Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, Memorial Day is the beginning of the season when American families take their children to our amusement parks for a day of fun and sun. Unfortunately, it is also the case that over 75 percent of the serious injuries suffered on these rides occur between the months of May and September. Most of America thinks that the rides at these parks are subject to oversight by the Nation's top consumer safety watchdog--the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). But this is not true. The industry was subject to federal safety regulation, but in 1981 it succeeded in carving out a special- interest political exemption in the law--the so-called Roller Coaster Loophole. It is time to put the safety of our children first--it is time to close the Roller Coaster Loophole. Today I am introducing the National Amusement Park Ride Act to restore safety oversight to a largely unregulated industry. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Representatives Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA). ``Fixed'' or ``fixed-site'' rides are found predominantly in destination theme parks. When an accident occurs on such rides, the law actually prevents the CPSC from even setting foot in the park to find out what happened. In some States, an investigation may occur, but in many, there is literally no regulatory oversight at all. And no matter how diligent a particular state might be, there is no substitute for Federal oversight of an industry where park visitors often come from out-of-state; a single manufacturer will sell versions of the same ride to park operators in many different States; and no state has the jurisdiction, resources or mission to ensure that the safety lessons learned within its borders are shared systematically with every other State. Although the overall risk of death on an amusement park ride is very small, it is not zero. Sixty-four deaths have occurred on amusement park rides since 1987, and over two-thirds occur on ``fixed-site'' rides in our theme parks. In August 1999, 4 deaths occurred on roller coasters in just one week, ``one of the most calamitous weeks in the history of America's amusement parks,'' according to U.S. News and World Report: Every one of these is an unspeakable horror for the families, and every one of them deserves to be investigated by a Federal safety expert with the knowledge and the power to ensure that what happened at the accident site does not get repeated in other states. It is simply inexcusable that when a loved one dies or is seriously injured on these rides, there is no system in place to ensure that the ride is investigated, the causes determined, and the flaws fixed, not just on that ride, but on every similar ride in every other State. The reason this system does not exist is the Roller Coaster Loophole. The industry attempts to justify its special-interest exemption by pretending that there is no risk in riding machines that carry human beings 70, 80 or 90 miles an hour. The rides are very short, and most people are not injured. But in fact, the number of fatalities per passenger mile on roller coasters is higher than on passenger trains, passenger buses, and passenger planes. The National Safety Council uses a standard method of comparing risk of injury per distance traveled. Riding on a roller coaster is generally safer than driving a car, but is not generally safer than riding a passenger bus, train or airplane: Fatalities are just the tip of problem, however. Broken bones, gashes, and other serious injuries have been rising much faster than attendance. The CPSC is prohibited from requiring the submission of injury data directly from ride operators, so it is forced to fall back on an indirect method, the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), which gathers information from a statistical sample of hospital emergency rooms and then estimates national numbers. Nevertheless, NEISS has been gathering these statistics systematically over many years, so that trends become clear over time. Beginning in 1996, a sharp upward trend can be seen in hospital emergency room visits by passengers on unregulated ``fixed'' rides--the category of rides exempt from CPSC regulation under the Roller Coaster Loophole. These injuries soared 96 percent over the next 5 years. Meanwhile, such emergency room visits were falling for passengers on rides that the CPSC still regulates. The theme park industry likes to tell the public that its rides are safer than the mobile rides because they are overseen by a permanent park staff, but according to this independent government safety agency report, the mobile parks have less of an injury problem than the theme parks. For the most part, these rides are designed, operated and ridden safely. But clearly, the margin for error is much narrower for a child on a ride traveling at 100 mph than on a ride traveling 50 mph. Children often do foolish things, and the operators themselves are often teenagers. People make mistakes. The design of these rides must anticipate that their patrons will act like children, because they often are children. The bill we are introducing today will close the loophole that prevents effective Federal safety oversight of amusement park rides. It would, therefore, restore to the CPSC the standard safety jurisdiction over ``fixed-site'' amusement park rides that it used to have before the Roller Coaster Loophole was adopted. There would no longer be an artificial and unjustifiable split between unregulated ``fixed-site'' rides and regulated ``mobile'' rides. When a family traveled to a park anywhere in the United States, a mother or father would know that their children were being placed on a ride that was subject to basic safety regulation by the CPSC. It would restore CPSC's authority to investigate accidents; develop and enforce action plans to correct defects, and act as a national clearinghouse for accident and defect data. The bill would also authorize appropriations of $500,000 annually to enable the CPSC to carry out the purposes of the Act. The bill I am introducing today is supported by the Nation's leading consumer-protection advocates, including Saferparks.org, the Consumer Federation of America, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, and Kids in Danger. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to make this the safest summer ever in our theme parks. Let's pass the National Amusement Park Ride Safety Act.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1700, the Community Oriented Policing Services, or C.O.P.S., Program Reauthorization Act. The bill authorizes appropriations of more than $1.1 billion for community policing, community prosecutors and crime- fighting technology grants. The original mission of this program was simple: put 100,000 more police officers on the beat for policing programs. The brainchild of the Clinton administration, the C.O.P.S. program brought members from both parties together with the goal of reducing crime. The C.O.P.S. program provides grants to local municipalities for crime fighting technologies and for additional community policing and has been proven to reduce crime, especially violent crime. A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the C.O.P.S. program contributed to a 1.3 percent decline in the overall crime rate and a 2.5 percent reduction in the violent crime rate in 8 years. But like a patient that stops taking the medication once it starts working, the Bush administration has been taking a step back in law enforcement and homeland security in its effort to gut the program. We must not rest on our laurels and declare, ``Mission Accomplished.'' The President has declared we live in an age of terrorism, and expanding the police force and providing our local and state governments with resources to combat crime and terrorism should remain a priority. But for years, with the backing of the Republican-led Congress, the President has sought to cut or eliminate funding for the program. In Fiscal Year 2008, the Bush administration is proposing to cut the C.O.P.S. program by over 94 percent compared to 2007. Congress appropriated $542 million for the program in FY07, and the President is proposing only $32 million for FY08. The yearly program funding once peaked at $1.4 billion dollars per year under the Clinton administration. It has resulted in the hiring of nearly 120,000 police officers and has prevented over 200,000 crimes since its inception. In contrast, the Bush administration's proposal offers zero funding for community based prosecutors, zero funding for crime fighting technologies, and only $4 million for policing and public safety grants. Instead of providing funding for more cops on the beat, the President is handing the C.O.P.S. program a bill for funds unspent in previous years. The $32 million budget request, minus the $87 million the Administration is hoping to get back from the C.O.P.S. program, results in negative funding for community policing. Proponents of weakening the program will attempt to explain that the C.O.P.S. program is duplicative, but a review of the Bush administration's FY08 budget request reveals that the administration also is reducing funding for those other programs as well. It makes no sense to eviscerate the successful C.O.P.S. program or roll it into a block grant, particularly when Department of Justice estimates are showing a rise in crime. As it seeks to eliminate the C.O.P.S. program, the Bush administration is pursuing a misguided goal. I commend Congressman Weiner (D-NY) for bringing this bill forward today, I strongly support the C.O.P.S. program, and I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This is a very important bill. Amongst other things it is because for the first time the Department of Defense is required to consider the effects of global warming on Defense Department facilities, capabilities, and missions. It requires that the Department of Defense in three central defense planning documents, the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the Quadrennial Defense Review, look at the impacts of global warming on the facilities and capabilities of the United States military. This is a central issue. I am the chairman of the Select Committee on Global Warming. We had testifying before us General Gordon Sullivan, representing 11 three-and four-star admirals and generals who are all very concerned that this issue of global warming has major national security implications for the United States. By including this requirement in this bill, we are beginning to focus upon the long-term needs that we have to focus on in order to protect our country and give the resources to the Department of Defense. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, and in strong support of a provision within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 which requires, for the first time, the Department of Defense to consider the effect of global warming on Department facilities, capabilities, and missions. I commend Chairman Skelton for including this important language, which will allow our armed forces to begin preparing, in a strategic, Department-wide manner, for the impact that global warming could have on our national security. This provision requires the threat of global warming to be assessed, and guidance for military planners to be issued, in the next versions of three central defense planning documents: The National Security Strategy, The National Defense Strategy, and the Quadrennial Defense Review. The very first hearing of the new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming focused on the geopolitical and security consequences of our dependence on foreign energy and the looming threat of global warming. We heard from former Chief of Staff of the Army General Gordon Sullivan, who presented a report by eleven retired three- and four-star generals and admirals arguing that global warming is a grave national security threat, and must be treated as such by our defense establishment and by this Congress. Last month, Congressman Bartlett and I introduced the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act, with the intention of jump-starting our government's analysis of and preparation for the national security consequences of global warming. Our bill would require a National Intelligence Estimate on the impact of global warming, and last week exactly such an NIE was mandated by the Intelligence Authorization bill. Our bill also encourages the Department of Defense to integrate into our defense planning the threats posed by global warming, and I am very pleased that this priority is being mandated in this year's Defense Authorization Act. Thinking about global warming as a national security issue is new for many Members, but with the speed that the major provisions of the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act have been adopted by this House, I feel confident that the Congress is making progress in broadening how we think about global warming. It is crucial for the national security of this country that the Congress continue along this path. We must push our defense and intelligence communities to address this threat, and we must offer, debate, and implement solutions to the underlying problem. I am also pleased to support and cosponsor an amendment that will be offered during debate on this bill by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, which would require the use of high efficiency light bulb in Department of Defense buildings when new bulbs are installed or old bulbs are replaced. This amendment will help lower energy consumption in Defense Department facilities, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, help promote energy independence, and result in millions of dollars of savings for the American taxpayer--all without impeding the operations of the U.S. military. I urge adoption of the Rule.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a dear friend and former member of my staff, William F. ``Babe'' Marcellino. The Babe passed away on May 9, 2007, after 90 glorious years. While I am saddened by his passing, I can't help smiling when I think about his life. Babe Marcellino was an American original in every sense. He was a well respected political sage on Beacon Hill and in Boston City Hall. He served as a close advisor to Governor Foster Furcolo, Senate President Maurice Donahue and Mayor Kevin White. He came to work for me later in life and stayed with me into his 80s. He was the essence of wisdom and quiet elegance. When constituents walked through the door to my office, the Babe would greet them with a wink and a smile. When they broke down in tears under the weight of their problems, Babe would tell them he was on their side. And he always was. He helped hundreds of constituents solve their problems with the federal government. I especially relied on Babe to help with particularly difficult constituent matters, because of his incredible ability to put people at ease. I will never forget his mastery of policy and his generosity of spirit following a terrible fire that ravaged an entire block of businesses right across from my Medford, MA, district office in February of 1994. Together, Babe Marcellino and I worked with the Small Business Administration and others in the federal government to bring relief to devastated business owners in Medford Square and to rebuild the downtown. Babe Marcellino was an exemplary public servant. Babe also was a wonderful teacher. He eagerly took younger staff members under his wing to impart his wisdom. Many of those former staffers have told me over the years that their experience in public service was richer for having known and learned from the Babe. He dearly loved his alma mater Holy Cross, and devoted a large portion of his time ensuring that Holy Cross became a national educational treasure that could be enjoyed by all students, regardless of their socio-economic condition. Babe was blessed with an extraordinary family for which his love was strong and enduring. He was remarkable for having two wonderful marriages. With his beloved first wife Maidie, he produced six incredible children--William Marcellino Jr., James Marcellino, Mary Zouberis, Richard Marcellino, John ``Jocko'' Marcellino, and Sister Noella Marcellino. After Maidie passed away, the Babe married the fabulous Marie, herself a widow. He ``inherited'' five terrific step- children--Cathy Doran, Jane Driscoll, Stephen Doran, Mark Doran and the late Daniel Doran. Babe leaves 21 grandchildren, each with their unique and special memories of their grandfather. Watching Babe and Marie was like watching Fred and Ginger--they made a marvelous couple full of grace, style and class. When you were in Babe's presence, you could not help but to feed off of his optimism and his incredible inner strength. He was the quintessential gentleman. He often remarked after an enjoyable time or conversation together that the experience had been ``like a chunk of heaven. `` Babe, it was an honor to have known you and worked with you--and I am proud to honor your exemplary public service, your extraordinary love of family, and your unwavering faith in God and the United States of America. Your whole life was a chunk of heaven and all of us who love you will miss you dearly.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. It is not inappropriate for the CIA to tell us how the increasing scarcity of water could exacerbate the very failed state conditions which breed terrorism. It is not politically correct to want the military services to know how polar ice melt could alter the patrols of our submarines or how rising sea levels could threaten not only our naval facilities but also our crucial shipbuilding infrastructure. It is not pre-9/11 mindset that wants to study how our ability to project power from the Pacific would be damaged if our crucial air base at Diego Garcia, average elevation 4 feet above sea level, changes from a land-based stationary aircraft carrier to a sub-sea ruin. That is in the interest of the national security of our country.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for her leadership on this issue. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Global Warming, I conducted a hearing 3 weeks ago in which Retired General Gordon Sullivan, speaking for eleven senior retired three- and four-star admirals and generals, released and testified on a report entitled ``National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,'' which called for global warming to be fully integrated into the military and defense planning. Here's what General Sullivan testified to. He said that he was the Army chief of staff when we lost 19 men in Mogadishu. He testified before the Select Committee on Global Warming that with more drought we will see more disasters such as Black Hawk Down. Drought caused famine, famine caused food relief, food relief caused warlords to fight over it, the warlords fighting caused the U.S. to intervene, and 19 U.S. fighting men were killed. He added, and I quote, that the same thing is what is driving Darfur and there has to be some recognition that these issues are at the heart environmentally related. These are men who have dedicated their lives to protecting our country. They are asking us to do a National Intelligence Estimate about what the impact is of climate leading to drought, leading to famine, leading to conflicts, leading to the American military or other of our allies having been dedicated to preserving the peace. That is no small request from 11 retired three-star generals and admirals.