Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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 all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just passed by the House.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 3399) to prohibit the use, production, sale, importation, or exportation of any pesticide containing atrazine, be rereferred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition, to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Foreign Affairs.

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 rise to introduce the ``Radio All Digital Channel Receiver Act.'' This legislation will assure consumers that they have seamless access to free, over-the-air digital radio in key consumer electronic devices. It will also help to safeguard the viability of free, over-the-air radio into the future. I am pleased to introduce this bipartisan legislation today with Energy and Commerce Committee colleagues Representatives Lee Terry (R-NE), Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX), Doug Walden (R-OR), Joe Wilson (R-SC), and Dan Burton (R-IN). Madam Speaker, millions of Americans today rely on local broadcast radio for news, public safety bulletins, sports, weather, traffic and other information. The broadcast radio industry is increasingly migrating to digital broadcasting technology that will avail radio stations of the ability to transmit CD-quality digital content and offer multiple streams of service. This legislation is designed to ensure that consumers are able to readily receive such free service through consumer electronics systems that are otherwise receiving satellite digital audio radio and traditional AM or FM stations. The recent merger of the only two satellite radio providers, XM and Sirius satellite radio, has underscored the importance of ensuring consumer access to a diversity of sources for digital radio content, in particular the free radio content originating in their local communities. This bill therefore simultaneously seeks to address the long-term competitive health of local radio while ensuring that their local, digital services are readily received by radio consumers. With the 110th Congress in its final days of session, this legislation will obviously have to wait until the next Congress for action. I look forward to continuing to work with the original cosponsors of this bill as well as other Energy and Commerce Committee colleagues and other interested members of the House.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill which will do unacceptable damage to the international nuclear nonproliferation regime. I have worked for over three years in opposition to the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement because of its disastrous implications for nonproliferation. I've been called the ``Arch-Critic'' of the deal; but really I see myself as the ``Arch-Defender'' of nuclear nonproliferation. Halting the spread of nuclear weapons is not something over which the United States can afford to compromise; this issue is central to both international stability and our own security here at home. I'm not ``attacking'' India, I am defending the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. My goal has been to get meaningful nonproliferation conditions included in the agreement at all levels, including at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG). But the Bush administration fought this at every turn. The legislation I introduced in 2005, H. Con. Res. 318 outlined the serious nonproliferation problems of the proposed India nuclear cooperation agreement. I testified before the House International Relations Committee on May 11, 2006 and explained the incredible dangers of the President's proposal. I told them that the deal was ``ill-conceived, that it undermines U.S. national security interests, and that it sets a dangerous precedent that will be exploited by our adversaries and rivals.'' I continue to believe that this is the case. In response to the issues I and others raised regarding the threat to Congressional prerogatives from the administration's draft bill, the bill that was actually introduced removed many of the worst ``blank check'' provisions of the Administration bill. For instance, the administration bill would not have allowed the Congress to even see India's IAEA Safeguards Agreement or the Nuclear Suppliers' Group rule change before we voted on whether or not to give final approval. The Motion to Recommit which I offered during floor debate on July 26, 2006 focused on India's dangerous relationship with Iran. My motion would have required India to help us halt Iran's nuclear program. It received 192 votes--the strongest vote that opponents of the deal were able to muster. Sadly, however, it was not included in the final bill. But after the Congress passed the Henry J. Hyde Act of 2006, to allow in principle nuclear trade with India, the Bush Administration ignored many of the most important nonproliferation-related conditions and requirements which were contained in that legislation. President Bush has negotiated a deal with India which is universally recognized by nonproliferation experts as ripping an enormous hole in the nonproliferation regime by granting unprecedented concessions to India, a country that has never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. I would like to take this opportunity to explain for the Record, the problems inherent with this bill, and more generally with President Bush's now three-year campaign to carve out a massive loophole to the nonproliferation rules on behalf of India. Administration Arguments Fail the Reality Test In selling its proposal for the nuclear cooperation agreement with India, the Bush Administration relied on arguments which simply fail the realty test. Among the most glaringly false arguments on which the administration continues to rely to this day are that the nuclear deal will unlock India for American commerce, and that India will be a natural strategic partner with the United States, The U.S.