Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. MARKEY. Again, could we get a review of the time remaining?

Mr. MARKEY. Could you inform me as to who has the right to close?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining minute. The gentleman from Nebraska says, What's the problem? All the oil's going to stay in the United States. It's not going to China. That's what will happen if we don't build the pipeline. So they should vote for the Markey amendment because the Markey amendment could only be guilty of redundancy saying all the oil stays here in America. So if that's your purpose, that's what the Markey amendment says. We'll hold you to your word when we have the vote. But here's the real plan. TransCanada puts the dirtiest oil on the planet into the brand new pipeline Republicans are giving it; two, TransCanada sends that oil to the gulf coast where it can make billions more than where it currently sells it in the Midwest; three, refineries in the gulf coast re-export it to other countries at world oil prices and don't pay any taxes to the U.S. for doing so; four, Americans get higher gas prices and no increased energy security; five, TransCanada, Hugo Chavez, and the sheiks of Saudi Arabia laugh all the way to the bank. Please vote ``yes'' for the Markey-Connolly-Cohen-Welch amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.

Mr. MARKEY. I claim the time of the minority.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Chairman. I will say that this amendment marginally improves the bill, but it does not change our fundamental opposition to it. But progress on any front is welcomed, even if we cannot make progress on every front.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. MARKEY. We do not oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Chair very much.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, there's no question that the gentleman from Washington State is correct, and a master of parliamentary rules, having stood up there or sat up there hundreds of hours, so he is an absolute correct dissector of language used here of seeking recognition from the Chair. So I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, if those are the technical words of art that the gentleman would prefer for me to use.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank you. This amendment would require a study to investigate potential economic impacts from a variety of risks that oil development in the Outer Continental Shelf poses to local tourism and fishing economies in Florida. Well, we actually had a real-world study for 87 days during the BP spill. As we saw in 2010, with the BP oil spill, oil can wreak havoc on a coastal community, meaning a disaster for tourism and fishing, seafood industries. These disasters can and do happen, putting hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars at stake. It is important for the public to know the risks associated with allowing oil companies to drill off of our coast. But we should be protecting our beaches in Florida and California and New Jersey and Massachusetts, not just requiring a study of how huge a disaster a spill would be for these States. We should be protecting the lives and the livelihoods of the people of the gulf by taking the lessons of the BP spill and turning them into new laws. But nearly 2 years after the BP spill began, this Congress has not enacted a single new law to improve the safety of offshore drilling. That is indefensible when the BP Commission found that we have a fatally flawed rate of accidents and fatalities in our country. Compared to the rest of the world, ours is four times higher than that in Europe, that is, the fatalities on our oil rigs. So that's the issue. We have yet to increase the fines because only we can do that here in Congress. Right now, a lot of these oil companies think it's just the equivalent of a parking ticket. You know, if you could pay a parking ticket for a whole day on the main street of any one of the cities in the United States, you'd pay that $1 parking ticket because it would be cheaper than paying 20 bucks to put it in a garage. And that's what we have right now. We have the equivalent of $1 parking tickets that are assessed against oil companies that despoil the ocean, that result in, because of their faulty safety rules, the highest fatality rate in the world in terms of people who work on oil rigs. At this point, I have completed my statement, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARKEY. If this amendment passes, Mardi Gras will come on the Wednesday before Fat Tuesday this year. That's because the Landry amendment delivers up to $6 billion in a financial King Cake to Louisiana and to the other Gulf States at the expense of the other 46 States in the Union. In 2006, the Republican Congress passed legislation that will divert $150 billion over the next 60 years from offshore drilling on public lands to the four Gulf Coast States--Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas. That bill set up what amounts to a new entitlement program for these four States, which will result in a massive transfer of wealth from the Federal Government. This amendment would send $6 billion to these four States on top of that $150 billion they will already be getting. These oil and gas resources on public lands belong to all of the American people, not just to those of the adjacent States. They are public resources that belong as much to someone living in Kansas, Massachusetts, or Hawaii as they do to someone living in Louisiana or Texas. These are resources that should help every American, not just a select few. The revenue generated from these public resources goes to the Federal Treasury to help pay for Medicare and Medicaid. It helps to pay for our