Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. The Affordable Care Act is now part of our Nation's fabric of health care laws. Right alongside Social Security and Medicare now stands the Affordable Care Act. Yet the Republicans keep trying to take away or to take apart the benefits included in this law for the 31st time since they took over the House of Representatives. What we have here, Madam Speaker, is a severe case of Republican reflux. Again and again, the Republicans keep coming up with harmful attempts to destroy all of the protections Americans have gained under this law--a Groundhog Day Republican reflux attempt to repeal this historic piece of legislation that helps every family in our country. Again and again, the Republicans keep choosing corporations over consumers. The side effects of this Republican reflux are serious. If the Republicans succeed, insurance companies could, once again, deny coverage because of preexisting conditions. Kids with asthma, women with breast cancer, all of these protections would just go away, and the Republicans will replace it with nothing. Americans could, once again, be forced into bankruptcy just because they got sick. Just because they got sick, they could go bankrupt if the Republicans' repeal attempt is successful this afternoon on the House floor. And what are they going to put in place of that protection against going bankrupt just because you are sick? Nothing. They have no proposal to have something replace those protections for American families. Women could, once again, be discriminated against with higher insurance premiums. Just being a woman, unfortunately, under existing law is a condition which has women paying more. What are the Republicans going to replace this protection for women with, a protection that is now in the law? Nothing. They have no proposal they're bringing out here today onto the House floor. With this Republican reflux, it's the American people who get burned. All they are doing is bringing out a proposal to repeal protections that ensure for every American family all of these extra protections which the Republicans have always denied them. They keep saying: Oh, no. We care about preexisting conditions. Oh, no. We care about people going bankrupt. Oh, no. We care about women being discriminated against. Then you say to them: Well, where is your proposal? Bring it out here. Let's have a vote on it. But do you know what? This is about insurance companies over the consumers of our country. Vote ``no'' on this Republican reflux bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have declined to add my signature to the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4348, legislation to reauthorize the highway trust fund. While the highway bill has traditionally been the product of reasonable, bipartisan compromise, the House Republican's version of this year's bill was so extreme the Conference Report was hobbled from the start. House Republicans took the jobs and economic development promised by this highway bill hostage--with unrelated provisions like the Keystone pipeline as the ransom--and the Senate had no choice but to negotiate with the hostage takers. Provisions allocating critical conservation funding across the country, through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and a National Endowment for the Oceans, was struck from the Conference Report; only funding for the five Gulf States--Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida and Texas--has survived. That funding will certainly be beneficial but the broader conservation programs should have been included, as well. The Conference Report also includes provisions prohibiting the National Park Service from complying with the law limiting the impacts of aircraft noise on Grand Canyon National Park. Why we would want to use a transportation bill to make one of the crown jewels of the National Park System louder and dirtier is a mystery. Most troubling, the Conference Report includes unjustified and harmful provisions which will undermine environmental reviews of highway and transit projects. Republicans have claimed environmental reviews delay highway projects but the facts are that most transportation projects already proceed under expedited environmental reviews and there is no evidence whatsoever that these reviews cause delay. Nevertheless, the Conference Report includes several broad new categorical exclusions from the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. These new exclusions lack flexibility or adequate standards and will limit public participation and careful consideration of transportation projects that can have devastating impacts on neighborhoods and our natural, cultural and historic resources. In the end, the purpose of these provisions is to speed up highway construction, not by cutting alleged ``red-tape'' but by making it harder for local communities to gather information and have input in projects that may go right through their backyards. Unbelievably, the Conference Report also includes a radical new idea that agencies should be fined, through rescission of up to 7 percent of their budgets, for missing arbitrary deadlines for environmental reviews. Given that the main reason agencies struggle to complete these reviews quickly is a lack of funding and staff, cutting their budgets as punishment will only make the problem worse. Inclusion of funding for the Secure Rural Schools and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes programs are positive steps, while removal of divisive, unrelated provisions on coal ash and the Keystone Pipeline are welcome improvements, compared to the House Republican bill. Finally, the process used to develop this Conference Report was unfortunate. Conferees have been asked to sign an agreement we have had little or no time to review and the substance of the agreement was negotiated largely without input from most conferees. This Conference Report will harm those living and working near transportation projects in the future and fails to address some of the most pressing conservation needs facing this nation. We can and should do better.