Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining?

Mr. MARKEY. Let me just say this again, don't quote me. I'm going to give you Dan Akerson, the CEO of General Motors. This is what he said about the standards that this amendment would repeal here tonight: Not only would it end our ability to back out 2 million barrels of oil a day that we would import from the Persian Gulf, but the CEO of General Motors says that these standards were a ``win for American manufacturers.'' Hear what I'm saying? The CEO of General Motors said these regulations are a win for the manufacturers of automobiles in the United States. It's not my quote. That's the CEO of General Motors. What's good for General Motors is good for America. I don't know if you've ever heard that. But let me tell you, he's not alone. It's also Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar, Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota, Volvo, as well as the United Auto Workers, the State of California consumer groups, and environmental organizations. Everyone agrees on this. So where is the opposition coming from? Who doesn't like this? Why are we having a debate here? There's no point in trying to repeal something that enhances dramatically our national security, saves consumers--because it will be 54.5 miles a gallon by the time it ends. That means since the car goes twice as far on a gallon, instead of $4 a gallon, it's only $2 a gallon. That's a big savings for everyone every time they fill up their tank. We know that the technology is there because that's every ad that we see on television every night now. It's for the new hybrid. It's for the new technology that they're all touting. So it's all there. The industry supports these regulations that they're seeking to repeal. So it's just ideological. They don't like the government. The Republican paradox is they don't like the government, but they have to come to Washington in order to make sure it doesn't work. Here, the private sector says it's working. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. MARKEY. My amendment is very simple: If you want to keep America on its current path towards North American energy independence by 2020, then let us ensure that EPA uses the authority to reduce demand for oil that this bill rescinds. In 1985, after the first-ever fuel economy standards mandated by Congress were implemented, we imported only a quarter of our oil. But after the Republicans and the auto industry spent decades blocking further standards from being set, that number skyrocketed to a staggering 57 percent of our oil being imported on the day in 2009 when George Bush walked out of the White House. We were importing 57 percent of our oil. And remember, we put 70 percent of all the oil we consume in our country into gasoline tanks. Well, 57 percent is a lot to be dependent upon foreign oil, especially at this perilous time in our Nation's history--paid for with money that supports Iran's nuclear program, roadside bombs in Iraq, rockets for Hezbollah and Hamas, and hate-filled Wahhabi teachings in Saudi Arabia. We broke that destructive cycle when the Democrats passed, and to his credit, President Bush signed, the 2007 energy bill that included the energy bill that I coauthored to require new fuel economy standards to be set. President Obama accelerated the implementation and used the Clean Air Act to require additional reductions in demand for oil, and we are now back down to importing only 45 percent of our oil. Got that arithmetic? Fifty-seven percent imported oil on the day George Bush walked out of the White House in January 2009 and 45 percent dependence today. Good job, President Obama. Let's stay on that path. That was not accomplished by launching a war on the auto industry, because 13 major auto companies support these standards. The unions support the standards, environmental organizations. By repealing these standards, Republicans have launched a war against every single resident of this country whose hard-earned paycheck gets poured into their gas tanks and have to pay for the defense budget to have all of that protection over in the Middle East to ensure that that oil from that dangerous part of the world comes into our country. And let's be very clear: If the Obama administration is allowed to continue with all of its energy policies, we will be 95 to 99 percent North American energy independent by the year 2020. That is something we should not get off the path for. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Again, let me make this very clear. The increase in the fuel economy standards that we're debating here were the fuel economy standards that George W. Bush signed into law in December of 2007. That was George W. Bush. The increase in the fuel economy standards that we're talking about here tonight are all supported by General Motors and Ford, all the major 13 auto manufacturers in the United States. The standards that we're talking about that the Republicans want to repeal are supported by the United Auto Workers and by all of the major environmental groups. Where is the fight? It's George Bush and General Motors and the environmental groups. You are all saying that you want Washington to work. You're all saying you want partisanship to be put aside. How can you look past something here that is the perfect example of how the whole system should work? You know, Bill Clinton said it right at the Democratic convention. It's all about the arithmetic. The D in the automobile is to drive forward; the R is for the reverse. The R's are the Republicans; the D's want to continue to move