Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to warn my colleagues and the American public of a nasty little amendment in this CR. An amendment will be offered by the Republicans today to eliminate the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the clear mandates of the Clean Air Act.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA owes the American public an obligation to reduce certain of these dangerous toxic gases. And yet, incredibly, the Republican Party wants to eliminate the ability to enforce that bill. Now, I think of this amendment as the dirty air act. And it is the dirty air act because if they pass it, that is what we'll get, dirty air.

Now, Americans, and I want to warn my colleagues, a poll distributed by the American Lung Association shows Americans are adamantly opposed to this amendment. They know we want clean air. They know we don't want more children's asthma. And we have got to defeat this amendment, defeat the dirty air act, keep the Clean Air Act as the law of this country.

Mr. Chair, anyone who has ever seen a child gasping for breath due to a persistent asthma problem, which are most of us in America, should be adamantly opposed to this amendment, because it would strip the legal right and obligation of Uncle Sam to protect our children's right to breathe.

Now I just heard something incredible from one of my Republican colleagues. They said they were astounded at the precept that Uncle Sam has that responsibility. Well, you know we've had that responsibility for 40 years. Under the guidance of the idea of Teddy Roosevelt and Republican Richard Nixon, we adopted the Clean Air Act 40 years ago, through a bipartisan effort. And that Clean Air Act has prevented 18 million cases of respiratory problems in our kids, 840,000 severe asthma hospitalizations and 200,000 deaths.

And as a result of that success, do you know what the Republican Party wants to do tonight? They want to effectively repeal the Clean Air Act when it comes to these gases. And these are not benign gases. Carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons. They want to hide and say we're not repealing the Clean Air Act, we're just making it illegal to enforce it. It won't do to say we're going to make it illegal for the FBI to arrest terrorists.

Look, Americans are opposed to repealing the Clean Air Act, and they are opposed to the Republicans making it impossible for the EPA to do their job, by a 2-to-1 margin, and they're opposed to it for several reasons.

Number one, Republicans and Democrats both believe we have a legal obligation to protect our kids from asthma. It's that simple. And Republicans and Democrats share one common precept. We both like to breathe. And that breathing is now in question for our kids. It's incredible to me to think the Republicans are going to leave our kids breathless on occasion. That is breathless in itself.

Number two, this really is an attack on science, because the science is very clear on this. You quote from all the scientific research. Dr. Jacobson--and this I just want to quote--showed by cause and effect that carbon dioxide emitted regionally around the globe increases ozone, particle and carcinogen air pollution health problems in the United States. The science shows this is a problem. And we ought to embrace science as Republicans and Democrats instead of listening to the polluting industries, which want to give license to put untold, indefinite, infinite amounts of these carcinogens into our atmosphere. That is just plumb wrong.

The third reason Americans know this Republican effort to gut the Clean Air Act is wrong. They are not attempting to revise a rule or modify a rule, or come to us with some commonsense effort to make it work. They are eliminating the ability of the Federal Government to protect the air we breathe in total--a one hundred percent elimination of the ability of EPA legally to follow this rule.

The Supreme Court ruled last year that this is a legal obligation. Some of my Republican colleagues said, yeah, that was only a 5-4 decision, so I guess we can ignore it. Well, that 5-4 decision seemed to have been good enough in Bush v. Gore for them. It ought to be good enough to follow the law of the land, which is to enforce this clean air law for the benefit of our children.

The fourth reason Americans are opposed to this Republican effort to stop EPA from doing its job. Americans know today we are in a race for job creation, and that race is with China.

The fact of the matter is Americans know we are in a race today for job creation, and that is a race with China to find out who is going to sell the products and who is going to have the jobs in electric cars, in solar panels, in wind turbines, in efficiency, in electric charging stations, in new efficiencies to make our homes and businesses run more efficiently. And tonight the Chinese are laughing at us, that the Republicans would come here and take the pedal off the metal, which is the EPA, to try to drive investment to these new clean energy sources.

