Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will make this point. The United States Telephone Association has never contacted me, the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection on this issue. There has never been a hearing where consumers or the States or the National Retail Association have been allowed to testify, and I think all Members should know that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana for a response to that request.

Mr. MARKEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman if he would grant a hearing before the conference is completed.

Mr. MARKEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose the question again. We have never had a hearing where consumer groups and the States have been able to testify on this issue. So I ask for a hearing not where the telephone monopolies are allowed to testify with their unhappiness with this accounting system that caught them bilking the public but rather with the consumer groups and the others who are also allowed to testify.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my good friend Pete Stark today as we introduce a comprehensive long-term care bill. Pete and I have been concerned about the long-term care needs of seniors, near-seniors, and the disabled for quite some time--and Pete has been a real leader on this issue in the Congress. In the remarks Rep. Stark has made for the Record, he gives an excellent summary of our bill. We hope that our bill begins to get Congress and the American people focused on the issue of long-term care because doing something about people's long-term care needs will be one of our Nation's biggest challenges in the next century. This bill contains a number of important provisions. It's got a $1,000 refundable tax credit for family caregiver expenses. The legislation makes some changes to Medicare which will result in the program being more useful to beneficiaries with chronic care needs that are best met in the home or in adult day care and other community-based settings. We clarify the definition of homebound. We've got provisions to enhance and ensure that our Nation's nursing homes are top-notch. We also incorporate President Clinton's proposal permitting Federal employees to buy long-term care insurance at group rates through the Office of Personnel Management and require that a plan be developed to allow all Americans to buy these types of policies--all the while paying special attention to the highest consumer protection standards. We have adopted the President's proposal to create a family caregiver support program through grants to the States. Our bill will extend Medicare eligibility to family caregivers who are qualified to receive the tax credit. And finally, we protect family caregivers who must leave the workforce to care for a loved one by making them eligible for Social Security credits to protect their retirement income. This legislation is not perfect. We will need to iron out some kinks along the way. But it is a beginning. It will be expensive and we don't specify from where the money will come. Earlier this year, I proposed the 2 Percent Solution--using 2 percent of the projected future budget surplus to fund a long-term care program for in-home and community- based chronic care and respite care. I offered the proposal as an amendment in the Budget Committee and every Republican voted against it--a party line vote. The Republicans needed every penny they could find to pay for $800 billion in tax cuts. Surely, we can do better. This problem is not going to go away. One of the greatest American achievements of the 20th century has been our ability to increase life expectancy. From the dawn of time to the year 1900, the average life expectancy in the United States was 47 years. Over the last 99 years, we have nearly doubled the life expectancy of Americans. We have done so with a massive infusion of Federal research dollars, and through thoughtful and compassionate programs that provide health care for millions of Americans--Medicaid and Medicare. What of the quality of that longer life however? I believe we have a moral obligation to ensure that people who are living longer are not living sicker and poorer. Today, Alzheimer's Disease is on track to wreak havoc on our nation's health care system and leave millions of American families in emotional and financial ruin. The disease affects over 4 million people nationwide and will affect as many as 14 million by 2050. Alzheimer's patients will symptomatically lose ability to perform routine tasks, and suffer impaired judgment, personality change and loss of language and communication skills. More than 7 out of 10 people with this disease live at home. Their caregivers are not wealthy, yet they spend on average $12,500 per year to support the person with Alzheimer's they are caring for. They work hard, but often must leave, reduce, or change employment to care for their loved ones. Ninety percent of Alzheimer's caregivers are giving care to a relative, and an overwhelming majority, 75 percent, of caregivers are women. Studies have shown that the typical family caregiver is in her 70's and has two chronic health problems. Of course, the real tragedy of Alzheimer's is the human cost associated with the disease--it ravages patients and caregivers. For millions, being an Alzheimer caregiver means giving up more hours for