Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3276) to promote the production of molybdenum- 99 in the United States for medical isotope production, and to condition and phase out the export of highly enriched uranium for the production of medical isotopes, as amended.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letters of support for H.R. 3276, including from the Society For Nuclear Medicine, the American College of Cardiology, the Health Physics Society and the Union of Concerned Scientists

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. The gentleman is correct. Neither this provision nor the bill as a whole give any preference whatsoever to any technology type. The purpose of this provision is to give the Department of Energy the greatest number of options for dealing with the medical isotope crisis while also maintaining the incentive for reactors to convert to low enriched uranium fuel. The bill includes several conditions on reactors using the exemption to ensure that their conversion to low enriched uranium fuel is successful. I fully expect the Department of Energy to give full consideration to every application for these funds, and to do so in an equitable and technology-neutral manner.

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

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair, will you inform us as to how much time is remaining on either side.

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

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the Chemical and Water Security Act, legislation that is a product of about 9 months of effort by the House Energy and Commerce, Homeland Security, and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. We've worked as partners towards the final construction of this legislation. Now, I come from a district that was home to some of the 9/11 terrorists before they launched their attacks, before they walked in our streets, scoped out our airports, rehearsed their mission. The September 11th attacks demonstrated that America's very strengths, its technology, could be turned into weapons of mass destruction to be used against us. Mohammed Atta and the other nine terrorists that hijacked those two planes at Logan Airport on September 11th were roaming around my district for about a year trying to determine how they could exploit deficiencies in technology. And when they found it, they struck. And more than 150 people were on those planes flying from Logan towards New York City. It is something that is etched forever in my mind, and I am committed to ensuring that it is not repeated. Since 9/11, as a result of what happened on that day, we have enacted legislation to secure aviation, to secure maritime, rail, mass transit, nuclear energy, and other sectors. But what we have yet to do is act on comprehensive legislation to secure the facilities that make or store dangerous chemicals. Instead, we have relied on an incomplete and an adequate legislative rider that was inserted into an appropriations bill in 2006 that amounted to little more than a long run-on sentence. The chemical sector represents the best of American technological might. Its products help to purify our water; make the microchips used in our computers, cell phones, and military technologies; refine our oil; grow our food. But these same chemicals could also be turned into a weapon of mass destruction, something we are reminded of just recently when we learned of a disrupted terrorist plot to use hydrogen peroxide purchased in Colorado for a bomb planned to be detonated in New York. While the Department of Homeland Security has done an admirable job of implementing the rather hastily crafted legislative rider from 2006, the bill before us today closes the loopholes left open by that provision that could be exploited by terrorists. The bill contains provisions that represent more than 5 years of work on my part to ensure that facilities containing toxic chemicals switch to safer processes or substances only when it is technologically and economically feasible to do so. Terrorists cannot blow up what is no longer there. The language in this bill represents a true compromise that the Energy and Commerce Committee developed in close consultation with and using considerable input from the American Chemistry Council. Only the riskiest facilities would be subject to this provision. The Department of Homeland Security puts the number at between 100 and 200 out of a total of more than 6,000 regulated facilities. Under 3 percent of the chemical facilities in our country would be covered under this legislation, the most dangerous, the most vulnerable, the most likely targets by al Qaeda in our country. And we know that al Qaeda has metastasized around the world. They are still trying to find the most vulnerable way that our country can be exploited, and it is our job to make sure that we pass the legislation that closes those vulnerabilities. The American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates have endorsed the citizen enforcement provisions which were added in the Energy and Environment Subcommittee markup. These provisions remove all lawsuits against private companies, a change that the Chamber of Commerce has also deemed positive. The bill retains the ability for citizens to bring suit only against the Department of Homeland Security for failure to perform nondiscretionary duties and against Federal facilities for failure to comply with orders. It also establishes a citizen petition process to give citizens an official forum to report alleged security problems at private facilities to the Department of Homeland Security. The legislation closes what both the Bush and Obama administrations have called a ``critical security gap'' for drinking water and wastewater facilities that were exempted from the 2006 law and the powers given to the Department of Homeland Security to close homeland security gaps that can be exploited by al Qaeda. In this bill, we grant the Environmental Protection Agency authority to establish a parallel security program for the water sector, consistent with the Bush and Obama administrations' views that EPA