Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Last year the Republicans refused to extend unemployment benefits unless the Bush tax cuts were extended for millionaires and billionaires. Well, here they go again, Mr. Speaker. This year, the Republicans are trying to prevent continuation of jobless benefits and the payroll tax cut unless their wish list of goodies for America's biggest polluters is granted in full. During this Christmas season, instead of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, the Republicans are bearing gifts of arsenic and mercury and oil on behalf of their planet-polluting patrons, Big Oil and Big Coal. The GOP used to stand for ``Grand Old Party.'' Now it stands for ``Gang of Polluters.'' Now it stands for the ``Gas and Oil Party.'' This Republican bill: One, blocks and indefinitely delays standards that would reduce hazardous air pollution like lead and cancer-causing substances that are released from industrial boilers and sent to the lungs of the children of America; Two, rushes approval for the Keystone pipeline that will bring the dirtiest oil on the planet through the United States so it can be reexported to other countries while hurting our health and our environment here; and Three, cuts much needed Medicare payments to hospitals to care for the sickest in our country. The Republicans are presenting a false choice to the American people. We should not have to choose between toxic chemicals and tax relief for American workers. We should not have to choose between pollution and prosperity. In this Republican-controlled House of Representatives, billionaires, Big Oil, big bankers benefit while the rest of America bears the burden. Enough is enough. We know we need to pass the middle class tax cuts. We know we need to extend unemployment benefits. If we fail to act, Congress will leave a giant legislative lump of coal in the stockings of struggling Americans. It is unacceptable, bad for children, bad for the elderly, bad for the unemployed, and bad for America.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are now debating on a very real piece of legislation that solves an imaginary problem. The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act purports to address the fictitious threat that the Environmental Protection Agency is out to destroy the family farm and countless jobs by regulating the dust emitted by tractors and other farming equipment. Never mind that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has committed to leaving the 1987 standard for large soot particles unchanged; and never mind that EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy essentially told the Energy and Commerce Committee that EPA was about as likely to regulate fairy dust as it was to regulate farm dust. While hiding behind its stated purpose of addressing the made-up threat of utter ruin to the family farm, this bill inflicts very real harm. That is because it also blocks EPA from setting standards for the dirty soot that gets spewed out of massive mines and smelters and refineries and some chemical plants. It becomes, in fact, the congressional version of Never Never Land--where the Republicans' answer to the question ``when can we remove the poisons from the air that we breathe?'' is ``never.'' In the play ``Peter Pan,'' Tinker Bell drinks poison that is intended to kill Peter. She begins to die, but Peter Pan implores those in the audience to just clap their hands if they really do believe in fairies, and then maybe, just maybe, Tinker Bell won't die. All small children in the audience then clap so hard their hands sting, and Tinker Bell rises magically back to life. With this bill, the Republicans are engaging in the very same sort of fantasy. If we just believe EPA has launched a war on jobs, then it must be so, and we must stop it. If we just believe that EPA officials are lying about their secret, nonexistent plans to destroy the livelihood of every farmer in America, then it must be so, and we must stop it. If we just believe that eviscerating every environmental law on the books will not lead to the real deaths of thousands of Americans each and every year, then it must be so. The Republican lost boys and girls are telling America that the only way to revive the jobs fairy is to kill EPA. To pretend that the deaths, the cancers and other illnesses that the Republican plan will cause are imaginary, or a mere nuisance, really is the stuff of fairy tales. Let's get back to reality and solve real problems in this country. Vote ``no'' on this very dangerous bill.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 2 minutes. In this legislation, the Republican majority exempts all so-called nuisance dust from the protective air quality standards for coarse particle or soot pollution under the Clean Air Act. Republicans have defined ``nuisance dust'' to include particulate matter that is generated from ``earth moving or other activities that are typically conducted in rural areas.'' This legislation's broad definition means a bill which is supposed to be all about tractors and farms is actually about barring EPA from regulating the toxic soot that comes out of mines, smelters, chemical plants. And that's because all of these materials come from earth moving, natural materials, or activities that take place in rural areas. Now, I don't know about the majority, but when most people hear the word ``nuisance'' they think of things like honking horns, telemarketers, and