Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. After Congress privatized the United States Enrichment Corporation in 1996, we quickly learned that it couldn't survive in the private sector without continued and repeated bailouts to the tune of billions of dollars. We've given it free centrifuge technology. We've given it free uranium that it enriches and then sells at below-market prices, undercutting its competitors. We've paid to clean up its radioactive messes. We have assumed its liabilities. And what has happened to these investments? The entire company is worth less than the $100 million contained in this bill that's the next gift that the Congress is giving to this company. Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so rapidly right now that he would qualify as a new energy source. That's how violative of free-market principles this continued subsidy of this company is, knowing that there are other companies that can provide the same resource without the government subsidies. Even after the Department of Energy's recent announcement of another gift of free uranium to USEC, Standard & Poor's downgraded it to junk- bond status. Who invests in something that has already achieved junk- bond status with the exception of the United States Congress? That's what we're voting on here today, funding of a company that is now in junk-bond status. And JPMorgan, the company's creditor, now directly controls every penny USEC spends because it felt the company could not manage its own precarious finances. When I asked the Treasury Department whether government support for the company put taxpayers at risk, it said yes and that extreme care should be taken before offering any exposure to the taxpayer. But are we following the Treasury Department's advice? No. The Department of Energy has approved hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of subsidies for this company and is about to approve another $82 million bailout in the coming days. And Congress has acceded to pressure to insert even more money in no fewer than three pieces of legislation that are currently pending, including the $100 million contained in this bill. We've been told this bailout is only about getting the tritium we need for our nuclear weapons, but this is just not true. The treaty that governs uranium enrichment technology does not prevent other companies from doing this work. Even if it did, there are even additional alternatives. When DOE examined its tritium options, it found that down-blending surplus highly enriched uranium that it already has would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars less than obtaining the services from this company. This amendment is supported by a coalition that spans the political horizon that makes it possible for Mr. Burgess--a very conservative Member from Texas--to join with a very liberal Congressman from Massachusetts in agreeing that the pragmatic center here has lost its bearings. It has lost touch with the free-market principles. And at least if we're going to subsidize something, let's see that it's not already reached junk-bond status and we're continuing to pour good money after bad. This is something that in my opinion is unacceptable. The Department of Energy has already given $44 million for this program this year, and it is about to provide another $82 million as it prepares to buy the centrifuges that have yet to be demonstrated to work properly. That's right, $126 million that will buy centrifuges from a company whose total value is now less than $90 million. As part of the deal, the taxpayers also have to assume liability for the company's nuclear waste. We should not be throwing good money after bad. This is $100 million that should not be wasted. Please support the Burgess-Markey amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. The reason Mr. Fortenberry and I are making this amendment is that it would address a wrongheaded plan by the Department of Energy to build a facility to produce dangerous, highly radioactive nuclear fuel that no one actually wants to buy. The Department wants to take uranium and plutonium from dismantled nuclear bombs and make fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. This plan will cost taxpayers $2 billion. It is a nuclear bomb budget-buster. It is the most expensive way to boil water that has ever been proposed on the planet. It is also unnecessary--no electric utility in the United States wants to buy this fuel. It is also a serious threat to human health. The MOX--the mixed oxide plutonium fuel--is actually more dangerous than existing commercial nuclear fuel. And in the event of a nuclear disaster, the releases from a MOX fuels reactor will cause between 39 and 131 percent more fatalities than a traditional fuel nuclear reactor. MOX is a reverse Field of Dreams. If you build it, they will not come. The utility industry is not going to arrive. Instead, it is a nightmare that will leave future generations to safeguard a dangerous fuel with no buyers. I congratulate the gentleman, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Indiana very much. I just rise to briefly talk about light bulbs, because I know it's a subject of great interest to all of the Members, and I know that there is going to be an effort by some Republican Members later on tonight to repeal the new light bulb efficiency laws. And I just rise to do a little bit of an explanation of what has happened. Five years ago a law passed here on the floor of the House, and it became law. And that law said that these old light bulbs, these light bulbs that Thomas Alva Edison invented and people really love, they had to be made 28 percent more efficient in order to be sold in the United States. They really hadn't been made much more efficient. And a lot of people, they really love old light bulbs. They don't want their automobiles to look the same way they did 50 years ago. They don't want their television sets to look the same way they did 50 years, they don't want their cell phones to look the same way they did 15 years ago; but they really want their light bulbs to look the same, many people. And so here's what the American lighting industry did: Sylvania and General Electric, they make the same light bulb now. It gives off the same color, looks the same. Grandma had this light bulb in her house that gave off that warm glow that you remember from when you visited Grandma. Well, the new one gives off the same warm glow, except for this, that over the life of this new light bulb, you save $5 over what Grandma had to pay to the electric company to keep it on. You save five bucks because it's so much more efficient. Now, it seems to me that we shouldn't be trying to repeal a law like that that reduces the amount of electricity that every American needs to use in their home. And by the way, times every light bulb in your home over the course of a year, you're going to save $100 to $160 every year. Same light bulb. It's