is a portion of the inside of the park, of the 2.5 million-acre park. So it seems to me what the gentleman is suggesting is that he believes--and I understand--that the National Park Service or that an individual officer made a mistake here, that they abused their authority, and I understand that.

When I was a boy, my favorite television show when I was 9, 10, 11 was ``Sergeant Preston of the Yukon.'' He had his faithful horse, Rex, and his dog, Yukon King. Each week at 5 o'clock on Friday, he would come out to patrol the Yukon. He worked for the Canadian Royal Mounties. I would like to think that, if he ever made a mistake--if he ever overstepped his boundaries, if he ever improperly treated anyone he was in the process of arresting--that the punishment wouldn't be that the Mounties could never again, any of them, go into the Yukon, because that would seem to me to kind of result in a less fully implemented set of law enforcement principles in that area.

What we're learning here is that the punishment to the National Park Service for potentially something that one or two officers engaged in is that none of them can continue their policing, which the Coast Guard says they need. In fact, this is, in many ways, such a remote part of the Yukon that the Coast Guard right now relies upon the Park Service police to police these areas.

The answer which we're getting from the gentleman of Alaska--and I understand the example that he's trying to make of this one particular incident--is that you're using this as something that, I think, is illustrative--okay?--and perhaps just the highlight, but I don't think you really want the result to be a reduction in the overall enforcement of the laws inside of the park, because that's what would result here. The partnership between the Coast Guard and the Park Service on this river and all that abuts the river is something that is seamless and has worked for generations, and it is something that everyone seems to support.

Perhaps you could target this a little bit more narrowly but not punish the entire Park Service and every officer in the Park Service. It's like every person who works there is now going to suffer as a result of this amendment, and I don't think that's what you intend.

So I will support the amendment of the gentleman from Washington State. It will, I think, make it possible for us to come back to maybe take another look at but not in a way that undermines this partnership that has existed up there for a generation, which has worked. By the way, if there is an exception in any police department, the action of that person who did something wrong should not lead to that entire police department never again being able to enforce the laws. That would be an indictment of everyone; okay?

I think, to the extent to which the Dicks amendment seeks to delete the provision which is in the bill, it doesn't mean that you can't come back and talk about something that might be more specific.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, the effect of this amendment could be, because the Coast Guard relies upon the Park Service, that we wind up with an entire area without any law enforcement. Because the Coast Guard does not reach that area, the Park Service is there. If you take out the Park Service, it becomes much more of a dangerous place for everyone, and I don't think that's really what the gentleman intends.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1938.

We are here debating whether to expedite the approval of a pipeline that will import the dirtiest crude oil on the planet into the United States of America by melting the oil out of the tar in Canada, which creates more greenhouse gases than any other production method for crude oil on the planet.

It also destroys the boreal forest. It contaminates millions of gallons of water each day. That is a very high environmental price to pay for oil from tar in Canada that may not lower prices for Americans and may never be sold to Americans. But we will build the pipeline for them through our land to accomplish this goal.

The majority has repeatedly claimed that expediting the approval of this pipeline will lower gas prices at the pump for the American public. But what factual evidence should we rely upon in order to substantiate this claim?

Well, we can't rely upon TransCanada, the very company that wants to build the pipeline through our country, because it has concluded that after the pipeline is constructed that gas prices would rise in the Midwest of our country as a result of the Keystone XL pipeline.

We are also told that building this pipeline will enable us to reduce our dependence on imported oil from countries who don't like us very much. Instead, we will be able to rely upon dependable Canada, our friends, the Canadians.

But what are the guarantees that building this pipeline will actually lead to greater supplies of crude oil for the American people?

Well, the answer, Madam Chair, is that there are no guarantees. There is nothing in this bill, nothing that prevents Keystone XL pipeline oil from being shipped to the gulf coast, refined there, from the tar of Alberta Canada, and then re-exported and sold into the global oil market to China, to Korea, right out of our country.

I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee that would have required the Department of Energy to ensure that the approval of this pipeline would, in fact, guarantee that the benefits of the Keystone oil being transported through our country stay right here in our country.

My amendment would have required that Keystone oil be sold in this country. That would increase the gasoline and the diesel supplies at the pump and would help to ensure lower prices at the pump. And my amendment would have benefited domestic businesses that use refined petroleum products, including plastics and chemical companies, by ensuring a steady supply of petroleum products for their manufacturing plants here, made in America. My amendment was consistent with longstanding U.S. policy on oil exports.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, the Republicans refused to allow a vote on my amendment here today. They won't even allow our Members to vote on keeping the oil that is going to be transported in a pipeline that we're going to allow to be built through our country here.

So, yes, it's the dirtiest oil in the world; but at least, if you're going to build the pipeline, at least have it be sold here in America and not sold to China, not sold to Korea. At least have that guarantee.

They refused to even have a vote on it, ladies and gentlemen. That's what this is all about. Once again, it's all about this ideological belief that the largest oil companies know best. We should not be taxing them. We should not be putting any burden on the biggest oil companies.

Better to push the American economy to the brink of fiscal collapse than the Republicans would ever consider allowing to rescind tax breaks for the biggest oil companies. They wouldn't even begin to think about putting that on the table. Grandma's Social Security check, absolutely. Building a pipeline through our country with the dirtiest oil in the world to be sold to Asia, absolutely no problem for the Republicans.

