Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. How do I reconcile what?

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Well, the facts are very clear. The facts are that 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the last 10 years and it has reached a temporary plateau. We are in a recession, and in China and in the United States and in other countries there has been a slower pace of increase in emissions. And by the way, this year it's going back up again, it's going to be the fifth warmest year in history this year.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Yes, they are public. This is the data provided by NASA, which I will provide to you. NASA has been compiling temperatures from the last 130 years, and I will be more than willing to give it to you. I guess the fundamental question is, as China and India industrialize, as other parts of the world industrialize and start to send up more fossil fuels into the atmosphere, do we believe this trend is likely to stop and abate, or is it likely to exacerbate and continue to skyrocket? I think the evidence, since the beginning of the industrialized period as we have moved from 280 parts per million to 380 parts per million of CO2 in our atmosphere, is that the more we add the warmer it gets. And as the 3 or 4 billion people in this developing world begin to want to drive automobiles and have electricity in their homes, it's pretty clear that the trend line is heading upwards. Yes, over the last 10 years it stayed very warm. As I said earlier, it's like a child having the same temperature, 100.6 not 98.6, for about 10 days.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, without question, we are now engaged in an historic debate, and that debate is over the question of whether the United States is going to become a leader and not a laggard on the question of climate change and energy independence and clean energy job creation in our country. What is happening on the Republican side is that they have decided to engage in a phony debate--in a debate about science, which is, in fact, not debatable, in a debate about whether the United States should be the leader in green job creation and energy independence, which should not be debatable. So let's begin first with the science. The science is quite clear. Over the last 130 years, there has been a tracking of the temperature of the planet. It is clear that we have now entered, as the world has industrialized, a period of rapid warming of the planet. In fact, since 2001, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the history of our country have been recorded. Nine of the 10 warmest years in the record. So this trend line, this rapid warming of our planet, is something which, of course, is of great concern because glaciers melt. The Arctic ice cap melts. The deserts in Africa, in Asia begin to widen. Water evaporates. The world, as a result, sees fundamental changes in the way in which it operates. So this undeniable increase in warming due to the CO2, the greenhouse gases which are going up into the atmosphere, is something which we really don't have an ability to debate. What the Republicans have done is they have taken a couple of emails from some scientists who had a fight scientifically over whether or not they would be properly characterized at some point in the past, and they have taken that as an entree to question the consensus that has been reached by the National Academy of Sciences of every country in the world. It's kind of their death panel equivalent for the climate debate, for the energy debate. How can we find something that's irrelevant--minor--and elevate it to the point where it obscures the need for us to really debate the big issues that are in front of us? So this warming trend is absolutely indisputable. What they contend is that, at this point, it really hasn't spiked that much higher in the last 10 years. It has stayed at this relatively high, historical plateau. So their concern is that there needs to be a reevaluation as to whether or not the planet is actually warming. It's kind of like saying to a mother, Well, you know, the average temperature is 98.6 for all human beings, and little Joey's temperature is now up to 100.6, 2 degrees higher, but it has only been there for the last 10 days, so don't worry about it. That's the new normal for his temperature, 100.6. Who as a parent would ever accept a 2-degree increase in temperature for 10 days as being the new normal? Well, that's what they're saying about the temperature of the planet. The planet is running a fever. There are no emergency rooms for planets. We must engage in preventative care; but what they are saying is that this new temperature is the new normal, the new temperature for the planet, even though we can see the beginnings of the catastrophic consequences of having that temperature at such a high level. So this debate does turn on science. Ours is irrefutable. No one denies even on their side that the temperatures have risen dramatically. They don't debate that. They don't debate that the Arctic ice cover is eroding rapidly. They don't deny that there has been a 30 percent increase in the acidification of our oceans. They don't deny that it has become 6 degrees warmer in Alaska during the winter over the last 50 years. None of this do they deny, but what they really are trying to do is to stop any legislative attempt, any international attempt to put together a set of solutions for these problems. That's really at the heart of this matter. So, as we move forward, the issue for us is: How do we deal with it? Well, you know, I thought I would think through some analogy that we could use, and what I thought about was baseball. In baseball, going back to 1920 when Babe Ruth was playing, the average number of players in the Major Leagues who hit more than 40 home runs in a season was 3.3 players. That goes all the way from 1920 up until very recently. So that covers Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays. That's why they were so famous. Anyone who could hit more than 40 home runs was very famous. Then all of a sudden, beginning about 20 years ago, more and more players started hitting more than 40 home runs. Major League Baseball said, Well, don't