Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I'd be willing to have a conversation with the gentleman from Louisiana about what the proper way is of dealing with the funding for the preservation of the wetlands and the other environmentally sensitive areas down in the Gulf of Mexico, but this isn't the way to do it. This is just another permanent entitlement that we're building into the law here unattached to the hearings and the evidence that we need in order to make sure that whatever expenditures are made by the Federal Government are actually going for the intended purpose. And that's not what this discussion is here tonight with a 5-minute amendment that we're debating. Six billion dollars should come under closer scrutiny than the debate we're having at quarter past 9 at night on the House floor where the only people who are watching the debate really need to get a life, because that's about the level of public scrutiny this is getting right now. I just think the $6 billion that the gentleman is seeking to request from the public has to be dispensed in a way that actually has a better process. Again, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I understand its intention. But for the other 46 States, I just don't think it's a good idea at this time. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I will, at this point, continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARKEY. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. MARKEY. Would the Chair please inform us as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2578. Now, some of you may recall the old Rod Serling television show, ``The Twilight Zone.'' At the beginning of each episode, Serling would explain that viewers were ``about to enter another dimension--a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind, a journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone.'' Well, that is very much where we are this week on the House floor. We are truly entering another dimension--a wondrous land of paranoid imagination. Republicans call it the ``Operational Control Zone,'' but it is really the ``Drone Zone.'' Submitted for your consideration are the following facts: This week, world leaders are gathering in Rio to deal with the threat of global warming. Meanwhile, the majority has us gathered here to address the threat sea lions pose to salmon. Right now, firefighters are working day and night to try to contain wildfires in forests in Colorado and New Mexico, and the majority has us working here to give away old-growth Alaskan forest. We have just 2 weeks before the transportation authorization bill expires and student loan rates double. And what are we doing? We are spending an entire day on a piece of legislation that has zero chance of being enacted into law. It is a package of bad ideas that are largely irrelevant to the real issues facing our Nation. Title I of this bill would flood part of a Wild and Scenic River. Title III is an earmark to an Alaskan Native corporation that will facilitate clear-cutting in the Tongass National Forest. Titles IV and V appear to create new parks, but include harmful provisions that would cripple the management of these parks. Title VII would authorize the death penalty for sea lions whose only crime is eating fish. Title X would overturn the protections for endangered turtles from being run over by off-road vehicles. Title XI would extend the practice of below- cost grazing on public lands--a bargain-basement discount for cattlemen all across this country not paying their fair share. Actually, being a type of Federal welfare for cattlemen. And unbelievably, title XIV would create a 100-mile ``drone zone'' along our northern and southern borders within which the Border Patrol could suspend 36 environmental laws and seize control of all public land management. Let me spend a moment here talking about what I find to be the most offensive part of this legislation: title XIV. This is the national map. What the Republicans do here today is they take a 100-mile area all along the northern border of the United States and the southern border of the United States and they create a new area. And this new area is really a drone zone. The reason that it's a drone zone is that it allows for 36 health and safety and environmental laws to be overridden, and it would expand the area where the Department of Homeland Security could use drones for surveillance. It allows the Department of Homeland Security to shut down national parks at a moment's notice. So all of a sudden the Department of Homeland Security can start using drones in this area. Now, when you add up all of the space that is now included, it is equal to the total area of California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut combined, which will now be in this new special area that has the Department of Homeland Security determining where drones can be used. And as we know, that won't be just for ensuring environmental laws not being violated. They'll be over this whole area. Now, if you take a look at this map, I understand why the gentleman from Utah introduced this bill. Utah is far away from the Republican drone zone. They're not within the hundred miles of the border of the Mexican or Canadian people. But what if you live in Maine? Nearly your entire State is in this drone zone. Want to go to Acadia National Park? Better check with the Department of Homeland Security and the Republicans first. Or Minnesota: maybe you want to take a trip up to the Boundary Waters. Better check with the Department of Homeland Security and the Republicans first. Or Olympia National Park in Washington State: better check with the Department of Homeland Security or the Republicans first. Want clean air in the drone zone? Better make sure the Department of Homeland Security and the Republicans haven't exempted the Clean Air Act. Want to drink some water after a long hike? Better make sure the Department of Homeland Security and the Republicans haven't waived the Safe Drinking Water Act. Make no mistake, this isn't a bill that actually addresses America's immigration issues. Neither the Department of Homeland Security nor its