So this bill, despite the overwhelming factual evidence that building the pipeline will only result in dirtier air, more profits for Big Oil, without benefits for the American consumer, they are going to continue to push forward.

Vote ``no'' on this environmental atrocity.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in the underlying bill, the majority has underfunded the Interior Department agency charged with issuing new drilling permits and ensuring that offshore drilling is safe. The underlying bill would underfund the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement--BOEMRE is what it's called--by nearly $35 million. This is the agency that is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that we drill safely off the coastline of the United States.

At our very recent hearing, the director of that agency, Michael Bromwich, said that underfunding this agency, as the majority, the Republicans, have done in this bill, would slow down new offshore drilling permits and make offshore drilling less safe. That is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, the rule the majority adopted has protected the underlying provision limiting the inspection fees paid by the oil and gas industry from a point of order, and now the Republicans will not allow the House to work its will on the amendment that I have drafted with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Our amendment would have fully funded this safety agency by increasing the inspection fees on the oil and gas industry. The top five oil and gas companies made $35 billion in profits just in the first 3 months of this year. This week, they will likely report similar profits for the second quarter. In fact, earlier today, BP reported quarterly profits of $5.6 billion. That's just for the last 3 months.

Yet the industry as a whole pays just $10 million a year in inspection fees for offshore drilling, and the Republicans are putting it offshore today from any consideration by the Members of this body.

So our amendment would have, if the Republicans had allowed us, implemented a key recommendation from the independent BP spill commission. The BP commission recommended increasing the $10 million per year that the oil and gas industry currently pays in inspection fees significantly, and that is what our amendment would have done.

And for my friends on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about reducing Federal spending, the increased funding for the safety agency from our amendment would have come from the oil and gas industry and not from taxpayers, but the majority won't even allow a vote on this amendment.

The oil and gas industry supports increased funding for BOEMRE. Just last November, the president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, Jack Gerard, said, ``We fully support Congress providing additional resources for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. This agency needs the additional inspectors and the increased staff and training resources to allow more efficient review and approval of oil and natural gas permit applications and processing of environmental reviews.''

But what have the Republicans done in this bill? They have underfunded this agency. The oil industry agrees that there needs to be more funding to process permits and conduct inspections. The only question is whether a portion of that funding is going to come from a small increase in inspection fees, as the independent BP commission has recommended, or whether American taxpayers will have to pick up the entire tab. We are saying that they should pay the fee, the American Petroleum Institute should pay the fee. The oil industry should have to pick up the tab. And right now we do not have an ability to debate that on the House floor.

When people go to get their cars inspected to ensure they are safe and not a threat to the environment, they pay a small fee. But the oil and gas industry, which is recording the largest profits in the history of the world, doesn't have to pay a fee to get some of their rigs inspected to ensure that we don't have another Deepwater Horizon disaster.

The American people want these rigs inspected to make sure they are safe, not allow oil companies to be safe from paying more inspection fees. But when we are trying to cut the deficit, the Republican majority is giving another gift to the oil industry, straining our oil safety agency. More than 1 year after the BP spill, it is still business as usual.

This spending bill represents one of the most egregious assaults on our Nation's environment in the history of our country. If this bill were to pass, our air will be smoggier. Our climate will be hotter. Our water will be more polluted. Our public lands will become more despoiled.

Simply put, this legislation is so toxic, H.R. 2584 is so toxic, that you'd better handle it wearing a hazmat suit because there are so many future environmental crimes committed against the environment in our country that you have to handle this bill with extreme care.

The actual title of this bill is Interior Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations for 2012. But it could be called the Have the Republicans Been Outside Act.

It's hot, ladies and gentlemen. It is hot. The world is warming. All of the evidence has been pointing in this direction for decades, and people are living it on a daily basis.

It's appropriate that this bill starts with the word ``interior,'' because only the House Republicans who have been cooped up inside for weeks debating whether to crater our economy could possibly ignore what's going on outside in our natural environment.

The weather forecasters said we were trapped under a heat dome last week. Well, the Republican majority, under this Capitol dome, would commit us to even more dangerous heat if this bill passes.

And believe it or not, this bill bans the Environmental Protection Agency from increasing the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which we drive in our country, which will basically put the brakes on the all-electric vehicle, plug-in hybrid revolution.

Now, I know that's what the auto industry wants. I know that's what the oil industry wants. They don't want to see cars become more and more efficient so we don't have to consume all that oil so that we can tell OPEC we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand.

But in this bill, they actually ban the EPA from improving the fuel economy standards of the vehicles that we drive, and they ban all 50 States from improving the efficiency of the vehicles that we drive.

And how else could you explain that this bill would increase smog and dirty air days if you didn't have the House Republicans living in their own world?

When families are planning their summer trips to explore our national parks, how else could you explain a bill that allows for mining of nuclear fuel uranium near Grand Canyon National Park?

Under this bill, when families go to enjoy the sunset across the canyon, it won't just be the sun that's causing the glow, but the radiation as well from the uranium mining.

And when Americans are canceling vacations because they can't pay for gas, how else can you explain a bill that would tell auto companies to stop making more fuel-efficient cars and trucks?

