Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, September 11 was a very important day in Boston history. Mohammed Atta and nine other terrorists hijacked two planes with hundreds of people on them 2 miles from my house and flew them into the World Trade Center, killing not only the people in the World Trade Center, but all of the people on those two planes from Logan airport. For the last 5 years, we've had a fight over whether or not we should screen the cargo which goes on passenger planes in our country. Yes, each of us has to take off our shoes, our bags have to go through, we have to take off our wristwatches, children's baby carriages have to be inspected. But, believe it or not, then the cargo is placed right under our feet, and it's not screened. Billions of pounds of cargo not screened. And so this cargo loophole has been fought by the cargo industry, opposed by the Bush administration, but now it is in this legislation. And henceforth, all of the cargo which goes onto passenger planes in our country, placed next to the bags of passengers, placed under the feet of passengers on planes, will also be screened. And so now cargo will have this on it. Screened, safe to place upon those planes. It is a huge moment in security. This bill is historic. And secondly, although the Bush administration has opposed it, this legislation also includes my language which is going to require the screening of cargo on ships coming into ports in the United States. Right now cargo with a nuclear bomb in it, which we know is al Qaeda's top goal, to obtain a nuclear weapon from someplace in the former Soviet Union, move it to a port in the world and move that ship with the cargo into New York, into Long Beach, into Boston, and then detonate the nuclear bomb before it is taken out of the cargo hold of that ship, destroying that American city. Because of the language in this bill, that cargo will now be screened in the port overseas before it ever leaves for our country. It will be screened for a nuclear bomb overseas, thwarting the highest objective which al Qaeda has, which is to detonate a nuclear bomb. Now, I can understand the Bush administration's misgivings about it, and I understand that many of the Senators, Republican Senators will not sign this conference report because of this requirement. I think they're making a historic mistake. This is at the top of the terrorist target list. This is what they want to do to American cities, detonate a nuclear bomb on a ship already docked in a port in the United States before it's ever taken off that ship. This legislation is historic. I congratulate Chairman Thompson. I congratulate the staff. I congratulate the bipartisan nature for the vast majority of this legislation. It is overdue. It is overdue. We must put in place the defense, now, against al Qaeda returning to finish their plot against us here in the homeland. Al Qaeda came to Boston to begin this attack. There's no reason to believe they can't return to those very same planes, to those very same docks where al Qaeda came in. They came in through the ports of Boston to, in fact, wreak this catastrophic event on our country. Vote ``yes'' on this bill. Mr. Speaker, as the principal author of the air cargo security provision in Section 1602 of the conference report--Screening of Cargo Carried Aboard Passenger Aircraft--I want to make several points clear. While the House version of the bill used the term ``inspected'' and the Senate version used ``screened'', neither bill actually defined these terms. The language in the final version of the bill does define ``screening'', and it makes clear that screening does not mean what DHS currently considers screening--reviews of manifests, information about shippers (Known Shipper program), etc. To make clear what is meant by screening, the final bill states that: The system used to screen 100 percent of cargo carried on passenger planes must provide a level of security on par with the level of security for passengers' checked bags. Specifically, the language states that the system ``shall require, at a minimum, that equipment, technology, procedures, personnel or other methods approved by the Administrator of TSA are used to screen cargo carried on passenger planes to provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage.'' (emphasis added). A 3-year deadline is established to get to 100 percent, with an interim benchmark of 50 percent of cargo within 18 months of enactment. Screening means an examination of the cargo's contents, not just information about the cargo, consistent with the mandate that the cargo screening must be on par with the security standard for screening of passengers' checked bags. The bill stipulates the cargo screening methods TSA is to use to meet this standard: ``Methods of screening include x-ray systems, explosive detection systems, explosive trace detection, explosive detection canine teams certified by the TSA, or a physical search together with manifest verification.'' These are methods currently used for checked bags. While TSA may approve additional methods, they cannot be solely data checks, and must also utilize physical checks. As the final language makes clear: ``The Committee is also concerned about TSA using data checks of cargo or shippers . . . as a single factor in determining whether cargo poses a threat to transportation security. The Conference substitute, therefore, requires that if such data checks are used, they must be paired with additional physical or nonintrusive screening method approved by TSA that examines the cargo's contents.'' (emphasis added). There has been some discussion in the media about Congress's intent in passing this provision. I want to address these points and make clear the intent of the provision. One concern that was raised is that as much as 60 percent of air cargo could be exempt from a mandatory physical inspection at airports, under a new program to be called Certified Shipper. As noted above, the language in the final version of the bill requires that the system for screening all cargo on passenger planes must ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage.'' All cargo on passenger planes must be physically examined before it is loaded onboard, a major departure from current practice. While TSA may be considering a so-called ``Certified Shipper'' program that would require physical examination of all cargo in a location