on the market today. You can go out and buy it. You don't have to hoard it. I know some people are hoarding the old light bulbs that are 28 percent less efficient, and that's their right. They can do that. But you can go to the department store and buy the same light bulb, same looking light bulb, and save $5 over the life of that light bulb giving off the same amount of light. Now, I'm not saying that you have to go out and buy one of these squiggly deals. Now, if you do go out and buy one of these squiggly deals, you actually have 78 percent more efficiency and you save even more money if you buy one of these. But no one's saying you have to. You can use the same old light bulb. It's in the store today. Nothing got banned in terms of the old light bulb technology. It's still the same incandescent light bulb that Grandma used, except it's 28 percent more efficient. And I'm definitely not saying you've got to buy one of these new jobs which are in the stores as well. This only saves you $130 over the course of the 20-year life of this light bulb. In fact, increasingly, what's going to happen is that when people move, in addition to packing up their television sets and their sofas, they're going to be packing up their light bulbs because these things save you money, $130 per light bulb over the course of this light bulb. But, again, you don't have to buy this if you don't like the way it looks. You don't have to buy one of these squiggly deals because you don't like the way it looks. You can go to the store and just buy the same light bulb that your grandma bought, that your great grandma bought, because this thing goes back, really, to the beginning of the 20th century. And you can have the exact same feel, look in your living room, in your kitchen, in your bedrooms. Again, I just wanted to make this very clear to all of the Members, because in the course of the debate today, we're going to have this discussion, but I have no idea why you would want to ban something that's 28 percent more efficient. Refrigerators are more efficient than they were 50 years ago; automobiles are; there has been a dramatic reduction in the cost of making a phone call on a cell phone; and now light bulbs are in the same category, but they look exactly the same. I am just, again, making the point so that later on in the day, as we perhaps have a roll call on this, that Members can understand what they're voting for.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 5186, the Halt Index Trading of Energy Commodities, or HITEC, Act. I recently introduced this bill with Representatives Frank and DeLauro because I believe urgent action is needed to protect our nation's oil and refined product commodities markets from artificial and excessive levels of volatility caused by the trading practices of certain Wall Street traders. Since 1991, Wall Street investment banks such as Goldman Sachs have created and marketed a new financial product known as commodity index funds, which are really energy speculation funds, gasoline gambles. These energy speculation funds track the financial performance of one or more commodities. If a speculation fund has an investment in oil and the value of oil goes up, then the value of the fund goes up; if the value of oil goes down, the value of the speculation fund goes down. These investments have been incredibly popular with investors but have had an adverse effect on the operation of the markets for the commodities that comprise the funds. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested in various energy speculation funds, artificially inflating the prices of our commodities. While these energy speculation funds may be driving up prices for many different commodities, they are having an especially pernicious effect on energy commodities. According to testimony submitted to the House Natural Resources Committee, excessive speculation added nearly $1.00 to the per gallon price of gasoline this spring, and energy speculation funds appear to be largely responsible. Due to the activities of these energy speculation funds, Wall Street investment banks have profited by introducing new and unprecedented levels of volatility and speculation into oil and refined product markets. Energy speculation funds have changed the very nature of our commodities markets. Traditionally, the commodities market was dominated by companies who actually used the commodities to hedge the business risk associated with oil or refined products prices. Large oil, gasoline, diesel or jet fuel consumers such as airlines, trucking firms, and shipping services were the largest participants in these markets. Indeed, in 1996, companies who actually bought oil on the commodities market so they could use it owned 93% of the oil futures or derivatives in that market. Now, however, these companies only own 37% of the oil futures or derivatives in that market. The bulk of the remaining 63% is owned by speculators who have invested in these energy speculation funds, none of whom will actually use any of the oil or natural gas in which they have invested. Despite only being twenty-one years old, energy speculation funds have already had a profound impact on our country. They have increased the size of our commodities market. They have increased the volatility of our commodities prices. They have hurt consumers' wallets and small businesses by making them pay more at the pump. They have slowed the growth of our economy by requiring that we devote even more money to energy instead of creating new jobs. These energy speculation funds are a danger to our economy, our financial system, and the average American's wallet. The HITEC Act will restore order to our energy commodity markets and end this experiment. The bill will ban all new investment in energy commodities like light sweet crude oil, natural gas, heating oil, and gasoline by these commodity index funds from the date of enactment. The day the President signs this bill, energy speculation funds will not be allowed to grow any more if they count speculators among their investors. Existing energy speculation funds that continue to count speculators among their investors will then have two years to wind down their investments. As the average length of a ``spot'' commodity contract is one year, this should allow energy speculation funds that continue to house speculators more than enough time to wind down their investments in a fair and orderly fashion. This bill does not prohibit energy speculation funds from investing in agricultural commodities like wheat or corn, nor does it prohibit those funds from investing in metals such as gold. The bill also does not implicate trading of electricity in any way, shape, or form. Instead, this bill just prohibits energy speculation funds from interfering with our energy commodities, a market that determines the prices for the fuels that power our economy. This bill will end an unnecessary and harmful source of excessive