These are the jobs of the future. If we're going to have these jobs of the future, we have to start moving off of this pollution and stop accepting this pollution. We have to get in this global game. And if we get in this global game, we're going to win. The reason we're going to win is we're the country that went to the Moon, and we are the country with the innovative talent and the creative spirit and the business people that can grow these nonpolluting industries. But not if the Republicans get their way and just let pollution continue.

Let's reject this flawed attempt to gut the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise to ask, what happened to the party of Teddy Roosevelt? What happened to the party that helped us adopt, under Richard Nixon's leadership, the Clean Air Act? What happened to the Republican Party that used to be allied in the adoption of the clean air rules that have so helped the health of Americans? What happened to the party that adopted the Clean Air Act 40 years ago which has helped save over 200,000 lives? And I ask why today, in this continuing resolution, the Republican Party has abandoned any pretext whatsoever to stand for clean air when they eviscerate the clean air law in their continuing resolution.

This is a sad statement to think that a party that at one time helped us clean up the air, reducing cancer deaths and reducing respiratory illness and reducing heart attacks, has seen fit to go and leave with the polluting industries to gut the Clean Air Act.

I want to make it clear so people know what the Republican continuing resolution does. Even though the Clean Air Act today requires the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up our air against dangerous gases like carbon dioxide and ozone, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that Americans are entitled to this protection, the Republican Party has decided to make it illegal for the cops on the beat to do their job.

This bill, amazingly enough, the Republicans have passed a provision, or want to in this bill, that would make it illegal for the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the environment. Now, why would you want to make it illegal for the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the environment?

And I want to make clear how radical this action is. There is no fiscal reason for this. This is just an assault on clean air. The ``dirty air act'' is not going to revise any proposed rules of the Environmental Protection Agency. It isn't going to modify any clean air laws. It's going to eliminate them by saying that it is illegal for the EPA to enforce these clean air laws.

And the sad thing about this, Mr. Chairman, this is an assault on science. You read the specific scientific conclusions of the thousands of scientists who have reviewed this, and here is what the scientists and the physicians say. Mr. Chairman, not the politicians, the physicians. Here is what they say: Greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor, or elderly, increases in ground level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses, as well as other threats to the health and welfare of America.

Now, why would the Republican Party want to make the air more dangerous for our kids who are using those inhalers to try to prevent asthma attacks?

In our Commerce Committee hearing, we had a young woman from North Carolina, and she talked about the fact that increasing ozone increases and aggravates her asthma. What reason on

this green earth do we have to increase the rates of asthma of our kids? And that's what the Republican Party wants to do in this continuing resolution.

Now, that's kind of a harsh statement. It's a harsh statement to say that one of our noble parties wants to increase the availability of ozone to damage our kids' health. But facts are stubborn things, and this is what the Republican Party is sentencing our kids to, which is more dangerous air. And it's a real sad statement when you consider the past history of the Republican Party which helped, under Richard Nixon and Teddy Roosevelt, to adopt these environmental laws.

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that at some point we will get a little more bipartisanship here for clean air, we will abandon this commitment to the polluting industries that are running this effort, and reject this continuing resolution and these anti-clean air laws.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, we have a simple amendment that will help restore two principles to our budget: one is innovation, and two is balance. What our amendment would do would be add $20 million to the ARPA-E account. It would be fully paid for with a balance taken out of the fossil fuel research account, and this is important for two fundamental reasons.

Our Nation's economic performance will live or it will die on the ability to innovate a new clean energy technology; and today, tonight, when we're speaking, the Chinese are investing $786 billion in the development of new clean energy technologies. Yet, what does this CR do to our advanced clean energy research budget? It cuts it by 85 percent. While the Chinese are racing ahead on clean energy, we're running backwards 85 percent in ARPA-E, which has tremendous potential in solar energy, in efficient, enhanced geothermal and new efficiencies in electric storage, in high-capacity grid systems. This is our seed corn of innovation, and yet we have slashed it 85 percent in this CR. We are simply asking to reduce that cut to about 65 percent and add $20 million.