forward. They're trying to put this country in reverse here tonight, reverse a consensus that was established when George Bush was President that we had to do something about imported oil, and this is the act that we all agreed that we had to take. So what does this legislation portend for our country? Well, jobs saved: 1 million plus; gas pump savings: double the gas mileage means the consumers' costs are cut in half no matter where they drive in these new, more efficient vehicles; and energy independence. When it's all said in done, it's 3.1 million barrels of oil per day, and we can tell the Middle East we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand. I'm missing something in this debate. I still haven't heard why you would want to repeal something that helps our country on so many fronts and at the same time reduces, by 6 billion metric tons, the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere that is dangerously warming our planet while America is going to sell 14 million new vehicles this year, the most since 2007, since the recession started, under this new law. I urge adoption of the Markey amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. If I may inquire, I do not think that that objection was, in fact, made in a timely fashion, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Chair. I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say that this amendment just makes a terrible bill even worse. The bill requires a new interagency committee to conduct an impossible study of EPA rules that haven't even been proposed using data that doesn't even exist. This amendment requires additional nonexistent information to be included in the study. My colleague's amendment would require an interagency committee to examine what he calls the health effects of regulatory costs. This is ironic since the Republicans have shown little interest in discussing the health effects of the legislative monstrosity which we are debating today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would prevent EPA from using important high-quality scientific research when setting standards to protect public health and save lives. This amendment establishes an entirely new requirement when EPA sets national ambient air quality standards--the scientific health- based standards that essentially tell us how much pollution is safe to breathe. Under this amendment, EPA cannot use any study in setting these air quality standards unless the study's underlying data has been made public. Why is this a problem? Because data sets underlying peer-reviewed scientific studies are the private property of the scientists that gathered them. In many cases, those data sets may include confidential business information, or personal information such as an individual's health records. And the public availability of underlying data is not relevant to the quality of a study. Publication of data sets is not required by peer review journals and such publication is not a common practice in the scientific community. EPA cannot require scientists to give up their private property when they publish their peer-reviewed studies, so in many cases this amendment would block EPA from using relevant, high-quality studies. This policy has long been on the industry's wish list, and we just have to make sure that we don't make it possible for them to put it on the books as a law. This is not because of the data quality concerns or transparency concerns, but because all of these studies conclusively show that air pollution kills people, which is the very subject they do not want to be able to debate. This is a very dangerous amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to level the playing field for wind energy and for the guarantee of American jobs coming out of this No More Solyndras Act. This is the final amendment to this bill. It will not kill the bill. It will not send the bill back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. My motion will ensure that we will only give tens of billions of dollars worth of loan guarantees that are authorized under this No More Solyndras Act as long as we will also avoid raising taxes on the wind industry by $4 billion a year, which is what is going to happen if we allow the production tax credit to expire at the end of this year. What is already happening in the wind industry? Well, ladies and gentlemen, the wind industry says that we are going to lose 40,000 jobs next year in the wind industry. What has already happened in the last 2 months? Jobs are already being lost in this country because the Republicans are allowing the production tax credit for wind to expire even as they authorize these tens of billions of dollars of new projects for nuclear, for coal. We're not saying that wind should be treated separately, specially. All we want is equal treatment for wind--equal treatment. What's happening in Iowa? Last month, Clipper Wind Company lost 174 jobs in Iowa--gone. Last week, Gamesa, with 165 jobs in Pennsylvania-- gone. This past Tuesday, Molded Fiber Glass in South Dakota, with 92 jobs in the wind industry--gone. By this time next year, 40,000 jobs in the wind industry--gone. There are 1,700 jobs already gone, and we are on our way to 40,000 jobs lost in the wind industry. That's part one of this amendment. What is the second part of the amendment? The second part says, if the Republicans are going to authorize these tens of billions of loan guarantees in this No More Solyndras Act, then 75 percent of all of the equipment made under these loan guarantees is to be made here in America and with American workers making that