should be the lead regulator for these facilities. Like the chemical facility language, drinking and wastewater facilities that use and store chemicals in amounts that could cause injury in the event of a release must assess whether they can switch to safer chemicals or processes and that these processes may be required by State regulators only if, and I repeat, only if they are economically and technologically feasible and if their adoption will not impair water quality. The Blue-Green coalition of environmental and labor organizations, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, whose member utilities provide safe drinking to more than 125 million Americans, and the Association of California Water Agencies have all endorsed the drinking water title of this bill. This legislation is a compromise. We engaged with all of the stakeholders and crafted language that addresses all of the concerns. And it is notable that even the Chamber of Commerce has said that it ``recognizes that several provisions have been reworked and modified to address concerns raised by the business community.'' This, ladies and gentlemen of the House, is still a glaring regulatory black hole that we must ensure is closed. We cannot allow al Qaeda to exploit this weakness that exists in the security that we place around the chemical facilities in our country. We know that it is at or near the very top of the al Qaeda target terrorist list. This legislation closes that loophole. It ensures that we are going to provide the protection for the American public from that attack, which we know somewhere in the world al Qaeda is planning if they can only find the way to exploit a weakness in our defense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

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. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act. The solar energy that strikes the earth in a single hour is enough to power the world's energy needs for a year. This bill will help America develop the technology to harness that massive solar energy potential. I commend Representative Giffords for sponsoring this legislation and Chairman Gordon for his leadership in moving it forward. The market for solar photovoltaics is growing 40 percent annually. This scaling up of production, combined with developments in the technology, has led to a rapid reduction in the cost of solar energy. While the cost of building conventional power plants has, in many cases, doubled over the last decade, the cost of solar has fallen nearly 30 percent. Many people within the industry now believe solar photovoltaics could be competitive with conventionally-generated electricity from the grid by 2015. Solar photovoltaic technology was born and developed in the United States. Our publicly-funded national laboratories and our universities such as MIT advanced this technology for decades until the private sector more recently adopted it and began manufacturing solar photovoltaics on a large scale. Unfortunately, we've recently watched this All-American technology become commercialized in Japan, Germany, and China. Today, only two of the world's ten largest solar companies are based in the United States. This means most of the new jobs and intellectual property in this rapidly growing field are accumulating overseas as well. The bill before us today would double down on our solar research program and ensure that solar technology can be developed here with an eye toward private-sector adoption and market deployment. But to fully reestablish American leadership in this and other rapidly growing clean energy industries and allow the United States to lead in the creation of a clean energy economy, we must also enact into law the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which was passed by the House in June. This legislation, which I authored with Chairman Waxman, would put the incentives in place to stimulate demand for solar and other renewable technologies here at home while unleashing American entrepreneurs to transform the entire energy sector into America's next high-tech, innovation industry.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. Con. Res. 43, a resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to former Massachusetts Senator Edward W. Brooke III. There are few individuals more deserving of a Congressional Gold Medal, the highest award of national appreciation from the U.S. Congress, than my friend, the former Senator of my state, Ed Brooke. Throughout Senator Brooke's life, he has worked to bridge the great divides in our country. In 1966, in the crucible of racism, prejudice, and segregation, Senator Edward W. Brooke stood as an embodiment of the change our country needed to move beyond the dark legacy of racial discrimination and prejudice in America. The first popularly elected African-America Senator, Senator Brooke's election stood as an example of what our nation could be when he noted that the voters of Massachusetts saw beyond skin color to ``judge you on your merit and your worth alone''. When asked to comment on what many considered to be an improbable electoral victory, Senator Brooke responded by saying he was committed to ``unite men who have not been united before.'' Throughout his tenure in the U.S. Senate, Senator Brooke did just that. Senator Brooke sought to reduce the economic and racial division in our country, particularly in the area of U.S. housing policy. Senator Brooke co-authored the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, or national origin. Still, to this very day, the Fair Housing Act remains a cornerstone of our housing policy. On all issues of justice and equality, regardless of sex, race, or religion, there has been no stronger advocate. When Title IX of the 1972 Education Act was in jeopardy in the Senate, Senator Brooke took the lead to ensure that women and girls would be guaranteed equal educational opportunities. When the extension and expansion of the Voting Rights Act came before the Senate in 1975, it was the respected voice of Senator Brooke that helped to garner an extension of the Voting Rights Act. Whenever there was an opportunity to protect and defend the fundamental civil rights of Americans who had suffered from discrimination, Senator Brooke was there, serving as a powerful voice for justice. Thirty years later, Senator Brooke's legacy is reflected by an America that is very different from the nation that existed when he first arrived in the Senate, an America which has made enormous progress in breaking down the barriers of racial discrimination and inequality that once divided our nation. Today, Mr. Speaker, I stand to support and recognize a great leader, who never lost his passion for bridging our nation's divides by uniting men and women under the belief that we all are created equal.