-India trade relationship The Bush Administration has argued that the nuclear cooperation agreement will exponentially boost commerce with India. They also argued repeatedly that if the nuclear deal were not immediately approved by the Congress, the U.S. would lose the benefit of this trade. But in reality, we already have strong and growing trade ties with India, and there is no reason to believe that this will be substantially altered by the nuclear cooperation agreement. Furthermore, I believe that the Bush Administration has sought to use this false economic argument to rush Congressional approval. The truth is that since 2000, Indian exports to the United States have doubled, and U.S. exports to India have almost tripled. In the last 30 years, total bilateral trade has grown almost 8-fold, an enormous increase. In 2006, our total bilateral trade topped $31.9 billion, growing at a whopping 18.9% over the previous year. Even during the worst moments of the U.S.-India relationship, for instance after the 1974 and 1998 Indian nuclear tests, trade continued to grow at rapid rates. The bottom line is that trade between the United States and India will continue to grow, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the nuclear cooperation agreement. The U.S.-India strategic relationship The Bush administration has repeatedly called the U.S.-Indian relationship a ``Strategic Partnership.'' I am a strong supporter of India, and I believe that the United States and India must, and will, continue to have a relationship marked by mutual cooperation and shared values. But I do not believe, as the Bush Administration has essentially argued, that India will become a subservient partner to the United States. The reality is that India has always followed a fiercely independent foreign policy, and will certainly continue to do so. In fact, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told his Parliament in August of 2006 that, ``Our sole guiding principle in regard to our foreign policy, whether it is on Iran or any other country, will be dictated entirely by our national interest.'' The first major test of the U.S.-India strategic partnership is the question of how to deal with Iran's nuclear program. If lndia really were a steady strategic partner to the United States, New Delhi would be actively supporting the U.S. in halting the Iranian nuclear program. But instead of assisting the U.S. with Iran, India's longstanding strategic relationship with Iran has only grown stronger. Let me list some of India's actions vis-a-vis Iran which have led me to conclude that India is not fully and actively supporting United States' efforts to sanction and isolate Iran for its ongoing nuclear program: India has repeatedly defended Iran's nuclear program; India has developed intelligence outposts in Iran near the Pakistani border; India and Iran have held two joint naval exercises, in March 2003 and March 2006; The 2003 Iranian-Indian New Delhi Declaration explicitly raised concerns about U.S. unilateralism in Iraq; Indian scientists have been sanctioned by the U.S. for WMD-related transfers to Iran, most recently in July 2006; India is pursuing an $8 billion gas pipeline from Iran. India has committed to help Iran build a Liquefied Natural Gas terminal; the two countries established the Indian-Iranian Joint Working Group on Counter Terrorism in 2003; and India is developing a port in south-east Iran which analysts believe will be a naval base. The other major test of the U.S.-India strategic partnership is how to address the rise of China. Some supporters of the nuclear deal will admit, in their more candid moments, that the real driver behind this enormous change is a desire on the part of the Bush Administration that India become the U.S. ``hedge'' to contain China's rise in Asia. But India has no desire for conflict of any kind with China, and India will not act as an American proxy. To put it simply, it is not in India's interest to risk poor relations with China. China is India's second largest trading partner. India and China signed an energy agreement to prevent them from bidding for the same resources and driving up prices, in January 2006. Total bilateral India-China trade has grown at over 30% every year since 1999, even faster than India- U.S. trade has grown. China is simply too valuable as a partner, and too potentially threatening as an enemy, for India to seek anything but positive relations. And all the armchair strategists who have been trying to sell the idea of India as an American proxy against China are absolutely foolish. It's not going to happen. I am not arguing that India cannot or should not have an independent foreign policy. I'm arguing it inevitably will chart its own course, as any powerful nation would be expected to do. My colleagues should be realistic about what we can expect from India in terms of support for U.S. foreign policy priorities. The Bush Administration seems to think that by granting India international nuclear trade we are locking them into a permanent foreign policy alliance with the U.S. That is absolutely naive, and I believe that the Bush Administration's strategic calculation that they are getting a permanent ally in exchange for a wholesale change of international nonproliferation rules is simply wrong. U.S. Violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which the United States is a signatory, states that, ``Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.'' However, the U.S.-India nuclear agreement could put the United States in violation of this central obligation, since India's nuclear weapons program is likely to both indirectly and directly benefit from the terms of civilian nuclear trade, and since the United States could therefore be said to be ``encouraging'' India's manufacture of nuclear weapons. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service analyzed at my request the question of whether the U.S.