Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 180, I inadvertently voted ``aye'', but intended to vote ``no.'' Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Dahlkemper

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I am introducing a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States seek membership in the International Renewable Energy Agency because our energy security, the health of our planet, and the strength of our economy have reached a critical juncture. With volatile energy prices, emissions of heat-trapping gases continuing to climb to dangerous levels, and the U.S. economy in turmoil, two things have become clear. First, a fundamental change is needed in the way we generate and use energy here at home. Secondly, the rest of the world must be also part of this new energy future. The resolution I am introducing today calls for the United States to seek membership in the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) to address both of these challenges. On January 26, 2009, 75 countries signed the statute to establish IRENA, marking a promising step towards international collaboration and mitigating climate change. This collaboration was a good start, but the urgency of global warming and our dependence on fossil fuels require that we take the lead in the permanent international agency to drive the development and deployment of renewable energy in all countries, including ours. The United States still has a chance to be a founding member of the body if it signs on by April 30th of this year. As a founding member country, the United States would be eligible to nominate a Director General and bid to host the IRENA headquarters on American territory. Despite the enormous strides renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies have made over the last several years, hurdles remain to major and rapid scale-up on the level needed to meet the world's need for energy while also addressing global warming. IRENA is the first international organization to focus solely on renewable energy and include a broad constituency of industrialized and developing countries. It will provide the institutional support needed to address the technological, financial, informational, and policy barriers that keep renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies from reaching their full potential. Renewable energy has the potential to reduce global warming pollution while also creating millions of green jobs, reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy, and spurring the technological development that will fuel the global economy over the coming century. In 2007, new investment in clean energy technology worldwide increased 60 percent over 2006, but vast markets remain untapped and not included in the green economy. Over the next two decades, greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries are projected to grow at more than twice the rate of those in developed countries. Encouraging growth of renewable energy in developing countries reduces the extent and likelihood that these economies will follow a carbon- intensive, fossil energy development path. It also opens a valuable market for the clean energy companies that developed economies will rely on for growth over the coming century, a market that American businesses and American workers can benefit from. The International Renewable Energy Agency will have the independence, credibility, and expertise necessary to assist governments at the national, state, and local level implement renewable energy policies and projects. Other international energy agencies were formed to address narrow problems. The International Energy Agency (IEA): oil security and fuel supply disruptions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): nuclear proliferation and safety. With the aid of institutional support, these energy resources became foundations of modern economies. An International Renewable Energy Agency is needed to support the unique problems facing renewable energy: marketplace failures, political inertia, and information gaps. Our membership in the organization will allow us to help shape the direction of this agency. To this end, IRENA will: Support governments in drafting policies and programs for the promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. Assist governments in conducting studies that analyze the potential of renewable energies and the appropriateness of different technologies. Provide long-term projections and scenarios based on existing data and policy in order to identify opportunities as well as gaps, barriers, and failures in markets and policies. Organize training programs, information campaigns, and courses for civil servants, scientists, businesses, and non-government organizations. Supply curriculum for schools and universities on relevant renewable energy topics. Work with financial institutions to support innovative financing mechanisms for renewable energy projects. Develop international norms and quality standards. Gather and disseminate data, statistics, and reports on renewable energy deployment, policy approaches, and technology development. The status quo is not working for America or the planet. The environmental, energy, and economic problems we are facing are largely due to a failed energy policy. The International Renewable Energy Agency represents an opportunity for America to change its energy path and confront global warming while reestablishing its leadership role and reputation in the international community.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. For millions of Americans, after 8 years of laissez-faire economics, they know it is just a fancy word for ``left behind.'' Fixing the economy is not a spectator sport. That's what has been going on for 8 years. And that's what's going on with the Republicans here today. This bill creates or saves 3.5 million jobs. It provides tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans. It spurs a green jobs revolution. It has health IT that will revolutionize medicine with privacy and security built in that I requested and the majority has placed in this bill. There's more money in this bill after 5 years of cutting the NIH budget, there's a dramatic increase in the NIH budget to find a cure for cancer, for heart disease, for Parkinson's and for Alzheimer's. This is a revolution in health care, in energy and in job creation. This bill must be passed today and break with the 8 years of laissez- faire, which has hurt every single American family. Vote ``yes'' on this bill. Today we're responding with determination and bold action to combat the most severe economic crisis our country has faced since the Great Depression. For years, as hardworking American families struggled to make ends meet and the economy shed millions of jobs, Republicans told us not to worry--we are in the midst of a ``jobless recovery'', they said. But ``jobless recovery'' is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, like jumbo shrimp or Salt Lake City nightlife--it just doesn't exist. The failed ``laissez-faire'' approach of the past 8 years has now been discredited by rising unemployment, loss of confidence in our financial markets, and the economic hardships suffered by families across the country. For millions of Americans, ``laissez-faire'' is just a fancy name for ``left behind.'' With this economic recovery package, we are taking the bold action that is needed by creating or saving 3-and-a-half million jobs, rebuilding America, making us more globally competitive and energy independent, and transforming our economy. I say to my Republican friends: ``fixing the economy is not a spectator sport.'' While our country is facing enormous challenges, we also have a once- in-a-generation opportunity to create millions of new jobs, invest in vital priorities, and position our economy for future growth. Today we are seizing this historic opportunity and setting our country on a new direction. This is about greenbacks and green energy. This urgently-needed economic recovery package funds infrastructure projects that are ``shovel-ready'', while also supporting future- oriented projects that are ``circuit-ready'': broadband, electronic medical records, smart grid, advanced battery technologies, and other vital priorities. The massive investments in weatherization, state energy efficiency grants, and federal building efficiency are some of the safest and smartest investments our country can make right now. They put money into the pockets of American workers and pay for themselves in the form of energy savings and lower energy prices. This energy efficiency ``double dividend'' is a proven, reliable phenomenon that our current weak economy must capitalize. The bill provides $19 billion for a new health IT infrastructure to improve care, lower costs and reduce medical errors. I am pleased that the conference report includes patient privacy safeguards that I have long advocated, including a provision that I offered at the Energy and Commerce Committee markup to ensure that patients' medical records are made unreadable to unauthorized individuals. This balanced, well-thought out package provides tax relief for 95 percent of Americans and targets investments in key areas to turn around the American economy. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 3.5 million jobs created or saved. Tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans. Green job revolution. Health IT, with privacy. NIH increase--cure Alzheimer's.