Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave as he listens to this debate tonight. This is the wealthiest industry in the United States. How in the world can we subsidize General Electric and Westinghouse to develop an incremental advancement on a 50-year-old technology? Either it works in the marketplace or it does not work in the marketplace. If we cannot cut this subsidy out of the budget, we cannot cut any subsidy out of the budget. This is like conducting a French revolution and not attacking the Bastille. If there is going to be a revolution out here, we got to cut out unneeded programs. And if we cannot cut out a subsidy to an industry which has received $50 billion worth of subsidies over the last 40 years in this country, we are not cutting out subsidies for anyone. By the way, the technology is not being built commercially because it does not work in the marketplace. It is 6 cents a kilowatt hour. Coal is cheaper, natural gas is cheaper, wind is cheaper. It is losing in the marketplace. I say to my colleagues, we cannot stand out here on the floor of Congress and interject Federal taxpayers' dollars into industries that they are already paying too high rates in their electricity bills already because the electric utility executives in the areas invested in the wrong technologies. If they in fact want these next generation of technologies, and by the way, not one new nuclear power plant has been ordered in the United States since 1973, and I will predict right now and guarantee you that there will not be a new nuclear power plant ordered as long as any person in this room is alive, how in the world can we justify this kind of investment? As we move to wholesale and retail wheeling of electricity, the marketplace is going to ruthlessly demand the lowest priced energy. Nuclear power is not that energy. We must demand the Obey amendment be adopted here this evening.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me say quite clearly that the gentleman who was just in the well unfortunately has such a commitment to these corporate welfare programs that is is impossible to break the addiction. This amendment is opposed by Citizens for a Sound Economy and Taxpayers for Common Sense. Those of us who are committed to balancing the Federal budget by the year 2002 have to be informed by these taxpayer groups that are looking, scouring the Federal budget, looking for the pork barrel projects that cannot be justified any longer. And under the guise of the red herrings, making this sound like some kind of antinuclear amendment, when the primary reason we should be opposing it is that the Citizens for a Sound Economy, Taxpayers for Common Sense, oppose it. I am feeling right now that we should put an aquarium down in the well to contain all of the red herrings that the gentleman from Pennsylvania and others have injected into this debate. In fact, the reality here is that without question not only does this not solve the problems that have been pointed out by the opponents of this amendment, but it creates new ones. The scientists, well, I have scientists. And my scientists, Albert Walstetler, perhaps the most respected, by the way, of any in the United States, he says quite clearly, whatever the name, what DOE proposes is clearly reprocessing. It is the separation of fissile, of fertile material from nuclear waste in the special case of EBR-2 spent fuel reprocessing may or may not make it easier to dispose of the waste, but it does not alter proliferation dangers. Vote ``yes'' on the Markey amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is willing to cut this subsidy out, I will vote to cut out all subsidies for solar. It is everyone gets a subsidy or no one gets a subsidy. But let us give the same subsidies to both technologies, not 10 times more.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] very much for yielding this time to me. As my colleagues know, the OCC takes the position that under the National Bank Act that it will trump all existing State laws in terms of what consumer protections are given to those who are dealing with banks that are now selling insurance. Meanwhile, the insurance agents at the State level will still be under State law. So we have no guarantee, in other words, that we will have that national body of law State by State which has been put on the books in order to protect consumers. We must support the Solomon amendment to protect the consumers of this country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1975. This ill- named royalty fairness bill is yet another example of corporate welfare for well-heeled oil and gas producers operating on public lands. Just 2 months ago, press reports reveals that 10 oil companies may have underpaid royalties and interest to the Federal Government by as much as $856 million on land in California they lease from the Federal Government to drill for oil. What has the Republican-controlled Congress proposed in response to this royalty rip-off? First, the Republican majority in the House voted to repeal the gas tax, a move that most economists agree the oil companies will quickly pocket for themselves. Consumers are unlikely to actually see any of this cut reflected in lower prices at the pump, as the Republicans rejected all Democratic efforts to assure the savings would actually be rebated to consumers. And now today, with this bill, we will be providing the big oil and gas companies with yet another windfall. H.R. 1975 will: Result in more than $200 million being paid out to oil and gas companies over the next 20 years by requiring the taxpayers to pay interest payments to oil companies who--through their own stupidity, mismanagement, or incompetent accounting--have overpaid royalties to the Federal Government; and Establish a 7-year statute of limitations that will undermine the Federal Government's ability to collect moneys owed it by huge oil and gas companies. I think it's time we stopped providing Federal freebies to deadbeat drillers. We should defeat this bill. It is bad energy policy and bad fiscal policy. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation aimed at promoting competition in the electric utility industry. This legislation seeks to create Federal incentives for removal of existing State-level barriers to full competition and consumer choice in electricity generation. Today, the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity remains largely a monopoly enterprise. The monopoly nature of this industry has, in turn, necessitated a very strict system of Federal and State utility regulation aimed at protecting captive utility ratepayers from potential overcharges, abuses and conflicts of interest. Today, however, we are now at a crossroads. We now have an historic opportunity to bring full competition to the business of electricity generation. The transition to such a competitive market, however, will require both Federal and State action. Electricity restructuring legislation at the Federal or State level should be aimed at demonopolizing the electric power industry, not simply deregulating it. There is now no reason why electricity generation should remain a monopoly business, and no reason why consumers should not be free to choose their power supplier, just as they now can choose between rival phone companies. Our objective must be to create a competitive marketplace where many sellers and many buyers can come together. In some cases, this may mean getting rid of old utility regulations that no longer are needed because their purpose can now be achieved through reliance on market forces. In other cases, it may mean preserving existing rules where necessary to respond to those aspects of the industry which remain a monopoly, such as distribution of electricity over local power lines. But restructuring also means Congress will have to enact some new rules that assure the benefits of competition--lower prices and consumer choice--are not effectively undermined by anticompetitive practices by recovering utility monopolists who fall off the competition wagon. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 2929, the Electric Power Competition Act of 1996 to advance the goal of electric utility demonopolization. That bill linked repeal of the mandatory power purchase provisions of PURPA to State action to open up full retail competition. This would be achieved either through utility divestiture of powerplants or by State approval of a so-called retail wheeling plans that would allow consumers to buy power from competing generating companies that would be granted nondiscriminatory access to utility power lines. In order to preserve environmentally sound renewable energy sources, energy conservation programs, and low-income consumer protections, H.R. 2929 also requires the States to certify they have met certain minimum standards in each of these areas in order to qualify for relief from PURPA. Finally, to promote a fully competitive marketplace, certain exemptions which electric utilities currently enjoy from the Federal antitrust laws would be repealed. At the time I introduced H.R. 2929 and in subsequent hearings before the Energy and Power Subcommittee I noted that in addition to these reforms, electric utility restructuring legislation also must address the risks that electric utility mergers, utility market power, or utility diversification into new lines of business might harm electricity consumers or undermine the emergence of a fully competitive electricity generation market. The legislation I am introducing today addresses each of these critical areas and should be viewed as the companion bill to H.R. 2929. The bill requires each State to initiate a retail competition rulemaking proceeding pursuant to certain Federal standards; repeals PUHCA for those electric utility holding companies whose service territories have been opened up to full retail competition and met minimum standards for renewables, efficiency, and low-income consumer protections; and gives FERC and the States enhanced authority to oversee mergers and acquisitions to protect consumers from transactions that are inconsistent with effective competition in electricity markets or would increase electricity prices. It also gives FERC and the States authority to regulate utility market power to guard against anticompetitive practices; grants FERC and the States authority over electric utility interaffiliate transactions to guard against cross-subsidization or self-dealing; directs FERC to establish regional transmission markets to assure functionally efficient and nondiscriminatory transmission and prevent pancaking of rates; and, assures FERC and State regulators have full access to electric utility books and records. It is important to keep in mind that Congress enacted PUHCA 60 years ago in response to the myriad of anticonsumer abuses that occurred during the initial growth of the electric utility industry. These abuses included the creation of complex utility holding companies not readily susceptible to effective State regulation, cross-subsidization, self-dealing, and other abuses, and blatantly anticompetitive practices and activities. While