worry about it. The players are getting stronger. Don't worry about it. The ballparks must be getting smaller. Now, some people said, Maybe, just maybe, the players are injecting steroids into themselves; but Major League Baseball said, No, no, no--don't worry about it--until finally we reached a point where 10 players were hitting 40 home runs, where 15 players were hitting 40 home runs, where 17 players were hitting 40 home runs. They just weren't breaking Babe Ruth's record. They were blowing that record away. They were just so much stronger. Then all of a sudden, baseball decided, because of congressional intervention, to start testing for steroids. Guess what happens? After they start testing for steroids, all of a sudden, very quickly--just over the last 3 years--the same average for 40 home run hitters that existed from 1920 has been restored. The American League leader only had 39 home runs this year. I wonder why that happened? Maybe because they tested for the injection of artificial stimulants into baseball players. Well, the same thing is true when it comes to our planet. When you inject artificial stimulants into the atmosphere, you get warming. You are now playing with Mother Nature. The warming of the planet has dramatic consequences for all of its inhabitants, and we in the United States are not immune to the consequences. We are going to be radically adversely affected by the impact. So what is the solution? Well, you might remember just about a year and a half ago that President Bush went to Saudi Arabia. At a point when we had gas prices up around $4 a gallon and at a point when our economy was starting to teeter on the brink because of this impact of oil, President Bush went to Saudi Arabia. President Bush said to the Saudi prince, Please produce another million barrels of oil a day that we could purchase from you. Send us more oil. Have us buy more of your oil at $147 a barrel. That was a low point in American history. By the way, do you know what the Saudi prince said to President Bush? The Saudi prince said, I will consider selling more oil to you at $147 a barrel, but you must first promise me that you will start selling nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia. Do you know what President Bush's response was to the Saudi Arabians? We will start selling nuclear power plants to you. Now, which country in the world does not need nuclear power for its electricity? Which country in the world has so much sun, so much wind, so much oil, so much gas that to build a nuclear power plant would really be a waste of money? I wonder why the Saudi Arabians would want nuclear power--uranium? plutonium? Yet that is the promise that President Bush made to the Saudi Arabians. We are in the midst of a debate over climate, in a debate over some emails. Who do you think partnered with these skeptics? Who do you think has partnered with the Republican Party in now questioning the validity of climate change? The Saudi Arabians yesterday said, we want an investigation. We want an investigation as to whether or not there really is climate change affecting the planet. Now, I wonder why the Saudi Arabians, the number one producer of oil on the planet, the number one exporter, would start to question climate change, start to try to throw some doubt into whether or not the world should be moving away from imported oil, moving away from this dependence on Middle Eastern oil. I wonder why they would be the partner with the American Petroleum Institute on this issue, in the same way that maybe you would wonder why the American Tobacco Institute used to question whether or not smoking caused cancer and all of the science which they funded at the American Tobacco Institute as these fumes were being inhaled by people and by children and those families. Well, now we have a different kind of fume that has been going up from coal-fired plants, from oil that is consumed in our country and around the planet. We know that there is a dangerous warming of our planet, a dangerous impact. Yet, like the American Tobacco Institute, the American Petroleum Institute says, well, let's question what's going on. The Saudi Arabians say, let's question what's going on. Maybe we don't want to move too fast. Well, let me tell you something. In 1970, when the United States was just really beginning to get addicted to imported oil, we imported about 20 percent of the oil which we consumed in the United States. Well, today, ladies and gentlemen, we import 57 percent of the oil that we consume, and we import it from very dangerous places in the world. As a matter of fact, here is an astounding number. One half of our entire trade deficit is from imported oil. Everything else that we import combined is equal to the price we have to pay for oil to bring it into our country. We produce fewer than 8 million barrels of oil a day, we import more than 11 million barrels of oil a day. Over the course of the year, oil accounts for half of our trade deficit. Now, here is another astounding fact. Three percent of the world's reserves of oil are controlled by the United States, but we actually consume 25 percent of the world's oil every day, 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, 25 percent of the consumption. Now, you keep that going for another 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, you can see what that's going to do to our national security. You can see what that's going to do to our trade deficit. You can see what that's going to do to a new clean-energy jobs revolution. Those that want this revolution to be stopped, this revolution consisting of wind energy, solar energy, geothermal, biomass, all- electric vehicles and hybrids, buildings that are twice as efficient so that we don't have to use all that energy. All of the opponents, of course, are going to jump on this very, very, very thin reed and try to use it as a way of undermining our ability to pass historic legislation and the world's ability to come together to create historic international agreements to reduce the amount of fossil fuels that we burn in our atmosphere. People say, oh, can you do it? Is it possible for the United States? Is it possible for us to lead in this new direction? Well, I would point back to the 1990s. In