off the airport grounds and then a sealing of the cargo containers with tamper-proof seals, this plan, and any such system developed by TSA, must provide a level of cargo security on par with the level of security for checked bags, which includes the requirement that the contents of all the cargo must be physically checked. The final version of the bill mandates that the Department of Homeland Security issue a rule to implement a system consistent with the bill's 100 percent cargo screening requirement. Congress, along with stakeholders who have been working to require 100 percent screening of all cargo carried on passenger planes, will be watching TSA's plans closely to ensure that the implementation of the cargo screening mandate in the bill is performed in a manner that complies with the mandate in the final version of the bill. If TSA's system does not ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage'' as required in the bill, it will not be in compliance with the congressional mandate in the final version of the bill, and therefore will be in jeopardy of being halted or modified by Congress to bring it into compliance with the law. Another concern that has been raised is that companies that participate in the Certified Shipper program would still have to follow security rules, including conducting their own package inspections and putting special tamperproof seals on containers, but packages handled by these companies, which will probably represent the bulk of the air cargo industry, would generally be exempt from mandated electronic, canine or other physical inspections at the airport. Again, a so-called ``Certified Shipper'' program or any other program that TSA develops to implement the mandate to screen 100 percent of the cargo on passenger planes must meet the standard that it provides a level of security on par with the level of security for passenger checked bags. At this point, it is unclear whether a program that screens and then seals cargo outside the airport perimeter would meet this standard. In an April 2007 report requested by Representative Markey and other Members, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that the Department of Homeland Security is conducting pilot programs to test a number of currently employed technologies used in other areas of aviation and transportation security, as well as new technologies. These pilot programs include an air cargo security seals pilot, which is exploring the viability of potential security countermeasures, such as tamper-evident security seals. According to GAO, TSA anticipates completing its pilot tests by 2008. (GAO-07-660 Aviation Security). Before implementation of any TSA air cargo program relying on seals, a thorough, comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of such seals will have to be conducted. Again, if such a system does not ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage'' as required in the bill, it will not be in compliance with the congressional mandate in the final version of the bill, and therefore will be in jeopardy of being halted or modified by Congress to bring it into compliance with the law. Another concern that has been raised is that a program similar to Certified Shipper that is used by Customs and Border Patrol for ship cargo has frequently been criticized. Auditors have found that companies in this program are sometimes permitted to move their goods more quickly even though there is insufficient proof that they have a robust security system in place. The program referred to above is called the Customs--Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). I have criticized C-TPAT for many of the same reasons cited above. In fact, in addition to the air cargo screening requirement, the final version of the bill also includes a requirement that 100 percent of maritime cargo must be screened and sealed overseas before it arrives in U.S. ports. Clearly, with the inclusion of this mandate in the final version of the bill, Congress rejected C-TPAT as a substitute for 100 percent scanning of maritime containers. It did not intend, nor would it permit, a program for screening 100 percent of air cargo that is based on the flawed C- TPAT program. By establishing the standard that TSA's system for screening 100 percent of cargo on passenger planes must ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage'', the final version of the bill creates requirements much more stringent than the C-TPAT program. C-TPAT uses risk-based process, not mandatory, comprehensive screening. Specifically, C-TPAT security guidelines state that ``C-TPAT recognizes the complexity of international supply chains and endorses the application and implementation of security measures based upon risk analysis. Therefore, the program allows for flexibility and the customization of security plans based on the member's business model. As listed throughout this document appropriate security measures, based on risk, must be implemented and maintained throughout the Air Carrier's supply chains'' (emphasis added, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/commercial _enforcement/ctpat/security_guideline/ guideline_air_carrier.xml) The air cargo provision requires 100 percent screening, not risk assessment. The air cargo provision mandates screening of all cargo carried on passenger planes within 3 years. Under the air cargo provision in the conference report, no risk calculation is permitted to determine whether or which cargo to screen; rather, all cargo is presumed to present a risk and must be screened, just as all of passengers' checked bags must be screened under the current policy. The C-TPAT program relies on data and manifest information, not physical checks. C-TPAT guidelines advise program participants in the procedural security measures they should use for the shipping and receiving of cargo. These procedures rely on data and manifest checks, not the physical screening of the cargo to determine and evaluate its contents. Specifically, the C-TPAT guidelines state that: ``Arriving cargo should be reconciled against information on the cargo manifest. The cargo should be accurately described, weighed, labeled, marked, counted and verified. Departing cargo should be checked against purchase or delivery orders.'' (emphasis added) Whatever system TSA establishes to implement the 100 percent air cargo screening requirement in the bill will be subjected to close congressional scrutiny to ensure that it meets the standard established in the bill; namely, the system must provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked baggage, as stipulated in the bill. Again, any TSA system that fails to meet this standard will not be in compliance with the congressional mandate in the final version of the bill, and therefore will be in jeopardy of being halted or modified by Congress to bring it into compliance with the law.