Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, during the Civil War, the wealthy could exempt themselves by buying their way out of fighting, and the war became known as a rich man's war but a poor man's fight. That is what the Republican bill is today. It is, in time of war, a big goody grab bag of tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations and individuals in America: capital gains tax break; alternative minimum tax break for corporations, retroactively; an accelerated income tax break for the wealthiest Americans. But what is in it for ordinary Americans? For poor Americans? There is nothing. It is all for the wealthy. President Kennedy used to say, ask not what your country can do for you but, rather, what you can do for your country. The Republican bill today says, ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can do for their country club pals. This is not a bill that helps ordinary Americans. This is a bill that helps the upper 1 percent wealthy people in our country at the expense of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and health care and education for every other family in America. Vote for the Democratic substitute. Vote against this Republican bill that helps the wealthiest people in our country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and welcome Stephen Lynch to the high office of United States Representative. I want my colleagues to know that we are welcoming into our midst a man who from day one embodies the history, the purpose and the mission of the people's House. He learned the value of hard work and pride and accomplishment by joining his father as an ironworker in Local Number 7. He learned the value of service from a mother who earned a living as a postal clerk. He rose from the housing projects of South Boston to work his way through college and Boston College Law School. While ``climbing iron,'' Stephen was elected the youngest president in the history of Ironworkers Local Number 7. He then served proudly in the Massachusetts State House representing South Boston, first in the State House of Representatives and then in the Massachusetts State Senate. His combination of thoughtful listening and forceful leadership in the bubbling, boiling caldron of Massachusetts State politics has earned him the broad and deep respect of everyone with whom he has come into contact. Indeed, in this election he received the endorsement of the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald, a heretofore impossible task in Massachusetts politics. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) is going to succeed Joe Moakley. Stephen has said if he could fill even one of Joe Moakley's big shoes, he would be happy to do that. It is a gracious remark that demonstrates the profound appreciation the gentleman has for the work that Joe Moakley did here throughout his lifetime. Joe Moakley in turn replaced John McCormack as the Congressman from South Boston. In electing Steve, we have picked someone at this uncommon time with the talent and the courage which this country is going to need in order to surmount the challenges which face us in the years ahead. Mr. Speaker, I give my colleagues the new, great Congressman from the city of Boston, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Steven F. Lynch) be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest, and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Consumer Product Risk Reporting Act of 2001,'' a bill intended to improve consumer safety by achieving increased compliance with existing requirements to report hazards. The legislation would increase the civil and criminal penalties that the CPSC can seek from firms that do not inform the Commission when they have a product that could pose a substantial hazard to consumers. The legislation would also help make some product recalls more effective. The CPSC is the government agency that makes sure cribs, toys, and other products in your home or around schools and in recreation areas are not hazardous, and recalls them when they are hazardous. The CPSC oversees the safety of 15,000 different kinds of consumer products. Each year there are more than 29 million injuries and about 22,000 deaths associated with consumer products. Current law provides that if companies have information that one of their products has a safety defect that could create a serious product hazard or presents an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, they are required to report that to the government. Unfortunately, some companies are not obeying the law. The CPSC estimates that in half of the most serious cases they deal with, the company has failed to report injuries. Instead, the information comes to the attention of the agency from its own investigators, from consumers, or tragically, from hospital emergency room reports or death certificates. When companies don't report, dangerous products that should have been recalled or modified remain on store shelves. They continue to be sold and they stay in consumers homes where they can cause serious injury or death. Some consumers pay a very high price for a company's failure to report. For example, a 3-year-old girl died while playing on her swing. Her grandfather was cutting weeds in the yard using a weed trimmer with a replacement head that was made with metal links. The end link broke off and it flew through the air as a piece of deadly shrapnel--travelling 240 miles an hour. It hit his granddaughter in the temple, penetrated her skull and killed her. The company didn't tell the CPSC about this death, nor did they tell the CPSC about the 40 other serious injuries from chains breaking. The CPSC was forced to do its own investigation and recalled the product nationwide in May 2000. Such failures to report can result in tragic losses of life and limb that are avoidable and preventable if compliance with