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this authorization bill, and I commend Chairman Thompson for his hard work in shepherding this important bill to the Floor today. Today is a monumental moment for the Homeland Security Committee and for this House, as we bring forward an authorization bill to the floor--which our Committee was unable to do during the last Congress. I am proud that the bill we are considering today to authorize the operations of the Department of Homeland Security for Fiscal Year 2008 includes a vital first responder provision on the Metropolitan Medical Response System--or MMRS. I'd like to thank Chairman Thompson for his leadership and also recognize the work of Subcommittee Chair Sanchez and Ranking Member King on this important program. Despite the Bush administration's repeated efforts to eliminate this unique and effective program, Congress has wisely and consistently appropriated funds for MMRS over the years, providing $33 million for the program this year. While preservation of the MMRS program is paramount, new duties and responsibilities assigned to MMRS--such as response to an avian flu pandemic--require additional funding. That is why I am pleased that the authorization bill contains funding at the $63 million level per year for fiscal year 2008 through 2011. The authorization bill also resolves programmatic problems that MMRS responders have faced as they work to perform their difficult jobs. Specifically, the bill clarifies that the cap on personnel expenses, which had been set at 15 percent of the grant funding a jurisdiction receives, is lifted. This change will ensure that jurisdictions have the resources--if needed--to hire and retain experienced and talented personnel. The bill we are considering today also makes clear that MMRS jurisdictions should have the authority they need to come to the aid of neighboring jurisdictions in emergencies--even if they are located across State lines--without being impeded by unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions. And the bill directs the Assistant Secretary of Health Affairs to conduct a review of the MMRS program and report to Congress on the several issues that could further strengthen the program, such as whether MMRS would be more effective if it were once again managed through a contractual agreement with the Federal Government rather than through the current process, which requires Federal funding to be passed through State administrative offices before the funds can be released to the MMRS jurisdictions. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the MMRS program is the only Federal program that helps first responders, medical personnel, emergency management workers, and businesses develop effective, integrated capabilities to minimize casualties in the event of a terrorist attack using a weapon of mass destruction, a natural disaster such as a hurricane, or a public health emergency including an avian flu outbreak. As demonstrated by the Bush administration's failed response to Hurricane Katrina, our country has a dangerous ``Preparedness Gap''. Established after the Oklahoma City bombing, the MMRS program is designed to increase our Nation's preparedness capabilities through grants that currently provide funding to 125 jurisdictions in 43 States. The MMRS program helps local first responder and ``first receivers'' such as doctors, emergency medical technicians and public health officials buy the specialized equipment and get the training needed to act in a coordinated fashion that will save lives in the event of a mass casualty event--whether it's a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. In the post 9/11 era, there can be no doubt that Al Qaeda is willing and capable of launching attacks on the United States. Moreover, the ongoing potential for severe hurricanes and flooding remind us of the urgent need to be prepared to respond in an organized, effective way to all hazards. The MMRS program is an essential part of our preparedness capability. Our MMRS personnel across the Nation are hometown heroes. But even heroes need help. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, for your help and support of this program, and I urge my colleagues to support the authorization bill. I would also like to note the strong need for this bill's cyber- security improvements. The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Internet, which I chair, and full Energy and Commerce Committee under the leadership of Chairman Dingell, have worked on a bipartisan basis, with Ranking Members Upton and Barton, to address cyber threats within the Department of Homeland Security in order to ensure that our country is adequately prepared for massive disruptions from cyber attacks. This measure provides needed guidance to DHS on these Congressional expectations. Moreover, this legislation will require the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications at DHS to collaborate with the Department of Commerce and the Federal Communications Commission--agencies that have established roles in protecting vital telecommunications and cyber assets. Such collaboration will ensure that ongoing efforts will not be interrupted or wastefully duplicated at the Department of Homeland Security. For example, NTIA's organizing statute establishes the head of NTIA as the President's principal adviser on telecommunications issues. In addition, the agency is compelled by the same law to pursue policies to foster national safety and security, to promote efficient use of Federal spectrum, to coordinate Federal telecommunications assistance to State and local governments, and to coordinate the Executive Branch's telecommunications activities, including the formulation of policies and standards for interoperability, security, and emergency readiness and ongoing review of management of the Internet domain name system. The FCC also protects telecommunications and cybersecurity, and under the Communications Act is responsible for assuring rapid and efficient communication services with adequate facilities for the purpose of the national defense and promotion of the safety of life and property. I also support amending this important legislation in order to address the pressing need to improve interoperable communications among first responders. This is something that we have been working on for several years. Representatives Cardoza's expected amendment does not limit interoperability efforts to a single technology or solution. This is vitally important, especially given the history at DHS with grant programs for these efforts. Last year, Congress established a $1 billion interoperability grant program at the Department of Commerce, distinct from DHS's efforts, so that the Commerce Department could draw upon its spectrum and telecommunications expertise. In their respective programs, both DHS and the Department of Commerce should include methodologies to better ensure that funds for interoperability are being used effectively. DHS would do well to implement all of the recommendations of the GAO suggested in its recent report. There is a significant amount of work that DHS must perform in order to improve its interoperability efforts and we will be watching such efforts closely.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today is a day of remembrance and commemoration of the Armenian Genocide, one of the darkest chapters of World War I, and the first of the series of genocides we saw in the 20th Century. We set today aside to remember, as we do every year, because it is essential to reflect upon these terrible events, but we also do so because we know that the Armenian people must continually confront and surmount the legacies and the consequences of those dark days. The writer Milan Kundera once wrote that ``The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.'' There are those that would deny the Armenian Genocide, just as there are those that deny the reality of the Nazi Holocaust. In commemorating the Armenian Genocide we collectively engage in that struggle of memory against forgetting. We do this not only to remember the past, but to reaffirm our commitment to prevent such things from ever happening again, and to strive towards making a better future for the Armenian people. It has taken Armenia decades to reach a point where its people could enjoy their rights as a free people. Today, we have an opportunity and a responsibility to help ensure that the Armenian people can build a better future. And so, I look forward to continuing to work with the Armenian-American community and Members of the Congressional Caucus on Armenia to address the issues facing this longtime friend and important ally of the United States, so that together we build something positive, something hopeful, something good for the futute--a peaceful, prosperous and secure Armenia. The Armenian Genocide is sometimes called the ``Forgotten Genocide.'' In fact, as most of you know, back in 1939, prior to the invasion of Poland, Adolph Hitler argued that his plans for a Jewish holocaust would in the end be tolerated by the West, stating: ``After all, who remembers the Armenians.'' But we do remember, and we shall never forget. And our memory and commemoration is stronger than the hate of those who would perpetrate the greatest crime known to humanity, the attempt to exterminate an entire people.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate and celebrate the life and work of Paul Leventhal. Paul was a giant in the debate on how to protect the United States and the world from the proliferation of nuclear technology. He encouraged us, he challenged us, and he empowered us to not back down in our continual struggle to free ourselves from the threat of nuclear weapons. And now, as that struggle continues, Paul will be sorely missed. Paul was a constant and tireless advocate for smart arms control and non-proliferation policies. He helped bring into being two of the most significant pieces of nuclear legislation of the atomic age, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978. To give you a sense of the significance of these laws, I want to tell a very short story about the concept of ``full-scope safeguards,'' of which Paul was an early advocate, and which became U.S. law under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act in 1978. ``Full-scope safeguards'' means that a country would need to have IAEA safeguards over all its nuclear facilities as a requirement for receiving any civilian U.S. nuclear commerce. It is a crucial requirement, and it was adopted in 1992 by the Nuclear Suppliers Group as not only a U.S. requirement but an international one. In July 2005, when President Bush announced that he wanted to blow a hole in US. non-proliferation laws to allow nuclear trade with India, what was stopping him? Paul Leventhal and the ``full-scope safeguards'' requirement. Not many people make such an impact on U.S. policy that it reverberates through three decades. But Paul did just that. I relied on Paul's encyclopedic knowledge for many years, as did my staff. He was an irreplaceable resource to me back in the mid-eighties, when we were fighting the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, and the Reagan Administration's plans to open the door to nuclear cooperation with the Peoples' Republic of China. He was also a driving force behind the effort Howard Wolpe and I undertook in the early nineties to strengthen U.S. nonproliferation law and close export control loopholes. He was tireless