more years and more money. It means less time, less energy, and fewer resources for other family members, for dear friends, and for the caregivers themselves. Alzheimer's is now the third most expensive disease in our country after heart disease and cancer, and yet the federal commitment to Alzheimer's research is three to five times less than the commitment the government has made to research on those other diseases. Last year, I led the effort to have Congress increase Alzheimer's funding at NIH by $100 million--we got $50 million. This year I'm working to increase that funding by $100 million again. Alzheimer's Disease is only part of the problem, however. We have a chronic care crisis in our country today. Without a coherent and comprehensive approach to care for people with disabling chronic conditions, this situation will only worsen. People with chronic diseases and disabilities will continue to suffer the consequences of deteriorating health if a strategy is not implemented to meet their long-term care needs. As part of that strategy, we must recognize that there are thousands of spouses and other family members struggling to provide care for their loved ones in their homes each year. A new study in the latest issue of Health Affairs estimates the current market value of unpaid caregiving to adults who are disabled or chronically ill to be nearly $200 billion a year. These family caregivers are heroes--they fill a virtual ``no care zone'' where loved ones have no chronic care coverage but still have chronic care needs that require monitoring, oversight, and assistance. The cuts passed as part of the Balanced Budget Act have had a devastating impact on real people's lives. In my district, one hospital has closed and two have been radically altered--one of them became a ``hospial without beds'' performing only outpatient day surgeries and closing its emergency room and maternity ward. Home health agencies and community health centers are closing. And the community hospital system serving my hometown of Malden and the surrounding communities has slashed its home health visits from 470,000 in 1997 to 332,000 in 1998 and they estimate only 260,000 for 1999. 1,400 patients have been cut from the system's home health care roster. The Congressional Budget Office is having a hard time explaining the remarkably slow rate of growth in Medicare. At the same time, the CBO has drastically miscalculated the level of Medicare cuts attributable to the Balanced Budget Act. The CBO now predicts that the BBA will result in $207 billion in ``Medicare savings'' over the 1997-2002 period, nearly double its August 1997 estimate of $112 billion. The collapse of Medicare growth will result, in budget terms, in over $63 billion in unanticipated savings in the next three years. These unanticipated savings should be redirected to their unintended victims. Our plan will help to alleviate some of the pain caused by the BBA and ease the burdens of patients and families affected by conditions like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Congestive Heart Failure, Multiple Sclerosis, Cerebral Palsy, Spinal Cord Injury, Muscular Dystrophy, and Stroke to name a few. Our bill will help these caregivers in many different ways--through refundable tax credits, and a change in Medicare to better meet beneficiaries' chronic care needs at home or in adult day care and other community-based settings to name just a few. This legislation is not perfect. But it is a beginning. It will be expensive--but I think there is a compelling argument to be made that long-term care needs to be at the top of our priority list. In 1995, Republicans were prepared to let Medicare ``wither on the vine.'' In 1997, in the mad rush to pass the BBA the Republicans said Medicare is too expensive, and by the way, we need to cut it to pay for a tax cut. So in 1997 they chose Millionaires over Medicare. Earlier this year, I proposed the 2 percent Solution--using 2 percent of the projected future budget surplus to fund a long-term care program for in-home and community-based chronic care and respite care. I offered the proposal as an amendment in the Budget Committee and every Republican voted against it--they said covering long-term care through Medicare is too expensive, and by the way, we need every penny to pay for $800 billion in tax cuts. So, despite a soaring economy that's filling the pockets of the wealthy, and despite the fact that the Republicans gave them a Balanced Budget Bonus in 1997, the 1999 atrocity is their choice of Billionaires over Beneficiaries. What's worse, in 10 years, just as the first wave of baby boomers is set to retire--the price tag for the second 10 years of this year's Republican tax cut will explode to nearly $3 trillion. Surely, we can do better. We have entered a new era in Washington--an era with surplus as far as the eye can see--an era when the stock market is soaring, unemployment is at record lows, and American prosperity is unparalleled in the world. We can afford to give America's caregiver heroes help-- Pete Stark and I have a plan which will send the message to these heroes that help is on the way. I am pleased to join in introducing this bill today. Rep. Stark and I will be devoting a lot of time and energy recruiting members who care deeply about the long-term care crisis in our country--together we will be working on solutions for patients, for caregivers, and for families managing the impact of chronic and disabling conditions on their everyday lives. We look forward to working with our colleagues in the weeks and months to come building the coalition and passing legislation to bridge the gap between need and coverage for people suffering from chronic illness and disability in our country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to transfer control of the remaining time of the Committee on Commerce minority to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of that full committee.