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007. This bill will give the United States far superior economic and political leverage against Iran's ongoing and dangerous nuclear program by significantly strengthening our sanctions package against Tehran. The necessity for the United States and the world to negotiate a final termination to Iran's nuclear program cannot be overstated. The signals that Iran's nuclear program may not be peaceful are legion: Iran is in violation of its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, it has yet to explain decades of deception surrounding their nuclear research and construction programs, it is pursuing a uranium enrichment program which could eventually produce weapons-grade uranium, and it is building a heavy-water nuclear reactor which will produce plutonium which could be used for weapons. An Iranian nuclear weapon could threaten the United States, the security of the Persian Gulf, and it would certainly threaten one of our greatest allies, Israel. Iran's position in the region has unfortunately been greatly strengthened by our misadventure in Iraq, and the regime in Tehran may believe that with a nuclear bomb they could become the regional hegemon, the local strong-man. Such an outcome would be disastrous for the stability of the region, and would be deeply threatening to the United States and our allies. We must do everything we can to avoid this scenario. The Iran Counter- Proliferation Act will put stronger arrows in the diplomatic quiver of the United States through its expanded sanctions package, and it hopefully will help us find a resolution to this important issue. Iran's development of a nuclear weapon would also be a deeply damaging blow to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and could signal the death-knell for international efforts to halt the spread of the bomb. An Iranian nuclear weapon would so dramatically alter the balance of power in the Middle East and Central Asia that other nearby countries could decide that they must pursue a weapons program as well to protect themselves from the sway of Iranian regional hegemony. In such a scenario, an Iranian bomb could spur the development of a Saudi bomb, an Egyptian bomb, or a Turkish bomb. If the cascading security implications for the region from an Iranian nuclear weapon did lead to neighboring countries also pursuing nuclear programs, the NPT may truly be shattered beyond repair. While I support H.R. 1400 and am proud to cosponsor it, I am concerned that one provision of the bill may have the unintended consequence of undermining our international efforts to unify all governments around the world against Iran's dangerous and destabilizing nuclear program. This bill would remove the President's ability to waive sanctions against foreign countries and corporations if the sanctions could harm the national security interests of the United States. I share the view of the bill's authors that such Presidential waiver authority has been utilized far too frequently--in fact, the international sanctions contained in the Iran Sanctions Act have never been utilized because they have been waived every year! However, I am concerned that by removing the waiver altogether, we will go too far in the other direction. A number of American allies would be targeted by a universal application of the sanctions contained in H.R. 1400, and while it may be desirable in many cases to do so, leveraging such costly sanctions against our international partners could in certain circumstances make it more difficult to convince these countries to support our efforts to obtain further multilateral sanctions against Iran. No country and no corporation should get a free pass to conduct business in Iran, but at the same time we must retain the flexibility necessary to assure success at the multilateral level. For this reason, I intend to work with my colleagues to make sure that a tightly-crafted waiver authority is included in the final legislation--not to encourage its use, but to ensure that the United States retains the flexibility that we must have to be successful. It is also very important that H.R. 1400 includes a provision clarifying that nothing in the act authorizes the use of force or the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iran. I believe that our best strategy for success against the Iranian nuclear program will be a strong combination of economic sanctions, political engagement, and multilateral pressure with a clear and persuasive package of benefits to Iran in exchange for the renunciation of their nuclear program. A successful strategy does not involve the use of force, and in fact the use of force against Tehran would most likely backfire by solidifying the domestic political support for the hard-line regime which is continually loosing the support of its people. I believe that we can solve the Iranian nuclear issue with smart diplomacy, forceful engagement, unilateral and multilateral sanctions, and a sophisticated understanding what combination of sticks and carrots will be persuasive to the decision-makers in Tehran. While it is my opinion that most of the Bush Administration's efforts in this regard have been heavy-handed, ideologically rigid, uncreative, and ultimately counter-productive, I believe that some of their recent actions point to the slow adoption of a more sophisticated approach towards this extremely important problem. The Iran CounterProliferation Act will help strengthen this approach, and will help us ratchet up the pressure on Iran. It is yet to be seen whether the Bush Administration will be wise enough to couple this bigger stick with a bigger carrot, and I hope that they do so. Far too much hangs in the balance, and the United States strategy must be smart, adaptive, and tough. I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008. Overall, this is a very good bill, and I will vote for it. In this difficult