buzzing flies. They don't think of poison. By preventing EPA from regulating the toxic soot spewing out of mining operations, smelters, chemical facilities, and construction sites, Republicans have apparently decided that poisonous chemicals such as arsenic, lead, and mercury are mere nuisances. This false advertising is not a total surprise. We have heard from Republican witnesses in the past who, in defense of the most polluting industries, have unwillingly offered up the absurd. In fact, in the last Congress, at a hearing I chaired, the Republican witness said he would be happy to sprinkle arsenic-laced coal ash on his cereal. It turns out that the Republican witness is not alone in his suggestion to use arsenic as a dietary supplement. Arsenic, which is a major component of mining activities, was famously used to poison and kill a number of prominent people throughout history, including Napoleon, King George III, and the Emperor of China. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In the 19th century, mercury, another common mining waste, was used as a cure-all for toothaches and other ailments. It turns out that the mercury is also highly toxic. It causes severe impacts on the brain and, throughout history, has been identified as the poison behind many other notable illnesses and deaths in the history of our planet. By defining nuisance dust this way, the Republicans are, essentially, providing the mining industry with the holiday gift of pollution. Instead of gold and frankincense and myrrh, the Republicans are bearing gifts of arsenic and lead and mercury for every family in our country. My amendment simply states that so-called nuisance dust doesn't include poisonous arsenic or other heavy metals that are hazardous to human health, because cancer is not a nuisance. The development of a child's brain is not a nuisance. Yet the Republicans would treat these conditions as a nuisance rather than as medical catastrophes for the families of America. So let's be clear what this bill is all about. This is another attempt by the Republicans to protect Big Coal by creating another loophole to avoid the Clean Air Act so that families don't have to worry that their children are inhaling these dangerous materials, the arsenic, the lead, the mercury that they are petrified are going to have a negative long-term impact on their children's development. That's what this is all about, bottom line. And the coal industry is saying ``no.'' The Republicans are using the guise of some farm dust cloud of confusion to mask what they're really trying to do, which is to allow the coal industry to continue to send this lead, this mercury, this arsenic up into the air and into the lungs of children across our country, especially those that are so young that we know it has an impact on their development, especially of their brain. So I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, and I don't think there can be a more important amendment that we're going to vote upon in this Congress. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. The Republicans call this bill a ``balanced budget amendment,'' but it is not balanced because it will blow a hole in the budget of vital programs that millions of Americans depend on. It's unbalanced, unneeded, and will undermine our struggling economy. Republicans want us to mangle the Constitution because they cannot manage this institution. This amendment is a means to an end. It's a means for Republicans to end Medicare, to end Social Security and Medicaid, to end every antipoverty program. And why? Because they harbor an ancient animosity towards all of those programs. And their plan is to leave them as debt-soaked relics of an era where we actually cared about poor people, the elderly in our country, because the Republican plan will cut critical health care and antipoverty programs, put them on a starvation diet, and leave vulnerable Americans with the crumbs. Our economy now has a 9 percent unemployment rate. You know what that means? It means that 46 million Americans today live in poverty. Do you want to know what poverty is in America in 2011? That's a family of four living on $22,000 a year. There are almost 9 million families living at or below the poverty line, including 15.5 million children. That means that one in five children in our country are living in poverty. Those are the programs that they want to cut here today, for the poorest children in America in 2011. There are almost 50 million Americans at risk of not having enough food. More than 16 million children are in danger of going to bed tonight without a meal. One in six seniors now live in poverty, dependent upon Medicare, dependent upon Medicaid, each of them now at grave risk because of the Republican plan here today. Their plan is really a Robin Hood in reverse--take from the neediest and give to the greediest. That is the plan. Now let's go back into the ``way back'' machine, all the way back to the year 2000, the last time we voted on a balanced budget here in Congress, 2000. Bill Clinton was President. It passed. The budget balanced. And the country was feeling good. The economy was booming. And then George Bush takes over in January of 2001. The Republicans controlled the House. The Republicans controlled the Senate. What do they do? Huge tax breaks for billionaires and millionaires, two wars which were not paid for, Iraq and Afghanistan, all on the Republicans' shoulders. And they then turn