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the LaFalce motion to instruct the House conferees. With this legislation the Congress will be breaking down the Glass-Steagall walls that long have restricted limited affiliations between banks, securities firms and insurance companies and allow these financial services institutions to merge and to affiliate with one another. I support this effort. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) supports this effort. This is not really what we are debating here today. The great truth, however, of finance in the information age is that it is the telecommunication wires that have re-shaped the financial services industry. It is the telecommunications revolution which has made possible this global financial revolution. It is this telecommunications revolution which makes it possible for the first time to really bring together all of these various services in a way that can serve individuals and nations much more efficiently than they ever have in the past. But, as I have said before, there is a Dickensian quality to this wire. It is the best of wires, and it is the worst of wires simultaneously. Yes, it can make the banking and insurance and brokerage industries more efficient, but yes, at the same time it can also compromise the privacy of every single family in the United States. The LaFalce motion to instruct says that the conferees shall ensure, consistent with the scope of the conference, that consumers have the strongest consumer financial privacy protections possible, including protections against the misuse of confidential information and inappropriate marketing practices. The conferees must also ensure that consumers receive notice and the right to say no when a financial institution wishes to disclose a consumer's nonpublic personal information for use in telemarketing, direct marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail. Now I ask my colleagues what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that? Second, the motion instructs the House conferees to ensure that consumers have the strongest medical privacy protections possible and thereby prevent financial institutions from disclosing or making unrelated uses of health and medical and genetic information without the consent of their customers and strike the flawed Ganske language that would weaken protections under current State or federal laws or regulations. Finally, the motion by the gentleman from New York, the LaFalce motion, instructs the House conferees to ensure that consumers enjoy the benefits of comprehensive financial modernization. These are critical issues that need to be properly addressed. There are tremendous opportunities for innovation and for entrepreneurship in finances, banking moves online. But we have a difference that is developing between the privacy keepers, on the one hand, and the information reapers on the other. The CEO of Capital One Financial recently noted, credit cards are not banking, they are information. And the data miners fully intend to exploit their access to and control of consumer personal information for fun and for profit. We believe that is wrong. We believe that the LaFalce instructions are critical to ensuring that, as we move forward with all of the new efficiencies in the financial services world, that we also ensure that we are protecting individuals against those that might seek to take advantage of it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, last year legislation overhauling the Internal Revenue Service included a provision changing the term Most Favored Nation trading status to Normal Trade Relations. Apparently, supporters of MFN for China decided that changing the name would make this debate go away. The debate is the same. Only the names have been changed in order to protect the guilty. And make no mistake about it, the People's Republic of China is guilty. They are guilty of stealing American nuclear weapons secrets. They are guilty of proliferating weapons of mass destruction around the world. They are guilty of gross violations of human rights. They are guilty of a wide array of unfair trade practices. China has already been convicted in the court of public opinion. The question is, what is this Congress going to do in response to China's reckless behavior? Are we going to extend Normal Trade Relations for another year, or are we going to stop business as usual until China reforms its ways? Let us look at Beijing's proliferation rap sheet. They refuse to join international efforts to stem proliferation of nuclear arms, continue to transfer advanced ballistic missile technology to Syria and to Pakistan; and they provide nuclear and chemical weapons technology to Iran, and they refuse to comply with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. The Central Intelligence Agency has reported in February of this year that China remains a key supplier of technology inconsistent with nonproliferation goals. Mr. Speaker, the only thing that will really make them reexamine this behavior is if this Congress actually denies them Most Favored Nation, Normal Trade Relations. Let us not forget that we already have a $60 billion trade deficit with them. Only Japan exceeds it, and that will not last for long. They continue to engage in proliferation activities; they continue to engage in human rights violations. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this disapproval motion.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Salmon-Udall amendment. Our future is literally blowing in the wind. Wind and other renewable energy sources are a great investment in our nation's energy future. Solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy technologies can: (1) reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels; (2) reduce long-run energy costs to consumers and businesses; (3) create new industries to supply both he U.S. an foreign energy markets; and (4) reduce emissions which create smog acid rain, mercury poisoning, energy markets; and (4) reduce emissions which create smog, acid rain, mercury poisoning, and global climate change. The federal government continues to spend more on fossil fuels, a mature industry that does not need our support, than on renewable energy. We spend almost as much on nuclear energy as on renewables, both for dying fission technologies and for fusion research that is still decades from viability. We need to fund the future, not subsidize the past. Renewable energy sources are especially important for our environment, as an environmentally benign and sustainable energy alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power. Today we rely on fossil fuels for 88% of total energy use; oil alone accounts for nearly 40% of our energy, of which 60% is imported crude oil. Our fossil fuel power plants alone spew out 12 millions tons of sulfur dioxide, 7 million tons of nitrogen oxides, and 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year. Cars and airplanes emit similar amounts of pollutants. Energy consumption is rising due to economic growth. Even with an aggressive energy conservation effort, we will need new energy sources. We must invest in alternative technologies now if we are to increase the role renewables play in meeting our nation's energy needs and are to avoid further environmental destruction. Fortunately, renewable technologies have been steadily dropping in price and are on the verge of making a major contribution to our energy supply. Right now, these emerging technologies are limited to niche markets, but ongoing research has cut their costs so that they are almost competitive with fossil fuels, even neglecting the huge environmental costs as fossil fuels: Wind energy, for example, cost almost 50 cents per kilowatt hour in 1980. Today, the cost of wind energy is around 4 cents, very close to the cost of conventional generation, and is still dropping. Solar thermal costs have dropped from 60 cents per kilowatt hour in 1980 to 13 cents today. Solar photovoltaic costs have dropped from over 100 cents per kilowatt hour in 1980 to 20 cents in 1996. Turning our backs on the R&D program needed to achieve the necessary breakthroughs that will make solar, wind and other renewables fully viable and competitive would be like shepherding a baseball team through eight innings and just walking away in the bottom of the ninth. The Energy and Water Appropriations bill would slash DOE funding for renewables from the current funding level of $36 million down to $326 million. The Appropriations Committee cut $120 million, 27%, from the President's budget. Unless we boost the funding, we will devastate DOE programs aimed at creating vibrant, fully competitive U.S. renewable industries. The bill's proposed cuts in renewables funding would severely delay adoption of solar, geotherman, and wind energy technologies. Most economists agree there is at east a 10-year window between the time a technology is first ready for the market and the time the market is ready for the technology. But sometimes, that window is even wider. For example, the telephone was discovered in 1875, but not commercialized until 1915. Television was discovered in 1917, but not commercialized until 1946. Telefax was discovered in 1913, but fax machines weren't commercialized until 1974. Right now, the fledgling renewables technologies industries find themselves in the same position. If we fail to fund renewable energy R&D, the invention-commercialization window could become a multi-decade ``window of vulnerability'' for U.S. energy consumers. The Salmon-Udall amendment would restore some funding for renewables. The amendment is fully offset from contractor travel, so it does not take this bill over the budget allocation. It will however, allow DOE to continue providing vitally-needed funding for solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energy sources, so that America is not held hostage to future oil embargoes or a lack of technological options. I urge my colleague to support the Salmon-Udall amendment.