Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, and I commend Chairman George Miller for his herculean efforts to move this bill forward and bring it to the House floor today. This bill is an important step towards providing Americans with fundamental workplace protections that are long overdue. When workers have the freedom to join together and bargain collectively, they have the opportunity to secure affordable health care, adequate vacation time and other benefits as part of good faith negotiations with their employers. Americans are working harder and more efficiently than ever before. But while productivity has increased, many middle class families continue to struggle to make ends meet, pay the mortgage, afford college for their children, and access affordable health care. These hardworking families are everyday heroes, but even heroes need help. The Employee Free Choice Act will help ensure that workers who seek a better future for themselves and their families through union representation are not coerced, intimidated or threatened by employers trying to prevent them from exercising their legal rights. The bill we are considering today would enable employees to choose-- they can choose to go through the current NLRB election process, or they can choose a card-check process designed to insulate them from intimidation. If a majority of employees choose to sign cards in support of union representation, the employer must abide by that decision and certify the union if the NLRB validates their majority. While the card-check route to union representation is permitted under current law, employers have the choice to reject the results. In other words, under current law, it's the employer's choice. Under the Employee Free Choice Act, it's the employee's choice. This bill is urgently needed because some employers choose to fight unionization by intimidating workers, threatening to fire pro-union employees or close the plant. Making union certification mandatory when a majority of employees sign union cards would prevent illegal tactics intended to crush workers' efforts to bargain collectively. James Madison famously wrote that ``If men were angels, no government would be necessary.'' Madam Chairman, if all companies were angels, this bill would not be necessary. Unfortunately, while some enlightened companies currently recognize the legitimacy of a union when a majority of their employees sign union cards, many do not. Now is the time to give Americans the power they need to improve conditions in the workplace. President Roosevelt told us: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'' The Employee Free Choice Act is consistent with the American ideal that everyone--not just the privileged few--deserves the opportunity to improve their condition in life and build a bright, optimistic future for their children. I urge an ``aye'' vote and commend Chairman Miller for his work on this important legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 556, the National Security FIRST Act, introduced by the Gentlelady from New York, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. A year ago, a secretive committee at the Treasury Department that most Americans had never heard of approved a transaction to give a company owned by the United Arab Emirates control over terminal operations at 6 major U.S. ports. The decision by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--or CFIUS--to approve this purchase by Dubai Ports World shined a bright light on an obscure committee and the process it uses to make decisions that can have important consequences for the security of our country. Clearly, the Dubai Ports World transaction did not receive the scrutiny it deserved. The 9/11 Commission had identified the government of the UAE--the same entity that would own the terminals at major U.S. ports--as a ``persistent counterterrorism problem''. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE. The 9/11 Commission concluded that the UAE banking system was used as a conduit for funds for the September 11th attacks. Moreover, the UAE was a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya. The UAE was one of only three nations to recognize the legitimacy of the Taliban government and still does not recognize the State of Israel. Despite all of these warning signs, the proposed port deal did not even lead the Bush Administration to conduct a 45-day investigation, which is provided in current law and should have been interpreted as being mandatory when foreign governments--whether involving the UAE, the UK, the Ukraine or any other nation--seek mergers, acquisitions or similar transactions that could affect U.S. national security. Public outrage ultimately sunk the Dubai deal. Last March, Dubai Ports World agreed to divest itself of the U.S. port operations involved in the transaction, and AIG purchased these assets earlier this month. I commend Congresswoman Maloney for crafting this strong legislation. It closes the loopholes that had, unbelievably, allowed commerce to trump commonsense. Specifically, this bill requires that a transaction involving foreign governments receive extra scrutiny by mandating that the chairman and vice-chairman of CFIUS certify that the transaction poses no national security threat or the transaction must be subjected to a second-stage 45-day national security investigation; ensures that senior level officials are held accountable for CFIUS decisions by requiring that the chairman and vice chairman of CFIUS approve all transactions where CFIUS consideration is completed within the 30-day review period and mandating that the president approve all transactions that have been subjected to the second-stage 45-day national security investigation; and provides for much-needed congressional oversight by requiring CFIUS to report to the congressional committees of jurisdiction within five days after the final action on a CFIUS investigation. CFIUS also must file semi-annual reports to Congress that contain