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment creates a brand-new, burdensome permitting scheme that would complicate the process for obtaining a permit to construct a meteorological tower offshore and undermine offshore wind development. Let me say that again. This will actually make it harder to build an offshore wind project, not easier. This amendment is similar to H.R. 2173, which was reported out of the Natural Resources Committee last year. When moving this bill through committee, the Republican majority was unable to find a single wind industry witness to come to testify on this bill, and that is because the industry that the majority is trying to help with this bill doesn't think that the measure is helpful. So the wind industry does not support this bill. I'll just make that clear, if you are interested in helping an industry to grow. The bill has not been endorsed by any offshore wind companies or trade groups and those kinds of companies that have popped up all over the country now. None of those companies are endorsing this bill. I'm going to read a statement that is part of the legislative hearing record on this amendment. It is from Jim Lanard, the president of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition. Here's what he says on behalf of the coalition: Streamlining approvals of towers or buoys to test wind speeds offshore is an important goal. We believe that NEPA will allow this goal to be achieved. So NEPA clearly is not the enemy here. But in case there is still doubt, he says: Disregarding the bill's NEPA exclusion, we believe-- this is, again, Mr. Lanard speaking for the Offshore Wind Development Coalition--we believe that current practices are adequate for the approval of these towers or buoys. This bill represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the offshore wind industry really needs. A company is simply not going to invest millions of dollars engineering and constructing a huge meteorological tower on the Outer Continental Shelf unless they have a guarantee that they'll be able to use that area to build a wind farm. To be very clear, the industry wants a lease before they invest millions of dollars into a project. To get a lease, we should and we do require consideration of the impacts of development on the environment and the competing uses of these public waters. We should and we do require coordination with the other agencies using the Outer Continental Shelf, like the Navy, the FAA and FCC. This amendment would dismantle that process. This amendment says sorry, wind industry. You may have sunk millions of dollars into your meteorological tower, but it's time to tear it down. We let you build it without fully considering the impacts. And no wind farm either. Plain and simple, this bill certainly reduces the likelihood that we will see wind constructed off the shores of our country. The companies affected by this bill were not consulted before creating it. I have a document here from the Navy commenting on this bill. Essentially, it says the 30-day limit on consultations in the amendment is problematic. The Federal Aviation Administration has expressed similar concerns. The Federal Communications Commission has expressed similar concerns. This bill will make it harder to construct offshore wind projects, and maybe--and I think this is what it's all about-- that's the point after all. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that President Bush's Interior Department sat on offshore wind regulations for 4 years. Do you want to hear that again? President Bush's Interior Department sat on offshore wind regulations for 4 years. Did not promulgate them. President Obama got them done in his first 6 months. The Obama administration passionately believes in new wind. In fact, there's 35,000 new megawatts onshore, and they desperately want it offshore as well, and the process is working. We agree that during the Bush years, the Cape wind process did not work, but there were no rules that were promulgated. Obama did it. The project is now approved for Cape wind, and it should move forward. There's nothing wrong with the process, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

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

Mr. MARKEY. Let's just get to the heart of the question of energy efficiency. Back in 1987, I was the author of the Appliance Efficiency Act of 1987, which is the constitution for energy efficiency in the appliance field. Since that time, the efficiency of appliances has increased so dramatically that we have reduced the need for between 100 and 150 new coal-fired plants from ever having to be constructed in the United States. Why is that? Well, electricity that is not consumed results in less need for new coal-fired or any kind of fired electricity, saving the consumers, saving the environment, and just working smarter, not harder. If you can keep the popsicle cool with a more efficient refrigeration process, if you can have the toast pop up with a more efficient toasting process, if you can have every one of the appliances that we use, including the air-conditioning in this room--the air-conditioning in this room is just as good as it was in 1987 but it is 50 percent more efficient in its generating capacity than it was in 1987. That reduces the need to generate new electricity that is needed. That saves money, and it saves on environmental