fiscal environment, it provides funding for critical programs that have been starved by the Administration and the Republican Congress. This bill provides significant increases for Education programs including resources for teacher quality, early education and after school programs, and it provides more for Low Income Home Energy Assistance. It also provides important resources for preventive health care, for the title IIV and title IIIV Health professions training programs, and for the Ryan White program. While I will support the bill, I am very disappointed that we were not able to provide more funding for the critical work conducted at the National Institutes of Health. The NIH embodies our country's hope for treating or curing debilitating diseases like heart disease, Alzheimer's, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, cancer and so many other illnesses that American families battle every day. But scientific advances don't just occur by accident. They are the result of sustained investments in research. Unfortunately, since 2003, Republicans flat- lined the NIH budget, and NIH has lost 13 percent of its research funding when adjusted for inflation. I was hopeful that this year we would be able to end that devastating trend and get the NIH budget back on track by providing the NIH with significant increases over the rate of inflation. Although I am disappointed that we were not able to provide more for NIH this year, I look forward to working with the distinguished chair and the members of the Appropriations committee in the future to ensure that we provide our country's premier medical research institution with the funding it needs to find treatments and cures to our country's most devastating diseases.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. It is long past time that the disaster in Iraq is brought to an end. The President's failed policy in Iraq has been repudiated by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, his inability to extricate the United States from a quagmire in the desert has been rejected by the voters, and we must change course. The President has proven himself to be either blind to the reality on the ground in Iraq or simply uncaring of what that reality means for the stability of the Middle East and the security of the United States of America. The President took this country to war on false premises. There were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no imminent threat, there were no operational ties to al-Qaeda. And the administration knew, because we had U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq for months before the invasion, that the so-called ``intelligence'' pointing to an active and dangerous Iraqi WMD program was simply wrong. Over and over again, Hans Blix and his teams of inspectors would launch surprise visits on sites that the CIA had pointed them to, and over and over again the U.S. intelligence would be proved incorrect. We have been fighting in Iraq longer than we fought in the Second WorId War. Within a few months, we will have spent more money in Iraq than we did in the more than 10 years we were in Vietnam. And while a very small segment of our citizenry is being asked to make the ultimate sacrifice for this adventure by sending their loved ones to war, the Bush administration has given billions of dollars in tax breaks to the richest Americans. If this war were truly a national struggle, underpinned by the faith and support of the public, the sacrifices would be shared by all instead of borne by the few. Since President Bush infamously declared ``Mission Accomplished'' over 4 years ago, the situation has only gotten worse and worse. The administration never had a plan to win the peace, and still does not, and as a result the peace cannot be won. Our brave men and women in uniform are caught in the midst of a multifaceted civil war which can only be brought to an end with political reconciliation, not military engagement. Unfortunately, the President stubbornly refuses to understand the nature of the conflict into which he has dragged us. He refuses to change course, but more of the same cannot any longer be an option. We must extricate ourselves from a sectarian civil war which is bleeding our military every single day. This bill will begin the responsible redeployment of US forces out of Iraq within 120 days, and complete that deployment by April 1, 2008. On that date, we will have been in Iraq for more than 5 years. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Skelton for bringing this resolution before us and I urge its adoption.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I rise with an amendment that I am making in conjunction with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce). Our language seeks to make some technical corrections to ensure that affordable housing is preserved in three housing developments, two located in Ohio and one in Massachusetts. The low-income tenants of the Heritage Apartments in Malden, Massachusetts, are facing possible displacement once an outstanding HUD mortgage is fully paid in a few years. The development is also in need of major renovations and upgrades that simply cannot be delayed. Unfortunately, HUD is failing to ensure that the development remains affordable and livable by placing burdensome regulations and restrictions on prepayment of the outstanding mortgage and subsequent transfer to a new owner who is willing to finance the renovations. My amendment would allow income-eligible residents to qualify for enhanced housing vouchers following the prepayment of the HUD mortgage and the property transfer and directs HUD to approve such actions. I will defer to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) to explain the portion of our amendment which deals with maintaining affordability in housing developments located in her congressional district in Ohio. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that adoption of this language would result in $1 million in net savings to current mandatory spending over the next 5 years because HUD is currently paying mortgage interest reduction payments for the development which would be nullified upon adoption of the Markey-Pryce amendment. The amendment is supported by the chairman of the committee and the ranking member. It is also supported by the Institute of Real Estate Management, National Apartment Association, and the National Association of Home Builders. And I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman and congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), for his enormously successful work; and Mr. Dingell as well, as well as the key Republicans who worked on this legislation. I am pleased that the bill before the House includes language from the drug safety bill that Mr. Waxman and I introduced in March to strengthen the FDA's ability to monitor drugs after they have been approved and create a true post-market safety net system. As we have seen with drugs such as Vioxx, new side effects and health risks may only surface after drugs are approved and are used by the general population. Yet the FDA has not had the authority to mandate label changes or require further studies to get more information about these risks once the drugs have been approved. This bill will empower the FDA with those important new authorities, and it will also establish a new post-market risk identification and analysis system to identify harmful side effects and uncover signals of unexpected adverse events without compromising patient privacy. I am also pleased that the package includes a strong clinical trials registry and results database that is consistent with the bill that Mr. Waxman and I have been championing since 2004 when we learned that some drug companies were painting distorted pictures of their products by hiding negative trial results. The current system, which allows companies to pick and choose which trials they want to make public, is like allowing students to just pick the grades they want to bring home. Everyone would have straight A's. Our bill will establish one central mandatory registry of all clinical trials with strong enforcement mechanisms to require companies to make their clinical trials and the result of those trials available to the public, all of the trials. This is historic because the database of trial results will ensure that doctors and their patients have current, complete, and accurate information about all drugs on the market. Finally, I want to thank Mr. Rogers from Michigan for working with me on the pediatric devices bill. It is an important bill that will help children get the devices that they need. I thank again Mr. Pallone, Mr. Dingell, and all the others who worked on this bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, the goals of achieving energy independence and reducing our global warming pollution cannot be adequately addressed without a transformation in our transportation sector. This sector lies at the nexus of the twin problems of our energy dependence and global warming. Two-thirds of the oil we consume every day goes into the transportation sector. After Congress mandated a doubling of fuel economy standards from 13.5 to 27.5 miles per gallon, our dependence on foreign oil went from 46.5% in 1977 to 27% in 1985. But since then our fuel economy standards have been stuck in neutral or even reverse and our dependence on imported oil has climbed to 60%. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) have the potential. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles represent a technology that can significantly address these problems. While the transportation sector is powered mostly by oil, the nation-wide electricity grid is only 3% petroleum- fueled according to the Energy Information Administration. Wide use of PHEVs can help transfer petroleum-intensive driving miles to nearly petroleum-free electricity. According to the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, if the cars, trucks and SUVs on the road were replaced by PHEVs, 84% could be powered using existing electrical generation infrastructure. This same paper found that replacing our Light-Duty Fleet with plug-in hybrids could reduce our oil consumption by 6.5 million barrels per day and our emission of heat-trapping gasses by 27%. PHEV technology is beginning to become available and some automakers have produced prototypes and are beginning to announce long-term plans to manufacture plug-in hybrids. However, technology already exists making it possible to convert the roughly 1 million hybrid vehicles that will be on the road this year into plug-in hybrids, capable of getting 150 miles per gallon. This conversion would allow existing hybrids to begin traveling between 20 and 60 miles on a single charge, while using very little gasoline. With initial conversion costs ranging from $6,000 to $9,500 depending on the size of the battery, the ``Plug-in Hybrid Opportunity Act of 2007'' would provide consumers with a vital tax incentive of 35% of the cost of conversion, cap the potential credit at $4,000 and expire after 3 years. It is essential that these conversions be included under the plug-in hybrid tax credit, after meeting all the appropriate safety and environmental testing certifications, so that we can begin reducing our dependence on foreign oil and global warming pollution by realizing the benefits of plug-in hybrids now.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise so that we can note this important moment, and that moment is that, although it is with great sadness for this Chamber and the members of the Massachusetts delegation, but I think great joy for his family, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is about to cast his final vote as a Member of this Chamber, and I would like to give the gentleman the proper farewell that he deserves because he has served well and long in this institution. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to support the goals of National Aphasia Awareness Month Aphasia is a disease that causes the loss of the ability to produce and/or comprehend language it can also impair a person's ability to read and write. Each case is different depending on the severity of the stroke or brain trauma and definitely does not affect everyone is the same way. This condition is a result of damage to the left hemisphere of the brain. The main cause of aphasia is stroke. Strokes are the third leading cause of death and disability in the United States today and their affects are felt not only by the victim but also by the victim's family and friends. Other causes of aphasia include blows to the head, gun shot wounds, and brain tumors. Currently there is research being done on how to help people with Aphasia enjoy a better quality of life. Aphasia does not cause any kind of disability in thinking or learning but in the comprehension of things that are said and how to respond to people. People who suffer from aphasia are able to function in every day life, but they need assistance and attention. Moreover, further research is needed to improve our understanding of how to identify the risk factors that cause aphasia, prevent the occurrence of aphasia and improve the ability to function of those with the disease. There are currently about one million cases of aphasia in the United States, and about 80,000 people are afflicted with the disease every year. By working with vocational specialists, speech-language pathologists and family and friends, many of those with aphasia may be able to obtain some sense of normalcy and regain some of their skills. I am introducing this resolution to support the goals of National Aphasia Awareness Month with the hope that it will bring more attention to this disease and give a voice to those who suffer from Aphasia who often cannot speak for themselves. This resolution recognizes June 2007 as National Aphasia Awareness Month in hopes of giving more attention to this illness and in hopes that more recognition will highlight the importance of research and compassion to the daily struggle faced by those affected by Aphasia.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to any amendments that would strike the longstanding existing moratoria on offshore oil and gas drilling along the East and West Coasts. When you look at these amendments, you see that they are particularly empty of any promise to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Right now, without these amendments, drilling is already allowed in areas holding roughly 80 percent of the estimated oil and gas resources. In fact, of the 8,000 active leases oil companies hold in the Gulf of Mexico, more than 6,000 have yet to begin producing oil. So if you are worried about making sure that the oil and gas industry has access to the Outer Continental Shelf, stop worrying. They already have more leases than they know what to do with. They have been given the right to drill for the vast majority of oil and gas offshore and are not even producing from the majority of leases they hold in the Gulf. The oil companies should begin producing on the leases they already hold, not looking to acquire new ones in environmentally sensitive areas that do not even have large estimated oil and gas resources. Moreover, let's not forget the Republican leadership just rammed through an offshore drilling bill in the waning hours of the last Congress as a going out of business bonanza for big oil. That legislation opened up additional areas in the Gulf of Mexico holding 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. But barely six months later, drilling proponents are back for another bite at the apple, once again attempting to give away our important coastal areas away to Big Oil. G.O.P still stands for the Gas and Oil Party. It is highly misleading to suggest that we can solve the problem of our oil dependence or high gas prices with more drilling, when the real answer is not more drilling, but using technology to make our cars and SUVs more energy efficient. After Congress mandated a doubling of fuel economy standards from 13.5 to 27.5 miles per gallon, our dependence on foreign oil went from 46.5% in 1977 to 27% in 1985 but we are now back up to 60%. We should be making our vehicles more efficient, not giving away our public lands to big oil companies that are making record profits. Soon, this House will have an opportunity to go on Record on the Markey- Platts legislation, which would mandate a 35 mile per gallon combined fleet fuel efficiency standard--an improvement that will allow us to reduce our consumption by roughly the same amount of oil that we currently import from the Persian Gulf by 2022. I am pleased that the underlying bill once again includes language authored by myself and Mr. Hinchey that would give oil companies a strong incentive to renegotiate the faulty leases from 1998 and 1999. The Government Accountability Office has estimated that these leases could cost the American taxpayers more than $10 billion. The House has gone on record time and time again in overwhelming support of putting real pressure to renegotiate on every company holding these leases. Last year, the House adopted the Markey-Hinchey royalty relief fix that is included in this bill by a vote of 252-165 and earlier this year this body passed the royalty fixes contained in H.R. 6 by a vote of 264-163. It is time to put an end to big oil's free ride. I urge opposition to any amendments that would open up our coastlines to drilling and strongly support passage of the underlying bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson for their clear vision and their courage in producing this bill. This bill represents an historic shift in policy, and that is why this bill deserves such strong support. This bill almost doubles the funding for real nuclear nonproliferation programs, both in the former Soviet Union and around the world, adding close to $1 billion for the most effective programs. The bill provides dramatic increases over the President's request for the program, and I commend Mr. Visclosky and Mr. Hobson for their crucial, long overdue investment in the security of the United States. We are here only because of their leadership. Secondly, while the President wants to build thousands of new warheads at a price tag of up to $100 billion, this bill puts a brake on the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and it demands an explanation of why the United States needs to build thousands of new nuclear weapons even as we are, with agreements with the Russians, trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in this world. I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for dramatically realigning our nuclear priorities in such a positive manner. I urge adoption of this historic measure.