in his efforts to move the world away from the use of highly enriched uranium in research reactors and to promote the alternative of low-enriched uranium. On issue after issue, Paul was on the cutting edge of nuclear non-proliferation policy, pointing out flaws in proposed nuclear cooperation agreements with Japan and Euratom, pressing Congress to tighten loopholes in U.S. law, and searching for every conceivable procedural or legislative strategy that could be employed in the cause. While the void left by Paul's passing is large, and we will often wish that we had his wise counsel to guide us as we continue the fight, I'd like to think that as we do so Paul will be looking down on us and encouraging us in our efforts to fight for a world free from nuclear fear. I honor Paul Leventhal today, and I pray that we will succeed in the struggle that he dedicated his life to--the fight to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. My prayers are with his wife, Sharon, and his two sons, Ted and Josh; and I would like to thank them for sharing Paul with us over the years. Madam Speaker, I submit Paul Leventhal's obituaries from New York Times and the Washington Post for the Record. [From the New York Times, Apr. 12, 2007] Paul Leventhal, Who Opposed Commercial Use of Nuclear Power, Dies at 69 (By Dennis Hevesi) Paul Leventhal, who as president of the small but influential Nuclear Control Institute was one of the most vocal opponents of expanding the commercial use of nuclear power, died Tuesday at his home in Chevy Chase, Md. He was 69. The cause was cancer, his son Ted said. Mr. Leventhal founded the Nuclear Control Institute in 1981, two years after becoming co-director of the United States Senate's bipartisan investigation of the Three Mile Island accident, the nation's most serious commercial reactor failure. Mr. Leventhal opposed commercial nuclear power not only because of the threat of a Chernobyl-like disaster but also because of its potential to ease the making of nuclear weapons. The construction of nuclear reactors in this country ceased for decades, though experts attribute this to cost more than to fears of proliferation. But Mr. Leventhal kept those fears on the front burner for 22 years as his institute's president and since 2002, when his title became founding president. He lobbied lawmakers, organized conferences and wrote op-ed articles about proliferation, nuclear terrorism and the use of commercial reactors to make tritium, an ingredient of nuclear bombs, a program that the federal Energy Department is now pursuing. He was particularly concerned about Iran, which he believed had a secret weapons program that would justify a harsh reaction, perhaps even military strikes. ``If you look at every nation that's recently gone nuclear, they've done it through the civilian nuclear cycle,'' Mr. Leventhal told The New York Times in 2004. Atoms for peace can be a ``shortcut to atoms for war,'' he added. ``It may take the unthinkable happening before the political process can screw up the courage to put an end to this ridiculously dangerous industry.'' Paul Lincoln Leventhal was born in Manhattan on Feb. 12 in 1938, a son of Jack and Helen Shapiro Leventhal. In addition to his son Ted, of Washington, he is survived by his wife of 39 years, the former Sharon Tanzer; another son, Josh, of Raleigh, N.C.; a brother, Warren, of Roslyn, N.Y.; and two grandchildren. Mr. Leventhal graduated from Franklin & Marshall College in 1959 and received a master's from the Columbia School of Journalism in 1960. He was a reporter for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland and later The New York Post and Newsday. In 1969, Senator Jacob K. Javits, Republican of New York, hired him as his press secretary. Mr. Leventhal began concentrating on energy issues for Mr. Javits and, in 1979, was named staff director of the Senate's subcommittee on nuclear regulation and a director of the Three Mile Island investigation. [From the Washington Post, Apr. 14, 2007] Paul Leventhal; Led Nuclear Control Institute (By Yvonne Shinhoster Lamb) Paul Leventhal, 69, founder of the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington and an expert in nuclear proliferation issues, died April 10 at his home in Chevy Chase. He had melanoma, a form of skin cancer. Mr. Leventhal, a former newspaperman and congressional aide, launched his advocacy institute with a full-page ad in the New York Times on June 21, 1981, posing the question: ``Will Tomorrow's Terrorist Have an Atom Bomb?'' Since serving in the early 1970s as an aide on a Senate subcommittee chaired by Sen. Abraham Ribicoff (D-Conn.), Mr. Leventhal remained adamant about the dangers of nuclear terrorism and global commerce in plutonium--a key element used in nuclear weapons--and worked to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to nations or groups. On the subcommittee, Mr. Leventhal worked on a Nixon administration bill to reorganize the Atomic Energy Commission. He described work on the legislation as a ``baptism in fire'' that changed his life. Mr. Leventhal, who worked in the Senate from 1972 to 1981, was responsible for the investigations and legislation that resulted in passage of two landmark nuclear laws--the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which split the Atomic Energy Commission into separate regulatory and promotional nuclear agencies, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, which established stricter controls on U.S. nuclear trade. The non-proliferation act's requirement that countries accept international inspections on all their nuclear activities--``full-scope safeguards''--as a condition for receiving U.S. nuclear assistance eventually was adopted as an international norm by the multinational Nuclear Suppliers Group. Mr. Leventhal recognized the growth and threat of nuclear and bomb-grade materials, said lawyer Richard Wegman, who served as chief counsel for Ribicoffs committee with Mr. Leventhal and later as counsel for the Nuclear Control Institute. ``Paul was a truly remarkable individual, exceptionally dedicated to an exceptionally difficult cause,'' Wegman said. ``He was one of the first to work for full-scope safeguards. . . . He insisted on incorporating that concept in legislation.'' In 1979, Mr. Leventhal served as co-director of the bipartisan Senate investigation of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, and he prepared the ``lessons-learned'' legislation enacted in 1980 to require preventive measures and emergency planning. He said that work left him ``acutely aware of that ineffable combination of human fallibility and mechanical failure that makes nuclear plants vulnerable to accidents, and also sabotage.'' He lamented a few years ago that the flow of nuclear technology and materials from industrial countries to developing regions was continuing. ``As a result, there is now more plutonium in civilian hands than in all of the nuclear weapons in the world. And some of it has already been turned into bombs, as in India, Pakistan and North Korea, while others have used or are now using civilian nuclear programs as a cover for weapons programs,'' he said in a speech in 2001, adding that Iran and Iraq raised immediate concerns. Mr. Leventhal, born in Manhattan, graduated magna cum laude with a degree in history from Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania in 1959 and received a master's degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in 1960. He spent 10 years as an investigative and political reporter at the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the New York Post and Newsday, until deciding that he wanted to ``get inside of government and try to make it work.'' In 1969, he came to Washington as a press secretary to Sen. Jacob K. Javits (R-N.Y.), served in 1970 as campaign press secretary to Sen. Charles Goodell (R-N.Y.) and two years later was a congressional correspondent for the National Journal. From 1972 to 1976, he concentrated on nuclear weapons proliferation as a research fellow at Harvard University's Program for Science and International Affairs and as a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. From 1979 to 1981, he was staff director of the Senate Nuclear Regulation Subcommittee, chaired by Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.). After starting the Nuclear Control Institute, Mr. Leventhal served as its president for 22 years, lectured in a number of countries, organized conferences and wrote op-ed articles and books on nuclear terrorism, averting a Latin American nuclear arms race, nuclear power and the spread of nuclear weapons. For the past several years, he directed the institute as a Web-based program that maintains a word-searchable electronic archive at www.nci.org: and a collection of institute and Senate papers spanning more than 30 years at the National Security Archive. Survivors include his wife, Sharon Tanzer Leventhal of Chevy Chase; two sons, Theodore Leventhal of Washington and Joshua Leventhal of Raleigh, N.C.; a brother; and two grandsons.