-India nuclear agreement could violate the United States' obligations under the NPT, and identified three ways in which this could occur. First, it analyzed the ``separation plan'' under which India's civilian and military nuclear facilities will be disentangled. Second, it investigated whether U.S. de-facto recognition of lndia as a nuclear power could encourage India to continue its production of weapons. And third, it examines the most significant issue of U.S. assistance to India's weapons program: how imported nuclear fuel would free up India's domestic uranium for use in its weapons program. Without a credible separation plan, the United States could wind up transferring technology directly into India's weapons program. The CRS analysis states: It should be noted that while IAEA safeguards ensure that nuclear material is not diverted, there are no procedures or measures in place to ensure that information, technology and know-how are not transferred from the civil sector to the military sector. This could become a key loophole, particularly because the separation plan places 8 indigenous power reactors under safeguards, while leaving at least 8 indigenous power reactors outside of safeguards. Without additional measures to prevent the transfer of personnel or knowledge from the safeguarded program to the unsafeguarded program, there would be little assurallce that assistance to the safeguarded program could not migrate to the military program. By changing U.S. law to allow for nuclear trade with India, the United States will grant international legitimacy to India's nuclear arsenal. The CRS analysis states: The United States is not granting de jure recognition to India as a nuclear weapon state, because doing so would require amendment of the NPT, a prospect that is unattainable, according to most experts. Nonetheless, a successful U.S. effort to gain an exemption in U.S. nuclear cooperation law would place India in the company of only four other nations--the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia--all de jure nuclear weapon states. While this may not constitute formal recognition of India as a nuclear weapon state, many observers believe that it legitimizes India's nuclear weapons program, thus providing de facto recognition. Critics of the President Bush's plan for the U.S.-India nuclear agreement long argued that allowing India to import uranium for its civilian reactors would free up its domestic fuel sources to concentrate exclusively on weapons production, giving India a vast new capacity for the manufacture of fissile material for weapons. The CRS analysis agreed with this argument, calling this indirect benefit to India's weapons program ``a clear consequence of such cooperation.'' The analysis continues: Secretary Rice seemed to be suggesting that having more uranium would not encourage or assist India's nuclear weapons program because it already had the fissile material it needed. If, as Secretary Rice suggests, the military requirements are dwarfed by civilian requirements, then finding international sources for civilian requirements could result in a windfall for the weapons program. It is my strong belief that the NPT is the single most important international security agreement in existence. Furthermore the United States has a unique responsibility as the sole remaining superpower, as well as the driving force behind the drafting of the NPT in the middle of the last century, to exert constant vigilance on behalf of this extraordinarily significant treaty. If the United States does not strictly adhere to its NPT commitments then we are likely to see a dramatic and dangerous deterioration in the strength and stability ofthe Treaty. Inconsistencies between the Hyde Act and the ``123'' Agreement The Hyde Act of 2006 set numerous requirements for the negotiation of the technical bilateral agreement for nuclear cooperation, known as the ``123 Agreement'' in reference to Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. However, the Bush Administration did not meet these requirements, and the 123 Agreement is therefore inconsistent with the law. The most important inconsistencies between the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement are: nuclear testing and the termination of U.S. nuclear supply; assurances of nuclear supply to India in the case of supply ``disruption;'' and, the reprocessing of U.S.-origin nuclear material. Nuclear Testing and the Termination of U.S. Nuclear Supply The Atomic Energy Act requires, and the Hyde Act reinforces, that nuclear trade with any nation will terminate if that nation conducts a nuclear test. In addition, U.S. law provides that the United States may demand the return of all transferred nuclear materials and technology in case of a test. Almost all other 123 Agreements state these requirements and rights explicitly. But the U.S.-India 123 Agreement doesn't. The India 123 Agreement provides no detail at all on the kinds of actions that will result in termination. Given the difficult disagreements in the past with India on nuclear rights and responsibilities, this is not wise. In addition, the India 123 Agreement does not state that the United States has the right to demand the return of all transferred nuclear materials and technology if India conducts a test. Because the 123 Agreement lacks these specific statements of the consequences of an Indian nuclear test, many in India argue that they not only have an unfettered right to test their nuclear weapons, but that no consequences will follow if they do. This is not what Congress intended with the Hyde Act, which specifically requires that cooperation end if India tests a nuclear bomb. Assurances of Nuclear Supply to India in the Case of Supply ``Disruption'' The 123 Agreement contains two unprecedented clauses with respect to assuring India a supply of nuclear fuel under all scenarios, even if they test a bomb. First, the 123 Agreement commits the United States to ``support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of the reactor.'' This means that the United States will assist India in stockpiling uranium from international suppliers. If supply was terminated for any reason, even if India failed to uphold its nonproliferation commitments, such as by testing a nuclear bomb, India could use this stockpile of fuel as a cushion against another supply cutoff. This clause flies in the face of the Hyde Act, which states that any fuel reserve should not exceed normal reactor operating requirements. Second, if India should ever have a fuel supply disruption, the U.S. is to convene ``a group of friendly supplier countries . . . to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India.'' Again, this would take place in the event of any disruption of supply, including due to India exploding a nuclear bomb. This renders toothless the requirement in the Atomic Energy Act to stop nuclear exports to a country that tests a nuclear weapon. Will India care that U.S. cooperation is cut off if the U.S. itself is turning around and asking other countries to step in and provide the nuclear fuel to India? Would you think twice about illegally parking if you know your ticket will be paid for? The Hyde Act specifically states that the United States is to seek to prevent other countries from providing India with nuclear material or technology if our own cooperation is cut off. The 123 Agreement should say the same thing, but it doesn't. Reprocessing U.S.