a blind eye as Wall Street turned the entire economy into a casino, which then cascaded into the biggest longstanding recession that we've seen since the Great Depression, descending upon the shoulders of whom? The poor, the sick, the elderly, the ordinary families killing themselves to pay for their mortgage each day. You don't need a constitutional amendment, ladies and gentlemen, Republicans, my good friends. You have a supercommittee meeting right now down the corridor. You know what you should do? Say: Take away those $40 billion worth of tax breaks for the oil companies. They don't need them. Take away the $700 billion in new nuclear weapons programs. We don't have any targets for those nuclear weapons. Kill those programs. Look at the tax breaks for the billionaires and millionaires. They don't need them. Cut them right now. All of you have taken a pledge, no reductions in the tax breaks for billionaires. No reductions in defense spending. You've tied your own hands even as you, with crocodile tears, come out here and say how much you care about balancing the budget and how much you care about the American economy. The proof will come next week when you do not stand up in order to take the tough actions needed right now for the American people. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. MARKEY. We do not need a constitutional amendment. We need a supercommittee congressional agreement now. To the Republicans: do it now. Call President Obama now. Tell him tax breaks for the billionaires, on the table. Tell him defense spending, on the table. Tell him tax breaks for oil companies, on the table. The President says he'll put the social programs on the table. You don't have to go back 200 years to amend the Constitution. You just have to next week, next Wednesday say, We want to do it now. We, who are here, will do it now. We will balance the budget by putting all of our programs on the table. Do it now. Do it now, Republicans. Don't pretend and hide behind a constitutional amendment when you can do it now. You can be the Founding Fathers of a balanced budget in 2011.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, though the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, may not be a household name, Americans rely on this agency every day to provide critical weather information and to support ecologically sustainable and economically vibrant coastal communities. 2011 has been a record year for extreme weather disasters, including floods in the Midwest, extensive drought in Texas, a hurricane in Vermont and a debilitating October snowstorm in New England. The latest insurance analysis finds that the United States has experienced 15 billion-dollar weather disasters thus far in 2011. Despite these substantial costs, the ability to accurately predict and therefore prepare for such events not only prevented additional economic losses, but also saved lives. The funding levels in this bill will support the Joint Polar Satellite System, which provides NOAA with the technology to continue to make timely and accurate weather predictions. Unfortunately, this bill prevents NOAA from undertaking a budget neutral reorganization to create a Climate Service, which was first proposed by President Bush's administration. Increasingly businesses, communities, and individuals are asking NOAA for climate information so they can make informed long-term decisions that impact the economy, public health, and safety. By continuing to oppose all things 'climate', Republicans have denied NOAA the ability to provide these critical products and services. This bill also unfortunately reduces funding levels for NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service to 2005 levels. NOAA is responsible for the conservation and management of fisheries in the United States and adequate funding is needed to protect our iconic American fishing industry. Our fishing industry is a critical component of our national economy. In 2010, the United States landed 8.2 billion pounds of fish valued at $4.5 billion dollars. We know improved data collection and stock assessments allow NOAA to make better and more timely fishery management decisions. We must continue to push for adequate fisheries science funding, which is critical to supporting our fishermen and coastal communities. I remain concerned that NOAA's role in climate and fisheries science will be hindered by these funding levels, but will support this bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. I thank the gentleman from Texas as well. This is a very important bill. I rise today in support of H.R. 2640, which I introduced in the House of Representatives, and Senate 1412, introduced by Senator Kerry and Senator Brown, and that is to name the Woburn Post Office in honor of Officer John--his friends called him ``Jack''--Maguire. At 9 p.m. on December 26, 2010, during the height of a blizzard, two men invaded a Kohl's department store on Washington Street in Woburn, Massachusetts, to rob the jewelry counter as the employees prepared to close. As one robber entered the store, the second stood lookout on the outside, while a third man waited in a nearby getaway vehicle. The robber in the department store was a career criminal with a long and violent record. He took a large amount of jewelry and fled outside the store into the driving snow. Eyewitnesses and store employees dialed 911. Officer Maguire arrived in the parking lot moments after the robbery. He saw