the 1990s, we were still living, unfortunately, in this kind of black rotary-dial phone world. We were living in a world where cell phones were about the size of a brick, it cost 50 cents a minute to make a call and people didn't have cell phones in their pocket. We had to change the laws in the United States. Well, I happened to be the chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee at that time. If we wanted an 18-inch satellite dish that people could buy, we had to change the law. If we wanted cell phones that people could have that had data, video, voice, and they paid under 10 cents a minute, we had to change the laws. If we wanted to have broadband in our country, rather than narrow band, if we wanted to have a capacity to have Google, eBay, Hulu, Amazon, Twitter and YouTube, we would have to change the laws. Now, of course, there were many people, led by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, opposed to the Telecommunications Act. The Chamber of Commerce said, Oh, it will be bad for our country. Can you imagine if we had listened to the Chamber of Commerce and we had not changed our laws? All of these products would have been created-- but not in the United States. We would not have branded it ``Made in the U.S.A.'' We are a technological giant. That's our greatest strength. Our weakness, our greatest weakness, is that we only have 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world, and we allow it to control our destiny. This revolution, the telecommunications revolution, it created 1.5 to 2 million new jobs. There are people all across our country right now, and we are able to go down and check our BlackBerry, even as they are listening to us here. That's great. That's what we should be looking for. That's what young people want. That's what ``the green generation'' wants. They are saying, no brainer, why don't we move towards green energy? Why don't we move towards these clean energy jobs, wind, solar, move that way? No, no the opponents are saying. That would be dangerous. They have got a couple of emails that they believe call into question the entire science of whether or not the planet is warming, whether the glaciers are melting, whether the corals are being destroyed, whether there has been a 30 percent increase in the acidification of our oceans, whether or not there has been a 6-degree warming in Alaska in the winter over the last 50 years. They are calling it all into question. Of course, they don't have any answers for it. They don't have any way of really explaining it, but they are using it as a deliberate political tactic in order to slow down the legislative and international response to the problem. The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, 2 days ago said in the opening session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen that the recent incidents of stealing the emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts, perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC. But the panel has a record of transparent and objective assessments stretching over 21 years performed by tens of thousands of dedicated scientists from all corners of the globe. I am proud to inform this conference that the findings of the panel are based on measurements made by many independent institutions worldwide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, the oceans and in the ice-covered areas of the Earth. The internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges, many of whom have dedicated their time and effort to develop these findings in teams of lead authors in the series of IPCC assessment reports during the past 21 years. The IPCC process is designed to ensure consideration of all relevant scientific information from established journals with robust peer- review processes or from other sources which have undergone robust and independent peer review. The entire report-writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as by governments. There were a total of around 2,500 expert reviewers performing this review process. Consequently, there is full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of published literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. The Republicans have been unable to win a debate on clean energy and climate based on the facts, the science or the economics. Now, in a desperate attempt to manipulate the truth, they have joined with Saudi Arabia and ExxonMobil to promote a manufactured scandal about stolen emails, not science, because they can't answer these questions about the warming of the planet, the permafrost being destroyed up in Alaska. The personal emails in question----

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 515, the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act, a bipartisan bill introduced by Congressmen Gordon, Matheson and Terry. This important legislation will ban the importation of low-level radioactive waste into the United States. This is a bipartisan bill, cosponsored by 80 House Members, including 20 Democratic and 4 Republican members of the full Energy and Commerce Committee. H.R. 515 was drafted in response to an attempt to bring 20,000 tons of Italian low-level nuclear waste into the United States to be processed in Tennessee and disposed of in Utah. Italy wants to ship their waste to the United States because they have no disposal capabilities of their own. And Italy is by no means the only country in this position. In fact, the United States is the only nuclear waste-producing country in the world which allows for the importation and disposal of foreign nuclear waste. No other country does, and for good reason! Why should the United States take Italian nuclear waste if they won't take ours? I think the answer is simple: this House will not allow the United States to be the world's nuclear dumping ground. H.R. 515 will preserve U.S. low-level nuclear waste disposal sites for U.S. low-level nuclear waste. Today, we have a few sites in the country which dispose of our low-level waste. For the moment, this is adequate. However, it is extremely difficult to establish new disposal sites. It is only practical that we carefully manage our existing domestic low-level nuclear waste disposal capacity to ensure that we