-origin nuclear material As a matter of policy, the United States doesn't transfer enrichment, reprocessing, or heavy water production equipment to any state because of the dangerous utility of those technologies for nuclear weapons programs. In fact, in February 2004, President Bush said that ``enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.'' And he had it right! And reinforcing the point, the Hyde Act states that, ``Given the special sensitivity of equipment and technologies related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and the production of heavy water,'' the United States will work to further restrict the transfers of such technologies to India. Yet, the U.S. has given India the right to reprocess our nuclear material, and promised cooperation in reprocessing technologies! How will the U.S. be able to stop other countries from transferring reprocessing technologies and other sensitive technologies if we are making such transfers ourselves? The fact of the matter is that President Bush negotiated an agreement with India that does not meet the requirements of U.S. law, on testing, on assurances of supply, and on reprocessing. Problems relating to International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards The Hyde Act of 2006 set numerous requirements relating to India's negotiations and declarations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). While a number of these key requirements have not met, President Bush made a formal declaration that all of the Hyde Act requirements were fulfilled. Separation plan Section 104(b)(1) of the Hyde Act requires the President to determine that India must provide to the United States and the IAEA ``a credible plan to separate civil and military nuclear facilities, materials, and programs.'' However, the separation plan that India has provided is not credible from a nonproliferation perspective, since it will not prevent all materials from moving between the civilian and military spheres. Under the separation plan, India will be allowed to use domestically produced heavy water to moderate its safeguarded civilian reactors. However, the domestically produced heavy water itself will not be safeguarded, and safeguards will be removed from old heavy water as it is removed from the reactor in exchange for new heavy water. This creates a serious problem within the separation plan, as the old heavy water will contain tritium, a nuclear byproduct material which is used to boost the yield of nuclear weapons. India will be able to use tritium generated in its ``safeguarded'' reactors to boost the yield of its nuclear weapons, making the civilian-military separation plan utterly meaningless from a nonproliferation perspective. Yet, on September 10, 2008, President Bush made a formal declaration that ``India has provided the United States and the IAEA with a credible plan to separate civil and military nuclear facilities, materials, and programs.'' India's declaration to the International Atomic Energy Agency Section 104(b)(1) of the Hyde Act requires the President to determine that: India has ``filed a declaration regarding its civil facilities and materials with the IAEA.'' However, India has not filed such a declaration with the lAEA, and has stated that it will not do so until after the 123 Agreement has been approved. Yet, on September 10, 2008, President Bush made a formal declaration that, India . . . has ``filed a declaration regarding its civil facilities and materials with the IAEA.'' India's progress towards concluding an Additional Protocol Section 104(b)(3) of the Hyde Act requires the President to determine that: India and the IAEA are making substantial progress toward concluding an Additional Protocol consistent with IAEA principles, practices, and policies that would apply to India's civil nuclear program. The ``substantial progress'' required by the Hyde Act has simply not occurred. India and the lAEA have met just one time to discuss negotiations of an Additional Protocol, and one concept paper has been exchanged. No one knows what the final Additional Protocol will look like, if indeed one is ever successfully negotiated. Yet, September 10, 2008, President Bush made a formal declaration that, ``India and the IAEA are making substantial progress toward concluding an Additional Protocol consistent with IAEA principles, practices, and policies that would apply to India's civil nuclear program.'' Problems relating to the Nuclear Suppliers' Group Waiver The Hyde Act of 2006 set numerous statements of United States policy relating to the negotiation of a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) guidelines for international nuclear trade with India. However, the Bush Administration ignored many of these statements of policy, and in at least one instance aggressively pursued a policy which was directly contradicted by the Hyde Act. Termination of NSG supply in response to violations Section 103(a)(4) of the Hyde Act states that it is the policy of the United States to: Strengthen the NSG guidelines and decisions concerning consultation by members regarding violations of supplier and recipient understandings by instituting the practice of a timely and coordinated response by NSG members to all such violations, including termination of nuclear transfers to an involved recipient, that discourages individual NSG members from continuing cooperation with such recipient until such time as a consensus regarding a coordinated response has been achieved. However, the United States did not seek to establish strengthen the NSG guidelines to require a termination of NSG supply to a recipient states in the event of a violation of supplier and recipient understandings. In