Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman has now been able successfully, I would say, to have all of his amnesia treatments be completely accepted by his system because I do not think he can really appreciate how many times I have gone before the Committee on Rules and asked for an amendment on this subject, on the energy bill, on the homeland security bill. So it is out of frustration, and I will admit that, it is out of frustration that I attempt to make it on the Coast Guard bill. The gentleman has some good points, but this is a point that should be raised, and it should be raised especially in the aftermath of New Orleans and the toxicity that is now rampant throughout that community. There is just the need for us to have this discussion, and it is a Coast Guard mission in general, safety and security, although I accept the gentleman's point that the EPA would be the point on that, but it is difficult for the minority to have amendments successfully accepted on any issue that deals with the EPA out here on the House floor. That is the reason I raise the point, and that is the reason I announced I was going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw it as well, so the point would be made that it is an important subject. It should be made in other bills. This was an aperture that I was taking advantage of to really just begin the process of political education, although I know that political activation and political implementation are much further down the line and dependent upon the goodwill of the Committee on Rules and the Republican leadership that we have an amendment like that.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin just by stating that we were briefed by the EPA yesterday and that the EPA has indicated that they have only just begun sampling and that they have, in fact, found highly elevated levels of lead, e.coli and other toxic substances. We are only at the beginning of this entire story. If I may say to the gentleman from Alaska, I know what the gentleman is saying about making amendments on this issue to other bills. He has to understand the frustration of being in the minority in this institution.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I will notify the majority that I intend on withdrawing my amendment, but I just wanted to make this commonsense suggestion at this time that perhaps we could continue to discuss and work on in the months ahead. My amendment deals with the reality that, especially in coastal areas, that there are huge containers of very dangerous chemicals and other toxic chemicals that are stored in those coastal areas right onshore and that, in many instances, those particular toxic materials have a now more modern, substitutable chemical which could be used in order to achieve the same purposes for the industries within our country. What my amendment says is that when the Coast Guard writes an area maritime transportation security plan, it will now be required to list facilities located within the area that could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, but the Coast Guard will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures for proposed new facilities that might be built near densely populated areas or other sensitive areas that might have important economic or national security significance so that the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack might be reduced. When the Department of Homeland Security does its vulnerability assessment for these facilities, as required under the law, it will also have to assess whether the facility could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, and it will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures that could reduce these consequences for proposed new facilities in its national maritime transportation security plan. Finally, if the Department of Homeland Security agrees to accept the facility's own vulnerability assessment or assessment by a third party, which it can do under the law, it will now need to ensure that the assessment adequately addresses all the elements of the assessments DHS does on its own. Hurricane Katrina taught us a lesson. They will probably have to level a couple of hundred thousand homes in New Orleans, largely because of the toxic materials that have now infiltrated into those homes. Here we have an opportunity moving forward to make sure that we are reducing the most toxic chemicals, even as we substitute other chemicals that can be used in the very same processes to keep our American economy humming. Mr. Chairman, the events of the past few weeks have served as a wake- up call in so many areas of our lives. We've learned just how vulnerable some of our cities are to Mother Nature, how vulnerable our oil and gas infrastructure is, and, frankly, how vulnerable we all are as we contemplate the implications of our failed response to Hurricane Katrina to future terrorist attacks that will come with no National Weather Service warnings and could be even more devastating. While the debate over how we can ensure that we move more quickly and efficiently to respond to the next Katrina or 9/11 will wait until another day, there are aspects of the bill in front of us today that can be changed to increase the chances that the potential consequences of such a catastrophe are minimized. We have learned, for example, that the hurricane has rendered several gulf coast refineries inoperable, and in some cases this may be the status quo for months. We have also learned that the extent to which the hurricane caused breaches in these and other facilities storing toxic chemicals is not yet clear--the very preliminary EPA tests show highly elevated levels of lead and other toxic materials in some areas of New Orleans, and EPA is really only just beginning its environmental sampling process. We may be looking at an environmental catastrophe that requires an enormous amount of money to remediate, in addition to all the other reconstruction and relief costs. And, though the hurricane was certainly a catastrophe in and of itself, the reality is that a terrorist attack on just one facility containing toxic chemicals could have led to even more fatalities. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report I requested, there are about 50 facilities in Louisiana at which a worst-case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk, as well as 2 facilities that could impact more than 1 million people. In Florida, there are more than 20 facilities at which a worst-case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk and 7 facilities that could impact more than 1 million people, and in Mississippi, there are 2 facilities at which a worst-case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk. Nationwide, more than 100 facilities pose a risk to more than 1 million people--an attack on or major natural disaster near any of these facilities could result in widespread deaths, injuries and environmental contamination. While some of the chemicals stored in these facilities are necessary to the products or processes being undertaken there, others are not. For example, a 2003 report entitled ``Eliminating Hometown Hazards'' by Environmental Defense lists several wastewater treatment facilities in Louisiana that use chlorine in amounts that could place hundreds of thousands of people at risk, even though safer and economically competitive alternatives exist and are currently in use elsewhere. Press reports indicate that many wastewater treatment facilities in the areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina have been disabled, but it is unclear as to the status of the stores of toxic chlorine that must have been onsite. Another 2003 report entitled ``Needless Risk: Oil Refineries and Hazard Reduction'' by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund describes a cost-effective alternative to hydrofluoric acid, which is used by many refineries, including Chalmette Refining in New Orleans which reportedly has 600,000 pounds of hydrofluoric acid stored on site. According to the Energy Information Administration and press reports, the Chalmette facility spilled tens of thousands of barrels of oil into the surrounding neighborhoods and could be closed for months, but it is unclear as to the status of the stores of hydrofluoric acid that must have been onsite. The Maritime Transportation Security Act addressed some of the security concerns associated with chemical facilities located at or near ports and waterways. As the damage assessment and remediation associated with Hurricane Katrina proceeds, I believe that we need to focus not just on cleaning up the damage, but also on trying to reduce the consequences of similar damage occurring in the future, be it due to hurricanes, earthquakes or terrorist attacks. Other legislation may address the need to strengthen the levee system surrounding New Orleans so that future hurricanes can't breach them as easily--my amendment seeks to reduce the potential environmental consequences associated with a future breach of the facilities that house toxic materials. Specifically, my amendment makes the following common-sense changes to the Maritime Transportation Security Act: When the Coast Guard writes its Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans, it will now be required to list facilities located within the area that could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack. The Coast Guard will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures for proposed new facilities that might be built near densely populated areas or in other sensitive areas that might have important economic or national security significance, so that the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack might be reduced. When the Department of Homeland Security does its vulnerability assessments for these facilities as required under the law, it will also have to assess whether the facility could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, and will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures that could reduce these consequences for proposed new facilities in its National Maritime Transportation Security Plan. Finally, if the Department of Homeland Security agrees to accept a facility's own vulnerability assessment or assessment by a third party, which it can do under the law, it will now need to ensure that the assessment adequately addresses all the elements of the assessments DHS does on its own. Hurricane Katrina taught us that we can't ignore the experts' warnings forever--sooner or later, being shortsighted will catch up to us, and as we've seen, the price we may pay may be both costly and to some extent avoidable. My amendment incorporates some of the experts' warnings on chemical facility security into existing requirements for these facilities. Let's not be short-sighted again. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

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

