Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Reclaiming my time, I do not have my information wrong. In fact, as the gentleman knows, the DOE has not even decided whether or not they want to use this technology at all. The gentleman is substituting his own scientific judgment for that of the Department of Energy. Moreover, we are not even talking about the reprocessing of the spent fuel from the 40 years of the cold war. So what is at the heart, as the gentleman knows, is the plan to reuse this fuel in a civilian context. It is a source of fuel that could be used. The Clinch River Breeder Reactor was originally intended for that purpose. This technology ultimately has the same purpose. It is nothing more than a second generation of that same objective. So, the DOE says that it will, in fact, cost $85 billion if we do reprocessing for spent fuel from civilian reactors. Eighty-five billion dollars is the number of the Department of Energy. There is no way we are going to spend that kind of money. This is a civilian pork barrel project that blows a hole through our nonproliferation policy.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the occasion of the national conference in Washington of We the People * * * the Citizen and the Constitution to congratulate the teachers and educational administrators who have participated in and led this highly effective program. We the People * * * the Citizen and the Constitution is a program of the Center for Civil Education, and is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. The program teaches the principles of the U.S. Constitution. It does so by engaging students at the upper elementary, middle, and high school levels in group research, study and debate on the central issues and questions which shaped our Constitution. Marie Gosnell is a ninth grade civics teacher at Medford High School. Her honors class presented their hearing project to parents and teachers this past May after finishing six units of the We the People * * * national curriculum. Mrs. Gosnell finds it to be, ``among the most exciting programs, involving students deeply, preparing them for citizenship, and giving them a rich understanding of why our government functions as it does.'' We the People is an example of how coordination and consultation among Federal and State education officials and teachers can [[Page E 1331]] produce a national program which addresses the fundamental issues of civics education. The excitement generated by this program should be emphasized, especially in the face of recent attacks by some groups on the Department of Education and on any national educational coordination or standards in the name of local control. The program also builds links between public officials, businesses, parents, educators, and students. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the late Warren Burger, called it ``one of the most extensive and effective programs for the education of young Americans about our constitutional system of government and the principles and values it represents.'' I and members of my staff have visited schools to support the program's goal of directly involving legislators. Once again, I congratulate the organizers, teachers and students of the We the People program.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the French Government has announced that they are going to resume nuclear testing in the South Pacific. This is a terrible precedent to be setting for the [[Page H 6086]] rest of the world as we try to encourage the Third World nations of this planet to back away from the nuclear weapons option. But worse, the United States Government has now begun the process themselves of following this French fashion of the season and going back to a nuclear testing regime. Nothing could be worse for the United States and for this world than if we ourselves set that poor example of testing nuclear weapons and, in fact, encouraging dozens of Third World countries across this planet to emulate us. There is a very idealistic and practical set of objectives which this country should be seeking to achieve as nuclear nonproliferation and biological weapons proliferation becomes the single greatest danger to peace and security on this planet.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying this. Using the words of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], Massachusetts does not have a dog in this fight. This is not a battle that I certainly have any interest in. My only problem with this whole debate is that after a day of sanctifying the whole concept of procurement reform just 2 days ago, we now come back out here on the floor and we allow for a single Member to earmark a specific technology that does not even exist to be the exclusive way that we are going to produce one of the most important defense technologies in our country. Now, we keep hearing about a 3-in-1 technology. It is good for plutonium. It is good for electricity. It is good for this. It is good for that. It sounds like you are listening to an ad for a chopomatic at 3 a.m. in the morning on channel 43. This technology does not exist. And, in fact, although we are talking about $50 million out here, the truth is it triggers $6 billion worth of reactor that has to be built. By the way, a reactor which has never produced tritium before. The technology which they are selecting has never, in fact, performed this task before. Now, you hear the word linear accelerator. What does that mean? Well, it is just another fancy word for saying atom smasher. That is what a linear accelerator is. Right now the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, are evaluating linear accelerators as opposed to this new reactor which has never been tested with regard to which is the better way of going to produce tritium in this country. Now, I do not care which technology they select, but I do know that this bill should not have $50 million in it for a Swedish firm for a technology that ultimately triggers $6 billion worth of expenditures before we have had a technical evaluation. That is what this whole debate is about. And the $50 million is opposed by the National Taxpayers Union, by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], by the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], and a cross-section of Democrats and Republicans that want a balanced budget, fairly done, with logical assessment done of each and every item. This provision violates every one of those principles.