fact, many NSG member states sought to strengthen the NSG guidelines in this manner but could not because opposition by the Bush Administration. In this case the Bush Administration actively worked to thwart the policy of the United States as set by Congress in the Hyde Act. Enrichment and reprocessing restriction Section 103(a)(5) of the Hyde Act states that it is the policy of the United States to: Given the special sensitivity of equipment and technologies related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and the production of heavy water, work with members of the NSG, individually and collectively, to further restrict the transfers of such equipment and technologies, including to India. However, the United States did not seek to strengthen NSG guidelines to restrict the transfers of enrichment and reprocessing technologies, despite having sought such a restriction for four years. In 2004, President Bush declared in a major speech on nonproliferation that achieving a historic international restriction on transfers of enrichment and reprocessing was one of his administration's highest priorities. For the next four years, the Bush Administration sought to achieve such a restriction at the NSG, yet abandoned this issue during the negotiations regarding India. Universalizing U.S. termination triggers Section 103(a)(6) of the Hyde Act states that it is the policy of the United States to: Seek to prevent the transfer to a country of nuclear equipment, materials, or technology from other participating governments in the NSG or from any other source if nuclear transfers to that country are suspended or terminated pursuant to this title, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), or any other United States law. However, the United States did not seek to amend NSG guidelines to ensure that all international nuclear supply to India would be terminated if U.S. law required U.S. nuclear trade to be terminated. Such a rule would not only have significantly strengthened international nonproliferation policy, but it would have protected American firms from the possibility of being the only firms in the world barred from trade with India. Madam Speaker, this bill, and the nuclear cooperation agreement with India which it approves, will do great damage to the international nuclear nonproliferation regime. Can we afford to undermine the nonproliferation rules at the very moment when Iran is speeding toward a viable nuclear capability, when North Korea is redoubling its intransigence and throwing out IAEA observers, and when Venezuela is requesting nuclear cooperation from Russia? No, we cannot. I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the implications of this bill for international stability and U.S. security, and vote against H.R. 7081.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Independence at Home Act. I am pleased to introduce this important legislation today with my colleagues in the House, Representatives. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), and my colleagues in the Senate, Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). Our legislation is designed to improve the quality of care received by a particularly vulnerable portion of the Medicare population-- beneficiaries with multiple chronic and debilitating diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, diabetes and other conditions. Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions account for a disproportionate share of Medicare spending compared to their representation in the overall Medicare population. Specifically, CMS reports that each year, 10 percent of the Medicare population accounts for two-thirds of all Medicare fee-for-service program payments. Because this population sees an average of 13 physicians and fills about 50 prescriptions per year, beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions often receive disjointed care from health providers, including conflicting information and multiple diagnoses for the same symptoms. The Independence at Home Act addresses the critical needs of these patients, for whom coordinated care has the greatest potential to achieve positive results. Through the creation of a 3-year demonstration project in 26 states, our legislation provides for patient-centered health care directed by physicians and nurse practitioners working as part of a team of caregivers qualified to deliver quality health services for this specific Medicare patient group. The Independence at Home program is designed to fund better health care and improved health care technology through savings it achieves, using an innovative health care delivery model to permit the growing number of Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible and to receive care in a setting that is preferred by the beneficiary involved and the family of such beneficiary. In addition to delivering holistic, preventive care that enables patients to remain in their own homes, the Independence at Home demonstration projects hold providers accountable for quality outcomes, patient satisfaction, and a mandatory minimum 5 percent savings on an annual basis compared to Medicare costs that would have been incurred if the beneficiary had not participated in the demonstration project. Our bill generates these savings by providing comprehensive and coordinated care to the highest cost Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions, reducing duplicative and unnecessary services and avoiding unnecessary hospitalizations and emergency room visits. As demonstrated by the Veterans Administration and many other existing programs, the Independence at Home Act has the potential both to promote quality, effective care and significantly reduce costs. Our bill has been endorsed by the American Academy of Home Care Physicians; AARP; the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners; the National Family Caregivers Association; the Family Caregiver Alliance/ National Center on Caregiving; the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging; the Maryland-National Capital Home Care Association; the Visiting Nurse Associations of America, and Intel Corp. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move this important legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the bill as I am, in fact, opposed to the bill.