reporting were higher. Under current law, the CPSC can fine companies for violating the law, but the amount of the fine is limited by statute to a level that does not sufficiently deter violations. Under current law, companies can face criminal penalties for violating consumer product safety laws, but they are only misdemeanors. Under current law, in any recall, companies elect whether to provide a repair, replacement or refund for defective products. In most cases, the CPSC can find a good solution to the problem for consumers. But in other cases, especially where the product is older and has been on the market for many years, companies argue they can elect a refund that may not result in an adequate recall thus resulting in the dangerous product remaining with consumers. To remedy these deficiencies, the legislation would: Eliminate the cap on civil penalties for violations of product safety laws. Under current law, the CPSC cannot assess more than $1,650,000 for a related series of violations against a company that knowingly violates consumer product safety laws. The legislation would eliminate this maximum civil penalty. Many of the cases in which,the Commission seeks civil penalties involve very large corporations that can easily absorb a $1.65 million fine. For them, it is a cost of doing business. More substantial civil penalties would provide a needed incentive for those and other companies to notify CPSC of dangerous products so that the agency can take timely action to protect consumers. Other agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, enforce laws with no ``cap'' on the amount of the penalty. Increase the penalty for a ``knowing and willful'' criminal violation of product safety laws from a misdemeanor to a felony and eliminate the requirement that the agency give notice to the company that is criminally violating the law. The legislation would increase the potential criminal penalties for a ``knowing and willful'' violation of consumer product safety laws from a misdemeanor (up to one year in prison) to a felony (up to three years in prison). It would also increase the maximum monetary criminal penalty in accordance with existing criminal laws. These heightened penalties are commensurate with the seriousness of product safety violations, which can result in death or serious injury to children and families. Other agencies have authority to seek substantial (felony) criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations of safety requirements, including the Food and Drug Administration for prescription drug marketing violations and the Department of Transportation for the transportation of hazardous materials. The legislation would also eliminate the requirement under the Consumer Product Safety Act that the Commission give notice of noncompliance before seeking a criminal penalty for a willful violation of the Act. The notice requirement makes it all but impossible to pursue a criminal penalty for violations of the Act, even in the most serious cases. The threat of a criminal felony prosecution would create an additional strong incentive for companies to report product defects to the Commission. Give CPSC clear authority to overrule the remedy chosen by a manufacturer to address a defective product in a product recall when the Commission determines that an alternative remedy would be in the public interest. Under current law, a company with a defective product that is being recalled can elect the remedy to be offered to the public. The company can choose repair, replacement, or refund ``less a reasonable allowance for use.'' The legislation would continue to permit the company to select the remedy in a product recall. However, the legislation would allow the Commission to determine (after an opportunity for a hearing) that the remedy selected by the company is not in the public interest. The Commission may then order the company to carry out an alternative program that is in the public interest. Sometimes companies try to choose a remedy in a recall that does not further public safety. For example, a manufacturer may argue it can choose to refund the purchase price of a product, less a reasonable allowance for use even though the product has been on the market for a long time and the amount due consumers may be so insignificant that there is no incentive for the consumer to take advantage of the recall. This is especially true where the hazardous product is still useful to the consumer and the cost of replacement for the consumer is substantial. Companies may try to choose an insubstantial refund even though people have been at risk for a number of years, thousands of products are still in use, injuries are continuing to occur and a repair is available and feasible. In this example, a refund is no remedy at all, and offering a minimal refund would not serve the public interest.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. In his Funeral Oration, the great Athenian leader Pericles said ``heroes have the whole earth for their tomb; and in lands far from their own, where the column with its epitaph declares it, there is enshrined in every breast a record unwritten with no tablet to preserve it, except that of the heart.'' The terrible events of the last few days already have produced many heroes, from the firemen and the police officers who gave their lives to rescue others, to the airline passengers who appear to have sacrificed themselves to save their fellow citizens. And like the heroes of ancient times, our heroes also have the whole earth for their tomb; for enshrined in every breast is a record of their deeds that we will carry forever with us. We will never forget what happened on September 11, 2001. And we must resolve ourselves that these lives of those who perished in this tragedy will not have been sacrificed in vain--that out of their deaths will arise a new commitment to preserve