damage as well. So right now we're about to consider something that deals with deli- style refrigerators. Now, we're having this conversation having had no hearings on this issue in the Energy and Commerce Committee. We've had no testimony from the industry, no testimony from the Department of Energy on what this amendment could mean in terms of its impact. And we've had no evidence of an incapacity to be able to comply with these rules except for the fact that no one ever wants to necessarily become more efficient if they have to go through the extra effort and have never been required to do so. The reason that we have these energy efficiency rules is that we're doing it for the betterment of the whole country and moving industries along, making sure that we do not have to produce this additional new electricity. So, I think that it's better if we save money and save energy at the same time. That's what efficiency is all about. That's what working smarter, not harder is all about. The evidence is clear, since 1987, that we've done it. We've moved every other device along and made it more efficient, so I just don't know the reason why we would need a provision like this. At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself, again, as much time as I may consume. You know, this is just a continuation of the Republican obsession and opposition--obstinate, obdurate opposition--to increased efficiency in our society. Just a couple weeks ago they brought a bill out here on the floor that would roll back the efficiency of light bulbs in the United States, even though the entire industry has already complied with it. They were still trying to roll back the efficiency of light bulbs. Now we have the deli freezer, and we'll move on to product by product that they don't believe it is necessary to improve its efficiency whatsoever. And they just respond one by one almost to an incomprehensible set of demands made by, as yet, nonexistent experts telling us that it's impossible to comply. So, why don't we have a hearing? Why don't we get the evidence? Why don't we hear what every company in the United States says about deli freezers and then we can act upon it after we hear the evidence? But acting this way--you know, ``congressional expert'' is an oxymoron. We're not experts compared to real experts. We're only experts compared to other Congressmen. ``Congressional expert'' is an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp or Salt Lake City nightlife. I mean, there is no such thing as a congressional expert. We should not be acting this way on the House floor trying to make ad hoc changes in efficiencies rules. It just doesn't make any sense. Again, I oppose the way in which this is occurring, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the Westmoreland amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady. Back 10 years ago, about a third of all of the interest in the oil futures marketplace was controlled by speculators, but two-thirds was controlled by the airline industry, the trucking industry, industries that are dependent upon oil. Today it's just the flip. Today two-thirds of that oil futures marketplace is controlled by speculators, and only one-third is controlled by the airline industry, trucking industry, and others dependent upon the price of oil. So what happened? What happens is, all of a sudden, you have this crazy volatility where experts say that upwards of 20 percent of the price of a barrel of oil in the futures marketplace is related to speculation. It's not related to anything in the real marketplace. And so what happens? Well, that has a dramatically negative impact on truckers, on the airline industry because there are games being played out there. By the way, with the speculators, they make money on the way up and they make money on the way down. That's not true for ordinary companies because they're not in there playing a game. They are not speculators. They are not doing this as part of some kind of a casino that speculators thrive in. And here's the rule: On the way up, the big guy cleans up; on the way down, the little guy gets cleaned out. And that's what we're seeing over and over and over again. So the President has asked to increase the number of cops on the beat, the CFTC cops on the beat that can patrol to make sure that the games that are being played don't hurt the little guy. And what are the Republicans saying? They're saying they want to cut the President's request for more cops on the beat sixfold. And what happens then? Well, we're going to be deep-sixing the hopes, the dreams, the aspirations of ordinary companies who are still going to see these games being played. The DeLauro amendment makes it possible to put the CFTC cops back on the beat.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite simple. It prohibits the export of oil and natural gas produced from leases on the public lands of the United States that are going to be authorized under this bill. America's number one export last year was American fuel--number one. No other product did we export more of last year than the fuel that is produced here in the United States. More than $100 billion in American- made fuels was sent overseas to China, to Morocco, to Singapore, and other countries. This infuriates Americans pulling up to the pump and paying more than $3.50 a gallon to fill up. Not only do oil companies want to continue exporting American fuel, but they're now talking about lifting restrictions on exporting America's crude oil as domestic production continues to increase. Just this week, the President of the American Petroleum Institute announced that exporting America's crude oil should be a serious consideration. Let me say that again: Big Oil is now stating publicly, in no