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment being considered right now is a quite technical one because once the word ``tritium'' is uttered, I can see minds and attention spans drifting off onto other subjects. But it is a very important subject, because tritium is a gas which is used in order to ensure that we can derive the maximum potential from our nuclear weapons. It is a critical subject, in fact. It is so critical that this amendment has been put in order, because it is important that this Congress and this country select the best way, the most economical way, the best proliferation resistant way, of producing this very important gas. Now, this body and all who listen to it should understand some very fundamental facts. No. 1, the National Taxpayers Union supports the Markey-Ensign-Vucanovich-Dellums-Skeen-Richardson amendment. This is bipartisan, and it is the National Taxpayer Union's blessing having been placed upon it because they have determined that this is nothing more than radioactive pork which has been built into this bill. Not because we do not want or need the tritium, we do. That is agreed upon by Democrat, Republican, liberal and conservative. What is not agreed upon, however, is that the committee should be able to select a particular technology and to build from $50 million more than the Department of Energy wants, than the Department of Defense wants, than the National Taxpayers Union thinks is necessary. The decision which has been made is one which runs completely contrary to the proposition that there should be no specific earmarking of technology or location, but rather each of these decisions should be open to full competition amongst all of those who are interested in providing the best technology for the defense of this country. That is why we bring this amendment out on the floor. It cuts out $50 million that no one wants and cannot be justified. It is a specific earmark which benefits a Swedish company trying to get a specific earmark into this bill for South Carolina. I will have to say a word. But that is not good policy. This company ABB, the Swedish company, might as well be called, instead of ABB, just A Big Boondoggle. That is what ABB stands for. You are voting for $50 million for a Swedish company for a technology that neither the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, nor the National Taxpayers Union can support. So we are going to be out here having this debate. It will be bipartisan. But if you want to find money that you can vote for that is not justified in this budget, this is it. This cannot be justified on any basis, either defense, energy, budgetary, or proliferation. It violates every one of the principles that we are concerned with. But most of all, it violates the principle against earmarking specific technologies with extra money that cannot be justified technologically until the Departments of Energy and Defense have gone through the process of evaluating them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, during the debate over the budget resolution, Member after Member came to the House floor to talk about the tough choices we would need to make in order to balance the budget. Now, as I listened to the debate here this afternoon, I wondered just what sort of tough choices the advocates of increased star wars spending had in mind. Did they mean sacrificing SSI for the elderly for SDI for a pork barrel in the sky for the defense contractors in our country? Is that the tough decision? Did they mean the elderly and those struggling to make ends meet should tighten their belts so that the Government should spend billions of additional dollars on a discredited defense program? Is that what they really mean by tough choices? Or did they mean sacrificing students loans and cutting back student loans which is what the Republican budget does for the sake of star wars? Is that the tough choice they made, swapping educational grants for working-class kids to go to college so that we can have a star- wars-in-the-sky project that does not work? Or do they mean the tough choice of cutting back hot lunch programs for kids so that we can finance a program like this that has no mission, does not work, has never been put in place and we know is only a drain on our economy? Let me tell you something, a lot of things have changed in the last 15 years, the music, the fashion in this country, but one thing has not changed, SDI still stands for ``same dumb idea'' that it did in 1983, when it was introduced. And you are going to change it now to BMD, ballistic missile defense, but BMD really stands for ``big money drain,'' out of programs for the elderly, out of programs for the kids in this country. Let us just keep a few simple facts in mind. The cold war is over. The Russians are having a hard time controlling the Chechens, much less attacking the United States or launching a brand new missile program. It is time for us to support the DeFazio-Dellums amendment and its proper prioritization of money in this country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman: B-2's or not B-2: Once again, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous expense, Or to take arms against a sea of deficits, And by opposing end them. To cut; to spend; No more; and by a cut to say we end the heartache and a thousand cost overruns That B-2 is heir to. 