much has changed in the electric power business since PUHCA was enacted in 1935, even in a restructured electricity industry, Congress must be concerned about the potential for a recurrence of such abuses. For example, utilities who control generation, transmission, and distribution assets might still engage in self-dealing transactions among their affiliates, cross-subsidize unregulated business ventures at the expense of the captive consumers in their monopoly transmission or distribution businesses, or exploit their substantial market power to impede the growth of effective competition. Moreover, the accelerating pace of utility mergers threatens to create giant mega-utilities that could dominate regional electricity markets and effectively bar other entrants from vying for customers. Comprehensive electricity restructuring legislation must address each of these potential threats to the development of a competitive electric generation market. I intend for the reform proposals contained in this legislation to be considered as part of any comprehensive electricity legislation that moves through the Commerce Committee, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to secure their enactment into law.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, when the House considered most-favored- nation status for China last year, supporters of cutting off MFN privileges were told over and over again, be patient, that things in China would get better if we were just patient. Basically we were urged to adopt a wait-until-next-year philosophy, familiar to fans of losing sports teams everywhere. Wait until next year, we were told, and China will stop selling nuclear weapon-related equipment to the world's troublemakers. Wait until next year and China will stop choking off America's imports and running up a massive trade deficit. Wait until next year and China will stop prosecuting and persecuting its own people. Well, Mr. Speaker, next year has arrived, and China has not only failed to improve its nonproliferation trade and human rights record, but the Chinese behavior in each one of these areas has deteriorated since last year. First is nuclear weapons proliferation. Earlier this year the CIA confirmed that China sold to Pakistan nuclear-capable M-11 missiles and equipment which is important in the production of nuclear weapons. Over the last decade it has been demonstrated that China has a nuclear rap sheet as long as our arms. Let us not kid ourselves about their attitude about selling nuclear weapons-related materials into the global economy. China has sold cruise missiles to Iran and is cooperating with the Iranians on their civilian nuclear programs which our arms control and disarmament agency believes is just a cover for Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3675, the Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. I am particularly concerned about the drastic cuts that are proposed for Amtrak. Under H.R. 3675, the Northeast corridor improvement program would receive no funding for fiscal year 1997. In addition, Amtrak's capital assistance and operating assistance budgets would be cut by a total of $173 million compared to last year. This will have a devastating impact on railroad service in the Northeast corridor and, therefore, on travelers in New England. It should be clear by now that Congress intends Amtrak to be self- sufficient by fiscal year 2002. Last year, the House of Representatives approved a reauthorization bill for Amtrak which gradually phases out financial support by the year 2002. In addition, the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution places Amtrak on a glidepath toward self-sufficiency. However, with the proposed level of funding for fiscal year 1997, Congress has moved away from the blueprint envisioned in the budget resolution and in last year's reauthorization bill. Amtrak's funding levels from 1995 to 1997 are $1.2 billion less than what they indicated was necessary for operating self-sufficiency. Railroads are capital intensive operations, and yet Congress has kept Amtrak on a slim-fast capital diet for the better part of its 25-year existence. Without adequate capital funds during this critical transition period, Amtrak cannot make the essential investments necessary to survive once Congress has provided its last dollar of operating support. Amtrak will need to modernize its locomotive fleet by purchasing more reliable and fuel-efficient engines. In addition, many of their maintenance shops, which date to the steam era, need to be upgraded, and the electric wires on the Northeast corridor, which are the same ones the Pennsylvania Railroad first strung in 1933, also need to be replaced. If we do not give Amtrak the ability to reinvest now, we will never get them to a legitimate point of self-sufficiency. We are at a pivotal time with regard to our national passenger rail policy. We have told Amtrak to do what no other national passenger railroad in the world has been able to do--to be free of operating support. This is a major accomplishment and one that Congress should encourage. However, without adequate capital funds now, Amtrak will forever be dependent on Congress to meet its operating needs. Should Amtrak become insolvent, the liability to the Federal Government is going to be a far greater cost to the taxpayer than giving Amtrak the funds needed to successfully transition to self-sufficiency.