Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership receiving an additional $40 million in this budget over what it received last year. It received $80 million worth of taxpayers' dollars last year, and here we are seeing a 50 percent increase in the taxpayers' contribution to something that should be paid for by the private sector. This is now one of the wealthiest, most successful, most profitable industries in the United States, the domestic nuclear energy industry. If there is any industry, apart from the oil and gas industry, that has no business being out here on the floor asking for handouts from the taxpayer at this time, then you have to put the nuclear industry at the top of the list. And what is the essence of this Global Nuclear Energy Partnership? Well, sad to say, it is that we will cut deals with countries like Bulgaria, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Korea, on and on, where our private sector companies will be building nuclear power plants in those countries and returning the nuclear waste to the United States for reprocessing in our country. So on the one hand, the Congress is saying, well, we don't want any more immigrants from any of these countries, but send us your nuclear waste if an American company has been able to build nuclear power plants there and make a profit from it. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it should not be the business of the House, of the people who represent hardworking taxpayers, to be handing over all this money to very wealthy industries. They are doing quite well, thank you. This is, once again, an example of an industry now 50 years old; this industry is like someone who is 50 years old still living at home with mom and dad and expecting mom and dad to continue to subsidize them; to give them a hand out. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. The problem with this program is that the Department of Energy is only guessing about how much it is ultimately going to cost. Their range is from $3 billion to $6 billion just for a demonstration project, because it doesn't know the answers to the ultimate questions about cost, about feasibility, about the nuclear proliferation consequences. It doesn't know the answers to any of these questions. But if, again, the nuclear industry wants to get back out on the road and start selling nuclear power plants around the globe, they should do it. Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so fast listening to this debate that he would qualify for a subsidy under this bill as a new electrical generating source. That is how bad this is. This is a total violation of free market principles. There are no answers at all that you are providing, except that you want to stick your hand into the pockets of the American taxpayers, and it is just wrong.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. You know, the problem with this whole debate is that, within the same bill, there is funding for Yucca Mountain in order to store all of the spent fuel that the nuclear industry has created here domestically. Yet they are coming in here saying, well, we need another solution to the same problem. We also need the taxpayers to subsidize ultimately $3 billion, $6 billion, which is just a demonstration project, and ultimately, $20 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion or $50 billion for reprocessing technology; two paid-for-by-the-taxpayer solutions to the same problem, even though Yucca Mountain is supposed to solve the problem. Why is that? Because this program does what President Bush wants to do, which is to offer cradle-to-grave services for countries around the world. American companies will build nuclear power plants around the world, and then they will ship the nuclear waste to the United States. And by the way, this waste, when it is reprocessed, is the worst of all materials because it can be used for nuclear weapons but it is not too dangerous for terrorists to handle as a dirty bomb at the same time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a crazy budget. It really is. It authorizes $50 million to help the oil companies to drill in deep water even though they reported $113 billion in profits. It allows for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That is where they are going to be heading tomorrow on the House floor. And this shows you the hypocrisy coefficient on energy policy. Last year, they trumpeted on the House floor and the President with a flourish signed the bill that put in $100 million for State energy plans for conservation at the State level, $100 million. Then, in January, the President sends up his budget, $49.5 million. And today, out on the House floor, the true agenda of the Republican Party once again reveals itself: zero. Zero for conservation. Nothing. Meaning that the $100 million last August that the President signed, the $49.5 million that he asked this year, all dismissed while we are going to tip the taxpayer upside down and subsidize the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industries. But the American taxpayer knows we have to learn to work smarter, not harder; how to conserve, how to use technologies that will reduce our consumption. We only have 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world. We import 70 percent of the oil we consume. That is why we need the DeLauro amendment in order to make sure that we put conservation number one, to back out this imported oil from around the world. Vote ``aye'' on the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, believe it or not, in this budget there is $50 million to help the oil industry figure out how to do ultra-deep drilling for oil. Now, the Republicans here in Congress do this despite the fact that President Bush says this on the program, ``I will tell you, with $55-a- barrel oil, we do not need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.'' It is now $70 a barrel. The President has asked us to take out the money. It is ultimately a $500 million 10-year project. The only ultra- deep drilling that is going on