equipment under their bill. If we are going to be doing this, make it in America, and 75 percent of all the equipment should come from our country. Why is this amendment even necessary? Well, when the Ryan budget came out here on the House floor in February of 2011, one month after they took over, the Ryan budget cut clean energy by 90 percent. What happened in April out here on the House floor? They cut wind and solar by $17 billion and kept in all of the money for nuclear and coal. That's not a level playing field. That's going after wind. That's going after solar. In this bill, what do they do? Basically, what they say is they can keep in $88.5 billion for nuclear and for coal loan guarantees, but for wind and solar, we're sorry. What we are saying in this amendment is let's have a level playing field. Let's make sure that wind is given the opportunity to flourish in the marketplace. Let's not tilt the playing field so that wind is a guaranteed loser in Iowa, in Pennsylvania, in Colorado, in States all across this country which are right now facing a 40,000 job loss. That's what this is all about. Don't give $4 billion a year to the oil industry and say that it can't be touched and at the same time cut $4 billion from the wind industry, which is an industry that created 12,000 new megawatts of electricity in our country this year. So this amendment is very simple. It says keep the $4 billion for the wind industry so that we don't lose 40,000 wind jobs in the next 6 months in State after State after State in our country--States that are already beginning to see those losses--and let's make sure that 75 percent of all of the equipment that's made under this loan guarantee program is made by American workers here in the United States. Vote ``yes'' for this recommittal motion. Make it here in America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. MARKEY. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

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

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from California, and I compliment the gentleman from California on his fight on this issue because we're right down to something, which is one of the greatest political frauds of all time being perpetrated here on the House floor. It is a monument to the political cynicism of the Republican Party that we have such a bill out here on the floor today. It is a tribute to the control that the fossil fuel and nuclear industry now has over the Republican Party. We have a bill out here on the House floor which purports to make sure that the program which gave loans to Solyndra is ended. The name of the bill is No More Solyndras, meaning no more Federal loans to these speculative energy projects, which could ultimately wind up taking money out of the pockets of American taxpayers. That's what they say they are doing. No more Solyndras, meaning end that program. But what does their bill do? Well, their bill says no more Solyndras, but it should be amended to say the only $88.4 billion more for nuclear and coal no more Solyndras act of 2012, because what the Republicans do is that they grandfather in all of these applications, $75.6 billion for nuclear, $11.9 billion for coal, 88.4 billion for nuclear and coal. Now, it will be one thing if they were saying, ah, but we have made a determination that the solar industry, the wind industry--that's risky. But the nuclear industry, oh, that's just the safest industry ever-- except for one thing. When this program was put on the books in 2005, it was Pete Domenici from New Mexico who put the program on the books in order to provide a crutch for the nuclear industry. Then when the Bush administration was even apprehensive about giving out any loans, the Republicans then began to pressure the Bush administration to give out loans to the nuclear industry, which it did not want to d0. Senator Domenici actually put a hold on former Congressman Nussle even being named to the head of the OMB until he promised he was going to give out loans to the nuclear industry. That's the history of this program: nuclear, nuclear, nuclear. The last year the Republicans were in control of the House and the Senate, what did they do? Well, in the loan guarantee program, they left in $32 billion for nuclear and coal and cut out the $17 billion in loan guarantees for wind and solar. Get the picture? Nuclear, coal-- they like it. Wind and solar--they hate it. To be more clear about it, the nuclear and the coal industry hate it because wind and solar are taking off across this country: 12,000 new megawatts of wind this year; 3,200 new megawatts of solar this year. It is taking off as these other two industries are going down. This level playing field was just too much, too much for the Republicans. Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so quickly that he would qualify for a new energy tax break under the Republican program. That's how crazy all of this is. Get to the bottom line. I made an amendment in the committee. I said, okay, Solyndra lost $535 million. You can see the crocodile tears how concerned they are about this loan guarantee program. So I said okay, no energy loan guarantee recipient who lost more than $540 million last year is eligible for a loan guarantee. Now, what I was talking about, the United States Enrichment Corporation, a nuclear company that last year and this year has been put on the warning list to be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange, which S&P and Moody's have dropped down to junk bond status, and the Republicans are saying they are so concerned about the standards.

