FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Lynch Lobs False Attacks On Markey To Distract From His Opposition To Historic Health Care Reform, A Woman’s Right To Choose
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Lynch Voted With Every Single House Republican Against Affordable Care Act & Supports Extreme Anti-Choice Policies Opposed By Every Dem. Woman In Congress
Charlestown, Massachusetts – Viewers of tonight’s debate saw Stephen Lynch lob false attacks on Ed Markey in an attempt to distract from the fact that, on core Democratic issues such as supporting the historic health care reform law and protecting a woman’s right to choose, Lynch is out of touch with Massachusetts voters.
During the low point of his debate performance tonight, Lynch called Ed Markey an “extremist,” questioning his commitment to keeping America safe and secure.
Desperate attacks from a desperate candidate. Here are the facts:
- As a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee after 9/11, Ed Markey authored successful legislation forcing 100 percent screening of air cargo on passenger planes.
- He has fought for improved safety at nuclear and liquid natural gas facilities.
- And Markey has led the charge to overturn the TSA’s decision to allow dangerous small knives on planes, introducing legislation to reverse the TSA’s misguided policy shift.
Meanwhile, Stephen Lynch has repeatedly supported cuts to Homeland Security, and he voted for the sequester, which cuts $500 billion from defense funding and endangers Homeland Security funding.
Stephen Lynch’s false personal attacks won’t change the fact that he voted with every single House Republican against the Affordable Care Act and supports dangerous anti-choice policies opposed by every Democratic woman in Congress.
“Stephen Lynch’s false personal attacks on Ed Markey tonight were a clear sign of desperation from a candidate with nowhere left to turn,” said Markey campaign spokesman Andrew Zucker. “The fact of the matter is Stephen Lynch voted with every single House Republican against the historic health care reform law, and supports dangerous anti-choice policies, like a ban on women in the military having abortions in military hospitals that is opposed by every Democratic woman in Congress. Unfortunately for Stephen Lynch, no amount of false, baseless attacks on Ed Markey’s accomplishments will change the fact that his opposition to the Affordable Care Act and a woman’s right to choose is out of touch with Massachusetts families.”
Markey Introduced Legislation to Require TSA to Screen 100% of Cargo on Passenger Planes. Ed Markey introduced legislation requiring the TSA to screen 100 percent of cargo on passenger planes. [Boston Globe, 6/21/03; H.R. 2455, 6/12/03; H.R. 3798, 2/11/04; H.R. 2044, 5/3/05]
2007: House Passed Legislation to Implement Recommendations of 9/11 Commission, Including Screening of All Cargo on Passenger Planes. Ed Markey’s legislation eventually passed in 2007 as part of a broader homeland security bill, and Markey was appointed to the Senate-House conference committee. [AP, 7/28/07; Representative Markey Press Release, 06/19/07]
Markey Added Provisions to Energy Policy Act of 2005 to Require Increased Security At Nuclear Facilities. After 9/11, Ed Markey authored provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to upgrade the security at nuclear reactors. [Office of Rep. Markey Release, 7/19/05; H.R. 6, 8/8/2005]
Markey Successfully Amended The Coast Guard Authorization Act To Require Input From The Dept. Of Homeland Security In Decisions About Placement Of Waterside Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities. In April 2008, Rep. Markey’s office issued a release stating, “Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee, today succeeded in amending a national coast guard bill to require input from the Department of Homeland (DHS) in decisions about the placement of proposed waterside Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities. Markey, whose district contains the only urban LNG terminal in the nation, offered the amendment during House Floor debate on H.R. 2890, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007.” [Office of Rep. Markey Release, 4/24/08]
Markey Introduced The “No Knives Act Of 2013” To Reverse Dangerous TSA Policy To Allow Knives Back On Planes. In March 2013, the Republican reported: “Democratic U.S. Rep. Edward Markey is pressuring the Transportation Safety Administration to reverse its policy allowing small knives back on airplanes. Markey said Tuesday that he will introduce legislation with U.S. Rep. Michael Grimm, a New York Republican, to freeze the TSA’s permitted items list as it stands today.” [H.R. 1093, 3/12/13; The Republican, 3/12/13]
Lynch Was The Only Massachusetts Congressman To Vote For A 2 Percent Across-The-Board Cut In Discretionary Spending For The Department Of Homeland Security. Lynch was the only member of the Massachusetts delegation to vote in favor of an amendment that would make an across-the-board reduction of 2 percent in the bill’s discretionary spending. It would exclude the analysis and operations account, U.S. Secret Service, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, and the bill’s protection, preparedness, response, and recovery accounts from the reduction. Markey voted against the amendment. [Vote 368, 6/7/2012;CQ.com]
Lynch Was One Of Only 17 Democrats To Vote Against Increasing Funding For State And Local Grants For Homeland Security Activities. Lynch was one of only 17 Democrats to vote against an amendment that would increase by $10 million the amount for state and local grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements for homeland security activities, offset by a $10 million reduction for the Office of the Undersecretary for Management. Markey voted in favor of the amendment. [Vote 348, 6/6/2012; CQ.com]