uncertain terms, that they want to be able to export crude oil produced in the United States. Earlier, the majority whip said that this bill will make us energy independent. Well, without the Markey amendment, there is no way that an oil company just won't export the fuel and the natural gas, and now the head of the American Petroleum Institute says Big Oil also wants to start exporting America's crude oil, as well. As American men and women are on the ground in the Middle East fighting and dying to protect oil supply lines coming from the Middle East into the United States, Big Oil wants to export oil produced here in America to China, to other countries around the world. That is truly frightening, and it's wrong, ladies and gentlemen. It is wrong in terms of our relationship with the young men and women who fight for us, who defend us around the world. Big Oil is beholden to shareholder interests only. They do not care about American national security, and they certainly don't like Americans to enjoy low energy prices, which is what's happening right now with natural gas. They want a bigger cut. They want to create a global national gas market and a global price, just like they have for oil. That's the plan. And the companies are lining up at the Department of Energy right now to get permits to export American natural gas. There are 15 applications seeking to export 28 percent of our current natural gas, American natural gas, natural gas here in the United States all around the world. And why do they want to do that? Well, they want to do that--even though the Energy Department says it could lead to a 54 percent increase in the price of natural gas for Americans--they want to do it for a very simple reason. The price of natural gas in Japan right now is seven times higher than the price of natural gas here in America. American companies want to sell the natural gas to the Japanese rather than to Americans because they can make seven times as much money. In Europe, it's four times as high. They want to sell the natural gas of America overseas rather than keep the prices low for people to keep their homes heated, to keep our industries growing. The petrochemical industry, the fertilizer industry, the plastics industry, all those industries are dependent upon these fuels. No, that's good for the oil industry. It's very bad for the American manufacturing sector because low-priced natural gas is what's fueling the increase in manufacturing all across this country. So I just totally reject the premise of the majority in allowing for the sale of our oil and gas out of our land across the country. At this point, I am going to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I will, then, yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. MARKEY. May I ask again, Mr. Chairman, that we review where the majority and minority are in terms of time remaining in debate?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues, the short title of this bill, the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, spells out the word D-E-J-A. But what we're seeing here is not just deja vu, the feeling that we've seen all these Big Oil giveaways before. No, this bill is a deja preview, a look ahead into what the Romney administration would do if elected and had a GOP House and Senate to fully implement the oil companies' legislative agenda and block all efforts to help clean energy. There's been a lot of discussion of the DREAM Act recently, but the bill we have before us today is really the Big Oil dream act. This package represents everything Big Oil could ever possibly dream up to drill on our public lands and roll back public health protections. As the world gathers in Rio de Janeiro right now to try to head off catastrophic global warming from the burning of fossil fuels, here we are in the House of Representatives looking for ways to give more benefits to fossil fuel industries. And as America's wind and solar companies look to hire more American workers, here we are in the GOP-controlled House, where the Republican leadership refused to make my amendment in order to establish national goals for wind and solar, clean energy and energy efficiency. They won't even allow that debate to take place on the floor of the House of Representatives during what they say is the big energy debate for America. Can you imagine, it's 2012, we are having a big energy debate, big, big debate on the energy future of our country, and the words ``wind'' and ``solar'' are not going to be permitted by the Republicans to be out here on the House floor and being debated. And by the way, did I throw in biomass? Did I throw in geothermal? Did I throw in energy efficiency? They won't allow the words to be spoken. There's a gag order here, a big gag order by the Republicans. No debating that. And then they have the temerity to call it an all-of-the-above bill. Oh, a comprehensive energy plan without wind, without solar, without geothermal, without biomass, without plug-in hybrids or energy efficiency debated out here because they have a gag order. They prohibit any debating of those issues on the House floor. And yet here they are, saying it's an all-of-the-above energy bill. Great. Great. So fair. Fair and square. A real debate. Let all the Members decide what our energy future looks like. But before the end of this year, the Republicans are allowing all of the tax breaks for the wind industry to expire. And what are they doing? They are actually going to continue the $4 billion a year that ExxonMobil and Chevron get. That's fair, huh? A gag order on even mentioning wind and solar out here as part of an amendment, a debate, $4 billion for the oil industry. And by the way, let's take a look at what's going on in oil production in the United