Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The Republican majority calls this bill the SAFE Act, the Securing America's Future Energy, SAFE, Act. What it does, though, it allows drilling in the Arctic wilderness; it does not really do anything on fuel economy standards in automobiles, which is where we put two-thirds of all oil, into gasoline tanks, and the tax credits are for the biggest oil companies. Right now this bill should be called UNSAFE, Unkind to nature, Sacrificing the Arctic, Freebies for Energy. UNSAFE. Now, how was this bill put together? Well, it was put together in four committees, largely along party-line votes. The bill contains many provisions that were added to the bill after the committees finished with it, with no notice or consultation with the minority, with the Democrats, and it strips or guts other provisions of the bill that Members on this side of the aisle had succeeded in adding during the committee markups that would have been fairer to the environment and to consumers and to taxpayers. All that Members on this side of the aisle are looking for is a fair opportunity to put through to the American people a set of alternatives that all Members of Congress would have the opportunity to have voted upon. This rule does not make that possible. I will provide a highlight of this bill. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), the leaders of the Blue Dogs, put together an amendment, with me and other Members on our side, that took the $34 billion that the Republicans are going to hand over to the largest energy companies in America, taking that money for that out of the Medicare Trust Fund from our senior citizens and create an alternative, and we would spend the same $34 billion but we would put more of it into renewables, more of it into conservation, more of it into energy efficiency, and fund significant tax breaks for the smaller oil and gas companies across this country. And we would pay for it by increasing by a very small amount, or not increasing, actually, just not allowing to finally go through this huge tax break for the upper 1 percentile in America. And we would not even take back the whole thing, just enough to pay for this tax break for the oil and gas industry that is built into this bill. They will not even allow us to make that amendment. This is a centrist amendment, a balanced amendment; but it is a gag rule that does not allow us even to debate it. Now, that is wrong. And the reason they will not allow that amendment to be put in place is they know it would win, because the American people do not want to raid the Medicare Trust Fund and the Social Security Trust Fund to give tax breaks for the wealthiest energy companies in our country. Vote ``no'' on this rule. It is unbalanced, it is unfair, it is bad for the environment, it is bad for consumers, it is bad for taxpayers, and it is bad for our country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 242 on H.R. 2500 I mistakenly recorded my vote as a ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Now, the reason the gentlewoman is raising the issue is quite simple. First of all, we are told that this nuclear technology is so safe that none of us have to worry, none of us have to be concerned at all as the materials are transported down streets in our own communities. On the other hand, there is a law on the books which indemnifies, which makes sure that none of the companies that own the trucks or the trains are liable in the event of an accident. Well, that is not a good combination. One cannot say on the one hand it is safe and on the other hand say, well, we have to indemnify against any risks of the truck drivers and the train drivers. Who would want people careening through their neighborhoods with no insurance in large trucks, much less trucks or trains with nuclear materials there? So they become ``mobile Chernobyls,'' in a sense. They become these very dangerous vehicles. What the gentlewoman is saying is that we should have advanced knowledge of which routes are going to be taken, what the precautions are that are being put into place. It is just kind of a common-sense, anticipatory way of looking at these issues, especially since this recipe has been constructed, which could be an invitation to recklessness, to willful misconduct, to excessive drinking or drug- taking by the truck drivers or the train conductors, because they are not liable for any accidents. And that is why I think the gentlewoman is so concerned. And I think what this issue does is just help to spotlight how concerned all Americans should be if this material starts to move through their neighborhoods.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prohibit oil and gas leasing and preleasing in our national monuments. Without this amendment, we may have to rename some of our national monuments to reflect their new status. The Statute of Liberty National Monument, for example, could become the ``Statue of Fossil Fuels Production National Monument,'' with an actual flame burning at the top of the torch. Of course, we will have to change the inscription to read: Give me your drill bits, your rigs, Your huddled oil companies yearning to drill free, To dump their wretched refuse on our pristine shores, Send these, your well-heeled executives to me: I lift my lamp besides their golden doors. Of course, there are other types of national monuments in our country. Here is a photograph from the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. It is beautiful. But perhaps the oil industry could improve upon the view? Bam. Oil rigs in the national monument. How much oil would we retrieve from the Upper Missouri River Breaks? One hour's worth of our national consumption. One hour. What this amendment says is that one hour of our oil use in the United States is worth despoiling this pristine view forever. Mr. Chairman, we cannot condone this wanton disregard of our responsibilities to succeeding generations. Our national monuments represent the most unique, most irreplaceable, the most breathtaking of all of the natural wonders in this great land. All we are asking is that we meet our energy needs outside the boundaries of these special treasures, not on top of them. Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the Rahall amendment. First, let us make SUVs and air conditioners and refrigerators more efficient before we tell every succeeding generation of Americans that we had no other option but to take the national monuments and to despoil them for one hour's worth of energy, and to damage them permanently.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to honor Paul Leventhal and the Nuclear Control Institute (NCI) which he founded 20 years ago. On June 21, 1981, a full-page ad in The New York Times entitled ``Will Tomorrow's Terrorist Have an Atom Bomb?'' announced the launching of NCI (then known as ``The Nuclear Club Inc.''). Over the past two decades, Paul and NCI have been working to safeguard us from the dangers of irresponsible and malicious use of nuclear materials. And for years prior to forming NCI, Paul played an absolutely crucial role as a Senate staff member, helping to abolish the Atomic Energy Commission and split its roles between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy, produce the Nuclear Non- proliferation Act, and direct the investigations of the Three Mile Island accident. On April 9, 2001, Paul and NCI, in close collaboration with Marvin Miller of MIT, hosted an excellent 20th Anniversary Conference, ``Nuclear Power and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons: Can we have one without the other?'' That is, does the proliferation of nuclear power encourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Did it make sense to supply the Indian government with nuclear fuel for their power plant at Tarapur? Does supplying the North Korean government with 2,000 megawatts of power from light water reactors encourage or discourage their acquisition of nuclear weapons? But the issue of nuclear power is not only on the international scale. To solve our current ``energy crisis'', we find that the Bush administration has called for an increased reliance on nuclear power in our country. While NCI is not a priori averse to nuclear power, they are concerned that it be used properly. And the United States has an obligation to set a good example. If we want to discourage other nations from using plutonium, then the United States should not regard MOX fuel as a viable source of power. At the conference on April 9, a number of experts spoke to the gathering about nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The website www.nci.org/conference.htm contains the text of the addresses as well as brief interviews with a number of the speakers. I will highlight here only a couple of the notable participants in that forum. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute presented energy conservation and efficiency measures that could save the United States three-quarters of its electric use--equivalent to four times current nuclear output and cheaper to install that current nuclear operating costs. These retrofits of the best existing technologies, he said, would offset any need for continuation or expansion of nuclear power. Robert Williams of Princeton University, an expert on renewable and other non-carbon, alternative energy systems, underscored the fact that two-thirds of carbon-dioxide emissions, a major contributor to global warming, come from non-electric sources, mainly transport. He pointed out that the replacement of all coal-fired electricity with nuclear capacity over the next century would only make a dent in global warming by reducing carbon emissions by just 20 per cent. Such an expansion of nuclear power, however, would generate plutonium flows of millions of kilograms a year for breeder reactors, which could prove an unmanageable proliferation danger. The conference was an excellent opportunity to review the connections between nuclear power and weapons and to question the necessity for turning to nuclear power when the risks might outweigh the benefits. The conference was a testament to NCI's persistent dedication to the cause of keeping us safe from the potential dangers of nuclear materials. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the record a summary of the history and accomplishments of NCI over the last 20 years. Nuclear Control Institute 1981-2001; History and Accomplishments Nuclear Control Institute was established in 1981 by its president, Paul Leventhal, as an independent oversight organization. It continues work he began on U.S. Senate staff to draw attention to the spread of nuclear weapons and to strengthen controls over U.S. nuclear exports and U.S.-origin fissile materials. His work contributed to the demise of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and to enactment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978. NCI was the first non-profit organized to work exclusively on the problem of nuclear proliferation. NCI's focus was then and remains today prevention, not simply management, of the spread of nuclear weapons. NCI works to eliminate civilian uses of atom-bomb materials, plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU), by calling attention to the dangers these fuels pose in advanced industrial countries as well as in the developing world. NCI seeks to break the linkages between civilian and military nuclear applications and to build linkages between nuclear disarmament and nuclear non- proliferation. In a policy environment that often puts diplomatic and trade interests ahead of long-term security concerns, NCI works to promote bilateral and multi-lateral initiatives to make the world safe from plutonium. NCI, although small in size, has effectively pursued initiatives against plutonium and HEU commerce in a number of countries, including Japan, Germany, Great Britain, Argentina, Brazil, and in en-route states like Panama. In 1982, NCI proposed and won enactment of a ban on the use of U.S. civilian spent fuel from civilian nuclear power plants as a source of plutonium for weapons (the Hart- Simpson-Mitchell Amendment). In 1983, NCI commissioned a study, ``World Inventories of Civilian Plutonium and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons'' by David Albright, the first definitive analysis of the amounts of civilian plutonium accumulating in the world. In 1985, NCI convened an international conference on the threat of nuclear terrorism, and then established the International Task Force on Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism. The Task Force's findings in 1986 contributed to enactment of a law to combat nuclear terrorism (the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986). Two books that emerged from that project remain the definitive, non- classified work on the subject. In 1987, NCI helped win enactment of the Murkowski Amendment, which blocked air shipments of plutonium from Europe to Japan after NCI disclosed the secret failure of a test to prove a crash-worthy plutonium shipping cask. In 1988, NCI assembled a group of world-class scientists to promote the ``Tritium Factor'' approach to nuclear disarmament, using tritium's relatively fast decay to pace U.S.