Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for helping to make this resolution possible. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I introduced this resolution as a way of honoring this great woman. She died on August 8. She passed away after having waged a courageous 5- year battle with cancer. With her passing, this country has lost a true leader in the fight against Alzheimer's disease. She was an extraordinary woman, a talented spokesperson, a tireless advocate. As a member of the Alzheimer's Association's national board of directors, she worked with Members of Congress to increase funding for Alzheimer's research. She provided compelling testimony before Congress warning that Alzheimer's was on the road to becoming the epidemic of the 21st century unless science could find a way to prevent millions of baby boomers from getting the disease. Just prior to her untimely death, she called on Congress to double the funding for Alzheimer's research at the NIH to $1 billion by 2003. As co-chair with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I always valued Maureen's sage advice on task force goals and legislative initiatives. In March 2000 when Maureen came to lobby Congress for increased Alzheimer's research funding, in between a busy schedule of press interviews and visits with congressional leaders, she spent several hours meeting with members of the Alzheimer's Task Force, including the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and myself. In that meeting, Maureen expertly outlined the research breakthroughs of the 1990s and reiterated that scientists were in a race against time to find the answers to Alzheimer's disease. With grace and warmth and delightful wit, Maureen convinced lawmakers to pay attention to the scourge plaguing one in 10 Americans over the age of 65, and 50 percent of the seniors over the age of 85. She took the tragedy of her own father's illness and chose to fight not only for him, but also for the 4 million Americans who currently have Alzheimer's disease and for the 15 million Americans who are predicted to have this disease by the time all of the baby boomers have retired, a staggering number of Americans. Mr. Speaker, it takes tremendous courage to take on Alzheimer's disease in such a public way when a parent is still at home in a deteriorating condition from that same disease. She knew that there was no time to waste, and so she took on the challenge despite a heavy emotional burden. Even as her own health declined, she refused to let up in her advocacy role, continuing her fight for more Federal research dollars from her hospital bed, and later while recovering from cancer treatments at home in California. Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better way to pay tribute to Maureen's legacy than to continue her fight to create a world without Alzheimer's disease. Although we have lost her voice, Maureen's passion and energy live on and continue to inspire us as we work to improve the quality of life for those affected by Alzheimer's disease. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened by the loss of Maureen and miss her dearly. My thoughts and prayers are with her husband, Dennis, her daughter, Rita, and the entire Reagan family. May she rest in peace.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the language in the Administrative Simplification Compliance Act, H.R. 3323 which exempts from delay the compliance date for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. In 1996 Congress made a promise to the American people that by February 2001 medical privacy protections would be in place. Despite the efforts of privacy opponents who lobbied this Administration heavily to postpone the effective date of these protections, the final privacy rule went forward in April 2001--a victory for patients, doctors and the quality of our nation's health care. But we're not quite out of the woods yet--the Administration has indicated that certain sections of this rule are to be opened for public comment early next year. It is my hope that this plan will not serve to undermine the strong privacy protections already in place and that the compliance date for these protections will not be postponed. The date of compliance for these first time, fundamental medical privacy protections is April 2003. While we can all agree that these protections don't go far enough in providing comprehensive privacy for medical records they are a good first step. I praise Representative Hobson, the author of H.R. 3323, for including language to preserve the compliance date for the HIPAA privacy protections. Americans have waited far too long for medical privacy and they deserve it as soon possible.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Why is that? I do not think people would understand why the gentleman cannot say that.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I would say Hook 'em Horns.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I will use some of that time to praise the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the process that he put in place for us to, on the one hand, pass a particularly odious piece of legislation which I historically have opposed but at the same time sweetening it with a provision that will deal with a palpable threat to our society, which is that the terrorist organizations that are under the control of Osama bin Laden have clearly indicated that nuclear power plants are near the top of their list of targets if they could successfully pull off one of those attacks. So built into this legislation is something which I think every Democrat and every Republican can support wholeheartedly. It requires the President to do an immediate assessment of the current vulnerabilities of the plants to terrorist attack and what aspect of the defense of these plants should be the responsibility of the Federal governments. It secondly requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do a rule- making to upgrade its rules on the design basis threat which establishes the parameters for what the licensees need to defend against. Third, it requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue new rules to enhance the security of transportation of nuclear materials. Fourth, it codifies into law the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's operational safeguards response evaluation preparedness which tests security at nuclear plants through force-on-force exercises. So this is actually going to be a quite important new addition to the law. My hope is that we can work with the Senate expeditiously to put this on the books so that we can move forward in providing the real security that Americans want, especially those who live within a 10- mile radius of nuclear power plants, that they are not in fact subject to a successful terrorist attack. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland). (Mr. STRICKLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself that remaining 1 minute.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire from the Chair how much time is remaining on either side?

