Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. When I asked the number two executive at ExxonMobil what he was doing with his $42 billion worth of profits last year in terms of investing in renewable energy resources, the CEO said that he was going to invest $10 million in renewable energy resources. $42 billion worth of profit, $10 million going into renewable energy resources. When I said to him, you know, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress gave you $18 billion worth of additional tax breaks 3 years ago and now at $119 a barrel you don't need them anymore, can we take those and give them as tax breaks for renewable energy resources, all of the oil executives said, no, we want the tax breaks. We don't want that to go over to renewables. And, secondly, we love our profits, and we are not going to invest them in renewables.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Vermont very much. We welcome this debate. We welcome a debate on the Bush-Republican energy policy. Let's begin with a brief review of where the price of oil was back when President Bush was sworn in as President. It was $27 a barrel. That is what President Clinton, that is what Vice President Gore, handed over to President Bush, $27 a barrel oil. Now let's look at what the price of a barrel of oil was yesterday: $119 a barrel for oil. So President Bush and Vice President Cheney, they might not know a lot about other issues, but you would think oil policy they would understand. Well, this is what you get after 8 years of a Bush-Cheney Presidency, abetted and aided for 6 of those years by a Republican Congress. Let's even take it further. Let's take it to the next step. Let's look at oil company profits. Let's just take the big five oil companies in the United States, led by ExxonMobil. Well, the cumulative profits of all five companies in 2001 was $37 billion. All five of the big oil companies cumulatively made $37 billion. Now let's look at last year. Last year, those five oil companies made $123 billion in profits. And ExxonMobil alone made $42 billion, the largest profit of any corporation in American history, exceeding the total amount of all of those oil companies' profits in 2001. So what has happened after 8 years of the Bush-Cheney administration is that they have allowed Big Oil and OPEC to take the American consumer and tip him upside down at the gasoline pump every single day, shaking money out of their pockets. And looking over at this strategic asset that was built by the American people, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which now has 700 million barrels of oil in it, as the American people say to the President, please deploy this weapon which the American people have to protect the American economy and the American consumer.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, from 1995 until 2006, the Republican Party controlled the House of Representatives, and since January of 2001, they've controlled the White House as well. During this period, the leadership of the Republican Party in the Congress and in the White House have pumped literally billions of dollars of unnecessary subsidies into the pockets of Big Oil, tens of billions of dollars. They voted for royalty-free drilling for the biggest oil companies on offshore public lands. They've opposed all efforts to repeal billions in tax breaks for Big Oil. And in the 12 years they controlled the Congress up until the beginning of last year, they opposed high fuel economy standards for the vehicles which we drive in America so we could back out that oil that we import from the Persian Gulf. GOP used to stand for ``Grand Old Party,'' but now it stands for ``Gas and Oil Party.'' Here's what the President said about giving incentives to Big Oil in 2005. He said, ``I will tell you, with $55 oil, we don't need incentives for the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives for the oil industry.'' That's George Bush, April 2005 at $55 a barrel. Today, it's at $119 a barrel. But the Republicans, you know, they just can't kick a bad habit. Offering subsidies to Big Oil to drill is like subsidizing fish to swim, you just don't need to do it. They have all the incentives which they need right now. So the Democratic Party, assuming office just a year ago, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, she said, we're going to put a stop-payment order on these unnecessary subsidies to Big Oil. Last December, we passed the first increase in fuel efficiency standards in 35 years, increasing it to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. We increased the renewable fuel standard to 36 billion gallons, but the Republican opposition made it impossible for us to take the $18 billion in excessive and unnecessary tax breaks away from the oil company and to transfer it to the solar and to the wind and to the renewable energy industry. So we're taking that bill up again this year. The Republicans oppose it. They're saying, keep the tax breaks for Big Oil. Keep them away from the wind and the solar industry. They have no solutions for the 21st century. They have no plan to wean America off of this increased oil dependency. We have gone up from 27 percent dependency to 61 percent dependency upon imported oil in just the last 20 years. This Republican policy is going to make us less secure, more financially dependent upon the Middle East, and it is going to cause an economic and national security catastrophe for our country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, on April 16th and 17th, 2008, I was unavoidably absent from the House due to an injury, and missed rollcall votes 192, 193, 194, 200, 203, and 204. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcalls 192, 193, 194, 200, 203, and 204.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 322, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. And I would like to commend Speaker Pelosi for introducing this resolution and for bringing it to the floor. This is a truly bipartisan resolution, introduced with the support of the leadership of both parties in the House. This bipartisanship is entirely appropriate, because Americans agree that the State of Israel is a great friend of the United States, and we all celebrate the anniversary of its founding today. A century ago, Theodore Herzl dreamed of a Jewish homeland, and envisioned Israel as a ``light unto the nations.'' Since 1948, Israel has been that light. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in supporting Israel as it continues to shine brilliantly as a force for progress and hope, not only in the Middle East, but throughout the entire world. Prime Minister Golda Meir believed that one day there would be peace in Israel, because there are mothers and grandmothers--and let me add fathers and grandfathers--in Egypt, in Jordan, in Syria and the Palestinian territories who also want their children and grandchildren to live in peace. Today is an opportunity to be hopeful about the future of Israel and the prospects for peace--hopeful that we will soon reach the day when children will have to turn to the history books to learn that there ever was conflict in the Middle East. Today, as we celebrate the founding of the State of Israel, our great ally and friend, we also know that independence is not enough without security. The Jewish homeland must be secure and must be surrounded by neighbors who respect its right to exist in peace and security. Through struggle and sacrifice, ingenuity and innovation, Israel has managed 60 years in a dangerous and unstable region of the world. Let us hope that the conflicts that have marked Israel's first 60 years will subside in the years to come. Sixty years ago, Israel's pioneers began to revitalize an ancient land. Today, Israelis remain pioneers at heart--pioneers for peace, prosperity and progress. They are once again facing challenges in their homeland with determination and a vision for a better future for their children and for their country. I congratulate the State of Israel on its 60th anniversary, and I urge adoption of this resolution.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, is celebrating a special anniversary this month, April 11-13, 2008. It was 50 years ago that Massachusetts Senators John F. Kennedy and Leverett Saltonstall and former U.S. Ambassador George Kennan joined University leaders to help inaugurate a unique international exchange program. The Wien International Scholarship Program, established through a generous gift from philanthropists Lawrence and Mae Wien, was designed to further worldwide understanding by bringing students from around the globe to Brandeis to study in an atmosphere of cooperative learning. Looking back over the last half-century, it is clear that the program has had an impact on the international community that even its founders could not have envisioned. Since its founding with an inaugural class of 30 students from 16 countries, the Wien program has grown in stature and worldwide recognition. More than 800 students from over 100 countries have come to Brandeis as Wien Scholars. Through the years, the Wien program has produced an impressive array of enlightened world leaders dedicated to making the world a better place. Wien Scholars have held important positions at the United Nations, served in prominent roles in national governments from Japan to Kenya to Iceland to the Philippines, and pursued life-saving medical breakthroughs. They have also distinguished themselves in the arts, business, education, law, and science. I urge all of us, especially at this time of increasing ethnic and religious tensions around the world, to use the fiftieth anniversary of the Wien program to uphold the legacy of its founders by promoting the principles of understanding, tolerance, and acceptance.