-Soviet arms reductions and thereby facilitate the shutdown of all military production reactors--the situation that effectively prevails in the United States today. In 1989, NCI convened a Montevideo conference of Argentine, Brazilian and U.S. nuclear officials and experts that developed proposals which were incorporated into the treaty signed the following year to end the Argentine-Brazilian nuclear arms race. In 1990, NCI commissioned a study by a former U.S. nuclear- weapons designer (the late Carson Mark) that resulted in the first formal acknowledgement by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency that nuclear weapons could be made from civilian ``rector-grade'' plutonium. In 1991, NCI correctly predicted that Iraq would violate IAEA safeguards and divert civilian nuclear research reactor fuel for the purpose of making nuclear weapons. In 1992, NCI helped win enactment of export controls (the Schumer Amendment) barring U.S. transfers of highly enriched, bomb-grade uranium (HEU) to research reactors that could make use of newly developed, low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel unsuitable for weapons. As a result, U.S. exports of HEU have been nearly eliminated, and most of the hold-out reactors in Europe have agreed to convert to LEU fuel. In 1993, NCI, in collaboration with the California-based Committee to Bridge the Gap, succeeded in a 10-year effort to persuade the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to promulgate a rule to protect nuclear power plants against truck bombs. The truck-bomb rule took effect the following year, and NCI has since been petitioning NRC to upgrade this rule as well as upgrade protection against other forms of terrorist attack and sabotage. In 1994, NCI forced a $100 million cleanout and audit of a plutonium fuel fabrication plant in Japan after disclosing a 70-kilogram discrepancy, equivalent to a dozen nuclear weapons. NCI also prepared a detailed economic analysis showing that Japan could guarantee its energy security by establishing a strategic reserve of non-weapons-usable uranium at a fraction of the cost of their plutonium fuel and breeder program. In 1996, NCI was invited to make exert technical and legal presentations before the International Maritime Organization in London on safety and security shortcomings in the sea transport of radioactive materials. Since then, NCI has worked closely with coastal states in opposition to plutonium and radioactive waste shipments from Europe to Japan. Also in 1996, NCI uncovered a secret dispute within the U.S. Executive Branch over the Department of Energy's plan to turn most surplus military plutonium into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel for nuclear power plants and drew nationwide attention to this dangerous program. Today, NCI continues to advocate disposal of military plutonium directly as waste and to oppose its use as civilian reactor fuel. NCI also pursues stronger security over transport, storage and use of civilian plutonium and bomb- grade uranium, while pressing for elimination of these dangerous civilian nuclear fuels.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday ruled that they are not going to offer any true relief to California. What they said was that they were going to engage in a faith-based energy policy. They would pray for consumers in California and across the West, but they really would not do anything for them. In the TV game show, the weakest link gets kicked off the show. But on Monday, the Republican-controlled FERC decided that the weakest link gets to set the prices for the entire western electricity market. This FERC order perpetuates the nonsense of having the least efficient generator of electricity set the benchmark price for all of the other generators. This is a formula for allowing energy generators to continue to tip consumers across the West upside down and to shake money out of their pockets. While saying we are going to mitigate the size of the windfall, it does not in any way deal with the fact that a windfall will be enjoyed by these energy producers of historic size. Instead, they should have imposed a cost of service time-out on California and the West. That is why the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) wanted to bring amendments out here on the floor to deal with the pricing issues, to deal with the refunds for overcharges. But they have been denied. That is why, in a larger sense, Congresswoman DeLauro wanted to bring out a LIHEAP amendment of an additional $600 million for emergency funding and $1.2 billion for the year 2002. We should reject this proposal.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Worcester for the incredible effort which he has put in over the last 2 weeks in ensuring that our colleague Joe Moakley was able to have the kind of services and the kind of attention which his life merited. I know that he has thought of him as a second father. I think so many of us all thought of him as our favorite uncle as well. I just wanted to let him know how much we all appreciate it. Joe Moakley actually became Boston in his life. The face of Joe Moakley will be the face of Boston for generations to come: the Big Dig, changing the transportation system, the cleanup of Boston Harbor, the Boston Harbor Islands National Park, the Joe Moakley Courthouse which appropriately is going to be the centerpiece of the new Boston Harbor overlooking, by the way, the Evelyn Moakley Bridge. So that that as well all becomes a part of this new Boston inner city, as generation after generation walks the streets of Boston. What was unique about him? Well, he had an open door for everyone but he had an open heart as well. He combined these qualities of spirituality and statesmanship that are so rare, and I think that the real tribute to him was how many Republicans came to his services as well because I think that he came to symbolize all that was good about politics in our country; in fact, all that was good about our country, because he had the wit of Will Rogers. He had the humility of Jimmy Stewart, but he had the tenacity of Saint Patrick when he was fighting for justice or poverty or just trying to help any ordinary person who was down on their luck. He gave the same amount of attention to fighting for people whom he had never met, who were being discriminated against, oppressed in El Salvador, as he did to chasing down every Social Security check that he might have felt was a little bit late in the mail for one of his constituents. It is altogether fitting and appropriate that he died on Memorial Day, because this was a great man from the greatest generation. I do not think that it is just a coincidence. I think that this is actually altogether fitting and appropriate that he would have passed away on that day. I know that right now he is up there with his beloved Evelyn in heaven, smiling down on this institution which he loved so much. Each one of us is indebted to this great man who, as we all went over to console him in these front rows over the last 2 months, all left being consoled by him as he regaled us with his jokes and his stories and we all left feeling that he, in fact, had reconciled himself to being rejoined with his beloved Evelyn. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for everything that he has done and for bringing this resolution today.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, last Friday President Bush said, ``I am deeply concerned about consumers. I am deeply concerned about high gas prices. To anybody who wants to figure out how to help consumers, pass the tax relief package as quickly as possible.'' Now it all becomes clear. First, President Bush comes out with a tax plan which gives 45 percent of the benefit to the wealthiest 1 percent of all American citizens, those with incomes of $373,000 or more. Next, the vast bulk of every other American, the average American, they only get a grand total of 16 percent of the total tax cut, but he says it should go directly back into the pockets of big oil and gas and electricity companies across the country to pay for people's energy bills. So no tax cut in people's pockets. You all remember Ronald Reagan's trickle-down economics which theorized if you cut taxes for the rich, the benefits would ultimately trickle down to the rest of us. President Bush has brought us a new vision, trickle-up energy economics. Under his politics, even the portion of the tax cut that goes to the less wealthy immediately trickles up to wealthy gas, oil, and electrical power companies. For the 138 million Americans, more than half the Nation who are in the bottom 60 percent income range and have incomes of less than $44,000, the Bush tax cut provides just $256. Because the Bush administration refuses to do anything to bring down high gasoline and high electricity rates in the United States, all consumers are going to end up just passing all of their tax cut, and more, right on to wealthy energy companies. Mr. Speaker, we need a fairer tax cut bill, one that helps working families and not just the wealthiest 1 percent.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. The Rules Committee has blocked an amendment offered by Mr. Gilman and myself. This amendment, ``Accountability to Congress for Nuclear Transfers to North Korea Act'', would have provided for thoughtful consideration as the United States and its allies march forward ponderously towards providing nuclear power to North Korea. North Korea is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and, as such, is required to submit to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Since the early 1990s, however, North Korea has blocked the IAEA from performing inspections of certain nuclear facilities. This non-compliance was tacitly accepted by the U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework of 1994, which arranged for the provision of 2,000 megawatts of light water nuclear reactors to the North Koreans in exchange for them to stop operation and construction of their graphite-moderated reactors. IAEA inspections, however, must occur before ``key nuclear components'' can be delivered. With a country that is unwilling to fulfill its international obligations, it is important that we scrutinize carefully any transfers of nuclear equipment or technology. At the same time, we must recognize the precarious power predicament in which North Korea finds itself. The nuclear reactors won't be completed for years. And when--and if--they are, North Korea's electric grid is not capable of handling and transmitting the power that will be produced. The people of North Korea will still want for that fundamental building block of an industrialized society--sufficient, reliable electricity. So we have to balance the various issues; we have to be tough but fair-minded. We have to consider carefully any attempt to transfer nuclear technology or material to North Korea per the Agreed Framework, but we also have to preserve the Agreed Framework, which helped to avoid potential military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula. And