here is in the pockets of American taxpayers by oil companies which have reported $110 billion worth of profit in the last year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read to the Members who are paying attention what President Bush has said to us this year, just a couple of months ago. Here is what he says. He says, ``In the 2007 budget, we recommend repealing provisions of the Energy Policy Act for a new mandatory $50 million per year oil and gas R&D program funded with Federal revenues from oil and gas leases which would be similar to the discretionary programs proposed for termination. Industry has the incentives and the resources to do such research and development on its own.'' That is from President Bush and Dick Cheney to us on the floor. We do not need this $500 million program. Mom and pop companies do not go out into deep water. The companies that are going out there are ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Conoco, Marathon. We do not have to subsidize these oil companies. They are already tipping the American consumer upside down and shaking money out of their pockets at the pump every single day. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, you know, I am like a referee at an intramural Republican fight here. And so I am just trying to ref it so that you can understand what is going on. The President and the Vice President have asked for this huge subsidy to huge oil companies to be taken out. He is kind of being a free marketeer here. Well, the Republican leadership here is saying, no, we want to give another half a billion dollars to companies that are now charging $3 a gallon for gasoline, made $114 billion last year and, in the President's own words, do not need this subsidy. So it is free marketeers versus subsidizers, but it is an intramural slaughter inside the Republican Party. And which of the companies are going to be the beneficiaries in this partnership to secure energy for America? The names are Chevron, Halliburton, BP, Marathon Oil, Kerr- McGee and others. And this is Dick Cheney and George Bush saying take the money out. But yet they continue to commit to these subsidies from the taxpayer even as the companies report huge profits.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I am so sorry that President Bush cannot be here on the House floor, but under separation of power, he just cannot be here. I would just like to reference for the Republicans on this side what the President has said on this issue. ``I will tell you, with $55-a- barrel oil, we do not need incentives for oil and gas companies to explore.'' That is President Bush talking to the Republicans in Congress. You do not have to tell me that. I already believed that. But he is on my side of the debate now. So the point that we are making is quite clear that, yes, the money comes from the oil companies, but the money comes from oil companies because they have to pay the public for the leases on public land. So the public gets the money. But then what this bill does is then it takes the money back out of the taxpayers' pockets and it hands it back over to the oil companies who have already been in the other pocket of the consumer, tipping them upside down and taking it out of $3 a gallon. So this is basically the bonus for one oil executive for a couple of years. I mean, that is where they can get the money from if this is such a valuable project. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this amendment is nothing more nor less than an attempt to be fair to the American taxpayer. They are howling at the pumps. They feel like they are getting stuck up at the gas stations. They are paying too much. They are being ripped off. And this just adds insult to energy by having the oil companies then come to Congress and saying, now you do the research for us. You pay us to go out and drill for more oil. We will then charge you $3.50, $4 a gallon for it. It just makes no sense. President Bush and Dick Cheney want this amendment to pass. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, since 2001, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, under the leadership of Jan Scruggs, has been working towards the dedication of an underground visitors' center on the Memorial grounds. The proposal for the center was carefully planned to assure that America's youth learn the values of citizenship and duty to their nation. This process has been long and arduous for the Fund, but throughout it all their efforts have been supported by various legislative and public initiatives. Their efforts were officially validated when Congress passed a bill that authorized the construction of the site in November of 2003. The language of the legislation stated that the ``final approval shall not be withheld.'' Nevertheless, the progress and completion of the site continues to be held up, awaiting the pending approval of the National Capitol Planning Commission (NCPC). While the NCPC oversees planning and construction of any new structure within the Washington, D.C. city limits, in this case it appears to be impeding the construction of a facility authorized and sanctioned by Congress and under the law. In December, the NCPC stalled the progress of the site by removing the Visitors Center from its December 1 monthly meeting agenda. Additionally, advocates for the Center, who were supposed to testify to the NCPC in July 2005, were told that they would have to wait to make their presentation until August 2006. Over and over again, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, under the leadership of Jan Scruggs, has complied with all the deadlines and requests of the NCPC and other governing organizations throughout the approval process. Yet, for some reason ground has yet to be broken on the construction of the site. While the approval of the site awaits action from the NCPC, a series of actions have been taken on the proposal's behalf. In December 2005 the Resources Committee and National Parks Subcommittee began an inquiry of the actions of the National Capitol Planning Commission due to