States. Oh, by the way, did you hear the news? It's now at an 18-year high. Obama, drill, baby, drill. Obama, what a great job. An 18-year high under Barack Obama, way better than George Bush. Way better. You have to go back to almost a time when a kid who's graduating from high school has no memory of. It's 18 years ago the last time there was this much oil drilling in the United States--Federal, State, private lands. But if you listen to the Republicans, they're saying there's not enough breaks for ExxonMobil. No, no, no, we have to give them more. This poor, beleaguered company, and all of the other oil companies of the same size, they have been beleaguered as they are now at an 18-year peak in oil production in the United States. And you know who's beating them up--wind and solar, geothermal, biomass, plug-in hybrids. Very scary things to the Republican. So scary that because they control the Speakership, because they control the Rules Committee, we're not allowed to debate wind and solar. They're prohibiting it today. An absolute, all-out prohibition this week on the discussion of wind and solar. Huh? When I asked to have an amendment be put in place that we could debate whether or not we had a national renewable electricity standard for the whole country, setting goals for what our country should have for wind and solar by the year 2020, you know what they said: No, we're gagging you. You can't have that debate out on the House floor. You can't even raise the words ``wind'' and ``solar.'' Yet they're going to keep coming out here saying we're for all of the above. All of the above that Exxon and Shell and BP want. Right on their list. And do you know where wind and solar are on the BP and ExxonMobil list? Oh, they just forgot to put it on their list. And that's what we get to debate out here, and it's going to be called an all-of-the-above energy future. Well, let me tell you something--the American people deserve a lot better. They really do have a real sense that America has to be the leader in these new energy technologies. And President Obama has done his best or else we would not be at an 18-year high. By the way, there are more oil rigs drilling in the United States for oil today--are you ready for this--than all of the other countries in the world combined. Barack Obama, drill, baby, drill. You are really doing the job. More oil rigs right here in the United States right now drilling than all the rest of the world combined. But you're going to listen to these Republicans talk as though somehow or other, although ExxonMobil and BP and Shell are reporting the largest profits of any corporation in the history of the world, that they are being discriminated against. What do ExxonMobil and BP expect? They expect there to be a gag applied out here on the floor so we cannot debate wind and solar, we cannot debate biomass and geothermal, we cannot debate energy efficiency. And yet we're supposed to sit over here in silence and listen to them say that they have an all-of-the-above energy strategy when we all know their entire strategy is oil above all--as a matter in fact, to exclude all else, exclude it, can't even debate it. They actually passed a rule here last night prohibiting us from debating wind and solar, from debating the future, from unleashing this technological revolution. And why is that the case? I'll tell you why it's the case. Because in the last 5 years there have been 45,000 new megawatts of wind installed here in the United States. In this year, there will be 4,000 new megawatts of solar installed in the United States. Do you know who hates that? ExxonMobil hates that. Shell, BP, they hate it. Peabody Coal, Arch Coal, they hate it. They see this new clean energy future unfolding. Out here on the floor of the House, as we debate the big energy bill here of 2012, I'm prohibited, as the senior Democrat, from bringing out an amendment that talks about wind and solar, that talks about geothermal and biomass, that talks about energy efficiency. I'm not allowed to bring it out here. So this is not an auspicious day for the United States Congress. If there were any kernel of truth about Obama and his incredible work here, lifting us to an 18-year high in total oil production in the United States--by the way, since Bush left, since he left, we have dropped from being 57 percent dependent upon imported oil down to 45 percent dependent upon imported oil. Did Bush do that? No. Did Bush's father do that? No. Barack Obama did that, ladies and gentlemen. And what Barack Obama is saying, in addition to the dramatic decline in the amount of oil that we import from the Middle East, I would also like to add wind and solar and geothermal and biomass and energy efficiency. And they're saying, oh, no, it's already going too fast. This dependence thing is already happening much too fast for us. And, by the way, this revolution in wind and solar and geothermal, people might start driving cars that are all electric and dependent upon wind and solar to give them the electricity so they don't even have to go into a gas station. Do you know what they're really afraid of? They're afraid that what is going to happen to them is what happened to the typewriter, that in 20 years we went from everyone using a typewriter to everyone using a computer. People have to look into a history book to now find what a typewriter looks like. It only took 20 years. They can see this wind and solar revolution happening so fast that they're afraid that in 2030 a kid won't even know how to fill up a car with gasoline because they'll be plugging in the car at home with solar and wind-generated electricity. That's what they're most afraid of. That's what this debate is really all about and that's why there's a gag on the Democrats, why we're not allowed to talk about wind and solar and geothermal and biomass and energy efficiency. Oh, I'm sorry, we're allowed to talk about it, we're just not allowed to have an amendment out here on the floor. We're just not allowed to put everyone on record as to where they stand on those issues. We're just not allowed to do that. You cannot have an amendment out here on the floor. So this is the full extent of our ability to help those industries, those competitive industries, those Microsofts and Googles and eBays and Hulus and YouTubes of the energy industry get out there and reinvent the way in which we generate electricity here in our country. That's what this debate is really all about. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