an officer chasing a gunman on foot and drove his cruiser to a location to prevent the escape of the gunmen into a residential neighborhood in Woburn. Officer Maguire jumped out of his cruiser on Washington Street, and the gunman opened fire on him. Shots were exchanged, and the gunman was killed. Unfortunately, Officer Maguire was shot four times in the torso and was transported to a local trauma center, where it was announced, unfortunately, that he had passed away. Officer Maguire paid the ultimate price protecting the citizens of Woburn. We are incredibly grateful for his selfless acts that day, which capped 34 years of outstanding dedication to the safety of the people of Woburn. On June 26, 1977, Officer Maguire began his career by being sworn in by his father, Police Chief Thomas Maguire, a longtime friend of mine, and he was so proud to follow in his father's footsteps. On December 26, 2010, he died wearing badge 23, which had been his own father's badge number. Just days before his death, he had celebrated his 60th birthday and given notice of his intention to retire in October of 2011. A devoted husband and caring father, Officer Maguire is survived by his wife, Desiree, and children Bryan, Tara, and Sean. Officer Maguire died protecting the residents of Woburn from an armed gunman. He was the first officer killed in the line of duty from the Woburn Police Department since its inception in 1847. It was a tragedy for his family, for the Woburn Police Department, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to have lost such an honorable father, a courageous cop, and a hometown hero. That is why, at the request of Mayor Scott Galvin of Woburn, Police Chief Richard Kelly, and former Police Chief Phillip Mahoney of the Woburn Police Department, I introduced H.R. 2640 to rename the Woburn Post Office in the memory of Officer John ``Jack'' Maguire. Renaming the post office located at 462 Washington Street--just a few hundred yards across the street from where Officer Maguire was shot and killed--in his honor is the least that we can do to pay tribute to this brave, dedicated first responder. We honor his service and sacrifice. We honor his life and his legacy. And we honor police officers everywhere who go to work every day to protect the safety and security of all citizens. Today, we are considering an identical bill that was introduced by my colleagues Senator Kerry and Senator Brown. I urge adoption of this bill, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 462 Washington Street, Woburn, Massachusetts, as the ``Officer John Maguire Post Office'' to honor the legacy of a true hometown hero.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Patrick Hyland, who, for more than 22 years, has served with distinction as executive director of the Northeast Public Power Association. Under Pat Hyland's leadership, the Northeast Public Power Association has been the leading voice for 79 consumer-owned utilities that provide energy to more than two million citizens in the six New England states of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Over the years, Pat Hyland has worked closely with Members of the New England delegation, from both sides of the aisle, to advance the interest of NEPPA consumers in New England. Under the leadership of their local elected energy boards, NEPPA utilities are responsible for providing reliable electric services at affordable prices throughout the region. Pat Hyland is well known throughout the New England Congressional delegation for his integrity and forthrightness. He has played a pivotal role in advocating on behalf of NEPPA utilities that deliver vital electricity, and in some cases water services, on a non-profit, publicly-accountable basis to consumers in small and large communities throughout New England. To highlight just two of his successes, Pat has effectively spearheaded legislative efforts to increase awareness of impacts to consumers in New England--who are also our constituents--of wholesale and retail competition, including the creation of Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs), and energy capacity markets and the implementation of key transmission rate policies. Throughout his career, Pat Hyland has been actively involved in federal energy policy. He was a key resource to me during the debate over the amendment that I successfully offered to provide for open transmission access when Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 1992; he was a voice of caution regarding the need to ensure appropriate consumer and investor protections in the event of a repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act in the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and he was a leader in the effort to obtain comparable renewable incentives for the customers of consumer-owned utilities. He has also taken the lead to increase consumer awareness about the impact of wholesale and retail competition and operations of Regional Transmission Organizations. My personal and professional respect and admiration for Pat runs deep, and I wish him happiness and good health in his retirement. The wise counsel, calm determination, and good Irish sense-of-humor, which he has provided to me and others in Congress for many years on behalf of NEPPA, will be sorely missed. I am told that one of the highlights of Pat's life was to meet the legendary Celtics basketball player Bob Cousey. I understand that, because over the last 20 years Pat Hyland has been New England's public power ``point guard'': taking control of the game, mastering it with wizardry and elegance, and dazzling fans. And so I wish today, Mr. Speaker to say to Pat, thank you for your service. We will miss you and we wish you well.