Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. The language which is in question here is language which was spurred by Mr. Barton and I in 1999 as part of the consideration of the Gramm- Leach-Bliley bill. The language for privacy, none had been included in the Senate and none had been included in the rest of the process. But as the bill came to the Energy and Commerce Committee in 1999, Mr. Barton and I, we added privacy language, believing that as companies are able to consolidate banking records, insurance records, brokerage records, the physical examinations of customers and their medical secrets, that there should be privacy here. We were no longer talking about just going into a bank and having old Mr. Wentworth there that you and your family had known your entire life, and you trusted Mr. Wentworth, and there was actually a whole long family history. That is no longer the case. We are now basically living in a world where we have moved from an era of privacy keepers to privacy peepers and data- mining reapers trying to create profiles of people, using all of their financial information as a way of basically making their companies more efficient, but simultaneously compromising the privacy of families all across our country. So, while ultimately the language which Mr. Barton and I included on the House side in Gramm-Leach-Bliley was watered down in the final compromise, that's the privacy that's in the bill. So, one of the things, of course, that I believed and Mr. Barton believed was that people should get the information that their privacy could be compromised by these now huge mega-banks. So what this bill is saying is, you don't have to notify people of that each year. You don't have to tell them. If they didn't figure that out when the bank first signed you up as a company, they never have to tell you again because they notified you once right there in the beginning. Ladies and gentlemen, the amount of information which we get at home from these banks, massive, as you know. You open up your mailbox every day, and there's like 25 solicitations from financial institutions all across the country. They've got loads of money to do that, loads of money. You look at their TV commercials, loads of money. ``You're in safe hands when you give your family's wealth over to this financial institution.'' But if you ask them to just provide a scintilla of information on what privacy rights they have in terms of protecting all of their family secrets inside of that financial information, the banks say, Oh, no, that's too expensive. We can't do that. How can you afford that? So this just gets right back to the same argument that we had during Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the same exact debate, the same exact terms. And all I can tell you is, there's a looming privacy catastrophe coming in this country. People just don't understand the full consequences of what this new cyberworld makes possible in terms of the compromise of information. You know, when you're writing out the information to buy the Ritalin for your child, that's a check that the bank has. There it is. You haven't told anyone else in your family that you have a daughter who needs it. All of this has to be told to the public on an ongoing basis. I urge a ``no'' vote on this suspension.

Mr. MARKEY. For the record, for anyone who's listening, the American Civil Liberties Union opposes this; the American Library Association opposes this; the Consumer Union opposes this; the Liberty Coalition opposes this; and the Coalition for Patient Privacy opposes this. And the reason is this: You signed up with a bank 10 years ago-- Megabank Inc. They sent you a privacy notice. Then every year for the next 10 years, they buy a new entity that locks right in as an affiliate. And you've already signed off on everything they do, but they don't have to notify you that this new entity, this new affiliate is going to have a totally new use for that information. But you are supposed to have already been notified in 2002. Moreover, ladies and gentlemen, why can't they just email this notice each year to people? Why can't they just email it to people? ``Here's your privacy.'' And every year it goes out. No tree is chopped down. There is nothing done that affects the environment. Everybody just gets the email each year. ``Here are your privacy rights.'' And it goes in a separate email so that everyone is really getting the opportunity to single it out. It doesn't cost anything. It gives everyone all the information they need.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman so much for holding this special session. Mr. Speaker, I was elected to Congress 36 years ago. And on my first day in Congress, my first vote in Congress in January of 1977 was a vote for who would be the Speaker of the House. The Republicans were all going to vote for John Rhodes, a very good man. The Democrats were going to vote for Tip O'Neill. The tradition is that on that first vote, on that first day, the Member has to stand to actually say the name of the person for whom they are voting. So the first word I ever uttered on the floor of the House, standing at my chair at the top of my voice was just saying one word, O'Neill. And with that, I had voted for Tip O'Neill to begin his first term as Speaker of the House. He was a wage-and-hour Democrat. He was a Social Security Democrat, but he could work with Ronald Reagan to save Social Security. He was a man committed to ending the nuclear arms race, and he led that fight here on the House floor; but he did so while ensuring that there would be a complete preservation of the security of the United States of America. He always asked two questions on every issue out here on the House floor: Is it fair, and does it work? And he said that if it could not pass that two-part test, then it should not become a law in the United States of America. He passed a comprehensive energy plan off the floor of this House, protected Social Security, and advanced so many other issues. In my opinion, Tip O'Neill was the Albert Einstein of politics. He knew what it took in order to make this institution work. He knew what it took to reach across the aisle to find people of goodwill, to make this Chamber work, and to advance the agenda for this country. So for me, it's a great honor to be here because buildings, as we name them, also embody that person. And it is my hope that as people walk in and out of this building in the 21st century that they think about who Tip O'Neill was, they think about--yes, how much he loved political war; but at the same time, he brought his own personal warmth to that so that it was not separated here on the House floor. And it's my hope that in naming this building, perhaps this process, this great institution can be animated by his great legacy.