Mr. MARKEY. Here is a company basically teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, with the Federal Government already having given it, that company, an additional $1 billion from Federal taxpayers to keep it afloat. The Republicans all voted ``no.'' We're not going to set up any standards. We're not going to have any rules. When the Southern Company wanted $8 billion for two nuclear power plants, even though it's $1 billion over cost already, the Republicans say no problem, it's nuclear. So this is a pretty clear line here. It's an all-out assault on solar and wind, all-out. It's been going on for a year and a half. This is the next installment; it's all about the future. They're locked into the past, the Republican Party, that old way that has failed. As this new marketplace has opened up, they are doing everything they can to undermine that new future of solar and wind while tilting the playing field so that nuclear and coal continue to qualify for Federal taxpayer subsidies. Vote ``no'' on this only $88.4 billion dollars more for nuclear and fossil no more Solyndras act.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, in the history of this whole program, it was started for the nuclear industry. Pete Domenici, 2005. Why? Because there hadn't been a new nuclear power plant built in 30 years out in the free market so they needed the Federal Government to come in and prop it up on crutches. That's the only way it would work. So when President Obama took over, he said, Well, maybe we should do something for solar as well. Of course, the coal industry, the oil industry, the nuclear industry, they recoiled in fear that there would actually be competition in the marketplace. When one solar company got in trouble, the Republicans pounced on solar. They pounced on wind. They pounced. That's why, by the way, the Republicans are going to allow the wind tax breaks to expire this year, but they're going to keep all of the oil tax breaks on the books. So here we are today and they have something called the No More Solyndras Act. Ah. Except for the $88 billion that they're going to grandfather in in terms of the application date that they have selected. So, who qualifies for that? Well, $76.5 billion would be the nuclear industry, $11.9 billion would be the coal industry. Ah, I get it now. It's not the No More Solyndras Act; it's the ``Only $88.4 Billion More for Nuclear and Coal No More Solyndras Act of 2012.'' It's just the same kind of tilted playing field that the Republicans have always had. Nuclear, oil, coal, great. Wind and solar finally getting going--12,000 new megawatts of wind installed in the United States this year; 3,200 megawatts of solar installed in the United States this year--that puts the fear of the marketplace in the coal and the nuclear and the oil industry brain. So that's why we're out here with this ``kill solar and save nuclear and coal'' with this incredible amount of money. Now, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, I had an amendment that I requested the Rules Committee put in place, and that is that if your company last year lost $540 million or more, you could not qualify for a loan guarantee. Remember, Solyndra lost $538 million, so I picked $540 million. And if your company is on the verge of being delisted by the New York Stock Exchange and has already reached junk bond status with S&P's and Moody's, come on, you cannot qualify. I mean, come on. We're not having Federal taxpayer money go to companies on the verge of being delisted and that have already reached junk bond status. They all voted ``no'' in the committee. When I had my amendment put up before the Rules Committee, they rejected it. Now, why did they reject it? Because the United States Enrichment Corporation lost $540 million last year; it's on the verge of being delisted on the stock exchange; it's reached junk bond status; but yet nuclear will qualify. So I said, well, we can't invest in that kind of a company. As the gentleman from Massachusetts said, the same thing is true for buying American. If we're going to have these loan guarantees, let's at least make sure that they are American jobs. They wouldn't put that amendment in order as well. This whole issue here is basically one of this favored oil-above-all agenda, not all of the above--not when you say tax breaks for oil companies continue and wind companies die; not when you have loan guarantees that continue on for nuclear and coal, but not for wind, not for solar. It's just so transparent. It's just arithmetic, ladies and gentlemen. Solyndra loses 538, the Enrichment Corporation--nuclear-- loses 540. The arithmetic is pretty simple: They both should not qualify. But not these guys, no, no.