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill and to the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal. Most people think that this is a debate about India. It is not. We are all friends of India, and we are all united in our view that the United States and India share a bright future of strong relations. This is a debate about Iran. This is a debate about North Korea, about Pakistan, about Venezuela, about any other country in the world that harbors the goal of acquiring nuclear weapons. With this vote, we are shattering the nonproliferation rules. And the next three countries to march through the broken glass will be Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. And there are others with their nose up against the window getting ready as well. Flashing a green light to India sends a dangerous signal to all of those countries because these policies are interconnected. We are now seeing the devastating financial consequences of years of Wall Street recklessness. The subprime mortgage pushers pretended that the laws of supply and demand no longer applied and that home values would always go up. Well, they were wrong. The Bush administration argues that breaking the nuclear rules for India will not lead to broken rules for anyone else. The Bush administration is wrong. And this deal will have serious consequences for our national security. Like the financial crisis that is now gripping the globe, this disastrous nuclear deal will come back to haunt us because there is no bailout for a nuclear bomb. Nonproliferation experts tell us that India will be able to increase its annual nuclear weapons production from seven bombs per year to 40 or 50 bombs per year. That is absolutely a crazy situation for us to be engaging in. Does the Bush administration think that nobody is watching what we are doing? Pakistan is watching. Pakistan is watching its arch rival get welcomed into ``the nuclear club.'' Does the Bush administration think that Pakistan will just watch India ramp up its nuclear weapons production and do nothing? Pakistan will respond. Pakistan warned us this summer that this deal, and I quote, ``threatens to increase the chances of a nuclear arms race.'' Right now, according to nonproliferation experts, Pakistan is building two new reactors to dramatically increase its nuclear weapons production. The first of these new reactors could come online within a year. Pakistan is essentially telling India, ``We're in this game, too. We will match you step to step.'' This is an all out nuclear arms race. That is what President Bush should be working on, not fueling it, but trying to negotiate an end to it. This is what a nuclear arms race looks like. We lived through one with the Soviet Union, now we are fueling one in Southeast Asia. And who is Pakistan? A.Q. Khan, right here, the world's number one nuclear proliferator, a criminal against humanity, he is in Pakistan. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, the people that actually attacked us on 9/11--and we know have attempted to acquire weapons of mass destruction--they are in Pakistan. And the Pakistani government, upon which we are relying to safeguard the nuclear weapons and materials, is dangerously unstable. We are feeding the fire of a nuclear arms race in the one country, Pakistan, where we can least afford to do so. It's incredibly ironic that next here on the House floor we will consider a bill to increase sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program because the bill we're considering now makes an Iranian nuclear weapon much harder to prevent. By breaking the rules for India, we're making it less likely that the rules will hold against Iran or anyone else. Iran is looking at this deal for India and they're saying, ``Where can I sign up?'' ``I want that deal.'' And where is it written that once these new rules are set up, that the Venezuelans can't cut the same deal with the Chinese, that the Iranians and the Russians will just continue merrily along the way? They will be pointing at us. They will be pointing at our explanation that we can cut a separate deal here with India. That is what we are establishing in this bill. This is the new regime for the world, not a comprehensive policy, but each big country who wants to cut a deal with a nuclear aspiring country can do so. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is the bedrock of our efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. It is the foundation upon which all of our work rests. And this deal is ripping that foundation up by its roots. Ladies and gentlemen, we are at an historic point. This deal allows for a country which is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to be exempted from it. It's an historic moment not only in the history of the United States, but of the world. This nuclear nonproliferation regime that President Kennedy told us we had to establish has worked. In 1963, when he said, by the year 2000 we might have to count the countries that don't have nuclear weapons because they will be fewer than those that do unless we put a regime in place, was accurate. And if you look now, in 2008, almost no new countries have obtained nuclear weapons since 1963; quite an achievement. But here tonight, we're about to create a new global regime. And we will look back on this in the same way that we look back on the day when we began to allow subprime loans, and we will wonder how a global nuclear catastrophe was created, and we will point back to this evening. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to increase some sanctions against Iran in response to it's ongoing nuclear program. One important provision, which I have fought for in my state of Massachusetts, is to grant State governments the authority to divest their funds from companies investing in Iran's petroleum sector. But ladies and gentlemen, who are we kidding here? We just passed a bill which will break all the nonproliferation rules for India. And somehow we think doing that won't have any impact on our ability to prevent an Iranian bomb? These policies are interconnected. By breaking the rules for India, we're making it less likely that the rules will hold against Iran, or anyone else. Iran is looking at the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal and they are saying, ``Where can I sign up? I want that deal!'' In our efforts to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, this bill moves us one step forward, but the India Nuclear Deal takes us 20 steps back. If you want to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb, you should vote for this bill, and you must vote against the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I am introducing the Georges Bank Preservation Act today because America's most valuable fishery and one of the Nation's most important marine areas, Georges Bank, will be in the crosshairs of the oil and gas industry when the moratorium on offshore drilling expires October 1. Georges Bank is a fragile environmental region that is already recovering from other recent pressures like over-fishing. Allowing oil and gas drilling in Georges Bank could forever destroy this ecosystem and our nation's most important fishery. This legislation would prohibit the Federal Government from issuing any lease authorizing exploration, development, or production of oil or natural gas in Georges Bank. Keeping protections against drilling in Georges Bank 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, including the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Massachusetts. The language in the Georges Bank Preservation Act is identical to what was included in H.R. 6899, which has already passed the House in an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 236-189. The Northeast fishery landings are valued at approximately $800 million annually and Georges Bank is the key to the region. New Bedford, MA is by far the most productive fishing port in the United States, in terms of value of catch. Its $268 million catch in 2007 was nearly equal to the combined value of the catches of Dutch Harbor, AK and Kodiak Harbor, AK--the second and third most valuable fishing ports in the Nation. New Bedford has been number 1 for 8 straight years. Last year, commercial fishing brought nearly $350 million into Massachusetts alone. There has been a moratorium on fishing in areas of Georges Bank for over a decade and we are seeing signs of recovery. If we were to allow oil drilling at this critical time in the recovery of Georges Bank, it would be disastrous to the full restoration of this critical marine habitat. Canada--which has a claim to approximately one-fifth of Georges Bank--recognizes the region's importance and fragility and has a moratorium on drilling in the area through 2012. We need to send a signal to Canada that we too will keep in place the protections against drilling in this unique marine ecosystem. Georges Bank is geologically and biologically unique. Warm and cold currents come together and circulate to help make the shallow water's depth, temperature, and nutrient content perfect for life. Georges Bank is home to more than 100 species of fish and shellfish, including cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, herring, and sea scallops. While I will continue to fight for a full extension of the moratorium on offshore drilling on the east and west coasts of the United States, I am introducing this bill today--along with my colleagues in the Massachusetts delegation, to highlight the vital importance of protecting the Georges Banks and other particularly sensitive offshore lands from the environmental hazards associated with oil and natural gas exploration and production. 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 invading America's most precious fishery and one of our Nation's most unique marine habitats.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. President Bush and the Senate Republicans have been given opportunity after opportunity to pass tax credit extensions for renewable energy. In just the past year and a half, the Republican leadership has followed the marching orders of the Bush administration and voted 13 times against Democratic efforts to increase our use of renewable energy, help protect consumers from high energy prices, and ensure that Big Oil pays its fair share. They have refused time after time, instead siding with Big Oil and their fossil fuel friends even as oil prices remain sky high. Now the Senate Republicans couldn't resist this time around, either, sending us a renewable energy tax package stuffed with goodies for coal-to-liquids, tar sands, and oil shale. Big Oil even gets to keep most of their tax breaks even though they're tipping consumers upside down and shaking money out of their pockets. They also want to shake them upside down as taxpayers and get more money as tax breaks from the American people. The only thing renewable about Republican energy policy for the last 8 years has been their inexhaustible support for the Big Oil agenda. I commend the great work of Chairman Rangel in stripping harmful and unnecessary provisions and giving us a genuine clean energy tax package to vote upon today. This bill primes the renewable energy engine and gives coal a clean path forward with more than $1 billion in tax incentives to demonstrate carbon capture and sequestration. This may be the last chance to get these renewable energy incentives passed into law. If President Bush and Senate Republicans shoot this package down like they've shot down every other opportunity for clean energy tax breaks, then there may not be another opportunity. Solar and wind companies are delaying projects because of investment uncertainty. History has shown that renewable energy deployment could fall 70 percent or more if these tax incentives lapse. That would translate into a loss of 116,000 job opportunities and $19 billion in private investment loss in 2009 alone. That's one more legacy I fear President Bush has no problem in carrying back to Crawford, Texas: Champaign celebrations for Big Oil and red ink and pink slips for America's high tech energy companies and their green collar workers. Last year in the United States, more wind capacity was installed than any other source with the exception of natural gas. Thirty-five percent of all new electrical generating capacity installed in the United States last year was wind power. This year, over 40 percent of all new electrical generating capacity in the United States will be new wind power. Solar photovoltaic installations also increased an amazing 80 percent last year. 2008 will surpass that. But what about 2009? What about 2010? This bill before us invests in the renewable revolution that will transform America. Electric cars, cellulosic biofuels, wind and solar will assert our energy independence over the coming decade if the President signs this bill. After 8 years of running on a Bush-Cheney-Big Oil energy plan, America, it is time for an oil change. It is time for us to move off the oil agenda and move on to the solar, the wind, the biofuels. The slogan for this Congress should be ``Change, baby, change!'' That is not what the Republicans are talking about.