Customs and Border Protection division support this bill. They don't want this authority, but the Republicans are insisting on giving them this authority--100 miles along the Mexican and Canadian borders. The GOP's drone zone bill does not increase resources for border agents, but instead turns over our natural resources to the Department of Homeland Security. Passing this bill does not increase the number of Border Patrol agent boots on the ground. It just ignores the protections against trampling on sovereign and sacred ground like tribal grave sites. It does not look for a path toward citizenship. It tells families on vacation or a picnic that the Department of Homeland Security can kick you off a path at any moment. Under this bill, ranchers and their cattle can be herded away by border agents, jeopardizing their entire ranching operation. Families and visitors to public parks can have their trips canceled. And the water, the air, and the land will be left unprotected. Instead of working to pass a DREAM Act to help solve the immigration challenge, House Republicans instead want to create a nightmare scenario at our borders. That's why more than 50 Hispanic and Latino groups have joined with environmental organizations, tribal groups, and organizations representing sportsmen and hunters to oppose the Republican drone zone bill. Fifty Hispanic and Latino groups opposing this bill. We might be spending 4 hours here today on the House floor in a legislative twilight zone created by the majority considering a bill that isn't grounded in reality. But as we do, let us not forget that there are millions of Americans outside of this alternative reality who are trying to make ends meet, trying to keep their families together and safe, and hoping to maintain the environmental protections which make our country great. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water and Power.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from the State of Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, we're about to talk about grazing fees. For people in many parts of the country, they may not know what that is. That is that, on Federal lands across the country, cattlemen can bring their cattle onto Federal lands--that is, the public lands of the United States--and graze. And what are they charged? Well, they're charged $1.35. That's exactly what they were charged in 1986. Now, right next to this Federal land, in many States, there is State land. That State land in Colorado is very valuable; but they ensure, the Governor of Colorado, that the cattlemen there in that State pay $10 to graze, not 1.35. In Montana, cattlemen have to pay $7.90. In Utah, they have to pay $7.30. But on the public lands in each of those States--that is, the Federal lands--it's 1.35, just hasn't increased. And who pays the price? Well, the Federal taxpayer pays the price because the cattlemen get to basically have this incredible subsidy. So, just to use the analogy, when I started working, I got paid $1.35 when I was a kid. I'm sure there are many people who would still like to just pay $1.35 for a kid to work in the supermarket, but they can't do it because time moves on--unless you're a cattleman, where they have locked that minimum price into a hermetically sealed, cryogenically frozen price, $1.35. That's great, except for the Federal taxpayer who cannot collect all of the money they need. Or should we just say, for the sake of discussion, that you happen to have a rent-controlled apartment in New York City. The rent was set back in 1986 or 1976, and now the markets have raised that price up to perhaps $4,000. The Republicans would say, well, rent control, that's good; we like keeping the price that way because it benefits a certain class of people. And I understand the Republican philosophy of freezing in prices that way--keeping the minimum wage as low as possible, keeping the rent control price for an apartment as low as possible. I understand the government intervention role of the Federal Government not allowing the free market to determine the price of something. But here what happens is that it balloons the Federal deficit because people aren't able to collect what we absolutely know to be the price to graze for a cow per day. We know what the price is because, in the adjoining land in Colorado or Utah or in Montana or in Washington State, we know what the State is charging on State public lands. So this is just an attempt to give the Department of the Interior the ability to raise by $1--not all the way up to $10, not all the way up to $7, but just $1 from $1.35 up to $2.35--just as a little experiment just to see what happens out there in the market when people actually have to pay something that even remotely approximates what the price to graze would be. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the remainder of my time. So this argument that's being made by the Republicans is nonsensical. What you're saying is, that in your home State, on State land, you charge 10 bucks or 7 bucks to the cattlemen to graze. But on Federal land it's only a buck 35 in your State. And your answer to raising the price for cattlemen is that we should be having a debate over whether or not the State of Colorado or Montana controls all of the Federal land in your State. Then you'll begin to debate whether or not cattlemen should get away with only a buck 35? You know, you're giving new definition to the term ``free range beef.'' You're allowing for the cattlemen in these States to get away with murder, and you're not even debating the issue of how they get away with this. That's all we want from you. Tell us why you think they deserve a buck 35. You don't even want to reach that issue. You want to go off on the secondary issue of how much land in each State is controlled by the Federal Government, which is not what we are debating. We're debating how cattlemen get away with this bargain basement price that then comes to every other State to make up the difference in the Federal deficit because you're unwilling to collect it. Meanwhile, you say to Grandma, higher rates for Medicare. You say to kids in school, higher payback for the loans that you take out. But for the cattlemen in your home State, somehow or other you don't understand that this is a debate that goes to the heart of why it is the people are very unhappy with the way the Federal Government operates. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Chair