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 251) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit manipulation of caller identification information, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill which I offer today with an amendment under suspension of the rules. This is a consensus, noncontroversial bill, and it is sponsored by our colleague, Representative Eliot Engel from the State of New York. A similar bill, sponsored by full Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Joe Barton, passed the House in the last Congress unanimously. I want to commend Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee Ranking Member Fred Upton for his work and cooperation on this measure, and I commend full committee Chairman John Dingell for his excellent efforts on this bill as well. This legislation addresses issues regarding so-called ``caller ID spoofing.'' ``Spoofing'' is when a caller masks or changes the caller ID information of their call in a way that disguises the true origination number of the caller. In many instances, a call recipient may be subject to pretexting through spoofing, which can lead to fraud, personal ID theft, harassment or otherwise put the safety of the call recipient in danger. On the other hand, lest we think that spoofing always has nefarious aims, we must recognize that there may be circumstances when a person's safety may be put in danger if their true and accurate call origination information is disclosed as well. For instance, Members of Congress often have direct lines in their offices in order to ensure that such lines do not become generally public and, therefore, remain useful to us. It may be necessary to keep such direct numbers confidential and have the outgoing caller ID information indicate a different number at which offices can be reached for return calls; that gives the recipient a legitimate phone number to call back, but keeps confidential lines that must remain private. There are many doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers and other professionals who would similarly like to keep direct confidential lines private in this way, who have no intention of misleading anyone. In addition, there may be instances, for example, when a woman at a shelter seeks to reach her children, when spoofing is important to safeguard someone's safety. Moreover, informants to law enforcement tip lines or whistle blowers have additional reasons for why their calling information should remain private. We should not outlaw any of these practices, and I think the legislation needs some improvement and clarification in these areas. What we seek in caller ID policy is balance. This has been the case since we held hearings in the Telecommunications Subcommittee in the early 1990s on caller ID, when we sought to take into account emerging caller ID technology in a way that also allowed callers to block their origination number on a per call or per line basis. Technology also allowed call recipients to refuse to receive calls by anyone who is blocking their caller ID information from going through. This is much-needed legislation. I urge support by all Members of the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude by thanking all of the Members, led by Mr. Engel; the very, very helpful comments from Ms. Harman in clarification of the intent of this legislation; Mr. Dingell, the chairman of the full committee; along with Mr. Barton, the ranking member, Mr. Upton and Mr. Stearns. This is a completely bipartisan piece of legislation, and we thank them for this cooperation. This is the way telecommunications legislation should be passed. I would also like to commend the staff: Tim Powderly from the majority staff and Neil Fried and Courtney Reinhard from the Republican committee staff. I also want to thank Pete Goodloe and Gregg Rothschild from Mr. Dingell's staff; Cristina Batt from Mr. Engel's staff; and Colin Crowell on my staff, who has been doing this type of legislation for 17 years, going back to the beginning of the discussion of all of these caller ID-related issues. And, finally, I would like to thank Johanna Shelton on her last bill on the House floor. Johanna has been incredibly competent, more than competent. She really brings the word ``excellence'' into congressional and legislative service. And this will be her last bill on the floor, and there is lamenting of a magnitude hard to fully measure on the Democratic side that her leaving is creating, although I understand her husband is not sharing that sentiment as she leaves her service here. And it is that duality that we all have to deal with here in our congressional service. But for my part, there has been no more dedicated public servant that I have met in my time here in Congress, and we will miss her service, and we thank her for all of her great work. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 152, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the reunification of the city of Jerusalem. The city of Jerusalem is a unique place in the world, steeped in history and faith, the eternal heart of three major world religions. Jerusalem has suffered war and conquest repeatedly throughout the ages, but I have faith that Jerusalem will never be fractured again. Jews, Muslims, and Christians all find a spiritual home in Jerusalem, and it is essential that Jerusalem remain open to worshippers of all faiths. Unfortunately, for too many years of its history, access to the holy sites in Jerusalem was denied to some. But for the last 40 years, Israel has guaranteed access to all faiths, and the world community has been able to visit Jerusalem freely. I applaud Israel for this principled and fair policy, which has surely not always been easy to maintain. It is an important affirmation of Israel's humane and democratic values that a country which finds itself under frequent attack would maintain a commitment to the openness of a site of such international importance as Jerusalem. Unfortunately, the great emotion people feel about the holy city of Jerusalem has frequently found a false outlet in violence against others. It is a great sadness to me, and a great injustice against the history and sanctity of Jerusalem, that the city has been a flashpoint for so much violence in my lifetime. I am deeply disappointed and frustrated that in the past several years the Middle East peace process has been derailed from the promising moments during the Clinton presidency. President Clinton was as deeply involved, at a personal as well as a political level, with the quest to find a permanent solution to the problems of the region as any world leader has ever been. While he was not quite able to attain the overarching peace agreement that he had worked so hard to achieve, President Clinton recognized that finding a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue needed to be a foreign policy priority of the United States. Since President Clinton left office, the involvement of the United States in the Middle East peace process has been scattered, sporadic, and ineffectual. Instead of redoubling our efforts to find peace, the United States launched a disastrous war in Iraq. We have sparked a bloody civil war in that country, inflamed Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Middle East, empowered the dangerous regime in Iran, ignored the frustrations and economic despair of the Palestinians, and damaged the immediate security of our great ally in the region--Israel. On the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, I view that city as a symbol of hope in the bleak landscape of the Middle East. Through Israel's commitment to the openness of Jerusalem, worshippers of all faiths can visit the holy Old City and see the beauty of its timeless stone buildings and ancient walls. The United States has always stood steadfast with its close ally Israel, and we must never cease doing so. We must recommit ourselves to the peace process in the Middle East, and lead the international community in forging a path to reconciliation and coexistence. We must dedicate ourselves to bringing about a new peaceful history in this divisive region, so that future generations may continue to find spiritual renewal in Jerusalem.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I come to the floor today to debate funding for President Bush's war in Iraq, yet again, as more innocent Americans and Iraqis fall victim to a horrible and debilitating violence that has not only torn Iraq apart, but threatens the stability of the entire Middle East. We should not be having this debate at all, because the President should have changed course long ago. The President has had so many opportunities to reevaluate his policies in Iraq that his failure to do so can only be explained by an absolute unwillingness to admit that he has made a grave mistake. He continues to act as if nothing is wrong, even as Baghdad burns and the body count of dead Iraqi civilians and dead American troops continues to rise. He continues to send more troops to Iraq even as the Army, Marines, and National Guard are all straining to the breaking point. He continues to ignore the will of the American people who want an end to this war, even as public opinion turns ever more decisively against his failed war policy Madam Speaker, it is far past time for a new direction in Iraq. The American people do not want to be there, and the Iraqis do not want to have us there. Only the President and his dwindling cadre of head-in- the-sand advisors believe that the United States is on the right course in Iraq. I am tremendously disappointed that the President, in the face of the utter collapse of his policies in Iraq, refuses to change course. I supported the first supplemental bill we passed this year for a simple reason: It contained language to force an end to this disastrous war. But in his legendary stubbornness and his inability to see reason, the President vetoed that bill. I also supported the House version of the second supplemental appropriations bill, because that bill established strict benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi Government and military and required the President to certify that progress to the Congress, or else face a cutoff of funds to pursue the war. But the supplemental that we will vote on today does not require the troops to come home, and does not establish strict benchmarks to ensure accountability, and for these reasons I will oppose it. But today's vote does not end the effort in Congress to end the war. There will be future votes, and I believe that as the public continues to make its opposition to this war clear, there will be continued pressure on the White House and on congressional Republicans to change course. We will end this war eventually, but today I must oppose this appropriations bill because it fails to take the steps needed to advance the goal of bringing our valiant troops home.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and for his leadership on this bill, and the gentleman from Michigan. The bill before us today would give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate and punish wholesale or retail sale of gasoline or other petroleum distillates at prices that are unconscionably excessive or take unfair advantage of consumers during any presidentially declared national or regional energy emergency. Now, we hear from the Republicans, don't interfere in the free market. Don't touch the free market. Don't have the Federal Government getting in on the side of the consumers. It's just a matter of supply and demand. That's what the Republicans are arguing. Don't interfere with the free market, even if it goes up to $3.20 a gallon for gasoline, $3.80 a gallon for gasoline, $4 a gallon for gasoline. Don't let the Federal Government help out the consumer. You know what? The Republicans are right. It is a matter of supply and demand. Consumers are forced to supply whatever money the oil companies demand from the consumers. The oil companies have the consumer over a barrel, a barrel of oil that the oil companies control and that they price. They price it wherever they want to put it. They tip the consumer upside down, the oil companies do, and they shake money out of the pockets of consumers at the pump. The Christians had a better chance against the lions than the consumer has against the oil companies at the pumps in the United States today. All we are saying is let's give the Federal Government a sword to get into the battle in the arena on behalf of the consumers in America. And the Republicans are saying, we don't want to arm the Federal Trade Commission so they can help the consumers so that they are not tipped upside down. It is clear that high gas prices are hitting families hard, but they are also causing our economy to stall and to sputter like a jalopy. The bill before us today addresses one potential cause of high prices: price gouging by the oil companies. It sends a signal to oil companies that there will now be a regulator out there that has been empowered to take action when unconscionably high prices are being charged. The free market, I don't think so. I think that when we look at this oil market, we understand that the consumer is at the whim of the oil companies.