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today we're responding with determination and bold action to combat the most severe economic crisis our country has faced since the Great Depression. For years, as hardworking American families struggled to make ends meet and the economy shed millions of jobs, Republicans told us not to worry--we are in the midst of a ``jobless recovery'', they said. But ``jobless recovery'' is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, like jumbo shrimp or Salt Lake City nightlife--it just doesn't exist! The failed ``laissez-faire'' approach of the past 8 years has now been discredited by rising unemployment, loss of confidence in our financial markets and the economic hardships suffered by families across the country. For millions of Americans, ``laissez-faire'' is just a fancy name for ``left behind.'' With this economic recovery package, we are taking the bold action that is needed by creating or saving 3-and-a-half million jobs, rebuilding America, making us more globally competitive and energy independent, and transforming our economy. While our country is facing enormous challenges, we also have a once- in-a-generation opportunity to create millions of new jobs, invest in vital priorities and position our economy for future growth. Today we are seizing this historic opportunity and setting our country on a new direction. This urgently-needed economic recovery package funds infrastructure projects that are ``shovel-ready'', while also supporting future- oriented projects that are ``circuit-ready'': broadband, electronic medical records, smart grid, advanced battery technologies and other vital priorities. The massive investments in weatherization, state energy efficiency grants, and federal building efficiency are some of the safest and smartest investments our country can make right now. They put money into the pockets of American workers and pay for themselves in the form of energy savings and lower energy prices. This energy efficiency ``double dividend'' is a proven, reliable phenomenon that our current weak economy must capitalize. In addition, I am pleased that the conference report will provide $6 billion in new loan guarantees for renewable projects such as solar and wind and for upgrading our nation's transmission system to a smarter electricity grid. Section 1705 of the bill supports a program authorized in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act that permits the Department of Energy to issue grants for developing electric power transmission systems, including upgrading and reconductoring projects. This provision would allow for the development of a smart transmission and distribution grid, which would include support for technologies such as underground superconductor transmission cables that can increase the efficiency of our grid and facilitate the delivery of renewable power from the heartland of our country to the hearts of our cities. The bill provides $19 billion for a new health IT infrastructure to improve care, lower costs and reduce medical errors. I am pleased that the conference report includes patient privacy safeguards that I have long advocated, including a provision that I offered at the Energy and Commerce Committee markup to ensure that patients' medical records are made unreadable to unauthorized individuals. This balanced, well-thought out package provides tax relief for 95% of Americans and targets investments in key areas to turn around the American economy. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the House Rules, I am submitting the Rules of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming as well as our list of Members for the 111th Congress. Rules for the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, U.S. House of Representatives, 111th Congress Rule 1. General Provisions. The Rules of the House are the rules of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (hereinafter ``Committee'') so far as they are applicable. Rule 2. Time and Place of Meetings. (a) Regular Meeting Days. The Committee shall meet on the first Tuesday of each month at 10 a.m., for the consideration of any pending business, if the House is in session on that day. If the House is not in session on that day and the Committee has not met during such month, the Committee shall meet at the earliest practicable opportunity when the House is again in session. The Chairman may, at his discretion, cancel, delay, or defer any meeting required under this section, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member. (b) Additional Meetings. The Chairman may call and convene, as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purposes pursuant to that call of the Chairman. (c) Vice Chairman; Presiding Member. The Chairman may designate a member of the majority party to serve as Vice Chairman of the Committee. The Vice Chairman shall preside at any meeting or hearing during the temporary absence of the Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice Chairman are not present at any meeting or hearing, the most senior present member of the majority party shall preside at the meeting or hearing. (d) Open Meetings and Hearings. Each meeting and hearing of the Committee for the transaction of business shall be open to the public, including to radio, television and still photography coverage, consistent with the provisions of Rule XI of the Rules of the House. Rule 3. Agenda. The agenda for each Committee meeting other than a hearing, setting out the date, time, place, and all items of business to be considered, shall be provided to each member of the Committee at least 24 hours in advance of such meeting. Rule 4. Procedure. (a) Hearings. The date, time, place, and subject matter of any hearing of the Committee shall be announced at least one week in advance of the commencement of such hearing, unless the Chairman, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, determines in accordance with clause 2(g)(3) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, that there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner. In such cases, the Chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (b) Meetings. The date, time, place, and subject matter of any meeting (other than a hearing) scheduled on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday when the House is scheduled to be in session shall be announced at least 24 hours (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, except when the House is in session on such days) in advance of the commencement of such meeting. (c) Motions. Pursuant to clause 1(a)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House, privileged motions to recess from day to day, or recess subject to the call of the Chair (within 24 hours), shall be decided without debate. (d)(1) Requirements for Testimony. Each witness who is to appear before the Committee shall file with the clerk of the Committee, at least two working days in advance of his or her appearance, sufficient copies, as determined by the Chairman, of a written statement of his or her proposed testimony to provide to members and staff of the Committee, the news media, and the general public. Each witness shall, to the greatest extent practicable, also provide a copy of such written testimony in an electronic format prescribed by the Chairman. Each witness shall limit his or her oral presentation to a brief summary of the testimony. The Chairman, or the presiding member, may waive the requirements of this paragraph or any part thereof. (2) Additional Requirements for Testimony. To the greatest extent practicable, the written testimony of each witness appearing in a non-governmental capacity shall include a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program) of any federal grant (or sub grant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal years by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness. (A) Questioning Witnesses. The right to question witnesses before the Committee shall alternate between majority and minority members. Each member shall be limited to 5 minutes in the interrogation of witnesses until such time as each member who so desires has had an opportunity to question witnesses. No member shall be recognized for a second period of 5 minutes to interrogate a witness until each member of the Committee present has been recognized once for that purpose. While the Committee is operating under the 5-minute rule for the interrogation of witnesses, the Chairman shall recognize, in order of appearance, members who were not present when the meeting was called to order after all members who were present when the meeting was called to order have been recognized in the order of seniority on the Committee. (B) Questions for the Record. Subject to the Rules of the House, each member may submit to the Chairman additional questions for the record, to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared. Each member shall provide a copy of the questions in an electronic format to the clerk of the Committee no later than ten business days following a hearing. The Chairman shall transmit all questions received from members of the Committee to the appropriate witness and include the transmittal letter and the responses from the witnesses in the hearing record. (C) Opening Statements. (1) All written opening statements at hearings conducted by the Committee shall be made part of the permanent hearing record. (2) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member (or their respective designees) are entitled to deliver a 5 minute opening statement prior to the recognition of the first witness for testimony. Opening statements by other members of the Committee are subject to the discretion of the Chairman. Rule 5. Waiver of Agenda, Notice, and Opening Statement Requirements. Requirements of rules 3, 4(a)(1), 4(a)(2), and 4(d) may be waived for good cause by the Chairman, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member. Rule 6. Quorum. Testimony may be taken and evidence received at any hearing at which there are present not fewer than two members of the Committee. A majority of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum when otherwise required by the Rules of the House. For the purposes of taking any action other than those specified in the preceding sentences, one third of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. Rule 