and defend our American freedom. We must now go about the grim task of identifying the monsters responsible for starting this war and those who may be harboring them; assuring that they pay a very heavy price for their actions. In doing so, we call upon all of those who love peace and freedom to join us in this crusade. The community of nations must unite to assure that these terrorists have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Together, we must hunt these criminals down to the ends of the earth and assure they pay dearly for the crimes they have committed against humanity. The resolution before us provides the President with a specific authorization, consistent with the War Powers Resolution, to use force against those responsible for the September 11th terrorist attack. I do not view this as an open-ended authorization for this or any future President to wage war on any one at any time. It is, instead, in the words of the resolution, an authority to use force against ``those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.'' All Americans stand behind our President, his advisers, and the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who will be asked to carry out this mission. Our thoughts and our prayers will be with them in the days and months ahead. We know their task will not be easy. But they should go forward armed with the knowledge that they have the support of all Americans--as expressed by the unanimous vote of their elected representatives. That is what this resolution signifies, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday America walked through the eye of terror's perfect storm. Thousands of American families were hideously drafted into a war that they, and most of us, only dimly perceived and little understood. But today we emerge from the ashes of hate and the horror of evil reminded that America has an historical mission in the world--to hold up freedom's light and defend it against every and all attempts to snuff it out. William Lloyd Garrison once said: With reasonable men, I will reason, with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost. Today, the Congress is saying, for the world to hear, that: With reasonable men we will reason; With humane men we will plead; but to agents of modern terror, we will give no quarter nor waste our arguments.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday America walked through the eye of terror's perfect storm. Thousands of American families were hideously drafted into a war that they only dimly perceived. But today we emerge from the ashes of hate and horror, of evil, reminded that America has a historical mission in the world to uphold freedom's light and defend it against every and all attempts to snuff it out. The great American, William Lloyd Garrison, once said, ``With reasonable men I will reason, with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants, I will show no quarter, nor waste my arguments.'' Today, Congress and the President and the American people are saying to the world, ``With reasonable men we will reason, with humane men we will plead, but to agents of modern terror, we will not waste our arguments, because we will show them no quarter.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today, Rep. Tauscher and I are introducing the ``MX Missile Stand-Down Act'', a measure to take the 50 MX missiles off of hair-trigger alert. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced on June 27 of this year that the Pentagon would seek to dismantle these 50 MX missiles. Yesterday, the House Armed Services Committee passed by voice vote an amendment by Rep. Allen to the Defense Authorization bill to allow such dismantlement, which had been previously prohibited by Congress. The bill we are introducing today augments these recent steps. According to a preliminary plan by the Air Force, these MX missiles would be dismantled over a 3-year timescale. What our legislation is saying is that there is no need to keep the balance of the silo- busting, heavily-MIRVed MX missiles in a state of ready launch during that time, and therefore we direct the Secretary of Defense to stand- down the MX missiles by removing their warheads over FY2002. This is a simple but important step. Currently, the United States and Russia have a total of about 4,000 weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to launch within a few minutes. This state of readiness is unnecessary a decade after the end of the Cold War. As then-Governor George W. Bush observed during the recent Presidential campaign on May 23, 2000, ``[T]he United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status. Another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation, preparation for quick launch within minutes after warning of an attack was the rule during the era of superpower rivalry. But today for two nations at peace, keeping so many weapons on high alert may create unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch.'' There is a real danger that a false alarm could lead to a nuclear exchange, as evidenced by episodes such as the 1995 incident in which the Russians mistook a scientific launch for an attack and began the process of responding. With the Russian early warning systems having deteriorated since that incident, the hazard is all the more plausible. Therefore, we also direct the Secretary of Defense to make yearly reports to Congress on the condition of the Russian early warning systems, as well as the inventory and alert status of the Russian nuclear arsenal. This bill continues the process of confidence-building, making a definitive, material statement to the Russians that we do not wish to continue to maintain our nuclear weapons in high-alert and thereby encourage them to follow suit.