information on transactions handled by the committee during the previous six months. Passage of this bill is an important step towards making our country safer. As we continue to learn the lessons of the Dubai Ports World transaction, we also must push forward with efforts to require that all shipping containers are scanned for nuclear bombs before they leave foreign countries bound for our shores and sealed to prevent tampering en route. The 100 percent scanning mandate was included in the 9/11 Commission recommendations bill that passed the House last month on a bi-partisan basis. As the other body considers its version of the bill, this vital provision should be retained. In New York Times columnist Frank Rich's piece last Sunday, he reported that the former head of the C.I.A. bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer has stated that the Taliban and Al Qaeda, having regrouped in Afghanistan and Pakistan, are ``going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States.'' Mr. Scheuer is not alone in making this assessment. Harvard University arms control expert Graham Allison has said that ``more likely than not'' there will be a terrorist attack using a nuclear bomb in our country. He has described the detonation of a nuclear explosive device in a cargo container in one of our ports as a nightmare scenario for our nation. Port security expert and former Coast Guard officer Stephen Flynn has written about the ``catastrophic consequences of terror in a box'' that would result if a nuclear device hidden in a cargo container were donated in our country. Admiral James Loy, the former Coast Guard commandant and former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, has said that there is evidence that al Qaeda terrorists are already involved in the maritime trades. Through the Secure Freight Initiative, the Bush Administration has begun the process of establishing pilot programs overseas to test the feasibility and effectiveness of scanning all U.S.-bound containers before they are loaded onto container ships headed to our country. The provision in the 9/11 Recommendations bill that Congressman Nadler and I authored would require that lessons learned during the Secure Freight Initiative are incorporated into a comprehensive 100 percent scanning and sealing policy for every container headed to our country. Our provision contains a sensible time frame--3 years for large overseas ports and 5 years for smaller ones--to implement the 100 percent scanning mandate. Dubai Ports World--the same company that triggered the reform process that led us to consideration of the legislation before us today--is planning to incorporate the capability to perform 100 percent scanning at its operations overseas. We have the technology. We know the risks. We need to take action to require 100 percent scanning and sealing of all U.S. bound cargo containers OVERSEAS, before they arrive at our shores. If we detect a nuclear bomb in a container once it arrives at a U.S. port, it's too late. Once again, I commend the gentlelady from New York for her leadership on this important issue, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Swift Approval, Full Evaluation, SAFE, Drug Act. This bill is designed to ensure that the FDA can balance the need to get important life-saving drugs to the market quickly while ensuring the drugs get the full evaluation they need to ensure the safety of those products. Earlier this week the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce held its very first oversight hearing of the 110th Congress on drug safety. At the hearing several FDA whistleblowers testified about the truly frightening problems at the FDA including: 1. a culture of suppression and intimidation, 2. a lack of transparency into the review process, 3. the inaction of FDA management in response to serious drug risks, 4. a lack of scientific freedom and the inability of FDA reviewers to have their concerns heard by senior management, FDA advisory committees, and the public. Their powerful testimonies add to the concerns raised in the Institute of Medicine report, the GAO Report, and the Inspector General of HHS report that the FDA's system to ensure that postmarketing studies are conducted and completed is broken and the FDA has not made reform a priority. It is clear from the whistleblowers' testimonies and these three major reports that the FDA is a deeply troubled agency that has failed time and time again to act in the best interest of the public. The failures of the FDA to protect the public have been widely reported by the media and the public is losing confidence in the FDA's ability to keep us safe. According to a recent Wall Street Journal Online/Harris Interactive poll, 80 percent of adults say they are concerned about the FDA's ability to make independent decisions that will ensure that patients have access to safe and effective medicines. We need the FDA to be a watchdog for public health, not a lapdog for the industry. We need to bring back transparency, accountability and scientific integrity to the FDA. That is why today I am reintroducing the Swift Approval, Full Evaluation, SAFE, Drug Act to provide greater transparency into the approval process and a stronger postmarket safety system. The SAFE Drug Act will: 1. Increase FDA authority with respect to postmarket safety, including giving the FDA the ability to mandate labeling and require postmarket studies. 2. Provide FDA greater authority with respect to the Accelerated Approval process, by ensuring postmarket study plans are reviewed prior to approval; requiring proper labeling until drugs are fully approved; and restricting advertising for accelerated approved drugs or biologics until full approval. 3. Provide enhanced whistleblower protections to FDA employees. 4. Preserve scientific integrity at FDA by prohibiting FDA employees from directing other FDA employees to censor or suppress scientific research, analysis, opinions or recommendations or directing employees to disseminate scientific information that is known to be false or misleading. 