7. Journal. The proceedings of the Committee shall be recorded in a journal which shall, among other things, show those present at each meeting and hearing, and shall include a record of the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded, a description of the motion, order, or other proposition voted, and the name of each member voting for and each member voting against such motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those members voting present. A copy of the journal shall be furnished to the Ranking Minority Member and made available to the public in a timely fashion. Rule 8. Committee Professional and Clerical Staff. (a) Committee staff members are subject to the provisions of clause 9 of Rule X, as well as any written personnel policies the Committee may from time to time adopt. The Chairman shall determine the remuneration of legislative and administrative employees of the Committee. (b) The Chairman shall appoint, and may remove, the legislative and administrative employees of the Committee not assigned to the minority. (c) Minority Professional Staff. Professional staff members appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of the House of Representatives, who are assigned to the Ranking Minority Member, and not to the Chairman, shall be assigned to such Committee business as the Ranking Minority Member considers advisable. (d) Additional Staff Appointments. In addition to the professional staff appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of the House of Representatives, the Chairman shall be entitled to make such appointments to the clerical staff of the Committee as may be provided within the budget approved for such purposes by the Committee. Such appointees shall be assigned to such business of the Committee as the Chairman considers advisable. Rule 9. Supervision, Duties of Staff. (a) Committee staff members are subject to the provisions of clause 9(b) of Rule X. (b) Supervision of Majority Staff. The professional and clerical staff of the Committee not assigned to the minority shall be under the supervision and direction of the Chairman, who shall establish and assign the duties and responsibilities of such staff members and delegate such authority as he determines appropriate. (c) Supervision of Minority Staff. The professional and clerical staff assigned to the minority shall be under the supervision and direction of the Ranking Minority Member, who shall establish and assign the duties and responsibilities of such staff members and delegate such authority as he determines appropriate. Rule 10. Committee Expenditures. Copies of each monthly report (prepared by the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration and showing expenditures made during the reporting period and cumulative for the year by the Committee), anticipated expenditures for the projected Committee program, and detailed information on travel, shall be available to each member. Rule 11. Broadcasting of Committee Hearings. Any meeting or hearing that is open to the public may be covered in whole or in part by radio or television or still photography, subject to the requirements of clause 4 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House. The coverage of any hearing or other proceeding of the Committee by television, radio, or still photography shall be under the direct supervision of the Chairman and may be terminated in accordance with the Rules of the House. Rule 12. Subpoenas. The Committee may authorize and issue a subpoena under clause 2(m) of Rule XI of the House. Rule 13. Travel of Members and Staff. (a) Approval of Travel. Consistent with the primary expense resolution and such additional expense resolutions as may have been approved, travel to be reimbursed from funds set aside for the Committee for any member or any staff member shall be paid only upon the prior authorization of the Chairman. Travel may be authorized by the Chairman for any member and any staff member in connection with the attendance of hearings conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee thereof and meetings, conferences, and investigations which involve activities or subject matter under the general jurisdiction of the Committee. Before such authorization is given there shall be submitted to the Chairman, in writing, the following: (1) the purpose of the travel; (2) the dates during which the travel is to be made and the date or dates of the event for which the travel is being made; (3) the location of the event for which the travel is to be made; and (4) the names of members and staff seeking authorization. (b) Approval of Travel by Minority Members and Staff. In the case of travel by minority party members and minority party professional staff for the purpose set out in paragraph (a), the prior approval, not only of the Chairman but also of the Ranking Minority Member, shall be required. Such prior authorization shall be given by the Chairman only upon the representation by the Ranking Minority Member, in writing, setting forth those items enumerated in (1), (2), (3), and (4) of paragraph (a). Rule 14. Reports. (a) Committee reports. Any report printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office that purports to express the views, findings, conclusions or recommendations of the Select Committee must be approved, in a meeting, by a majority of the members in attendance of the Select Committee. Members shall have three days from the time of the approval to submit supplemental, minority or additional views, which will be included as part of the printed report. (b) Other reports. Any report printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office to be published as a Committee print other than a document described in paragraph (a) of this Rule: (A) shall include on its cover the following statement: ``this document has been printed for informational purposes only and does not represent either findings or recommendations adopted by this Committee.''; and (B) shall not be published following sine die adjournment of Congress, unless approved by the Chairman of the Committee after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Invariably, this brilliant dissection of the flaws and the arguments of those who were testifying before our committee resulted in legislation that ultimately produced protections for the American people in areas across the entire spectrum of the lives of every single American. And this legendary legislator has left a legacy which will benefit families in our country for centuries to come, because like the New Deal principles that his father fought to put on the books, John Dingell has ensured that those principles were carried forward in the laws that were written during his time here. They have been embodied and extended in a way that will protect families in our country and, I might say, around the world, because they will be emulated for generations to come. And we come here today to honor our friend John Dingell for the incredible service that he has provided to our country.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Michigan very much. I think that this is just an incredibly appropriate moment to be honoring Mr. Dingell, because he is the living link to the principles of fairness, justice, and advancing the public interest that animated the New Deal, and which remain so relevant today to the important issues which we are discussing here, not only on the floor of the House, but all across America: The lessons of why we regulate Wall Street, why we ensure that those who control the finances of all the families in our country have to be watched with an eagle eye. Mr. Dingell, who ensured that our securities laws were rewritten to provide for protection against insider trading, curbing penny stock manipulation, increased civil penalties, the 1990 Market Reform Act. He is responsible for so many of the laws that are now going to be looked to, to ensure that we enforce our securities laws against those who have abused the public trust. So while many people look at his work on the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Children's Health Insurance Act, North America's first international wildlife refuge, there are so many other areas that Mr. Dingell has been working on, including the financial regulatory area, and all of the telecommunications laws that have made it possible for us to have this revolution which now has the words Google and E-Bay and Amazon and YouTube part of our vocabulary. But for me, the six words that will be remembered are those six words that are the most feared words that have ever been spoken in the history of the United States Congress, ``I'm just a poor Polish lawyer.'' Those words always preceded a dissection by Mr. Dingell in brilliant form of the arguments made by those making presentations to the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Save American Energy Act'' to obtain the significant benefits of cost-effective, environmentally friendly, energy efficiency resources. These energy efficiency standards will not only lead to lower global warming emissions but will also create jobs, reduce the need for new power plants, and save consumers money. As President Obama clearly articulated, energy efficiency is the cleanest, cheapest, fastest source of energy. The legislation that I am introducing today follows President Obama's stated goal of reducing electricity demand 15 percent by 2020 by creating an energy efficiency resource standard, EERS. Reducing electricity consumption 15 percent by 2020 will save consumers $130 billion over the next 20 years and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 5 billion tons through 2030. The Save American Energy Act sets minimum levels of electricity and natural gas savings to be achieved through utility programs, building codes, appliance standards, and other efficiency measures. This legislation will initially create a modest savings requirement of 1 percent for