Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The amendment which I am making is a win-win amendment. All we do in our amendment is say to those who are fans of the Prometheus program, and it is a program which has strong support in the Congress in our country, that in my amendment you get a 31 percent increase in the Prometheus budget for next year, a 31 percent increase, and the remainder of the money goes over to Superfund and they get a 9 percent increase in their budget. How can anyone complain if space science is increased by 31 percent? Here on Earth the residue of the industrial age is still leaving neighborhood nightmares all across our country to the point where the Bush administration has decreased Superfund cleanup by 50 percent over the last 2 years. All we are saying is, is not it possible for us to give a 31 percent increase between this year and next year to Prometheus, which we will vote for, and have a 9 percent increase for the Superfund program so we can take care of the last Industrial Age that still torments neighborhoods all over our country? Win-win: Prometheus wins a 31 percent increase; Superfund gets a 9 percent increase. This is not anything other than something which everyone should be able to embrace. Back in history, during the Clinton administration, in the mid- to late-1990s, there was an average of 86 Superfund sites cleaned up each year. In the Bush EPA, it only cleans up about 40 sites in 2003 and 2004. It is slowing down at half the rate that it was used as a program to help neighborhoods in the 1990s. In Massachusetts, Fairhaven, Massachusetts, has now been taken off the list. There are 10 sites, including Fairhaven, taken off the list; sorry, we cannot help you with the residue of the last era of research. All we are saying is, within this budget, without hurting Prometheus, giving it a 31 percent increase, we can also ensure that we take what the President requested, that is the number that I am building in here, President Bush requested the number $1.39 billion for Superfund. That is the number I am using, the number they sent to us. President Bush, his EPA, his OMB, they gave us that number; and you can get to the number President Bush wanted just by taking a relatively small amount of money and leaving a 31 percent increase for Prometheus. That is only fair to those communities across America that still have these sites, and I ask and I implore Members to listen to President Bush, to give that money, that $1.39 billion, over to Superfund and still leave the 31 percent for space exploration, which all of us believe is so important. But a balance has to be struck between our exploration of the stars and our preservation of the Earth in a way that is respectful of neighborhoods that were ravaged by the Industrial Revolution. This is the balance which works for both projects.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I have served on the telecommunications subcommittee for 27 years, and I can tell you that not only is the decision made by the Federal Communications Commission in this area of media consolidation the worst decision made during my 27 years overseeing them, it is the worst decision ever made by the Federal Communications Commission. Ever. First of all, Chairman Powell decided to have one public hearing, one, on an issue that goes to the fundamental question of what is the relationship between the American public and the media while they were considering the changes in 75 years of laws. The public furor is totally understandable. And Congress in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the committee with jurisdiction over this issue, we have yet to have a hearing on this issue. What did the FCC decide? Did it decide that they were going to expand the rules so that one newspaper could be owned by one television station? No. Did they decide that one cable company could own four radio stations in one community and expand the rules that way? No. Here is what they decided. Listen to this, ladies and gentlemen. Listen to the worst decision ever made by the Federal Communications Commission. In the largest metropolitan media areas where many, many of us come from, here is what is now possible. One company in your hometown, your metropolitan area, can own three television stations, three, in your hometown; eight radio stations at the same time; the biggest newspaper in town even if it is the only newspaper in town at the same time; and the entire cable system in your hometown even if it includes the all-news channel on cable plus all of the Internet news Web sites that attach to all of those sites. So listen again, my friends. The FCC has decided in your hometown that one company can own three TV stations, eight radio stations, the only newspaper in town, and the entire cable system including the all- news cable channel. That is absurd. That is crazy. They did not decide that one company can own one TV station and one newspaper. No. That is not what this debate is about. If they had been more tailored, if they had been more restrictive, if they had expanded on some commonsense basis, we would not be out here right now. They did not do that. Every single industry that came in and asked them for something, they said ``yes'' to. I am the author, in 1995, with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and Sonny Montgomery, of the 35 percent rule. That is my amendment here. And so I am glad that that is included in the appropriations bill. But I think everyone should understand the consequences of what the FCC is doing and it is coming to your hometown soon. It just goes too far. No one should have that kind of power. The kind of power that one company is now going to have in your hometown will make Citizen Kane look like an underachiever. It is too much in one company at one time. It has to be tailored. I am glad that this 35 percent rule was included. I think it is important