Now, let me put this in context. That is the innovation part of this agenda; and for those who are critical of ARPA-E, let me suggest, in the first year of this operation, in the first year, it has attracted six private equity investments for $23 million of Uncle Sam's investment of $100 million that has been leveraged for private equity investment. This program has some promise, and we are cutting off tiny little crumbs to cut off the innovation budget for clean energy. It's a huge mistake.

Now, balance, here's where the balance part comes in. We want to pay for this, obviously. We don't want to create further deficit spending on this program. In the fossil fuel research budget, we've cut that 17 percent, and it's 10 times larger than the ARPA-E budget. That is wildly out of balance where we cut ARPA-E. Instead of 17 percent, we cut it 85 percent. Fossil fuels, we've got $556 million in research. For ARPA-E, we've got 50 million unless we adopt the Inslee amendment. So I would encourage us to get in the game of competing with China.

Now, I was talking to former Governor Ted Strickland tonight about a company called Willard & Kelsey, WK Solar Group, a company that's developed a new way of manufacturing solar cells using a horizontal manufacturing project, much more efficient, quicker manufacturing. If we don't start developing these technologies, the Chinese are going to have us for lunch, and this is a small thing that the payoffs could be dramatic. We'd encourage more innovation, and we'd encourage more balance for the future.

We recommend this amendment.

Will the gentleman yield for a clarification?

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman suggested that our amendment added $50 million. I know it was unintentional. We would only ask an additional $20 million. I just want to make that clear for the record.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Inslee

Amendment No. 339: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Inslee

Amendment No. 340: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Inslee

Amendment No. 393: Page 217, line 7, after the dollar

amount insert ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.

Page 217, line 13, after the dollar amount insert

``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Inslee

Amendment No. 394: Page 216, line 23, after the dollar

amount insert ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.

Page 217, line 13, after the dollar amount insert

``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Inslee

Amendment No. 395: Page 213, line 19, after the dollar

amount insert ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

Page 217, line 13, after the dollar amount insert

``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the tragic injury and loss of life that occurred in Port Orchard, Washington on Sunday, January 23rd.

Responding to a call of a man with a gun, two Kitsap County Sheriff's deputies were dispatched to a local Wal-Mart. After making contact with the individual, the suspect sprinted away and fired his gun at the deputies. During the encounter there was an exchange of fire, resulting in the death of the armed man and a young woman. In this exchange, both of the Sheriff's deputies sustained gunshot wounds and were transported to a local hospital.

I am very saddened by this incident, and regret the harm that was done to the innocent people involved. Law enforcement officials in this country risk their lives every day so that we may all live without fear of harm, and at moments like these I believe it is important to reflect on the sacrifices that are made by these public servants on our behalf. Deputy John Roy Stacy has been with the Kitsap County Sheriff's Office for 9 years, while Deputy Andrew Ejde has served our community as a Deputy Sheriff for more than 6 years. Both represent the selfless commitment to the safety of their community that we prize in law enforcement officials and members of our armed services.

I would like to send my best wishes for a full and speedy recovery to these brave men who were hurt while protecting our community. They and their families will be in our thoughts and prayers during these difficult times.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we need more jobs and less speeches. And what we will get from this bill on the floor is more speeches and no jobs.

It is very disappointing in the current economic context that what we bring to the floor for 9\1/2\ hours is a bill that simply instructs the committees to do what we've already instructed them to do. This is already in the rules, it's already required, we all agree on it. What are we doing here wasting 9\1/2\ hours? If we just produced a thousand jobs an hour, we could have produced 9,500 jobs. Instead, we're going to produce 95 speeches. That's not what we need.

If you want to look for waste in government, take a look at this bill: 9\1/2\ hours down the tube doing something we're already doing. We had a hearing yesterday in the Commerce Committee. We're already talking about these regulations.

But let me give a warning to people about what happens when the Republican Party wants to look at regulations. You know the first thing they did, they're trying to repeal the Clean Air Act. They're trying to gut the Clean Air Act which is the guardian angel for the air that our kids breathe.