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, which calls upon China to end its repression in Tibet. I would also like to commend the Speaker for her long advocacy on behalf of the rights of the Tibetan people, and for bringing this bill before the House today. In Tibet, there is an ongoing struggle for basic human rights and human dignity. Our Nation has a moral obligation to make its views known to the Chinese Government regarding its oppression of the legitimate rights of the Tibetan people to practice their religion and express their culture. Last month, I was honored to join Speaker Pelosi in traveling to Dharamsala. We met with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, with leaders of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile, and with ordinary Tibetan people have been forced to flee their homes and seek refuge from Chinese political oppression. I was moved by the extraordinary struggle of the Tibetan people, and the stories I heard of the brutal repression that has been taking place in that country. All the Tibetan people are seeking is their right to be able to express their culture, language, and religion. The Dalai Lama made it absolutely clear to us that he is firmly and unequivocally committed to nonviolence, that he is not seeking independence but autonomy, and that he is seeking peaceful dialogue with the Chinese Government. The Dalai Lama is not seeking a boycott of the Olympic Games; he is seeking to return to his homeland with his people in peace. As I told Ambassador Zhou of China when I met with him last week, it is in the interest of China and Tibet to arrive at a lasting resolution of this dispute as soon as possible. China's reputation around the world, and its relations with other nations, will only continue to suffer if Beijing continues to ignore the world's call for action. This resolution calls upon China to begin a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, without preconditions, to address the legitimate grievances of the Tibetan people. I truly hope that the Chinese Government heeds this call, ends its repression of Tibetan rights, and enters into a genuine dialogue on Tibet's future. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, the Interior Department is currently considering whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act as a result of the impacts of global warming. While this decision has been nearly 3 years in the making, the Fish and Wildlife Service has now missed deadline after deadline for finalizing a decision on the future of the polar bear. On January 9, the Interior Department missed its statutorily required deadline for a decision, as required under the Act. Then, 1 month later, it missed its self-imposed deadline. Now, the decision on listing the polar bear, and the survival of this iconic species, is hanging in limbo. Meanwhile, Secretary Kempthorne decided to move forward with an oil and gas lease sale in 30 million acres of sensitive polar bear habitat in Alaska's Chukchi Sea last month rather than wait until after a decision on the polar bear had been made. The bulk of this legislation that I am introducing today is identical to H.R. 5058, which already has wide support from Members of the House. H.R. 5058 would have required the Interior Department to delay the oil lease sale in the Chukchi Sea until it had made a decision on listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. The legislation that I am introducing today would delay the next steps in the oil leasing process until after the Interior Department makes decisions on the polar bear and on establishing the bear's ``critical habitat.'' This legislation would not prevent the next steps in the oil drilling process from ever occurring, but rather simply ensure that the Department first decides how to protect the polar bear. It is disappointing that Secretary Kempthorne chose not to delay the lease sale until after the polar bear listing decision had been made. The legislation that I am introducing today would restore common sense to this regulatory lunacy by ensuring that we figure out how to protect the polar bear before taking any additional steps towards allowing oil drilling in key polar bear habitat. Secretary Kempthorne and his agency must not move any farther down the path they are taking of drill first and ask questions later--a well-worn path in this administration. If this administration refuses to stop the oil drilling process until after it figures out how to protect the polar bear from global warming, then the Congress must step in to protect the polar bear and the taxpayers.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I am introducing the International Renewable Energy Agency Act today because our energy security, the health of our planet, and the strength of our economy have reached a critical juncture. As gasoline prices creep towards $4 per gallon, and emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to climb to dangerous levels, 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 legislation I am introducing today calls for the establishment of an International Renewable Energy Agency, IRENA, to address both of these challenges. This week, world leaders from government, civil society and private business are meeting as part of the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference, WIREC, of 2008 to discuss a major scale-up in the deployment of renewable energy technology around the world. This collaboration is a good start, but the urgency of global warming and our dependence on oil require that we take the lead in creating a permanent international agency to drive the development and deployment of renewable energy in all countries, including ours. 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 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. New investment in clean energy technology worldwide topped $148 billion in 2007, an increase of 60 percent over 2006 and up from just $33 billion in 2004. However, about two thirds of this investment lies in just six countries. 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. 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. Existing 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. 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. An 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

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady very much. For nearly 8 years, this administration's backwards energy policy has lined the pockets of oil company executives, while hurting American consumers, the economy, and the planet. Since President Bush took office, the price of oil has gone from $30 a barrel to a new record high price of $101 a barrel yesterday. As a result of this administration's failed energy policies, our dependence on foreign oil is now over 60 percent, and we are hemorrhaging funds to pay for our oil addiction at the rate of over $500,000 a minute, $30 million an hour, $5 billion a week sent overseas. And consumers are the ones paying the price for our oil addiction. Gas prices are now at a nationwide average of $3.14, up nearly $1 from a year ago. This administration's oil-centric energy policy has proven itself to be completely bankrupt for everyone except Big Oil. While American consumers are being tipped upside down at the pump and having money shaken out of their pockets, Big Oil is recording the greatest corporate profits we have ever seen in the history of the world. Today, we debate whether we will repeal unnecessary tax breaks for the biggest oil companies and use those funds to spur investment in renewable energies, biofuels and energy efficiency. The future of renewable energy is in America's hands. But the money to fund the renewable revolution is stuck in Big Oil's pockets. Renewable energy is ready to take off, but it needs us to build the runway. That is what we are going to be debating here today. Thirty percent of all new electricity in the United States last year was wind. There was an 80 percent increase in photovoltaic installations in the United States last year. The future is clear. It is in front of our eyes. We must give it the boost we need. Vote ``aye'' on this very important legislation today.