Ed Markey

I like the company I am with. I like the company I am with with that bill.

We do not have self-sufficiency in natural gas in the United States. We import it. We do not have self-sufficiency in oil. We import it.

Let us not export this oil, or otherwise we have to continue to export young men and women.

The Energy Information Agency said that if we allow for an export, just one more terminal is approved, that it would lead to a $62 billion increase in costs for American consumers per year.

I do not think the Edison Electric Institute was utterly ridiculous. I think they understood where we have to go to protect the climate.

We are talking about the dirtiest oil in the world, coming through the United States, almost using us as a straw.

You cannot preach temperance from a bar stool. You have got to be lowering your greenhouse gases, not increasing them.

I am going to be introducing legislation today to ensure that the Keystone pipeline, if it is approved, that oil has to stay in the United States.

The oil industry is pushing to reverse four decades of law prohibiting the export of American crude oil so that our crude oil can be shipped to China.

I am honored to be joining Senator Schatz who has been working with Senator Whitehouse and with Senator Boxer to put together this very important discussion, very important evening. While we are discussing climate change, I thought I would…

I think we can all agree that preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--especially nuclear weapons--is one of the highest priorities for our national security.

I think a national debate is a good idea.

We need a big national debate over this bonanza of shale oil and gas and see how we benefit most as a country.

The more we become energy independent the stronger the United States is.

I do not think the analysis has been done. I think people are just throwing this out as some big idea.

We are a capitalist country, not a Communist country.

I want to very strongly contest this idea that massive exportation of American energy is going to affect the Ukraine.

Do you think requiring companies to assess whether there exists opportunities to reduce the consequences of a potential attack or accident by using safer processes or chemicals makes sense?

Inherently safer technology is not exclusively focused on substituting safer chemicals for more dangerous ones.

What we are trying to tell people is that this should be expanded, that all the chemical industry be covered by these approaches.

Isn't it true that the explosion at the fertilizer facility in West, Texas, that killed more than a dozen people and destroyed a large portion of the town could have been prevented or minimized if it had stored its ammonium nitrate more…

But these same chemicals could also be turned into a weapon of mass destruction by terrorists.

Isn't it true that the chemical storage tank in West Virginia that leaked into the Elk River might not have contaminated the drinking water of 300,000 people if the tank had been of a safer design or if the tank had not been placed right…

I would like you to be providing the committee with the documents that you are using if you are going to be changing your position.

More than 500 drinking and wastewater facilities have replaced their toxic chlorine gas with safer alternatives. Isn't it true that some chemical substitutions like this can be done quickly and inexpensively?