You know, they have introduced a bill, and we had a hearing yesterday. The first hearing we had was to pass their dirty air act. They have a dirty air act that would gut the ability--that would eliminate in total the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate harmful gases, carbon dioxide, ozone, and a host of other dangerous chemicals.

Now, can you believe that? Their dirty air act will eliminate the ability of the EPA to do things to try to prevent our kids from having aggravated asthma attacks. Their dirty air act would eliminate the ability of the EPA to deal with dangerous gases that exacerbate the respiratory problems of our senior citizens.

If you think I'm just blowing smoke here, go take a look at their bill. Their bill doesn't try to fix the regulation. It absolutely eliminates in total the ability of the EPA. The EPA was started under a good Republican, Richard Nixon, and it is a sad story that the first bill out of the box

they want to go backwards on clean air.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with having our committees review regulations. But the problem is we are wasting 9\1/2\ hours when we are involved in a great race, a great competition.

We are in a race with China and other places in the world to build a clean energy economy that can create millions of new jobs in solar and wind and electric cars and lithium ion batteries.

And you can be assured that the Chinese are not wasting 9\1/2\ hours when it comes to figuring out how to form capital formation for solar power companies. That's what we should be doing.

You can be assured the Chinese aren't wasting 9\1/2\ hours trying to figure out how to site high-density transmission lines so we can have clean energy plants and move that electricity across their country. That's what we should be doing on a bipartisan basis.

You can be assured that the Chinese aren't wasting 9\1/2\ hours figuring out how to create a demand for new wind energy so we can put people to work building wind farms. That's what we should be doing.

And you know what, last year the Republicans passed a clean energy standard which we could be talking about this year on a bipartisan basis. Instead, we're wasting 9\1/2\ hours talking about something all of us agree to do.

Now, how do the Republicans intend to do this going out of the gate next week? We're told that their first act is to remove from our Federal law the ability to create jobs in the green, clean energy sector because they want to pass their dirty air bill. Their dirty air bill will strip the Environmental Protection Agency of the ability to create an incentive for 1.5 million jobs: jobs in the solar sector industry, jobs in the wind industry, jobs in the enhanced geothermal industry. These are jobs.

Don't let them pass the dirty air bill.

Thank you. I can't think of anything more important.

Tomorrow we will have the first hearing in Congress on the Dirty Air Act. Of course the Dirty Air Act is the act that intends to gut Uncle Sam's ability to protect clean air for all of us to breathe-- Republicans, Democrats and independents. This Dirty Air Act is clearly bad for children with asthma. This Dirty Air Act is bad for senior men with respiratory problems. This Dirty Air Act is bad for senior American women with heart problems. This Dirty Air Act is bad for American workers who are going to lose the jobs that will be created in the innovative new industries that we're going to build so we can produce electricity and power for our cars in a clean way. This Dirty Air Act is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen in my time in the U.S. Congress and I will tell you why. It breaks faith with some of the values, at least two of the great works done by Republican Presidents. And it's really a tragedy that my colleagues across the aisle have fallen for the siren sound of the polluters, because it's the polluters who want to pass the Dirty Air Act, which by the way you could also call the Inhaler Enhancement Act of 2011, if you want to know what it does to children who have asthma.

We just spent an hour talking about the optimism of President Ronald Reagan, which was manifest and appreciated by Democrats and Republicans alike. And those of us who stand against this Dirty Air Act believe we ought to have optimism that we can create electricity in clean ways. We can do it in solar energy created and powered by Americans. We can do it with electric cars made by Americans. The GM Volt was just the car of the year made by Americans, General Motors; a plug-in electric hybrid car.

We can do it with wind. We can do it, perhaps, with advanced forms of nuclear power.

The point is that that sense of optimism has now been shucked overboard because the polluters have come up to Washington, DC, with their lobbyist friends, and have convinced our friends and colleagues to throw aside 40 years of Republican success. This thing was started by Richard Nixon with a good assist by William Ruckelshaus, who is now a citizen of Seattle, Washington. It was a Republican who recognized our ability to innovate in a way that would grow jobs and reduce air pollution.