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we know where the money for this tax cut is coming from. More than two-thirds of this tax cut has been transferred from programs that were put on a starvation diet by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which included hospital cuts, cuts to home health care and visiting nurses, and cuts in Medicare benefits. The Republican moderates who are going to vote for this bill know it is a bad bill. They know it is bad for the country. But they are going to vote for it anyway, with their eyes wide shut. Today, we are learning what the real definition of a Republican moderate is. It is an extremist who feels guilty about it. This bill is a backloaded, budget-busting, billionaire bonanza. Yes, we have a surplus, but if we vote for this tax cut, we will be plunging the United States Congress into a deep moral deficit. We owe this money to people on Medicare, we owe it to people on Social Security, we owe it to people on home health care, we do not owe this money to the wealthiest 1 percent in our country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Cigars Are No Safe Alternative Act of 1999, legislation which is similar to a bill I introduced during the 105th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for the report it is releasing today which reveals dramatic increases in sales, advertising, marketing and promotion of cigars in 1996 and 1997. The FTC Report confirms my worst suspicions that despite serious and deadly health risks, cigar use is up dramatically in the United States over the last five years. Cigar consumption has skyrocketed by 57% from 1993 to 1998. Advertising and marketing budgets grew by 32% over the two years studied--and every expenditure category saw a substantial increase--newspaper advertising grew by a whopping 254%. This comes on top of the February 1999 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services that, ``cigars are an emerging public health risk.'' It can not be put more plainly: Cigars are not a safe alternative to cigarettes and it's time to clear the smoky haze regarding this deadly product. The legislation I am introducing today, the Cigars Are No Safe Alternative Act of 1999, will prohibit the sale and distribution of cigars to any individual who is under the age of 18. It will impose restrictions on the sale and advertising of cigars directed at youth, and eliminate cigar advertising on electronic media. It will encourage cigar manufacturers to end the practice of paying for, or participating in cigar product placements in movies and on television where a substantial segment of the viewing audience is under the age of 18 by requiring them to report on each such payment as it occurs. And it will direct the FTC to require warning labels on cigars to warn cigar users about the health risks presented by cigars. The CANSA Act will also require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to conduct a study on the health effects of occasional cigar smoking, nicotine dependence among cigar smokers, biological uptake of carcinogenic constituents of cigars, and environmental cigar smoke exposure. It will further require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to report to Congress on the sales, marketing, and advertising practices associated with cigars--essentially updates to the report the FTC released today. And finally, the Secretary of HHS, acting in cooperation with the FDA, the FTC, and the Department of Treasury, will be required to monitor trends in youth access to, and use of, cigars and notify Congress of the results. Cigar regulations are the orphan of our government's tobacco control policy. And the trends on sales and marketing are getting worse, not better. The dangers associated with cigars must be exposed just as intensely as those associated with cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. Cigars should not be glamorized, they should be recognized as deadly health threats. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned that among adolescents, cigars are being perceived as more glamorous and less dangerous than cigarettes. A 1997 CDC Youth Risk Behavior Survey revealed that over 30 percent of high school boys and over 10 percent of high school girls had smoked a cigar in the month before the survey was done. Those numbers are very troubling, and I am hopeful that the legislation I am filing today will drive home the point that cigars are not a safe alternative to cigarettes, period. Cigars emit greater amounts of tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide, and substantially higher amounts of ammonia and a number of other cancer causing agents than cigarettes emit. Congress must apply the same standard to cigars as it does to cigarettes with respect to youth access and marketing and advertising restrictions, and ensure that teenagers are not seduced by the cigar industry's slick and sophisticated marketing strategy--through magazines like ``Cigar Aficionado'' and others. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Cigars Are No Safe Alternative Act of 1999.