If you live in an air conditioned mansion with an indoor pool and you have your bottled water delivered, then this bill makes perfect sense to you, especially if you also work for the oil, coal mining, or chemical industries. For those industries, this bill represents their summer vacation from regulation. For the rest of us, it is a one-way ticket to a dirtier environment for the United States of America.

House Republicans have a tough time raising the debt ceiling, but with this bill they are proving to have no reservations when it comes to raising the death ceiling with more pollution in our air, in our water, making us less healthy, making us more likely to be able to contract diseases that we would not otherwise.

It is bad enough that the House Republicans want to take Medicare away from grandma, but now they want to make the air she and her grandkids breathe and the water they drink more polluted. This bill would cause more premature deaths, more asthma, more harm to children from toxins like mercury.

Yes, they don't want to lift the debt ceiling, but they will be lifting the death ceiling because of the exposure to all of these chemicals, all of these pollutants.

Vote ``no'' on the Republican appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in great sadness to mark the passing of one of the most beloved residents of Massachusetts, my good friend, Mrs. Myra Hiatt Kraft.

Myra lived her life according to the Jewish principle of ``Tikkun Olam''--to repair the world--striving each day to make our community, our country, and our world a better place for the less fortunate. Myra was the absolute embodiment of Tikkun Olam, living according to its values of justice, compassion, and peace.

Myra was a community leader and philanthropist without equal. Whether it was through the New England Patriots Charitable Foundation, the Robert K. and Myra H. Kraft Foundation, the Boys and Girls Club of Boston, or her alma mater Brandeis University, Myra's tireless work gave a voice to victims, a stage for performing artists and a home to countless disadvantaged youth. Her love for Israel was rivaled only by her commitment to making Massachusetts and Boston beacons of social and cultural goodwill worldwide. She was guided by an incredibly strong moral compass and an unrelenting drive to help others.

Massachusetts has lost a hometown hero, and the Kraft family also has lost a loving wife, mother, and grandmother. My thoughts and prayers are with the entire Kraft family and with all of those whose lives have been touched by Myra's formidable and gracious spirit. We mourn Myra's passing, while we know that her incredible legacy of acts of loving kindness will live on forever.

Americans today are getting an up-close view of Republicans' misguided plans, misplaced priorities, and massive assault on the middle class. It's not, as they call it, ``Cap, Cut, and Balance.'' It's really a ``Cash Cow for Billionaires.''

The Republicans are pushing Grandma and middle class families overboard while protecting the superrich and the powerful.

Will Republicans protect Grandma's Medicare and Social Security checks? No. Grandma is being pushed overboard.

What about programs that help low-income children visit their doctor? No. They are getting pushed overboard.

What about programs that ensure that veterans benefits are paid on time? No, veterans are being pushed overboard.

But the massive Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the tax subsidies for Big Oil? They're too precious, the Republicans say. They have to be kept on board. So billionaires will not see their undeserved tax breaks taken away. The oil industry will not see their unjustified tax subsidies, as consumers are tipped upside down at gas stations, taken away from them. No, those subsidies, they have to be kept on board. And, ladies and gentlemen, that's not fair. That's not balanced.

Grandma, kids, veterans, they should not have to contribute to balancing the budget, but billionaires and Big Oil are exempted by the Republicans. This is the face of their party--Big Oil and billionaires. That's who they are protecting.

They have deficit attention disorder. If there were such a thing as a Nobel Prize in economics in reverse, they would be the first winners of it.

I thank the gentleman. A poll completed by Gallup just 3 days ago basically showed what Democrats have been saying all along-- Americans want their Congress to come together to tackle our debt level with a responsible program of spending cuts and new revenues.

Here is what the poll said: 80 percent of all voters want the Democrats and Republicans to come together on spending cuts and tax increases; 77 percent of Independents, even 74 percent of Republicans agree. CBS has a very similar poll.

But what the Republicans are saying is we're not going to pay attention. The Republicans are suffering from deficit attention disorder. They've spent their time in power paying attention to everything but the deficit. They have deficit attention disorder. They extended massive Bush tax cuts for the rich. They voted to support billions in subsidies to the most profitable oil companies. They ran up trillions in debt to finance two wars; allowed Wall Street to run wild with deregulation and smash our economy onto the rocks, but they only want to focus on the deficit when it means ending Medicare, when it means shrinking Social Security. They only want to focus on the deficit when they can still protect billionaires and protect big business, Big Oil.

The Republicans have political amnesia. They controlled the Congress for 12 years. President Bush controlled the Presidency for 8 years. They are the ones that ran up this huge deficit on their watch. And now what are they saying? They're saying pass a constitutional amendment before we win the Presidency again so we stop us from killing the economy again. Pass a constitutional amendment that doesn't let us do it again with a Republican President, with 12 years of controlling the House and the Senate.

They want to leave America on the brink of becoming a deadbeat debtor to the world because they are irresponsible, ignoring what the American people are screaming at them: work together as parties; have deficit reductions and revenue increases and tax increases on billionaires. But the Republicans refuse to come together. They refuse to ensure that not just grandma having a shrinking of her Medicare benefit, kids losing their Pell Grants, but also billionaires are at the table if this is such an Armageddon level of financial crisis facing our country.