'Tis a consummation Devoutly to be wished. To cut; to spend; To spend? Perchance add-on! Ay, there's the rub; For in those 20 add-ons what new costs may come, when we have shuffled off the cap, Must give us pause. There's the respect that makes calamity of continuing. For would Stealth bear the whips and scorns of time, the lack of mission, the inevitable delays, The available alternatives, and the cuts That must be made for Budget Target's sake. When we ourselves might today Stealth's termination make With a bare majority. Who would new tax burdens bear, to pay its 31 billion dollar pricetag, when the dread of a corporate welfare program, A flying Bat-winged bomber whose cost per pound, Is that of gold, puzzles the mind And makes us rather keep those bombers that we now have Than fly to others we want not of? Thus conscience should make cautious legislators of us all; And thus the hue of B-2 boosterism Must be replaced with the sober case of thought, And this enterprise of great pith and moment, Be halted now before it further proceeds, A handsome bomber, yes, but better No more to be.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, recently I received a letter from a young woman in my district. She brought up some very good reasons why Republicans should not cut Federal funding for student financial assistance. She said: ``College is the best investment in America's future.'' I agree. That only way to insure that America prospers tomorrow is to make education and training available to our Nation's children and young adults today. These ill-considered Republican budget cuts are a short-sighted move that will limit America's future. While graduates may earn more over their lifetime than nongraduates, they do so because they master specialized skills and knowledge demanded in our complex and dynamic economy. While graduates may earn more money than non-graduates, they don't have money to pay tuition and other expenses this year, before they enter or complete college. The small amount of Federal financial aid provided through interest subsidies and grants are essential to allow many students to attend colleges and universities. In the words of the same young woman: ``The opportunity to go to college is a privilege that should be everyone's right. Every student with the ability and the determination to work for a college education should have that opportunity. But suggested cuts in student aid programs would make financing a college education more difficult for average Americans.'' She is right. Not only would the cuts mean that post-secondary education would be more difficult to obtain for so-called average or middle-class Americans. These cuts would also make it virtually impossible for less privileged Americans to gain access to a post- secondary education. While we must balance the budget, it is penny-wise and pound foolish to skimp on one of the most important investments we can make--the education of young people or the continuing education of adults. This young women from my district and her peers are tomorrow's work force. We must give them the tools they will need--and we all will need--to compete and succeed in the global marketplace of the 21st century. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be inserted in the Record. Hon. Edward Markey, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman: College is the best investment in America's future, I urge you to support continued funding for college loan and student aid programs. A college education means increased opportunity-- opportunity to advance in a career, to earn more, and to contribute more to the economy and to society. The opportunity to go to college is a privilege that should be everyone's rights, Every student with the ability and the determination to work for a college education should have that opportunity. But suggested cuts in student aid programs would make financing a college education more difficult for average Americans. Please don't cut our future short. Don't cut student aid. Sincerely, Erica Martin-Doyle.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the gentleman from Michigan has brought this resolution out on the floor, because it is absolutely timely for us to discuss this very [[Page H5583]] central issue. The Republicans are proposing 300 billion dollars' worth of tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy. And they are proposing 300 billion dollars' worth of reductions in Medicare, largely for the 83 percent of the elderly who have $25,000 or less income per year. Three hundred billion dollars' worth of tax cuts for the wealthy, 300 billion dollars' worth of cuts in Medicare over the next 7 years. Now you do not have to be Dick Tracy to figure out that the elderly are going to be paying for the tax cuts of the rich. The only request that is made by this resolution is that the conferees look at this issue, and try to make a determination as they are looking at Medicare Select as to what other recommendations they should be making to this body in that context. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request at all at this time, and in fact for us not to discuss it is to avoid, ignore the single most pressing issue on us, which is whether or not we should give this $300 billion to the wealthy as we are taking it away from the poorest and the most elderly in our country. That is what this whole debate is all about. Back in 1981 David Stockman on this floor tried to harness voluminous amounts of information to defend a knowingly erroneous premise. That erroneous premise was you could cut taxes for the wealthy, increase defense spending, and balance the budget simultaneously. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers and commend my colleague from Georgia, Representative Cynthia McKinney, for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. Since 1990, the United States has been the top-selling merchant in the international arms bazaar. We have dominated the global arms market by sending billions and billions of dollars worth of all types of weaponry to some of the world's worst human rights abusers and most corrupt and repressive regimes. Sophisticated combat weapons exported from the United States, such as armored personnel carriers, antitank missiles, and specialized rifles, have found their way into the hands of notorious international troublemakers and fueled conflicts raging throughout the world. Placing short-term economic interests above crucial security concerns and fundamental human rights principles has serious consequences, both for our stature as a world leader and for the safety of U.S. military personnel engaged around the world. By cashing in on profits from arms sales abroad without closely scrutinizing potential customers according to criteria like the ones outlined by Representative McKinney, we risk incurring substantial security and human costs. During the Gulf war and in Somalia, for example, the safety of many of our men and women in the Armed Forces was threatened by weaponry sold by our own Government. Moreover, skyrocketing arms sales have contributed to regional arms races, which in turn force us to increase spending to deal with greater threats to our national security. As we continue to adjust to the realities of the post-cold-war world, we need to revise our philosophies concerning foreign military sales. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many of the principles which guided our arms export policies in the past no longer are relevant. The provisions of the Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers will establish a sensible, much-needed framework for making decisions about what we send abroad and to whom. The United States should take a leadership role in forging new policies and encouraging new thinking in this area. Being the world's No. 1 weapons supplier is a very dubious distinction. As we approach the start of the 21st century, we should re-evaluate the priorities which have placed us in this category and look to the Code of Conduct as a model. Again, I would like to thank Representative McKinney for all her hard work on behalf of this important issue. I strongly support this initiative and urge my colleagues to vote for the McKinney amendment.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 961, the so-called Clean Water Act of 1995. The bill's proponents would have us believe that it simply reauthorizes the original Clean Water Act, with, perhaps, a bit of fine-tuning. I hope that the American people can see clearly that this bill goes far beyond fine-tuning, would bring to a screeching halt further improvements in our water quality, and would allow for backsliding on the important progress we have already made toward cleaner water. The original Clean Water Act, enacted in 1972 to clean up our Nation's badly polluted rivers, lakes, and harbors, is one of the most successful environmental laws on the books today. But all that is about to change. With H.R. 961, the new Republican majority in Congress would gut the current law, rolling back water quality standards, allowing industries to pollute more, not less, and leaving taxpayers to foot the bill to clean up the mess. While the bill purports to respond to some mysterious mandate from the people for regulatory reform, recent polls have shown that 76 percent of Americans think clean water laws need to be strengthened, not weakened. It is clear that H.R. 961 responds to industry interests, not the people's mandate. H.R. 961 will result in backsliding on water quality, by letting industries seek waivers allowing them to dump toxics and other wastes to municipal wastewater treatment plants not allowed under current law. To preserve the same level of water quality, these toxics would have to be removed at the treatment facility, at the taxpayer's expense. In addition, H.R. 961 lets States downgrade the designated use of a body of water, so that a lake or river could be subject to a lower standard of water quality than it is today. Finally, the bill will allow industrial polluters to undertake vaguely defined pollution prevention activities instead of complying with the water quality standards in current law. H.R. 961 devastates our wetlands protection program. Under this bill, which includes a new and highly unscientific method of defining and classifying wetlands, two-thirds of our Nation's wetlands would be defined right out of existence. And many of the remaining wetlands will receive less protection than under current law. Finally, the Government will have to pay landowners to preserve wetlands on their property, even when protection of the wetland increases the overall value of the property. Again, the taxpayer pays. Wetlands are important because they filter and purify water, act as sponges during storms to reduce flood damage, and provide valuable ecosystems for many plant and animal species. We already have lost more than half our Nation's wetlands; we must provide adequate protection for the wetlands that remain. H.R. 961 fails to make progress in the one area where progress is needed most. Polluted run-off from farms, industrial facilities, and city streets--called non-point source pollution--is the most important source of water pollution remaining today. H.R. 961 tells States to develop programs to make reasonable further progress toward bringing the non-point source pollution problem under control but does not require such programs to be enforced. In addition, the bill allows for delays, possibly of as voluntary initiatives. This provision could have a devastating impact on our multibillion dollar fishing and tourism industries. In New England, our fishermen already are suffering due to declining stocks, and are currently seeking disaster relief. H.R. 961 will only exacerbate the difficulties faced by our fishermen. We must not allow the Clean Water Act to be gutted. It is an extremely important and successful statute that has been largely responsible for cleaning up many of our Nation's waters. In Boston, we once had the notoriety of having the filthiest harbor in America. Thanks to the Clean Water Act, and an enormous commitment on the part of Massachusetts residents, the Boston Harbor is cleaner now than it has been in decades. Surely we cannot go back to the dirty water days after all that we have contributed to get to where we are now. Many of us can still remember the days when open pipes led into our streams and lakes, spewing forth all kinds of toxics and pollutants. In most communities, those days are gone because of the Clean Water Act. But the job is not done. Unfortunately, over 40 percent of our Nation's waters are still not fishable or swimmable. We must continue working to enforce tough clean water standards to protect the health and safety of every American. As the tragic 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee plainly demonstrated, our water is not yet too clean, we do not have too many wetlands, and our fish are not too safe to eat. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 961 and say ``yes'' to clean water.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a grim and shameful chapter in world history: the perpetration of a genocide against Armenian men, women, and children carried out with brutal precision during the waning days of the Ottoman Empire. On this solemn day of remembrance, I join Armenians throughout the United States, in Armenia, and around the world in commemorating the 80th anniversary of this horrific period. In 1915, a systematic massacre of Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders began. Continuing until 1923, the cruelty and ruthlessness which marked this campaign of terror still shock us 80 years later. Between 1915 and 1923, 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives, and more than 500,000 were expelled from their homes. Innocent Armenians were rounded up and sent away to unknown destinations to be murdered. Uncovered by a researcher only a few years ago, a report from a United States consul stationed in eastern Turkey from 1914 to 1917 provides disturbing details of this coordinated effort to commit genocide against the Armenian people. This record of cold-blooded murder is harrowing. Despite the calculated attempt to purge the Armenian people from their land and erase Armenian culture and traditions, today the Republic of Armenia is emerging as a vital and progressive nation committed to establishing democratic institutions. The Armenian Government has drafted a constitution, launched a program of industrial reform, privatized agricultural land, and made substantial progress in small-enterprise privatization. Armenia also has taken steps toward resolving the Karabakh conflict and moved to stabilize its economy based upon free-market principles. I am pleased that our government has recognized the importance of Armenia and has been working closely with international lending institutions to help ease Armenia's transition to a market economy. Through a comprehensive assistance program, USAID has funded numerous initiatives in Armenia, including one aimed at improving the distribution of much-needed commodities such as kerosene. Armenia has cooperated with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, made the difficult fiscal decisions necessary to construct a market- based economy, and steadily progressed toward a free and open democratic system. As we mark the 80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, we join with our Armenian friends in remembering those who lost their lives in the early years of this century. While we reflect upon the past and dedicate ourselves to preserving the history of this humanitarian disaster, we also look forward. We look forward to a future in which Armenia will, we hope, grow prosperous, achieve economic strength, and, above all else, enjoy peace.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1995. This important piece of legislation is especially relevant today as we approach the 25th anniversary of Earth Day. I have introduced this legislation in the past with my colleague, the late Paul Henry (R-MI), who was a true and dedicated champion for this important initiative, and hope that my colleagues will this year embrace this bill that combats the problems we have of shrinking landfill space, skyrocketing waste disposal costs, misspent energy and natural resources, and litter strewn roadsides by setting in place a national beverage container recycling program. If passed, this bill would save millions of dollars in energy costs, divert a significant portion of the solid waste stream, foster the growth of a recycling infrastructure, and help reverse the throwaway ethic our Nation has embraced. Most importantly, this will be done at no cost to the taxpayer. This bill, which requires a deposit paid on beverage containers, will act as a positive economic incentive to individuals to clean up the environment and will result in a high level of reuse and recycling of such containers, and help reduce the costs associated with solid waste management. Such a system will result in significant pollution prevention, energy conservation and recycling. We can conquer the problem of one-way, throwaway beverage containers as 10 States have already done. Under these deposit programs, which are in effect in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont, consumers pay a deposit on each container purchased, and this is refunded when the container is returned. Consumers in these States have proven the effectiveness of such legislation by reaching recycling rates as high as 95 percent. This bill will encourage the development and maintenance of a recycling infrastructure. The plastics industry, which already has a recycling infrastructure, would particularly benefit from this bill since it has been plagued by supply shortages. Consumers have demonstrated the popularity of deposit laws. A General Accounting Office [GAO] study found that 70 percent of Americans support national deposit legislation. Perhaps more importantly, in States that have deposit laws, this level is even greater. This bill allows States to recycle in any manner they wish, as long as they achieve a 70-percent recycling goal for beverage containers. Only States that fail to meet this challenge would be required to implement the deposit program outlined in this bill. To further encourage recycling efforts, the unclaimed deposits collected under this bill, which could total as much as $1 to $1.7 billion annually, would be used to support other recycling programs. For example, deposit laws can help subsidize the costs of curbside recycling. Together, deposit laws and curbside recycling program could alone. In celebration of Earth Day, just 2 weeks away, I introduce this legislation that will help us to reach our environmental goals by conserving our natural resources and reducing litter and pollution. I urge my colleagues to support comprehensive recycling by cosponsoring the National Beverage Container Reuse and Recycling Act of 1995.