do not face a crisis in the future. This will be even more critical if new nuclear reactors are built in this country. Not only would H.R. 515 preserve existing disposal sites for our own waste, but it would maintain the integrity of the Low Level Waste Compact System, and protect the States from being forced to accept foreign nuclear waste. When Congress established the Low Level Waste Compact System, we did not intend for the compacts to handle foreign waste. We empowered the States to establish sites for common use within the various regions, and specifically allowed them to exclude waste from outside those regions. This bill will responsibly fix a loophole which was never intended to exist. If we fail to protect the Low Level Waste Compact System, what were supposed to be domestic disposal sites could be turned into global nuclear waste dumps. If that occurs, we could end up in a position where many States are unable--or unwilling--to participate in these compacts at all, leaving domestic companies with nowhere to go to dispose of their radioactive waste. That would not be a good development for the nuclear industry, or for the Nation. This bill moved through the Energy and Commerce Committee under regular order, and received bipartisan support. It was reported favorably by the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment to the full Committee by a voice vote, and the Energy and Commerce Committee sent the bill to this Floor by a strong vote of 34-12. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation today.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, thank you Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Emeritus Dingell, Chairman Rangel and Chairman Miller for your leadership in bringing us to this historic day. For almost a century, we have been laying the groundwork for comprehensive health care reform in our country--ever since Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party included health insurance coverage in its platform for the 1912 elections. Since then, there has been some progress--Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for the poor, CHIP for children,--as well as successful efforts in some states, including the landmark health reform law enacted in my home state of Massachusetts three years ago. But we have continued to come up short. And now the 46 million Americans without health care are paying the price. Our health care system has been ailing for decades, and now it's in intensive care. The consequences of this broken health care system are severe--the number one cause of personal bankruptcies today is medical bills--Americans going broke when they get sick. And 80 percent of these medical bankruptcies strike Americans who actually have insurance. It is unconscionable that so many Americans have to fight their insurance companies while they fight for their very lives. Their insurance policies fail to cover all of the astronomical costs associated with their treatment. They are insured, but not covered. I recently received a letter from a constituent that illustrates one of the reasons why we need health care reform now. Peter returned home from the hospital to find a bill informing him that his insurance company denied coverage for the anesthesia used during his operation. The insurance company deemed the anesthesia ``medically unnecessary'' and billed him $10,000. He had open heart surgery, Mr. Chairman. So he asked me, did the insurance company expect him to ``take a swig of whiskey and bite a bullet'' while the surgeon cut open his chest? Unbelievable, Mr. Chairman, but true. Like too many Americans, he was insured, but not covered. We desperately need health care reform because there are too many stories like Pete's all across the country. My Republican colleagues want to put a Band-Aid on our badly broken system, but what it really needs is CPR--Coverage, Prevention and Research. That's exactly what our health bill delivers for the American people. We expand COVERAGE to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable care. We invest in PREVENTION to transform our system from a ``sick care'' system into a true health care system. We support RESEARCH, building on the $10.4 billion down payment in the recovery and reinvestment act for NIH. In this bill, we will invest in comparative effectiveness research to help improve the quality of care and reduce costs. The Republicans' plan is really quite simple: You're On Your Own. The Republican plan tells Americans--``If you get sick and don't have insurance, you're on your own.'' The Republican plan tells Americans if you are denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition ``You're on your own.'' Republican Leaders in Washington seem to be suffering from a pre-existing condition of their own--a heart of stone. If you kicked their heart, you'd break your toe! And under the Republican plan, they could be denied coverage. The Republicans say the Democratic Plan will put the government between you and your doctor, but the doctors who make up the American Medical Association support the Democratic bill, not the Republican Plan. They say it will hurt small businesses but the Main Street Alliance, representing thousands of small businesses around the country, support the Democratic bill, not the Republican Plan. The Republicans claim the Democratic bill will hurt seniors, but the AARP has endorsed the Democratic bill, not the Republican Plan. There are reasons why the AARP supports the Democratic bill. The Democratic bill will close the Medicare part D donut hole, the Republican bill does not. We provide support for low-income seniors, they do not. We will extend the solvency of Medicare, they do not. You know, GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now it stands for Grandstand, Oppose, and Pretend. They grandstand with phony claims about non-existent death panels. They oppose any real reform. And with this Substitute they pretend to offer a solution while really doing nothing. GOP--Grandstand, Oppose, and Pretend. Make no mistake about it; the Republican substitute is not real reform. It does nothing to curb skyrocketing health care costs. It does nothing to provide real insurance coverage to millions who are now uninsured. It does