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to address briefly the language of Section 401 of the conference report, which requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide a report on barriers to the issuance of a combined construction and operating licenses (COLs). As the Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the NRC, I want to ensure that the Commission, in responding to Section 401, remains cognizant of its responsibilities to comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NRC regulations in the issuing of COLs to new nuclear power plants. These laws cannot be overridden or even challenged by a reporting requirement appended to an annual appropriations bill. The NRC should, of course, review COL applications in an efficient fashion, without undue or unwarranted delays. However, speed of action is not the only policy interest that the Congress has with respect to licensing. Public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the licensing process requires the Commission to ensure that licensees comply with the substantive safety requirements of the law and of NRC regulations. The Commission must therefore assure that it does not sacrifice crucial safety evaluations, public input or adequate environmental review as part of any effort to streamline or accelerate its regulatory functions. Under Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC is directed, after holding a public hearing, to ``issue to the applicant a combined construction and operating license if the application contains sufficient information to support the issuance of a combined license and the Commission determines that there is reasonable assurance that the facility will be constructed and will operate in conformity with the license, the provisions of this Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations.'' The Act further stipulates that in conducting its licensing activities, ``The Commission shall identify within the combined license the inspections, tests, and analyses, including those applicable to emergency planning, that the licensee shall perform, and the acceptance criteria that, if met, are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of this Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations.'' Moreover, the Act mandates that: ``Following issuance of the combined license, the Commission shall ensure that the prescribed inspections, tests, and analyses are performed and, prior to operation of the facility, shall find that the prescribed acceptance criteria are met.'' In addition, NRC regulations 10 CFR Part 51 and 10 CFR Part 52 implement the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA in regards to the licensing process. Under these regulations, for example, the NRC is required to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) as part of the COL application. According to the NRC website, ``the NRC staff estimates that the environmental review process will take approximately 24 months. This includes scoping, issuance of the draft EIS, a comment period, and issuance of the final EIS.'' While it is true that the necessary reviews take time, the NRC's licensing regulations were enacted to protect the public from poorly sited locations, untested reactor designs, and other factors that could lead to environmental damage, unsafe construction, or even catastrophic nuclear emergencies. I support an efficient and effective NRC licensing process as long as it does not come at the expense of the safeguards codified in existing law. In point of fact, it does not appear that the licensing process itself is to blame for any delays in new reactor approval. In 2007 the NRC established the Office of New Reactors (NRO), separate from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, so that the NRO can focus solely on the review of new reactors. Indeed, NRC Chairman, Dr. Gregory Jaczko, has repeatedly stated that the licensing delays are ``almost exclusively tied to challenges with the [reactor] designs not being complete,'' resulting in license applications that reference uncertified design plans. This bottleneck has far more to do with the iterative design approval process, than with potential internal NRC barriers such as inefficient administration or inadequate funding. Certainly all must agree that it is impossible for the NRC to approve a license application for which there is not yet an approved design! Finally, I would note that while Section 401 mandates report submission to the committees on Appropriations, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is the NRC's authorizing committee, also expects to receive copies of any reports submitted pursuant to this Section. I look forward to seeing the Commission's report on this matter, and I urge the Commission to pay careful heed to the current laws and regulations under which the NRC operates, so that we ensure that the nuclear reactor application process works properly.