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Tufts University in Medford, MA, and to commemorate the 11th annual observance of Tuftonia's Week. This holiday derives its name from the title of the venerable Tufts football fight song written by E.W. Hayes, class of 1916. This is a special time for the 85,000-plus alumni of Tufts University to turn their thoughts to Tufts and to reminisce with old friends. In 1852, Charles Tuft founded this eminent university, and the brightest and best students have been graduating ever since. I am fortunate and proud to have such an outstanding university in my district. I am also proud that two of my esteemed colleagues are graduates of Tufts: Congressmen Pete DeFazio of Oregon, class of 1969, and Bill Richardson of New Mexico, class of 1970. This year's annual celebration, named TuftServe, is especially important, for its focus is on community service. This is an important time for fellow Tuftonian's to focus on volunteer alumni involvement in community activities. Their contributions to the community--locally, nationally, and globally--should serve as an inspiration to us all. I congratulate the alumni of Tufts University for their hard work, their dedication, and their loyalty. Your efforts have not gone unnoticed, nor unappreciated.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 555.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the bill before us, which attacks many of the programs that assist our Nation's neediest citizens. I am particularly disturbed by the fact that this bill deals a devastating blow to the millions of American households that depend upon fuel assistance provided by the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to get through each winter by eliminating all funding for this program. LIHEAP recipients are some of the poorest among us--in fact, 70 percent of those people who receive LIHEAP funds have annual incomes of less than $8,000. They include working families with young children, the disabled, and the many senior citizens who live on limited, fixed incomes. This program is especially critical for people in New England, who must wage a battle on two fronts, for survival during winters that can be bitterly cold, and for economic stability in a recovering, but by no means robust, economy. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent considerable time and energy earlier this year professing their commitment to protecting our Nation's elderly from financial insecurity. When we debated the balanced budget amendment, the Republicans told us that they would not raid the Social Security Program to bring down the deficit. They were unwilling to write this guarantee into their amendment, to enshrine this protection in the Constitution, and yet they asked us to take their word for it that they would protect Social Security. And now, a few short weeks later, the Republican leadership of this House has brought before us a bill that completely eliminates funding for LIHEAP. Of the 144,000 people from Massachusetts who receive assistance from LIHEAP, 40,000 of them are over the age of 60. What kind of financial security is the House GOP providing to those 40,000 low-income seniors by taking their heating assistance away? A study conducted by the University of Massachusetts has shown that our senior citizens must sometimes sacrifice food in order to pay for fuel to heat their homes in winter. Making it even harder for these people to afford home heating energy will only make our seniors less financially secure in what is meant to be their golden years.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the free enterprise system does not work to serve the children of our country. ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox combined have on 8 hours of children's television per week, total. PBS, starting at 6:30 each morning with Sesame Street through 6:30 every night with Bill Nye, the Science Guy, puts on 10 to 12 hours a day, 60 or so hours a week, of children's television. Now, just so you will know the facts, ladies and gentlemen of the other side of the aisle, there are 70 million children in the United States. Of those 70 million, 33 million of them live in homes without any cable. The only channels they can turn to are ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, or the other independent stations. There is no children's television on it. Now, if you want these children to be able to compete in a post-GATT, post-NAFTA world the way I do, I voted for it, we have a big deal with these kids. We are letting the low-end jobs go and are going to try to target the information-age jobs. If you take off the only channel on television that provides mothers of children that come from the low income areas with the informational and educational skills which they need, then you are dooming our country to a society where all the welfare reform in the world will never make it possible for these children to have the skills that make it possible for them to hold the jobs in your so sacred private sector that you cut their one link to it that the public is providing them.