electricity and three-quarters of a percent for natural gas and gradually build to a 15 percent cumulative requirement for electricity and ten percent for natural gas in 2020. The benefits of energy efficiency standards are clear and far- reaching. First, energy efficiency standards will dramatically reduce the global warming emissions that are creating the climate crisis. Energy efficiency is the easiest and quickest way that we as a Nation can take action to reduce emissions. These energy efficiency savings would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 260 million metric tons per year by 2020--the equivalent of the annual emissions from 43 million automobiles. Second, energy efficiency standards will create jobs and can help revitalize our economy. The Save American Energy Act will lead to the creation of 260,000 new green-collar jobs. These jobs will be everything from retrofitting buildings to weatherizing homes. At a time when the American economy lost nearly 2 million jobs in the last 4 months of 2008, according to the Department of Labor, passing an energy efficiency standard can help send people back to work doing the work that most needs to be done. Third, energy efficiency standards will decrease peak electricity demand. Savings from efficiency can be done far more cheaply than bringing new generation online. New generation from conventional resources costs somewhere between $0.073 and $0.145 per kilowatt hour compared to $0.03 per kilowatt hour from energy efficiency savings. The Save American Energy Act will reduce peak electricity demand by about 90,000 megawatts in 2020. This reduction would eliminate the need to build 300 medium-sized new power plants. Fourth, The Save American Energy Act will result in billions of dollars in consumer savings on their energy bills. This bill allows for numerous cost-effective efficiency savings in every area of the economy. The legislation that I am introducing today requires utilities to obtain energy efficiency savings that are available at a lower cost than traditional energy supply options. Many States around the country have already implemented successful efficiency standards. Vermont and California are two of the States leading the way and and 15 States and the District of Columbia have put in place policies promoting energy efficiency. The Save American Energy Act would set a federal efficiency standard but allows States with programs that meet or exceed that standard to administer the program directly, fostering policy innovation and adaptation to local circumstances. The Save American Energy Act will take advantage of the cost- effective, available energy efficiency opportunities that can be quickly put in place. Adopting a national energy efficiency standard will allow us to reduce carbon emissions, create new green jobs, and reduce the need to build power plants: all while benefiting customers. The time to act is now.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Senate-amended version of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) of 2009. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation to expand the highly successful State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). This bill will provide health insurance to an additional 4 million low-income children on top of the nearly 7 million who already benefit from the program. CHIPRA also improves access to dental care and mental health services and includes provisions to improve quality of care and utilize health information technology for children. In my home state, SCHIP enrollment is part of the reason why Massachusetts has the lowest rate of uninsured children in the country. More than 180,000 Massachusetts children receive health coverage through SCHIP, and this reauthorization will allow the state to cover about 56,000 more Massachusetts children who currently do not have health insurance. It is unfortunate that the previous two attempts to reauthorize SCHIP were vetoed by President Bush, who chose to side with big corporations over children. With the current economic crisis causing significant job losses, millions of Americans also are losing their health coverage, making today's vote even more urgent. While President Bush twice dashed the hopes of millions of low-income families in need of health care for their children, the Obama administration recognizes the value of ensuring that all low-income children get the health care they need. Three weeks ago this chamber approved CHIPRA by a larger margin than the two votes on SCRIP bills in the 110th Congress. I urge my colleagues to once again stand with the hard working families who want to provide their children with the health care they need. Vote yes on this critical legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend you for quickly putting this Senate legislation, once again, before the House for immediate consideration. In several weeks, without immediate action, millions of Americans may remain unprepared for the digital television transition. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have had a long interest in the digital television transition. I held the very first hearing on ``High Definition TV'' in October of 1987--more than 20 years ago. In 1990, I battled hard and successfully as then-Chairman of the House Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee to get the Federal Communications Commission to switch from pursuing an ``analog'' HDTV standard to a ``digital'' standard. Moreover, I fought to build into the Telecomm Act in 1996 the appropriate way in which broadcasters could utilize ``spectrum flexibility'' to multiplex the digital signal into several video programming channels or offer wireless interactive television or information services. And I pushed unsuccessfully in the context of the 1997 budget battles to prohibit the sale of ``analog-only'' televisions by the year 2000--an amendment that was opposed by every Republican in our Committee markup in 1997. The result was over a hundred million analog-only sets were sold into the marketplace even as the government was stipulating it intended to turn off the analog TV signal. The failure to mandate ``dual tuner'' TVs sooner has compounded the difficulty of this transition immeasurably by increasing the base of TV receivers that need converter boxes to receive digital TV signals. Most recently, for the last two years as the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee Chairman, I convened six DTV hearings, requested and received three Government Accountability Office, GAO, reports, and wrote numerous oversight letters to the FCC, to NTIA, and to industry and consumer representatives in headlong pursuit of ensuring a successful digital television transition on February 17th. At the last DTV hearing that we held the second week of September-- just after the Wilmington, North Carolina switch-over test--the GAO testified: NTIA is effectively implementing the converter box subsidy program, but its plans to address the likely increase in coupon demand as the transition nears remain unclear. . . . With a spike in demand likely as the transition date nears, NTIA has no specific plans to address an increase in demand; therefore, consumers might incur significant wait time before they receive coupons as the transition nears and might lose television service during the time they are waiting for the coupons. In response, I asked the Acting NTIA Administrator to give the Subcommittee a contingency plan for dealing with the expected surge in coupons within 30 days. Now, that contingency plan did not arrive in 30 days. Instead, it arrived to us on November 6th--just after Election Day. The NTIA's ``Final Phase'' plan did not echo the GAO's alarm bells, but rather stated the following: This Plan demonstrates that the Coupon Program has both sufficient funds and system processing capabilities to achieve this goal . . . and to do so without the creation a large backlog. Also, NTIA has built flexibility into the Program to respond to various or unexpected events. Moreover, based on actual, cumulative redemption data, NTIA would not exhaust the authorized $1.34 billion in coupon funding despite increased demand leading up to the analog shut-down, on February 17th, and, in fact, may return as much as $340 million to the U.S. Treasury. That's from the NTIA just over two months ago. ``No problem,'' the agency is saying. In essence the agency is telling Congress, ``We have a plan to deal with the surge and we don't need any more money. No large backlog. And we'll have hundreds of millions of dollars left over.'' Now, why is this important? It is important because we were actually in session in November. We could have acted during the ``lame duck'' session if the Bush Administration had said, ``yes, we will likely have a shortfall'', or ``please, Congress, let's err on the side of caution and budget a couple hundred million more just in case . . .''