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Make no mistake, the Norwood amendment guts the patients' bill of rights, and what is left behind? Nothing more than an ``HMO Bill of Slights.'' The Norwood amendment slights patients with weakened accountability provisions; it slights patients by preempting stronger State laws, which would allow patients to sue HMOs for bad medical decisions; it slights patients by prohibiting class action lawsuits against HMOs; and it slights patients by allowing HMOs to delay a patient's day in court by choosing Federal court over State court. Mr. Chairman, justice delayed is justice denied. The American people have waited too long for a real HMO bill of rights. Vote no on the Norwood amendment, the ``HMO Bill of Slights.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sununu amendment. The proponents of the drilling in this Arctic Refuge have taken one of their most misleading statements, and they have turned it into an amendment. We are now debating that amendment. This 2,000 acre amendment would simply make official what the industry has already said unofficially, that it intends to industrialize the very heart of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. The Department of Interior has already analyzed those plans. Let me show Members what 2,000 acres subdivided into all of its parts would mean for the refuge. The industry says it will just be a little red dot. They have been passing this little red dot around for the last 5 months. It really will not do a great deal of damage. But the industry has big plans for that 2,000 acres of surface area because here is what can be done with 2,000 acres of surface area, if instead of a little dot, which is not how one drills because these are a lot of other things that need to be done to be successful in bringing oil and gas out of any part of this refuge. Two hundred miles of pipeline can be built into the refuge. Two hundred miles of roads can be built into the refuge. Twenty oil fields can be fit into the refuge. That does not even count the ice roads, the water, the trucks, the pollution and on and on. The gravel pits. According to the Department of Interior, 2,000 acres of surface area would permit a spider web of facilities so extensive that its impact on the refuge, the wildlife, the ecosystem would spread over 130,000 acres to 303,000 acres, one-fifth of the entire 102 area. Mr. Chairman, that is what Members are voting for when they vote for this amendment. It is not a little red dot. It is a huge pink snake. Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, this, I say to my colleagues, is what the Arctic Refuge will look like if the Markey-Johnson amendment is not successful. The oil and gas industry has a bull's-eye that they have put in the middle of this sacred refuge that we should remove this evening. This will be the most important environmental vote that we have. Do not allow the proponents of drilling in this refuge to convince us for a moment that, like Prudhoe Bay, the Arctic Refuge will not look like an industrial site, because it will. And this would be after a day in which our air conditioners and automobiles and every other device, that we could have voted to make more efficient so that we did not have to drill here. But the majority said no. They say yes to the oil and gas industry and no to conservation and renewable energy and to energy efficiency. Vote yes on the Markey-Johnson amendment and no to the oil and gas industry's design on this sacred wilderness in our country.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds 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. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, this is the most important environmental vote of this Congress, 2001 and 2002. This is the top environmental vote for every environmental group in the United States. The proponents say we are going to drill and leave a little red dot of 2000 acres on this pristine wilderness area in Alaska. Yes, it is a little dot, but that is not how they drill. This is what the Department of Interior says it will look like after all of the drilling is done, after all the roads are laid, after all the ice roads are dug, after all the oil wells are out there, after all the gravel pits are dug. This is what it will look like. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the most important environmental vote of this entire Congress. Vote yes on Markey-Johnson.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the Republican bill will spend $34 billion, and these are huge breaks, a royalty holiday, meaning the oil and gas companies will not have to pay for going on public lands. Other huge breaks. Now, where are they going? They just had a huge tax break for the upper 1 percentile just 3 months ago. We have run out of the real surplus. Now people say well, you know what, we still have the Social Security, and we still have the Medicare surpluses. So here is what they are doing. They are about to build their oil rigs, their gas rigs, on top of the Social Security trust fund, on top of the Medicare trust fund, and they are about to begin to drill so they can pump it dry. They are going to build a pipeline, a pipeline into the pockets of the senior citizens in our country. That is where the money has to come from. Now, they did not allow the Democrats to make an amendment so that we could have the $34 billion come out of the tax break for the upper one- half of one percent percentile, who, after all, is also going to get this $34 billion. It is going to be a rig that goes directly into Social Security and Medicare, and they are not allowing us to make an amendment to stop this, and that is wrong. That is what this whole debate is all about. It is about this mindless commitment to ensuring that Medicare and Social Security money is spent on things other than the senior citizens in this country, and blocking the Democrats from protecting these trust funds which have been promised to our seniors. Please.