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment is going to call for 25 percent of the electricity in the United States being generated by renewables by the year 2035. The United States, excluding hydro, is already up to 7 or 8 percent of all of our electricity generated by renewables here in 2012. So, 23 years from now, the goal would be to reach 25 percent. Now, why do I feel compelled to bring this amendment out here? Well, while the Republicans say that there's a war on coal, so far in this first year and 9 months that they have controlled the United States Congress, they have declared war on solar; they have declared war on wind; they have declared war on all renewables. That's why I bring this amendment down here to the House floor. They are going to kill the production tax credit for wind energy that is going to send the wind industry off a cliff next year. Already, 2,367 jobs have been lost in the wind industry because of Republican action. Forty thousand jobs will be lost next year because of Republican action. They are out to deliberately kill these jobs. How many will be lost? Three thousand to 4,000 jobs in Pennsylvania will be lost; 4,000 to 5,000 jobs in Colorado will be lost; 5,000 to 6,000 wind jobs will be lost in Ohio; 6,000 to 7,000 wind jobs will be lost in Iowa if the Republican policy is allowed to be put on the books. They have declared war on wind. They have declared war on solar, on geothermal, on biomass. Ladies and gentlemen, what my amendment does is say let's have a plan for everything else because it's not going to be a part of the Republican plan. So, by the year 2035, 25 percent of all electricity in our country must come from renewables. Now, how do we know this is possible? There were 12,000 new megawatts of wind installed in the United States this year; 3,200 new megawatts of solar installed in the United States this year. So, geothermal, biomass, it's all growing. What's their goal? Kill it. That's their problem. Natural gas is rising. It hurts the coal industry. It's the marketplace. Wind and solar are growing, geothermal and biomass are growing. They don't want a level playing field. They want to pick winners and losers. They want to pick favorites. That's what it's all about. So far in their control of the Congress in just a year and 9 months, they have voted to slash research and development for wind and solar, they have voted to end loan guarantees for wind and solar, they have voted to kill the transmission wires to carry wind and solar to our homes and our offices. The Republicans are so opposed to Americans having access to clean energy that even when it is built they don't even want to have the transmission lines to get it to American homes. It's a war on solar and wind. My amendment ensures that there is a pathway to the future for the most abundant American energy source, wind and solar, geothermal and biomass. It's all here in America. At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. If I may inquire from the Chairman, is the majority saying that there is only one speaker remaining on their side?

Mr. MARKEY. Then I will yield myself the balance of my time. Wind and solar is the most abundant source of energy in the United States--when we capture it. Einstein won his Nobel Prize in 1921, the only one that won a Nobel Prize, and that's on how to capture the power of the sun. And now we're on the cusp of doing this successfully as the price per kilowatt hour drops and drops--and then it's all American. And who is now looming over our shoulder, even though we invented these technologies, even though we're producing these technologies, are the Chinese, the Indians, and others who will pounce on this global opportunity to create the jobs here in the United States, to export this technology around the world even as we deploy the technology here in our country that backs out the energy sources from around the rest of the world. This is what they fear. They fear the innovation. They fear the change. They fear our ability to capture wind and solar to be able to power the vehicles which we drive in our country, to be able to send up a cleaner source of energy up into the sky that does not pollute. That's what this battle is all about. We do not want special advantage. All we want is a level playing field. The Republicans continue this war against wind and solar. Vote ``aye'' for the Markey amendment, 25 percent renewable electricity by the year 2035. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield? That is not accurate.