. Yet NTIA told us all just the opposite. The agency said everything was fine and they didn't need additional money for coupons. In late December, I asked for an urgent status update on the program. That's when NTIA wrote back to me--on December 24th--stating that a waiting list was going to begin in January of this year because the coupon program was hitting its funding ceiling. The agency indicated that to solve this issue and spend up to the $1.34 billion in the underlying statute for coupons that another 250 million dollars at a minimum might be needed. And that amount would not necessarily reflect the actual demand for coupons the agency was newly projecting. The waiting list now represents approximately 3 million coupons. In an attempt to respond quickly, I reached out the first week we returned here in January to Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-TX, and said if we work together on an accounting fix we could start to address the waiting list issue and get the coupons flowing to consumers again and buy some time. I want to thank Rep. Barton for his willingness to proceed on such a bill. But that effort has simply become overtaken by events. If we passed it and also gave NTIA a couple hundred million dollars for additional coupons in a measure that passed through the House and through the Senate today, and arrived to the President's desk this evening, we simply wouldn't be able to address the backlog and get coupons out to people who have requested them by February 17th. Not every media market will be as unprepared as others on February 17th. I know that in the Boston market, our local commercial and noncommercial broadcasters, as well as our local cable operators, have worked diligently to be ready on February 17th and I commend them for their model efforts. Yet even in Boston, it is important to note that a recent test brought a flood of calls to consumer call centers from citizens confused about or unprepared for the switchover. Many other media markets, in part due to the demographic makeup of such markets, will have an even greater risk of significant dislocation without immediate action. The Bush Administration has simply left us with so little time to make the needed adjustments on a national basis absent a short, one-time delay. So, although this is the last place we all wanted to be, and in spite of the fact that we toiled mightily to make this effort work, it is my judgment that a short delay is in the public interest in order to protect consumers. I urge passage of this emergency DTV legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``American Renewable Energy Act'' to create a national renewable electricity standard that will revitalize our economy by creating hundreds of thousands of green jobs, save consumers billions of dollars on their energy bills and reduce our Nation's global warming pollution by dramatically increasing our use of clean, renewable power. In the 110th Congress, the House repeatedly passed a national renewable electricity standard in overwhelming, bipartisan votes requiring that 15 percent of our electricity come from renewable energy sources like wind, solar and biomass and efficiency gains by 2020. The American Renewable Energy Act that I am introducing today would build upon that legislation and follows President Obama's goal that we generate 25 percent of our electricity from renewables by the year 2025. Electric power generation is responsible for roughly 40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions--the most prevalent of the heat-trapping gases causing global warming. Right now, the combustion of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas currently produce more than 70 percent of U.S. electricity. However, the way that we generate electricity is already beginning to change dramatically. In 2007, we installed 5,244 megawatts of new wind generation, which accounted for 35 percent of all new generation that came online, second only to natural gas. And in 2008, the United States installed more than 8,300 megawatts of new wind capacity--over 40 percent of all new generation that was brought online. That newly installed capacity in 2008 led to the creation of more than 35,000 jobs in the wind industry over the last year. Much of that renewable generation is the result of states across the country that are putting policies in place to incentivize renewable generation. Already, 27 States and the District of Columbia have adopted renewable electricity standards at the State level. Adopting a national renewable electricity standard will further unleash our technological innovation and allow for the development of renewable resources all across the country. Every region of the country has renewable resources waiting to be tapped. For instance, the Southeast is home to nearly a third of the biomass feedstock potential in the entire country. Special power plants can burn biomass exclusively and existing coal plants can co-fire biomass in their fuel stream without costly equipment upgrades, replacing 15 percent or more of fossil fuel needs with renewable fuel. Customer-sited solar photovoltaic cells would also earn triple credits under the legislation that I am introducing today, making the target much easier to achieve in places like Florida and Georgia where the solar photovoltaic resource is estimated to be 83-85 percent of the best solar resources in the world. Adopting a national renewable electricity standard can reinvigorate our economy and our manufacturing sectors by creating an entire new cadre of green-collar jobs. Each wind turbine requires 220 to nearly 400 tons of steal to produce and workers to produce it. From the revamped Maytag plant that is now producing wind turbines in Iowa to the former Ohio manufacturing plant that President Obama visited on his way to Washington, alternative energy can revitalize our declining manufacturing centers all across our country. Adopting a 25 percent renewable electricity standard will create more than 350,000 green jobs by 2020--allowing the people who most need work to do the work that most needs to be done in order to address the climate crisis. Moreover, adopting a renewable electricity standard will save consumers money by reducing their energy bills. Adopting a national standard of 25 percent will save consumers more than $49 billion over the next decade in lower energy bills, while channeling more than $70 billion in new investment into renewable technologies. The American people overwhelming support a national renewable electricity standard. According to a December poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News, 84 percent of Americans support requiring utilities to increase their use of wind, solar and other renewable sources of power. President Obama understands the importance of increasing our use of renewable energy to unleash a clean energy revolution that will get our economy moving again. The States all across the country that have already put similar policies in place understand the need for action. The overwhelming majority of the American people understand it. Now it is time for the Congress to take action to unleash the clean energy revolution by adopting a national renewable electricity standard.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Georges Bank Preservation Act in the 111th Congress because Georges Bank, America's most valuable fishery and one of our nation's most important marine areas, remains in the crosshairs of the oil and gas industry. Last year, as a result of opposition from the Bush Administration, the longstanding protections against drilling off the east and west coasts expired. As a result, the American people could now begin to see drill rigs as close as three miles to our beaches and in fragile ecosystems like Georges Bank. Allowing oil and gas drilling in Georges Bank would forever destroy this fragile ecosystem and our nation's most important fishery. In its final days in office, the Bush Administration issued a draft proposal to conduct offshore oil and gas leasing in the entire North Atlantic Planning area in 2013. This area comprises all federal waters off the coast of New England, including Georges Bank. We know that Georges Bank remains a top target of the oil industry and that is why we must take action to restore the longstanding protections for this special place. The Georges Bank Preservation Act would prohibit the federal government from allowing exploration, development, or production of oil or natural gas in Georges Bank. Protecting Georges Bank from drilling would affect less than 2 percent of federal land on the outer Continental Shelf. The legislation would also protect any areas designated as marine national monuments or national marine sanctuaries, such as the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Massachusetts. The language in the Georges Bank Preservation Act has already passed the House last year in an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 236-189 as part of H.R. 6899. Georges Bank is the heart of the New England fishery and a key economic engine for the region. The Northeast fishery landings are valued at approximately $800 million annually and Georges Bank is the key to the region. New Bedford, Massachusetts is by far the most productive fishing port in the United States, in terms of value of catch, and has held that distinction for the last eight years. Its $268 million catch in 2007 was almost as much as catches from the second and third most valuable ports combined. New Bedford has been the number one fishing port for eight straight years. We must not let Big Oil claim one of New England's most important economic and environmental treasures. The Georges Bank Preservation Act will prevent the oil and gas industry from destroying this special habitat that is the heart of America's most precious fishery and a uniquely vital marine habitat.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I offer this technical amendment to clarify language that was adopted by the Energy and Commerce Committee concerning the grant program for smart grids. This language is supported by companies across energy and technology industries, from Duke Energy to General Electric to Google. The underlying bill directs the Department of Energy to make grants for programs that support new technologies that can help Americans use energy more wisely and more efficiently. One provision in the bill requires the Secretary to ensure that the funds are used to promote innovation in the dynamic smart grid area. The purpose of this amendment is simply to clarify that any sort of open protocol should be supported. Some industry participants were concerned that the language adopted by the committee would have been restricted to just Internet protocol technology. This amendment makes clear that any open protocol will be eligible for funding in order to not preclude future innovation. This provision has support from leading companies who see our energy future shaped as much by information technology as by horsepower. This provision has won support from leading electric companies, and I have already made reference earlier to Duke and to General Electric and to Google. But those are representative companies of the wide range of corporate support for this open protocol approach. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend you for quickly putting this Senate legislation (S. 328) before the House for immediate consideration. This is a bill that is responsive to the slate of digital television issues confronting consumers and the television industry. In several weeks, without immediate action, millions of Americans may remain unprepared for the digital television transition. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have had a long interest in the digital television transition. I held the very first hearing on ``High Definition TV'' in October of 1987--more than 20 years ago. In 1990, I battled hard and successfully as then-Chairman of the House Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee to get the Federal Communications Commission to switch from pursuing an ``analog'' HDTV standard to a ``digital'' standard. Moreover, I fought to build into the Telecomm Act in 1996 the appropriate way in which broadcasters could utilize ``spectrum flexibility'' to multiplex the digital signal into several video programming channels or offer wireless interactive television or information services. And I pushed unsuccessfully in the context of the 1997 budget battles to prohibit the sale of ``analog-only'' televisions by the year 2000--an amendment that was opposed by every Republican in our Committee markup in 1997. The result was over a hundred million analog-only sets were sold into the marketplace even as the government was stipulating it intended to turn off the analog TV signal. The failure to mandate ``dual tuner'' TVs sooner has compounded the difficulty of this transition immeasurably by increasing the base of TV receivers that need converter boxes to receive digital TV signals. Most recently, for the last two years as the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee Chairman, I convened six DTV hearings, requested and received three Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, and wrote numerous oversight letters to the FCC, to NTIA, and to industry and consumer representatives in headlong pursuit of ensuring a successful digital television transition on February 17th. At the last DTV hearing that we held the second week of September-- just after the Wilmington, North Carolina switch-over test--the GAO testified: ``NTIA is effectively implementing the converter box subsidy program, but its plans to address the likely increase in coupon demand as the transition nears remain unclear. . . . With a spike in demand likely as the transition date nears, NTIA has no specific plans to address an increase in demand; therefore, consumers might incur significant wait time before they receive coupons as the transition nears and might lose television service during the time they are waiting for the coupons.'' In response, I asked the Acting NTIA Administrator to give the Subcommittee a contingency plan for dealing with the expected surge in coupons within 30 days. Now, that contingency plan did not arrive in 30 days. Instead, it arrived to us on November 6th--just after Election Day. The NTIA's ``Final Phase'' plan did not echo the GAO's alarm bells, but rather stated the following: ``This Plan demonstrates that the Coupon Program has both sufficient funds and system processing capabilities to achieve this goal . . . . and to do so without the creation a large backlog. Also, NTIA has built flexibility into the Program to respond to various or unexpected events. Moreover, based on actual, cumulative redemption data, NTIA would not exhaust the authorized $1.34 billion in coupon funding despite increased demand leading up to the analog shut-down on February 17th, and, in fact, may return as much as $340 million to the U.S. Treasury.'' That's from the NTIA just over two months ago. ``No problem,'' the agency is saying. In essence the agency is telling Congress, ``We have a plan to deal with the surge and we don't need any more money. No large backlog. And we'll have hundreds of millions of dollars left over.'' Now, why is this important? It is important because we were actually in session in November. We could have acted during the ``lame duck'' session if the Bush Administration had said, ``yes, we will likely have a shortfall'', or ``please, Congress, let's err on the side of caution and budget a couple hundred million more just in case . . .''. Yet NTIA told us all just the opposite. The agency said everything was fine and they didn't need additional money for coupons. In late December, I asked for an urgent status update on the program. That's when NTIA wrote back to me--on December 24th--stating that a waiting list was going to begin in January of this year because the coupon program was hitting its funding ceiling. The agency indicated that to solve this issue and spend up to the $1.34 Billion in the underlying statute for coupons that another 250 million dollars at a minimum might be needed. And that amount would not necessarily reflect the actual demand for coupons the agency was newly projecting. The waiting list now represents approximately 3 million coupons. In an attempt to respond quickly, I reached out the first week we returned here in January to Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) and said if we work together on an accounting fix we could start to address the waiting list issue and get the coupons flowing to consumers again and buy some time. I want to thank Rep. Barton for his willingness to proceed on such a bill. But that effort has simply become overtaken by events. If we passed it and also gave NTIA a couple hundred million dollars for additional coupons in a measure that passed through the House and through the Senate today, and arrived to the President's desk this evening, we simply wouldn't be able to address the backlog and get coupons out to people who have requested them by February 17th. Not every media market will be as unprepared as others on February 17th. I know that in the Boston market, our local commercial and noncommercial broadcasters, as well as our local cable operators, have worked diligently to be ready on February 17th and I commend them for their model efforts. Yet even in Boston, it is important to note that a recent test brought a flood of calls to consumer call centers from citizens confused about or unprepared for the switchover. Many other media markets, in part due to the demographic makeup of such markets, will have an even greater risk of significant dislocation without immediate action. The Bush Administration has simply left us with so little time to make the needed adjustments on a national basis absent a short, one-time delay. So, although this is the last place we all wanted to be, and in spite of the fact that we toiled mightily to make this effort work, it is my judgment that a short delay is in the public interest in order to protect consumers. I urge passage of this emergency DTV legislation.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. This urgently-needed stimulus bill funds infrastructure projects that are shovel-ready, while also supporting future-oriented projects that are circuit-ready: broadband, electronic medical records, smart grid, advanced battery technologies, and other vital priorities. This package is a major downpayment on the clean, renewable energy future this country has been waiting for and desperately needs. But this legislation should not be characterized by what we spend, but rather by what we save. These smart, clean energy investments will save jobs, ensuring that windmills and solar panels are built here at home. It will save energy through efficiency measures on schools and buildings, and it will save consumers and businesses money on their heating, gas and energy bills. With the support included in this package, wind capacity will grow from 25,000 megawatts today to 44,000 megawatts generated on a daily basis in 2012. At 220 tons of steel per wind turbine, that is nearly 3 million tons of new steel demands. Those steel jobs are blue collar jobs tinted green by the force of the clean energy revolution. The massive investments in weatherization, State energy efficiency grants, and Federal building efficiency are some of the safest and smartest investments our country can make right now. They put money into the pockets of American workers and pay for themselves in the form of energy savings and lower energy prices. This energy efficiency double dividend is a proven, reliable phenomenon that our current weak economy must exploit. Working smarter, not harder, that is what this bill is all about. The bill provides $20 billion in new health IT infrastructure to improve care, lower costs and reduce medical efforts. I am pleased that the bill includes patient privacy safeguards that I have long advocated, including a provision that I offered at the Energy and Commerce Committee markup to ensure that patients' medical records are made unreadable to unauthorized individuals. This was supported by Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Barton. This is an issue that we all agree on, the privacy and security of our medical records. Today we have before us a balanced, well-thought out package that provides tax relief for 95 percent of Americans and targets investments in key areas to turn around the American economy. I strongly support these measures and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation to expand the highly successful State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). This bill will allow the program to provide health insurance to an additional 4 million low-income children on top of the nearly 7 million who already benefit from the program. In my home State, SCHIP enrollment is part of the reason why Massachusetts has the lowest rate of uninsured children in the country. More than 180,000 Massachusetts children receive health coverage through SCHIP, and this reauthorization will allow the state to cover even more children who currently do not have health insurance. It is unfortunate that the previous two attempts to reauthorize SCHIP were vetoed by President Bush, who chose to side with big corporations over children. With the current economic crisis causing significant job losses, millions of Americans also are losing their health coverage, making today's vote even more urgent. While President Bush twice dashed the hopes of millions of low-income families in need of health care for their children, the incoming Obama administration recognizes the value of ensuring that all low-income children get the health care they need. I urge my colleagues to stand with the hard working families who want to provide their children with the health care they need. Vote yes on this critical legislation.