But they are tied. They are tied back to the Tea Party. They are tied back to those who have tethered them to a policy that does not allow them to escape their deficit attention disorder.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Amendment 9 to H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011 and to oppose the underlying bill, which would overturn almost forty years of Federal legislation by preventing EPA from protecting public health and water quality. H.R. 2018 will turn the Clean Water Act into the Dirty Water Act.

Let me paint a picture of what my hometown rivers, the Malden, the Mystic and the Charles, looked like forty years ago. Raw sewage flowed into the river from outmoded wastewater treatment plants. Toxic discharges from industrial facilities colored the river pink and orange. Fish kills, submerged cars and appliances, leaching riverbank landfills, and noxious odors were common occurrences.

Because of the Clean Water Act, polluted rivers are being relegated to the history books like the water-powered textile mills on these rivers that started the Industrial Revolution in the United States. Using sound science, cutting-edge technologies and by making polluters pay, EPA and its partners have made remarkable progress in restoring these rivers. The award-winning River's Edge Park on the shores of the Malden River is a testament to the economic development that follows the implementation of environmental laws.

My amendment to H.R. 2018 would ensure that any waters that EPA determines provides flood protection for communities, or are valuable fish and wildlife habitat that provide benefits to the economy, or are coastal recreational waters would continue to be protected. Our clean rivers must not return to their polluted past.

My amendment would also protect the progress made to restore fishing and swimming on sections of the Connecticut River, New England's longest river, by ensuring federal protection for rivers that run through more than one state.

The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that protecting wetlands along the Charles River in Boston saves as much as $17 million annually in averted flood damage, and economists estimate that each acre of wetland provides more than $10,000 per person in public benefits each year.

The song ``Dirty Water'' is played after every Red Sox home win. The song memorializes the polluted Charles and Boston Harbor. And while those of us in Boston love the song, we like our new, clean, healthy Charles River more. Support my amendment and keep this song as an oldie, instead of turning it into a modern hit on the demise of the Clean Water Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise to express my support for House Resolution 268, which reaffirms the United States' longstanding policy of support for Israel and a fair, negotiated conclusion to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This resolution clearly describes the final outcome that the United States has envisioned for so long: two democratic states--one Israeli, one Palestinian--living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition.

Attempts by the Palestinians to circumvent direct negotiations between the two nations, most recently through attempts to hold a U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood, have greatly undermined the peace process. The United States must continue to oppose such one-sided attempts and work to ensure that the final peace settlement is reached through fair negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The resolution also confirms the United States' refusal to recognize any Palestinian government that has not publicly and formally renounced terrorism. This declaration is especially important in the wake of the recent union of the Fatah and Hamas factions, the latter of which the United States and the European Union deem a terrorist organization. Peace talks cannot continue until Palestinian leaders dismantle all terrorist infrastructure embodied within Hamas, take all necessary steps to counter incitements to violence, and accept

Israel's right to exist. This position is in keeping with current American policy, including statutory requirements for U.S. funding to the Palestinian Authority.

I believe strongly in the need to protect the lives of innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict, including the need to recognize and promptly address the dire humanitarian needs of Palestinians living in the Gaza strip. I strongly condemn the actions of Hamas, which has embedded its fighters and leaders in private homes and mosques as they use Palestinian civilians as human shields, target Israeli civilians, and force Israel to take decisive action in the Gaza Strip to protect its population living under the daily threat of rocket attacks. The United States should continue to pressure Hamas to abandon its reckless endangerment of both the Palestinian and the Israeli people, and to fully renounce violence so that humanitarian aid to Gaza can continue and true peace talks can proceed. It is only through such peace talks that the two countries will be able to reach a negotiated settlement that will bring peace, security, and stability to the Israelis and Palestinians.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This attack on science, this attack on the need to learn more about the science of climate change, more about the impacts which this changing global environment is having upon our planet is just, once again, a direct attack upon the reality that the planet is warming, and in parts of the planet, the Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, dangerously so.

So the role that science plays is a little bit like the role that Paul Revere played. The scientists are saying climate change is coming. It's intensifying. It can do great harm to our planet and to the security interests of our planet.

So this amendment basically strikes right at what it is that the rest of the world expects our country to be, which is the leader on science. And if we look at it in the totality of the energy part of this bill that we're considering today where they cut the funding for solar, for wind, for energy efficiency, for geothermal, for biomass, for plug-in hybrids, for all-electric vehicles, it's all part of a pattern where they slash the budgets for those programs that can help to deal with the impacts of global warming.

By the way, this same bill increases the budget for oil, coal, and gas, that which is creating this global warming, the man-made gases that we know are dangerously warming the planet. So the green generation, the young people in our country, they look on at this debate, and they say, How can the Republicans cut wind and solar in the same budget that they are then going to defund the studies that basically help us to forecast, to deal with and to analyze the impact of global warming and climate warming on our planet?

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I yield the gentleman from Washington 1 additional minute.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the gentleman.

We've had 11 three- and four-star generals and admirals testify that we need a national intelligence assessment of the defense implications of global warming around the planet, and we have done that for the Pentagon. We have done that for the National Security Agency at their request. They believe it's real. They believe it has real implications for the defense of our country where we might have to project force.