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding this time to me, and I rise obviously with great respect for the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and obviously with some ambivalence since I am opposing their position and the position of an administration that is headed by a party of which I am a member. So this is not an easy issue, and without question this administration has done much good work on the subject of nonproliferation, but here I think it is important for us to clearly differentiate North Korea from other areas of the world where progress is definable, where progress is being made. Let us suppose a country spent decades and vast amounts of money to develop nuclear weapons while its people starved. Let us suppose that it signed a series of international agreements and then broke them and that it threatened our allies. Let us suppose that while signing and breaking nuclear agreements it went on developing ballistic missiles that could reach U.S. territory and went on transferring missile technology to other countries. Would we agree to provide that country with nuclear materials and technology? Surprisingly, the answer is yes. North Korea has signed a nuclear nonproliferation treaty and then refused to carry out its treaty obligations and threatened to withdraw from the agreement. It has signed an agreement with South Korea not to develop nuclear weapons or reprocessing and then continued to make plutonium. It has signed a safeguards accord with the International Atomic Energy Agency and then blocked the IAEA inspections of its facilities. And, after agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons, North Korea has ramped up its ballistic missile program. It is expected soon to test a missile that might be able to reach the West Coast of the United States. These missiles have only one purpose: to be able to deliver nuclear weapons. And, North Korea is spreading this technology around. In the last few weeks, 177 crates of equipment for making missiles were intercepted on route from North Korea to Pakistan. Yet, in 1994, the United States signed an agreement with North Korea to provide them advanced nuclear technology and to assist them in the building of two nuclear power plants. This action was intended to provide incentives to North Korea to abandon their nuclear weapons program. But what if they again do not live up to their commitments? What do we do then? Madam Chairman, this bipartisan amendment has a simple premise. The United States should not help North Korea to develop nuclear weapons. We should assist North Korea in obtaining nuclear power plants only if they actually implement their side of the bargain. Specifically, they must give the International Atomic Energy Agency full on-site access to verify that they are not using nuclear plants to assist a nuclear weapons program, as they agreed to do in 1992. Second, they must comply with nuclear treaties they have signed with South Korea in 1991 and with the United States in 1994. And finally, they must end their nuclear weapons program. This amendment does not raise the bar set by the agreement with North Korea, but just ensures that it stays in place. This amendment also would require the active consent of Congress before the U.S. ships nuclear technology to North Korea. Too often the executive branch decisions on nuclear exports have been heavily influenced by commercial or extraneous diplomatic issues. Under current law, nuclear cooperation agreements must be submitted to Congress, but they automatically take effect unless both parties pass a joint resolution within 90 days. Congress has never voted to disapprove a nuclear cooperation agreement. Indeed, most of the time Congress has never even cast a vote before the clock runs out. Recently, the administration brought into effect an agreement allowing nuclear exports to China, despite evidence of continued covert Chinese nuclear assistance to Pakistan and Iran. Despite efforts of opponents of this agreement to block it, supporters were able to run out the congressional clock. We think that Congress should actively consider the wisdom of giving nuclear technology to North Korea, not simply allow an agreement to slip by. We should have a vote in this body and in the Senate before we send sensitive nuclear technology to North Korea; and before we vote, we should assure ourselves that North Korea is meeting the requirements of its agreements with the United States, and of the United States nonproliferation laws. It would certainly be better to have foreign light-water nuclear reactors producing electricity in North Korea than indigenous graphite reactors that produce more weapons material and are not even hooked up to the electricity grid. But it makes absolutely no sense to provide North Korea with any nuclear technologies if they will use our assistance to make nuclear weapons, or if they accept the assistance and then proceed to thumb their noses at international nonproliferation norms. We should not help a country get weapons that could explode in our face. We should send a strong message to North Korea that we will not provide nuclear assistance unless they live up to their commitments to end their nuclear weapons program. Madam Chairman, I urge a strong ``aye'' vote for the Gilman-Markey amendment to limit the spread of nuclear materials on this planet.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that an expedited procedure is something that needs to be supported.