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I say that while noting that Representative Neal from Massachusetts and Representative Capuano from Massachusetts want to, at this point, insert their written statements in honor of Senator Kennedy, and that is why I made that unanimous consent request. But it is also for the purpose of any other Member seeking to be recognized to be able to insert their comments at this point. We rise to honor our friend and our mentor, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, one of the greatest Senators in the history of the United States. He will be on a very short list of the greatest who have ever lived and served our country. We tonight gather, noting that his son, Patrick, serves with us here in the House of Representatives, and we extend our best to him and to his sister, Kara, and to Teddy, Jr., as well as and especially to his beloved wife, Vicky, and to all of the other members of the Kennedy family. He was, without question, ``an idealist without illusions,'' in the words of his brother. He worked as best he could to achieve the goals that he set for our country while at the same time reaching across the aisle to find partners that he could work with in order to accomplish those legislative goals. Without question, it was our great honor, as the Massachusetts delegation, to work with him for all of those years. Let me, at this point, turn and recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and then we will go through and recognize the other members of our delegation and other Members who have joined here to speak about the Senator. I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman very much, and I turn and recognize now a good friend of the senator, Bill Delahunt from Quincy.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I recognize the gentleman from Worcester, a good friend of the Senator's, Jim McGovern.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. We thank the gentlelady so much for those words. Now we turn to--and a number of Members have alluded to him--the great civil rights leader who knew the Kennedys in the sixties and now serves here in the House of Representatives, Congressman John Lewis from the State of Georgia.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. We thank the gentleman so much for his words. Next we recognize another great friend of the Senator, John Tierney, from the State of Massachusetts.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman very much. And the gentleman is so right. I could call Senator Kennedy one of the greatest Senators in history, I could call him one of a small handful of the greatest Senators in history. But that would be inaccurate. That just wouldn't capture not only how history will record him, but how he wants to be recorded by history. And there will be an accurate reflection of that, I think, as people, as the gentleman pointed out, continue to focus upon his life. Before I turn to the gentleman from South Boston, let me go back the gentleman from Quincy, Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. No place played a more important role in the history of Massachusetts Irish politics than South Boston, the home of the next friend of Senator Kennedy, Steve Lynch from South Boston, Massachusetts.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. We thank the gentleman so much for his great words. For me, I had the honor of serving for 33 years out of the 47 that Ted Kennedy served in Congress, here as his colleague. It was my great honor. For each of us, there are too many stories to retell. But for me, it all begins with Ted Kennedy running for the Senate; and from that moment on, whenever he spoke about the war in Vietnam or health care or energy or injustice to any person, no matter where they are in the world, I listened. And not only did I listen, but tens of millions of other people listened as well because he took us on a journey, a journey to issues and people that we did not know of but he wanted us to know about and to respond to. That was really his greatness, that when he spoke, he was true north. He was someone who you knew that he was speaking from his heart and speaking for issues that really only he had the capacity to draw the attention to, and he used his power to do so. He used the special gift that he had been given to accomplish those goals. I remember at the Democratic Convention in 1980, Senator Kennedy had asked me and Henry Royce over here, who was chairman of the Banking Committee, to introduce his energy bill which would be the counter to the incumbent President's energy bill. It called for solar and wind and conservation and higher fuel economy standards and a different direction for our country. Although his candidacy failed and energy was the big issue at that time, I got a call to come up to his room right after he gave that great ``The dream shall never die'' speech. He was up in his room with his family--Patrick was there and others. In that room, there was not a defeated man. There was someone who had been a great victor. There was someone who had brought all of these issues to the American people. In 1983, as Ronald Reagan had pulled out of all arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union--the first time in a generation--he called me, and he said, Eddy, you know what I would like to do, I would like to work with you on a nuclear freeze resolution to end all production of new nuclear weapons in the world. And he said, You know what would be a good idea, why don't we have it at American University, where my brother gave his speech to end all atmospheric nuclear testing? Then one month later, there was an attention brought to this issue that changed that whole issue, and 3 months later, 1 million people were in Central Park calling for an end to the nuclear arms race. On every single issue he talked about in his entire life, it changed the whole dynamic of that issue because Ted Kennedy stood up and spoke to it. He inspired me; and he inspired, I think, millions of people across the planet to change the course of their lives. So it has been a great honor for me and for all of the rest of our delegation to be able to work with him. It is an especially great honor to have as our concluding speaker this evening, his son. His son, who is our colleague here in the House of Representatives, who in and of himself is a great United States Congressman and who continues the Kennedy tradition of fighting for those causes that other people do not want to fight for and to bring the attention to those who are most in need of help in our country and in our world. It is my great honor to recognize the great Congressman from the State of Rhode Island, Patrick Kennedy.