Mr. MARKEY. Richard Clarke in his book said on September 11, 2001 when he was asked to take over in charge of all homeland security response, his first thought was shut down the port of Boston, call the Coast Guard commandant there. That is where Abdul Meskini and the other al Qaeda agents had come in on the LNG tanker from Algeria into Boston Harbor. That is how they got here. Abdul Meskini is in prison right now for the LAX millennium bombing plot. So let us not kid ourselves. They are coming for urban areas. They are coming for the high-impact areas. They are coming for LNG facilities. They are coming for nuclear facilities. They want to use airplanes. They want the biggest event possible. They want London. They want Madrid. They want New York. They want L.A. They want the big urban populated areas. Let us not kid ourselves. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment. Give the Coast Guard the homeland security ability to be able to make a decision to protect the citizens of our country.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me clear up some misinformation which has been disseminated out here on the House floor. We have, in fact, not debated this issue ever before in the House. What happened in the energy bill was that the Republican majority made a determination that they were going to remove governors and mayors from the decision-making process as to where an LNG facility can be sited. Until August of 2005, mayors and governors had a say. Now they do not because of the energy bill. Now we all know that when and if a catastrophic event occurs, people in our country have learned not to depend upon the Federal Government. They know that the first call has to go to the local fire, the local police. That is who they are going to call, and they have good reason to after what happened in New Orleans. I do not think any city or town is going to repeat the mistake which New Orleans made in waiting for Department of Homeland Security to respond. But let us just say for the sake of discussion that we are going to remove the mayor and we are going to remove the governor from any say on where an LNG facility can go in the most densely urban populated parts of this State. What my amendment says is, at least allow the Federal Government to have a role. At least allow the Department of Homeland Security to have a role. But the Republican majority says, no, we are only going to allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has no jurisdiction over homeland security, no responsibility to look at the public safety issues, they alone will look at these issues. Well, you know, the recriminations which have taken place in the last 2 weeks all turn on one question. Why did not people listen to the Corps of Engineers? Why did not we give more protection to those people in that community? But we all know that the Corps of Engineers was ignored, that their warnings were ignored. What the majority Republican party wants to do is to tell the Coast Guard, we do not want to have your view on where an LNG facility should be sited if you are going to tell us you disagree with the energy decision. It should be all energy. No homeland security at all. No protection for the people who will be living in the mile or two around that facility. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is what this debate is all about. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and, by the way, each of them could not try harder to get more geographically far away in Nebraska and Illinois from the coastline, our experts today. Mark Twain used to say, an expert is anyone who lives more than 1,000 miles away from a problem, and we have got two experts here today telling us on the coastline what we need. Well, what we need, ladies and gentlemen, is the Coast Guard to make a determination as to whether or not they can protect against a catastrophic event, and what they are saying is no Coast Guard, no governor, no mayor, nobody but the energy companies. That is what it is all about. It is about the energy companies. Yes, we need a doubling, yes, we need a tripling, a quadrupling of LNG in our country. I have the number one facility in America in my district. We need it in New England more than anyone else. But as a homeland security issue, it should have the Coast Guard making a determination as to whether or not it can be protected against a terrorist attack. And if an alternative is possible offshore or in a more remote area of that State, then they should be given the right to participate in that decision. If you just leave it to the energy companies, which is what the Republicans want to do, this is just a continuation of their energy bill, letting the consumers get tipped upside down because the energy companies do not want to spend a few extra bucks to add into homeland security, the same way as the catastrophic events of New Orleans were just over saving a few bucks. Well, this is your chance to do something about LNG facilities in densely populated areas, to give a say to the Coast Guard, rule out your Governor, rule out your mayor, but at least the Coast Guard, at least a part of the Federal Government should be part of this. If you want a Federal solution to the energy problem, you also have to have a Federal component to homeland security in 2005. Al Qaeda is not taking a break. Al Qaeda is out there. Al Qaeda used the Boston LNG terminal as the route to bring in their Al Qaeda agents.