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I actually have no problem with the gentleman's amendment. If he wants to require the publication of scientific studies used to develop regulations, I am just fine with that. I'm sure he knows, of course, that this is already a Federal requirement, but I don't object to the redundancy of an amendment's passing that says they should do something that they do already. But I do want to take a moment to talk about the Republican war on science, because this bill that we are debating today is their battle plan. The essence of today's bill is that science and facts do not matter and that, when science and facts become inconvenient, we can just repeal them. Take the provision of this bill that legislatively overturns a scientific finding that greenhouse gas pollution is dangerous, which is a decision that was made based on 2 full years of work and on a 200- page synthesis of major scientific assessments, including assessments performed by the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report. In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington recently rejected challenges to EPA's scientific endangerment finding, saying that EPA used an ``ocean of evidence'' to support its decision that it was ``unambiguously correct'' in its determination and that ``EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.'' Republicans decided that peer-reviewed science was inconvenient because that analysis was what started the pretend ``war on coal.'' So we have to vote again and again and again to eliminate all of that science. This bill tells EPA to ignore the science that air pollution causes lung disease and that mercury damages children's developing brains. In fact, it tells EPA, Don't even look at the science; look at the costs. If controlling air pollution is expensive, then we shouldn't do it even if it would save lives. It says, no matter what EPA learns about the sludge that comes out of coal-fired power plants, no matter how high the concentrations of poisonous arsenic, mercury or chromium and that no matter what EPA learns about how these materials find their way into our drinking water, EPA is not allowed to scientifically determine that material to be hazardous. This bill turns a blind eye to science. The only time Republicans value science is when science can be used as a weapon. When science can be used to delay regulations, when endless analysis can be used to create paralysis, the Republicans suddenly value science. The Republican majority doesn't like that every respected scientific entity over the last decade has concluded that greenhouse gases cause climate change. Their solution: repeal the science. Republicans aren't happy that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has issued a report that finds that formaldehyde causes cancer. Sure, the World Health Organization already determined that 17 years ago. Their solution: We should study it again. We should allow a National Academy of Sciences review so that we can prevent the administration from taking any action to protect the public against dangerous formaldehyde. In fact, there has already been a rider to the health appropriations bill that does just that, while also stripping funding for any subsequent reports on cancer. It is a strategy taken right out of the American Chemical Council's playbook. It is act one of Big Coal's comedy of errors. We've seen it over and over again on the House floor: first deny the science; second, delay the regulations by legislating a new scientific study to review the first science the industry doesn't like; and third, deter efforts to protect the health and security of millions of Americans by requiring yet another third party to review the scientific study that was just legislated and postponing regulatory action until after that is complete. This bill isn't about the war on coal. It's about the Republicans' war on science. That's why we're out here. It continues unabated today. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this bill. The Republicans are saying that there is a war on coal, but the only battle coal is losing is in the free market--to natural gas, to wind and to solar. Just 4 years ago, coal generated 51 percent of the electricity in the United States. Now it is down to 35 percent. When you add up hydropower, the renewables, natural gas, and the other gases, you get 44 percent of our electricity sector. Just like Governor Romney says he has given up on 47 percent of Americans, the House Republicans have given up on 44 percent of our electricity sector. Just like their politics grips tightly to the past, their energy policies hold fast to the energy technologies and the fuels of yesterday, like coal and oil. The free market has been replacing coal with natural gas, which has grown from 21 percent of our electricity generation back in 2005 and 2006, and has now risen to 30 percent of all electrical generation in the United States. Natural gas. It's not a war, it's a revolution. What has happened is, simultaneously, coal has come down to 35 percent. Surprising, isn't it? The numbers look like they match up pretty perfectly, especially if you add up the rise from 1 percent to 4 percent of the electricity in the United States which has been generated by wind over the last 5 years. That's what's happening, ladies and gentlemen. All the rest of this I don't understand, to be honest with you. It's almost like the Republicans are rejecting the free market as it is now operating as the country is moving to natural gas. I understand the coal State Members have to stand up and defend this change in the marketplace, but I don't understand why my other Republican friends would reject those free market principles. Why is this switch from coal to natural gas happening? It's because natural gas is cheaper. Natural gas prices have decreased by 66 percent since 2008. It is cheaper to produce new electricity from natural gas than from coal. This isn't a conspiracy--it is a competition--but Republicans say that there is a war on coal. Well, in a market sense, that war is now being won. When I was a boy, I had to go down into the basement with my father to shovel the coal. That's how we kept our house warm. Then my mother said let's move to home heating oil, and so my father had the home heating oil come. That was a revolution. And now there is another revolution going on. Up in the Northeast, for example, because of the low price of natural gas, 1.4 million Northeast households have switched from oil to natural gas over the last decade. And why is that? Again, it costs $2,238 to heat your home through the winter with home heating oil, and it costs $629 to heat your home with natural gas. That's why they're switching. The same thing is happening in the petrochemical industry. They're switching from oil over to natural gas. In the fertilizer industry, they're switching from oil over to natural gas. The price is low. They are moving in that direction. That's the larger story that is occurring--the natural gas revolution in the United States of America. So, ladies and gentlemen, I just urge all of you to understand that this is not the Obama administration in a war against coal. That is not what is going on. There is a paranoia-inducing, Darwinian marketplace revolution that is taking place--led by natural gas, followed by wind-- that is changing the makeup of the electricity marketplace in our country. Only when you understand and admit this will we be able to have a real debate out here, because all the rest of this is really just meant to be political, in order to harm the President in the election of 2012, when the real harm to coal is being done in the marketplace. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Mr. MARKEY. I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. With just 1 more day left until Congress recesses until the election, the Republican majority has decided that, instead of dealing with real problems facing Americans by passing a jobs package dealing with the looming fiscal cliff or providing tax certainty to middle class families, we will instead debate a bill that deals with an imaginary war on coal, fabricated by Republicans in order to justify their real war on the environment, the most anti-environment Congress in history. In reality, this bill just represents a war on us. It's the Republicans in Congress making clear that their priority is not protecting the well-being of the American people. The Republican majority has already acted on four out of the five titles in this bill, and the Senate has rejected every single one of them. The President has vowed to veto every single one of them. The only new title that is presented is one aimed at preventing the administration from moving forward with a rule that does not yet even exist, that would limit coal mining companies from dumping tons of their toxic mining waste directly into streams and rivers. The ironic part is that, according to CBO, this bill won't even prevent the administration from doing that. But it does prevent the administration from undertaking any action that would ensure that mountaintop mining operations are safe for workers and safe for the health of those who live and work nearby. Mr. Chairman, I would like to, at this point, reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. So the Republicans say that this legislation is all about creating jobs. They say that we will save money by passing this disastrous bill. But the numbers just don't add up. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, mountaintop mining has already buried nearly 2,000 miles of streams with mining waste that leaches dangerous heavy metals into that water. One study puts the cost of reclaiming a stream impacted by this type of mining at as much as $800 per linear foot. If we do a little arithmetic, $800 multiplied by 5,280 feet in 1 mile, multiplied by the 2,000 miles of streams already buried, that's $8.5 billion. That's what it would cost to clean that up. And that's just to clean up the streams that have already been decimated. But that's not the only cost included in this provision. We also have the cost to health, the cost to children. Studies have shown that communities located near mountaintop mining sites have as much as a 42 percent increase in infants born with birth defects. These communities also have a 16 percent higher risk of giving birth to a child with low birth weight, a factor that is closely associated with fetal death, inhibited cognitive development, and chronic diseases later in life. And that's not all. Communities located near mountaintop mining sites also have significantly higher rates of lung disease, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and a higher likelihood that these diseases will kill them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Could I inquire from the Chair how much time is remaining on either side?

Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the remainder of my time. While it is impossible to put a dollar figure completely on the suffering that those families will feel, one study has put the public health burden from premature deaths in the Appalachian communities at $74 billion per year. Now, that's arithmetic that even Governor Romney would understand. In fact, when he was Governor of the great State of Massachusetts, he stood in front of a coal plant, and here's what he said. He said, ``I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant kills people.'' My amendment is simple. It says, if the Secretary of the Interior is allowed to issue a rule that would protect pregnant women and children from adverse reproductive outcomes or birth defects or would reduce the prevalence of cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease or lung cancer, that that rule can go into effect. I urge all Members of this body to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is a tremendous revolution going on in the United States right now that the Kelly amendment would cut right to the heart of. Between 2017 and 2025, as fuel economy standards in America would rise to 54.5 miles per gallon just because of those additional 8 years of higher fuel economy standards, we would back 2 million additional barrels of oil per day out of the United States. How much is that? Well, let me just give you an idea. There is conversation about whether or not there might be a war with Iran. Well, the United States imports 1.8 million barrels of oil per day out of the Persian Gulf, 1.8 million barrels a day. This amendment would kill the efforts, which the auto industry has accepted, to back out 2 million barrels of oil per day by increasing the fuel economy standards between 2017 and 2025. This is one of the most anti-national security amendments that we could ever have out here on the House floor. Combined with the dramatic increase in CO2 that would go into the