Mr. MARKEY. This amendment is just further evidence that the problem this drone zone bill claims to be solving does not exist and that the underlying bill is a dangerous overreach. When this legislation was first introduced, we were told that it was necessary to establish this 100-mile drone zone around the entire United States--east coast, west coast, Hawaii, and Alaska. That version of the drone zone looked like a giant red belt surrounding the entire country. Then supporters of the bill decided that they'd gone too far. The bill was altered to say the drone zone would only cover a 100-mile stretch along our northern and southern borders and along the eastern border of Alaska. Even with that change, we were still assured that a blanket waiver of the full list of 36 bedrock environmental laws was absolutely necessary for our border security. Now we have a further change. This amendment will reduce the list of laws weighed by the drone zone from 36 environmental laws down to 16 environmental laws. This is the ever-shrinking bill. It gets smaller and smaller as people realize that environmental laws are not the problem when it comes to border security and that the zone created by this bill would harm the environment and individual freedoms for millions of Americans. The Bishop amendment proves that the underlying bill has always been an extreme and extremely harmful solution to a problem that does not exist. Perhaps if we give supporters enough time, they can shrink this idea down to waiving parking enforcement in a small area around Tucson. This amendment reduces the damage this bill would do, but it does not begin to prevent that damage. Waiving 36 laws was an unnecessary overreach, and waiving 16 laws would be as well. Limiting the scope of this terrible bill is a small step in the right direction, so there is no reason to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Would the Chair please inform the Members as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. MARKEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. MARKEY. I am the final speaker on our side if the gentleman from Utah is ready to conclude debate.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 21, 2012, ABCD will celebrate and honor its late founder, Bob Coard, by renaming its Boston headquarters in honor of this titan in the effort to enable upward mobility and a higher quality of life for all people, regardless of income or situation in life. I rise today to commemorate and congratulate this incredible community action program the nation's leading anti-poverty organization, and to salute my great friend, the late, Bob Coard. From Beacon Hill to Capitol Hill, Bob was a consistent, persistent and insistent force, working tirelessly to direct critical resources toward the fight to eradicate poverty. Bob was an early, highly-effective general in the War on Poverty. He began his unmatched service even before President Johnson urged communities to organize around the vision of a creating a Great Society free of poverty and abundant in opportunity for all Americans regardless of race, creed or income. And Bob was still on the job when an extraordinary community organizer, President Obama, was sworn in as our 44th president. For all those years, ``ABCD'' didn't just stand for ``Action for Boston Community Development.'' It also stood for ``Anything Bob Coard Desired.'' When Bob called, it was because he needed action for Boston's most vulnerable residents--more money for home heating assistance, help with Medicaid funding, support for Head Start. And we knew Bob was right because Bob recognized that our great challenge here in the United States is to bestow the world's blessings on all of God's children--to ensure, as President Kennedy said in his Inaugural address, that ``God's work on earth must truly be our own.'' The son of a civil servant from Grenada, Bob Coard immigrated to this country to pursue the American Dream. Once here, he dedicated his own life to helping others pursue that same dream. When Bob started work at ABCD in 1964, the organization was only two years old and it had a tiny staff. Today, it has 1,000 employees and carries out a wide array of programs focused on meeting the needs of the poor and disadvantaged in the City of Boston. Recognizing that education provides the best way for young people to, in his words, ``make it in this world,'' Bob started two high schools for at-risk youth at ABCD, in collaboration with the Boston Public Schools. ABCD has been called the unsung hero of Boston. For 50 years ABCD has saved lives and made dreams come true, and while ABCD is at the heart of Boston's communities, it was the heart of Bob Coard that pushed ABCD to the national model it is today, and John Drew's amazing leadership that keeps that heart beating strong. From providing heating assistance for those in need during New England's long, cold winters to delivering job training to those who need work, ABCD is the bridge from poverty to self-sufficiency. The opportunities ABCD provides for low-income Boston residents to get back on their feet, live with dignity and achieve their full potential are building blocks for the continued success of these communities. Today, ABCD's assistance to people and communities has grown to all sectors of poverty relief. ABCD organizes Head Start programs for over 2,400 low-income children and families every year. ABCD supplies fuel assistance to more than 22,000 families a year. ABCD provides services for thousands of at-risk youth through SummerWorks, career development and two alternative high schools, and health services and family planning for more than 30,000 people every year through its Health Services Department. From the ABCD Foster Grandparents bringing love and security to disadvantaged children, to programs that offer assistance in asset development, tax assistance and financial education, ABCD