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act. The nexus between global warming and the national security of the United States is a crucial, yet long-ignored, issue. The adverse consequences of rising global temperatures present not only a potential environmental catastrophe but a national security emergency. The security-related consequences of global warming will range from hampering U.S. military operations to worsening the scarcity of essential resources in already unstable regions--which can lead to the failed states that are a central breeding ground for terrorism, But because the U.S. intelligence community has never analyzed the potential for global warming to harm our national security, we lack a thorough understanding of what these threats are. This means that the Department of Defense and other security agencies cannot comprehensively plan for the security consequences of global warming the way that they plan for countless other serious contingencies. Today, I am introducing the ``Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act.'' This bill is cosponsored by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Larson, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Solis, the gentlelady from New York, Mr. Hall, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. McDermott, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Olver. This legislation will jump-start U.S. defense planning for the security consequences of global warming by authorizing a National Intelligence Estimate (NIB) to assess the implications of global warming to United States security and military operations. Our bill, the House companion to legislation already introduced by Senator Durbin and Senator Hagel, will provide a crucial planning and risk-assessment tool as the Congress seeks innovative solutions to global warming. Developed to assess the most serious threats to the United States, NIBs are the most authoritative intelligence judgments on national security issues. This legislation will also fund research by the Defense Department into the consequences for U.S. military operations posed by global warming. It seems clear that our geopolitical and national security posture will only grow worse if we do not act forcefully to curb our dangerous dependence on imported oil and reduce our emissions of global warming pollution. At the beginning of February, the world's top scientists, as part of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), provided a scientific smoking gun that human activities were unequivocally responsible for global warming. Two weeks ago, their second report told us what happens when the climatic bullet hits. The developing world will bear the brunt of the collateral damage from our historic global warming emissions, but the United States will experience its own self-inflicted wounds, including threats to our national security and military readiness. The United States must act now to understand the security implications of global warming. The Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act will allow us to do so.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the ``Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act'' is a bill whose time has come, and I am pleased to rise in strong support of this important legislation. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in the past ten years, CEO pay has more than doubled, and the ratio of median CEO pay to worker pay has risen to 179 to 1. The escalation in executive pay raises significant issues, including the equity of widening income disparities and the potential that such extraordinary CEO salaries may be a result of inefficient labor markets. The bill before the House today provides a balanced, pro-market approach to this addressing issue. Specifically, the nonbinding advisory vote mandated in this bill will give shareholders a mechanism for supporting or opposing their company's executive compensation practices without diminishing the board's legal authority. Such a vote will signal to the board, without tying its hands, that the individuals who actually own the firm will hold the board accountable for CEO pay packages, which should give board members some pause before approving excessive compensation plans. H.R. 1257 does not cap, limit or change any CEO's pay. Rather, it simply requires that shareholders have a ``nonbinding'' say on their company's salary decisions. Moreover, the SEC already requires companies to disclose compensation. The SEC's recent executive compensation disclosure rules already require that companies disclose their compensation packages in their annual proxy. The annual vote requirement simply requires that companies add a line to that disclosure permitting shareholders to approve or disapprove the compensation packages and also tally the votes. Shareholders are the owners of our Nation's public companies. They should have the right to vote on the compensation packages for companies' senior officers. The cost to businesses complying with the bill's provisions would be minimal. In fact, CBO estimated that costs from the annual vote would fall well below the annual threshold for private sector mandates--that is, below $131 million in 2007 for the entire country. This is a tiny, and worthwhile, cost that is more than offset by the significant benefit it provides shareholders by enabling them to have their voices heard in the board room. Additionally, businesses are provided more than enough time to make the logistical arrangements necessary for the nonbinding advisory vote, as it would not be required until the 2009 proxy season. The nonbinding vote has been used successfully in other countries. For example, the nonbinding advisory vote approach has been used in the United Kingdom since 2003 and is now used in Australia, without impeding economic activity in any way. To the contrary, the policy change is credited with improving management-shareholder dialogue on executive compensation matters and increasing the use of long-term performance targets in incentive compensation. In the United States, the nonbinding advisory vote on CEO pay recently was adopted voluntarily by Aflac, and is currently pending before numerous U.S. public companies. I commend my colleague from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee for bringing this important bill to the Floor today and urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1677, the ``Taxpayer Protection Act of 2007.'' I would like to focus my remarks on Section 8 of this bill, which clarifies the intent of the Congress that the existing legal prohibitions on the misuse of Department of Treasury names and symbols extend to misuse over the Internet. I support this provision, which addresses a very real problem that currently exists with potentially misleading commercial Web sites that taxpayers may mistakenly believe to be affiliated with the IRS. In February, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, which I chair, became aware of three commercial Web sites operating under domain names which may confuse the public into believing them to be official IRS Web sites: IRS.com, IRS.net, and IRS.org. In response to this situation, I wrote to the Federal Trade Commission Chairman Majoras, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson, and Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Everson to express my concerns that consumers who visited these sites might provide the operators with personally identifiable information and tax return information, enabling the operators to either market or sell this information to others, or to sell and market all manner of products and services to these taxpayers. Since the taxpayers who provide personal information to these sites might be doing so under the misimpression that they were dealing with an official government Web site subject to applicable federal privacy protections, I felt there was a serious potential for consumer confusion, deception, and abuse. In fact, a consumer survey and study presented to the IRS and FTC in early January of this year by the Computer and Communications Industry Association suggested that a significant proportion of consumers misinterpreted these three nongovernmental Web sites as being sites hosted by the IRS. The survey showed, for example, that before viewing the Web site IRS.com, 47 percent of those surveyed believed the site represented the Internet address of the Internal Revenue Service. Even after viewing the site, one third of those surveyed still believed the site was the IRS Web site. Now, the IRS.com Web site bears a remarkable resemblance to the official IRS.gov site. Both Web sites have the same color blue banner at the very top, a grey search bar right below, and a white background with various links and search features covering the bulk of the page. Back in February, the IRS.com site even had an actual image of the U.S. Treasury headquarters building on the top of the page. At the time, there was only a fine-print disclaimer at the bottom of this site stating that it was a non-governmental site. This disclaimer was so far down on the Web page that few consumers were likely to view it. I asked the FTC, the Treasury, and the IRS to look into the issues raised by this Web site, as well as the IRS.org and IRS.net sites. The IRS and the Treasury Department have never formally responded to my inquiry. However, the IRS has issued a press statement warning taxpayers about these potentially misleading sites. The FTC did respond to my letter, but in that response merely noted that in response to the concerns I had raised, the operator had ``made a number of changes to distinguish it from the official IRS Web site, and to better highlight the disclaimers included on the Web site.'' I continue to be concerned about the potential for unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with these commercial Web sites, and I believe that we need to do more to ensure that the public does not continue to be exposed to these potentially misleading or confusing Web sites. There is no relationship between a citizen and our government more sensitive, nor information more private, than that involving individual taxes and the annual voluntary compliance obligation. The federal government has a duty to protect taxpayers from predatory behaviors as they seek to meet their obligation to pay taxes. I am hopeful that by clarifying the intent of the Congress that the existing legal prohibitions on misuse of Treasury Department and IRS names and symbols is and should be applied to commercial activity on the Internet, that this bill will better protect the public from this kind of operation in the future. I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1677, the ``Taxpayer Protection Act of 2007.'' I would like to focus my remarks on Section 8 of this bill, which clarifies the intent of the Congress that the existing legal prohibitions on the misuse of Department of the Treasury names and symbols also extend to misuse over the Internet. I support this provision, which addresses a very real problem that currently exists with potentially misleading commercial websites that taxpayers may mistakenly believe to be affiliated with the IRS. In February, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, which I chair, became aware of three commercial websites operating under domain names which may confuse the public into believing them to be official IRS websites: IRS.com, IRS.net and IRS.org. In response to this situation, I wrote to the Federal Trade Commission Chairman Majoras, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson, and Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Everson to express my concerns that consumers