Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I yield the gentleman from Washington 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

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

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

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

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY. 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. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY. 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.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. I rise in opposition to this Republican attempt to deem their budget passed, just deem it passed so that we can begin with this process. It's just wrong. It's not the way we should be conducting business, but it's the way they have been operating all year. Recently, radio evangelist Harold Camping calculated that the world would end at precisely 6 p.m. on May 21. Well, he was wrong. But much like Harold Camping's wildly inaccurate predictions, the House Republicans have come up with their own apocalyptic vision, the Republican Rapture. This budget decides who gets lifted up into the economic stratosphere and who gets left behind. Under this scheme, if you are a millionaire or a billionaire, you get raptured into heaven with all of your tax breaks remaining intact. But if you are Grandma and Grandpa, and you are dependent upon Medicare in order to take care of your health care needs, you get moved to political purgatory. That's their plan. Now, if you are one of the big five oil companies that are reporting record profits, you get raptured with all of your tax breaks left intact in this budget, which we are debating here today. You keep all of your tax breaks. But if you are a college kid hoping to get a Pell Grant, no, ladies and gentlemen, you are back in political purgatory. Your educational future is in question. Now, if you are an insurance company executive and you are now really rapturously happy because of the privatization of Medicare and the incredibly increased profits for the insurance industry, you are up here in heaven. You get raptured. This is the budget we are debating right now. Good news for all these wealthy people. But if you have Alzheimer's or cancer and you are hoping to find medical breakthroughs, they are cutting the NIH budget, the national institutes of hope budget, to find a cure for those diseases. Your hopes and dreams go to political purgatory. And if you have any hopes at all of having Medicare be saved, well, their budget guarantees that Medicare gets privatized, that Medicare is ended as we know it.