Mr. MARKEY. Not these guys, oh, no--no, no, no, because it's not marketplace. There's no rhyme or reason to it until you start to think about what has always been their agenda. That has always been the fossil fuel industry agenda. I would abolish the entire program. You want to abolish this program? Abolish it. Put the vote out here, I'll vote for it. Get rid of the loan guarantee program, then let solar and wind and nuclear and coal and oil all compete in the free marketplace for private capital investment. You want to know what that would do? It would put the fear of Adam Smith in the heart of the nuclear industry because they would receive no private investment, none. It takes the Federal Government providing a crutch. So it then requires the Republican Party to take away the loan guarantees for the competition. Well, they're giving the loan guarantees, Federal taxpayer loan guarantees, to industries that otherwise could not get any money in the private sector. The United States Enrichment Corporation can't get any private sector investment. Nuclear power industry, this loan guarantee program--two for $8 billion for a program that is already $1 billion over the two Vogtle plants in Georgia. The whole thing is bad arithmetic for the American taxpayer.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. As Americans watch their Olympic favorites this week, House Republicans are handing out gold medals to all their favorites right out here on the House floor. In London, speed, agility, and strength determines who gets the gold. But in the Republican-controlled House, it's the wealthiest Americans and the most profitable corporations who secure all of the gold medals. Two weeks ago, Republicans awarded the gold to America's defense contractors by actually increasing defense spending. Despite sequestration, despite our ballooning deficit, despite the looming fiscal cliff, they increased defense spending. Then last week, oil companies scored a gold medal by securing new drilling rights off of America's coastline, off of our beaches in California and New England and Maryland to drill. And the Republicans refused yet again, even though Big Oil's margin of victory was enormous on that issue, Republicans refused to end $4 billion in annual tax breaks to the oil companies we cannot afford, despite the fact that the oil companies made $137 billion in profits last year, the most profitable industry in the history of the planet. And today, it's millionaires and billionaires who will cross the finish line and secure the biggest gold medal of all, as the Republicans double down on the Bush tax cuts by rewriting the Tax Code to include $331,000 in additional tax cuts for the average millionaire in this country, a tax break they do not need and America cannot afford. House Republicans are setting a world record in rigging the tax system for the ultra-rich while cutting middle class priorities like education and investing in good American jobs. The big losers in the Republican Olympics: the middle class, whose taxes will go up. The middle class, where the Medicare guarantee for millions of seniors will ultimately be destroyed. The big losers: investment in finding cures for Alzheimer's and cancer and Parkinson's, which will have to be drastically cut so the Republicans can crown billionaires, Big Oil, and nuclear bomb builders the big gold medal winners. The losers: the American people, and their families' health and well-being. Vote ``no'' on this fixed Republican Olympics. Vote ``no'' to take care of the billionaires in our country as ordinary families suffer. Nostalgia for a past that never existed has overtaken the idealism which should animate our debates here on the House floor. For the poor, the sick, and the elderly, the past is just a memory and the future is their hard reality. And this Republican budget makes that future all the more difficult for the middle class in our country. Vote ``no'' on this fixed Republican Olympics.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady for her great leadership. I have served 36 years on the Telecommunications Subcommittee. No Member of Congress has ever done this. I know that this is an important moment. This is an important resolution because the Internet today is indispensable to our economy, intricately linked to innovation worldwide, and initiates the free flow of ideas around the planet. It is the most successful communications and commercial medium in the history of the world. In testimony before the Telecommunications Subcommittee in May, Vint Cerf, known to many as the ``Father of the Internet,'' explained: To allow any rules that would sequester this innovation and inhibit others would damage the future of the Internet dramatically. I could not agree more. That is why I strongly support this bipartisan resolution with Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Walden, and Ms. Bono Mack. This is why we have to be out here together. It is why we must send a bipartisan signal to the rest of the world that the United States will defend an open Internet. The World Wide Web is essential to our economy. Companies large and small rely on the Web regardless of whether their commercial aspirations are local or global. The Internet's worldwide scope has also helped to foster community and cultural communications across the planet. We have recently witnessed the power of social media in toppling dictators and in promoting democracy across the globe. What makes the Internet so special is the decentralized, open system that currently governs it. It is chaotic; it is impossible to control; and the multistakeholder process that is in place today ensures the Internet's vibrancy will continue into the future. Here, domestically, we have to ensure that the broadband barons don't close down this cacophony of voices which are heard and stifle innovation. But globally, yes, a number of countries, including China and Russia, are now proposing measures that strike at the core of what makes the Internet great. Their proposals could stifle innovation, cripple job growth, muzzle democratic principles. These proposed measures include bringing the Internet under intergovernmental control and imposing fees for relaying Internet traffic or termination rates for delivering Internet traffic to its end destination. We have to resist and reject these regressive ideas. It would undermine the essence of the Internet. It would take us back to the days when, in the satellite world, it was the controlling governmental officials in countries that actually decided what ideas could go into that country and made people pay exorbitant rates in order to get access to those ideas. The Internet--this packet switch system that was invented in the United States--breaks down those barriers. We must ensure that we keep Internet freedom. Thank you all for bringing this great resolution out to the floor here this evening.