atmosphere--an additional 6 billion metric tons of CO2 would go up into the atmosphere if this amendment passed. Now, how much CO2 is that? That's as much CO2 as the entire United States emitted in the year 2010 in our country. If you look at these two issues in combination, you look at the fact that the auto workers endorsed the increase in fuel economy standards, the auto industry endorses the increase in fuel economy standards, it's not unlike this myth that's been created that it's anything other than the marketplace that is the problem that the coal industry is principally having with natural gas coming as a substitute across the country, and the petrochemical industry, and the utility industry, and consumers choosing it for home heating rather than oil. Well, the same thing is happening here. Where's the problem? Who wants this change? The auto industry doesn't want it. The auto workers don't want it. Clearly it's a huge national security issue. And the auto industry enjoyed last year and is repeating this year record sales as their fuel economy standards go up. So I would just say that if you care about national security, you really don't want to change the law tonight that backs out 2 million barrels of oil per day, that the industry that is living under the regulation supports. That makes no sense at all as we're getting briefed in secret this afternoon about al Qaeda all across the Middle East, all across North Africa. Why would we do this? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady. Republicans are saying that there is a war on coal. They even named this bill the End the War on Coal Act. But the only battle coal is losing is in the free market to natural gas, to wind, to solar. Just 4 years ago, coal generated 51 percent of our electricity. Now it is down to 35 percent of our electricity. Have the lights gone off? No. And that's because coal has been replaced in the free market by natural gas, which has risen from 21 percent to 30 percent of all electrical generation in our country. And by the way, the same thing is true for wind. Wind has gone from 1 percent of electrical generation to 4 percent of electrical generation. That's your answer. That's what's happening. The marketplace has moved to natural gas--another fossil fuel, by the way--and wind. And why have they done so? Natural gas is cheaper than coal. It's more plentiful now because of fracking technologies. And the market has moved. What is happening? What is happening is that natural gas prices have gone down 66 percent in the last 4 years. That is the shift from coal over to natural gas. That's the arithmetic. You're a consumer, you see a product, it does the same thing as the other product, and it's dropped 66 percent in price. The arithmetic says I go and get that product if it's going to ensure that my home is heated, that my air conditioning goes on. It's just arithmetic. Coal is losing to natural gas. So when the Republicans say there is a war on coal, in a market sense, yes, there is a war. In the same sense that when we started carrying BlackBerries, it was a war on the black rotary-dial phone; in the same sense that when we started using Macs and PCs, it was a war on typewriters; in the same sense that the horseless carriage was a war on horses; in the same sense that refrigerators were a war on salted meats; in the same sense that the telegraph was a war on carrier pigeons. These aren't wars. It's innovation. It's competition. It's natural gas versus coal. All we're saying as Democrats is let the free market work. You're here saying, No, protectionism. Protectionism against the natural gas industry winning this battle in the marketplace. By the way, natural gas is also winning the battle in the marketplace against home heating oil. Tens of thousands of people are shifting from home heating oil over to natural gas. Why? It's cheaper. The same thing is true in the production of petrochemicals and fertilizers. Industries are moving away from oil as the component part of moving over to natural gas. Why is that? It is cheaper. It's across-the-board. Do you understand this, Republicans? It's arithmetic. It's simple. It's easy to understand. It's not the policies of the Obama administration. If you want to blame someone, blame Adam Smith for the ruthless, Darwinian, paranoia-inducing market system that we've adopted where utilities and private citizens and the petrochemical industry move toward a product which is cheaper, more available here in the United States, a domestic industry that is here. Instead, this is a Republican Congress which has 302 anti- environmental votes, which they've cast in just a year and 8 months. That's 302 anti-environmental votes. That's what they're all about. This whole thing is an excuse to lower the protection against pollution coming from coal that damages the health of children, the health of our environment all across our country, when they're just losing a battle to natural gas in the marketplace. They get an F on Medicare this Congress, F on tax breaks, F on jobs, F on urgent priorities, F on women, and an F on environment. It's just an excuse because they don't like what is going on in the marketplace. And it's a shame because they tout themselves as that party. Simultaneously, you know what they do? They're killing the wind tax break--killing it because it's up to 4 percent of electricity and keeping the exact same amount in for ExxonMobil and the oil companies to produce oil. Now how can you call that a plan of all-of-the-above? All of this tilts the playing field, tilts the competition in the marketplace. You can't give tax breaks to oil and take them away from wind and say you're all-of-the-above. You can't say you want to tilt the playing field toward coal as natural gas is winning in the marketplace and say you're in favor of all-of-the-above. You are not. You are not. So, ladies and gentlemen, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on these bills as they come to the floor of the House. It is anti-market policy on steroids as they bring it out here on the House floor.