delays engineered on an effort approved by Congress in 2003. In February Congressman Pombo, chairman of the Resources Committee, requested that all internal documents from the NCPC, including emails and attorney client materials for review. After a careful review of the facts, Congressman Pombo informed the NCPC Chairman on March 2, 2006 that the NCPC appeared to be intentionally ignoring the will of the Congress with unnecessary internal delays. In response, Congressmen Pombo and Rahall, introduced H.R. 4882 to end the delays on this important project. I cosponsored the bill, which came out of committee with great support and was brought to the House floor. On March 28, 2006 the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 4882. A companion bill, S. 2419 was later introduced in the Senate by Senators Kerry, Stevens and Hagel, and is currently awaiting legislative action. I urge the NCPC to proceed expeditiously in accordance with the express wishes of Congress so that America's youth will soon have the opportunity to learn about citizenship and duty to our country at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors' Center.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-Markey amendment. This amendment does absolutely nothing to any existing contract. The oil companies signed a deal at $25 a barrel, royalty relief complete. It goes to $50 a barrel, they still don't have to pay royalties; $75 a barrel, they still don't have to pay royalties; $100 a barrel, still no royalties. And we are not going to take that contract away. All we are saying is that if you are going to play Uncle Sam as Uncle Sucker, then we are not going to allow you to have any new contracts, because the American consumer is being shaken upside down and having money shaken out of their pockets. Subsidizing the oil industry at $70 a barrel to drill for oil is like subsidizing fish to swim. You don't have to do it. President Bush said on April 19, I will tell you with $55 a barrel oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore, Bush said in a speech to newspaper editors. There are plenty of incentives. But here is the GOP, not the Grand Old Party, but Gas and Oil Party. That is what they have turned into. And by the way, last night they cut public health programs by $16 billion. They cut veterans programs by $8 billion. And where could the money have come from? Well, another $10 billion from royalties. If Kerr McGee wins their case, another $60 billion. If you kicked the Republican budget in the heart, you would break your toe. Keep the money, they say, in the hands of the oil companies. Let them rake off all this money from the taxpayer. Cut the programs in public health, in education, and for veterans, even as their own president is saying they don't need these royalties. So, ladies and gentlemen, we say keep those contracts, but you are not getting any new contracts with our government if you are going to keep these windfall profits. That is why you should vote for the Hinchey-Markey amendment to send a message to the oil companies in our country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if you kicked the Republican budget in the heart, you would break your toe. These guys tonight are going to vote to cut $162 billion out of programs for the poor and the sick and the aged in our country in order to accommodate a $228 billion tax break for the wealthy. Now, it would not be so bad if you did not follow the details. They are going to cut $18 billion out of public health programs for people across our country. They are going to cut the Centers for Disease Control. They are going to cut the research at the National Institutes of Health, which is looking for the cures for Alzheimer's, for Parkinson's, for juvenile diabetes. They are going to cut those programs. They are going to cut $6 billion in veterans health care. They are going to cut money for homeland security all to accommodate a $228 billion tax break almost exclusively for the wealthy in our country. If you kicked the Republican budget in the heart, you would break your toe.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. With this bill we are now engaged in the second phase of ``The Republican ReCONciliation Game.'' That's exactly what it is--a giant Con Game. In February, the Con Game began with the Republicans' cutting nearly $40 billion in benefits for the most vulnerable in our society: They cut $12 billion from student loan programs to help kids go to college. They cut $6.4 billion from Medicare and made elderly beneficiaries pay higher premiums for their health care. And they cut $6.9 billion from Medicaid which helps the poorest and sickest children and families in our country get healthcare. And then they tried to turn to the second part of the Con Game, where the Republicans turn over that money that they got from cutting programs for the poor to the Ways and Means Committee to give all of that money away to their millionaire friends. But in February when they tried for the first time to give this money to millionaires there was a public outcry because people understood that the Republicans were taking from the poor and giving to the rich. So the Republicans had to pull the bill and wait for the public to forget. So now, three months later, the Republicans are hoping that the American public has forgotten about all of those cuts they made. They are hoping the American public won't remember that the Republicans cut Medicare and Medicaid and student loans in order to give more to their fat cat friends. This bill favors the wealthy so dramatically that the average American family making $40,000-$50,000 a year will get $46, which is about enough for one tank of gas. But if you make over a $1 million a year, you will get about $42,000. That's enough to buy a luxury Hummer 3 and still have $10,000 left over for the gas! It is immoral to take medicine away from the poor, elderly and disabled so that millionaires can buy Hummers. Vote to reject this con game and vote ``no'' on this shortsighted, fiscally irresponsible and immoral legislation.