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

Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 1 minute. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. Yes, what the Republicans are saying is, in their bill, that they want a study for 4 years of wind and solar. A study? Well, maybe they should study the fact that it's very sunny in Florida. It's very windy out in the Midwest and, as a matter of fact, so sunny and so windy that there have been 45,000 megawatts of wind installed over the last 6 years in the United States, that there's going to be 4,000 new megawatts of solar installed in the United States just this year. So maybe the Republicans should study the studies that are already out there, and maybe they could actually look over and ask the coal industry what they're thinking as they've dropped from 51 percent of all electrical generation down to 36 percent of all electrical generation in the last 5 years. Maybe they're looking at the wind industry. Maybe they're looking at the solar industry. Maybe you could call them. But you don't have to wait 4 years, because all you want to do is study it. What we want to do is give the incentive for the wind and solar industry to continue their revolution. I yield 5 minutes, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. MARKEY. Would the Chair tell me how much time is remaining.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. This bill represents the latest Republican attempt to give away our public lands to the wealthiest oil companies in the world. This bill is the culmination of the Republican oil-above-all agenda. Instead of approving this legislative love letter to Big Oil, the majority should be sending a thank-you note to President Obama for his actions to increase domestic energy production and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. The truth is that oil production from Federal lands on shore today is higher than it was under President Bush. And across the United States, oil production from all public and private lands is unbelievably now at an 18-year high. Obama is drilling, baby; he's drilling. The Obama administration's all-of-the-above strategy has also been successful in creating jobs. Since 2008, 14,000 new jobs have been created in oil and gas extraction. Thank you, President Obama. And 50,000 new jobs have also been created in wind and solar, but Republicans don't want a real all-of-the-above energy strategy. At the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment, along with Mr. Welch, that would have established a national renewable energy standard. That amendment would have created wind and solar all across our country as a standard. That amendment was germane to this bill and had no budgetary impact, but the Republican majority refused to even allow us to debate an amendment so that Members could have a chance to vote on an actual all-of-the-above package that wasn't just oil and gas. And President Obama is about as good a President as you can have on that issue; but wind and solar and biomass and geothermal and all of these technologies of the future, they refused to even allow the Democrats to have a vote on that on the House floor this afternoon. They are not all of the above; they are oil above all. They don't want wind and solar because the oil industry doesn't want it, and the coal industry doesn't want it because it's real competition from the future. The renewable electricity standard that I would have offered would have created 300,000 new jobs and saved consumers billions of dollars on their electricity bills. In 2007, 32 Republicans joined 188 Democrats in overwhelming support of a similar renewable electricity standard. In 2009, the House again passed that policy on a bipartisan basis. It died in the Senate both times. Today, it dies here on the House floor because the Republicans don't want 32 Republicans to even have the right to vote for wind and solar and biomass and geothermal. They're afraid Republicans might vote for it, so there's a gag here, a gag order to the House floor saying no debate on the renewables because oil and coal don't want it debated. There will not be a vote on this. The majority has voted more than 100 times in this Congress to help the oil industry, but they have not voted once in favor of clean energy in the year and a half that they have controlled the United States Congress. Moreover, because they will not extend the production tax credit for wind, 40,000 jobs are going to be lost in the wind industry in the first 6 months of 2013. This is the Big Oil dream act. This is the dream act of the Republicans. This is something that should be opposed.