The same thing is true domestically, however. The same thing is true in terms of how we have to protect our own people because of rising rivers, because of increased drought, because of the melting of the Arctic, because villages are falling into the ocean up in Alaska because of the melting tundra. These are things that affect us here in the United States today. And to say, no, we are going to defund all aspects of that is a mistake.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

So this is science. This is undeniable. This is what the green generation keeps screaming at our generation, Are you going to do anything about it? Are you going to put a plan in place to deal with it? And what their budget today says is, no, we are slashing the wind budget, the solar budget, the plug-in hybrid budget, the all-electric vehicle budget, and the energy efficiency and conservation budget. We are slashing, slashing, slashing, slashing. And then, to put the cherry on top of the sundae, they say, well, let's just eliminate the money that deals with the study of global warming climate science, because obviously it's not a problem. And in the same budget, they increase the funding for oil, gas, and coal.

Now, that is a budget looking in a rearview mirror at the technologies that are causing problems, including national security problems for us because of some importation of that oil, while not in fact depending upon our technological genius. And that's what young people in our country want. They want us to use the technology to be able to tell the Saudis and others that we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand.

But what we have here is not only a national security disaster but an environmental disaster which is looming in our country. And the Republicans continue to slash away at the science that helps us to protect them.

I thank the gentleman.

This item is a response to climate change at Army Corps projects, response to climate change. Are we going to be in denial that projects here in the United States aren't affected by climate change, that we are somehow immune to what's happening in the Arctic and the sub- Saharan deserts of Africa right now? No, we are not.

And so this amendment is just a continuation of this same attack that the whole bill is, in fact, aimed at achieving.

Will the gentleman yield?

We just had a debate on the Everglades. The Everglades is a perfect example of where, over the next 20 to 50 years, climate change is going to have a profound impact on an entire State. And this amendment is just part of the denial, as is the evisceration, the annihilation of the wind, solar, and all-electric vehicle budget that is being cut out of this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is a classic case of ancestor worship. They leave in the money for nuclear, but zero out the money for wind, zero out the money for solar, zero out the money for energy efficiency, zero out the money for conservation.

So here we are. It's 2 months after Fukushima. The capital markets are saying we're not going to touch new nuclear power plants, but this amendment says we're leaving in $476 million for research done by the Federal Government for nuclear power. Yet, for wind and for solar and for all the new technologies coming down the line that don't melt down, no, that money is going to be zeroed out--zero, zero--zero for the future.

This rearview mirror amendment, which is being made by the gentleman from California, just continues to reflect this attitude, this fear. Let's admit it. There's a fear that the oil and gas industry and that the nuclear industry have about wind and solar and biomass and geothermal in the ever-increasing efficiency of technologies all across the board.

So the green generation, they look down here, these young people, and they say, Is that possible? Is it possible that the Congress could actually vote to zero out wind and solar and keep in money for nuclear 2 months after Fukushima? Isn't it time for us to invest in these new technologies? You don't need an evacuation plan around a solar plant, around a wind plant or around an energy-efficiency facility.

So, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. It's just basically another data point that indicates that the Republicans are really committed to zeroing out this renewable energy future for our country.

Just be knowledgeable here. There has not been a new nuclear power plant completed, that has been ordered, for 36 consecutive years, but there were 10,000 new megawatts of wind that were installed in our country just last year. If that's what they want to begin to zero out, if that's what they want to take out of the budget, it's only a reflection of basically, again, this technological ancestor worship.

If the gentleman from Indiana will yield, the gentleman from California is just saying this is the budget for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?

That, in and of itself, is a subsidy. Let's be honest. It's Federal taxpayer money which is subsidizing an industry--the electric utility industry, the nuclear electric utility industry--that is probably the wealthiest industry in the United States with the exception of the oil and gas industry.

So why should the taxpayer be subsidizing that and at the same time be

taking out the funding for the wind and solar industry?

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

And for what? Why would we zero out the wind and the solar budget? Why would we zero out the energy efficiency, the conservation budget? For what? Well, so that we can have larger tax breaks they tell us. Because in another room not too far from here there are a whole bunch of Republican negotiators saying that the $4 billion a year, which are the tax breaks for the oil industry, they're off the table. You can't touch those tax breaks for the oil industry, can't touch them. And over the next 10 years, that's $40 billion for the oil industry.

So we're out here kneecapping wind and solar, kneecapping the future, kneecapping our ability to have wind and solar become equal with natural gas and coal as a way to generate electricity in our country. And in another room no more than 100 feet from here they're also meeting and deciding what the big deal is going to be between President Obama and the Republicans here in the Congress. And in that room they're saying no touching any tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, which is $4 billion a year.

So see the total story here, see the big picture, see really what this agenda is. Here, it's kind of like the monsignor that goes up into the pulpit on Sunday and he says, on Wednesday in the church hall, Father Geiney will lecture on the evils of gambling; on Thursday in the church hall, bingo. Well, here on the House floor, on Monday we're learning about the evils of giving any kind of subsidies to the wind and the solar industry, and in another room right around the corner they're saying $4 billion a year to the oil industry in tax breaks. That's the agenda. You have to see it in its totality. You have to capture it for all that it is as the story of the future of our country.

So, ladies and gentlemen, I urge a very strong ``no'' vote on this amendment of the gentleman from California. This is a defining vote. This really goes to the heart of whether or not we are going to say to the young people in our country that we do have a renewable energy future for our country.