that it was included. It is essential in having a better balance between the networks and the individual communities across the country. And I understand the debate which is going on as to what is the best tactical way of proceeding from here, and I have to respect the incredibly great work that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) did and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) in getting the language in on the 35 percent rule. It is very important. Very important. But there are many other very important issues as well, and I outlined the worst-case scenario; and it is now the law, with one hearing, one hearing held in Richmond, Virginia, where all the lobbyists from Washington just got on the train and went down there for a day. Personally, I am going to vote for the Hinchey amendment; but I hope you all understand that while it may not pass today that there are big stakes that America is facing as this change is made in American life.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much for his acceptance of the amendment. And just so it is clear what it was that was just accepted, it is basically saying that the United States writ large should not and will not transfer any nuclear power plants or material or personnel that could help them with nuclear power plants as part of any deal in the future; that if they want electricity, that we will build coal- fired plants for them, we will build natural-gas-fired plants for them, but we are not going to transfer materials that could be used for a nuclear weapons program to Kim Jong-Il in North Korea. That is the essence of the amendment. It has passed the House floor 435- 0 during the Clinton administration and during the Bush administration, but there are personnel inside of both administrations that continue to believe that there is a way in which we can transfer nuclear materials to the North Korean Government, and the Congress has said over and over again it is not a good idea. I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio accepting the amendment. I do want to work with him, as does the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), towards the goal of removing any obstacles that might be created in the future.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment, and it is based upon a very complex, controversial, but ultimately ineffective, set of agreements which we reached with the North Korean Government making a promise to that government that we in conjunction with our allies would transfer two nuclear power plants to the Government of North Korea if they agreed in turn to put their full nuclear program under full scope safeguards. It has become clear through the Clinton administration and through the Bush administration that Kim Jong-Il is pathologically incapable of handling nuclear materials in a responsible way, and retrospectively it is now quite clear that the nature of the bargain that we made with Kim Jong-Il was fundamentally flawed.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, welcome to the People's House Tony Blair. We need you. The Niger evidence that supposedly showed Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program turns out to be forged, but you say, wait, there is more. We are aware of Niger, but Africa is a big continent. You say you have other sources, possibly a third country that thinks Saddam Hussein may have been buying uranium in some other Africa country. Our own CIA does not know what you know. Our National Security Council says it does not know what you know. Indeed, the President of the United States says he does not know what you know. The American public needs to know the truth. You hold the key. Please, Mr. Prime Minister, redeem our trust. If not Niger, where were the nuclear materials, Mr. Prime Minister?

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. Secondly, I very much appreciate the gentleman's work on crafting language to ensure that the countermeasures developed under this legislation are, where necessary, subject to the same export control laws and regulations as other chemical and biological agents and their associated countermeasures. One of the new responsibilities the Secretary of HHS is directed to assume is to review new countermeasures both in the R&D phase as well as in the procurement phase of the Bioshield Program. The Secretary is encouraged to consult with other Federal agencies who play a role in setting export control policy and to recommend whether the new countermeasure or countermeasure R&D should be added to the various lists of controlled technologies that cannot be transferred to other countries without prior permission. Is it your understanding that the Secretary should do this as expeditiously as possible, and that each beneficiary of Bioshield funds be directed as part of the contract or grant to abide by all applicable U.S. export laws governing the transfer of technology and R&D?

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for yielding me time. I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). I want to commend the chairman and his staff along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox); the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for all of their hard work and for working with me and my staff in a bipartisan fashion that ultimately led to a resolution of all of the concerns which I raised with the legislation. I do have, however, two outstanding issues that I wish to clarify at this time. Mr. Speaker, I have concerns that relate to the emergency use section of Project Bioshield. Specifically, I want to be sure that once a declaration of an emergency is terminated or revoked, that current law applies and it will then be impermissible for anyone to move such drugs, devices or biologics in interstate commerce without going through the proper approval process. Is this the case under the legislation?