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the New Deal was a jobs plan. President Obama has put forward a jobs plan. H.R. 1904 is not a jobs plan. H.R. 1904 is a massive payout to multinational mining giants that are wearing a jobs plan as a disguise. That disguise is slipping. Real jobs are about making wise investments in businesses and technologies that put Americans to work. This bill just gives billions of dollars in copper to foreign mining companies for free. Let's do the math. Estimates vary on the value of the copper from $2 billion to $7 billion or $8 billion. So let's just split the difference down the middle and say that the copper might be worth $5 billion. The jobs claims for this bill vary wildly as well from 500 to 5,000 jobs. Now, there is a good reason to believe the jobs numbers will be on the very low end, but let's be optimistic and take the highest jobs claim possible. So supporters of this bill are going to give away $5 billion in hopes of creating 5,000 jobs. Well, that's $1 million per job, Mr. Chairman, $1 million not paid necessarily to the workers themselves but to foreign mining giants. Now, is that the kind of wise investment that we need? I do not think so. I think that we need some new jobs, but they should be real jobs. They should be here. Much of the work that's going to be done in this mining is going to be done by robots. So there will be full employment for R2-D2 and for the transformers; but the total number of jobs here, very speculative and very expensive per job created. That's the real question here because I think many human beings are just going to remain unemployed under this plan. And since it's a multinational that gets the benefits, there will be plenty of accountants and lawyers in London and Melbourne, all around the world, that will be employed, but in America, not so many. And those that are there, very expensive, especially since the per capita cost is very, very high. Now, why do we know that? Well, we know it because Rio Tinto and BHP- Billiton stand to pocket an enormous amount of money, billions of dollars, off of this deal. So if you count the chauffeurs, if you count the food service workers in the executive dining rooms of these companies, well, you can see where there will be some jobs that are created if you're adding it up that way. But the truth is, this is a windfall, a windfall, which is why I am going to make an amendment to charge a reasonable royalty for the privilege of mining this copper on public lands in the United States. And when the majority votes ``no'' on that, when the Republicans say, no, we don't want a royalty payment that can actually be collected by the American people, we'll see what the real aim of this is, which is to privatize this resource for multinational corporations without giving the full benefit to the American taxpayer for the copper which is mined. Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Garamendi will offer an amendment to require local hiring and local ore processing and Make It in America, make it here and have Americans working here doing this work, people from Arizona itself. That's the real debate that we're going to have. In conclusion, Mr. Lujan as well will offer an amendment to protect Native American sacred sites from being destroyed by this bill. And when that is defeated as well by the majority, it will be painfully clear just how far they are willing to go to enrich these foreign corporations. This should not be a Filene's Basement sale. This should not be a fire sale giving away American valuable copper resources to multinationals. We should be able to put a price tag on what the American people are getting from this bargain basement sale, this giveaway, without proper compensation given to the American taxpayer. That's what this bill and the debate is going to be all about. It's whether or not, in fact, there is corporate profiteering at taxpayer expense, plain and simple, which is at the heart of this bill. History will record that when the public cried out for a jobs plan to put Americans back to work, what was put together was a retirement plan for executives at Rio Tinto and BHP-Billiton that did not, in fact, get a return on investment for the American taxpayers. The National Congress of American Indians Resolution #MKE-11-0xx

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, there are two versions of this land bill: one with the Markey amendment and one without the Markey amendment. The difference is the version with the Markey amendment is a deal the American taxpayers should take. Without my amendment, this is a deal that takes the taxpayers. Without the Markey amendment, this land deal is a shell game, all about misdirection and surprise outcomes. We are urged to keep our eye on the beautiful surface acres the Federal Government would get in this deal and the unique payment scheme included in the bill. This is like the guy on the street who tells you to watch his right hand while his left hand is picking your pocket. This is not about the surface. This is about the copper and whether Rio Tinto will have to pay its fair value. And the fact is the payment scheme in this bill is completely--let me say it