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. This energy bill is truly a comprehensive energy plan. I commend the great work of the gentleman from West Virginia, Chairman Rahall, and Chairman Dingell and Chairman Miller in crafting this balanced legislation. I also want to commend Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer for their leadership in pulling together what is truly a bipartisan approach that Members from all regions should be able to support. The Republican leadership says that they want an ``all of the above'' energy plan. Well, today we get to see if they are serious, or if they have simply been playing politics. This energy bill is a comprehensive energy package that will protect consumers, unleash the renewable energy revolution, increase energy efficiency and conservation and even expand areas for domestic oil production. While the Republican leadership and the Bush administration have said that they want ``all of the above,'' for the 6 years that they controlled the White House, the House and Senate, they did almost nothing to increase our use of renewable energy and energy efficiency. For 8 years, the two oil men in the White House crafted an energy policy that put the interests of the American Petroleum Institute over the American people, and consumers are now paying the price at the pump for that failed fossil fuel agenda. One of the first actions the Bush administration took in 2001 after entering the White House was to convene the secret Cheney Energy Task Force to meet with executives from the oil industry and craft an energy policy. Then the Bush administration and the Republican Congress passed an energy bill in 2005 that gave billions of dollars to the oil and gas industries while nickel-and-diming renewables. And in this Congress, the Republican leadership has followed the marching orders of the Bush administration and voted 13 times to block legislation that Democrats have brought to the floor to increase our use of renewable energy, help protect consumers from high energy prices and ensure that big oil pays its fair share. While the Republican leadership says they want ``all of the above'' they have repeatedly chosen ``none of the above'' and voted against these measures. But here they are today, crying crocodile tears that all these policies that they have spent their entire career opposing have not been implemented. The Republican leadership says they want ``all of the above,'' but here they are today, once again opposing a truly comprehensive, compromise energy bill that will not only increase our use of renewable energy but will also provide for more drilling. Perhaps that's because it's not ``all of the above'' that the Republican leadership and big oil are really concerned with, it's really only ``all that's below''-- all the oil that's below our beaches 3 miles offshore, all the oil the below our national parks, all the oil that's below our most pristine wilderness areas. The comprehensive energy bill that we are considering today will build on last year's tremendous energy bill accomplishment. This bill will adopt a National Renewable Electricity standard to require that 15 percent of the electricity that we generate in 2020 come from renewable sources and efficiency and will create 100,000 jobs. By further increasing the efficiency of our buildings, this comprehensive energy bill will save consumers $200 billion on energy costs. This comprehensive plan will extend the vital tax incentives for solar, wind and other renewables, and ensure that they are paid for, which will prevent the loss of $19 billion in investment and 116,000 jobs next year in these industries. And this comprehensive plan will protect more than 5 million Americans from an impending home heating crisis and an increase in the heating bill of the average family of nearly $600 this winter by funding the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. And the Republicans say they want more offshore drilling, well this bill does that. I remain skeptical that additional offshore drilling will do anything to lower prices but this compromise bill ensures that there will be proper protections for Georges Bank off the coast of New England, which is one of our Nation's most important fisheries, and that if we are going to open more areas to drilling we first ensure that big oil cannot continue to drill for free on public land and reap billions of dollars in unnecessary tax breaks at a time when they are making record profits. With the renewable energy revolution that we will unleash with this bill it will make any additional drilling unnecessary in 20 years. The comprehensive energy bill that we are considering today, combined with the energy bill that Democrats passed in December, means that Democrats in the 110th will have passed energy bills that achieve one- third of the reductions in global warming pollution needed by 2030 to save the planet and eliminate nearly twice the oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf. After 8 years of running on a Bush-Cheney-Big Oil energy plan, America, it is time for an oil change! It's time to change our dependence on foreign oil and OPEC. It's time to change from the dirty fossil fuels of the past to the renewable energies of the future. It's time to change to invest in wind and solar. It's time to change to start building green to save families money. The Republicans like to say ``drill, baby, drill,'' but for our Nation's energy policy the American public is saying it's high time we started saying ``change, baby, change.'' Vote ``aye.'' Vote for change.