who visited these sites might provide the operators with personally identifiable information and tax return information, enabling the operators to either market or sell this information to others, or to sell and market all manner of products and services to these taxpayers. A consumer survey and study presented to the IRS and FTC in early January of this year by the Computer and Communications Industry Association suggested that a significant proportion of consumers misinterpreted these three non-governmental Websites as being sites hosted by the IRS. The survey showed, for example, that before viewing the website IRS.com, 47 percent of those surveyed believed the site represented the Internet address of the Internal Revenue Service. Even after viewing the site, \1/3\ of those surveyed still believed the site was the IRS website. Now, the IRS.com website bears a remarkable resemblance to the official IRS.gov site. Both websites have the same color blue banner at the very top, a grey search bar right below, and a white background with various links and search features covering the bulk of the page. Back in February, the IRS.com site even had an actual image of the U.S. Treasury headquarters building on the top of the page. At the time, there was only a fine-print disclaimer at the bottom of these sites stating that that it was a non-governmental site. This disclaimer was so far down on the webpage that few consumers were likely to view it. I continue to be concerned about the potential for unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with these commercial websites, and I believe that we need to do more to ensure that the public does not continue to be exposed to these potentially misleading or confusing websites. There is no relationship between a citizen and our government more sensitive, nor information more private, than that involving individual taxes and the annual voluntary compliance obligation. The federal government has a duty to protect taxpayers from predatory behaviors as they seek to meet their obligation to pay taxes. I am hopeful that, by clarifying the intent of the Congress that the existing legal prohibitions on misuse of Treasury Department and IRS names and symbols are and should be applied to commercial activity on the Internet, this bill will better protect the public from this kind of operation in the future. I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that on April 29, 2007, my alma mater Malden Catholic High School will celebrate 75 years of Xaverian Brothers education in my hometown of Malden, Massachusetts. Since 1932, Malden Catholic has graduated over 8,000 alumni. Currently, 700 young men from over 45 Massachusetts cities and towns are educated at Malden Catholic. Malden Catholic has created a community of faith that promotes the dignity of all. The high school is dedicated to the spiritual, intellectual, creative, social, and physical development of its students. In 2006, Malden Catholic was named ``One of America's Top 50 Catholic High Schools'' by the Catholic High School Honor Roll. Malden Catholic was honored in 1999 when it was named ``One of America's Outstanding High Schools'' by US News & World Report. The Malden Catholic Community embraces the challenge put forward in its mission, ``Plus Ultra,'' which means ``More Beyond.'' The Community as a whole works diligently to ensure that a Malden Catholic education continues to be available to a variety of deserving young men from a variety of social and economic backgrounds. Madam Speaker, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Malden Catholic High School as the school celebrates 75 years of excellence. I thank the faculty, alumni, students, and parents who make Malden Catholic one of the greatest high schools in America.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming met on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 and approved by voice vote and without amendment the following rules to govern the activities of the Select Committee during the 110th Congress. Rules for The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, 110th Congress Rule 1. General Provisions. The Rules 0f the House are the rules of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (hereinafter ``Committee'') so far as they are applicable. Rule 2. Time and Place of Meetings. (a) Regular Meeting Days. The Committee shall meet on the first Tuesday of each month at 10 a.m., for the consideration of any pending business, if the House is in session on that day. If the House is not in session on that day and the Committee has not met during such month, the Committee shall meet at the earliest practicable opportunity when the House is again in session. The Chairman may, at his discretion, cancel, delay, or defer any meeting required under this section, after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member. (b) Additional Meetings. The Chairman may call and convene, as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purposes pursuant to that call of the Chairman. (c) Vice Chairman; Presiding Member. The Chairman shall designate a member of the majority party to serve as Vice Chairman of the Committee. The Vice Chairman shall preside at any meeting or hearing during the temporary absence of the Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice Chairman are not present at any meeting or hearing, the most senior present member of the majority party shall preside at the meeting or hearing. (d) Open Meetings and Hearings. Each meeting and hearing of the Committee for the transaction of business shall be open to the public, including to radio, television and still photography coverage, consistent with the provisions of Rule XI of the Rules of the House. Rule 3. Agenda. The agenda for each Committee meeting other than a hearing, setting out The date, time, place, and all items of business to be considered, shall be provided to each member of the Committee at least 24 hours in advance of such meeting. Rule 4. Procedure. (a) Hearings. The date, time, place, and subject matter of any hearing of the Committee shall be announced at least one week in advance of the commencement of such hearing, unless the Chairman, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, determines in accordance with clause 2(g)(3) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, that there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner. In such cases, the Chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (b) Meetings. The date, time, place, and subject matter of any meeting (other than a hearing) scheduled on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday when the House is scheduled to be in session shall be announced at least 24 hours (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, except when the House is in session on such days) in advance of the commencement of such meeting. (c) Motions. Pursuant to clause 1(a)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House, privileged motions to recess from day to day, or recess subject to the call of the Chair (within 24 hours), shall be decided without debate. (d)(1) Requirements for Testimony. Each witness who is to appear before the Committee shall file with the clerk of the Committee, at least two working days in advance of his or her appearance, sufficient copies, as determined by the Chairman, of a written statement of his or her proposed testimony to provide to members and staff of the Committee, the news media, and the general public. Each witness shall, to the greatest extent practicable, also provide a copy of such written testimony in an electronic format prescribed by the Chairman. Each witness shall limit his or her oral presentation to a brief summary of the testimony. The Chairman, or the presiding member, may waive the requirements of this paragraph or any part thereof. (2) Additional Requirements for Testimony. To the greatest extent practicable, the written testimony of each witness appearing in a non-governmental capacity shall include a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program) of any federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal years by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness. (A) Questioning Witnesses. The right to question witnesses before the Committee shall alternate between majority and minority members. Each member shall be limited to 5 minutes in the interrogation of witnesses until such time as each member who so desires has had an opportunity to question witnesses. No member shall be recognized for a second period of 5 minutes to interrogate a witness until each member of the Committee present has been recognized once for that purpose. While the Committee is operating under the 5-minute rule for the interrogation of witnesses, the Chairman shall recognize, in order of appearance, members who were not present when the meeting was called to order after all members who were present when the meeting was called to order have been recognized in the order of seniority on the Committee. (B) Questions for the Record. Subject to the Rules of the House, each member may submit to the Chairman additional questions for the record, to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared. Each member shall provide a copy of the questions in an electronic format to the clerk of the Committee no later than ten business days following a hearing. The Chairman shall transmit all questions received from members of the Committee to the appropriate witness and include the transmittal letter and the responses from the witnesses in the hearing record. (C) Opening Statements. (1) All written opening statements at hearings conducted by the Committee shall be made part of the permanent hearing record. (2) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member (or their respective designees) are entitled to deliver a 5 minute opening statement prior to the recognition of the first witness for testimony. Opening statements by other members of the Committee are subject to the discretion of the Chairman. Rule 5. Waiver of Agenda, Notice, and Opening Statement Requirements. Requirements of rules 3, 4(a)(1), 4(a)(2), and 4(d) may be waived for good cause by the Chairman, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member. Rule 6. Quorum. Testimony may be taken and evidence received at any hearing at which there are present not fewer than two members