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to the many accomplishments of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and to mark the occasion of its 50th anniversary, which will occur on July 1. In its earliest incarnation, CDC was known as the Malaria Control in War Areas [MCWA], and it was tasked with combatting malaria on military bases in the Southern United States. Over the years, CDC's mission and reach have expanded dramatically. Today, CDC is the Nation's prevention agency, responsible for the prevention of disease, disability, and injury. CDC focuses not only on combatting traditional communicable diseases, like malaria and syphilis, but also on preventing outbreaks of new and reemerging infectious diseases, reducing the incidence of HIV/AIDS, fighting breast and prostate cancer, and preventing lead poisoning in children. But CDC has not been satisfied only to defend America and the world against disease--it also has taken the offensive, promoting healthy behavior through smoking cessation, and immunization efforts. CDC has been faced with a host of challenges over the last half century, and the many scientists and public health professionals who make this relatively small agency a force to be reckoned with have never failed to rise to those challenges. Utilizing a technique for investigating disease outbreaks, ``Hot Zone'' author Richard Preston has called the marriage of great labs with shoe-leather disease detective work, CDC has taken on epidemics around the globe. The threat of emerging infectious diseases that our Nation and the world now face becomes somewhat less alarming when we remind ourselves of the unflagging courage and unfailing efforts of the devoted professionals at CDC who stand ready to fight back. I would like to commend CDC on its long record of achievement, which is outlined in a brief history of the agency prepared by CDC that I am including in the Record, and to thank the scientists, doctors, public health professionals, and staff of the CDC for all that you have done for us over the past 50 years. Thank you for the lives you have saved and for the good you have done for this Nation and the world. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--50 Years of Accomplishments the 1940's 1946 The Communicable Disease Center, or CDC, opens in the old ``Office of Malaria Control in War Areas'' in downtown Atlanta. Part of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), the CDC has a mission to work with state and local health officials in the fight against malaria (that was still prevalent in several Southern states), typhus, and other communicable diseases. 1947 A token payment of $10 is made for 15 acres on Clifton Road in Atlanta, the current home of CDC headquarters. the 1950's 1951 The Epidemic Intelligence Services (EIS) is established. EIS quickly becomes the Nation's--and the world's--response team for a wide range of health emergencies. Its young, energetic medical officers make house calls around the world. CDC broadens its focus to include polio and establishes closer relationships with the states. National disease surveillance systems begin. 1955 The Polio Surveillance Unit is established. Ten years later, CDC assumes PHS responsibility for the control of polio; the disease almost disappears from the Western Hemisphere by 1991. 1957 The Influenza Surveillance Unit is established. the 1960's 1961 CDC takes over publication of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), which publishes important public health updates and data on deaths and certain diseases from every state every week. The first cases of a new disease, later called AIDS, were reported in the MMWR in 1981. 1966 CDC launches the Smallpox Eradication Program to eliminate smallpox and to control measles in 20 African countries. Through CDC's efforts, smallpox, a disease that killed millions of people over the centuries, was eradicated from the world in the late 1970s. 1969 CDC participates in the quarantine of astronauts returning from the first walk on the moon, and the examination of moon rock specimens. the 1970's 1970 The Communicable Disease Center is renamed the Center for Disease Control to reflect a broader mission in preventive health. 1973 The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which protects Americans from on-the-job hazards, becomes part of CDC. 1976 CDC investigates an outbreak of illness in Philadelphia, now called Legionnaire's disease. The following year, CDC isolates the causative agent for this disease: Legionella pneumophilia. 1977 The last case of endemic smallpox in the world is reported in Somalia. 1978 CDC opens an expanded, maximum-containment laboratory to handle viruses too dangerous to handle in an ordinary laboratory. 1979 The last case of wild polio virus in the United States is reported. the 1980's 1980 The agency is renamed the Centers for Disease Control to reflect a change in organizational structure. 1981 With the California Department of Health, CDC reports the first cases of an illness later known as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and organizes a task force of personnel from each center to respond to evidence of an epidemic. AIDS research and prevention efforts continue today. 1983 CDC establishes a Violence Epidemiology Branch to apply public health prevention strategies to the problems of child abuse, homicide, and suicide. 1986 The Office of Smoking and Health, which targets the Nation's primary preventable health problem, becomes part of