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize the service of United States Navy Captain Hugh Michael Doherty. Captain Doherty was born in Medford, Massachusetts and graduated from Malden Catholic High School in 1961. After graduating high school, Captain Doherty began his service by earning a competitive appointment to the United States Naval Academy from my predecessor, Congressman Torbert MacDonald. After graduating from the Academy, Hugh was selected for the nuclear submarine service after an intensive and exhaustive interview program by Admiral Hyman G. Rickover. Captain Doherty devoted his life to serving our Nation on the seas. He served in five different submarines over 14 years, and was the Commanding Officer of the USS Sand Lance during the Cold War. Captain Doherty was recognized for his sacrifice and service to his country through the numerous medals and decorations that he received, including the Legion of Merit and the Meritorious Service Medal. During Captain Doherty's 1984 ``Change of Command'' speech on the USS Sand Lance, he emphasized the importance of excellence. He told his officers, ``Set your goals high, strive to achieve them, and then when you feel that you have almost attained them, set them higher. Never be satisfied with what you have accomplished.'' Captain Doherty understood that hard work, perseverance, and dedication always paid off. During Captain Doherty's thirty-eight months as commander of the USS Sand Lance, he led his fellow crewmembers to always strive for greatness in every aspect of life. Sadly, Captain Doherty passed away on May 20 at the age of 69. A devoted husband, a caring father, and a beloved grandfather, Captain Doherty is survived by his wife of 45 years, Mary Pierce Doherty; his sons Sean, Matthew, and Timothy; his brothers John and Kevin; and his six grandchildren. For his honorable military career, Captain Doherty will be buried with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday, August 27, 2012. Mr. Speaker, today I honor the service and sacrifice of Captain Hugh Michael Doherty. We honor his life and his legacy. May God bless Captain Doherty and all our men and women in the United States Armed Forces. And God bless the United States of America.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, in my home state of Massachusetts, commercial fishermen take pride in the product they bring to the dock. Whether they harvest cod, lobster, or scallops, these hardworking Americans provide consumers with superior quality seafood. Unfortunately, getting a fair price for this seafood has become a challenge. Competition from low quality imported fish and shellfish drives down prices, especially when these imports are passed off on consumers as higher value species. Unfortunately, this occurs far too frequently. Last fall, an investigation by the Boston Globe found that 48 percent of the seafood it sampled from grocery stores and restaurants in the Boston area was not the species that was advertised. Subsequent investigations in Los Angeles and Miami this year produced similar results. These shocking revelations of seafood fraud have exposed a severe shortcoming in the ability of our nation to ensure the integrity of seafood products offered for sale, especially the 85 percent of those products that come from abroad. In addition to problems with seafood fraud uncovered by these recent reports, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported last year that we are doing a terrible job ensuring that seafood imported into this country is safe for people to consume. GAO found that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for ensuring seafood safety, inspects only 2 percent of seafood shipments, and that failure to coordinate with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Seafood Inspection Service has led to hundreds of redundant inspections. This unnecessary duplication of effort is unacceptable, especially as difficult fiscal circumstances have squeezed the budgets of both agencies. The Safety And Fraud Enforcement for Seafood Act, or SAFE Seafood Act--which I am introducing today along with Mr. Frank and Mr. Keating of Massachusetts, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, and Mr. Courtney of Connecticut--addresses the seafood safety problem by ensuring that FDA and NOAA work together to maximize the frequency and effectiveness of seafood inspections, and to prevent unsafe seafood from entering the United States. In addition, it combats seafood fraud by requiring that information such as harvest location, production method, and species name of the seafood stays with that product from sea to sale. The SAFE Seafood Act accomplishes these goals by holding violators accountable with fines and import restrictions if they don't play by the rules. American consumers have an expectation that the seafood they buy for their families is, in fact, the seafood that is advertised, and that it is safe for them to eat. Similarly, American fishermen, who comply with the most rigorous conservation and quality control standards anywhere in the world, should know they are competing on a level playing field, and not being undercut by an inferior foreign product. Fraudulent and unsafe seafood takes money from consumers and puts their health at risk. The SAFE Seafood Act is an important step toward reducing seafood fraud and increasing seafood safety. We owe it to American families and fishermen to address these problems immediately.