as part of ensuring stability there, we have to recognize the legitimate needs of the North Korean people. The amendment offered by Mr. Gilman and myself would have accomplished this task. First, it required that before any material or technology was transferred to North Korea under a nuclear cooperation agreement, Congress would have to approve by joint resolution any certification made by the President as specified by the North Korea Threat Reduction Act of 1999. This portion of the amendment passed the House of Representatives in the last Congress by a margin of 374 to 6 on May 15, 2000. Second, the amendment would have prohibited the assumption of liability by the United States government for accidents involving nuclear reactors in North Korea. This portion of the amendment passed the House of Representatives last May by a margin of 334 to 85 as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. Finally, the amendment expressed the sense of Congress that the provision of non-nuclear power generation to North Korea should be considered. This proposal postulated that non-nuclear power was the best way to fulfill the energy needs of North Korea. It encouraged the modernization of the electricity grid. It required that the President report to Congress on the current and projected electricity needs of North Korea and on the cost and time-frame for providing non-nuclear versus nuclear power generation. It was an information-gathering tool. It was a call to think about what we are doing with North Korea. Let us not go blindly along, business-as-usual, and hope that somehow, someday, the nuclear power plants will be built according to the satisfaction of everyone. North Korea will not be satisfied with their lack of electricity, and we in the House of Representatives will not be satisfied with being shut out of the decisionmaking process regarding nuclear transfers to North Korea. The rule hides from these realities. It should be rejected.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, Oliver Wendell Holmes once said ``Pretty much all the honest truth telling in the world is done by children.'' I believe we here in Congress could certainly learn something about energy, the environment, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from a young girl named Sophie Brown of Anchorage, Alaska, the subject of the following thoughtful and thought-provoking ``Letter to the Editor'' from her mother, published in the Anchorage Daily News on April 5, 2001: Children Put Earth Before Parents' SUVs (By Barbara Brown) I pulled the car into the driveway, walked toward the door of the house, and Sophie threw open the storm door and shouted, ``How do you feel about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?'' ``Hold on,'' I said, ``let me pull the car into the garage.'' ``But this is important,'' she insisted. ``Yes or no?'' Just another pleasant ``welcome home'' in the Wiepking- Brown household. One evening, Tim was talking about something over the dinner table, and I must have become distracted because next thing I knew, he was discussing scientists and cannibalism in Papua New Guinea. ``Cannibalism?'' I said, really confused. ``What are you talking about?'' Sophie piped up: ``It's the slow, deadly spread of mad cow disease.'' By this point, I was really feeling disconnected. ``What slow, deadly spread of mad cow disease?'' I asked. And Sophie pointed to Newsweek magazine. ``The Slow, Deadly Spread of Mad Cow Disease'' was right there, on the cover. ``You read the article?'' Tim asked, incredulous. ``Yes,'' Sophie said. ``We're discussing mad cow disease in school.'' Tim loves this about Sophie. He loves discussing current events. In school, he'd had a lot of trouble with reading until they introduced newspapers in his classroom. He went from nonreader to the boy everyone wanted on the current- events team. But back to ANWR. In Sophie's class, all the kids were opposed to drilling except one boy who thought the money might help education in the affected communities. I wondered if they'd seen pictures of cute little caribou. I asked, ``Was it because of the caribou?'' ``Some,'' Sophie said, ``but we know about the differences of opinion between the groups of people there; we know about how much oil they might find there. Mostly, it's because of the Earth, the wilderness.'' One friend of mine said her daughter's class is ready to die on its swords to defend the refuge. Ask the children, and they want to keep it safe from drilling. Is it because they're so young, so naive, so limited in understanding? Is it because they're not paying the bills? Talk to them-- they're well-versed in the facts. It's just the way they assign priorities: Kids put the Earth into the equation. Tim went looking for a car recently and was considering a sport utility. In horror, Sophie shouted, ``No, not an SUV! They are terribly wasteful of the Earth's resources!'' Don't ask me where she read that--probably the same places you have. It's just that kids don't let it slide by, don't let it fall away under considerations of image, size, power and, oh yes, by the way, it isn't very fuel-efficient. So she sees SUVs on the road and she asks, ``Are those people selfish, or do they just not know better?'' She used to ask the same thing about people she saw littering. I hear on the radio that 75 percent of Americans are worried about global warming, but the United States won't agree to a treaty to try to control it. Our president says it would be too hazardous for our economy. Every day, everyone evaluates, decides what priority to assign things and then makes up his or her mind. But for older people, the Earth wasn't and isn't a thing to worry about. It's just ``there,'' like adding zero to both sides of an equation. Other things--costs, duration, employment statistics, capitalization, demographics--those are all factors to be considered. The Earth? It just keeps rotating around the sun. You've seen one tree, you've seen them all. Or, you see no trees, there's nothing there. Find me a kid who doesn't know about recycling. Find me a kid who doesn't know why he or she recycles, why it's important. OK, maybe they are just little do-gooders, but they're little do-gooders entirely different from the way little kids used to be. While my mom told people to turn their lights off for the war effort, these kids turn lights off ``for the Earth.'' Once, many years ago, a summer roommate said to me, ``If the U.S. uses most of the Earth's resources, then if conditions are going to improve for the rest of the world, we would have to end up using less, right?'' I thought so. ``Well,'' he decided, ``I don't want to use less of anything. So I guess the rest of the world can't improve.'' I am eager to see the world these children make. Oh, I know that some may grow up to think that recycling aluminum cans is a pain in the neck or that they want as big a gas guzzler as the next guy. All those ``other'' factors may outweigh their desire for wilderness, for conservation, for clean air and water. But right now--bet on it--children are putting the Earth first. Even if that changes--even if they put the Earth second or third or fourth--we can be sure they'll never forget about putting the Earth in the equation. How will they feel if we don't leave them much Earth to worry about? Barbara Brown lives and writes in Anchorage.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the National Amusement Park Ride Safety Act, to restore safety oversight to an largely unregulated industry. I am joined in this effort by Representatives Connie Morella, John Tierney, Carolyn Maloney, Barney Frank, Peter DeFazio, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Tom Lantos, and Julia Carson. It is shocking to realize that one-third of all roller coasters in this country are never inspected by any public safety official at all. These and other rides are large machines used to carry children at high speeds. Industry trends have been to increase the speed and the force of these machines to levels that exceed the forces experienced by shuttle astronauts. Although many of these rides are operated safely and without incident, nevertheless every day riders are hurt, often seriously, requiring hospitalization, visits to emergency rooms. And occasionally, someone who went to the park for a thrill actually is killed by the operation of these machines. To me, it is inexcusable that when someone dies or is seriously injured on these rides, there is no system in place to ensure that the ride is investigated, the causes determined, and the flaws fixed, not just on that ride, but on every similar ride in every other state. The reason there is no national clearinghouse to prevent ride injuries is clear--since 1981, the industry has escaped routine product safety regulation through a loophole in the law. The industry carved out an exemption that says that while the Consumer Product Safety Commission can regulate every other consumer product, and while it can regulate small carnival rides that travel from town to town, it cannot step foot in an amusement park for the purpose of regulating a ride that is fixed to the site, such as a roller coaster. This is the so-called ``Roller Coaster Loophole'', and it needs to be closed. The bill eliminates the restriction on CPSC safety jurisdiction adopted in 1981. It will allow the CPSC the same scope of authority to protect against unreasonable risks of harm on ``fixed-site'' rides that it currently retains for carnival rides that are moved from site to site (``mobile rides.'') This would include the authority to investigate accidents, to develop and enforce action plans to correct defects, to require reports to the CPSC whenever a substantial hazard is identified, and to act as a national clearinghouse for accident and defect data. The bill would also authorize appropriations of $500 thousand annually to enable the CPSC to carry out the purposes of the Act. Background The Consumer Product Safety Act provided the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) with the same consumer protections authority it has for other consumer products. However, in 1981, following a series of legal challenges by several Rising Risk of Serious Injury The CPSC estimates the number of serious injuries on fixed and mobile amusement park rides using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). This data includes only injuries severe enough to have led the injured party to go to an emergency room. According to its July 2000 summary, emergency-room injuries on fixed rides increased 95 percent over the previous four years, and they rose most rapidly on the rides that are exempt from CPSC oversight. When one compares the safety record of this industry to other activities that involve traveling--as a passenger at high speed, such as passenger trains, buses and planes, the amusement park industry's fatality rate is actually worse. Some states try to step in where the CPSC cannot, but states with inspection programs are very uneven depending on which agency has the responsibility and whether its expertise is design, operator training, manufacturing, etc. No state, and no industry organization, provides the national clearinghouse function that the CPSC currently provides for mobile rides and could provide for fixed-site rides. Fatalities Although the overall risk of death on an amusement park ride is very small, it is not zero. In the course of one week in August 1999, for example, 4 deaths occurred on roller coasters, which U.S. News & World Report termed ``one of the most calamitous weeks in the history of America's amusement parks'': August 22--a 12-year-old boy fell to his death after slipping through a harness on the Drop Zone ride at Paramount's Great America Theme Park in Santa Clara, California; August 23--a 20-year-old man died on the Shockwave roller coaster at Paramount King's Dominion theme park near Richmond, Virginia; August 28--a 39-year-old woman and her 8-year-old daughter were killed when their car slid backward down a 30-foot ascent and crashed into another car, injuring two others on the Wild Wonder roller coaster at Gillian's Wonderland Pier in Ocean City, New Jersey. Each of these tragedies is an opportunity for the CPSC to search for causes and share its insights with the operators of other similar rides. Unless the law is changed, however, it cannot perform this role. One final point--the industry has the unfortunate habit of belittling the risk of loved ones getting mangled or killed on these machines by suggesting that the risk of getting hurt is lower than for ``bowling'' or ``watering your garden.'' In fact, the fatality rate on roller coasters approximates the risk of dying on passenger trains, buses and airplanes. None of those industries claims any exemption from federal oversight, and investigations by federal safety experts of train accidents, bus accidents or plane crashes is central to minimizing the reoccurrence of serious or fatal accidents in America. Yet this common sense eludes the amusement park industry, to the detriment of the safety of children and adult riders alike. As the spring and summer riding season begins, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this modest restoration of safety to all parkgoers. Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join today with a bipartisan group of colleagues to introduce the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act of 2001. This bill is designed to reassert workers' rights to have their claims of unlawful employment discrimination. On March 21, 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that under existing law an employer can require its employees to waive their right to file job-related lawsuits including those involving civil rights, sexual harassment or discrimination. Approximately 10 percent of American workers are covered by similar agreements, which are increasingly used by Wall Street firms, high-tech companies, retailers and other employers seeking to avoid the cost and risks of court cases. This month's Court ruling, encourages more companies to follow this increasingly common practice. This practice, called ``mandatory arbitration'', requires employees to sign away their fundamental rights to a court hearing. As a condition of hiring or promotion, employers require workers to agree to submit any future claims of job discrimination to binding arbitration panels. Mandatory arbitration is increasingly relied upon by employers in information technology, health care, engineering and other fields. Such requirements are reducing civil rights protection to the status of the company car: a perk which can be denied at will. The Constitution guarantees every citizen ``equal justice under law''. Forcing employees to choose between their civil rights and their job denies them their right to equal justice. Employees who consent to mandatory arbitration give up their right to due process, trial by jury, the appeals process, and full discovery. By no means does this legislation ban all use of arbitration. Voluntary arbitration in an impartial setting can be a fair and inexpensive way to resolve a wide range of disputes. But when it Is forcibly imposed on one party with inherently less bargaining power, it ceases to be fair and just. Our legislation would protect the rights of workers to bring claims against their employers in cases of employment discrimination. By amending seven Federal civil rights statutes to make it clear that the powers and procedures provided under those laws are the exclusive ones that apply when a claim arises, the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act would prevent discrimination claims from being involuntarily sent to binding arbitration. In short, this bill prevents employers in all industries from forcing employees to give up their right to go to court when they are discriminated against on account of race, sex, religion, disability, or other illegal criteria. By reinforcing the fundamental rights established under various civil rights and fair employment practice laws, our bill restores integrity to employer-employee relationships. No employer should be permitted to ask workers to check their Constitutional and civil rights at the front door.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the Republican Party has thrown a big good- bye party for the surplus. First they brought out a pinata for all their wealthy friends and they let each one of them take a whack at it and out comes a huge tax cut with the wealthiest 1 percent getting an overwhelming 45 percent of the tax cut. The Republicans claim it only cost $1.6 trillion but we really know it is going to cost an extra trillion more. Good-bye surplus. Next, Mr. Chairman, the Republicans divert hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicare and Social Security trust fund dollars from the lockbox and put it over into a sandbox for their friends to play with. That diversion will be a disaster for seniors. Seniors will get sandbagged by this budget because the Republican diversion will shave 9 years off the Social Security trust fund and 5 years off the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. Good-bye, surplus. Plus, they are doing regulatory changes at the same time. EPA used to stand for the Environmental Protection Agency. Now EPA stands for ``Eat Plenty of Arsenic.'' They cannot get enough of helping their friends. This is an absolute orgy that is going on, helping the wealthiest in America and the most powerful industries. Mr. Chairman, it is immoral to pass these huge tax cuts that explode in 2008 and 2009 and 2010, based upon dot com company projections of revenues. The American public knows that the NASDAQ collapsed. These same revenue estimates made by CBO are just as bogus, but in order to make sure that there is no money there for senior citizens, long-term care, building schools in this country a decade from now, they are committed to having these huge tax cuts that will bankrupt this country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 496. Before I speak to the remaining issues of concern with the legislation that I believe must be rectified before it merits support, I want to begin by thanking Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Dingell, and Chairman Tauzin, and Chairman Upton for being responsive to many of the concerns that have been raised about H.R. 496 since it was first introduced. The bill being offered today contains many helpful clarifications and changes embodied in it that were in response to concerns I have raised about the measure. I believe that in its current form it clarifies a number of key definitions that affect the scope of the bill. Moreover, the bill also contains clarifications that better capture the expressed intent of its advocates without some of the possible unintended consequences that I have warned about. The legislation now better defines which companies qualify as ``2 percent carriers'' so that certain Bell Operating Companies are not inadvertently included in the definition. The bill also preserves certain Commission authority necessary to protect consumers and contains adjustments in provisions dealing with the introduction of new telecommunications services, participation in subsidy pools, and the pricing flexibility section. Again, I want to thank Mrs. Cubin and my other colleagues who have agreed to these changes. I believe they are helpful clarifications and I believe they improve the bill. I would note, however, that I still believe that additional changes are warranted for this legislation and that I hope can be dealt with prior to sending this bill to the President. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, also known as the ``2 percent'' bill, directly affects small and mid-sized telephone companies and has repercussions for millions of consumers across the country. A chief concern is the ``trigger'' for key de-regulatory provisions in the bill, namely the pricing flexibility and pricing deregulation provisions. The bill on the House floor today will continue to allow pricing deregulation upon the arrival of ``facilities-based'' competition in a given service area. Facilities-based entry, however, is defined in the bill to include not only provision of local exchange switching or its equivalent, but also the ``procurement'' of such. Moreover, a facilities-based competitor is merely required to have at least one customer--I repeat, one sole customer. Hopefully there will be more competition. The point is that although competition may arrive, it may not be robust or effective in constraining prices. A single competitor serving a single customer is simply an insufficient trigger for deregulation. Such a low threshold will mean sweeping deregulation with only the illusion of truly competitive markets in many areas of the country. I hope we can subsequently adjust this competitive trigger so that it reflects the kind of significant competition that serves to constrain prices and drive innovation, rather than the ``paper tiger'' competition that this definition will permit for deregulation to occur. In addition, I am concerned about combining a lessening of reporting requirements with the continuation, and indeed, increased flexibility, of participation in subsidy pools. At a time when policymakers are struggling to extract unnecessary subsidies from the system and make remaining subsidies more explicit, this legislation would appear to make it more difficult for policymakers and regulators to discern whether the subsidies generally, or particular subsidy levels, are still justified or need to be recalibrated. Mr. Speaker, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) recently passed a resolution on this bill that stated in part--and I'll quote from it-- that ``appropriate reporting requirements that . . . verify proper distribution and use of universal service funding should continue to be available.'' If these so-called 2 percent companies want to live in a truly competitive environment with less regulation then I'm all for that--I wish them well and I hope they make it in the free marketplace. Yet this legislation still suffers from a ``have-your-cake-and-eat- it-too'' quality. I believe that even if we are unwilling today to lessen or cap the subsidy as we lessen 2 percent company regulations and move these companies from monopoly mindsets to greater competition, we must at least have accountability in the subsidy system so that it doesn't become even more bloated than it already is. I believe that this Congress needs to have a broader discussion when we act to eliminate certain legacy regulations to ensure that we also act to eliminate or limit legacy subsidies. In addition, I continued to believe that there is a potential in this bill for companies to ``game'' the regulatory system. We usually do not give regulated entities the opportunity to choose their form of regulation but this bill does just that. I want to commend the bill's sponsors for adjusting the bill somewhat in this area in response to my concerns so that a company now chooses rate-or-return regulation or price cap regulation and this election must be done for 1 year. However, clarifying that such election cannot be done on any given month but rather on an annual basis does not fully alleviate the problem. Flipping back and forth on a yearly basis still permits companies to game the regulatory system in my view. Another issue I want to highlight is the merger review section. This section states that any review involving a so-called 2 percent carrier must be approved or denied by the Commission within 60 days. I understand that the companies do not want merger reviews to drag on for years, but I would suggest that 60 days is too short and unrealistic. While I believe the Commission is itself is streamlining its process, if the majority is insistent on having a merger review ``shot clock'' I would suggest giving the Commission a greater period of time. Finally, I want to comment broadly on the overall intent of the bill and what I believe will be the unfulfilled promise that the sponsors of the bill seek to achieve. While the purpose of the bill as stated in its text, is to accelerate the deployment of advanced services in more rural areas of the country, there is no requirement that any of the savings a company garners through