Lynch Was The Only Massachusetts Congressman To Vote Against Increasing Funding For State And Local Grants For Homeland Security. Lynch was the only member of the Massachusetts delegation to vote against an amendment that would increase by $75 million the amount for state and local grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements for homeland security activities. It would decrease by $75 million funding for the purchase or lease of vehicles and by $75 million funding for the Science and Technology Directorate’s operation and construction of laboratory facilities. Markey voted in favor of the amendment. [Vote 351,6/6/2012; CQ.com]
Lynch Was The Only MA Congressman To Vote Against Increased Funding For State And Local FEMA Programs. In June 2011, Lynch was the only member of the Massachusetts delegation to vote against an amendment that would increase funding for state and local programs at the Federal Emergency Management Agency by $337 million. It would be offset with a decrease of $336 million for border security fencing, infrastructure and technology and $1 million for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management at the Department of Homeland Security. Markey voted in favor of the amendment. [Vote 385, 6/1/2011;CQ.com]
Sequester Cuts Nearly $500 Billion From Defense. While some have questioned the precise distribution of the first round of cuts to security spending, no such uncertainty exists in the sequestration phase of the Budget Control Act (BCA). On page 18 of the bill, the BCA allocates “half of the total reduction calculated” under the bill, which is $492 billion over 10 years, “to discretionary appropriations and direct spending accounts within function 050” under sequestration. Over 95 percent of the budget authority under budget function 050 is for the Department of Defense. The remainder includes the nuclear weapons programs managed by the Department of Energy. In describing the implementation of sequestration, the BCA uses the term “revised security category,” which some have suggested might include Homeland Security, international affairs, and other spending. But the BCA specifically defines the “revised security category” under sequestration on page 17 as “discretionary appropriations in budget function 050.” [House Armed Services Committee, link]
“Sequester cuts will impact homeland security, Napolitano says”. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano today warned that the budget cuts known as the sequester slated to go into effect on Friday would not only slow the economy by hampering the flow of trade and travelers, but it would also have an impact on national security. “I don’t think we can maintain the same level of security at all places around the country with sequester,” Napolitano said during today’s White House press briefing, explaining how the widespread cuts would impact her department specifically. The sequester cuts, which would cut $85 billion from the federal budget this year and $1.1 trillion more over 10 years, would cut force DHS to cut its budget by about 5 percent, Napolitano said. The impact would be significant, she said, since her department is personnel-heavy. The department, for instance, will have to furlough Customs and Border Protection officers and reduce overtime, decreasing the number of hours Border Patrol has to operate between the nation’s ports of entry by up to 5,000 agents. “If you have 5,000 fewer border patrol agents, you have 5,000 fewer border patrol agents,” she said. “That has a real impact.” In addition to reducing the number of Border Patrol agents, DHS would have to reduce its maritime efforts, Napolitano said, and reduce its disaster relief fund by nearly $1 billion, potentially affecting survivors of major storms like superstorm Sandy. [CBS, 2/25/13]
Lynch Was The Only Member of the MA Delegation To Vote Against Allowing Military Facilities Overseas To Perform Privately Funded Abortions. In May 2003, Lynch was the only member of the MA delegation who voted against H R 1588, Loretta Sanchez of California Amendment that would allow U.S. military facilities located abroad to perform abortions as long as they are privately funded. [Vote 215, 5/22/2003; CQ.com]
Lynch Stood With Republican Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) To Oppose A Woman’s Right To An Abortion At Military Facilities Overseas. Rep. Akin, “Mr. Chairman, the proposal, of course, before us as we have heard is basically going to turn our overseas military medical facilities into abortion clinics. The point has been made that we allow abortions in 50 States, but it is also clear that we only allow abortions in one out of 10 hospitals. Yet with this particular amendment, we are going to force our military hospitals to perform these abortions. This was tried before in 1993 to 1996 under President Clinton’s policies, and it was rather unsuccessful. First of all, it was very hard to find obstetricians and gynecologists stationed overseas who wanted to perform the abortions in the first place. Very, very few abortions were actually conducted. Part of that is because there are laws against abortion in many foreign countries, and so even there we would not be able to do the abortion. Now there is the idea, or the inference, that there is some necessity for these abortions in military hospitals. But the necessity does not exist. This is something that can be done as an elective procedure. It can be done by people coming to our country. I would urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the amendment.” [Congressional Record, 5/21/2003]
Paid for by The Markey Committee