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the passage of this legislation, especially using the suspension process, which eliminates all ability for any Members to amend this deficient piece of legislation. I would like to begin first by saying that while I oppose the legislation, I am beholden to the chairmen of the committee and the subcommittee for the courteous way in which they treated the minority and the respectful way in which we have handled, on a bipartisan basis, the antiterrorist components of this legislation, which has received unanimous support on both sides. However, I would like to note that the overarching bill is something that still resists any logical analysis in terms of why Congress should be subsidizing a private sector industry. The nuclear power industry was really born about 45 or 50 years ago, and we were all told as a people, watching the Mickey Mouse Club, that this was going to be a wonderful new industry, that it was going to harness our friend, the atom. It was going to be safe, it was going to be efficient, it was going to be cheap. But, they said, maybe not that safe, because we cannot find any insurance company that will give us any insurance, because they think we are a very dangerous industry. So they came to Congress as an industry with their hat in hand asking us if we would provide for a 10-year period, while the industry was in its infancy, insurance protection so that there was a limited liability in the event that there was a serious accident at a nuclear power plant. That was supposed to end in 1967. Well, here we are in the year 2001, and we are being asked, once again, to extend this protection, this government subsidy of the insurance that the industry, the nuclear industry must obtain. Now, that, even at the same time that we are being told that a new generation of plants are coming on line, pebble bed reactors, that are going to be so safe that we will never have to worry about accidents. So I had an amendment which I requested be put in order out here which would be that before any one of these companies could avail themselves of this Price-Anderson protection, that they had to first have gone to an insurance company and tried to obtain insurance for what they say is a very safe industry, so that we can end the government subsidy. But what we are being told is that, no, that would ruin the industry, that one must be an anti-nuclear zealot if one believes that an industry should go to the private sector and ask if they can obtain insurance so that the Federal taxpayer does not have to pick up the tab. Now, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave as he watches a Republican- controlled Congress extend congressional taxpayer subsidies to this industry. Madam Speaker, when we were all teenagers all getting our licenses for the first time, there was always one kid in our neighborhood who always got into accidents, time after time, three accidents, five accidents, 10 accidents; and then that kid, and we all know his name in our own neighborhood, he lost his insurance and he went into the assigned-risk pool, and his insurance rate was very high; but he could keep his license. Only as his behavior improved could he potentially work his way out of that pool. What we have done here historically is we have created a one- industry, assigned-risk pool. We have assumed that the nuclear industry is so risky it cannot get insurance in the private sector. Today, even though we are being told that this industry is safer than ever and the new generation of pebble bed reactors will never have an accident, we are told that even that new generation, the baby nukes, are still going to have to live with the crimes, the sins, of their father. It is a foreshadowing of history, that they too will be too risky. I think that is terrible, this cycle of dependency that these baby nukes are now trapped in, that they cannot go out into the private sector, that they cannot try to obtain insurance, that they are not going to be requested to do so. I think it is wrong for an industry to tell every subsequent generation of power plants that they are going to be subsidized by the Federal Government. So I oppose Price-Anderson. I think it is unfair to this next generation of nuclear power plants to be trapped in this cycle of dependency, and I hope that today we are able to defeat this measure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi.)