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, the development of a nationwide interoperable health information infrastructure holds tremendous promise for improving patient care, reducing medical errors and lowering costs. Today's health care system needs to be transformed to improve health care quality, safety and affordability, and interoperable health information networks can play an important role in this transformation. At the same time, without sufficient privacy and security safeguards, such electronic systems could turn the dream of integrated, seamless health IT networks into a nightmare for consumers, reducing the likelihood that patients and providers will embrace and utilize such systems. If we fail to require strong privacy and security standards now, during the early stages of development of nationwide interoperable health IT systems, we run the risk that Americans' medical secrets will be extremely vulnerable to being lost or stolen from these systems, whose weak privacy and security safeguards will be an open invitation to identity thieves, fraudsters and others seeking unauthorized access. The great Irish poet William Butler Yeats famously wrote that ``In dreams begins responsibility.'' The dream of a nationwide, seamless, effective health IT infrastructure certainly is enticing. Let us hope that we can realize this dream in the future. Today Congress has a responsibility to ensure that patients' personal medical secrets are not put at risk in the process. According to a report released last year by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, has taken some steps to identify solutions for protecting patient privacy in health IT systems, but HHS has ``not yet defined an overall approach for integrating its various privacy-related initiatives and addressing key privacy principles, nor has it defined milestones for integrating the results of these activities.'' (GAO-07- 400T) Over the past 3 years, repeated breaches of electronic systems containing Americans' Social Security numbers, addresses and other sensitive personal information have reinforced the need for strong data safeguards for Americans' medical records. According to Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a non-profit consumer organization, more than 218 million data records of U.S. residents have been exposed due to security breaches since January 2005. I am pleased that Representative Rahm Emanuel is joining me in introducing the Technologies for Restoring Users' Security and Trust, TRUST, in Health Information Act. The TRUST Health Information Act promotes development of a nationwide interoperable health IT infrastructure that improves patient care, reduces costs and protects the privacy and security of Americans' personal medical information. The Trust Act contains provisions to encourage the development of health IT networks through grants and standard-setting processes while also ensuring that patients' medical records will be protected by strong privacy and security safeguards. For example, the TRUST Act: Empowers patients to keep their medical records out of health IT databases unless they first give their consent; Requires patients to be notified if the systems that contain their health information is breached and their information is exposed; Mandates the use of data security safeguards such as encryption and other technologies that render the information unreadable to individuals who are not authorized to access it; Authorizes grant funding to enable the purchase and enhance the use of qualified health IT systems; and Establishes a public-private partnership to make recommendations concerning health IT standards, criteria for the electronic exchange of personal health information and related purposes to encourage the creation of a nationwide interoperable health information technology infrastructure. Patient privacy and security protections are enablers of, not impediments to, successful nationwide interoperable health IT systems. Only after patients have confidence in these protections will they trust their sensitive medical information to such systems. The Trust Act is supported by Patient Privacy Rights, Microsoft Corporation, the American Psychoanalytic Association, American Association of Practicing Psychiatrists and the National Association of Social Workers.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1528, the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act. This important legislation would amend the National Trails System Act of 1968 to designate a 220- mile long National Scenic Trail through Massachusetts and Connecticut. Designation as a National Scenic Trail will allow this important regional trail system to be supported, maintained, and protected at the highest possible level. The bulk of this new trail would be comprised of the existing Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett trail system--a 190-mile trail route through 39 communities in Massachusetts and Connecticut. This important regional recreation system has been in existence for more than fifty years and winds its way from the border of Massachusetts and New Hampshire through western Massachusetts and into Connecticut. Designating this trail system as a National Scenic Trail will ensure that future generations of New Englanders will be able to fully enjoy the tremendous beauty of these trails and take advantage of their many recreational opportunities. Right now, more than 2 million people live within 10 miles of the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett trail system. As a result, this designation will not only allow millions of people to have access to the trail system but also ensure that it will be properly preserved from the threats and pressures of development and encroachment. H.R. 1528 requires that the Secretary of the Interior administer the trail consistent with the recommendations of the National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment that was conducted by the Department of the Interior. The legislation also ensures that no land can be incorporated into the trail system without the consent of the landowner, and I am pleased that the Administration has testified in support of this important legislation. This National Scenic Trail designation would provide for increased cooperation between communities, citizens and the Department of Interior to conserve these special routes and expand the recreational opportunities of this New England treasure. I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge a ``yes'' vote on overriding President Bush's veto of the urgently needed reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. Over the last several months, President Bush has had an opportunity to work with a bipartisan majority of Congress and provide health insurance to over 10 million low-income children. However, he decided instead to place himself on the wrong side of the history of health care and play politics with the health of American children. The Children's Health Insurance Program is a highly successful program with a proven track record that is supported by an overwhelming majority of the American public. We need to reauthorize and build on the success of this program and override this ill-timed and unconscionable presidential veto. A recent Joint Economic Committee report estimated that between 700,000 and 1.1 million additional children will enroll in Medicaid and CHIP programs each year due to slowing employment growth. In fact, the JEC report notes, ``The association between poor economic conditions and children's enrollment in Medicaid/CHIP is large, consistent, and statistically significant.'' So what does the president do as working families strain to make ends meet in the face of a looming economic crisis? He vetoes health care for poor children! This is unacceptable. To my Republican colleagues, who are considering how to vote on this bill today--given the current economic landscape, I urge you to reject the President's radical stand against poor, sick children and join the overwhelming majority of the American public who support this important program. It has been said that ``Health is the first wealth.'' Well, what does it say about our country when many families that work hard to make ends meet are forced to choose between providing health care for their children and putting food on the table? If we are to give low-income families a chance to succeed in our society, we must give them access to the health care that they need and deserve. We have known for some time that our nation has 9 million uninsured children, with the vast majority coming from families that cannot access affordable coverage. This number will only grow, as more and more families feel the squeeze of the increasing costs of living and unemployment rates. Sadly, most of our Republican colleagues turned their backs on these families by voting to sustain President Bush's veto in October. Health coverage for all of our Nation's children should be a priority. Worsening economic conditions only reinforce the need to cover children from low-income families, in which parents are forced to choose between health care and necessities like food and shelter. No parent should have to choose between caring for a sick child and putting food on the table. I urge an ``aye'' vote to override this veto.