The past is just a memory, but the future will be the hard reality for young people in our country if we do not put together an energy agenda dependent upon the indigenous renewable energy resources in our country. This amendment zeros out that future. It makes it impossible for us to compete and to send a signal overseas that we are going to have true energy independence in our country.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, my amendment deals with the heart of what's wrong with this entire bill.

In this bill, the Republicans cut the budget for solar, for wind, for geothermal, for biomass, for clean vehicles--that's plug-in hybrids and all electric vehicles. They cut the budget for science. They cut the budget for weatherization. They cut the budget for energy efficiency. But what do they do in the same bill? They increase the budget for coal, for oil, for gas, for nuclear. They increase it while they eviscerate, while they annihilate the clean energy budget, the future energy agenda for our country.

So, ladies and gentlemen, this is a big moment here. Where is America heading? Are we going to compete against the Saudi Arabians, the Venezuelans, and others in the generation of energy or are we going to capitulate? Are we going to just become a country where we're importing oil or are we going to move to a solar future, a wind future, an all- electric vehicle future over the next 20 and 30 and 40 years?

You know, this budget that they have put together is really one that gets right to the heart of their argument that they say they care about all of the above. What this budget actually says is it is oil above all. It's still a fossil fuel agenda. It's not a technology-oriented agenda. It's not an agenda that can help us to turn the corner and to create new technologies that move us to a 21st century agenda.

But see this in the larger picture. This is not compromise. The defense budget last week went up $17 billion. They're not going to cut defense. They're saying they're not going to actually take away the tax breaks for billionaires. They're saying they're not actually going to take away the tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. All of that is safe. ``Don't worry,'' they say to billionaires. Don't worry, they say to Big Oil. Don't worry, they say to the Defense Department, we're not touching you in this big budget deal that we want.

And then where do they turn? They turn over here to solar and wind and to geothermal and biomass, to plug-in hybrids, to all the technologies that we should be investing in in the future. And they turn to Grandma and say, Your Medicare benefit is too big. They turn to Medicaid, they say, You, poor child, you're taking too much of America's wealth. And you, green energy sector, we can't afford to invest in you.

So, ladies and gentlemen, this is not compromise. This is the capitulation that they are looking for from the Democrats. This is the capitulation to an agenda that helps billionaires, helps Big Oil, helps big gas, helps us export jobs overseas by keeping those tax breaks in place rather than fighting hard for what the green generation--the young people in our country--expect us to do, rather than allowing ourselves to be tipped upside down at the gasoline pump.

All I do is take $100 million, move it from the coal subsidies, the oil and the gas subsidies, and move it over, move it over to solar and wind, to plug-in hybrids, to all electric vehicles. And with that, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, they still haven't been cut this year in this budget. That's just taking away the increase that they get in this budget. And we still haven't made up for all of the cuts in the solar and wind and clean energy budget that they continue to slash.

So, ladies and gentlemen, it's $100 million. Does oil and coal and gas deserve an increase this year? Let's at least keep them level and give that extra $100 million over to the clean energy technologies of the future. That is the least that the green generation, the young people in our country, expect us to do because it's not only imported oil, it's also our national security, it's also global warming, it's also creating economic jobs here in the United States. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman.

First, let's start with how much electricity this saves for our country. It saves the need to construct 30 coal-fired plants over the next 20 years in the United States.

Now, if you are a coal executive, you are a nuclear executive, you are going, Oh, no, kill those more efficient light bulbs. People in America are going to consume less electricity. It will cut into our profits. People will buy these light bulbs.

And, by the way, here's a Sylvania, which, by the way, looks just like those old bulbs too, because it is an old bulb. They just made it more efficient. And so people who are nostalgic for the way bulbs looked for the last hundred years, it is the same look, and it cost a buck 69 for this bulb. But it will save you, over the next 5 years, over the next 10 years, a lot of money. But it won't cost the coal industry and the nuclear industry, who generate electricity, a lot of money because they won't have to build 30 new coal-fired plants.

So let's just think about other things.

And, by the way, every living descendant of Thomas Alva Edison opposes this amendment; by the way, as would every living descendant of Alexander Graham Bell oppose moving from black rotary phones to BlackBerries. I think that Alexander Graham Bell and his descendants would say, I think he would be happy that you made the transition. But, of course, we had to pass legislation here on the House floor to move that technology.

I think that people probably would think twice if a Xerox machine had to come with carbon paper at the same time, just in case people were still nostalgic for carbon paper rather than Xerox paper, because that's really what this debate is all about. It's really a debate about whether or not we are going to continue to see an increase in the efficiency of technologies in our society, especially those that consume energy.

In other words, there is a point to this, and the point is it reduces the amount of greenhouse gases that we have to send up into the atmosphere. It reduces the amount of energy that we have to think about importing from other countries. And it gives to the consumers something that, over the life of the light bulb--and we are talking here about Philips and Sylvania and other companies who have already figured out in the last 4 years how to comply with the law--you don't have to buy one of those funny-looking new light bulbs. You can just buy one of those old light bulbs that look just like the one that your mother and father used to go down to the store and buy. Why? Because finally they had to make them more efficient.