Mr. MARKEY. I just want to thank the chairman. He has worked very hard and long on this legislation. I want to thank the gentleman's staff and Kendra Bodner from my staff for working out this language.

Mr. MARKEY. Good job, Mr. Chairman, and good job to everyone who has worked on this bill on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the Cold War is over and the good news, to my friends, is we won and the Soviet Union lost. We do not need a new arms race with ourselves. We do not now need to send a signal to countries around the world who harbor desires to obtain nuclear weapons that we believe that it is still worth our while to invest in a new generation of nuclear weapons which are more usable in battleground situations. We must avoid being viewed as the drunk preaching temperance from a bar stool. If we want to convince others to embrace our view that nuclear weapons are not usable, we must ourselves act in a way that does not leave the misimpression that we are still engaging in the same kind of mindless development of another generation of nuclear weapons that only encourages countries like North Korea, countries like Iran, which each have active nuclear weapons programs, that they are wise in pursuing that course. So the resolution that we are considering right now is one which is saying to the rest of the world we understand their concern about an initiation of another nuclear arms race, and we understand the consequences for regions around the world where there are bad actors, bad countries trying to develop nuclear weapons programs. We brought the country of Iraq to its knees militarily in 3 weeks. Our problem is not destroying any country's military capacity. Our real problem is in controlling the country after we do so, and nuclear weapons do not add to our capacity to accomplish those goals. So this is, in my opinion, a wise approach to take. The gentleman from South Carolina as usual is trying to draw a very fine line between programs that have already been put in place and do protect our country and new programs which would potentially add to an acceleration of an arms race, a nuclear arms race around the world. We now must turn our attention to Iran and North Korea. The only way to deal with it is with strong diplomacy, active diplomacy. Additional nuclear weapons will not help us, and that is why this resolution must pass.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion. The Administration and the Republicans in Congress have made clear their intent to explore new, low-yield nuclear weapons. Before we head down that path, we need to remember two things. (1) The Cold War is over and I have good news for my friends on the other side of the aisle. We won! The Russians are no longer our adversaries. Remember, President Bush has told us he's looked into President Putin's eyes and found him to be a man he could deal with! Let's stop fighting the last war. The Russians are no longer a threat and I see no reason why we should allow the development of mini-nukes because somebody in Russia may have talked about the possibility of developing new weapons. They're probably only talking about doing that because they hear all of this talk about new nuclear weapons being developed by the U.S. What does this mean? It means that the only reason to develop mini-nukes is to start a new arms race. But that begs the question: with whom would we have this arms race? No nation in the world has a conventional military that can compare with ours. The only country that has a nuclear arsenal that compares to ours is Russia, and we're paying them to dismantle their nuclear weapons! Where's the beef behind this threat? (2) These so called mini-nukes are still nuclear weapons. They may be smaller, but they will still kill tens of thousands of people, will still produce radioactive fallout and contaminate the countryside, and will still carry the stigma of being nuclear weapons. We already have big nuclear weapons, and medium-sized nuclear weapons, and small nuclear weapons. In fact, some of our nuclear weapons are ``dial-a- yield'', meaning we can select the yield of the weapon--and some of them can be ``dialed'' down to less than 1 kiloton, which, by the scale of nuclear weapons, is pretty mini. We used to have a weapon with a yield of less than a kiloton that weighted only 163 pounds--we called that the SADM or Special Atomic Demolition Munition. Is that what we want? To have kicked out the nuclear-seeking Saddam, only to replace him with our own nuclear SADM? I would urge my colleagues to remember these two things: that to develop mini-nukes would be to start an arms race with ourselves, and that a mini-nuke is still a nuclear weapon, with all the associated consequences. We simply cannot preach nuclear temperance from a barstool. We cannot tell Iran, North Korea and other countries not to develop nuclear weapons while simultaneously developing our own new weapons. I urge you to support this Motion to Instruct. Let's not turn back the clock and start a new ``mini'' arms race.