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, more than two-thirds of this extravagant bauble of a tax cut has been unceremoniously transferred from programs that were put on a starvation diet in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which included hospital cuts, cuts to home health care and visiting nurses, and cuts to Medicare benefits. That is why we have this surplus. Do the Republicans say, let us now replenish home health care? Let us now replenish Medicare? No. This is the pluperfect form of the Republican Robin Hood in reverse. The wealthiest Americans get huge tax breaks, and the vast majority of ordinary people get nothing. No money for Medicare, no money for Social Security, no money for over-crowded schools, no money for the environment. Our Republican reverse Robin Hoods could not be more proud. It is tax cuts for the wealthy and nothing for the unhealthy, and the longer we go, the worse it is going to get.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, weatherization is without question one of the most important programs that this country has. We have a finite amount of natural resources on this planet. It is not likely that we are going to continue to find new North Slopes, that we are going to find new hits off of Mexico, that we are going to find new sources of energy in Kazakhstan. Yes, there will be additional discoveries. But the reality is that, as much as we want to see additions to the overall supply of natural gas and oil in the world, that the real North Slopes, the new Gulfs of Mexico, the new Kazakhstans are in each one of our homes, in each one of our automobiles. The more efficient that we make each home, the more efficient that we make each automobile, each refrigerator, each stove is the more energy that we are able to live without because we do not have to import that oil, we do not have to discover that new natural gas strike. That is what the weatherization program is all about at its heart. It is ensuring that we reduce as much as possible the amount of energy which we consume in this country. Those are the great new strikes that we are going to make, the new wells that we are going to dig. They will be in each home in America, in each automobile, in each appliance. So this program which has been without question an unmitigated success over the last generation is something which is critical. The Sanders amendment ensures that this program continues, that we do not run into the technical difficulties, the funding difficulties which clearly are going to manifest themselves if the underlying language in this bill is allowed to stand. It is critical for our country that we have a clear understanding of our path to energy independence. It is largely going to be because we become more energy efficient, because we understand that there was an artificially high consumption of energy which was in fact indulged in by our Nation when we believed that there were unlimited sources of energy at that point into the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. But we have learned our lesson. Now, in this era in which we have found that we are going to run a $5-trillion surplus over the next 15 years, I think that this is one program that we should keep intact. It is relatively modest. It deals with a segment of the population which is not responsive to larger economic forces because of the income level in the families. It clearly is a last place discretionary expenditure which families would make in the absence of some kind of Federal program. I think that, for us, we would be wise to continue this program as it has been put on the books and to support the Sanders amendment today. This is basically working smarter, not harder. It is understanding that by using our minds, giving resources to the poorer people in our society that we can reduce our overall dependence upon imported oil in our country. I urge a very strong ``aye'' vote on behalf of the Sanders amendment here on the floor today. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The Weatherization Assistance Program serves a dual purpose. It provides health and economic benefits to the poor, by assisting in keeping low-income homes warm. And it improves the environment by reducing energy loss from those homes. The program achieves these benefits in an efficient and effective manner in cooperation with local groups experienced in on- the-ground work. Funding from the Weatherization Assistance Program is used along with other funds to weatherize roughly 200,000 homes each year. This work is especially important in Massachusetts and other states that face harsh winters; last year $3.8 million went to assist low-income homes in Massachusetts. Yet this bill would attack this program by requiring all states to match the federal funds with specific contributions. Most states already use Weatherization Assistance Program funds to leverage variety of other federal, state, and private funding. However, many states could not meet the additional requirements in the bill, leaving no weatherization services available for the poor in those states. The amendment sponsored by Mr. Sanders would restore the program to its current status and allow it to continue in all states. I strongly support this amendment to continue to promote energy efficiency and assist low-income areas, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rahall-Shays-Inslee amendment. The Senate Committee on Appropriations has included an anti- environmental, anti-taxpayer rider offered by Senator Larry Craig in its version of the Interior appropriations bill that would allow all hard-rock mines operating on public lands, retroactively and prospectively, to claim as much