again--the payment scheme in this bill is completely speculative. It will be based on information only the company has access to and is subject to serious manipulation. In the end, Rio Tinto could end up paying absolutely nothing for the massive windfall they stand to receive from this legislation. With the Markey amendment, this bill is simple. It would require no guesswork on the part of the taxpayers. It would allow for no manipulation that could shortchange the American taxpayer. My amendment strikes the convoluted payment scheme in this bill and replaces it with a simple 8 percent royalty on the copper produced each year from this mine. This is the American people's copper. It's not their copper. It's the American people's. What are they going to get out of this? How about 8 percent? Can we give the taxpayer 8 percent? Now, we don't know how much copper exactly is down there. The benefit of my amendment is we don't need to know ahead of time. If Rio Tinto makes $1, then they owe the taxpayer a nickel and three pennies, and if they make $8 billion, the Treasury gets $640 million. Now, the company will argue a royalty is unfair. Well, guess who is already paying royalties, Mr. Chairman. Oil and gas companies pay 12.5 percent when they drill on the taxpayers' land. 12.5 percent, that's what ExxonMobil pays. That's what Shell pays. But do you know who else pays the royalty? Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton when they mine on State land. So, if you're in Colorado, you're in Wyoming and you're on State land, you're paying a royalty. But, no, let's go to the American taxpayers' land. Those same companies that pay to the States don't pay to Uncle Sam. And the revenue from a royalty is money we can use. What can we use the money for? Make sure we don't have to cut Medicare payments for Grandma. Make sure we have student loans for kids to be able to go to college. That's what the money should be used for. Should it just be pocketed by Rio Tinto, by these companies? So I ask my colleagues, which deal do you want to go home with and tell your constituents you were for? The deal where they got some nice lands in Arizona while a foreign mining company got billions in copper, or the deal where they got the land plus hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty payments for the U.S. taxpayer? With the Markey amendment, we in Congress are responsible stewards doing our due diligence to protect the Federal Treasury to get the taxpayer what they're owed. Without the Markey amendment, this House looks like the old Keystone Kops, bumbling around in circles while billions walk right out the door that should be in the pockets of every taxpayer in this country. We have a supercommittee debating how much they're going to cut poor people, students, national defense, what we're going to spend on the protection of our country, and how many policemen we can afford to have. Meanwhile, out here on the House floor, we're going to turn a blind eye to billions of dollars just going right out the floor of the House here today into the pockets of Rio Tinto, into the pockets of a foreign corporation. That's not right. Vote for the Markey amendment. Capture this money for the American taxpayer. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. The bill before us today proposes to give away National Forest land to the Resolution Copper Corporation so they can build a giant copper mine. There could be somewhere between $2 billion and $7 billion worth of copper on this land. So who exactly is this company that is going to be the beneficiary of the Republican majority largesse? A controlling 55 percent of Resolution Copper's shares are owned by the giant mining conglomerate Rio Tinto. What else does Rio Tinto own? It turns out Rio Tinto owns 65 percent of the world's largest open pit uranium mine, the Rossing Mine, in Namibia. Their second-largest partner in the Rossing Uranium Mine, with a 15 percent stake and two people on the board of directors, is none other than the government of Iran. The U.N. Security Council has six times approved resolutions condemning Iran for its violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and this House has twice enacted strong Iran nuclear sanctions. Yet Rio Tinto is in partnership with the Iranian government to mine uranium. For what purpose? And with this bill today we are rewarding Rio Tinto. We are telling Rio Tinto, Never mind the U.N. sanctions. Never mind the sanctions of U.S. law. What the Deutch amendment does is say if you want to do business with America, you need to stop doing business with Iran and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Under this amendment, as soon as Rio Tinto severs its partnership with Iran and Ahmadinejad, Rio Tinto's Resolution Copper affiliate can proceed to take title to these very valuable Federal lands in Arizona in the United States of America. I don't think that's too much for this Congress to ask. Vote for a strong nuclear nonproliferation policy. Send a message to Ahmadinejad. Vote for the Deutch amendment.