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, today we see the consequences of the massive tax cuts of the Bush administration. Theirs is not a policy of benign neglect, theirs is a policy of designed neglect. It is a policy to defund the government in 2010 and 2015 and 2020 and 2025. That is $3 trillion worth of tax cuts over that time frame which has already been passed. Well, that means that the money will not be there for nursing home care for the 14 million Americans who are going to end with up Alzheimer's, with the 5 million with Parkinson's, the money will not be there for nursing home care for those seniors. What is the alternative? The alternative is to cure Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and ALS. That would be the NIH budget here today. But they are only going to increase that budget by 2 percent. Now, the budget for smart bombs is unlimited; unlimited, but the American people want the same budget increases for smart medical research because it is just as important for the protection and defense of the family well-being of those tens of millions of families who are going to be afflicted by these diseases. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has a heart of gold. He really does. He is a wonderful man; but the overall environment of these massive tax cuts that the Bush administration has put in place makes it impossible now for us to fund either end of this spectrum, either the long-term nursing home care for those Americans who are going to be afflicted by these diseases, or the full funding, the doubling of the funding, the tripling of the funding which as a consequence would be necessary in order to cure those diseases. We cannot have it both ways. It is either one or the other. We must increase the NIH budget to protect the long-term interests of all American families.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Watch out, Grandma. Watch out, Grandpa. The GOP is selling snake oil off the back of a wagon, and, boy, do they have a prescription for you. Mr. Speaker, every senior citizen gets a bottle with three bitter pills. Bitter pill number one is a lethal dose of privatization poison. The Republicans are diverting Medicare funds into private drug plans with no maximum premiums, no guaranteed coverage, and a cynical drive to destroy the Medicare program. Bitter pill number two is a dose of crushing costs. Incredibly the Republican bill injects $400 billion into Medicare but spends it in such a tangled, convoluted, copay-riddled, incomprehensible, doughnut- hole-hollowed maze of bureaucracy and lacks any effective effort to keep prescription drug prices from continuing to soar, that Grandma is actually going to spend more under this proposal than if we had just left well enough alone. Bitter pill number three is a privacy piracy pill in the form of income tax forms. The Republicans require senior citizens to hand over to corporations sensitive personal information from income tax returns and the most intimate details of their medical care as a condition of qualifying for any catastrophic coverage. This information will then be turned against seniors in marketing schemes intended to cherry-pick the most desirable recruits into private plans, further weakening the foundation of Medicare for the seniors who need it most. This is a black day for Medicare. Mr. Speaker, GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now it stands for Forget Old People.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to begin first by agreeing with the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) that Tony Blair has been historically courageous in Northern Ireland in helping to reconcile two sides that for 500 years have not been able to see eye to eye, and he deserves enormous historic credit for that. And on the issue of Iraq, but for Tony Blair, but for Tony Blair's insistence, President Bush would have never gone to the United Nations. It was he, Tony Blair, who made the precondition to his support that the United States would go to the United Nations in order to secure a vote, and for that he deserves enormous credit. But at the same time in England, Great Britain, the Parliament right now, there is an ongoing investigation of the information that was used as to justification for the war in Iraq; and it is to the credit of the Parliament, it is to the credit of Tony Blair, that he is accepting the responsibility of the examination of the information which was used with regard to the weapons of mass destruction that was produced by the intelligence community in Great Britain and in the United States as a rationale for the war. It is to the credit of Tony Blair that he is accepting that examination. In our country, just the opposite is the case. There are essentially three options that the American people, the British people are now presented with. One, that the intelligence was correct, that the weapons of mass destruction existed, and that the weapons of mass destruction are now in the hands of al Qaeda, Baathist separatist activity groups, other terrorist groups, or in Syria. All of those options are horrific and not a consequence that we thought would be a result of this war. Secondly, that the intelligence was plain wrong right from the beginning. There was never any information and that they botched it right from the beginning. That is horrible. Or, third, that the intelligence was correct; but they were told, the intelligence community, to change the information, to change the information. They were told deliberately to alter it in order to argue that there were weapons of mass destruction, that Vice President Cheney did visit the CIA, did try to influence the intelligence community to change the information, to leave out key documents. In Britain they are now looking at that very issue. They are being told that the information with regard to the uranium from Africa was not correct, that the academic paper that was used rather than real intelligence was wrong and should not have been relied upon. We need the same kind of examination in our country. There is now sufficient evidence that is being produced that there has been a compromise of the total intelligence package that the Congress should have had but, more importantly, that the American people should have had as the basis of their judgment. I voted for the resolution last October. I voted for it, and I believe that the American people and this Congress deserve all of the information. We need a blue ribbon commission to examine all of the intelligence that was used. England is doing it right now. Tony Blair is accepting that examination. We should have the courage in our own country to give all of the information to the American public. The intelligence in this country is right now not complete with regard to what our government knew before we voted on the floor of this Congress.