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I thank all of the Members who have participated in this Special Order. We will keep this part of the Record open so that any other Members who wish to do so may enter their own statement. Eddie Boland's career ended the way it began. He worked tirelessly in order to make the world a better place. I am proud to have known him. I am proud to have worked with him. I am proud to have served with him in this institution that he loved so much. I am proud to have called him my friend. His service to this country will never be forgotten. Our condolences to his wife, Mary, and his children. May Eddie Boland rest in peace.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) very much. When a younger Member is advocating for an idea, you look around the institution to find somebody who everybody respects who as we say in the Catholic Church, would place their imprimatur, their blessing, on the idea. As the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) knows, when Mr. Boland put his blessing in terms of what our relationship should be with the Government of Nicaragua, at that point people could disagree with Eddie Boland, but they knew they would be wrong because he would never take anything other than the most honest position. Let me conclude the special order by recognizing the only other member with the exception of myself who served in the Massachusetts congressional delegation with Eddie Boland, the Congressman from the city of Newton, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. MARKEY. Let me now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), whose congressional district abuts the district of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and then Congressman Boland, so he knew him very well.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having this time in order to speak about our great beloved, departed colleague from the State of Massachusetts, Edward Patrick Boland. He served in this institution for 36 years. He was elected in 1952; he served until 1988. He loved this institution, and this institution loved him. He arrived in 1952, with his best pal, Tip O'Neill, another freshman Congressman coming from the eastern part of the State. They were roommates for 24 years here in Washington, really only staying here on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and immediately returning to their home districts after the close of business on Thursdays. And that is how it went in their little apartment over all those years until Tip was elected Speaker and brought Millie down. However, it had been preceded just a couple of years before that by Eddie breaking his long years of bachelorhood and marrying Mary Egan, a marriage that produced four beautiful children that were, without question, the pride and joy of his life. Now, for those that knew Eddie, he still and for always will be thought of as a legislative giant, as someone who motored around on the floor of the House like the Energizer Bunny, moving at the speed of sound from deal to deal to deal to deal as he worked his legislative magic. And whether the Member was Democrat or Republican, Eddie Boland was universally respected. When, in 1977, Tip O'Neill decided that it was necessary to create a Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, by definition that job required someone who could keep secrets, someone who could be trusted with the greatest intelligence which our country has, that which protects the national security, the health and well-being of every American, out of the entire institution, Tip selected Eddie Boland to be the first chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Because he was someone that every Member, Democrat and Republican, would trust. And so, without question, as the 20th century's legislative history is written, he will be looked back upon as someone who was the quintessential public servant, elected as a State representative when Roosevelt was President. He served in World War II, was elected and served in Congress in the Korean War, in the Vietnam War, and all the way through to the point where not only was the Reagan era ending but the George Bush, Sr., administration was about to begin. What a legacy that he leaves to this country, to his family. So we in the Massachusetts delegation, without question, will miss him; but we know so too will all of his colleagues, all of his constituents, and all who came to know him in this great country. I would like to turn now to the gentleman who succeeded Eddie in the United States Congress in his seat in Springfield, and, in fact, was Eddie's choice to carry on the political and spiritual legacy that he brought to the Congress from the City of Springfield, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for participating in this special order, and now I yield to the minority whip designee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who knew Ed Boland well.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for participating. One of the great things about Eddie Boland was that he lived such a long life. He passed away at 90. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) is now one of the few Members who served with him because he left 13 years ago. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to honor the late Paul Warnke, who worked tirelessly to protect our country from the danger of nuclear war and to promote reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals. Paul passed away on October 31, just two weeks prior to the announcements made by President Bush and President Putin that the two superpowers would begin a process of drastic reduction in the number of deployed nuclear weapons. No one worked harder to see such policies implemented than Paul. Paul Warnke was a son of Massachusetts. Born in Webster in 1920 and growing up in Marlborough, he went to college at Yale University and graduated in 1941. He joined the war effort and served in the U.S. Coast Guard for the next 5 years. After his military duty, he went to law school at Columbia University. A classic story is that his first choice, the journalism school, was full, so he crossed the street to sign up at the law school. But for a quirk of fate, we might instead be celebrating Paul Warnke, the great journalist. In the years that followed, he pursued a legal career in trade regulations and anti-trust law. Then, in 1966, he was hired as general counsel at the Defense Department and a year later became Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, where he served for the next two years. During his time at the Defense Department, not only did he object to the prosecution of the Vietnam War, he also became sensitive to the crucial importance of arms control between the United States and the Soviet Union. In 1975, he wrote an article in Foreign Policy, ``Apes on a Treadmill'', in which he cautioned that the arms race was potentially a futile but expensive exercise. Citing Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's warning that an unlimited arms buildup between the U.S. and the Soviet Union could lead to successive periods of escalation and equilibrium, Paul wrote, ``Perhaps, then, we are not racing together toward Armageddon. Maybe the continued expenditure of billions for quantitative additions and qualitative improvements does not bring doomsday any closer. Instead, it may be that we are jogging in tandem on a treadmill to nowhere.'' Noting the advantage that the U.S. had over the Soviet Union in the numbers and technology of nuclear weapons, Paul recognized the role that the U.S. could play in initiating a halt in the nuclear arms race. Hence, in the 1975 article, he advocated a six-month delay in the further addition of multiple warheads to land-and sea-based missiles and in the development of the Trident submarine and the B-1 bomber, in hopes that it would yield ``reciprocal restraint'' by the Soviet Union. Considering the current situation, in which economic conditions in Russia are pressuring it to reduce its nuclear arsenal, the U.S. again has the advantage and the same opportunity to take a leadership role. A quarter of a century later, Paul's words still apply. In 1977, Paul Warnke was nominated by President Jimmy Carter to be the director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the chief arms control negotiator. He was confirmed to both posts and went on to serve with great distinction in the second Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, or SALT II. The SALT II treaty was signed on June 18, 1979, by President Carter and General Secretary Brezhnev but unfortunately was never ratified. However, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union informally agreed not to undercut the SALT II numerical limits throughout the 1980 until they were later supplanted by the START strategic arms reductions. I first became acquainted with Paul during his service as ACDA chief, but came to know him much more personally when we worked together on the nuclear freeze resolution in the early 1980s. While there were many in the arms control ``intelligentsia'' that looked down their noses at the concept of a nuclear freeze, which had originated as a grass roots movement to break the deadlock between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the early years of the Reagan Administration, Paul was able to see in the freeze a powerful mechanism for action to halt the arms race. While fully comfortable with the arcane jargon of nuclear arms control, he was also endowed with the power to explain complex concepts in terms that were readily comprehensible to the lay person. But even more importantly, he saw through the complicated details of the strategic relationship to an essential truth--that both the U.S. and Soviet Union had far more weaponry than was needed for deterrence purposes, and that freezing the qualitative and quantitative arms race, followed by reductions in the size of these arsenals would better advance our security interests. And so, during the 1980s, Paul became one of the leading voices within the United States in support of a nuclear weapons freeze followed by reductions of strategic nuclear weapons. He spoke out frequently on issues of nuclear arms control, in articles, op-ed pieces, and numerous speeches and panel discussions throughout the country. He also testified before the Congress on these issues on several occasions. And in a 1986 interview, he also gave his opinions on research on ABM, or anti-ballistic missile, systems. ``[W]hat we ought to do is recognize that there is nothing that can be gained by engaging in a nuclear competition in space. At a minimum it will cost us billions and billions of dollars, but what is more likely is it will diminish the security of the United States.'' Our current administration would do well to heed Paul's words from a decade and a half ago. Paul continued his good work into the 1990s. Concerned not just about nuclear weapons, he scrutinized the conventional arms trade while serving on the Presidential Advisory Board on Arms Proliferation Policy which was established in 1995. And in 1998, Paul co-wrote an article with Jeremy Stone of the Federation of American Scientists in which they argued for de-alerting nuclear weapons, that is, standing down missiles from a launch-on-warning posture. This is an effort with which I have been personally involved, and I wish that Paul were still here to help with that fight. Paul was a forceful actor and spokesman for the cause of arms control. We will miss his leadership, but his legacy is the insight and guidance that he provided. For this reason we celebrate this great man today.