Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. MARKEY. They could have taken this money out of the $41 million of gas breaks for the oil and gas industry, but, no, they take it out of solar, they take it out of wind. And by the way, wind and solar, with the same amount of money, creates five times more jobs than an investment in fossil fuels does. So they keep the money in for the programs that create three to five times less jobs than the program they are knee-capping here this evening. That's what this vote is all about.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. MARKEY. Solyndra will receive no money under this program. Who will receive this money? Indiana will receive the money.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Washington State. We're having 100-year floods every year. We're having tornados rip through Joplin. We have floods in Vermont, in New Jersey, New York. We have hurricanes all across the country. We have 48 States who have had emergency declarations so far this year. The planet is warming; the weather is worsening. What is the response of the Republicans? They have to find the money--they say all of a sudden--for disaster relief for people who are suffering, for people who are desperate, for people whose lives have been altered permanently. They say we have to cut something. Now, do they say we're going to cut the nuclear weapons program because America doesn't need any more nuclear weapons? No. Are we going to cut the breaks that we give to oil and coal? No, we're not going to touch those things. Where are we going? What does the Republican Party do? What does the Tea Party want? I ask what the Tea Party wants. The Tea Party wants to cut the Clean Car Factory Fund. Now, what is that? Well, that's the fund that we have that's going to invent the automobiles and the trucks that go 60, 70, 80, 90 miles per gallon without having to use oil. Now, why is that important? Two reasons: One, it's the oil that's being burnt that creates the greenhouse gases that are warming up the planet, causing all of these weather conditions that are leading to these disaster relief programs that have to have more money in them as each year goes by; and, two, it is so that we can tell the OPEC ministers, We don't need your oil any more than we need your sand. So what are they doing here today? They're taking the one program that is central to the health and well-being of our country and to our national security--so that we alter our relationship with OPEC--and they are slashing it. They are slashing the one program that reinvents the vehicles that we drive. They are slashing the one program that gives young people in our country some hope that we are going to invent our way out of this problem. You don't have to be Dick Tracy to figure out what's going on here. The oil industry, the coal industry, all of the polluting industries are saying kill the program that makes sure that the vehicles we get in 20 years get 75 or 100 miles per gallon without using one gallon of oil. Vote ``no'' on this terrible bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady. The Republican Party deficit plan is very simple: Number one, send the financial markets into a nose dive. Number two, drive up costs for home mortgages, student loans, and credit cards. Number three, spook businesses to stall job growth, bringing the Nation to the brink of economic collapse. Number four, repeat it all again and again until election day 2012. The Republicans don't want compromise; they want capitulation. The Republicans have brought to the floor a constitutional amendment to balance the budget that's going nowhere. It is phony. But there's another sinister constitutional amendment being debated here, it's very real; and it will cause our country to default on its obligations. Amendment 14, section 4, of the Constitution says: ``The validity of the public debt shall not be questioned.'' But this bill would change the Constitution forever--forever. Under this Republican bill, our country would be pushed into defaulting on our obligations. The Republican Party would turn the 14th Amendment from a guarantee into a question mark. Now, under the Republican bill: ``The validity of the public debt shall be questioned.'' That is what they are doing this weekend. This is unacceptable and would have a disastrous effect upon our economy and the middle class. The only way to end this historic nightmare is to resolve another massive deficit, the leadership deficit in the Republican Party. We must vote down this constitutional amendment, which will have us not honoring the full faith and credit of the United States which was built into the 14th Amendment of our United States Constitution. They are amending that Constitution here this evening. They are leading us to a default which will be a violation of that Constitution.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. The Republican Party's deficit plan is very simple: one, prolong the default crisis; two, push the Nation to the very brink of economic collapse; three, repeat it all again and again until election day 2012. The Republican Party cares only about political victory. They don't want compromise. They want capitulation. And if America goes into default, it will be your fault. We now have the pluperfect form of the Republican Party's political paradox: Republicans hate government, but they have to run for office in order to make sure it doesn't work. In 1995 and '96, the Republican Party shut down the Federal Government. In 1997 and '98, the Republicans shut down the Congress over impeachment. Earlier this year, they threatened to shut down the Federal Government again unless they got an extension of tax cuts for the very rich. And now Republicans are trying to shut down the entire economy. Republicans are turning Americans into the laughingstock of the world. If our Nation defaults, it will devastate Americans all across the country. If you have an adjustable rate mortgage, you will pay more. If you have a credit card, you will pay more. If you have a small business, you will pay more. This Republican default will impose a Tea Party tax on the entire country. It will force Americans to pay billions more of their hard- earned money when they can least afford it. The Tea Party has congressional Republicans wrapped around its little finger, but it's the American people who are going to get squeezed. The Republican Party doesn't care. After all, it was the Bush administration and congressional Republicans who put us on this course in the first place. The only way to end this historic nightmare is to resolve another massive deficit--the leadership deficit in the Republican Party.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.