Mr. MARKEY. And that Medicare budget is completely and totally smashed. So there is your debate here today, ladies and gentlemen. Are you with billionaires, Big Insurance, Big Oil? Are you with Grandma and Grandpa, making sure that Medicare remains intact for the years ahead, honoring the promise that we made to them for giving us this great country that we live in today. That's the vote today. Vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on Grandma, vote ``no'' on that Republican budget, and protect Grandma's health care into the future.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1082, and in strong support of the Small Business Innovation and Research program. I urge my colleagues to vote yes, and send this extension to the President to prevent this crucial program from lapsing. This is a short term extension, coming on the heels of 10 short term extensions in the past 3 years. While I urge my colleagues to vote yes, I also urge members on both sides to continue working on a long term reauthorization that brings certainty to this program while at the same time preserving the initial intent of SBIR: the nurturing of bona fide and innovative small businesses. As of 2010, SBIR had granted 88,651 awards, totaling over $28 billion, to Small Businesses around the country. This program supports two of the things that I've spent my 35 years in Congress fighting hard to advance: innovation and small business. Nationally, the program is an unparalleled success. Even though SBIR only accounts for 2.5% of the Research and Development extramural budget, SBIR has provided 25% of the 100 most important innovations as reported by R&D Magazine. SBIR is the nation's largest source of early-stage research and development funding. This program has provided for more than 50,000 patents since its inception, successfully harnessing the proven innovative power of small, technology-based businesses to meet the nation's technology needs. On average, SBIR generates seven new patents per day--which is far more than all U.S. universities combined--at less than one-twelfth their level of federal research and development funding. In Massachusetts, we know about innovation and energy. We might not be blessed with Oil, or Natural gas, but we are blessed with a different kind of energy. My state of Massachusetts is not just ``The Bay State''--it's also the Brain State. Since its inception, over 12,500 awards have gone to Massachusetts, totaling almost $4 billion. One need not travel far in my district to see the affects of the SBIR program. Whether it is the development of rapid, painless bedside muscle evaluation of children in Woburn, or the study of Oral antibody therapy for Celiac disease in Wayland, this program pushes small business, the engine of our economy, into new levels of discovery and success. I thank the Speaker for my time, and urge a yes vote on S. 1082. Let's stand alongside Small Business, and save this crucial and innovative program from lapsing.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. You know, this is a crazy debate that we're having here right now because the Republicans, they keep saying to the Democrats, Well, what's the plan? So we say to the Republicans, Well, what's your plan? Your plan just seems to be saying to Grandma and Grandpa that they're taking too much. That they really--they're taking America for a ride, and we have to cut Medicare. Their health care is too good. And Grandma and Grandpa, they didn't do enough for America. So the Democrats, we turn around and say, Hey, how about looking at it this way: How about before you go after Grandma and her Medicare card and how about you say to Warren Buffet, Hey, how about not taking those extra tax breaks? And the Republicans say, We can't take away any tax breaks from Warren Buffet and all of the other multi-multimillionaires and billionaires. Because they've contributed so much to America, we don't want to touch their money, even though that would give us hundreds of billions of dollars. And then we say to them, Well, how about prescription drugs? How about we negotiate the price for prescription drugs, for Medicare, the way we do with the VA? That would save about a quarter of a trillion dollars over a 10-year period. They say, That would be unfair to the drug companies. We can't touch them either. Then we say to them, Well, you know, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, it's winding down now. Maybe we could look into the defense budget and save a few billion dollars there before we ask Grandma to sacrifice on the health care that she gets from Medicare? And the Republicans say, We can't do that either. We can't look at any cuts in the defense budget. That would be much too hard on those defense contractors. So then we say to them, How about the oil industry? At least the oil industry, the $40 billion in tax breaks which they're going to get over the next 10 years? I mean, does anyone in America really believe that they need tax breaks in order to have an incentive to go out and drill for oil when people are paying $3, $3.50, $4 a gallon at the pump? But the Republicans say, No. You can't touch the oil companies either. You've got to give big tax breaks to the oil industry as well, even as they're tipping Grandma and Grandpa upside down at the pump when they're coming in to put in their unleaded $4 a gallon gasoline-- self-serve, by the way--at the pump. So what do they do instead? What they do is they put an oil rig on top of the Medicare card so that the oil industry can drill into Grandma's Medicare and pull out the funding in order to provide the tax breaks for Big Oil, for Warren Buffet, for the prescription drug industry, for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's all off of Grandma. She's the one. We've targeted the person responsible for all of the wasteful spending in the United States. It's all Grandma's fault. Let's cut Medicare. She didn't do enough to build our country through the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, and the 1960s. It's all on Grandma. So this drill rig that they are building into the pocketbooks of Grandma in order to find that funding, that's what their plan is all about. It's an oil pipeline into the pocketbooks of the seniors. They want to cut checkups for Grandma while they cut checks for the oil companies. They want to cut health care to Grandma and give wealth care to big oil companies and to billionaires and to prescription drug companies. Their plan is big tax breaks for Big Oil and tough breaks for Grandma and for the seniors in our country. And the CEO of Chevron? He says it's un-American to think about increasing taxes on the oil industry. You know what I say to him? It's unbelievable that you could make that argument. But even more unbelievable that the Republican Party would accept that argument and cut Medicare for Grandma. To privatize it, to hand it over to the insurance industry, to increase the cost by $6,000 per year for their costs even as they say to Warren Buffet, the oil companies, the big drug companies, the arms contractors, Don't worry. We're going to protect your programs. It's just Grandma that's on the cutting block. So, ladies and gentlemen, this is a debate of historical dimensions. And until the Republicans come forward with a plan--which they don't have in order to make Medicare solvent--by raising the revenues out of these other areas from millionaires, from the oil industry, and from others, do not expect us to say to Grandma it's her fault. It's not her fault. She built this country. She deserves this benefit. And we should not be cutting it. This Republican plan to end Medicare is just something that wants to turn it over to the insurance industry. Vote ``no'' on the Republican plan.