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to all of the victims in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi; and we in Congress stand committed to ensuring that we rebuild each of those families' hopes and dreams. But, unfortunately, during this time of crisis, I am very, very concerned that the American driving public is being gouged at the pump by Big Oil and by OPEC, which has been taking advantage of this crisis in our country. I am very concerned that Big Oil is exploiting this tragedy by tipping consumers upside down at the pump and shaking money out of their pockets. This is no time to take advantage of the American consumer. This is a time for the oil companies, as well as OPEC, to rally to the protection of the American consumer and the American economy. We have all been disturbed by the television footage of looters ransacking stores and homes in New Orleans, but it also appears that Big Oil is engaging in widespread looting as it runs up the price of gasoline paid by the driving public. We need action by this administration. They have to make it clear that they are going to put in effect immediately investigations, put investigators in the field, in the board rooms, to make sure that people understand that this kind of exploitation of the American consumer will not be tolerated. Unfortunately, right after 9/11, the very same oil companies took advantage of the American consumer, resulting ultimately in large fines having to be paid by oil companies for their exploitation of the American consumer in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Also the President should demand that OPEC help us at this time. OPEC has announced that they will take up the issue of producing more oil at their September 19 meeting. September 19? When Saddam Hussein was threatening the Middle East, we did not say to our friends, Call us next month. We said we would respond immediately. OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, should announce that they are going to produce 1.5 million to 2 million barrels of oil a day beginning today, not waiting until some September 19 meeting. And the President, who held the hand of the Saudi prince in April at his ranch in Crawford, should now hold OPEC's feet to the fire and ensure that, as they are now saying they may have a surplus of 1.5 million to 2 million barrels of oil a day to produce, and they may consider releasing it all. They should have done that back in April, when the price of gasoline was already skyrocketing. We should not be at a point where a barrel of oil is at $65 a barrel, now approaching $70 and going higher. All of that has happened subsequent to Katrina, this additional spike. So we need a response from OPEC. We can no longer allow them to sit on the sidelines with this additional 1.5 million to 2 million barrels of oil that they are going to consider releasing on September 19. In addition, the President should immediately suspend all royalty relief for the oil and gas companies for drilling on public lands, the Secretary of Interior should require the oil companies to pay the full royalty for drilling and extracting oil and gas from public lands, and those revenues should be earmarked for the victims of this enormous disaster. That is where those revenues should go. And the President and this Congress should enact a windfall profits tax on the oil industry, and the proceeds should go to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program for this coming winter, the neediest people in our society, who are going to be most adversely affected by these skyrocketing energy prices. But we just have to look in the rearview mirror 5 weeks ago when this Congress and President Bush passed and then signed a historic energy bill that was a failure in dealing with increase in fuel economy standards for SUVs, encouraging renewable energy resources that would be used by the utilities in this country. Instead, we gave tax breaks to the oil and gas industries of our country. It is time we got something back from those industries. It is time for this Congress and this President to stand up.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on August 19, 2005, Sam Gordon will celebrate his 90th birthday, surrounded by his loving wife of 66 years, Carolyn, his family and his friends. I rise today to honor Sam, who continues to be an inspiration and a blessing to all who know him. Sam Gordon is the son of a milkman, and his friendly, welcoming manner was forged during the trips he made as a young man to the homes of his customers in Worcester, Massachusetts. The oldest of four children born to Russian immigrant parents Pearl and Reuben Gordon, Sam has the curiosity and creativity that belies his senior citizen status. After working his way through the University of Michigan with a series of part-time jobs, Sam graduated as an English Major in 1937. He then joined his father's milk business and quickly developed a new concept-- selling frozen food items, which were just becoming available with the invention of refrigeration. Sam's idea to offer frozen food along with milk, cream and cottage cheese led to the formation of a successful new business, R. Gordon and Sons, a wholesale frozen food company which sold frozen strawberries, juice, ice cream and other products to supermarkets, schools and hospitals. Despite his demanding work schedule, Sam was a leader in his synagogue, Congregation Beth Israel in Worcester. He served as president of the Congregation, president of the Congregation's brotherhood, and president of the New England Region Men's Club. Prayer and community service continue to be central parts of Sam's everyday life. For the past five years, he has developed and run a senior learning initiative where he teaches Yiddish classes to many adult learners throughout Worcester, including classes at his synagogue, independent and assisted living buildings, and at the local Jewish Community Center, where some of his students are still in middle school. At the synagogue, he continues to be responsible for many creative ideas and fundraising projects. As always, his wife Carolyn plays the indispensable supporting role for