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 409. This legislation will require that tunnels are inspected with the same kind of intensity and scrutiny as bridges in every community in the United States. In Massachusetts for years now we have been working on the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, also known as the ``Big Dig'', a system of tunnels that has made it much easier to get around in and outside of Boston. In July of 2006 there was a tragic death in the Ted Williams tunnel due to a collapse of a concrete panel in the ceiling. By adding tunnels to all inspection legislation we will give states the vital jurisdiction they need to look into important transportation structures. This bill will not require excessive funds or staffing. As of right now it is estimated by the Department of Transportation that it will cost less than $1 million and require 5 employees or less to run the program. This is a small amount to ask for the safety it would provide to all of our constituents across the U.S. The legislation calls for standards that must be met for all of the tunnel inspections and timelines for states to fix any reported deficiencies. We have seen first hand in Minnesota this year what can happen if a structurally deficient bridge is left unchecked. This bill would help reduce the risk of more tragedies occurring as a result of tunnels that have fallen into disrepair. In addition, the Federal Highway Administration would be required to work with state transportation departments to establish a certification and training program for tunnel inspectors as well as keep an inventory of highway tunnels. I urge adoption of this important legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I am introducing this bill today because the polar bear is in the crosshairs of global warming and the ill- advised decisions of the Bush administration to proceed with an oil lease sale in a major polar bear habitat while delaying a decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. This legislation would require that the Interior Department delay the oil drilling rights sale in Alaska's Chukchi Sea until it had made a decision on the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, and had performed its responsibility of establishing ``critical habitat'' for the polar bear. The Bush administration's own scientists project that the prospects for the polar bear's survival are bleak. Last year, Dr. Steven Amstrup, the Government's leading polar bear scientist, headed up a team of scientists charged with examining the impact of sea ice loss on polar bear populations. In a series of reports released last fall, Dr. Amstrup's team 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. Dr. Amstrup's team also noted that based on recent observations, this dire assessment could actually be conservative. The actions of the Bush administration in the coming months could very well determine the fate of this iconic animal. The Interior Department is currently considering whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act as a result of the impact of global warming. While this decision has been nearly three years in the making, last week the Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it was going to delay any decisions beyond its statutorily required deadline--that legal protection for the polar bear would be put on ice while its critical habitat continues to melt. Meanwhile, the Interior Department is revving up its regulatory machine to allow new oil drilling in sensitive polar bear habitat. Earlier this month, the Minerals Management Service finalized its plan to move forward early next month with an oil and gas lease sale of nearly 30 million acres in the Chukchi Sea, an area that is essential habitat for polar bears in the United States. The timing of these two decisions leaves the door open for the administration to give Big Oil the rights to this polar bear habitat the moment before the protections for the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act go into effect. Rushing to allow drilling in polar bear habitat before protecting the bear would be the epitome of this administration's backwards energy policy--a policy of drill first and ask questions later. The decision to list the polar bear must be made on the best science. The Bush administration is still working out how it can solve global warming--with great delay--but has not yet made any declaration that we, or the polar bear, are in any danger. The Endangered Species Act does not call for a solution before a declaration, but rather a clear decision to be made on the biological status of a species at a specific time. The Bush administration are not going to solve global warming without first declaring it a problem, and they are not going to save the bear without first declaring it endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Robert Frost wrote about two roads diverging in the wood, and here we have the Bush administration looking down two roads with regard to the polar bear. Down one road lies the survival of the polar bear and the orderly consideration of oil drilling and global warming and common sense. Down the other road, too often traveled by this administration, lies regulatory lunacy and a blatant disregard for moral responsibility. I urge Secretary Kempthorne and his agency to choose the Bush administration's road less traveled and protect the polar bear, and the rest of us, from global warming.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, on December 19, 2007, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 1186 on H.R. 2764. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I commend Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Rush for their intensive efforts to produce bipartisan legislation to overhaul a beleaguered agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC. As a tsunami of toxic toys flooded into our country and onto store shelves earlier this year, it became clear that the CPSC was unequipped to perform its vital mission-- protecting the public from significant risks of serious injury or death from toys and other consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. Chairman Dingell and Chairman Rush moved swiftly to respond to this crisis of confidence in the CPSC, holding important hearings that exposed major weaknesses at the agency, including an under-resourced and demoralized staff, a lead standard that enabled unsafe lead content in children's products, weak leadership provided by Acting Chairman Nancy Nord and other problems that made the CPSC the ``Can't Protect the Safety of Children'' agency. I congratulate my distinguished colleagues for their work. When the Energy and Commerce Committee considered this legislation yesterday, I voted for it. H.R. 4040 mandates many important improvements at the CPSC and includes much-needed increases in resources for the Commission. Specifically, the bill: Bans lead beyond a minute amount in products intended for children under 12. Requires mandatory safety standards for nursery products, such as cribs and high chairs. Mandates that the CPSC examine the current voluntary safety standards for toys, starting with dangerous magnets, and if found to be inadequate, requires mandatory standards to be adopted. Significantly increases CPSC resources to hire additional staff and for laboratory renovations, including $20 million to modernize the testing lab. The bill allots $80 million for FY2009, $90 million for FY2010 and $100 million for FY2011. Prohibits the export of products that violate U.S. consumer product safety rules, are subject to mandatory or voluntary recalls, are designated an imminent hazard to public health and safety, or are designated as a banned hazardous substance. Similarly, the bill makes the domestic sale of such products a prohibited act. Bans CPSC commissioners and staff from accepting trips paid for by an organization regulated by the CPSC. While this legislation contains urgently needed reforms, I hope that additional enhancements can be made as the bill moves through the legislative process. During committee consideration, I offered two amendments that I believe would have further strengthened this legislation. My first amendment would have created a ``Public Right To Know'' at the CPSC. In 2000 and again in 2003, the CPSC documented cases of children suffering intestinal injuries after swallowing small but powerful magnets that had fallen out of toys. The public didn't know, and the CPSC did nothing. By mid-2005, after more reports of safety concerns associated with the magnets and two reports of life- threatening injuries, the public still didn't know, and the CPSC still did nothing. On Thanksgiving Day 2005, Kenny Sweet died after swallowing magnets that had fallen out of Magnetix toys. And it was only then that the CPSC finally started to pay attention--but it wasn't until the following March and an additional 4 children were hospitalized with injuries that CPSC reached an agreement with the manufacturer to issue a partial recall, and the public finally got an inkling of what was going on. The fundamental problem, even with the positive changes made by Section 206 of this bill--Publicly Available Information on Incidents Involving Injury or Death--is that right now, the only product information one can find on the CPSC Web site is information about products that CPSC has been both able to investigate and get manufacturers' approval to release, or information that does not identify which specific products are causing problems and is therefore of no real use to consumers. My amendment was very simple. It required the CPSC to create a publicly searchable database that would allow consumers to access specific reports CPSC obtains from doctors, hospitals or other individuals of serious injury or death, or risk of serious injury or death that may be due to a faulty or unsafe product. In addition, manufacturers were required to send similar allegations they receive to the CPSC for publication in the database. The language also required CPSC to include a disclaimer that states that each report is provided for informational purposes only and that the commission has not investigated the report and cannot vouch for its accuracy, so that no one would confuse a single report from a consumer with a formal recall by the CPSC. My amendment was developed to empower the public by enabling mothers and fathers to find out whether a product they might buy for their child might pose a risk--without waiting the months or years it could