nothing to stop the unfair practices of insurance companies. Mr. Speaker, there are too many Americans living in fear of a terrorist attack, but not the kind that comes from a gunshot, bomb or box cutter. It's the kind that may strike during a phone call from the doctor's office or during a check-up when the doctor delivers devastating news: ``You have cancer''; ``Your memory loss is early onset Alzheimer's''; ``The numbness is Parkinson's''; ``The Lou Gehrig's Disease that claimed your grandfather will strike you one day.'' We can fight against the terror of disease by reforming our health care system with better coordination, focusing on prevention, and ensuring that all Americans have access to quality, affordable care. And that's exactly what our bill will do. I am pleased that this historic bill includes provisions that I authored, including: A Medicare program to provide coordinated care to severely ill patients by a team of doctors and other health care professionals right in the beneficiaries' own homes, allowing these frail Americans to remain independent as long as possible. A provision to allow patients with rare diseases, like cystic fibrosis, to participate in clinical trial research to find a cure for their devastating disease without losing eligibility for the Social Security benefits they depend on. A safeguard to ensure that insurance companies don't game the new health care exchange by cherry-picking only healthy individuals. Today, we are here to write a new chapter in our century-long effort to provide every American with the health care coverage they need and deserve. Today we can vote for a bill that uses the American values of choice, innovation, and competition to address some of our nation's greatest challenges--skyrocketing health care costs, millions without health insurance, and millions more who are under-insured and struggling to pay their medical bills. Today we can pass legislation that gives all Americans access to quality, affordable health care. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this bill.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. The Republican plan is really quite simple: you're on your own. The Republican plan tells Americans if you get sick and you don't have insurance, you're on your own. The Republican plan tells Americans if you are denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, you're on your own. The Republican leaders in Washington seem to be suffering from their own preexisting condition: a heart of stone. If you kicked them in the heart, you would break your toe. They say that the Democratic plan will put the government between you and your doctor, but the doctors who make up the American Medical Association support the Democratic bill and not the Republican bill. The Republicans claim the Democratic bill will hurt seniors, but AARP has endorsed the Democratic bill and not the Republican bill. Why does AARP support the Democratic bill? Because the Democratic bill will close the Medicare part D doughnut hole for seniors. The Republican bill does not. We provide support for low-income seniors; they do not. We will extend the solvency of Medicare; they do not. Right now 60 percent of all bankruptcies in America are because of medical expenses. The Democratic bill makes sure that never happens again; the Republican bill does not. You know, the GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now it stands for ``grandstand, oppose, and pretend.'' They grandstand with phony claims about nonexistent death panels. They oppose any real reform. And with this substitute they pretend to offer a solution while really doing nothing. GOP: grandstand, oppose, and pretend. And make no mistake about it, the Republican substitute is not real reform. It does nothing to curb skyrocketing health care costs. It does nothing to provide real insurance coverage to millions who are now uninsured. It does nothing to stop the unfair practices of insurance companies. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican ``do-nothing'' substitute.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I just want to say that this is just giving the right to ordinary people to sue their own government because they're not providing for the security around facilities that could be attacked by al Qaeda. This is at the essence of the philosophy of the tea-baggers, to give ordinary citizens the right to challenge their government, to be able to rise up and to be able to say, you are not doing your job to protect us, your fundamental responsibility to protect the security of citizens in their homes and where they work.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, and I thank him for his great work on this historic legislation. Unemployment has not been under 4 percent since September 11. One of the reasons that it has not been under 4 percent since September 11 is the attack on September 11, which paralyzed our airline industry, paralyzed our tourism industry, and led to a precipitous drop in GDP because of the reaction to it. And by the way, these workers that the Republicans want to protect, well, we received a letter from the Steelworkers, the Communications Workers, the Autoworkers, the Chemical Workers, the Teamsters, the SEIU. Here is their letter to us: ``We oppose amendments that purport to protect jobs but in fact only hinder the implementation of methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack.'' And why do they take that position? They take that position because the attack is coming on them, the workers at these plants. So the nuclear industry, we have the protections in place, the aviation industry, the cargo industry, the rail industry, the shipping industry; but the chemical industry, with facilities in urban areas or near large population areas, the Republicans for 7 years have said no protection. When unemployment was at 5 percent, they said no; 6 percent; 7 percent; 8 percent; 9 percent; no, no, no, no protection for these workers at chemical facilities and those who live around them. Al Qaeda has metastasized in the last 7 years. They are coming back; that is their goal. Chemical facilities are at the top of their terrorist target list. We are trying to, finally, in this one last industry, put in place the security around these facilities to protect the American people, to protect the workers at these facilities. That's what this debate is all about. This amendment will undermine, will make it impossible for us to give those protections to the American people. We need a resounding ``no'' against this recommittal motion. We must stand up for the workers of this country; we must give them the protection that they need. Vote ``no'' on the recommittal motion of the Republicans.