public land as a mining company deems necessary to store mining waste. The mining company decides how much land it needs, public land. Now, why do they call it a rider? Where does that come from? An anti- environmental rider. What that means is that this is a vehicle, a horse, something that is moving. And the rider jumps on board something that is legitimate, and it holds on. It is a rider on something it does not belong on. They should not be legislating, putting a rider on an appropriations bill, changing the 1872 Mining Law. That is a big legislative debate out here on the floor. God knows, the mining industry has known how to kill all mining reform in my 24 years in Congress. It must come as a shock to them that they are forced now, once there is one favorable interpretation of the mining law that helps the environment, that they are out here on the floor, not even going through the regular legislative process, but rather trying to put a rider on a bill that does not even belong on. So what we are trying to do here today is knock that anti- environmental rider, knock that anti-taxpayer rider out of the appropriations process. It does not belong on this bill. We should not be debating such a fundamental change. What we are talking about here today is something called the Crown Jewel Mine at Buckhorn Mountain in eastern Washington State. We are talking about the Crown Jewel Mine as a rider, as something that does not belong on an appropriations bill. Something as central as that. And what will it allow to happen? It will allow tons of rock from the mountain, which would be placed on huge uncovered leach pads where cyanide would percolate down through the soil to remove the gold from the rock. Cyanide. That is what we are talking about. When the mining industry finally decides that it wants to legislate, since 1872, it picks one great subject to put the rider on, cyanide leaching into the land of our country. So, my colleagues, that is what the Craig rider is all about. The rider was attached to the Senate version of the bill after the Departments of Interior and Agriculture released a joint decision earlier this year denying the large open-pit cyanide-leach gold mine in Washington State. The government told the mining industry that it could not steal the public's crown jewels, its public lands and its public resources in order to dig the mining industry's Crown Jewel cyanide leach Pit Mine. The government has been able to lock up, to block the Crown Jewel Mine only because of the millsite waste dumping limitation, which is the only provision of the 1872 Mining Law which protects the environment. It is the only provision in the whole law which protects the environment. And, of course, it is the only provision over the last 20 or 30 years that the mining industry wants to see any legislation considered here on the floor. In addition, the amendment would also effectively limit taxpayer liability for cleaning up the waste when and if mining companies go bankrupt, a not-too-infrequent occurrence, by the way, in the United States. There are 500,000 plus abandoned mines around the country, and the taxpayers' cleanup bill for these mines is $30 to $70 billion, $30 to $70 billion to clean up these mines. The Rahall amendment protects against it. My colleagues, let us reject the mining industry's attempts to attach these anti-environmental riders to the Interior appropriations bill. Let us prevent our Nation's public lands from being turned into toxic waste dumps. Let us vote for the Rahall-Shays-Inslee amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The Weatherization Assistance Program serves a dual purpose. It provides health and economic benefits to the poor, by assisting in keeping low- income homes warm. And it improves the environment by reducing energy loss from those homes. The program achieves these benefits in an efficient and effective manner in cooperation with local groups experienced in on-the-ground work. Funding from the Weathernization Assistance Program is used to leverage other federal and non-federal funds to weatherize roughly 200,000 homes each year. This work is especially important in Massachusetts and other states that face harsh winters; last year $3.8 million went to assist low-income homes in Massachusetts. The amendment sponsored by Mr. Sanders would provide an additional $13 million to this program, which would only restore it to last year's funding level. I strongly support restoring the funding for this excellent program. I do, however, regret that the sponsors of this amendment have chosen to take the money from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is intended to serve the same consumers by ensuring a steady supply of oil in a crisis. Particularly for many low-income residents in the Northeast, adequate and reasonably priced oil supplies are crucial both for transportation and for winter heating. In recent years some of the petroleum reserve has been sold off for budgetary reasons. It is very important to fund the reserve adequately, and I hope that if this amendment passes, members will seek more appropriate offsets in conference. Despite this reservation, I strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with instructions.

Mr. MARKEY. Yes, I am opposed to the bill in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, could the Chair tell me how much time is remaining.