take for CPSC to take action. Although the committee did not approve this amendment, I hope that such protections can be added as this legislation moves forward. My second amendment would have restored the CPSC's authority to investigate accidents occurring on rides located at amusement parks. While CPSC has the authority to investigate rides that are transported to carnivals and county fairs--and 15,000 other categories of consumer products that can endanger consumers--there is no Federal regulation of rides located at amusement parks. A recent Washington Post report contained an extensive, front page investigation of the dangerous consequences of this regulatory black hole. It is entitled ``On Thrill Rides, Safety Is Optional--No Federal Oversight of Theme Parks.'' I recommend this important article to my colleagues. My amendment was developed to put an end to a special interest loophole that prevents Federal consumer safety experts from investigating serious and sometimes fatal accidents even when they believe action is merited. As a result of this loophole, children and other ride enthusiasts are put at risk of serious injury and even death due to the absence of any Federal regulation. States are left to monitor the safety of these rides, and 23 States do not even permit State authorities to investigate accidents that occur at fixed-site amusement park rides within the State. Some argued that State regulation is sufficient. I disagree. I received a letter from a former senior executive in the amusement park industry who also served as a board member for the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, IAAPA--the amusement park industry's trade association. This individual was closely involved in the effort in 1981 to carve out the loophole for fixed-site rides that my amendment would have closed. In his letter, he wrote: ``Insurance programs mandated by States or maintained by the operating amusement park companies are often touted as assuring ride safety but many of these programs have gaping holes rendering the programs essentially meaningless. Some State licensing or inspection programs were created to serve not the public, but the industry, providing an illusory aura of safety. I now believe that I was wrong 25 years ago and that the industry should be regulated.'' As this industry insider has now admitted to himself, the time has come to stop using the good intentions and vigorous safety efforts of a few--be they an active State, a particularly attentive company, or even a past board member of the industry's trade association--to cover up the negligence, unsafe practices, and manufacturing defects that are routinely maiming and killing children and adults on rides. Thousands of people are injured every year on these rides, and people die on them every year. My amendment did not mandate the creation of a new fleet of CPSC amusement park inspectors who would be required to fan out across the country to check every amusement park ride. My amendment merely permitted the CPSC--whenever it believed that the public safety would be served--to investigate accidents at amusement parks, share information with operators of rides across State lines, compile statistics that help inform consumers about safety risks and take similar actions to protect the public. Under current law, the hands of CPSC inspectors are tied when it comes to rides at amusement parks, which are off limits to Federal safety regulators. My amendment simply would have freed these inspectors to investigate these rides, when CPSC believes it is warranted. There are now about 90 safety inspectors, some of whom currently investigate accidents at carnival rides--these inspectors and others to be added under this bill--should be permitted to check the safety and investigate accidents at amusement parks. I am pleased that Chairman Rush committed to holding a hearing on this important issue, and I hope that we will soon close the roller coaster loophole, which continues to put children at risk when they board rides at amusement parks around our country. As this bill proceeds, I also hope that there will be advancements in several other areas, including raising the cap on civil penalties for safety violations, improving pre-market testing of toys and other consumer products, and eliminating industry's ability to prevent disclosure to the public of significant safety risks by tying the commission up in Federal court. Madam Speaker, I again commend Chairman Dingell and Chairman Rush for their work on this important bill, and I look forward to working with them in the future on the important consumer protection issues facing our country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Vermont. Ladies and gentlemen, today is an historic day. It is the day when we begin to take seriously the issue of energy dependency and the issue of global warming. The legislation that we have before us today is the culmination of a vision which Speaker Pelosi had as she was sworn in almost 1 year ago. She announced at that time that her goal was to make a huge down payment on the issue of energy independence and global warming. Today, we vote to pass the legislation which will send a signal not only to the citizens of our country but to the citizens of the world that our Nation is now serious about these issues. I want to compliment Chairman John Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee for his statesmanship and leadership on these issues throughout this year. I want to compliment all of the Members on both sides who have worked so hard to bring us to this point. It has not been easy. For this decade, I have worked very hard in order to raise by 10 miles per gallon the fuel economy standard of the vehicles of our country. Back in 1985 we reached a peak of about 27 miles per gallon. Since that time, we have gone backwards. In fact, during that period of time we have actually seen an increase in America's dependence on imported oil go from 27 percent of the oil which we consume in our country to 61 percent of the oil that we consume in our country. That is since 1985. And that has sent the wrong signal to OPEC and to the rest of the world. Today, in this legislation, we increase to 35 miles per gallon the fuel economy standard of the vehicles that we are going to drive by the year 2020. In conjunction with the cellulosic fuel component, the biofuel component that is built into this legislation, by the year 2030 this bill will back out the equivalent of twice the amount of oil which we import from the Persian Gulf today. What we have today, is this whirlpool within which the United States has caught itself where we send nearly $150 million a day to the Persian Gulf to purchase the 2.2 million barrels per day that we import out of the Persian Gulf to bring to the United States. That is $55 to $60 billion a year that we are sending over to parts of the world which we should have no business in. And caught in that whirlpool are our young men and women in our military who are over in the Middle East protecting this oil supply so it can come to our country. And for the first time the American people are now going to be made part of this effort. We no longer are going to pretend that the efficiency of the vehicles which Americans drive has no relationship to this amount of money that we send to the Middle East and the number of troops that we have to send to the Middle East. So this is going to be a very powerful message: 2.7 million barrels of oil a day from the Middle East not having to be imported by the year 2030 because of the increase in fuel economy standards; 1.8 million barrels of oil per day in equivalence of oil in now biofuels, cellulosic fuels, that will substitute for the oil that we otherwise would have to import from the Middle East. Together that is over 4 million barrels of oil a day equivalent. What a tremendous victory for the American people here today. Everyone in our country will now be part of it. Rather than in the Middle East, we will produce the fuels in the Middle West in our country and stop pretending that we can't improve the efficiency of the vehicles we drive. Secondly, this legislation will in fact reduce by nearly a quarter all of the greenhouse gases that the United States has to meet as a goal by the year 2030. So on climate change, energy efficiency will play a huge role in reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that the United States sends up into the atmosphere. The buildings will be greener. The lighting and appliances will be better. And because of fuel efficiency and renewable fuels, we will reduce by the amount of 100 coal-fired plants the amount of greenhouse gases we will send up into the atmosphere. What a victory. What a day the United States Congress will enjoy today. I congratulate Speaker Pelosi for her work on this legislation. I congratulate my colleague Todd Platts, and all of the Members who have worked on it. I salute President Bush for saying that he will sign this legislation. It is an historic signal. And I urge all of the Members who are here to realize that this is a moment that will be remembered forever as the energy revolution day, as the climate change revolutionary day where we changed course and sent a signal to the world that we mean business. So, ladies and gentlemen, please today vote ``aye'' and join with Speaker Pelosi, with Harry Reid and President Bush in this effort to change the direction of our country. It is a monumental day.