national defense. We can no longer afford to continue this diversion of taxpayer funds to these four States. We need this revenue to reduce our deficit and to get our fiscal house in order. I had offered an amendment that would have recovered the $150 billion we are going to be sending to these four States, which the majority did not make in order, and now this amendment would take us in the complete opposite direction. So I commend the gentleman from Louisiana. I can't blame him for trying to get even more Federal money directed to his home State under this program. Yet, if you come from one of the 46 States that is not-- and let me enumerate them again--Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, or Texas, you would have to be crazy to vote for this amendment, because they're going to take money away from your States, away from your Medicare beneficiaries, away from your contributions to the defense budget. It will be higher in all of those other States because this money is going to be sucked out of the Federal Treasury, as though through a straw, right into the States of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. If you vote for this amendment, you are voting to send that money--$6 billion--directly from your State to the gentleman from Louisiana's State. I urge all members of the Louisiana delegation to vote against the Markey amendment, and I would give a similar recommendation to the other Members from the other three States. But if you don't come from one of those four States, why would you send $6 billion to those States, money which should be in the Federal Treasury, when it should be used for all of the citizens of our country? At this point, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, America's nuclear weapons budget is locked into a Cold War time machine. It doesn't reflect our 21st century security needs. It makes no sense. It is insane. It's insane to spend $10 billion building new plants to make uranium and plutonium for new nuclear bombs when we're cutting our nuclear arsenal and the plants we have now work just fine. It's insane that we're going to spend $84 billion for up to 14 new nuclear submarines when just one submarine with 96 nuclear bombs on board can blow up every major city in Iran, China, and North Korea. It's an insane strategy, but it's America's current plan. And that's why we need a SANE approach to our nuclear weapons budget. Today, I am introducing the SANE Act--the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures Act--with 34 of my colleagues. The SANE Act cuts $100 billion in spending over the next 10 years on outdated, wasteful nuclear weapons programs over the next 10 years. Let's cut new nuclear weapons, not the poor, the sick, the children, and the elderly of our country. Support and cosponsor the SANE Act.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. As we debate our national budget, we must address one of the largest costs threatening our economy and bankrupting our families--the Alzheimer's pandemic. 5.4 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's today, and as all the baby boomers retire, 15 million Americans will have Alzheimer's. We already spend $130 billion a year on Alzheimer's from Medicare and Medicaid. At this rate, in 2050, we will spend $800 billion every year from Medicare and Medicaid on this one disease alone. That is more than the entire defense budget today. Thankfully, right now, the Advisory Council for the National Alzheimer's Project Act is developing the first-ever comprehensive national plan to fight this disease. We cannot cut funding for medical research for Alzheimer's today if we want to balance the budget tomorrow. We made a vow to care for our citizens as they age. NIH is the National Institutes of Hope. We must not cut that budget or else all of these families with Alzheimer's will have no hope.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, tax cuts delayed are tax cuts denied. Last year, just before the holidays, the House Republicans extended the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, no strings attached. And this year, Republicans won't even allow a vote to extend middle class tax cuts. Republicans want to procrastinate. Democrats want to legislate. When it comes to millionaires, the Republicans are Santa Claus. For the middle class, they are the Grinch. This isn't ``Mission Impossible,'' Mr. Speaker. We don't need Tom Cruise to save seniors, the middle class and the unemployed. We just need to pass the Senate compromise right now. By not allowing an up-or-down vote on this bipartisan compromise, the Republicans are raising the curtain on their real priorities: millionaires and billionaires. Americans don't need any more meetings, and they don't need any more debate. They just need us to make sure their taxes do not go up on New Year's Day. Today, we can protect the middle class, the seniors, and the unemployed by passing this bipartisan compromise right now. Do it now.