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 3060, the Emergency Securities Response Act. This legislation amends a provision that I authored, which the Congress approved as part of the H.R. 3657, Market Reform Act of 1990, to give the SEC the power to suspend trading of securities and to issue emergency orders consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors (See Congress Record, September 28, 1990, at H8376-8383). This provision grew out of the investigations that the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, which I then chaired, carried out into the 1987 stock market cash. One of the things we found was that the SEC lacked many of the types of emergency authorities that the CFTC had, and we felt it was desirable that they be granted broader emergency authorities. My objection to the legislation is not that it expands the SEC's authority to suspend trading or issue emergency orders from 10 days up to 30 days, with further extensions of up to 90 days possible. Indeed, in an earlier version of this legislation (H.R. 4997, introduced in 1988, I had actually proposed allowing the SEC to exercise its emergency authorities for periods of up to 30 days). So, I have no problem with doing so today. Instead, my concerns about the bill we are debating today is that it expands the range of coverage of this emergency provision from the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to the full range of federal securities laws. This has the effect of expanding coverage of the provision to cover all the federal securities laws. And while there may be some good reasons to extend these authorities to the Securities Act of 1933, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, and the Securities Investors Protection Act of 1970, I believe that the effect of this provision is to extend the reach of section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 781(k)(2)) to allow the SEC to issue exemptions from the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935 (known as ``PUHCA''), which regulates the activities of large, multi-state, electric or natural gas holding companies. While the Financial Services Committee may successfully have absconded with the Energy and Commerce Committee's securities jurisdiction, the last time I checked PUHCA was within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Our Committee has held no hearings or had any other process with respect to whether granting the SEC emergency powers to grant exemptions to PUHCA was warranted or in the public interest. Given the Commission's rather shoddy record in recent years of administering the Act, I am not comfortable with granting such an exemption today. I am particularly concerned when I have seen no justification from the SEC or its staff for giving the SEC such authority, no analysis of the possible impact of this on PUHCA or on our nation's electricity or natural gas markets, and no indication that the lack of such authority has posed any problems for PUHCA- companies post-September 11. I would also note that while H.R. 3060 has provisions requiring the SEC to consult with and consider the views of the CFTC whenever exercising its emergency authorities with respect to a stock-index future, there is no similar requirement with respect to the FERC when PUHCA is concerned. Given the fact that PUHCA and the Federal Power Act were passed simultaneously, and that both laws deal with regulation of energy markets, such consultation may be needed in this area as well. We at least should have been given the chance to consider it. At the very minimum, the Energy and Commerce Committee should have been given a referral of this bill so that it could consider the need for this provision and any amendments to it affecting matters within our jurisdiction. I have been informed that in lieu of such a referral, the Majority may have exchanged letters on this matter. However, no one on the Minority of the Committee has been granted access to these letters, so I have no idea what they say or whether the Committee's substantive and jurisdictional interests have been preserved. This is not the proper way to legislate. I object to bringing up this bill today.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Springfield, Mr. Boland's successor in Congress. Eddie was elected as a State Representative in 1932 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected President, and left in 1988 as George Bush was about to be elected President. He carried the same values throughout all of those years, and he came to be known, for all of those who are still here who served with him, as a legislative giant. He lived with Tip O'Neill for 24 years as roommates in an apartment here in Washington, for the first 24 years of his career, before Tip brought Millie down when he was elected Speaker; and they said for those 24 years, the only thing that was ever in the refrigerator were cigars and orange juice. In a lot of ways, with his passing, for Massachusetts politics, passes an era as well, that Tip O'Neill and John McCormick and Eddie Boland span the years in representing.