lessened regulatory obligations be spent or invested in deployment of new, or advanced services to rural areas. The legislation has no advanced services build-out requirement, no blueprint or timetable for deployment to rural areas for such services. It appears that the savings a company enjoys through this bill can go directly to profits and to shareholders. As we proceed further on this bill I would encourage Members to further review suggestions made by NARUC and its membership and work again on these issues so that consumers and the public interest are fully protected. Again, I want to thank Mrs. Cubin for the adjustments in the bill that she has been willing to make thus far. I enjoy working with her and want to continue our discussions on this bill. I believe that working together, along with Chairman Upton, Chairman Tauzin, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Largent and other supporters of the bill, that we can ultimately reach a resolution with the Senate that works for everybody. In addition I want to commend and thank Mrs. Cubin's staff, Bryan Jacobs, and the Energy and Commerce Committee Republican staff, Howard Waltzman, for their efforts in fashioning compromises in many sections of the bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) having this Special Order today. Of course we have had a stunning set of decisions which have been made by this administration just in the past week highlighted by the decision not to impose new standards on CO2 emissions, that is, the emissions that go into the atmosphere that are causing the greenhouse effect. Eighty-eight percent of those come from coal-fired plants. If we do not put the controls on, we are going to lose our ability to deal with that issue. Moreover, there is also this drive by the administration to go to the Arctic pristine wilderness and drill for oil. Now that oil, of course, would go in a pipeline down to California so that the oil could be put into SUVs that average 14 miles a gallon. We should first figure out how to make SUVs go 20 or 25 miles per gallon before we go into the pristine wilderness and destroy it forever. Is not that our responsibility as the technological generation, to ensure that two- thirds of the oil that we put into automobiles, into SUVs, and that is where two-thirds of all oil in our country goes to, is first made more efficient, that is those vehicles, before we destroy God's beautiful creation. Now the administration likes to say that we will only create tiny footprints like Carl Sandburg's little cat's feet, you can see the image, but the reality is in Prudhoe Bay already where we do allow for drilling, it has done something quite different. There is over 1,000 square miles of development permanently scarring the environment. They have twice the NOX emissions as Washington, D.C. up there in Prudhoe Bay and tons of greenhouse gases. You have pipelines crisscrossing the landscape. There is a black and white debate here. We can have this or this debate. Here is what goes on in Prudhoe Bay right now every day: 1,000 square miles of development; 500 miles of roads; 3,893 wells drilled; 170 drill pads; 55 contaminated waste sites; one toxic spill every day; two refineries; twice the nitrogen oxide pollution as Washington, D.C.; 114,000 metric tons of methane and 11 million metric tons of carbon emissions every year; and $22 million in civil and criminal fines; 25 production and treatment facilities; 60 million cubic yards of gravel mined. The other side, you have no development which is what we are saying. First, let us look at SUVs. First, let us look at buildings. First, let us make ourselves more efficient. First, let us use technology to cut OPEC down to size. They know that we are addicted to these vehicles that get 12 to 14 miles a gallon. We should not go to the Arctic wilderness first, we should go to where we consume the energy.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, President Roosevelt once said, ``The test of our progress as a society is not whether we do more for those who already have enough but whether we do enough for those who have too little.'' President Kennedy said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.'' The Republicans here today have issued a different kind of a challenge: ``Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what can be done for your country club pals. Ask not what is in this titanic tax cut for ordinary families, ask what is in it for the wealthiest 1 percent,'' with an average income of $1.1 million a year. Forty-five percent of the benefit goes to the upper 1 percentile. And, finally, ``Ask not who pays now but who will pay 10 and 15 years from now,'' because this tax cut becomes so massive when the baby boomers retire, when the number of Alzheimer's patients will increase from 4 million to 14 million; Parkinson's disease down the line, long-term care, Social Security, and Medicare. That is when the tax cut begins to balloon, just as the greatest needs do for those seniors who built our country. It is immoral, Mr. Speaker, to pass a bill which calls for sacrifice from those who will need much a decade from now.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, one of the most magnificant wildlife reserves in America has been targeted for oil and gas development. It is threatened as never before, and will lose its wild, untrammeled character forever if we do not organize to fight this threat. Today, Rep. Nancy Johnson and I are introducing the Morris K. Udall Arctic Wilderness Act of 2001, with more than 120 cosponsors, Republican and Democrat, all united in their goal to preserve this precious wilderness in its current pristine, roadless condition for future generations of Americans. We have a bipartisan legacy to protect, and we take it very seriously. It is a legacy of Republican President Eisenhower, who set aside the core of the Refuge in 1960. It is a legacy of Democratic President Carter, who expanded it in 1980. It is the legacy of Republican Senator Bill Roth and Democratic Representative Bruce Vento and especially Morris Udall, who fought so hard to achieve what we propose today, and twice succeeded in shepherding this wilderness proposal through the House. Now is the time to finish the job they began--now is the time to say ``Yes'' to setting aside the Coastal Plain as a fully protected unit of the Wilderness Preservation System. Every summer, the Arctic coastal plain becomes the focus of one of the last great migratory miracles of nature when 130,000 caribou, the Porcupine caribou herd, start their ancient annual trek, first east away from the plain into Canada, then south and west back into interior Alaska, and finally north in a final push over the mountains and down the river valleys back to the coastal plain, their traditional birthing grounds. This herd, migrating thousands of miles each year and yet funneling into a relatively limited area of tundra, contrasts sharply with the non-migratory Central Arctic herd living near the Prudhoe Bay oil fields. The coastal plain of the Refuge is the biological heart of the Refuge ecosystem and critical to the survival of a one-of-a-kind migratory species. When you drill in the heart, every other part of the biological system suffers. The oil industry has placed a bull's eye on the heart of the Refuge and says ``hold still. This won't hurt. It will only affect a small surface area of your vital organs!'' Nevertheless, the oil industry has placed a bull's eye on the very same piece of land that Congress set aside as critical habitat for the caribou. The industry wants to spread the industrial footprint of Prudhoe Bay into a pristine area. Let's take a look at the industrial footprints that have already been left on the North Slope. Look at Deadhorse and Prudhoe Bay. They are part of a vast Industrial Complex that generates, on average, one toxic spill a day of oil, or chemicals, or industrial waste of some kind that seeps into the tundra or sits in toxic drilling mud pits. It is one big Energy Sacrifice Zone that already spews more nitrogen oxide pollution into the Arctic air each year than the city of Washington, DC. Allowing this industrial blight to ooze into the Refuge would be an unmitigated disaster. It would be as if we had opened up a bottle of black ink and thrown it on the face of the Mona Lisa. But why invade this critical habitat for oil if we don't have to? The fact is, it would not only be bad environmental policy, it is totally unnecessary. Here's why: 1. Fuel economy. According to EPA scientists, if cars, mini-vans, and SUV's improved their average fuel economy just 3 miles per gallon, we would save more oil within ten years than would ever be produced from the Refuge. Can we do that? We already did it once! In 1987, the fleetwide average fuel economy topped 26 miles per gallon, but in the last 13 years, we have slipped back to 24 mpg on average, a level we first reached in 1981! Simply using existing technology will allow us to dramatically increase fuel economy, not just by 3 mpg, but by 15 mpg or more--five times the amount the industry wants to drill out of the Refuge. 2. Natural Gas: The fossil fuel of the future is gas, not gasoline, because it can be used for transportation, heating and, most importantly, electricity, and it pollutes less than the alternatives. The new economy needs electricity, and it isn't looking to Alaskan oil to generate it. California gets only 1 percent of its electricity from oil; the nation gets less than 3 percent, while 15 percent already comes from natural gas and its growing. Alaska has huge potential reserves of natural gas on the North Slope, particularly around Prudhoe Bay and to the west, in an area that has already been set aside for oil and gas drilling called the National Petroleum Reserve. Moreover, we have significant gas reserves in the lower 48 and the Caribbean. The Coastal Plain of the Refuge has virgually none. 3. Oil not in the Refuge: The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska has been specifically set aside for the production of oil and gas. It is a vast area, 15 times the size of the Coastal Plain, and relatively under-explored by the industry. Anything found there is just as close to Prudhoe Bay as the Refuge, but can be developed without invading a critical habitat in a national refuge. In fact, just last October, BP announced the discovery of a field in this Reserve that appears to be as large as Kuparuk, the second largest field on the North Slope. While the potential for oil in the Refuge still appears larger than in the Reserve, the Reserve holds much greater promise for natural gas, so that every exploratory well has a greater chance of finding recoverable quantities of one fuel or the other. Our dependence on foreign oil is real, but we cannot escape it by drilling for oil in the United States. Energy legislation introduced this week in We consume 25 percent of the world's oil but control only 3 percent of the world's reserves. 