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady. I rise in opposition to this legislation. If it were to pass the House, we lawmakers would be directing the Secretary of Transportation to tell U.S. airlines not to follow the law. If we prohibit our companies from complying with the laws in other countries, we should expect other countries to do the same when it comes to their companies complying with U.S. law. In an effort to protect U.S. airlines, this bill might actually undermine airline security. The U.S. currently requires international airlines to comply with a wide range of U.S. laws when it comes to passenger, baggage, and cargo security in order to do business in our country. If we legislate our companies out of Europe's environmental laws, our homeland security could be adversely impacted if European countries decided to withhold their cooperation in response with regard to screening of baggage for bombs on planes flying into the United States. When it comes to pollution from the transportation sector, the United States was the first to pass a law requiring anyone in the world interested in coming to our shores to follow our environmental regulations. In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In order to reduce the risk of an oil spill, it required all tankers operating in U.S. waters to be double-hulled by 2015. No matter what country's flag a tanker is flying, it will have to be double-hulled to sail into the United States of America--to protect us from their pollution. We acted unilaterally to protect our country from the carbon pollution associated with an oil spill 21 years ago. Now, after years of trying to forge an international aviation agreement, the European Union is acting to protect itself from the carbon pollution associated from airline travel. Last week, an independent team of scientists at Berkeley released their analysis of land surface temperature records going back to 1800. They found--as their counterparts in NOAA and NASA had previously shown--that temperatures over the last decade were increasing. Once again, scientists have confirmed that global warming is real. Now that independent scientists have validated this bedrock fact, perhaps my colleagues who have questioned the science of climate change will be willing to give climate scientists the benefit of the doubt that the rest of their findings are accurate. And those findings have sobering consequences for the United States--more heat waves, rising sea levels, declining snowpack, more frequent drought, more extreme precipitation when it does rain--to name just a few. 2011 has been a record-breaking year for extreme weather in the United States. If left unchecked, climate change could make a year like this seem normal. The Europeans are taking climate change seriously. We shouldn't undermine their efforts by legislating that our airlines break the law. I would urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2594. Just remember that all of the other laws that we expect them to abide by in terms of the protection of American environment and American security become jeopardized when we question legitimate laws that the Europeans put on the books in order to protect our planet. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. Two weeks ago, scientists at a massive facility in Europe announced that they may have discovered a particle that travels faster than the speed of light--a discovery that would turn Einstein's theory of special relativity upside down, a discovery that, if true, would revolutionize the way we see the world. The news spurred a massive amount of interest. Headlines read: ``Back to the Future,'' and media stories even speculated on how this discovery could be exploited to enable real-life time travel. However, it seems Republicans have already figured out how to get around Einstein's theory, because today the House will vote on a piece of legislation that will blast us right back in time to the start of the Industrial Revolution. This bill says no matter what EPA learns about the sludge that comes out of coal-fired plants, no matter how high the concentrations of poisonous arsenic, mercury, or chromium, and no matter what EPA learns about how these materials find their way into our drinking water, EPA is forbidden to classify or regulate it as hazardous waste. EPA is forbidden to require that this toxic material be disposed of carefully. This bill turns a blind eye to evidence of known hazards and takes us back to the Dark Ages, to a time before science was valued and before advanced knowledge transformed society. It takes us back to an era when mercury and arsenic, major components of coal ash, were used to cure toothaches and clear up your complexion. It takes us back to an era where children were sent deep into the bowels of the Earth to rip coal from the mines and to die early deaths. The problem with continuing to push a 19th century technology like coal is that you then continue 19th century attitudes about public health and the environment. Instead of time travel through Einstein's theory of special relativity, Republicans are pushing to travel backwards in time to advance the coal industry's special interests. While Republican efforts on time travel are unlikely to help us understand black holes, they will take us back to the era of black lung disease. Instead of allowing the coal industry and Republicans to transport our country's environmental and public health standards back to the era of Charles Dickens, we should hold these industries to great-er expectations. In December of 2008, hundreds of acres of land were buried in toxic sludge after a Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash containment pond collapsed in Tennessee, releasing 1.1 billion gallons of coal ash slurry, covering more than 300 acres of land in a gray poisonous muck, damaging homes and properties