I want to leave you with one statistic--and Richard Nixon was right in this regard. He was wrong on some other things, but he was right on this.

He said the polluting industry resisted the Clean Air Act when it started 40 years ago, but what he believed--and it turned out to be accurate--was that we could innovate our way to create new technologies to produce energy. That's why we have reduced air pollution by 60 percent since 1970. It is because of the Clean Air Act. Yet our economy has grown by 200 percent--a 200 percent growth at the time the polluters said this was going to wreck the U.S. economy. That's the same thing we can do now in using the innovative talents so we can start making electric cars here and ship them to China, so we can start making solar panels here, with jobs in America, so we can ship those to China.

I'll just part with one statement.

There ought not to be any debate about the health care impacts here either. Congress has received a letter signed by 2,505 American scientists, calling on Congress to resist and defeat the Republicans' dirty air act, because, it says, the Clean Air Act is a science-based law that has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease during the 40 years since it was first passed, all without diminishing economic growth.

Those are from American scientists, who understand American innovation, who understand American asthma, who understand the American ability to keep moving forward and to not go backwards. Heaven help those who would support the dirty air act and who would support to repeal clean air protections for Americans.

If the gentleman would yield for a moment, I have a little story about how I've seen this firsthand.

I went to the coolest event a few weeks ago that I've ever gone to as a public official. It was in Woodinville, Washington, at the Woodinville Wooden Cross Church. I got to participate in the benediction, in the dedication, of the very first electric car charging station at a church in America. It was great. It was, you know, let there be light and there was light. Let there be power and there was power. More importantly, there were jobs, because every time we put in one of these charging stations, there are five American jobs created due to these investments.

If the Republicans get their way, what will happen is they will repeal the Clean Air Act, which will affect carbon and methane and ozone--very dangerous gasses in a lot of different ways. Instead of the investment going to create new energy industries, those investments are going to go to China, and it's China that is going to make the electric cars and the solar power and the advanced systems of maybe finding ways to burn coal cleanly.

We don't want to give that competitive advantage up. This is the pedal to the metal, this Clean Air Act, which drives the investment which has made America the leading producer of scrubbing equipment in the world today to clean up these stacks today. This is what makes us competitive. So I think this is a job killer to pass the dirty air act, and we've got to get in this race with China.

I think it's simply fair to call it the ``dirty air act'' because that's what you get if this legislation passes. You get dirty air. If you pass a dirty air act, you get dirty air. I think it's a fair assessment of what it does.

Would the gentleman yield for a moment?

Mr. Holt made a really important point that we need to discuss. He made a strong statement that this dirty air act that the Republicans have introduced would gut the Clean Air Act. That is a strong statement, and it is entirely accurate.

Yeah.

What I want to make clear to the public is that when we say gut, we mean gut the Clean Air Act because the Republican dirty air act doesn't just reduce protections by 10 percent to children with asthma. It doesn't reduce it by 50 percent. It entirely eliminates the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to provide kids with asthma any protection whatsoever for these listed emissions from polluting industries.

You just may be thinking, President Obama gave a State of the Union. He talked about celebrating winning the science bowl, about using the Chinese advances, and how clean energy is our Sputnik moment, so that we would be called to have a new Apollo energy project, and we know we can do in clean energy what our, you know, ancestors did in space, which is to lead the world in clean energy. We know this can be the American destiny, and the reason we know that is because our vision is one based on optimism and confidence. Our vision is that we know we can invent new forms of energy so that we don't cause additional asthma problems in our children.

Now this is a difference between us and the Republicans who want to pass this dirty air act. We realize two things about our children. Number one, when polluters pollute and expose them to dangerous levels of ozone and increase--dramatic increases--in asthma attacks and respiratory problems in senior citizens, those kids don't have anywhere to run and hide. You know, an oil company can go around places in the world. A kid is stuck where he lives, and there's nowhere to hide from dirty air. That's why I'm not very happy about this effort to put more of our kids in the way of dirty air, number one.