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, over the past 7 years, I have labored to increase the fuel economy standards of our cars and light truck fleets, and am gratified that the day has finally come where the fruits of my labor will be realized. Over 7 years, there are countless individuals, Members of Congress, environmental, consumer, and religious organizations who have labored alongside me--these people are too numerous to mention. I thank all of them for their important contributions. But I would also like to thank several in particular. First, former Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, R-NY, who for six years was my partner in the House, advocating tirelessly, often against the wishes of his party's leadership, to move this issue forward. Second, Dan Becker, an environmental consultant, who has made raising fuel economy standards his life's work and who worked with my office in the trenches back when the trenches were a very lonely place to be! Finally, Securing America's Future Energy and the Energy Security Leadership Council, who brought together retired military officials and corporate CEOs to highlight the national and economic security dangers associated with our growing dependence on imported oil, and who played a critical role in developing more widespread support for these provisions. As the principal House proponent of the fuel economy Title in this legislation, I also wish to briefly discuss several of its provisions in order to more fully explain the statutory language and to provide context for what we are accomplishing with this historic energy bill. Section 3 of the bill states: ``Except to the extent expressly provided in this Act, or in an amendment made by this Act, nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this act supersedes, limits the authority or responsibility conferred by, or authorizes any violation of any provision of law (including a regulation), including any energy or environmental law or regulation.'' The laws and regulations referred to in section 3 include, but are not limited to, the Clean Air Act and any regulations promulgated under Clean Air Act authority. It is the intent of Congress to fully preserve existing federal and State authority under the Clean Air Act. In addition, Congress does not intend, by including provisions in Title I of the bill that reform and alter the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to increase fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles, non-passenger automobiles, work trucks, and medium and heavy duty trucks, to in any way supersede or limit the authority and/or responsibility conferred by sections 177, 202, and 209 of the Clean Air Act. For section 202 of the Clean Air Act, this includes but is not limited to the authority and responsibility affirmed by the Supreme Court's April 2, 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, No. 05-1120. For sections 177 and 209 of the Clean Air Act, this includes but is not limited to the authority affirmed by the September 12, 2007 decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont in Green Mountain Chrysler Dodge Jeep et al. v. Crombie et al., No. 2:05-cv-302, and the December 11, 2007 decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. et al. v. Goldstone, et al., No. 1:04-cv- 06663-AWIGSA. Although Senators Levin, Inouye and Feinstein, in a December 13, 2007 colloquy, agreed that it was the ``intent of this bill that any regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency be consistent with the direction of Congress in this legislation and regulations issued by the Department of Transportation to implement this legislation,'' in fact this legislation includes no statutory requirement that would compel the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt regulations that are consistent with those promulgated by the Department of Transportation. I would also note that in a subsequent colloquy, Senator Inouye stated that ``the DOT and the EPA have separate missions that should be executed fully and responsibly,'' and Senator Feinstein stated that ``Importantly, the separate authority and responsibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is in no manner affected by this legislation as plainly provided for in Section 3 of the bill addressing the relationship of H.R. 6 to other laws.'' Title I of the bill addresses CAFE standards. Section 102(a) would require that the fleet of new passenger and non-passenger vehicles made for sale in model year 2020 reach a fleet-wide fuel economy average of at least 35 miles per gallon, regardless of shifts in the market or any other consideration. While fuel economy standards for each of model years 2011-2019 are expected to be the maximum feasible standard, this section does not allow the Department of Transportation, DOT, to set a fleet-wide average of lower than 35 miles per gallon for model year 2020 under any circumstances. In addition, if the maximum feasible level for model year 2020 is higher than 35 miles per gallon due to technological progress and/or other factors, Congress intends to require DOT to set standards at the maximum feasible level. It is also the intent of this section to require DOT to set interim standards between 2011 and 2019 to make rapid and consistent annual progress towards achieving the 35 mpg minimum by 2020. In asking for ``ratable'' progress, the intent of Congress is to seek relatively consistent proportional increases in fuel economy standards each year, such that no single year through 2020 should experience a significantly higher increase than the previous year. Section 104 addresses credit trading among and within automakers' vehicle fleets and is intended to increase flexibility for automakers, but it is the intent of Congress that any trading not in any way reduce the oil savings achieved by the standards set for any year under this title. Section 105 is intended to provide added information for consumers, but is not intended to in any way interfere with or diminish EPA labeling authority. Congress intends that DOT work closely with EPA in fulfilling the requirements of this section. Section 106 is intended to clarify that Title I does not impact fuel economy standards or the standard-setting process for vehicles manufactured before model year 2011. This section is not intended to codify, or otherwise support or reject, any standards applying before model year 2011 , and is not intended to reverse, supersede, overrule, or in any way limit the November 15, 2007 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, No. 06-71891. Section 109 makes modifications to the cap on the credits allowed to manufacturers making dual-fuel vehicles to ensure that the dual-fuel vehicle credit program is phased out and is fully and permanently eliminated by 2020 and thereafter. I urge the Secretary to pay careful heed to the intent and spirit of these provisions in carrying out the provisions of this Title, so that we achieve this legislation's goals of increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars, SUVs, and other vehicles.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. This is a historic debate. This is a historic day in the history of the United States. Today, we debate energy independence and global warming for the first time in a serious way in our history. This legislation will accomplish things that will send a signal to the world. In this bill, we will increase the fuel economy standards of the vehicles Americans drive from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon. We will produce enough ethanol and cellulosic fuel that we can substitute for oil that by the year 2030, when both provisions are completely implemented, we will be backing out twice the oil that we import on a daily basis from OPEC, from the Persian Gulf. What a signal to OPEC, twice the oil from the Persian Gulf eliminated in one vote. And, at the same time, because of the efficiencies in light bulbs, in heating, in cooling, in furnaces, in all appliances, in buildings, in homes, we will in this one vote meet 35 percent of our entire goal by the year 2030 in reducing greenhouse gases to protect the planet from global warming. We will meet in this one vote 35 percent of the entire goal between now and 2030. What a moment for this Congress. It will unleash a technological revolution in new technology so that, rather than importing those technologies, we will be exporting those technologies. It will send a signal to our consumers that we are not going to stand by and allow them to be tipped upside down and have money shaken out of their pocket by OPEC as the price of oil has gone from $26 a barrel in President Bush's first year in office to over $90 a barrel today. Every week, the American consumers send $5 billion overseas to OPEC and other countries; $5 billion a week. This bill today is really a signal to OPEC that we now mean business. And it is a signal to the rest of the world that we are serious about global warming, and it is a signal to our citizens that we are going to begin to create those new green jobs in our country so that we can produce the products that are going to revolutionize the energy sector. So make no mistake about it as you cast this vote, my colleagues, you are casting the most important energy and environment vote of your career, and you will be remembered for this vote. So I ask you to give a signal to the American people that this Congress, when the Republicans took over in 1995, imported 43 percent of its oil; now we import 61 percent of our oil. It just keeps going up and up and up. So if we are to turn a corner historically and to engage these issues of energy efficiency, these issues of energy independence, these issues of global warming, this is the vote. One vote, later on today. I urge an ``aye'' vote by all of the Members of this body.