price volatility that has only served to benefit Wall Street traders and has harmed our economy by pumping up oil, gasoline, and other refined product prices. Enactment of this legislation will address one major source of the pain American consumers have recently been feeling at the pump, and I urge all of my colleagues to co-sponsor this critical legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairmen Upton and Pitts and Ranking Members Waxman and Pallone for their work in bringing to the floor a bipartisan bill that provides FDA additional resources to bring new drugs and medical devices to market. These new resources will enable FDA to improve review times for new product applications and provide companies greater clarity about compliance requirements and their responsibilities. There are many important policy improvements in this bill. They include: A reauthorization of the user fee programs for prescription drugs and medical devices, as well as the creation of a new generic user fee program that will help slash current review times for these products. A reauthorization of two programs that foster the development and safe use of prescription drugs for children. New incentives for the development of antibiotics, which are needed to increase the number of products in the development pipeline. Today's bill also includes the reauthorization of legislation I authored in 2007 that has helped spur the development of medical devices for children. The Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act, PMDSIA, creates grants that bridge the gap between the people who understand the medical need--doctors and innovators--with the people who can help turn their ideas into devices on the shelves, like manufacturers and federal regulators. Since the grant program's inception, the five Pediatric Device Consortia established as a result of this language have assisted in advancing the development of 135 pediatric medical devices. Currently the consortia are managing 80 active pediatric medical device products. The FDA Reform Act also extends a provision of PMDSIA that provided profit incentives for companies to develop devices for rare pediatric diseases. The original incentive passed in 2007 solely for pediatric diseases proved immensely successful. Today's bill strikes a compromise to extend this incentive for devices used to treat rare diseases in adults as well, while still retaining the incentive for pediatric devices. I urge Congress does not negatively impact the development of devices for children. In addition, we will need to ensure that companies using this incentive and making a profit on their device because they got pediatric labeling actually continue to sell their device for use in children and not only for adults. The Pediatric Advisory Committee at the FDA will need to play a vital role in this oversight and in monitoring the number of devices sold for adult use as opposed to the number sold for pediatric use. PMDSIA also included a requirement that device companies provide FDA with information on the pediatric populations that could benefit from a new device they are looking to sell. This was supposed to help FDA track what devices are available for children and where gaps remain. FDA put out a proposed rule and a direct to final rule simultaneously to implement the provision, but it withdrew the direct to final rule after industry voiced opposition. The regulation has languished ever since. The failure to implement this provision of the law has made it difficult for FDA to provide Congress information about the availability of pediatric medical devices and to identify unmet medical device needs, according to a GAO report. I am disappointed that this important tracking provision has gone unimplemented for nearly five years, and I hope that FDA will comply with the timeframe included in the legislation to issue a final rule implementing the law no later than December 31, 2013. Despite these advances, today's bill is a missed opportunity because it fails to address a glaring patient safety issue that affects patients around the country. Many Americans would be surprised to learn that ninety percent of medical devices are not required to undergo clinical testing in humans prior to being sold. Instead, most devices, including brain stents and hip implants, need only to show similarity to an earlier product to make their way to market. Under current law, the FDA is required to clear certain medical devices as long as they demonstrate their similarity to an earlier product. This is true even if the new device is modeled after a defective device that caused serious injury or even death. If the device is indeed similar to the earlier model, flaw and all, FDA's hands are tied. The agency does not have the legal authority to deny approval. This makes no sense. We wouldn't fast-track approval of a new drug that was based on one that had been recalled. We shouldn't do it here, either, with medical devices. This legislation was an important opportunity to address this medical device safety loophole, but it doesn't. The loophole remains in place and patients are still at grave risk. Thousands of patients have already been seriously harmed by this loophole. Four years ago, Jaye Nevarez, a 50 year-old mother of three, was a healthy truck driver who earned a decent living, played in a band, and paid her bills on time. Then her doctor implanted bladder mesh, a device that traces its origins back to an older product that had to be recalled for causing serious injury and even death. Jaye now lives in constant pain. She was forced to quit her job. She can't walk without a cane. She lost her insurance and faces a growing mountain of medical debt. The bank recently began foreclosure proceedings on her home where she lives with her 79 year-old mother. Jaye isn't the first to be harmed by this loophole. If we fail to fix it, she won't be the last. As documented in the accompanying report prepared by my staff-- ``Defective Devices, Destroyed Lives'', several medical devices that have been recalled because they severely injured patients continue to be used as models for new devices--many of these are on the market and being implanted in patients today. I introduced the Sound Devices Act, providing FDA the ability to protect the public from these unsafe devices, but this was not included in the bill. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. When it comes to medical devices we have an insane policy that makes no sense. Despite repeated testimony from the FDA that the current law restricts their ability to assure the safety of medical devices, Republicans have refused to acknowledge and address this very dangerous loophole. This bill must not be the last word on medical device safety. I hope my colleagues will join me to close this medical device loophole so that we can keep the American public safe from harm. Lastly, I remained concerned about the mandatory clinical trials database that was created in the 2007 FDA Amendments. This registry and results database was meant to directly address issues stemming from a lack of transparency of clinical trials. Several high profile examples, including the drugs Paxil and Vioxx, gained national attention when their manufacturers were found to have suppressed clinical trial data that demonstrated safety and efficacy concerns. Today, the website requires information about certain clinical trials to be publically posted on the database, but loopholes in the underlying law still allow researchers and companies to avoid publishing unfavorable data, putting human subjects of clinical trials at grave risk. To protect the public from potentially dangerous drugs and medical devices these loopholes must be closed to provide equivalent transparency of all clinical trials. I hope I can work with my colleagues to address this serious issue in the very near future.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank Chairman Upton and Chairman Pitts and I thank Ranking Member Pallone and Ranking Member Waxman for their work in bringing to the floor a bipartisan bill that provides FDA additional resources to bring new drugs and medical devices to market. But today's bill is also a huge missed opportunity. It would be a disservice to patient safety to ignore the bill's major shortfall. Many Americans would be surprised to learn that 90 percent of medical devices are not required to undergo clinical testing in human beings prior to being sold. Under current law, the FDA is required to clear certain medical devices as long as they demonstrate their similarity to an earlier product, even if the new device is modeled after a similar defective device that caused serious injury or even death. Today's bill offered an important opportunity to address this device-safety loophole, but it doesn't. The loophole remains in place, and patients are still, and will remain, at grave risk. Four years ago, Jaye Nevarez, a 50-year-old mother of three, was a healthy truck driver who earned a decent living, played in a band, and paid her bills on time. Then her doctor implanted a bladder mesh, a device that traces its origin back to a previous product that was recalled for causing serious injury and in some cases death. Jaye now lives in constant pain. She was forced to quit her job. She can't walk without a cane. She lost her insurance and faces a growing mountain of medical debt. The bank recently began foreclosure proceedings on her home where she lives with her 79-year-old mother. Jaye isn't the first to be harmed by this loophole. If we fail to fix it, she won't be the last. There will be tens of thousands of others who fall into this loophole who will suffer serious injury. I introduced the SOUND Devices Act providing FDA the ability to protect the public from these unsafe devices, but this was not included in the bill. The bill we are voting on today is critically important, however. It includes the EXPERRT Act, a bill that I authored to improve communication between FDA and experts in rare diseases. It includes bipartisan provisions that I'm proud to have worked with other Members to promote, especially in pediatric-device development. This bill must not be the last word on medical-device safety. I hope that my colleagues will join with me to close this loophole so that we can keep the American public safe from harmful medical practices.

Mr. MARKEY

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

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of my amendment. Here's what my amendment says: Why are we building a new nuclear bomber? It's 2012. The B 52s that we have--93 of them--are going to last until 2040. The B 2s we have are going to last until 2058. That's when they begin to retire. Now, of all the things America doesn't need right now, it's a brand new nuclear bomber. We're talking about cutting Medicare or Medicaid out here on the floor, there's not enough money to invest in research to find the cure for Alzheimer's, but we need a new nuclear bomber for $18 billion? It makes no sense. It's insane. We don't even have any more targets to hit them with. Every single nuclear submarine we have has 96 independently targetable nuclear warheads on board. That's 96 cities in the Soviet Union, the bombs in the Soviet Union would destroy, 96 cities in China destroyed by one submarine. We already have 93 B 52s. We have 20 B 2s. We have ICBMs ready to launch. And they want to build a new bomber, a nuclear bomber with nuclear bombs. By the time the new nuclear bomb arrives, there will be no place to hit. All the old bombers, all the nuclear submarines will have hit all the targets. The boom we should be listening to is the baby boom. We need money for Medicare. We need money for Medicaid. We need money for Social Security. We need money to invest in finding the cure for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. That's the boom that's going to hit American families. That's the fear people have. The fear that people have is not that they're going to be in a nuclear war. The fear that people have is that there's going to be a terrifying call that comes into their family that tells them that they now have another case of Alzheimer's in their family, that it has not been cured. Each one of these bombers could double the size of the budget to find the cure for Alzheimer's. That's what we should be doing. That's the real terrorist that people are afraid of coming into their lives. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Could the Chair inform me as to how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Again, the experts all say that if we delay this just 10 years, which is all I'm asking for, a 10-year delay, since the B 2s and the B 52s aren't beginning to retire until between 2040 and 2058. All that Mr. Welch and Mr. Conyers and I are saying is, if we delay it for 10 years, there's still plenty of time to build them if there's a need. But to begin to build new things right now with this era of tremendous budget deficits, when we should just be trying to find a way to reduce our deficits, you know, balance this budget, it's just wasteful. It's wasteful. And I just want to balance the budget. And if we're wasting money on projects like this, then we have no chance of doing anything about this deficit reduction. So, again, experience shows us that it only takes 16 years, not 30, to bring a new bomber from the drawing board to the runway. There are millions of families out there who are trying to get by with a car that's a few years old and just keep it going. The Air Force has already spent over $6 billion refurbishing all these planes. They plan on spending billions more on refurbishing them. There's no reason to believe they can't go out to the year 2060. This is not the year for us to be spending this money. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Again, could you, Mr. Chair, tell me how much time I have?

Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Just look at this from the perspective of an ordinary family. They've already got three cars in the driveway. Everyone says to them, you can go another 100,000 on those three cars. And yet the decision is made by some of the family members, we're going to buy a brand new, top-of-the-line car right now, even though the whole family is in debt. Everyone in the neighborhood would think that's crazy. That's what we're doing here today. The majority is saying, let's build a brand new bomber, a gold-plated bomber that's been on the wish list of the Air Force for a generation, even though we have plenty of bombers, nuclear bombers in an era where there aren't any more nuclear sites that we can be bombing around the world, and we're just going to waste the money. We should be balancing the budget. We have to tighten our belt. And I just urge the majority to reconsider this. We have to save the money. And there just are no targets, and there are plenty of bombers we have that can last out to 2060. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the remainder of my time. We're $15 trillion in debt--$15 trillion. We've got all the bombers we need. They can last to 2060. We don't need a new nuclear bomber. Okay? We just don't need a new nuclear bomber. We don't have the targets for them, we can't afford them, and we don't need them. How's that for a combination? Let's just cut back on something on this defense budget. Does it have to be the entire wish list of every single defense contractor in the United States, regardless of whether or not it relates to the military needs of our country? And by the way, 30 or 40 years from now, $18 billion. We can postpone it 10 years, still have the brandnew planes ready to go in 2050 and 2060. We should be saving money for this generation right now, not just passing it on for the next generation. I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from California. The transportation bill should be about increasing the number of riders on our mass transit systems to reduce our oil dependence. It should be about increasing the number of riders in HOV lanes to ease commuters' lives and to encourage people to get more energy-efficient vehicles. The transportation bill should not be used as a vehicle to force approval of the Keystone XL ``export'' pipeline, because that's what it is--it's an extra large export pipeline. The American Petroleum Institute ads claim that the Keystone pipeline will deliver oil ``to power our country.'' Sounds great. But in fact, there is no legislative guarantee that even a single drop of this oil and fuel from the Keystone ``export'' pipeline would stay in the United States for American consumers. When I asked, in the hearing, the president of the TransCanada pipeline company whether he would guarantee that the oil that came from Canada through the entirety of the United States would stay here in the United States, he said no, I will not give you a guarantee. So let us not hear again from the Republicans about how this is oil for America because the president of the pipeline would not give us a guarantee that he would keep the oil here in the United States. And why is that? Because the pipeline is going to Port Arthur, Texas. Now, what's so special about Port Arthur, Texas? Well, it just happens to be that it's a tax-free zone. So they're going to bring this pipeline, without any environmental safeguards because they just want to approve it themselves, the Congress--and a congressional expert is an oxymoron, okay. There is no such thing compared to real environmental experts, real experts in this area. A congressional expert is like jumbo shrimp or Salt Lake City nightlife--I mean, there is no such thing. And yet they're saying, no, let's approve the pipeline. No environmental safeguards--we'll just move it through, we're experts. We're going to supersede the Environmental Protection Agency and send it to Port Arthur, Texas. And then, in Port Arthur, Texas, it's going to get sent, and guess where it's going to get sent? You don't have to be Dick Tracy to figure this out. It's going to be sent to China. It's going to be sent to Latin America. It's going to be sent to Europe--tax free. By the way, if you represent Port Arthur, Texas--if you represent any part of Texas, vote ``yes'' on this resolution. I'll throw in Louisiana and Oklahoma as well. But if you come from another State, I don't know what you're thinking. I really don't know what you're thinking. You don't have a guarantee on the environment. You don't have a guarantee that the oil is going to stay here in the United States. You're going to accept the canards, the fabrications, the misrepresentations that this is oil for America, when no one will put it in the bill that the oil must stay in America. You won't hear the president of TransCanada or ExxonMobil or Chevron saying the oil is going to stay in America--let me know when that happens. This is oil that they're going to sell in other parts of the world. And why do they want to do that? Because right now a barrel of oil in the United States is $93 a barrel, and a barrel of oil in Europe is $115 a barrel. You don't have to be a finance major to figure out that they want to sell that oil on the world market. So all we are is just a big conduit for that dirtiest oil in the world coming out of Canada, coming right through the United States-- without environmental safeguards--going to Port Arthur, Texas, tax-free zone, to send it so that ExxonMobil and the rest of these companies can make a fortune on the global market. Now, is that crazy or what? Why are we debating this right now? And why are we listening to these people at the same time that we export? You know something else we export, ladies and gentlemen? We export our young men and women over to the Middle East in order to protect oil coming into the United States. We should not be exporting young men and women at the expense of domestic oil which we could keep in our own country. That should not be exported, not if more young men and women have to be sent overseas in order to protect the oil lines coming in from the Middle East. That's our greatest vulnerability. So vote ``no'' on this resolution. This is the capstone of the Republican majority's commitment to the oil industry. It is something that is very consistent with everything that they have done since they took over the majority. But the truth of the matter is is that this is just a one-way trip to exotic locations in China and Morocco and Singapore for oil that is going to compromise the environment of the United States and not protect our security one whit. I'm waiting for the first Republican to stand up and accept an amendment which would keep that oil in the United States. It just is not going to happen.