And number two, we realized that this is real when it comes to new technology. You know, when we passed the bill to create an investment in lithium ion battery manufacturing plants this year, some of our Republican colleagues scoffed at that effort. They thought, This is never going to happen. Well, in Holland, Michigan, we have laid-off American auto workers now making lithium ion batteries, or shortly, for sale all around the world to power electric cars.

We know there are jobs to make that happen. We know in Seattle, Washington, we've got the leaders in the discovery of location for wind power. We know those jobs can be made to happen. In Moses Lake, Washington, we have one of the largest manufacturers of silicone, a part of solar panels, to be shipped around the world. We know those jobs can be made to happen. At the Boeing Company, we are making airplanes--or shortly will--that can burn biofuels so we don't put out CO2 emission and pollution. We know those jobs can happen.

Now we want our Republican colleagues to join us in this sense of optimism, because the rule that the EPA has proposed is really pretty modest. Now we're having a full-throated discussion here, debate, and we'll have a big debate tomorrow about this. But the rule is pretty modest. Let me tell you how modest it is. It simply requires essentially known efficiency standards at very, very large power plants, over 100,000 tons of emissions a year. Now, a lot of small businesses are going to be told, this is going to shut down restaurants and dry cleaners, et cetera. That's bunk. This rule is only proposing to deal with very, very large emitters, like large coal plants. This is a very modest first step in an approach to try to rein in some of these dangerous gases like carbon dioxide and ozone and toxins like that. It is a reasonable first step.

And I hope we will be successful and believe that we will because there are multiple reasons for this. And this really is an issue about democracy, about who is going to make a decision about the air we breathe and the air our children breathe. Is it going to be scientists and physicians at the American Lung Association and scientists who base their decision on science and health? Or is it going to be lobbyists for polluting industries?

Now we say it should be the scientists. We say we should follow the science. When we go to doctors, we get medical advice, it's based on science. When we want health advice, we don't go to lobbyists for polluting industries. We let a health decision be made by scientists. And unfortunately, the dirty air act that my Republican colleagues want to pass, they want to take that decision away from scientists and away from physicians and away from health practitioners and give it to the folks who lobby up here for special breaks. That's wrong.

And I will just make a closing comment, if I can. We are going to fight the dirty air act on behalf of the health of our kids. We are going to fight the dirty air act on behalf of our senior citizens with their health problems. And we are going to fight the dirty air act so that we can grow millions of clean energy jobs right here in this country and not ship them off to China.

I would just note in closing that if we are successful in asking Republicans to stand with us against the dirty air act, we will celebrate a Republican achievement of 40 years ago that we will have preserved, the Clean Air Act. And we will argue that the next electric vehicle should be called the Nixon. We want to honor a Republican President. Thanks very much.

Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor this morning to talk about our excitement hearing the President tonight express that feeling of optimism, confidence and can-do spirit that has always epitomized America, and that is in the field of the development of our clean- energy job creation program.

I'm excited about it because, as we're coming out of this very deep recession, many of us believe that one of the brightest spots on our economic horizon is our ability to develop hundreds of thousands of new jobs in this country so that America can fulfill its destiny of leading the world in clean-energy development.

We believe it is our destiny to do that because we have always done that throughout America's history, leading the world in aeronautics, leading the world in software, leading the world in aerospace; and now we have a great opportunity to lead the world in the development of clean energy. And when we do that, we do believe that we will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. And I look forward to the President's ideas on how to do that.

But I want to talk about where we are right now in our ability to do that. I remember I came to the floor 2 or 3 years ago and talked about the prospects of creating jobs in America in the creation of an electrified transportation system and our ability to electrify our cars. And when I did that, I remember I was criticized by some in this Chamber thinking, well, that was sort of a pipe dream, couldn't happen, that was Buck Rogers-kind of stuff that really wouldn't allow us to create jobs in this field.