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the majority brought to the floor a bill that would replace the Interior Department's 5-year offshore drilling plan. Today, the majority is bringing a bill to the floor that would require the Interior Department to conduct the offshore drilling plan it is already doing. Now why would we be taking up a bill to replace the plan yesterday and a bill to implement the plan today? Is it because the majority is having buyer's remorse about their own bill that would put drilling rigs off of the beaches of California, the beaches of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia? Are they having remorse putting all those rigs out there off the beaches with no new safety procedures adopted post the BP spill? Overnight, have they had some regret, conscience stricken, perhaps that's not a good idea? That would be a very hopeful sign, I think, for all of us who care about the environment, care about safety and care about protecting the beaches and the fishing industries of our country. Or is it because they were so compelled by arguments that the Democrats made during the debate on the floor yesterday that they now intend to reverse their position and actually support President Obama's offshore drilling plan that makes 75 percent of all of our oil and gas resources available for drilling while protecting the east and west coasts? I don't think so, because I am quite certain that the chairman of the committee intends to vote against his own bill here today and that the only reason the majority is bringing this bill up is to defeat it. It appears that the majority's dislike of President Obama is so great and so overwhelming that they are about to actually vote against more oil and gas drilling offshore even in an era where President Obama has already demonstrated his commitment to drilling. There are more rigs out drilling now in the United States than all the rest of the world combined. We're at an 18-year high in production of oil in the United States. You have to go all the way back to 1993 to find a day where there was more oil being produced on a daily basis than today. We have reduced our oil dependence--that is, how much we have to import from overseas--from 57 percent when George Bush was President just 4 years ago down to only 45 percent during the Obama administration. Thank you, President Obama. Thank you for the fantastic job you're doing in reducing our dependency upon imported oil. That is something that did not happen during President Bush's years in office. And that's quite a record, isn't it, that we're at an 18-year high for oil development? We're at a point where we've reduced our dependence on imported oil from 57 percent down to 45 percent just in 3\1/2\ years since President Obama was sworn in. We have more rigs than the whole rest of the world combined drilling for oil here in the United States. That is quite a record, and we thank you, President Obama, for your excellent job. But we know what the Republican majority is trying to do here today. They're trying to re-message here that somehow or other President Obama hasn't done a historically good job. The majority is about to make their own history here--rewrite history. They are so bent on voting against President Obama that they are going to actually oppose policy they hold most dear--more drilling. We appear to have found the one thing that can stop the majority from voting for drilling over and over again. This would be like Red Sox fans rooting against the Red Sox just because they signed Derek Jeter. All of a sudden, they would want to not support them any longer. And the majority is putting this bill on the suspension calendar today even though we know they have no intention of supporting it. So why are we here? Why are we wasting the time of this House when there are so many other pressing issues facing the Nation? We should be focusing on creating jobs for our constituents, on passing a farm bill that helps farmers who are being harmed by drought and taking action on a spending and tax plan to avert going off the fiscal cliff of sequestration. But are we doing any of those things? No, we are not. The majority is not only asking us to suspend the rules to pass this bill, they are asking us to suspend reality. They are asking us to suspend the reality that President Obama has reduced our dependence on oil from 57 percent down to 45 percent, that we are at an 18-year high in oil production in our country, and that we have 50 percent more floating drilling rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico than we did before the BP spill. Let me say that again: There are 50 percent more floating drilling rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico than before the BP spill, and we have more drilling going on than the whole rest of the world combined. The reality is that President Obama is about ``all of the above.'' That's his energy plan. What the Republicans do is they just keep bringing out things that really make the oil industry happy but towards the goal of killing the wind industry and killing the solar industry, because they're doing nothing for those industries. And that agenda is, oh, so clear. It's transparently clear what this agenda is. We actually support an ``aye'' vote on the President's plan and a ``no'' vote on the Republican plan. We should not be drilling off of the beaches of our country when 75 percent of all the oil and gas resources have been made available and the oil industry hasn't even begun in a significant way to capture all those opportunities. At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.