and tainting nearby rivers. The event was, quite literally, a poisonous lump of coal dumped on the nearby community just 3 days before Christmas. This Republican bill purports to be a solution to what happened in Tennessee. It claims to create standards for coal ash containment ponds that would ensure structural integrity, but in fact it explicitly exempts those same coal ash ponds from key design requirements relating to their long-term stability. This bill claims that States have to set up a rigorous drinking water monitoring regime and dust controls, but in fact the bill has no legal or enforceable standard for these State programs. And even more, any State at any time can waive any of these minimal permitting requirements and they don't have to tell anyone. That's right. When it comes to constructing a gigantic containment pond in your backyard, a State can choose to opt out of the requirements of this bill and no one--not the public or the EPA--would ever even know. This is just plain wrong. We should not delegate this authority to the States and then turn around and let States hide behind a cloak of secrecy when making decisions about waste sites that may be hundreds of acres in size, receive millions of tons of waste, and which may be in operation for decades. My amendment is very simple. It says that before a State can waive even the minimal criteria that this bill requires, that the State must first notify the public and the EPA and offer the opportunity for public comment. That is the least that we have as a responsibility to the public. I urge an ``aye'' on the Markey amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I rise as the designee to offer amendment No. 3, the Carney amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank you. Just 3 days before Christmas in 2008, the coal ash impoundment--and ``impoundment'' is just another word for giant swimming pool--burst in Kingston, Tennessee, releasing 1.1 billion gallons of toxic sludge that blanketed the nearby Emory River. That toxic stew that flowed out, a billion gallons into the river, destroyed homes and 300 acres of surrounding land, creating a Superfund site that could cost up to $1.2 billion to remediate. Since this incident, the EPA has identified 49 other giant pools of coal ash across the country that are designated as high hazard. This means that if these impoundments were to fail, then it's not just the land that would be damaged, but human life would likely be lost. This Republican bill purports to be a solution to what happened in Tennessee. It claims to create standards for these giant pools that would ensure a TVA catastrophe won't happen again. But in fact it excludes safety requirements such as just accounting for earthquakes or surface erosion. And even worse, the very minimal requirements that are included in this bill only apply to new impoundments there are built starting 3 years after this bill is enacted. That's right. Nothing even starts for 3 years. And it's got to be brand new. So more than 430 impoundments that we know of and are in use today are not even going to be covered by this bill. And they have been built by old standards, not by the new standards. That's like finding a fatal flaw in a car that's on the road, but only requiring car companies to fix the ones that have not yet been built and won't even come on the road for 3 years. Or, like finding E. coli in chicken on grocery store shelves. But rather than issuing a recall today for the stuff that's on the shelves, they say there are rules that are going to go in place 3 years from now so just let the contaminated poultry continue to be sold. This amendment is a simple fix to this problem. It would require all impoundments to meet minimal safety criteria in this Republican bill. Those facilities that cannot meet basic requirements such as installing a liner so that this toxic coal sludge doesn't seep into the soil and the groundwater will have 10 years to close their doors. Unless this amendment is passed, disposal of coal ash in unlined, unsafe pits will be allowed to continue. In Missouri, there is an unlined impoundment that has been leaking more than 50,000 gallons of toxic liquid a day since 1992. It would not have to be fixed. Let me repeat that. Fifty-thousand gallons of toxic liquid a day since 1992 has been leaking out of that toxic facility, and it wouldn't have to be fixed under that bill. What are you saying to the people in Missouri? In Princeton, Indiana, a wet coal ash impoundment built in an earthquake fault area discharged dangerous slurry when an earthquake struck nearby last year. The spill contaminated a national wildlife refuge with selenium. A wetland that is home to an endangered bird species had to be drained and 50 tons of fish had to be buried. This Republican bill would allow that impoundment to continue receiving coal ash as well. After the Kingston accident in 2008, the Tennessee Valley Authority approved a plan to voluntarily phase out all of their coal ash ponds in 10 years and to eliminate high-risk storage facilities that pose a danger to people and property if they were to fail. If they can do it, shouldn't the other companies be able to do it as well? We shouldn't have to wait for another catastrophe like Kingston to happen before we require these basic safety measures to be employed at all coal ash ponds. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MARKEY

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