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I also wish to also briefly discuss various provisions in order to more fully explain the statutory language and to provide context for what we are accomplishing with this historic energy bill. Section 3 of the bill states: ``Except to the extent expressly provided in this Act, or in an amendment made by this Act, nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this act supersedes, limits the authority or responsibility conferred by, or authorizes any violation of any provision of law (including a regulation), including any energy or environmental law or regulation.'' The laws and regulations referred to in section 3 include, but are not limited to, the Clean Air Act and any regulations promulgated under Clean Air Act authority. It is the intent of Congress to fully preserve existing federal and state authority under the Clean Air Act. In addition, Congress does not intend, by including provisions in Title I of the bill that reform and alter the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to increase fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles, non-passenger automobiles, work trucks, and medium and heavy duty trucks, to in any way supersede or limit the authority and/or responsibility conferred by sections 177, 202, and 209 of the Clean Air Act. (For section 202 of the Clean Air Act, this includes but is not limited to the authority and responsibility affirmed by the Supreme Court's April 2, 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (No. 05-1120), and, for sections 177 and 209 of the Clean Air Act, this includes but is not limited to the authority affirmed by the September 12, 2007 decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont in Green Mountain Chrysler Dodge Jeep et al. v. Crombie et al. (No. 2:05-cv-302). Title 1 of the bill addresses CAFE Standards. Section 102(a) would require that the fleet of new passenger and non-passenger vehicles made for sale in model year 2020 reach a fleet-wide fuel economy average of at least 35 miles per gallon, regardless of shifts in the market or any other consideration. While fuel economy standards for each of model years 2011-2019 are expected to be the maximum feasible standard, this section does not allow the Department of Transportation (DOT) to set a fleet-wide average of lower than 35 miles per gallon for model year 2020 under any circumstances. In addition, if the maximum feasible level for model year 2020 is higher than 35 miles per gallon due to technological progress and/or other factors, Congress intends to require DOT to set standards at the maximum feasible level. It is also the intent of this section to require DOT to set interim standards between 2011 and 2019 to make rapid and consistent annual progress towards achieving the 35 mpg minimum by 2020. In asking for ``ratable'' progress, the intent of Congress is to seek relatively consistent proportional increases in fuel economy standards each year, such that no single year through 2020 should experience a significantly higher increase than the previous year. Section 104 addresses credit trading among and within automakers' vehicle fleets, and is intended to increase flexibility for automakers, but it is the intent of Congress that any trading not in any way reduce the oil savings achieved by the standards set for any year under this title. Section 105 is intended to provide added information for consumers, but is not intended to in any way interfere with or diminish EPA labeling authority. Congress intends that DOT work closely with EPA in fulfilling the requirements of this section. Section 106 is intended to clarify that Title I does not impact fuel economy standards or the standard-setting process for vehicles manufactured before model year 2011. This section is not intended to codify, or otherwise support or reject, any standards applying before model year 2011, and is not intended to reverse, supersede, overrule, or in any way limit the November 15, 2007 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (No. 06-71891) Section 109 makes modifications to the cap on the credits allowed to manufacturers making dual-fuel vehicles to ensure that the dual-fuel vehicle credit program is phased out and is fully and permanently eliminated by 2020 and thereafter. I urge the Secretary to pay careful heed to the intent and spirit of these provisions in carrying out the provisions of this Title, so that we achieve the Bill's goals of increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars, SUVs, and other vehicles.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Bottle Recycling Climate Protection Act of 2007, which would establish a national program to promote the recycling of beverage containers, including bottled water, iced teas, sports drinks and carbonated beverages, by offering a national 5 cent deposit. This bill would help move the Nation towards a future of less global warming pollution by reducing the energy and related heat-trapping emissions needed to create the materials used in new beverage containers. Twenty-five years ago, my state of Massachusetts became one of the first states to pass a state bottle bill in order to encourage the recycling of cans and bottles. Since its inception, Massachusetts' bottle law has been a tremendous success. In 2006, over 2 billion beverage containers were sold in Massachusetts and nearly 70 percent of them were recycled rather than littered or incinerated. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously called the States ``laboratories of democracy''--the places where innovative solutions to the Nation's challenges are developed. Nowhere is the States' pioneering role in our system more vital today than in the area of energy independence and global warming. On these critical issues, the States are in the vanguard of a green energy revolution. In the case of the bottle bill, 11 states have acted as laboratories for more than two decades, very successfully. Now is the time to move this important program onto the national stage. Recycling and reusing these bottles not only reduces the amount of litter that ends up in our streets and the amount of trash that ends up in our landfills, it also dramatically reduces the amount of global warming pollution that ends up in our atmosphere. If all of the 58 billion aluminum cans that are thrown away every year in the United States were recycled, it would cut the emissions of heat-trapping carbon pollution by nearly 6 million tons--the equivalent of the pollution from more than one million cars. Cans made from recycled aluminum use 95 percent less energy than cans manufactured with new materials. In addition, plastic water and juice bottles have become increasingly prevalent since many state bottle bills were initially adopted. While less than half of the aluminum cans sold every year are recycled, an astounding 80 percent of the 60 billion plastic bottles sold each year are not recycled. Including plastic bottles in a national bottle bill would lead to significant savings in energy and oil consumption. One ton of recycled plastic saves 5,774 kWh (kilowatt hours) of electricity and 685 gallons of oil. I am proud to introduce this important bill today on America Recycles Day. Passing this bill would allow Congress to send the nation a global warming message in a bottle. We can still quench our thirst while reducing our thirst for energy. And we can have carbon dioxide in our fizzy drinks, while cutting down on heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. This bill will begin the long-overdue withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Yesterday, the President vetoed the Labor and Heath and Human Services-Education appropriations bill, which is the bill that provides funding for the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control, Low Income Home Energy Assistance, the Education Department, Pell Grants, and educational programs for the disadvantaged. He vetoed this bill because it contained a 2 percent increase over his request-- an increase of $10 billion in a Labor HHS bill of roughly $600 billion. The President opposes even a 2 percent increase in the funding for these programs. Meanwhile, the President has requested almost $200 billion more for his failed war in Iraq. That would make the total cost of the war in Iraq so far to over $600 billion and climbing, with no end in sight. President Bush's refusal to change course in Iraq is shocking, his failure to allow adequate rest for our soldiers between tours of duty is outrageous, and his demand for another $200 billion blank check for his war in Iraq while vetoing LIHEAP for the poor, education for disadvantaged children, Pell Grants for college students, and research into cures for life threatening disease is simply unacceptable to this House. What a misplaced set of priorities. Instead of the blank check for an endless war, this bill requires President Bush to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq within 30 days. Instead of unfairly sending inadequately equipped soldiers on multiple tours of duty, this bill prohibits the deployment of any troops who are not fully equipped and trained. And at the same time, this bill provides the necessary funds, in full, to our troops who are still in harm's way. Our Republican colleagues must make a choice: will they stand with President Bush's attempt to throw more money and more young men and women into the mess in Iraq, or will they join with Democrats seeking a bipartisan agreement on redeploying American troops out of Iraq? Mr. Speaker, I would like to specifically note a provision of this bill, which I wrote, to bar any funds in this bill from being used for the gruesome and indefensible practice of extraordinary rendition. I would like to commend and thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Murtha for again including this language, as they have in every defense appropriations and supplemental appropriations bill this year. Through the use of extraordinary rendition, as well as abusive interrogation techniques and extrajudicial incarceration of so-called ``enemy combatants,'' President Bush has largely forfeited the mantel of human rights champion which the United States has carried for so long. We must reclaim the international moral high-ground if we are to cure the root causes of terrorism around the world, and we can start by banning extraordinary rendition. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Obey for this strong and responsible bill, and urge all my colleagues to vote aye.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. Let me start by commending the chairman of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, and the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller for their work on this bill. I offer my thanks to the House and Senate conferees for bringing forth this important piece of legislation today. In 1965, with a great deal of hard work, Head Start was created. It soon became a ``legislative Lamborghini'' of social programs, going from 0 to 561,000 thousand participants in only a few months. In the 42 years since its inception, Head Start has become the educational foundation for more than 20 million American children. Education serves as both a ladder of opportunity and an investment in our future. Our Nation's security, economy, and position in the world all depend on the success of our education system. We must take advantage of this opportunity to fund our future. Head Start and Early Head Start are linchpins in the effort to prepare our country's most disadvantaged children to succeed in school and life. Many studies indicate that children enrolled in Head Start make significant progress in closing the readiness gap to their more advantaged peers as they enter kindergarten. The congressionally mandated impact study recently published its results, which noted that after less than 1 year in the program, children in Head Start had narrowed the readiness gap by 45 percent in reading skills and 28 percent in writing skills. This momentum continues well beyond the ages of 3, 4, and 5, as another large academic study has noted that Head Start graduates continue to mount academic gains well after leaving the program. The bill we see before us today helps to raise the academic standards of American children and ensures that every child in our country has an equal opportunity to a high quality education. It aims to improve teacher quality by requiring a greater number of Head Start teachers to have a bachelor's degree and be adequately trained in early childhood development. This is clearly good news for the children that will be participating in Head Start in the future. On multiple occasions, the President has advocated that all 3- and 4- year-old participants in Head Start should take standardized tests to assess their improvement. For President Bush, No Child Left Behind means no child left untested. I am happy that this conference report terminates the further use of the National Reporting System, an inappropriate, ineffective, and expensive testing regime. This conference report notes that Head Start is not without the opportunity for evaluation, however, and there is strengthened program accountability at the Federal, regional, and local levels included in the legislation. The report also requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to initiate classroom evaluations, thereby ensuring optimal teacher-child interactions. We have known for some time that when children are not provided high- quality day care and early childhood services, once in school, their academic achievement and limited language proficiencies become cumulatively worse over time, over grade levels, and across all subject areas. By passing this conference report, we build on the past 42 years of success for this program and help ensure that both Head Start children as well as our Nation as a whole have a brighter tomorrow.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to suspend the rules and to pass the Broadband Census of America Act of 2007 because, Mr. Speaker, the overarching telecommunications policy goal of the United States is achieving ubiquitously available, competitive, high-speed, affordable broadband service to all Americans. Such broadband service capability is indispensable to various aspects of the United States economy, including public safety, education, entrepreneurial investment, innovation, job creation, health care delivery, and energy efficiency. The ability of the United States to promote and achieve a competitive high-speed broadband infrastructure will also be a key factor in determining our Nation's success in the fiercely competitive global economy. International competitors to the United States are achieving progress in broadband deployment and adoption. Many countries have broadband service capabilities superior to the United States in terms of choice, speed, and price. For the United States, offering broadband service capability at ever higher transmission speeds could spur new growth in investment in cutting-edge applications, services, and technologies that utilize higher bandwidth functionality. This bill represents an indispensable first step in developing an overarching blueprint for broadband policy in the United States. In brief, the Broadband Census of America Act tasked the Federal Communications Commission with collecting data from providers of broadband service capability throughout the country, and with developing a series of tiers for categorizing the speeds of such services. The data collected will be disclosed to the public in an annual report that will include: one, the actual number of residential and business subscribers within each five-digit ZIP code with a list of the broadband technologies present in each ZIP code: and, two, the actual number of residential and business subscribers, correlated to each broadband speed tier identified by the FCC on a statewide basis. This bill also encompasses a broadband mapping effort as well as community organization initiatives for unserved and underserved areas to increase knowledge of where, what type, and what speed of broadband service may be available. The bill requires the National Telecommunications Information Agency to develop a national broadband availability map which will include the availability of broadband service capability at the nine-digit ZIP code level, census track level, or functional equivalent. This is a very consumer-friendly mapping function and ``demand side'' identification initiative that consumer groups, the high-tech community and the telecommunications industry all support. This map will be interactive and searchable by consumers, and at the providers' discretion will also indicate the type of technology and speed of service offered in that area. The legislation also includes authorizations for grants to local planning entities and communities around the country. These grants are designed to increase broadband availability and usage in local communities through so-called ``demand side'' identification and other initiatives. To better gauge how the country is performing compared to international competitors, the bill also requires the FCC to conduct a comparison of the extent of broadband service capability abroad in 75 foreign communities with equivalent American communities. This legislation reflects several months of negotiations. And I want to thank Mr. Upton from Michigan for his patient attention to this legislation. No legislation in telecommunications has received the detailed attention that this legislation has on a bipartisan basis, and for that I want to thank Mr. Upton. I also want to thank the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Barton, for his work on this legislation. And of course on our side, Mr. Dingell and I worked with the minority towards achieving this legislation. And with the thanks of Mr. Dingell and myself, we once again want to point out how cooperative all of our working relationships were on this legislation. It also has the support of consumer groups, the Communications Workers of America, NARUC Connect Kentucky, Qwest, and organizations representing the high-tech industry, the cable industry, the telephone industry, and the wireless industry. I want to again thank Mr. Upton and Mr. Barton for their cooperation in working through the differences on this legislation, and to thank Mr. Dingell for his excellent work on this legislation. I urge Members of the House to support this bill. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.