Sam's many projects. Whenever he had the opportunity, Sam set out with his wife to travel to interesting places around the world. They visited Europe, Israel, China, Thailand, and Singapore. Before he embarked on his journeys, Sam always thoroughly researched points of interest, including cooking and stained glass classes and local wineries. In his retirement, Sam continues his love of music by playing the organ and more recently taking lessons on his new keyboard. An Internet aficionado since the mid-1990's, Sam is online everyday, keeping current with news and trends. He continues to amaze his grandchildren with his up-to-the- minute knowledge of the latest developments in art, literature, and popular culture. Sam attends synagogue services daily and prayer is a powerful force in his life. Sam is a loving and devoted husband to his wife, Carolyn, and he shares his zest for life through his honesty, integrity, knowledge, and sensitivity to his family and community. Sam's beloved mother, Pearl, taught him these values, instilling in him the importance of establishing ``a good name'' and reputation that stood for righteousness and respect for others. As his ninetieth birthday approaches, the name ``Sam Gordon'' is synonymous with these enduring American values. Sam and Carolyn have two children, Nancy and Joel; four grandchildren, Ellen, Mark, Jennifer and Jessica; and two great- grandchildren, Ari and Abigail. I am pleased to join with Sam's family and friends to honor this great American on his ninetieth birthday.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Well, I have three more speakers. Could the Chair tell me how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, this bill is socialism at its worst. The headline makers of capitalism: Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco are reporting the biggest profits in the history of any industry in the history of the United States and bragging about it on the front pages of the newspapers of our country. They are bragging about it. Right now, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so fast that he would qualify for a subsidy in this bill as an energy source. That is how bad this bill is. This bill so fundamentally violates all principles of capitalism that Exxon-Mobil, that Chevron-Texaco would come to the American people's Social Security System, put up an oil rig, and start drilling into the savings of American taxpayers, because that is who will subsidize all of these giveaways.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains about $80 billion worth of giveaways to the oil and gas and other industries in our country. Those giveaways are coming from somewhere. The United States has a huge deficit. We do not have any money. There is only one part of our government that is running a surplus, and that is the Social Security Trust Fund, and what the Republicans are doing is erecting a huge oil rig on top of the Social Security Trust Fund to drill for the revenues that will be given to the wealthiest industries in America--the oil and gas industries--that are reporting the largest profits in the history of any industry in the history of the United States. The Republicans are tipping the United States consumer and taxpayer upside down and shaking money out of their pockets.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a historic failure. It will not lower gasoline prices. This bill does not do anything about fuel economy standards for automobiles and for SUVs. We put 70 percent of all the oil that we consume in the United States into gasoline tanks. This bill is silent on that. It is 2005. We now import 60 percent of all of the oil which we consume in America; most of it comes from the Middle East. One would think that we could do something about the place we put the oil. This bill is silent. With regard to renewables, all utilities in the United States could have been given a mandate that they have to designate a substantial percentage of their electrical generating capacity over the next 20 years as renewable energy. This bill rejects that. It says, we are not going to move the utilities towards a renewable energy future. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a failure on two of the central technology issues that the 21st century should be known for. I call for a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, in this bill there are so many preposterous provisions, it is impossible to list them all. But amongst them is a provision which after 35 years strips Governors and mayors of an ability to block an LNG, a liquefied natural gas facility, from being built in the middle of a densely populated area. This photograph shows Boston. This is my district. This is where one of the facilities has already been built, but it was built with permission. Now post-9/11 with terrorists targeting sites with the highest potential harm to Americans, this bill blocks Governors, police, and fire departments from blocking facilities from going into densely populated areas. But the bill also allows the Pentagon, Secretary Rumsfeld, to protect against one of these being built next to a military facility. Imagine that, the Republicans will protect the Pentagon but not civilians in densely populated areas from an LNG catastrophe which could maim or kill tens of thousands of people.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of the bill still have more time left than the opponents of the bill, and the time was divided 40 minutes to 20 minutes. So what we have been trying to do, honestly, is just to harness our smaller number of minutes.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).