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady. This is the end of the year, and so the Republicans need a few presents for the oil industry, for the coal industry, and that's what this final weekend is all about: How do we get those presents? And so they tried and tried in this bill to roll back many, many environmental laws, but they have been unable to do so. But what they have said is just give us one thing, give us one trinket, perhaps, a symbol of our success in rolling back the laws of energy efficiency in our country. And so within this bill, the Republicans have now successfully inserted a provision which rolls back the lightbulb efficiency laws, which the companies of our country and the rest of the world must comply with. Now, what does that mean? Well, for consumers in our country, it will be $6 billion per year that they will have to pay in higher electricity bills every year that they are alive. What else does it mean? Well, it means that the coal industry is happy because they generate half the electricity in our country, so they'll burn more coal in order to generate that electricity in order for the American people to use less efficient lightbulbs. And that greenhouse gas will go up into the atmosphere, and since the Republicans don't believe the planet is warming, what do they care? Just roll back the lightbulb efficiency standards. What's the next bill that's up? Oh that one, can we give a payroll tax break to the ordinary Americans? Can we have unemployment insurance for the millions of people who are unemployed? They are saying, well, we'll consider it, but you can't tax billionaires to find the money for that. And, by the way, we want a trinket there as well. Let's make sure that that final bill, they're saying, has an exemption for environmental law so you can build a huge pipeline, the Keystone XL Pipeline, extra large pipeline right through the middle of America, waiving the environmental laws, and at the same time, ladies and gentlemen, having no guarantee that the oil that comes from Canada through the United States will be sold in the United States. They won't accept that provision, neither TransCanada nor the Republicans, even though they say we would do it for our national security. So here we are at the end of the year, lightbulb efficiency out the door. They like to do the same thing, by the way, for increased efficiency in the vehicles we drive, the planes which we fly in, the boats which we sail here in the United States, as we see the Middle East in turmoil, as we see Iran and Iraq perhaps growing closer together, they're trying to reduce the efficiency of our country by making it more likely we consume oil.

Mr. MARKEY. So here we have, again, misunderstanding on the part of the Republicans on our key national security issue, and that is changing our relationship with the energy sources which we consume, because it comes disproportionately out of the Straits of Hormuz, out of the Middle East into our country. And so this issue goes right to the core, this lightbulb efficiency. It's a small symbol of all the other things that they oppose in terms of increasing the efficiency of our society, and it's stuck right in the middle of this so-called omnibus bill, and they wouldn't be happy unless they got it. Mind you, this attempt that was defeated earlier this year on the House floor, when Members could vote for it, must be snuck into the omnibus end-of-the year bill. So whether it be the XL pipeline for the oil industry, whether it be the lightbulb bill for the coal industry, whether it be the billionaire tax break staying on the books, rather than helping to make sure ordinary people get tax breaks; billionaires, oil or coal industry, that is what the agenda is all about. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, let's start with what we know: First, Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons, and the international community has ratcheted up sanctions to prevent Tehran from getting the bomb. Second, Iran is attempting to circumvent these sanctions, with Iranian nationals establishing front companies in other countries to get around U.N. restrictions. Just this year, a grand jury indicted a firm established by Iranians but operating in Istanbul for allegedly procuring materials for Iran's ballistic missile program. Third, we must be vigilant about companies that deliberately hide their ties to Iran. But what about companies that don't even try to conceal their Iranian connections? In October, this Congress passed H.R. 1904, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. This bill will allow Rio Tinto, a foreign company that does business with Iran, to obtain public land in Arizona so that it can mine for copper here in the United States. But when Republicans in this chamber had a chance to join Democrats to ensure these business ties between Rio Tinto and Iran were severed as a condition of doing business on our land, every single member of the Republican majority voted no. With the threat of nuclear weapons landing in the hands of Ahmadinejad, the stakes are simply too high to change the rules when the majority sees fit. Vote yes on H.R. 1905 today, and we must insist on strong nuclear nonproliferation conditions in H.R. 1904.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Al-Qaeda wants to acquire nuclear weapons. The threat we face is very, very real. Sanctions are important to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, but they are not enough. America must lead by example. The U.S. recently signed the New START treaty, requiring reductions to our nuclear arsenal. Yet, we still plan to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on new nuclear weapons and related programs over the next decade. Why do we allow this wasteful spending to continue? Because some Republicans in this Chamber treat the nuclear weapons budget as a sacred cow, never to be questioned or scrutinized. This is ridiculous. Wasteful nuclear weapons spending actually harms national security. It sends the message to Iran, North Korea, and Syria that while we don't want you to have these weapons, we are not willing to make cuts ourselves. This is the wrong message to send. You cannot argue temperance from a barstool. The central deal in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was that the non-weapons states agreed to forgo the right to get the bomb. The weapons states in return, agreed to negotiate measures leading to disarmament. That should be our goal, and we can take an important step in this direction by reducing unnecessary nuclear weapons spending.