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to agree to a unanimous- consent request which makes an amendment to the Markey amendment, being Markey, when the amendment has not even been shared with Markey as a way of ensuring that the unanimous-consent request could be done in an amicable way and in a bipartisan fashion seeking to resolve the issue. So I would ask if the gentleman could withhold briefly and the gentleman from New York perhaps could share the amendment since the Markey amendment is already well known.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional amendment which I will be more than willing to accept the time limitation of 5 minutes on either side, and that would complete the business. I would very much appreciate the gentleman's consideration.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, let us just clear away, if we could, a lot of the statements that have been made this evening about the nature of this amendment. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is not speaking about H.R. 2500 when he talks about anything that Carol Browner has said. Any personal remarks that Carol Browner may have made about the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] are deserved by him. But H.R. 2500 was in fact a bill which Administrator Browner recommended a veto on. A veto. If the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] wants to associate himself with that bill, because that is what my amendment refers to, H.R. 2500. It refers to provisions in H.R. 2500 that allow for rebates to be given to polluters. If the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] wants to associate himself with that portion which somehow or other he has up on his board over here with the gold star from Carol Browner, that is fine. Take credit for that. But we are not debating that this evening, and we are not debating liability for municipalities. We are not debating the whole long laundry list of issues that all of these Republicans keep getting up and speaking about. We are only debating one issue, the issue of whether or not tax dollars that we need to balance the budget, that we need to pay for Medicare, that we need to pay for Medicaid, that we need to pay for inoculations of children are going to be spent to give money to polluters in cases where they have accepted liability in curt to clean up a site for which they are responsible. That, Mr. Chairman, is what this whole debate is about. Now, the Boehlert amendment deals with H.R. 2500's provision which allows for the payment of money for polluters. What my amendment does out here on the floor, that he is seeking to amend, would prohibit any scheme ever to pay polluters. Now, there is a big difference between taking the Contract With America provision and Mr. Boelhert saying, well, I do not support that, and taking any other provision which could be constructed which would accomplish the very same goal. That is why the Markey amendment has to pass, or else the Boehlert amendment has just given a very temporary 60- or 90- or 120-day inoculation to the Republican Party, pending Bob Dole' election as President, they hope, and then the bill can pass with only 51 percent of the vote. So we need the Markey amendment to prohibit it, to make it part of the law, not just H.R. 2500, this concoction of wish lists by the polluters of America, fulfillment of the Contract With America, but any scheme which is constructed. So I give the gentleman from New York his due, and he deserves it, and the Republican Party deserves credit for using the gentleman as a guard-all shield against their support for all of the polluter-written legislation that has been presented out on this floor over this past year and a half. But even the gentleman, in all of his sacrifice for the Republican Party, cannot protect them against H.R. 2500, even as the gentleman brings out his good report card from Carol Browner on the things that he does support. H.R. 2500 the gentleman opposes, I hope, because Carol Browner said that it should be vetoed, and if you did not, then fine, there is an area of agreement that you have with the Republican Party, but not with the environmentalists of our country, not with the EPA, and not with anyone that wants to see the sites in this country that have been polluted by chemical companies, by oil companies, cleaned up. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this amendment is not allowed to in any way interfere with our ability to also ensure that the Markey amendment is included as part of this law.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, toward the goal of supporting that amendment, I would just like to clarify. If the gentleman would yield, would the gentleman's amendment prohibit any rebates to polluters who have already signed?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York so much, because this goes right to the heart of what we are talking about. Just for the record so that everyone who is listening is not all confused, the Environmental Protection Agency wrote yesterday that they support the Markey amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I know that the gentleman is not acting in a deliberate attempt to totally misrepresent what my amendment does; although he has, I know it is not deliberate. So I welcome the opportunity to clarify for the gentleman what it is that my amendment does.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice as well also supports the Markey amendment. Now, I know that the gentleman has some general language there from Carol Browner speaking about him as an individual, and let me say this, the halo over his head could not be shinier after the last year and a half of missionary work.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if he would continue to yield.