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I would like to thank Chairman Upton and Chairman Pitts and Ranking Member Waxman and Ranking Member Pallone and their staffs for their work in bringing the FDA Safety and Innovation Act to the floor today. Passing this bill will allow the FDA to continue its critical mission of bringing safe and effective drugs and medical devices to the patients who need them. Reviewing drug and device applications has become increasingly challenging. Medical breakthroughs of today often target rare diseases or genetic subsets of those diseases. FDA reviewers must now assess a growing pipeline of very specialized treatments. I'm pleased that this bill includes language I helped author to improve collaboration between FDA and external experts in rare diseases like cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. The bill before us today also includes an important provision I helped author to ensure that the millions of Americans who are blind or visually impaired have safe and independent access to the information on prescription drug labels. No one should have to sacrifice their privacy or independence to access the vital information on these bottles, and I'm glad we're taking steps to address that here today. Finally, this bill helps increase the availability of pediatric medical devices and ensures that medications are tested and labeled appropriately for children. I was proud to work on these provisions with my colleagues, Congresswoman Eshoo and Congressman Rogers. I would have liked to have seen additional measures included in this bill to ensure the safety of medical devices based on defective models that have already been approved by the FDA, that unfortunately continue to be sold and jeopardize patients' health all across this country. I am going to continue to work on this critical issue. I believe it's a problem that we must solve. Once the FDA approves a device and then it turns out that there's a defect, there should be no excuse for allowing new companies to build their devices based upon the old approved defective model that the FDA had approved. Tens of thousands of Americans are put in jeopardy, and I would like to work to solve that problem. Nonetheless, this is an excellent piece of legislation, and I hope that the House gives it its overwhelming approval.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. Today marks the summer solstice, the longest day of the year. Instead of spending the daylight hours passing a clean transportation bill that will help shore up real jobs for Americans, the Congress will be spending the day repealing public health protections and giving away nearly all of our public lands to oil and gas companies in the culmination of the Republican majority's Oil Above All agenda. It is really a ``Midsummer's Nightmare'' for the American people. But before we get to voting on the Republican oil package, we get to debate whether another Republican bill, whose sole premise is to prevent EPA from following the scientific evidence, should be included in the Transportation bill. This bill says that 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, no matter what EPA learns about how these materials find their way into our drinking water, EPA is forbidden to classify or regulate it as hazardous waste. EPA is forbidden to require that this toxic material be disposed of carefully. This bill turns a blind eye to evidence of known hazards and takes us back to the Dark Ages, to a time before science was valued and before advanced knowledge transformed society. It takes us back to an era when mercury and arsenic, major components of coal ash, were used to cure toothaches and clear up your complexion. It takes us back to an era where children were sent deep into the bowels of the Earth to rip coal from the mines and die early deaths. Apparently, House Republicans not only wish to embrace the principal energy source of the 19th century; they also wish to return us to the 19th-century principles about public health and the environment regarding arsenic and mercury and their danger to the citizens of our country. Now, there are good uses for coal ash, beneficial uses. It can be used to construct highways and shingles. That's good. It can be mixed into concrete and grout. That's good. But what we don't want is for the industry to be able to use it to construct a golf course, like what they did in Battlefield, Virginia, because it can directly contaminate the groundwater. It can pollute and cause injury and cancers in the neighbors of that golf course. We also don't want it to be disposed of in pits that aren't sealed to handle this special waste, like what happened in Tennessee when a TVA disposal pit collapsed, engulfing an entire small town in toxic sludge. We should have regulations to protect against that ever happening in our country again. This is exactly what this bill, the Republican bill, will do. It will blast us back into the past and allow coal ash to be disposed of without proper construction or monitoring. At the end of this month, transit and highway funding will expire, hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, and our transportation infrastructure will be in peril. Even Senate Republicans have recognized the dangers inherent in allowing this to occur and have joined with Senate Democrats to craft a bipartisan bill so we can put people back to work using coal ash in the highways of our country. But in spite of this, the House Republicans are insisting that unrelated and unnecessary toxic provisions dangerous to the health and well-being of Americans be attached to this bill in order to protect Big Oil and Big Coal. Instead of allowing the coal industry and Republicans to transport our country's environmental and public health standards back to the era of Charles Dickens, we should be holding them to higher expectations for the 21st century, for the public health and well-being of our people. I urge a ``no'' vote on this preposterous Republican initiative.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides.

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