of the Committee. A majority of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum when otherwise required by the Rules of the House. For the purposes of taking any action other than those specified in the preceding sentences, one third of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. Rule 7. Journal. The proceedings of the Committee shall be recorded in a journal which shall, among other things, show those present at each meeting and hearing, and shall include a record of the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded, a description of the motion, order, or other proposition voted, and the name of each member voting for and each member voting against such motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those members voting present. A copy of the journal shall be furnished to the Ranking Minority Member and made available to the public in a timely fashion. Rule 8. Committee Professional and Clerical Staff. (a) Committee staff members are subject to the provisions of clause 9 of Rule X, as well as any written personnel policies the Committee may from time to time adopt. The Chairman shall determine the remuneration of legislative and administrative employees of the Committee. (b) The Chairman shall appoint, and may remove, the legislative and administrative employees of the Committee not assigned to the minority. (c) Minority Professional Staff. Professional staff members appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of the House of Representatives, who are assigned to the Ranking Minority Member, and not to the Chairman, shall be assigned to such Committee business as the Ranking Minority Member considers advisable. (d) Additional Staff Appointments. In addition to the professional staff appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of the House of Representatives, the Chairman shall be entitled to make such appointments to the clerical staff of the Committee as may be provided within the budget approved for such purposes by the Committee. Such appointees shall be assigned to such business of the Committee as the Chairman considers advisable. Rule 9. Supervision, Duties of Staff. (a) Committee staff members are subject to the provisions of clause 9(b) of Rule X. (b) Supervision of Majority Staff. The professional and clerical staff of the Committee not assigned to the minority shall be under the supervision and direction of the Chairman, who shall establish and assign the duties and responsibilities of such staff members and delegate such authority as he determines appropriate. (c) Supervision of Minority Staff. The professional and clerical staff assigned to the minority shall be under the supervision and direction of the Ranking Minority Member, who shall establish and assign the duties and responsibilities of such staff members and delegate such authority as he determines appropriate. Rule 10. Committee Expenditures. Copies of each monthly report (prepared by the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration and showing expenditures made during the reporting period and cumulative for the year by the Committee), anticipated expenditures for the projected Committee program, and detailed information on travel, shall be available to each member. Rule 11. Broadcasting of Committee Hearings. Any meeting or hearing that is open to the public may be covered in whole or in part by radio or television or still photography, subject to the requirements of clause 4 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House. The coverage of any hearing or other proceeding of the Committee by television, radio, or still photography shall be under the direct supervision of the Chairman and may be terminated in accordance with the Rules of the House. Rule 12. Subpoenas. The Committee may authorize and issue a subpoena under clause 2(m) of Rule XI of the House. Rule 13. Travel of Members and Staff. (a) Approval of Travel. Consistent with the primary expense resolution and such additional expense resolutions as may have been approved, travel to be reimbursed from funds set aside for the Committee for any member or any staff member shall be paid only upon the prior authorization of the Chairman. Travel may be authorized by the Chairman for any member and any staff member in connection with the attendance of hearings conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee thereof and meetings, conferences, and investigations which involve activities or subject matter under the general jurisdiction of the Committee. Before such authorization is given there shall be submitted to the Chairman, in writing, the following: (1) the purpose of the travel; (2) the dates during which the travel is to be made and the date or dates of the event for which the travel is being made; (3) the location of the event for which the travel is to be made; and (4) the names of members and staff seeking authorization. (b) Approval of Travel by Minority Members and Staff. In the case of travel by minority party members and minority party professional staff for the purpose set out in paragraph (a), the prior approval, not only of the Chairman but also of the Ranking Minority Member, shall be required. Such prior authorization shall be given by the Chairman only upon the representation by the Ranking Minority Member, in writing, setting forth those items enumerated in (1), (2), (3), and (4) of paragraph (a).

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for producing bipartisan legislation to address the security weaknesses in our rail and mass transit systems and to ensure that strong whistleblower protections are provided to our front-line rail and mass transit security workers. One area that has been largely overlooked since September 11th is the security associated with shipments of extremely hazardous materials on the roads and railways of our country. Every day tank cars pass through our urban centers carrying enough chlorine to kill 100,000 people in half an hour. Some of these shipments must travel the routes they are currently using. But others could easily be safely re-routed to avoid population centers and other sensitive areas. We already know that these chemicals are attractive terrorist targets. Just a few weeks ago, several deadly attacks in Iraq involved improvised explosive devices that included canisters of deadly chlorine gas, and a planned attack involving a truck full of chlorine was foiled this past weekend. The risk is not just an overseas risk either. Several years ago, an Ohio-based al Qaeda operative was arrested and pled guilty for plotting to collapse a bridge in New York City or derail a train in DC. Earlier this year, reporter Carl Prine at the Pittsburgh Tribune wrote a scathing expose on the state of rail insecurity in our country. He was able to walk right into rail yards with tanker cars containing some of the deadliest chemicals on earth. No one stopped him--he had no problem getting his hands on these deadly chemical tanks. We're lucky that--this time--it was a journalist and not a jihadist who penetrated these rail yards. Whether it's an accident or an al Qaeda attack, we need to make the shipments of deadly chemicals more secure. The language in this bill that I authored and that was agreed to on a bipartisan basis builds upon the recent Notices of Proposed Rulemaking issued by the Department of Transportation and the TSA. It requires rail carriers to analyze the routes and storage facilities for security sensitive materials as part of the security plans that they must submit for approval to the Department of Homeland Security. Then it requires the rail carriers to select the route and storage facilities that best reduce the risk and consequences of a terrorist attack on a shipment of these materials as they travel through or near high threat urban areas and other areas that DHS thinks need special security protections. The language in this bill doesn't apply to all hazardous materials-- just the ones that pose the greatest threat, such as chlorine or propane. Most assessments put this at less than 1 percent of all shipments. This bill also doesn't require re-routing to occur if there is no practical alternative route. Rail carriers will only be required to re- route when a more secure route is available. I urge my colleagues to join me in this bi-partisan effort. Now is the time to upgrade the security for these toxic shipments so none of our constituents are ever exposed to a catastrophic chemical release simply because we failed to take these simple steps.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is a disaster. We are engaged in a war that should never have been fought and that was presented to the American people and this Congress over 4 years ago wrapped in falsehoods and mendacity. Our military is being drained of personnel and materiel in an occupation that, we were told, would never occur because we would be greeted as liberators. To say that the President's prosecution of this war has been mismanaged misses the much more important point that President Bush exercised extraordinarily poor judgment in initiating an unnecessary war of choice. Our soldiers, their families, and indeed the entire country, now bears the legacy of the President's headstrong rush into this quagmire. The President, with the Iraq War supplemental appropriations request, has again asked the Congress to give him a blank check to continue an endless and bottomless war. But that is not what the President will get with this bill. Instead of a blank check, the Congress is providing a much needed check and balance to the Executive Branch. The bill before us today requires the President to certify to the Congress that certain tough benchmarks have been met. If he cannot so certify, an immediate redeployment of U.S. forces must commence. Under the bill, by July 1, 2007, the President must certify that Iraq has met political and military benchmarks, including the implementation of a program to disarm the militias. By October 1, 2007, the President must make another certification of Iraq's progress, including that militia control of local security has been eliminated. And even if the President is able to make both certifications to Congress, this bill requires that U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by March 1, 2008 and complete that withdrawal no later than by the end of August 2008. These limitations on the President are important, as they will pave the way for the United States to finally withdraw from Iraq. This bill also prohibits permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, which is an essential precondition for the reestablishment of public trust in the United States within the Middle East and especially Iraq. Particularly significant to me is a prohibition included in this bill which bars the use of funds from this supplemental in contravention of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I have had to fight to include this provision in previous appropriations bills under the Republican Congress and I would like to thank and commend Chairman Murtha for his leadership and courage on this issue. In this bill, my restriction on the use of funds for torture also includes a specific ban on the use of funds to carry out renditions, which the President has used to transfer detainees for interrogation or other purposes to countries known for the use of torture. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to see the war continue another day. I want our troops home immediately, and I am frustrated beyond words by the President's continued intransigence in the face of overwhelming evidence and opinion. The bill that this House is debating today will take us closer to the moment when every American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine in Iraq can be brought home. I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. I would like to say that the gentleman from Maryland is like Socrates up here lecturing to the Members and to the country on this incredibly important issue. And I would just like to take note that you do it day after day, and you are relentless. There is no question that, still, there is this denial with regard to the amount of oil that the United States has in terms of reserves compared to OPEC, compared to Russia, compared to other countries in the world. And the gentleman from Maryland on a consistent basis comes here to the House floor. I know you do it in other places to bring this message. And if I may, just for 10 seconds because I know the gentleman shares my view on this, I think we both drive hybrids. I think the gentleman is the Chair of the Hybrid Caucus, as a matter of fact. And we both know that the technology exists if we make a commitment as a nation. So here is just one little statistic I would like to put out there: In 1970, the United States imported 20 percent of its oil; 80 percent we produced. By 1977, just 7 years later, we imported 47 percent of our oil. We went from 20 percent imports to 47 percent imports. But then the Congress and Gerald Ford, President Ford, passed legislation which mandated a doubling of the fuel economy standards for the United States of America. By 1985, 1986, we had dropped back down to 27 percent imports. So we went from 20 percent to 46 back down to 27 percent because we improved our technology. We doubled the fuel economy from 13 miles per gallon to 27 miles per gallon. We did it technologically. Today, unbelievably, the United States imports 60 percent of its oil. So from 1986 to 2006, we went from 27 percent of our oil that we imported to 60 percent of our oil that we imported. And as the gentleman graphically, in eye-watering detail, continues to present out here on the House floor, the places from which we import this oil is not healthy for the United States of America. It is an unhealthy relationship with countries that we should not be dependent upon. Three hundred billion dollars worth of oil imports last year. Three hundred billion dollars. And we know that much of that money is spent on things that are completely adverse to the overall national security interests of the United States of America even as we emit more greenhouse gases out into the atmosphere that we would not be emitting if our fuel economy standard was much higher. So I saw you out here again like a preacher, and I thought that I would just let you know that I am out here in the congregation listening to you, and I know that there are many, many other people who are very much in debt to you for having the resolute commitment to getting this message into the minds of the American people. So I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. Why do you think it is so hard to convince people that we don't have the oil reserves that would allow us to have a healthy relationship with the rest of the world that does have the oil reserves that ultimately we are going to need to import if we don't change our habits? Why do you think our country doesn't come to grips with that? Where is the gap in communicating with the American people on this issue?

Mr. MARKEY. You tell your wife that in Massachusetts the messenger's name was Paul Revere and we actually built statues to him up in Massachusetts for telling us the Red Coats were coming, the British were coming, the regulars were coming. And that is what you are telling us right now, that at 60, 61 percent dependence upon imported oil, we are heading inexorably towards a very, very dangerous foreign policy, national security crisis in our country because we are averaging about 1\1/2\ percent per year increase in our dependency. So in order to move from 27 percent back in 1985, 1986 to 60, 61 percent today, it just has to go up that much. So if we come back here in 67 years and we haven't done anything, we will be over 70 percent, 75 percent dependent upon imported oil, all unnecessary if we looked at the facts and looked at the facts today and began to change our national habits. So tell your wife that Paul Revere is more likely the analogy that applies to you rather than the messenger that they shot.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce, for the third time, legislation to prohibit the outsourcing of torture by the United States government. I am hopeful that this Congress the House will finally take up legislation on this matter. I know that policy battles can drag on for seemingly endless lengths of time. I remember that Senator Proxmire spent nearly 20 years arguing that the United States needed to ratify the Convention Against Genocide before finally succeeding to rally the Senate to action. But I know too that we cannot delay any longer in addressing the Administration's practice of transferring detainees for interrogation or other purposes to countries where there are substantial grounds for believing that the transferred individuals could face torture. I feel a rising optimism that we can end this repugnant and counterproductive practice of so- called extraordinary rendition soon, and certainly within the timeframe of this Congress. There is no doubt that the United States is greatly challenged by violent extremists, and the terrible attacks of September 11 were not so much attacks upon our country as upon the values of liberalism, openness and democracy that we champion throughout the world. But there is a right way and a wrong way to conduct ourselves as we defend the United States from murderous criminals and terrorists. The wrong way is to lower our standards of conduct further and further for the sake of expediency. The wrong way is to compromise our core values of human rights and dignity for all people in the face of an enemy who disdains such ideals. The wrong way is to undermine and destroy international treaties guaranteeing all people security from cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment; especially when these treaties are the last line of defense for our soldiers and personnel overseas unfortunate enough to be captured on the battlefield. The right way is to proudly and publicly hold the United States to the highest standards and prove again that our nation is founded upon the rule of law. The practice of extraordinary rendition is a travesty, and it is illegal under any reasonable reading of U.S. and international law. The Convention Against Torture, ratified by the Senate in 1986, provides that the United States may not ``expel, return, or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'' And in 1998, this Congress passed the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA), which states that ``it shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise affect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.'' Both the Convention Against Torture and FARRA prohibit the transfer of an individual to a state where there are ``substantial grounds for believing'' that the individual will face torture. How has the Administration gotten around this prohibition when sending detainees to countries like Syria, Jordan, Uzbekistan, and Egypt; countries which our own State Department reports are habitual abusers of human rights? The Administration has received, and accepted, so-called ``diplomatic assurances'' from these torturing countries that they will not abuse transferred detainees. It is shocking that the Bush Administration has repeatedly and cynically accepted the word of known torturers without any mechanism to ensure that these promises were not broken. The Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act will require that the Secretary of State compile an annual list of all countries in the world known to use torture; it will be illegal to transfer individuals to the countries on this list, regardless of the citizenship or physical location of the individuals. Furthermore, the Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act will close the loophole of ``diplomatic assurances'' which the Administration has exploited to outsource the torture of prisoners to countries such as Syria. The Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act provides waiver authority over the prohibition to the Secretary of State when it is certified to the appropriate Congressional committees that the country in question no longer practices torture and there is a verifiable mechanism in place to assure that the person transferred will not face torture. The Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act does not inhibit treaty-based extraditions in any way. In those cases, current law already provides that an individual facing extradition may challenge the extradition in the courts with an assertion of their rights under the Convention Against Torture. Madam Speaker, it is past time for the Congress to end the practice of extraordinary rendition. I urge adoption of this important legislation.