76 percent of those reserves are in OPEC, so we will continue to look to foreign suppliers as long as we continue to ignore the fuel economy of our cars and as long as we continue to fuel them with gasoline. The public senses that a drill-in-the-Refuge energy strategy is a loser. Why sacrifice something that can never be re-created--this one- of-a-kind wilderness--simply to avoid something relatively painless-- sensible fuel economy? The latest poll, done by Democratic pollster Mark Mellman and Republican pollster Christine Matthews, shows a margin of 52-35 percent opposed to drilling for oil in the refuge. The public is making clear to Congress that other options should be pursued, not just because the Refuge is so special, but because the other options will succeed where continuing to put a polluting fuel in gas-guzzling automobiles is a recipe for failure. Sending in the oil rigs to scatter the caribou and shatter the wilderness is what I Call ``UNIMOG energy policy.'' You may have heard about the UNIMOG. It is a proposed new SUV that will be 9 feet tall, 7\1/2\ feet long, 3\1/2\ inches wider than a Humvee, weight 6 tons and get 10 miles per gallon. That's the kind of thinking that leads not just to this refuge, but to every other pristine wilderness area, in a desperate search for yet another drop of oil. And it perpetuates a head-in-the-haze attitude towards polluting our atmosphere with greenhouse gases and continuing our reliance on OPEC oil for the foreseeable future. Now that our energy woes have forced us to think about the interaction of energy and environmental policy, it is a good time to say no to a UNIMOG energy policy and yes to a policy that moves us away from gas-guzzling automobiles to clean-burning fuels, hybrid engines, and much higher efficiency in our energy consumption. If we adopt the UNIMOG energy policy, we will have failed twice--we will remain just as dependent on oil for our energy future, and we will have hastened the demise of the ancient rhythms of a unique migratory caribou herd in America's last frontier. We have many choices to make regarding our energy future, but we have very few choices when it comes to industrial pressures on incomparable natural wonders. Let us be clear with the American people that there are places that are so special for their environmental, wilderness or recreational value that we simply will not drill there as long as alternatives exist. The Arctic Refuge is federal land that was set aside for all the people of the United States. It does not belong to the oil companies, it does not belong to one state. It is a public wilderness treasure, we are the trustees. We do not dam Yosemite Valley for hydropower. We do not strip mine Yellowstone for coal. We do not string wind turbines along the edge of the Grand Canyon. And we should not drill for oil and gas in the Arctic Refuge. We should preserve it, instead, as the magnificent wilderness it has always been, and must always be.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and a bipartisan coalition of other Members in introducing the ``Energy Efficient Buildings Incentives Act.'' Energy use in buildings in this country accounts for approximately 35% of polluting air emissions nationwide about twice as much as the pollution from cars. It costs the average American $1500 to heat and cool their homes every year, which amounts to an annual cost of $150 billion nationwide. Commercial buildings and schools incur $100 billion in annual utility bills. And yet, the tax code fails to provide sufficient incentives to reduce wasteful and unnecessary energy use. This is bad policy, and it must be changed. in these times of ``brown outs'' and ``black outs'' in communities across this nation and in times of rising fuel prices, we should be looking for ways to ensure that energy is never wasted. That is why we have introduced the ``Energy Efficient Buildings Incentives Act.'' Our bill would spur use of energy efficient technologies, such as super-efficient air conditioning units, which could result in a substantial drop in peak electricity demand of at least 20,000 megawatts--the equivalent of the output of 40 large power plants. At a time when many communities are currently facing electricity supply shortages, and the local political issues involved with siting and building new power plants are difficult and contentious, our bill provides a way to reduce pressures on the nation's electricity grid. Specifically, our bill provides tax incentives for: Efficient residential buildings, saving 30% or 50% of energy cost to the homeowner compared to national model codes, with a higher incentive for the higher savings. Efficient heating, cooling, and water heating equipment that reduces consumer energy costs, and, for air conditioners, reduces peak electric power demand, by about 20% (lower incentives) and 30%-50% (higher incentives) compared to national standards. New and existing commercial buildings with 50% reductions in energy costs to the owner or tenant, and solar hot water photovoltaic systems. If only 50% of new buildings reach the energy efficiency goals of this legislation, air pollution emissions in this country could be reduced by over 3% in the next decade, and decrease even more dramatically over time. In that same ten-year period, this legislation could result in direct economic savings of $40 billion to consumers and businesses. For example, a family that installs an energy efficient water heater can get $250 to $500 back from the tax code changes and an additional $50 to $200 every year in reduced utility bills. Or a family that purchases a new home that meets the standards in this bill can get as much as $2,000 returned to them by the tax incentives, in addition to the $300 or more in continuing energy savings. I urge other Members to join us in saving American consumers money, improving the air we breathe and the water we drink, increasing the competitiveness of American industries, and eliminating inefficiencies in the tax code by encouraging energy efficiency in our schools and our commercial and residential buildings.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there is a great void in our delegation and in this institution as Joe Moakley announces that he will not run for another term. But it is altogether fitting and appropriate that we gather here to name the courthouse overlooking Boston Harbor on behalf of Joe Moakley. There is a great scene in the movie the Ten Commandments where Moses, Charlton Heston, is confronted by Pharaoh, his father who has adopted him and raised him, where the father says to him, What have you done for me, Moses? My son, Ramseys, Yule Brenner, has done so much for me. At that point, Moses pulls back the cloth and says, Behold, I have built you a city. If someone asks me, if someone asks our delegation what has Joe Moakley done, we could pull back the same cloth in the Moakley Courthouse and look out and say, Behold, Joe Moakley has rebuilt Boston. One would look out on this clear and clean water of Boston Harbor that was once polluted. One can look at the jewels of the Boston Harbor, the islands, now the Boston Harbor National Park. One could look at the Central Artery, Moses parted the Red Sea, what Joe Moakley has done is reunite the city of Boston by putting the Central Artery underground so that this city that was divided for 50 years is now once again united when the Central Artery, the Big Dig, is completed, the civil and political engineering feat of the last 50 years, finding the money and then designing it. Then the Moakley Courthouse above from which one can see the Evelyn Moakley Bridge named for his beloved wife. Joe Moakley talked to kings and pages with the same language. If we ever do have a Mount Rushmore for congressmen, Joe Moakley should be up there with his great friends, John McCormack and Tip O'Neill as the symbols of everything that Congress should stand for. He is a great man. We are honoring a great man by placing his name on this courthouse.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this lockbox is leaking because the money can be used for other reform purposes. But I want to stress something else today, an inescapable big truth about the President's economic plan. The big truth is that the President has proposed a Mother Hubbard economic plan, a plan that leaves the cupboard bare. Here is what I mean. We have an alleged surplus of $5.6 trillion. Today the House will vote to take $2.9 trillion off the table. So that leaves just $2.7 trillion for all the spending and tax relief for the next 10 years. The President has two priorities for that money: a tax cut that will consist of $2.6 trillion, skewed largely to the wealthy, by the way; and a missile defense system that will cost at least $100 billion. So that is it. It is all gone before we reach anything else. We have zero surplus for anything else; for prescription drugs, education, health insurance, zero. Mr. Speaker, it is a Mother Hubbard plan. The wealthy get to take a tax cut picnic while the rest of this country faces an empty cupboard.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Today our nation's 40th President turns ninety--one of only three other Presidents in our history to reach his ninetieth year. With recent advances made in health and science, we can anticipate many more of our future Presidents to live into their nineties, along with the entire U.S. population. But what impact does an increase in our country's aging population have? And what sort of quality of life will our elderly enjoy? I have my concerns. Currently there is a threat facing our elderly population--a wave, gaining momentum and sweeping its way through the minds of our aged. This disease afflicts President Reagan. It is Alzheimer's and it threatens the future for our nation's elderly, their families and our health care system. Alzheimer's is indiscriminate and cruel, it creeps into the brain, captures the mind and steals the memory--irrevocably altering the personality of its victims leaving not only loved ones unrecognizable to the Alzheimer's patient but the patient unrecognizable to her loved ones. This is what makes this disease particularly cruel . . . the loss of the thread of continuity that weaves itself through every experience of our lives and defines us as who we are. It was only forty years ago that researchers considered Alzheimer's Disease a rare disorder. But since then, scientists have come to realize that it is far more common than we originally thought . . . so common in fact that today Alzheimer's Disease is the leading cause of age-related dementia in the country. So common--that one in ten Americans over the age of 65, and one out of every two Americans over the age of 80 are afflicted. So common--that 37 million Americans say they know someone with Alzheimer's. So common--that 19 million Americans say they have a family member with the disease. So common that 2.7 million spouses, relatives and friends care for people with Alzheimer's. And so common that today over 4 million Americans suffer with the disease. The word epidemic is derived from the Greek word ``epideemia'' which translates literally to ``a visit.'' Alzheimer's has become the epidemic of our aging population . . . but given the projection that by 2050 14 million Americans will be afflicted--unless we find a way to stop this disease--Alzheimer's won't be just visiting our aging population, Alzheimer's will be moving in. Two years ago, I joined with my Republican colleague Chris Smith of New Jersey to create the Bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease. To date over 130 Members of Congress have signed on. And last Congress, I along with my dedicated colleagues fought to increase NIH research funding for Alzheimer's research--I am pleased to say NIH received somewhere in the range of an $85 million increase bringing the total budget for federally funded Alzheimer's research to $515 million. In addition, I was able to include a $300 million (or $1.3 billion over 10 years) provision in the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 2000 that would make it possible for homebound Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer's Disease to go to adult day care and religious services mass or synagogue, without losing their home health benefits. Believe it or not, before this provision was passed into law--Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer's Disease would lose their home health benefit if they went to church or adult day care. My efforts to improve the lives of those afflicted and affected by Alzheimer's are animated by my own personal experience with my mother's battle. However, there is one program--a bill I introduced last Congress which made its way into law--that was specifically inspired by ongoing discussions I had with the doctors who treated my mother's illness. In talking to these caring physicians, I was made aware of the lack of funding for clinical research or as physician-scientists call it ``translational'' research. Specifically, there is not enough applicable research being done on ``real'' people with the disease or likely to get the disease. Not enough focus on cutting edge treatments, and preventative measures. The Alzheimer's Clinical Research and Training Awards program which passed into law last Congress will provide $11.25 million over five years to fund physician-scientists in translational research. It's a small start but I'm hoping this program will grow. In the battle against Alzheimer's we've accomplished some--but there is still so much more we must do. By working together to increase funding for research, prevention and care, it is my hope that President Reagan and the millions of other Americans who currently suffer with Alzheimer's will be the last generation to experience this devastating epidemic.