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support for H. Res. 34, a resolution recognizing Israel's right to defend itself, reaffirming the United States support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I am deeply concerned about the situation in Gaza, and I am deeply saddened by the loss of innocent life on both sides. Every innocent death or injury in this conflict is a tragedy. The United States must play a central role in bringing the parties together to stop the violence, and must forcefully engage to restart the peace process so that the dream of two states living side by side in peace finally can be made a reality. For too many years, the war in Iraq has distracted the United States from what should be its number one priority in the Middle East: bringing peace to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Finding a just, lasting, and equitable solution to the conflict is not only vital for Israelis and Palestinians; it is also very much in our national interest. I am very hopeful that the incoming Obama administration will reengage the United States at the highest levels to complete the peace process. The resolution we are considering today appropriately recognizes the fact that Hamas has been designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. Hamas continues to reject the very right of Israel to exist and refuses to renounce violence. Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and mortars against Israeli population centers since 2001. Instead of laying the foundation for an independent state following Israel's withdrawal from Gaza more than three years ago, Hamas turned Gaza into a launch pad for rockets targeting Israeli civilians. Hamas has launched more than 6,000 rockets and mortars at Israel since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Israel has the right and obligation to protect its citizens from the thousands of rockets that have rained down on its cities and towns since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. These rocket attacks must stop. Hamas is not only indiscriminately firing rockets at Israeli civilians; it is also damaging the future for all Palestinians who seek a normal life for themselves and their families. Peace will only result from a political process of engagement and negotiation, not from volleys of rockets. The incoming Obama Administration has a golden opportunity to breathe new life into the peace process, and I am committed to working with President Obama to stop the violence, get the peace process back on track and establish the security that all residents of the region urgently need. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the Udall- Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act, which would give permanent protection to the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This legislation also honors two great American visionaries--President Dwight Eisenhower and Representative Morris Udall--by designating this pristine wild place as wilderness in their names. President Eisenhower--a Republican--began the bipartisan legacy of fighting to protect this special place for future generations of Americans when he set aside the core of the Refuge in 1960. Twenty years later, in 1980, Representative Morris Udall--a Democrat--succeeded in doubling the size of the Refuge and protecting even more of this untrammeled wilderness. President Eisenhower and Rep. Mo Udall had the vision to protect a remote but very special piece of pristine wilderness. I am proud to introduce legislation today that would complete the job they began by permanently protecting the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge from oil drilling. I am also proud to once again introduce this legislation under the bill number H.R. 39, a bill number with important historical significance in the fight to preserve the land within the Arctic Refuge. H.R. 39 was the bill number given to Mo Udall's Alaska Natural Interest Lands Conservation Act that became law in 1980. This Act expanded the area President Eisenhower had originally set aside and renamed it as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Rep. Udall later began introducing his legislation to designate the coastal plain of the Refuge as wilderness under that same bill number. Introducing the Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act under the bill number H.R. 39 offers an important reminder of the history of the fight to protect this special place. The coastal plain is the biological heart of the Refuge and is central to the survival of many unique species of animals including polar bears, caribou, musk oxen, wolves, and over 160 species of birds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calls the coastal plain the ``center for wildlife activity'' in the Refuge. If we were to allow drilling in the Refuge it would irreparably disrupt this important ecosystem and one of our last great wild places will be forever destroyed. We know that the Arctic is already feeling the strains of global warming. Alaska has warmed at four times the rate of the rest of the planet over the last fifty years and the impacts of a warming Arctic on iconic species such as the polar bear are disastrous. Last year, the Bush Administration listed the polar bear as 'threatened' under the Endangered Species Act because of melting sea ice and government scientists project that the prospects for the polar bear's survival are bleak. A team of scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey released a series of reports at the end of 2007 which concluded that by mid- century, two-thirds of all the world's polar bears could disappear and that polar bears could be gone entirely from Alaska. The USGS team also noted that based on recent observations, this dire assessment could actually be conservative. The 111th Congress marks a time of real change for our nation's energy policy. The Bush Administration and Republicans in Congress have argued for a shortsighted energy policy of ``drill, drill, drill'' that would forever sacrifice our beaches and most pristine wilderness areas for a few short months worth of oil. The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's oil but controls only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We cannot drill our to way energy independence. But we can enact smart, green energy policies that can simultaneously grow our economy, spur technological innovation, protect our environment, reduce global warming pollution and end our addiction to oil. There are some places in our world that are so rare and so special that we have a responsibility to protect them. The Arctic Refuge is one of those places. Protecting the Arctic Refuge will send a strong statement of our nation's intent to preserve America's pristine wilderness areas, break our dangerous addition to oil, and kick-start a green revolution to create jobs, grow the economy, and promote energy independence. As Mo Udall said, ``In our lifetime, we have few opportunities to shape the very Earth on which our descendants will live their lives. In each generation, we have carved up more and more of our once-great natural heritage. There ought to be a few places left in the world the way the Almighty made them.'' The Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act will ensure that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is forever protected for future Americans and never carved up by the big oil companies.