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and I urge support of the full House on as important an amendment as we are going to be called on to vote on this year in Congress.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I bring a very important subject to the attention of the Members of the House. Each one of us, justifiably so, and every American, more than 100 million, who get onto planes in our country every year are now required to take their shoes off as they go through a process in an airport to ensure that no danger will befall the other passengers on that plane. Now, that is completely justifiable, and I think all Americans, well, almost all Americans, accept that now as part of the process of getting on any airplane in America since September 11. We in Boston, at Logan Airport, know the consequences, because two of the planes that were hijacked came from Boston, came from Logan Airport, and came from within five miles of my home. So my amendment today deals with the reality that after everyone's shoes have been inspected, bags have gone through security, and this is what the Transportation Security Administration now requires, after the booties of babies are taken off and inspected, underneath, on the same plane, on the same day, with the same passengers on board, with their shoes now back on after having been screened underneath the cargo, the cargo has not been screened. My amendment would require that the cargo that goes on the passenger planes that more than 100 million Americans each year fly is screened as well as the passengers themselves, as well as grandma, as well as the babies with their booties, because it is unfair to every American who gets on a plane to be put in danger that the cargo on that plane has not been screened. Now, what do we mean by screening? We mean the same level of physical inspection of passenger plane cargo as is applied to passenger plane luggage and to the passengers themselves. What do we not mean? We do not mean the Known Shipper Program, which is the current excuse for allowing commercial cargo to be carried on passenger planes without physical screening. And which technology will we use? We will use the same technology that American air carriers use to screen cargo in international airports every single day of the week all day long. Who will do the screening? The same screeners who are now being laid off, 3,000 of them, 6,000 of them who are trained to do this job. We cannot allow this to go on any longer.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and I know it is a difficult job that he has; but there are two programs in America. One is the known-tripper program. We are all part of the known-tripper program. Every American that gets on a plane is part of a known-tripper program. They want to know who you are. You have to show your ID. They are going to check you if you are suspicious. They are going to go through your bags. They do now care who you are, baby or grandmother. The known-shipper program for cargo, on the other hand, going onto the very same place, only requires a piece of paper. They do not know what warehouse it really came from. That al Qaeda operative that just got arrested last week ran a cargo firm. When he was interviewed, he said he was working with other people. He said the name of the firm was Kashmir, Kashmir Service. It was his own trucking company, a cargo firm. That is something we cannot run the risk of happening in this country. They have to go through the same screening for biological, chemical, and nuclear material that would go on a plane as every one of us on a known-tripper program has to go through. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is right, we cannot afford not to pay the price. It might cost us some money, but America cannot afford not to pay it. It cannot be allowed to occur.

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would add to that litany of saints which was just uttered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns). I would also like to add the names of David Schooler, who is counsel to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the Democrats on the committee, and to Colin Crowell on my staff, who participated in the drafting of this legislation right from its inception. During the course of the actual drafting of the bill, his first son Gavin was born, while balancing those two important responsibilities. Both of them have come out extremely well over the last month. I think our country for the future is much brighter because of the work of Colin for our Nation over this past year. I hope that the other Members of this great Chamber deem fit to pass this important legislation today, which will help us become stronger economically while not undermining the defense of our Nation at all. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.