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today with my colleagues Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, along with Representatives Tauzin and Dingell and 20 other Democratic and Republican House and Senate Members to introduce the bipartisan Uniform Poll Closing Act. Over the years, both the Democratic and Republican parties have been concerned about the fact that the news media frequently projects a particular Presidential candidate to be the victor in key battlegound states before all the polls have closed nationally. In 1980, many Democrats were outraged when Ronald Reagan was proclaimed the victor of the Presidential race on network television at 5:15 p.m. Pacific time. At that moment, polls were still open in approximately half the states, in every time zone--including many in the eastern and central time zones, and all the polls in the Mountain, Pacific, Alaskan, and Hawaiian time zones. As a result of the networks' decision, many voters felt there was no longer any point in going to the polls, a development which may have affected the outcome of many state and local elections. In 1984 and 1988 many Democrats feared that network's projections in the early evening that the Republican candidate was going to be the overwhelming electoral college winner may have again affected voting in many state and local contests in the west. This year, many Republicans were angered when the networks projected Al Gore the victor in Florida, prior to the closing of polls in the Florida Panhandle. At the same time, some GOP lawmakers raised concerns that network projections regarding the likely victors in many other key Presidential battleground states in the East or Midwest may have affected voter turnout in other states in which the polls were still open. I believe that there is a relatively straightforward way to reduce a repeat of these concerns: adoption of a uniform poll closing time for Presidential elections. That is why today, we will introduce legislation which would establish a uniform poll closing time. Under this bill, for Presidential elections, polls in all 50 states would close at 9 p.m. eastern standard time, which is 8 p.m. central standard time and 7 p.m. mountain time. In the Pacific time zone, in Presidential election years only, in order to achieve a 7 p.m. poll closing time, daylight savings time would be extended for two weeks. This will allow the polls on the West Cost to close at 7 p.m. Pacific daylight time. The House approved identical legislation in 1986, 1987, and 1989, but it was never enacted into law. We have an opportunity now to rectify this situation, establish a uniform poll closing time, and minimize the potential that future premature projections by the television networks regarding the winners of a Presidential election will influence voter behavior in other states. While the public may be divided over whom they want to see become our next President, both Democratic and Republican votes agree on the need to establish a uniform poll closing time. In fact, a recent CBS poll reports that 71% of the American public would like to see a uniform national poll closing time established. This reflects the public's recognition that standardizing poll closing times for Presidential elections would reduce the likelihood that when the television networks declare a winner in one state, they may depress voter turnout in any remaining precincts in the state in which the polls remain open, or affect voter turnout in other state across the country. I look forward to working with Senator Stevens, Representative Tauzin, Dingell, and other interested Members to advance this proposal. Over the last several days, I have spoken to Senator Stevens, who has long been a leader on this issue in the Senate, and who had a strong interest in working out a formulation that would accommodate Alaska and Hawaii. With this bill, we have been able to accomplish that goal by allowing those states to open their polls on Monday afternoon and then bring them into the framework of the nationwide uniform poll closing time we are establishing for election Tuesday at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. In introducing this bill today, we are hoping to begin a debate on this issue by putting onto the table the main proposal that the House has previously approved, and we are open to considering other reasonable alternatives. What we would like to assure, however, is that this time, the Congress acts to reform the rules governing poll closing times in Presidential elections.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, when there is a tobacco scandal, who do we bring in before Congress? The tobacco company executives. When Ford and Firestone are implicated in the death of 138 Americans and hundreds of others, who do we bring in to testify? The CEO of Ford, the CEO of Firestone. When the oil companies, however, are found ripping off the American taxpayer to the tune of $438 million, with potentially billions of additional dollars still unaccounted for, who does the Committee on Resources bring in? They bring in the oil company executives? No. The whistleblower. Let us investigate the whistleblowers. Mr. Speaker, if the public is looking at this and they are wondering what Congress is doing in the final 2 weeks, they just have to look on the Republican side. The President deploys the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Republicans hold hearings, both the Senate and House energy committees last week. What is the scandal that they are investigating? The price of oil was nearing $40 a barrel when the President deployed it. It is now down to $32 a barrel. The scandal? The price of oil has dropped. The consumers have benefitted. Gasoline prices are down. Home heating oil prices are down. Let us have hearings on the House and Senate side. Now, on the final day of Congress, again, the oil industry and the cross hairs of the American public wondering what Congress is doing about it. Are we bringing in the executives to ask beyond that $438 billion in oil, how about natural gas? How about the other oil companies? Are there billions of other dollars that we could be using for prescription drugs, that we can be using to ensure that we rebuild schools in this country that the oil companies are not paying in taxes? No, we do not have that hearing. The Republican majority would have us believe that POGO, the Project on Government Oversight, is the problem, POGO. What Walter Kelly, the old cartoonist who used to draw the Pogo strip, he once remarked, ``We have met the enemy, and it is us.'' The enemy is the Republican Congress. They refuse to have hearings on the issues of what the role is of the oil industry and driving up oil prices and denying the American people the taxes, the royalties, which they rightly deserve in order to ensure that our government programs help the poorest people in our society. Vote no on this resolution.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, Amy Boyer, a 21-year-old young woman was killed by a stalker, a stalker who paid $45 in order to purchase her Social Security number so that she could be tracked down and killed. Her murderer actually on his Web site in graphic detail outlined how the Social Security number was the key to finding out where she was. The House was passing on a bipartisan bill, a protection against the misuse of Social Security numbers; instead, in the Commerce State Justice bill, we are going to recede to the Senate language, which The Washington Post yesterday called a trojan horse, which the Boyer family says they do not want as protections. They do not want their name identified with the bill, even though it is named after their daughter. I ask the House to reject the Commerce, State, Justice bill that would include a Social Security bill that would allow just about complete trafficking in Social Security numbers without any real protections for ordinary Americans.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me begin by complimenting the Republicans in the House on their work on protecting Social Security numbers so that they are not trafficked in American commerce. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing for the United States Senate; and they have attached a rider to the legislation which, unfortunately, makes it possible for us to move this kind of Social Security information into national commerce. Now, the Committee on Ways and Means, led by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), has been doing a fabulous job in ensuring that the Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives in the House, where the liberal left meets the libertarian right, we are all going to do something to deal with the issue of Amy Boyer whose name was purchased for $45 by a stalker; created a Web site, this stalker; and then ultimately killed Amy Boyer using the Social Security which he purchased for $45. Now, I say to my colleagues, what are we talking about in this amendment that has come over from the Senate? We are talking about taking this concern and riddling it with loopholes. Now, every one of us gets a Social Security number when we are 16, when we are 17, in the United States, and this Social Security number increasingly has become our personal identifier. Now, what does it say on the back of the Social Security card? It says, ``Improper use of this card and/or number by the number-holder or any other person is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.'' Or both. Now, what does the bill before us do? It says it is going to help the problem about Amy Boyer. What does it do? It takes this protection which we have always had and it amends it. It amends it by doing this. It puts right here the word ``not.'' That is, it is not punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. It riddles it with exemptions. It says this: If you are a credit reporting agency, you are exempted from the restrictions of the bill. If you are a big bank, if you are a life insurance company or a Wall Street brokerage firm, you are exempt from the provisions. If you are a professional or commercial user, you can sell it to other businesses, but not to the general public. If you are a company engaged in any activity which the banking regulators have determined to be complementary to a financial activity, such as running a travel agency, you are exempt. You can sell the Social Security information. If you obtain someone's Social Security number from a public record, a driver's license, a court filing, a real estate document, you can sell it to anyone you want. What is left, I ask my colleagues? What protections will Americans have if we allow this kind of codification of basically trafficking in Social Security numbers in our country? Mr. Speaker, I regret that this bill is coming to the House floor today with a number of unrelated legislative ``riders'' attached to it. This is not the way Congress should conduct its business. Chief among these unrelated provisions are two problematic measures which have not gone through the normal legislative process. These two measures are those addressing low power FM radio as well as a measure establishing a program of loan guarantees for local television distribution for rural areas. The language addressing the rural loan guarantee program was developed solely by Republicans. I would have hoped that we could have developed a sound compromise--just as we did when the House originally passed this rural loan bill earlier this year. Unfortunately, the Republican majority has decided not to work with concerned Democrats to develop a more consensus bill. This is especially unfortunate because as I just mentioned the original version of the bill that passed the House back