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I will complete debate on this amendment. I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, what we're doing here is not providing more security in the classic sense of the word. What we're really doing is saying, what happens if al Qaeda is successful in penetrating into the heart of a chemical facility? What will the consequences be for the workers on site? What will the consequences be for the population area in the vicinity of that chemical facility? That's what this debate is all about. What we are trying to do is to minimize the impact after al Qaeda has in fact been successful in launching an attack on a chemical facility. But what we say in the language is that, while there has to be an evaluation of the level of security at each one of the facilities, the language in our bill makes it quite clear that if the inherently safer technology or process costs too much, it doesn't have to be implemented. If there is no feasible, safer technology or process, the facility doesn't have to implement one. If implementing the inherently safer technology or process would not reduce the risk at the facility or would shift it elsewhere, it doesn't have to be implemented. And so what we say here is that, yes, we need to make it clear that we don't want al Qaeda to have a successful attack, and if it is successful, have catastrophic consequences, but at the same time, there has to be an evaluation as to whether or not it is economically feasible at each facility. That is the balance which we strike. But I don't think anyone here for a second would want to have unnecessarily dangerous chemicals in highly populated areas that, if al Qaeda could be successful, would cause an event which would once again cripple our economy as did the attack on September 11. That is the heart of terrorism, having a population which is frightened. At Logan Airport, we lost 27 percent of our air traffic for 2 years after 9/11. The same thing happened in Newark. It happened at LaGuardia; it happened at JFK. It happened all around the country. It plummeted, and that was key to their success. So this amendment is something that was language developed in close consultation with and considerable input from the American Chemistry Council. It is something which should be adopted, and the amendment which is under consideration should be rejected.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes. This is a very simple principle that the gentleman from New Jersey has been making reference to. Al Qaeda was in Newark, New Jersey, on September 11. Al Qaeda was in Boston on September 11. Al Qaeda attacked New York City on September 11. If the Governor of New York, if the Governor of Massachusetts, if the Governor of New Jersey wishes to promulgate stronger regulations to protect the chemical facilities in their States, that should be their right. They should be making the public safety determination. These people who rushed into the World Trade Center, these first responders, they're firemen, they're policemen from the local community. They're health care workers from the local community. They're heroes. But while waiting for the Federal Government to come, it is the local public safety people who have to respond. If they want to put stronger protections around these facilities, knowing that al Qaeda was there on September 11th already, that that is where the attack emanated from, they should have their right. That is why the National Governors Association opposes this amendment. They should have, as the highest public safety official in their States, the right to determine how much protection they give to their citizens, how much extra measure of safety they give for their policemen, for their firemen, for their public health officials who will have to rush in in the aftermath of a successful attack. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Barton amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from Texas.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentlelady. Can we get a review of where we are in time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I rise to claim the 5 minutes in opposition to the Barton amendment.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for his excellent work on this legislation. We are not talking here about an environmental bill. We are talking about a security bill. We are talking about the targets which we know al Qaeda has on their target list. That's what this whole debate is about. It's to protect the American people from the attempts by al Qaeda to come back to our country and to strike us once again, and we must protect against that attack. That's all this debate is about. It's not any attempt to have an environmental agenda here at all. It is solely to ensure that al Qaeda cannot attack us in our country and to put in place the same protections at chemical facilities that we now have at airports, that we now have at nuclear power plants. That is all that this debate is about, and I urge support for the manager's amendment propounded by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Michal Freedhoff from my staff; and Alison Cassady, David Leviss, Jacqueline Cohen, Phil Barnett, Greg Dotson, Kristin Amerling, Peter Ketcham-Caldwill and Melissa Cheatham from Chairman Waxman's staff. I would also like to thank Chris Debosier of Mr. Melancon's staff and Derrick Ramos from Mr. Green's staff. This is not an environmental bill. This is not a bill banning chemicals. This is a bill about national security, to make sure that al Qaeda cannot turn a chemical facility in our country into a weapon of mass destruction in some hometown in our country. That is what this bill is all about. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).