Ed Markey

I think it is a big success story for President Obama.

That is a sign, is it not, of success, that now the oil industry is viewing the Gulf of Mexico has a place where they want to drill.

The Democrat-controlled House passed that legislation that would have effectuated those kinds of reforms.

You do want to see a legislative increase in the liability cap to ensure that oil companies are held fully responsible for their spills.

There have been attempts in Congress to pass that sort of legislation. Unfortunately, they have been stymied for various reasons.

The bipartisan BP Spill Commission led by William Reilly, who was the EPA Administrator under George Bush I, has given the Congress a D for its legislative response to the BP spill.

It is time to debate the other pieces of a real energy plan that benefit all American consumers and our economy.

The Spill Commission recently gave this Congress a grade of D on its legislative response to the worst environmental disaster in American history.

We need a plan to end excessive Wall Street speculation in oil markets.

The United States' economic competitiveness is at risk if we don't act now to expand production of our resources.

The amendments were needed because the American forest products industry was losing over $1 billion a year to people who cheat.

The RELIEF Act and FOCUS Act would undermine these successes.

Since 2008, illegal logging has been reduced by as much as 25 percent worldwide.

It has helped to stop illegal trade in timber, wildlife, and other natural resources.

Is undermining a bedrock law the right tone for us to set, especially if it threatens domestic timber industries?

We know that slash and burn techniques are destroying the Amazon, and now many are saying we should also burn through international forests to make guitars for Slash.

Both bills we are considering today will significantly weaken, or outright destroy these benefits.

If a tree is illegally cut down in a forest and made into a guitar, do we make a sound about it?

The Republicans are so committed to the idea that modernization equals higher energy costs that they wrote it directly into the title of today's hearing.

Where Secretary Chu sees opportunity for efficiency and improved access to transmission and increased market competition, Republicans see a different opportunity.

The Power Marketing Administrations can and should work toward those objectives.

Better planning, wider coordination, and using the best technologies are ways of ultimately reducing costs to consumers.

I think without question what we have here is a political objective, and I think we ought to recognize it as such.

We have a long way to go in adapting the infrastructure and operating systems to allow a level playing field for new companies, new businesses, new models, and new technologies to take hold.

Not having the Department present to address those questions makes this a venue ripe for conjecture and misinformation.