Ed Markey

Sorry, not enough room on the lifeboat, and you are just going to have to stay onboard here.

A vision without funding is a hallucination.

Formerly used, now abused, military sites, meaning the military just walking away from it.

They need more bombs over here that Hanford had been producing, but they don't want to then deal with the consequences left behind for the public.

What they did was they really harbored an animus toward the Superfund program, and they just began defunding.

Irresponsible kind of management ultimately created these problems, both in Superfund and in the problems that the Army Corps looks at, and they don't have enough money to deal with it.

So that is just so irresponsible, because these individual communities, they are left with a legacy that they didn't create.

That's the Cyber Air Act that Senator Blumenthal and I have introduced so that we can figure out what that framework should be

One of the criteria would be whether or not the technology has an ability to alter to changing threats, too.

Thank you Senator Markey for the question.

I just will say this is actually going to give small companies a chance to stand out and say, you know, we've got this new device.

The public has a right to know as well.

Right. But if there is no--right now, there's nothing, so the market's had years to do something and they don't do anything.

I'm working on a piece of legislation right now that I'm going to call Cyber Shield, and it's with this idea--because of the spread of the Internet of Things, whether it be an automobile, a toaster, you name it, they're all going to be…

Investing in cybersecurity is essential for our economy and our security.

I just think it is a huge long-term problem.

I think in the Trump era, with his America First attitude and saying we are going to retreat on the State Department budget, other budgets that would have the United States being a leader, it is going to give other countries which have not…

So you are disappointed in the individual countries in the U.N.? Is that what you are saying?

In the immediate, but not for the long term. It is just sitting there waiting for a repetition of the same situation.

The science is clear, and the impact is also clear.

So should we the United States be a leader in reducing the carbon dioxide so that we do not see a further exacerbation of this increased desertification that we are seeing all across the world?

Members of this body called for targeted sanctions in the Congo last year on the elections issue, targeted those who were repressing democracy, and now we see some success.

So would each of you support targeted sanctions in South Sudan as a strategy which the United States should be supporting?

American leadership, I believe, will be absolutely essential.

The conflicts... are being generated in these four areas because of conflict.