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. After Congress privatized the United States Enrichment Corporation in 1996, we quickly learned that it couldn't survive in the private sector without continued and repeated bailouts by the taxpayer to the tune of billions of dollars. This company should actually be renamed the United States Earmark Corporation. The government has given it free centrifuge technology. The government has given it free uranium that it enriches and then it sells below market prices, undercutting its free market competitors. The government has paid to clean up its radioactive waste. The government has assumed its liabilities. And what has happened to the billions of dollars that it has received from the taxpayers? Well, the entire company is now worth far less than the $150 million that is contained in this bill. It may be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and become a penny stock. And after Tuesday's announcement of another gift of free uranium for USEC, Standard & Poor's downgraded it to junk bond status. J.P. Morgan is now in charge of all of its remaining dwindling cash. And when I asked the Treasury Department whether the government's support for the government puts taxpayers at risk, it said ``yes'' to me. We've been told that this earmark is only about getting the tridium we need for our nuclear weapons, but that is not true. The treaty that governs uranium enrichment technology does not prevent other companies from doing the work, and URENCO is in New Mexico anyway--the competitor. And even if it did, there are other alternatives. When DOE examined its tridium options, it found that down-blending surplus highly enriched uranium would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars less than to use this corporation. This is a waste of money. There are better alternatives already in the United States. There are better technologies that can be used at hundreds of millions of dollars less, and we are continuing to pour this earmark money down a rat hole and wasting it. We should be spending this money on the defense of our Nation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation introduced by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich). The HEARTH Act will further tribal self-governance and self-determination by authorizing willing Indian tribes to take control of surface leasing on their own lands. Once tribal regulations are approved by the Secretary of the Interior, tribes will be able to lease their lands without federal oversight. H.R. 205 is groundbreaking legislation that enhances tribal control over tribal resources and I ask my colleagues to vote for its passage. Importantly, H.R. 205 authorizes leasing activity for residential, business, and other purposes. A tribe could therefore use its authority under the HEARTH Act to engage in renewable energy projects on their lands. Indian country has the potential to develop millions of megawatts of wind and solar energy. This bill will help Tribes pursue the economic, environmental and national security benefits that clean energy provides to all Americans. During the Natural Resources Committee markup, a Democratic amendment added language to authorize tribes to seek the Secretary's technical assistance in developing a regulatory environmental review process for all types of leasing activity. If a tribe chooses to use its new authority to engage in leasing activity for renewable energy projects, for example, it can call upon the expertise of the Department of the Interior to inform development of an appropriate environmental review process. I'm confident that this will enhance tribes' ability to be the best managers of their own lands. H.R. 205 also requires that approved tribal regulations must be ``consistent with'' existing federal regulations. The United States recognizes tribal primacy for a number of programs under three critical environmental laws--the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Tribes have successfully demonstrated their ability to implement these laws. I fully expect that tribes will do the same with the HEARTH Act requirement that their leasing regulations, at a minimum, meet existing federal standards and may even choose to regulate more stringently where appropriate. I applaud Mr. Heinrich's leadership on this bill and again encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of H.R. 205.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012. As the Ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over the various insular territories of the United States, I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to the adverse impact of this bill on the 4.1 million Americans who live on the five U.S. territories--Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas Islands. Of all the cuts being proposed by this bill today, perhaps none is as cynical, thoughtless and irresponsible as the Republican proposal to repeal Section 1204 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which finally mitigated the profoundly unjust treatment that these Americans in the five U.S. territories have always been subject to under the Medicaid program. If this proposal is enacted, it would cut total federal funding for Medicaid in the territories by 65% over the next decade--a crippling blow that would devastate the territories' Medicaid programs and drastically restrict the ability of millions of Americans to receive care. The territories' Medicaid programs are already vastly underfunded. By law, they are supposed to receive a 50% federal funding match, but they get nowhere near it. Unlike the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the amount that the federal government can contribute to their Medicaid programs is capped, and so Puerto Rico, for example, receives less than a 20% match. The 50 states and the District of Columbia, on the other hand, receive up to an 80% match. Even the wealthiest states--which receive the lowest match rates--get 50%. If the federal match for each of the territories was calculated the same way they are calculated for the states, each of the territories would have Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, (FMAP) in the 75% to 83% range based on their poverty levels. The results of this chronic underfunding by the federal government are both devastating and predictable: too many patients in the territories receive inadequate care and too many providers in the territories are not adequately compensated for their services. Because the treatment of the territories under Medicaid was a travesty from both a moral and public policy perspective, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to partially redress this profound inequality. It provided $6.3 billion in additional Medicaid funding to the territories between the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2011 and Fiscal Year 2019. The territories have already begun to use--and will continue to use-- this new funding to increase the number of low-income individuals that can receive Medicaid coverage and to provide beneficiaries with essential health services. Prior to this funding increase, the territory governments could not afford to provide many basic services or to cover many of their neediest residents under Medicaid. Every penny of this money will be used. H.R. 5652 cuts funding that would merely narrow the inequality gap between the states and the territories. It still would not come close to eliminating it. It is important to remember that residents of the territories are Americans who, if they are not receiving adequate health care, can relocate to the states and become eligible for fully-funded Medicaid whenever they wish. Thus, treating territory residents like second- class citizens under Medicaid is extraordinarily short-sighted. It is also important to remember that residents of the territories serve in disproportionate numbers in the U.S. military. Residents of the territories have made tens of thousands of deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa since 2001, and nearly 170 service members from the territories have lost their lives. The Republicans should explain to the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and veterans from the territories why they are ``American enough'' to defend our country in combat, but somehow not ``American enough'' to receive a modicum of fair treatment under critical health care programs. I urge my colleagues to vote against this mean-spirited bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 248, I was unavoidably detained, but had I voted I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, it is time for the Republicans to stop being afraid of commonsense initiatives like the National Ocean Policy. Why is that? Well, it's because the National Ocean Policy will reduce bureaucracy and streamline government operations. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Could it be because Big Oil doesn't want anyone other than themselves to have a voice in how we're using our coastal resources? Is that what this is all about? Is this really just another drill-baby-drill issue where the oil industry has a policy, the oil industry has a voice? What we're trying to say here is that others should have a voice, too. They are America's oceans, not ExxonMobil's oceans. So following a decade of discussion and shareholder engagement, President Obama established the National Ocean Policy in July of 2010. Creating such a policy was the cornerstone recommendation of President Bush's U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Now, following even more public engagement, we await the final National Ocean Policy implementation plan to come out this summer. Now, the assertions that the policy will create new regulations, usurp State authority, restrict land use or zone the oceans, are patently false and misleading. The National Ocean Policy will allow Federal agencies to better coordinate amongst themselves and with other levels of government and all stakeholders to eliminate red tape while managing effectively for multiple ocean uses. Opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control. You can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences. Our coastal counties make up only 18 percent of the country's land area, but are home to 108 million people, or 36 percent of our Nation's population. These numbers are steadily increasing. There's a saying in Washington that if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. When it comes to our Nation's oceans, more and more guests are coming to dinner. Fishing grounds, shipping lanes, Navy training ranges, offshore energy production, wildlife habitats, and other uses are increasingly in competition, and the National Ocean Policy will help ensure that everyone has a seat at the table. Instead of supporting a plan for our oceans, the Republican majority continues to pursue scare tactics, claiming that the policy creates additional regulation and kills American jobs. Yet, they have no evidence that that is the case. Let's go to what this bill proposes to do. It proposes to slash $93 million from the NOAA budget, threatening the health, the safety, and the prosperity of Americans. Specifically, the bill calls for a $5 million reduction to the NOAA Coastal Services Center, which helps the States, the localities, and individuals, as well as protects private property and valuable infrastructure by addressing the challenges associated with flooding, hurricanes, sea level rise and other coastal hazards. Number two: this bill, the Republican bill, seeks to cut $32 million to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which has the difficult responsibility of managing fisheries to sustain our coastal communities and ocean ecosystems. And they also want to cut $30 million, which would be cut from NOAA's Competitive Climate Research budget at a time when much of our country has been experiencing severe drought and other extreme weather. We need to study and understand these extreme weather events in order to protect lives and livelihoods. By sticking our heads in the sand and refusing to act, we do a disservice to the people we are elected to represent. We know that the oceans are warming, and are warming dramatically because of climate change. Should we study that? We know that tornadoes are now ripping through the Midwest in February, not in April or May. Should we be studying that? We know that people now all across the country are becoming more fearful of these ever-intensifying climate conditions that are threatening the lives and the livelihoods of tens of millions of Americans. Should we be studying this? What do the Republicans say in their budget? No. So I understand that some of them do not believe that this should be studied. I understand that they do not believe that the ordinary American is becoming increasingly concerned about this change in climate. But I tell you this, they are. I urge a ``no'' vote against this Republican proposal. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, parev, pari yegak (Hello, welcome.) Thank you to the Armenian National Committee of America, the Armenian Assembly, the Armenian Caucus, the Embassy of Armenia, and the Office of Nagorno Karabakh for organizing this very important event. I would also like to give a special thanks to all of the Armenian Genocide survivors and their families who are here tonight. I am very proud to represent the 7th district of Massachusetts because my district includes the community with the third highest percentage of Armenian-Americans in the Nation. We have gathered today to remember and commemorate the Armenian Genocide, one of the darkest chapters of World War I, and the first of many genocides we saw in the 20th century. Ninety-seven years ago, the Armenian Genocide was initiated when hundreds of Armenian political, religious, and intellectual leaders were arrested in Constantinople and then deported and murdered. Unfortunately, these terrible atrocities that occurred in the capital of the Ottoman Empire only represented the beginning of the suffering inflicted on the Armenian people. Between 1915 and 1923, the Ottoman Empire carried out the deportation of nearly 2 million Armenians from their homes, resulting in the deaths of 1.5 million innocent children, women and men. This must never happen again. In order to prevent future genocides, we must recognize those of the past. For many years the House has had before it a resolution which clearly affirms the United States record on the Armenian Genocide. I have been a strong supporter and vocal cosponsor of this resolution in every Congress, and I remain so today. Almost one-hundred years have passed since the Armenian Genocide, yet the suffering will continue for Armenians and non-Armenians alike as long as the world allows denial to prevail. Already, 43 states and 22 nations have officially recognized the Armenian Genocide, and it is long overdue for the United States to do the same. Unfortunately, the Republic of Armenia's challenges continue even after its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. In