And, by the way, what is the analogy? Well, back in 1987, I was able to author the Appliance Efficiency Act of 1987. And what has happened since then? Well, believe it or not, refrigerators are now three or four times more efficient. Air conditioning systems are now three to four times more

efficient. And because of that, there are hundreds of coal-fired plants that did not have to get built in this country.

Because all of these lights in this room, all of the air conditioning in this room, well, for every building across the country, piled up, that's why we need coal-fired and nuclear-fired plants.

The fewer of them that there are is directly related to how efficient we make the things that we plug into the wall. So light bulbs are at the very top of the list because they're on in every single room in the United States every day. So if you can double the efficiency, then you reduce dramatically the number of nuclear power plants and of coal- fired plants that have to get built.

That's really what we should be all about. We have to learn how to think smarter and not harder. We have to think how we use technology to improve our society and not bring out legislation on the floor that prohibits the advance of technology, prohibits the advance of science, prohibits the advance of efficiency in our society. And just like the Blackberry has transformed our society in the last 15 years and no one would want to go back to that old era of 1996 before the broadband revolution began, the same thing is true for these more, modern, efficient light bulbs. They save people money. They give them just the same kind of light. They reduce the amount of pollution that we send up into the atmosphere, and they make America the leader technologically on these technologies that are ultimately going to be sold in every country in the world.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

We continually hear from the Republicans that the pain of budget cuts has to be spread all around. Everyone has to deal with some pain. But we saw that was completely untrue in their budget plan. The GOP said, Sorry Grandma, not enough money for Medicare; sorry, low-income kids, we can't afford Medicaid. But billions, billions in tax breaks for Big Oil companies, they all stay on the books. They don't even touch any of the tax breaks for Big Oil, for Big Gas, for Big Coal. Tax loopholes that help keep companies offshoring jobs, those were too important to cut as well.

The Republican plan is about misplaced priorities, and we see it in full

display here, once again, today in this bill on the House floor. When it comes to nuclear power, the Republicans want to spend more taxpayer money after Fukushima. When it comes to coal, Republicans want to spend more taxpayer money. This bill even keeps alive the deepwater drilling program, ensuring that millions in tax breaks continue to be wasted on developing oil drilling technologies that rich oil companies already have and can afford to pay for themselves by tipping American consumers upside down at the pumps every time they go to refill their gas tanks. They don't need taxpayer money to do this. The last in line should be oil companies. They're the first in line. They are the first in line under the Republican agenda.

Now, when it comes to clean energy, though, when it comes to the future, what young people think should be the future of our country-- solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, clean vehicles, hybrids, plug-in vehicles, all-electric vehicles, more efficient buildings, increases in science spending for research so we make the breakthroughs in energy research and weatherizing homes and buildings--what does this budget do? Down, down, down, down, down. They cut those budgets, every one of them. They cut the future. They cut the future. What do they do for the past, for oil, for coal, for gas, for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump? Up, up, up with the past. That's what this whole debate is about. It's a debate about the past versus the future.

And their budget, this budget, cuts the future. It cuts it in a radical way. And it says to the young people in our country, you're going to have to wait for another generation before we see the breakthroughs in wind and solar and all-electric vehicles.

That's the message to young people all across our country in this Republican budget. They cut wind and solar $134 million. They cut clean vehicle technology $46 million, green building technology $61 million, science research $43 million, weatherization $141 million. The list goes on and on and on--more money for technologies of the past, less money for technologies of the future.

I will have an amendment next week that will give us an opportunity to rectify some of these misplaced spending priorities. But I have to hand it to my Republican colleagues for one thing. They are actually being honest.

I thank the gentleman.

I have to hand it to my Republican colleagues. They are being honest with this bill. For the first time, unequivocally, the Republicans are telling Americans that their plan is to retreat from a clean energy future, from a solar, wind, biomass and all-electric future. They are saying it here, We want to cut all of those programs.

There's no hiding behind the numbers. They're screaming out here at the Members of the House on the floor and to the young people of our country. They're screaming, We are going to retreat from the future. They can't talk about their all-of-the-above energy program anymore. No, ladies and gentlemen. Their program is not all of the above. It's oil above all. That's what it's about. That's how they keep the tax breaks. That's how they keep the subsidies for the oil industry. They cut the programs for wind and solar.

Now, which industry in America is the last one, right now, that needs a tax break? It's the oil industry. They're recording the largest profits of any corporations in the history of America. If we're going to begin anywhere, can we begin with them? Do we have to take it out of clean energy to keep all the tax breaks for those wealthiest companies?

Do you know who's the happiest right now, who is really smiling? The corners of their mouths are turned upwards all across Venezuela, all across Saudi Arabia, and all across OPEC. They're looking out here at the Republican budget for the future, and they're saying, Ah, we can sleep at night. We don't have to worry that there will be more efficient vehicles. We don't have to worry that they're moving to an all-electric vehicle future. We don't have to worry that they're going to tell us that they don't need our oil any more than we need their sand. No. Their message is going to be, Bring it on. Let us continue to go on our hands and knees and beg for them to please produce more oil, please sell us more oil at $100 a barrel. Please do that. That's what this Republican budget says.

Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, more than one year after the Deepwater Horizon tragedy that ultimately led to more than 4 million barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, the Congress has yet to enact a single legislative reform to improve the safety of offshore drilling and protect the families of the Gulf region who had their livelihoods destroyed.