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, today I am re-introducing the ``Derivatives Market Reform Act.'' This bill is largely based on legislation that I first introduced on July 14, 1994 as H.R. 4745, and then subsequently reintroduced in 1995 (as H.R. 1063), and introduced again in 1999, as H.R. 3483. I am reintroducing the bill again today, on the same day that Congress is passing emergency legislation to respond to the crisis caused by Wall Street's irresponsible and risky use of derivatives, because I believe that if Congress had adopted this type of legislation, we might have been able to avoid some of the turmoil that has recently affected our Nation's financial markets. In 1992, as Chairman of the House Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee, I asked the General Accounting Office to undertake an investigation into the derivatives markets, including the size of the markets for these financial instruments, their economic rationale, and associated risks. In 1994, the GAO submitted its report to the Subcommittee, entitled ``Financial Derivatives: Actions Needed to Protect the Financial System.'' This report contained a number of important recommendations for the financial services industry, Federal financial regulators, and for the Congress. The GAO suggested that Congress needed to extend Federal authority to currently unregulated derivatives dealers, improve coordination among Federal regulators with responsibilities over key participants in this market, and restructure the regulations applicable to the derivatives markets. My legislation was aimed at responding to the GAO's recommendations by providing a framework for improved supervision and regulation of previously unregulated derivatives dealers, assuring appropriate protections for their customers, and establishing certain reporting requirements for hedge funds. During the 103rd Congress, the Subcommittee held five oversight hearing on key issues relating to the derivatives market. As Chairman of the legislative Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Securities and Exchange Commission, it was my intention to move forward with derivatives legislation in the 104th Congress. Unfortunately, the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in the 2004 elections, and the new Republican Majority that took control of the House in January of2005 had little interest in increasing financial regulation. Indeed, one of the first bills that the House passed as part of Speaker Newt Gingrich's ``Contract with America'' was H.R. 1058, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. This legislation was ostensibly aimed at curbing ``frivolous'' securities class action lawsuits, but in fact was drafted in such a way to make it more difficult for defrauded investors to sue those whose fraud or recklessness had caused them harm. During House floor consideration of that bill, I offered an amendment (House Amendment 270), which would have exempted securities fraud cases involving derivatives from the bill's harsh restrictions. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated by a voted of 162-261. Following the derivatives-related collapse of the hedge fund Long- Term Capital Management, I joined with Senator Byron Dorgan to ask the GAO to undertake another investigation into the derivatives markets, focusing this time on the role that derivatives played in the collapse of the hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management. The GAO's report on this matter, entitled, ``Long-Term Capital Management: Regulators Need to Focus Greater Attention on System Risk,'' identified a need for Federal financial regulators to better coordinate their efforts to identify and respond to risks across markets and industries, and has called for Federal oversight over currently unregulated derivatives dealers who may have significant risk exposure to hedge funds and other highly leveraged entities. These recommendations came in addition to those made by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets earlier in 1999 that legislation be adopted which would require some public reporting by hedge funds regarding their investments. The ``Derivatives Dealers and Hedge Fund Disclosure Act of 1999'' that Senator Dorgan and I are introduced back then responded to GAO's and the regulators' recommendations for reforms in the aftermath of the LTCM affair. Again, the Republican-controlled Congress took no action to strengthen derivatives regulation. Instead, Congress passed two bills that made the situation worse. First, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 effectively tied the SEC's hands when it came to overseeing the derivatives activities of banks. Second, the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 largely exempted derivatives from any effective oversight or regulation by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. And so, with no action on legislation to strengthen derivatives regulation, with Congress instead taking steps to make it more difficult for federal financial regulators to oversee these markets, the foundation was set for our current crisis. This crisis was, of course, exacerbated by the failure of the financial regulators to effectively use the tools that they still had at their disposal to avert a meltdown. In recent weeks we have read how the Federal Reserve turned a blind eye to the growing systemic threat facing our financial system. We have read how the SEC failed to use its broker-dealer holding company risk authority to oversee and respond to this crisis. We have read about how they weakened capital rules that allowed securities firms to take on far too much leverage. And in the weeks and months to come, we will all learn a lot more about the causes and consequences of this crisis. The bill that I am reintroducing today is aimed at opening a dialogue on solutions. I have made some modifications in the text to try to address some of the harmful deregulatory provisions enacted into law in recent years. But I know that the bill may need further refinement. I offer it as a baseline for how we might begin thinking about fixing the mess on Wall Street. There may be additional ideas that could improve the bill. There may be changes needed to ensure that these provisions are fully effective. I look forward to talking with my colleagues, and with outside stakeholders, about how we can begin to address this problem. Because we do need to act. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1492) to improve the quality of Federal and State data regarding the availability and quality of broadband services and to promote the deployment of affordable broadband services to all parts of the Nation, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1276) to establish a grant program to facilitate the creation of methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook systems, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. When the markets go up, Wall Street cleans up. When the markets go down, Main Street gets cleaned out. Nobody wants to do this. Nobody wants to clean up the mess created by Wall Street recklessness. Nobody thinks this is perfect. But, if we don't act now, we won't just punish Wall Street, but punish innocent people on Main Street who will get cleaned out. This is the greatest threat to those people since the Great Depression. This bill, because of Barney Frank, protects taxpayers, prevents golden parachutes, and limits excessive CEO compensation, helps prevent home foreclosures, provides strong, independent oversight and transparency. Not just Main Street, but the whole world is looking at us. Our very system of capitalism is under assault. We must pass this today. We must give support to this. We must protect Main Street across this entire country. Vote ``yes'' on this protection of citizens of our country. I rise in support of this bill. After careful consideration of the bill to provide emergency assistance to stabilize our economy, I have decided to support this bill. For years, I have fought hard for tougher oversight and regulation of Wall Street. I fought for tougher laws against insider trading, market manipulation, and other financial fraud; I fought to give the SEC expanded powers to obtain risk assessment reports regarding the risks posed by derivatives and other risky investments; I fought against efforts to deregulate Wall Street and make it tougher for defrauded investors to sue the scam artists who have ripped them off. But 12 years of Republican-led deregulation and lax controls have fueled Wall Street's greed and recklessness in an inexcusable manner. I don't like having to vote for this kind of legislation. Still, I believe that a failure to act now wouldn't merely punish Wall Street, but also would put hardworking Americans at risk of losing their homes, their jobs, and their savings. When the Bush administration presented its plan to Congress a week ago, I believed it did not contain the safeguards needed to protect taxpayers from billions of dollars in losses that could result from this rescue plan. But over the past week, as a result of round-the-clock negotiations with the Bush Administration, essential taxpayer protections were added. For example, the plan now: Protects taxpayers by requiring a plan for full repayment of all funds used to assist troubled financial firms; Helps prevent home foreclosures by granting the Government authority to work with loan servicers to change the terms of mortgages to keep Americans in their homes; Prevents golden parachutes by limiting excessive compensation for CEOs and executives of firms selling assets to the Government as part of the plan; Creates strong, independent oversight and transparency to prevent waste and fraud and protect taxpayers. I believe that failure to take action now would mean considerable risk of serious economic pain for America. The pain would not be limited to Wall Street bankers who made risky bets that didn't pay off. Without relief now, Americans across the country struggling to pay their mortgages would be at greater risk of losing their homes. Responsible companies seeking credit to keep their businesses afloat already have seen financing dry up--if the Government fails to intervene now, more companies could close their doors, putting more Americans out of work. The bill provides tough oversight and commits Congress and the President to the principle that whatever the ultimate cost is, it will be borne by the financial services industry directly, not taxpayers in general. Our economy is facing the biggest Wall Street crisis since the Great Depression. Congress must respond to stop further declines that could wipe out savings accounts and hurt everyday Americans around the country if the crisis spreads even further. Our entire economy depends on this critical legislation, but the taxpayers should not be on the hook to pay for risky business on Wall Street and lax oversight by the Bush administration. The taxpayers' insurance guarantee in the bill is one of the many taxpayer protections Democrats included to improve the original Bush-Paulson plan to stabilize American financial markets. I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1276) to establish a grant program to facilitate the creation of methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook systems, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.