the face of ongoing blockades from Turkey and Azerbaijan, the United States must provide assistance to Armenia while working to reestablish the Turkish government's commitment to normalized relations in order to ensure peace and stability in the Caucasus region. I strongly support these efforts. The Armenian people are true survivors. Despite the reappearing themes of invasions and land loss that the Armenians have dealt with for over 3,000 years, coupled with the loss of between one-half and three-quarters of their population in the early 20th century, the people of Armenia have prevailed. In fact, I have a wonderful Armenian intern in my office, Victoria Hines. Victoria's grandmother was born on a train in Moscow during her family's journey to America after her mother hid her father from the Ottoman Turks, allowing for their escape. Despite watching their friends and even their own first-born perish in the genocide, the Tutunjian family, along with the rest of the Armenian people, view the stories of their families as reminders of the importance of preserving the fight for recognition. The journey of the Armenian people continues today, with our shared responsibility to ensure that the Armenian people are able to build their own independent and prosperous future. I look forward to continuing to work with the Armenian-American community to address the issues facing this longtime friend and important ally of the United States. Together we can build something positive, something hopeful, something good for the future--an Armenia that is respected and honored by its allies and neighbors. And this cannot come without universal acknowledgement of the horror that was the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. This legislation might as well be called the Cyber Insecurity Bill because it fails to address the reality of cyberthreats already facing our Nation. And if this bill had a privacy policy, it would read: you have no privacy. They would not even allow the Barton-Markey privacy language to be put in order to debate out here on the House floor. Let's talk about what the bill does not do. Although the bill would allow the government to tell nuclear power plant operators that a new version of the Stuxnet computer worm could cause widespread Fukushima- style meltdowns in this country, would this bill require the industry to take even a single step to protect American nuclear reactors? No. Would this bill require industry to even tell the government what it is doing to protect against a cyberthreat nuclear meltdown? No. Would this bill require industry to even tell the government when it had experienced an actual cyberattack? No. Now, let's talk about what this bill would do. Could companies share personal information about consumers with other companies, even if that information had nothing to do with cybersecurity? Yes. Would companies be free from liability if they share that personal information of every American? Yes. Could the government use personal information to spy on Americans? Yes. In this last Congress, Fred Upton and I wrote the GRID Act, which passed by voice vote on the suspension calendar 2 years ago. It would have said to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Do you have the authority to mandate grid security standards against an attack coming in from Iran or from China? This bill does nothing to protect against the threat at the electricity grid system in this country that could lead to nuclear meltdowns. This Republican Congress still refuses to bring up the real security we need against a cyberattack. We have an all-volunteer Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, brave men and women, but they follow orders. We must give the orders to the electric industry and to the other industries to protect this country against a cyberattack. This bill does not do it.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill renaming the Salt Pond Visitor Center at Cape Cod National Seashore as the ``Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Salt Pond Visitor Center.'' I am proud to be joined by the entire Massachusetts delegation in the House of Representatives, who are original co-sponsors of this legislation, along with Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who has been the greatest Speaker of the House since the legendary Tip O'Neill. Senator John Kerry (D MA) has introduced companion legislation in the Senate. This year, on December 9th, Tip would have celebrated his 100th birthday. Tip lived a life dedicated to public service and lifting up the disadvantaged in society, beginning with his election to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1936. In 1949, Tip became the first Democratic Speaker in the history of the Massachusetts State Legislature, serving as Speaker until 1952, when he ran successfully for the United States House of Representatives to fill the seat vacated by Senator-elect John F. Kennedy. Many of us here who served with Tip remember his warmth, his magnetic personality, and his unyielding support for working families and the middle class. When I was elected to the House, the very first vote I cast was the vote to elect Tip O'Neill Speaker of the House in 1977. I had the honor of serving with Tip for ten years--his entire tenure as Speaker, which was the longest continuous term of any Speaker since the first Congress met in 1789. Tip served in public life for 50 years, including 34 years as a Member of Congress. As Speaker, Tip worked with both Democrats and Republicans as a champion of working families. He was a master legislator who dedicated his entire life to Massachusetts and our country. Tip found joy in rebuilding communities, restoring neighborhoods, and helping families get back on their feet. He never tired of helping the middle class, helping students with student loans, and protecting the hard-earned benefits of seniors. Tip was an incredibly insightful public servant with a spirit of service who truly enjoyed the work of the American people. The squawking of politicians in Washington may have been Tip's weekday passion, but the squawking of birds on the Cape is what brought him weekend peace. The sweeping arm of the Cape reminds me of Tip's outstretched hand, greeting everyone he met. Tip was a giant of American politics. While he made famous his ``All politics is local'' approach to public service, Tip's influence also was felt on the international level. One of his greatest accomplishments was crafting a peace agreement between rival factions in Northern Ireland. He, along with our late friend Senator Ted Kennedy, worked together to develop the ``St. Patrick's Day declaration'' condemning violence in Northern Ireland. A public service powerhouse at the state, federal and international level of American politics, Tip embodied the values we strive for as servants of the People's business. As an Irish-Catholic politician from Boston, I am proud of Tip's successful international negotiations that helped to pave the way for peace in Northern Ireland. As an American, I feel privileged to have served with such an historic guardian of America's working families and middle class. And as a citizen of Massachusetts, I am pleased to introduce this bill to forever recognize a great defender of the natural beauty of Cape Cod.