Today, I am reintroducing legislation with the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly that would help protect those Gulf Coast residents who saw their livelihoods impacted by the BP oil spill.

This legislation, the Oil Spill Victims Redress Act, would simply clarify that those who have suffered economic harm as a result of the spill can seek to pursue claims in state court from all of the companies involved. Some of the companies involved in the spill, including Haliburton and Cameron, have argued in court that the Oil Pollution Act preempts state law and, as a result, that state law claims brought by victims of the spill should be dismissed or removed to federal court. These companies have even argued that they should be exempt from all suits because they are not responsible parties as defined under the OPA.

The Oil Pollution Act already clearly provides for claims to be brought in state court and was not intended to preempt state law. The Act clearly states that ``nothing in this Act . . . shall affect, or be construed or interpreted to affect or modify in any way the obligations or liabilities of any person under . . . State law, including common law.''

However, in light of the legal arguments being made by the companies involved in this disaster in an attempt to limit their liability, we are introducing this legislation today that would further reaffirm the ability of citizens to seek compensation for the economic impacts of the spill in state court. We must not forget about the people of the Gulf who had their livelihoods devastated by the spill. This legislation will help protect everyone in the Gulf who has suffered economic harm as a result of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Madam Chairman, this amendment eliminates confusion regarding the deadline for filing patent term extensions under the Hatch-Waxman Act and provides the certainty needed to encourage critical medical research. It also promotes good government by ensuring that the Patent Office and the FDA adopt consistent interpretations of the very same statutory language. And finally, this amendment is consistent with the only court decision addressing this issue. The court stated that the interpretation that is reflected in this amendment--this is from the court--is ``consistent with the statute's text, structure, and purpose.''

Right now, America's next Lipitor or Prozac could be bottled up at the Patent Office and never made available because of uncertainty regarding the patent term extension process. In order to uncork American innovation and invention, we need a patent extension process that is clear, consistent, and fair. That's exactly what the Conyers amendment does. It enjoys broad bipartisan support, and it confirms and clarifies existing law. It is cost-neutral.

I urge support for the amendment.

I thank the ranking member very much for yielding.

The underlying legislation represents another attempt by the Republicans to gut the Clean Air Act. Shell Oil spent years changing its mind about how it wanted to drill, what ship it wanted to use and even which of the arctic seas it planned to drill in. They, themselves, dragged out this process interminably.

This legislation prevents EPA from requiring emissions reductions from all drilling support vessels, from icebreakers to the drilling ship, itself, as part of the air permitting process. What that means is that--listen to this number--up to 98 percent of the total air emissions associated with Arctic Outer Continental Shelf drilling could not be regulated by EPA under the permitting process. So hear that again. Their bill says that EPA cannot regulate 98 percent of the emissions.

That's not reasonable. That's not a compromise. That's not balance.

EPA has informed Congressman Waxman that, as part of its permit negotiations, Shell has actually agreed to add technology to one of its icebreakers to reduce the icebreaker's NOX emissions by 96 percent--to reduce them by 96 percent--and particulate emissions reduced by 82 percent. Shell has already agreed to use a cleaner burning fuel than what would otherwise be required by law. Shell agreed to take these measures so that it could receive its permit from EPA, and the net effect of all the measures Shell has agreed to take will reduce the NOX emissions for the entire drilling project by 72 percent. But under this bill, EPA would no longer have the ability to require or to request measures such as these because the bill says that EPA can't require reductions in emissions from mobile sources using its stationary source air permitting authority.

Several weeks ago, Bob Meyers, who led EPA's Air Office during the Bush administration, pointed out at the Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing, that, in fact, EPA can regulate icebreakers and other support vessels under title II of the Clean Air Act. He said that this is why these mobile sources' emissions could be exempted from being regulated as part of the stationary source air permitting process. That all sounds so reasonable, but what these guys are saying is maybe you shouldn't be regulated as both a mobile source and a stationary source under the Clean Air Act.

But there's just one problem. Shell's air permit says that all of its ice-breakers and other support vessels are foreign-flagged so they can't be regulated under title II of the Clean Air Act in the first place. And even if they were American vessels, they're all too old to have been subject to the most stringent Clean Air Act or international emissions requirements.

So what they're saying is for all intents and purposes, they're neither mobile nor are they stationary so they're not regulated at all. It's like being a carnivorous vegetarian, or you know, Chevy Chase nightlife. There is no such thing. You know, you have got to have it be one or the other; you've got to pick one or the other here. And you can't wind up nothing being required from them.

I thank the gentleman.

So while Republicans say that this bill just keeps the ice-breakers and the ice-breaker part of the Clean Air Act, the reality is that it effectively puts EPA's ability to reduce emissions from these sources on ice.

My amendment to remedy the problem by ensuring that these vessels met the most stringent mobile source standards so that we would realize some emissions reductions from them was rejected by the majority in the committee. So instead of what the majority claims they want to do, which was to ensure that these vessels were not regulated as both mobile source and stationary source under the Clean Air Act, what this bill does is ensure that the emissions from these vessels aren't regulated at all. That's their goal, that 98 percent of emissions will go unregulated, and I don't think there's anyone listening to this debate that thinks that that's a good thing for the public health of our country.

I urge opposition to this bill.