in April at least had been developed with both Republicans and Democrats at the table. From a procedural standpoint therefore the loan guarantee bill's appearance as a rider on the appropriations bill today on the House floor highly objectionable. The House had a bipartisan agreement on this measure the last time it was considered and the House Republicans seem willing to disrupt the compromise that had already been established--a provision which had both industry and consumer support. As for the substance of this new bill it departs from the original House bill and guts key provisions that were adopted in the Commerce Committee that instilled a preference for competition. This bill will not only run the risk of subsidizing large media companies who do not need taxpayer subsidies, it has now been changed so that incumbent cable companies who already provide local TV stations can get a taxpayer subsidy as well. This makes no sense as a public policy. Why on earth should incumbent cable companies get a subsidy to do that which they should be doing anyway--or that they already have plans to do with private capital? The legislative effort underway stems from the debate we had in the previous session of Congress on amendments to the Satellite Home Viewer Act which spurred the deployment of local-to-local service from direct to home satellite providers. Satellite-delivered local-to-local service promises to extend to millions of consumers much needed competition in the multichannel video marketplace. When Congress was considering legislation last year, it was clear that the two existing DBS companies would not be providing local-to- local service beyond the top markets in the most populated areas of the country. The legislation before us today was prompted by a desire to extend the local-to-local service that urban America was going to receive to rural communities as well. The effort to do so is built upon America's experience in extending electricity and phone service to rural towns and hamlets. I have long supported the universal service concept that ensures that the poor as well as rural Americans do not fall behind and that they can receive the basic essential services that more affluent, urban Americans do at affordable prices. The problem with this new version of the bill however is that it would permit taxpayer backed loans to go to incumbent companies. If people can already get local TV stations from a cable operator, then the government doesn't need to get involved to extend service to that area in the same way that we extended electricity and phone service to areas that otherwise wouldn't get it. The cable guy is already there. Consumers in that area, however, may understandably want an alternative to the cable operator, perhaps one they can use in conjunction with their satellite dish. If we are proposing to extend loan guarantees to provide alternatives to the local TV service rural consumers already receive from an incumbent, it makes zero sense in my view to permit the very same incumbents to be eligible for loans. If the incumbent monopoly already provides local TV stations to a community, then rural consumers in that community are choosing not to subscribe to that service for some reason. That reason is most likely price. Why would Congress ask these rural citizens for their taxpayer dollars to subsidize the only choice in town they don't want anyway? To do so would stand competitive telecommunications policy on its head--rather than addressing the lack of competition or lingering concern about affordable cable rates, we're proposing to allow the sole multichannel provider in a rural area a chance to solidify their position with help from the Federal government--and I might add without any obligation from the loan recipient to price the subsidized monopoly service to consumers affordably. I wish this loan guarantee provision had been handled differently. I wish we would have named conferees and worked out our disagreements with the Senate. We had all summer long to do so. We could have done it on a bipartisan basis. Instead, Democrats have not been fully included in the negotiations leading to this version of the bill and the provisions is a far worse measure than what passed the House previously. Here's the problem with the language in the current version of the bill. The language in the bill says: ``that no loan guarantee under this Act may be granted or used to provide funds for a project that extends, upgrades, or enhances the services provided over any cable system to an area that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, is covered by a cable franchise agreement that expressly obligates a cable system operator to serve such area.'' The original House bill did not require franchising authorities to have provisions in franchise agreements that ``expressly'' regulated able buildout schedules to serve all of the geographic areas of a franchise. This may significantly undercut the applicability of the prohibition on subsidizing incumbent companies because many franchise agreements may not have explicit build-out requirements. More importantly, the new version applies only to franchise agreements in effect as of the date of enactment of the Act. In other words, when the franchise agreement expires next month, or six months from now, or a year from now, an incumbent cable operator is eligible for taxpayer-backed loans under any ``new'' franchise--because it's not the one in effect on the date of enactment. It's a loophole. Tying the prohibition only to existing franchise agreements--which are of limited duration--essentially guts the prohibition for every expired or newly re-negotiated franchise agreement. Again, the House- passed version kept a preference for competition, had the acceptance of affected small cable operators in the industry, had the support of consumer groups, and established a broad consensus throughout the House. Today, the Senate-crafted language achieves none of those benefits. It's bad for competition, bad for consumers, and unfair to taxpayers. The Commerce, Justice, State bill also includes a provision delaying low power FM radio. This was a very controversial measure when the House considered it and I don't believe it is appropriate to attach it as a rider to this appropriations measure. We need to first keep in context that this new low power FM service comes in the aftermath of the rapid, and in my view, unhealthy consolidation of radio properties across this nation. Before the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the maximum number of radio stations that an individual could own in a local market was 2 FM and 2 AM stations, and nationally, a person could own up to 40 radio stations. Right now the top 4 radio groups own 512 stations, 443 stations, 248 stations, and 163 stations respectively, and assuming its pending merger gets approved, Clear Channel will own over 800 radio stations nationally. The low power FM bill is a modest effort to bring new voices into our media mix, in a community-oriented, non-commercial service. The Federal Communications Commission is always at its best when it takes the public's airwave resources and works to make more efficient use of that spectrum for the public. The effort underway is to supplement what already exists, not supplant or interfere in any harmful way with existing services. The stated reason for bringing this bill to the floor today is fear of harmful interference. We're not talking about interference on home stereo systems, nor about interference concerns for car radios, where there is consensus that there will be little to no harm . . . . but rather, potentially harmful interference--within a small area--perhaps for clock radios or portable walkman-style radios. Usually when there are disputes about frequency interference we defer to the FCC. This is the job, after all, that the FCC has been doing, and doing well, for decades. The Commission is in the process of addressing many of the concerns raised about interference and has announced plans to receive applications for the service initially in 10 States. As low power FM is deployed we will know whether there is harmful interference because consumers will let us know. Since the late 1960s, some 300 radio stations around the country have operated within the 3rd adjacent channel proposed for low power FM. These ``close proximity'' stations were grandfathered in 1997 by the FCC. We didn't have any hearings about it, we didn't hear a peep from a single broadcaster about interference issues, and I don't remember a single Member of Congress or a consumer raising concerns about interference issues from any of those stations--which, as opposed to the proposed service, are full power radio stations. In short, I don't think we need legislation in this area at all, either to stop the program or to belabor FCC engineers to study over and over again a technology that is the oldest and most familiar service to them. This isn't rocket science or some new whiz-bang technologically-sophisticated service or a hitherto unutilized frequency allocation . . . . it's just radio. If people have concerns, the FCC can continue to look into resolving them. If serious problems do in fact arise from the new service, there are already existing remedies at the Commission to address interference issues. I would prefer that the House put this legislation on the back burner, let the Commission do its job, and return to this legislative proposal at a later date, when and if it's necessary. I urge members to vote ``no'' on this bill. There are some 300 stations around the country--high power radio stations--that were grandfathered in 1997 and have operated many of them since the late 1960s within the 2nd and 3rd adjacent channel limits. Who complains about those stations? No one has ever come up to me to complain about harmful interference on WBCN Boston, WMJX Boston or any of the 15 stations in Massachusetts that operate within these limits on HIGH POWER stations. It's inconceivable that low power stations really pose a threat here. Around the country there are other stations operating in these limits without provoking consumer reaction--such as: KCBS in Los Angeles; KLAX in Long Beach California; KBCD in Newport Beach California; KYCY in San Francisco. . . . Or any of the 50 high power radio stations in California, or The 24 stations in Illinois, or The 25 radio stations in North Carolina, or The 28 radio stations in Ohio, or The 24 in New York and 17 in New Jersey and so on that today operate within the so-called 3rd adjacent channel. There aren't any complaints. If there's a concern about interference from low power stations--shouldn't the legislation also analyze the logically more apparent interference from these high power stations? The bill doesn't ask the Commission to look at those stations however. Why? Because they are incumbents. They already got theirs. This legislation is unnecessary and again, if harmful interference does arise in a particular area, the Commission has a long history with radio and a long history of mitigating interference affects. There are other problems in this bill. I have spent considerable time talking about how this bill would strip the American people of their privacy protections. Well the appropriators didn't stop there. They decided to see what protections they could strip from our national parks as well. Tucked way down in this bill is an exemption for Cuyahoga Valley National Park. The exemption would keep this national park from being afforded the highest possible clean air standards allowed under the Clean Air Act. Let me remind you, we just designated this area as a national park in the Interior Bill we passed a few weeks ago. So this Congress thinks the best way to protect our natural resources is to designate a national park one week and strip away its protections the next. That's like buying a brand new car that has all the latest safety features: an airbag, motion detection systems, and the best seatbelts. Then just before you let your son drive it, you drain all the brake fluid. That's not the way to make your car safe. But that's how this Congress wants to protect your national parks.