offers stability, a sense of community and economic security to low-income families. In President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's second inaugural address, he famously declared that ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'' That was Bob Coard's definition of progress, that is John Drew's definition of progress, that is ABCD's mission everyday. It is with great pride that I congratulate ABCD for its 50 years of vital service to the community, and that I commemorate my friend Bob Coard as ABCD dedicates its Tremont Street headquarters in his honor this Thursday on Boston Common. It is fitting that Bob Coard's building gazes out on the Common, a lush landscape where Americans from every walk of life enjoy the same open space, on equal footing. And just as the Common is part of the Emerald Necklace of parks and parkways that extend out to Franklin Park in Roxbury, Bob Coard and ABCD stitched together an array of programs that, taken together, provide a safety net for lifting Bay State residents out of poverty and into a new life of self-sufficiency. Bob Coard and ABCD are American icons, and I congratulate Bob's wife Donna, John Drew and the entire ABCD team for the incredible work that makes such a difference in the lives of so many Massachusetts residents.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. H.R. 2938 should not have been brought to the House floor under suspension of the rules. This legislation doesn't name a post office or authorize a park study. H.R. 2938, instead, is a highly controversial piece of legislation that will amend a settlement agreement between the United States and an Indian tribe, impose restrictions on a tribe's authority to use its own land, and circumvent years of Federal and State court rulings. During consideration by the Natural Resources Committee, members from both sides of the aisle expressed concern with this measure. House Members have heard from tribes across the country, Arizona State legislators, local mayors, small business owners, and community leaders on both sides of this issue. The number of stakeholders with strong feelings on both sides of this issue is plain evidence that the bill does not belong on suspension. So we're here tonight, and the implications for local, regional, and national gaming industry precedents are quite significant. We should only bring suspension-worthy bills out here on the floor. I say that because Mr. Grijalva from Arizona, whose tribal constituents are the sole target of this legislation, is being denied this opportunity and, therefore, any chance to address his constituents' needs. And I think that since it does affect his district, his tribe, he's on the Natural Resources Committee, he deserves the right to be able to make amendments that can improve this legislation, and he is not going to be allowed to do that. So that is my view on this bill, that it's under the wrong process. Suspensions are really meant for bills that do not bring the level of complexity and the level of controversy that a bill like this brings to the House floor, and as a result, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. I rise in support of the Polis amendment. He and I are introducing this amendment so that we can, once again, demonstrate the lack of compatibility of the priorities of this budget to the overall well-being of our country. The Cold War ended 20 years ago. We won. Since that time, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of nuclear weapons that both the United States and the former Soviet Union deploy. That number continues to drop. Yet, here in this budget, there is additional profligate spending on new nuclear weapons programs, on weapons modernization. Well, let me just say this, ladies and gentlemen: Each nuclear submarine that the United States has has 96 independently targetable nuclear warheads. That means that every single nuclear commander of a submarine in the United States can destroy the entire country of Russia, can destroy the entire country of China--each American nuclear submarine commander--and neither Russia nor China knows where those submarines are. We should be proud of ourselves. We are 10-feet tall compared to the Russians, compared to the Chinese. By the way, any problems that we have with Iran or with Syria in terms of Russian support for them or Chinese support for them have nothing to do with our nuclear weapons capability. That's not influencing them one way or the other. If we needed to ever drop a nuclear bomb on any one of our enemies--let's just say we had a war with Iran--and after the nuclear sub commanders in the United States Navy were to send one nuclear weapon towards Tehran, what would the next target be? What are we doing out here? Why are we talking about additional nuclear weapons in the 21st century? Why are we talking about cutting Medicare, cutting Medicaid, cutting programs for poor children, cutting nutrition programs for poor children, and at the same time saying that we need more nuclear weapons? This is a wayback machine. It's a Cold War time machine that basically says that the inexorable investment of political capital already made continues to drive the investments of the future; that we aren't going to step back and reevaluate that we won the Cold War; that we're not going to have a nuclear war with Russia; that we're not going to have a nuclear war with China; that we are 10 feet tall. Even if all there is is parity, each country understands that it's a total annihilation to use these weapons. Let's save this money. Vote ``aye'' on the Polis amendment. Send a signal to the world. Send a signal to our own people that at least we can find some expenditure in the defense budget which we can cut and which is not related to our national security. That's all that we ask from you: that please, on one vote, on the nuclear weapons issue, where we don't need new weapons, that there is a vote for sanity, that there is a vote that we send as a signal to the rest of the world and to our own people that we understand that that nuclear arms race is over. Vote ``aye'' on the Polis amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.