Well, I want to bring us back up to where we are now this year to see what progress we've made. I want to mention three pieces of progress we have made that are going to, I think, be examples A, B and C of why the President's message of clean energy will be received well tonight:

Number one, this year is the General Motors Volt. It is a plug-in hybrid electric car, a car that you can plug in and go 40 miles all on electricity; and then if you want to go more than 40 miles, it has an internal combustion engine that will generate electricity to charge the battery that will run the wheels of the General Motors Volt.

And when I asked General Motors to bring the Volt to Capitol Hill a few years ago, people thought, interesting idea, will never work. Well, guess what. The General Motors Volt this year was North American Car of the Year a couple of weeks ago. It stunned the auto industry, and it is going to be one of the great leaders as we move to the electric cars of the future.

We have the domestic manufacturer, the Ford Focus, that we think is going to follow. Tesla is being manufactured here. We hope to see Toyota and Nissan produce electric cars here as well. These are the cars not of the future but of today. And we can lead the world in the manufacture if we do some of the things that the President will talk about tonight to electrify our auto transportation fleet.

Second, I want to talk about one of the most exciting events I've ever had as a U.S. Congressman, and that is last October I went to the Wooden Cross Lutheran Church in Woodinville, Washington. And I got to participate with that congregation in dedicating the very first electric charging station in America in a church parking lot. And I thought, this is a great thing for America that we are electrifying our transportation fleet, allowing Americans a place to plug in their electric cars.

And we dedicated this charging station. It's about 3\1/2\, 4 feet tall. And you pull up to it and plug in your electric car in the Wooden Cross Lutheran Church parking lot. The Good Book says ``let there be light.'' Well, now let there be power, and verily there is power in this church parking lot. And there's going to be more power in thousands of places in America because of our stimulus bill which has allowed the creation of these electronic charging stations.

Third, I want to mention the production of batteries. We have grown something like--and I want to make sure I get the number right--700,000 clean-energy jobs doubling renewable energy manufacturing and generating jobs in America by the year 2012. And the clean-energy sector has grown 2\1/2\ times faster--faster than the U.S. economy in the last year and a half.

And one of the reasons is because we are growing an electric battery manufacturing capacity industry here in the United States. We only had 2 percent of that capacity in 2009. We believe we can have 40 percent of the world's capacity by 2015. And if you want to think this is not a reality, go to Holland, Michigan, where because of our stimulus bill that we passed last year, we are putting hundreds of formerly laid-off auto workers to work in Holland, Michigan, making lithium ion batteries to run our electric cars. And that is happening because of what we did.

Let's grow these clean-energy jobs. I look forward to the President's speech tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to this effort to repeal a bill, a reform bill without anything to replace it at hand. It's asking Americans to jump without a parachute and without a net. And it's the wrong thing to do because we are a country that has always moved forward.

I want to mention two ways this bill moves forward which we should not repeal. One is that we have finally addressed this horrific geographic disparity where physicians and hospitals get treated differently, unfairly around the country. We finally are fixing that, long, long overdue.

And, second, this bill really helps us move forward to reduce waste in our medical industry. A Dartmouth study suggested as much as 30 percent of all the things we do have been wasted in health care because we haven't had the right incentives.

Where I come from in Washington State, we're doing things that we need to export around the country to stop waste in medicine. At Virginia Mason they just won the national Leapfrog to the Top Award, where they've saved over $1 million a year just by bringing efficiencies in how you provide supplies. At GroupHealth, they've reduced the readmission rate by about one-third by bringing efficiencies to the system.

At the Providence-Everett Hospital, I was so impressed when I met a Dr. Brevig, a cardiac physician, who brought some efficiencies in how they handle cardiac patients. So instead of moving the patient all around, they bring the physicians to the patient. Do you know what? They've knocked almost a full day off the time you have to be in a hospital, and they've reduced the infection rate by almost one-half, improving quality.

At Children's Hospital, they are building a hospital which uses 30 percent less square footage than the average hospital.

These are the types of efficiencies that we need to reduce the rate of medical inflation. This is one of the reasons that the Congressional Budget Office found that this bill will actually reduce the deficit by $230 billion. Let's keep moving forward and not go backwards. Defeat this bill.