5. Require the FDA to provide Advisory Committees with complete information. 6. Ensure scientific freedom at FDA, by guaranteeing FDA and FDA- sponsored authors the right to publish or present their work. 7. Increase FDA transparency, by requiring a biennial report to Congress on noninferiority studies and a biannual report to Congress on postmarket studies system. The time to act is now. I look forward to working with my colleagues to stop the erosion of public confidence in the FDA, provide greater transparency into the approval process, reform the system of postmarketing studies, and ensure that FDA balances the desire to speed drugs to market with its critical role as the watchdog of public health.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, this debate marks the beginning of the end of the ill- conceived, mismanaged and ultimately failed war in Iraq. The war in Iraq was launched on the basis of false and misleading intelligence about a nonexistent nuclear weapons program. When the inspectors looked for nuclear weapons in all the most likely places, there was nothing there. When they looked in all the unlikely places, there was nothing there. When this was reported to the world, the world said ``don't invade.'' But when this was reported to the President of the United States, he chose to invade Iraq. In other words, the President did the opposite of what the evidence would dictate. Here we are, 4 years after the invasion. The American people looked at the facts on the ground in Iraq and voted in November to de- escalate. The generals looked at the situation and said de-escalate. The Iraq Study Group analyzed our options and said we should de- escalate. So what has the President of the United States decided? After all the evidence, he has chosen to escalate the war. Once again, our President is doing the opposite of what the evidence and common sense dictates. Our troops continue to fight heroically to prevent Iraq from sliding into anarchy, but they are losing ground to a deep emotional cycle of religious strife and revenge that goes back 14 centuries. Our soldiers cannot be beaten on the military battlefield, but neither should they be faulted for failing to drain a political swamp. The American people are now speaking out with one clear voice, in frustration and in anger, demanding change, demanding a new direction in Iraq. But the President isn't giving us a new direction. All he has to offer is more of the same, an escalation of our troop presence in Iraq. And this escalation ignores the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which said that all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq by the beginning of 2008. This week, we have a choice: We can say no to the President's failed war in Iraq, we can say no to the President's escalation, and we can say no to the unnecessary loss of another American soldier, marine or airman; or we can once again vote to stay the course and to continue on with this failed policy. Many Americans have expressed frustration that the resolution we vote on this week is a nonbinding resolution, and I understand that frustration. On January 9, Senator Kennedy and I introduced companion bills in the Senate and House to block President Bush's new plan to escalate troop levels in Iraq. Our legislation would prevent the obligation or expenditure of a single dollar to increase the number of troops in Iraq unless Congress affirmatively voted to do so. But I would not dismiss this resolution's importance simply because it is nonbinding. Twenty-four years ago, this House took up another nonbinding resolution when it first debated my nuclear freeze resolution. We passed the nuclear freeze on the floor of the House. It was nonbinding and it never passed the Senate. But it nevertheless changed the course of this Nation's nuclear weapons policy. It did so because of the pressure it put on the White House to change, and it was followed by binding legislation that halted tests of anti-satellite weapons, cut funding for Star Wars and cut in half the plan size of the MX missile force. That is why I fully understand why some Republican Members have simultaneously denounced this resolution as silly and unserious, and, at the same time, have tried to prevent its passage. Why are they afraid of a nonbinding resolution? Because this resolution exposes the lack of support in the Congress for the President's escalation scheme. The administration's failed strategy has already ended any chance of a successful short-term outcome. The just-released, deeply pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq simply confirms this situation. We are in the middle of a sectarian religious civil war in Iraq, and the presence of our troops is preventing the Iraqi people from taking responsibility for their own security and for their own political solution that must follow. This war should never have been fought, period. It was a mistake, the American people know it was a mistake, our military leaders know it was a mistake and a bipartisan majority in the United States Congress know it was a mistake. Let's pass this resolution and send a strong signal to the Bush administration that it is time to stop the escalation, bring this war to an end, and bring our troops home. I urge adoption of this resolution. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank him for his eloquent statement. I thank him for the eulogy which he delivered on behalf of Father Drinan at St. Ignatius Church in Massachusetts on this past Saturday. You captured the essence of Father Drinan in that eulogy, and I thank you for doing that on behalf of all of us. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives mourns the passing of Father Robert Drinan, Society of Jesus, Member of Congress. His death is a blow to those of us who revered his wit and wisdom, and a great loss for those who continue to struggle for human rights and life's basic necessities. Yet, tonight we also celebrate Father Drinan's life and know well that the life he brought to the issues of our time will continue to shine on in the efforts of those he touched and those whom he exhorted to do more. I had the privilege of having Father Drinan as my dean at Boston College Law School. I met him in August of 1968 as the school year at Boston College Law School was about to commence. But the truth is that I had set my goal to attend Boston College Law School 6 years before when I was a sophomore in high school because it became my goal to go to Boston College Law School so that I could have Father Drinan as my dean; and, to be honest with you, I didn't even know if you had to go to college in order to go to law school, such was my desire to go and to be in this school that was training lawyers to help humanity. At Boston College Law School in the late 1960s, Father Drinan used his power as the dean of that school to actively recruit minorities, to actively recruit women to come to Boston College Law School. He did so using the greatest power that a dean of a law school has, and that is admissions and full scholarships. He wanted Boston College Law School to be at the cutting edge of the change which was taking place in our society, and he wanted to ensure that those who had been excluded from our society would be given access to the law school education that they would need in order to effect the laws in our society. And today, all of those who were exposed to him during the years that he was dean at Boston College Law School continue to have a debt to him, not only those to whom he brought in, in order to ensure that they were not excluded, but all of the rest of us who were then exposed to these injustices and the remedies to them that Father Drinan ensured that that law school embodied. Just a few years after graduating from Boston College Law School, only 4 years later, I had the great honor of coming here as Father Drinan's colleague. I felt that there was no greater honor in fact in being elected to Congress than in knowing that I would be his colleague. It seemed somewhat asymmetrical that I would have the same vote that he had here on the House floor. And when he would consult me on which choice he should make, should he become the chairman of the criminal law subcommittee or the immigration subcommittee, it was an honor for me to be consulted by Father Drinan as a young man now, but his colleague in Congress, as to what was the best place. And his criteria of course was what was the best place where he could do the most good for those most in need in our society. And of course, the way he saw our society was not just the United States of America but the whole planet. So I had that unique opportunity to see him in both of those settings, both in law school and here on the House floor. And I saw him play the role of the catalyst, of the idealist, of the man who continued to push others when they say they can go no further in trying to strive for excellence and to stand up for an ideal. And that is the role that Father Drinan played not just in law school and not just here in Congress, but for the last 26 years since he left this Chamber. When we stand in this Chamber of Congress, when Members of Congress are coming here to cast their vote, all of our names are flashed up on a board over the head of the Speaker to vote ``aye'' or ``nay'' on the key issues of our time. During the years that Father Drinan was a Congressman, as the Members would look up to see how other Members of Congress voted, when they looked up at Father Drinan's name, they knew he was not casting a vote looking at the next election, but rather he was looking at the next generation on every vote. And that led to almost every one of his elections being as close as an election can be, because he was not factoring in his own electoral life but rather the life of every person in our society. His vote was true north, every vote that he cast here in Congress. As a Jesuit, he clearly lived up to the Jesuitical ideal of being a contemplative in action. He worked tirelessly for both tolerance and for social justice. He took on each task in this institution, large and small, as he did others in life, and offered them Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, To the Greater Glory of God, which was a favorite phrase of St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit order. He was unambiguous in his convictions that America could do better, could aspire to greater things for its people and the world. The direct and candid quality of Father Drinan's personality added to the moral force that Father Drinan brought to the quality of the debate in this Chamber. His personality animated these discussions in hearings and debates here on the floor. His eloquent, passionate, heartfelt speeches are greatly missed. Madam Speaker, I think that one of the real ironies of Father Drinan's career is that at its very end here in Congress, in his very last term here that he served in this body, that he was unopposed. In other words, just at the point at which he had convinced those who lived in his district that in fact not only was he not outside the main stream, but his views were those that should be embraced by everyone who lived within that district, he was unopposed. He had fought Richard Nixon on Vietnam; he had called for Richard Nixon's impeachment because of the illegal bombing on Cambodia. He was someone who, by the time he had reached 1980, people looked up to with admiration that he had been unafraid during those fights during the early 1970s, one that had been able to now command the admiration of everyone in this body. His defense of human rights was tireless, from the plight of Soviet Jewry to the victims of apartheid to the dislocated and the powerless in Central America. He risked his own life in going down to Central America after the assassination of Archbishop Romero. He was the first. His voice was the most powerful. He brought a moral dimension to the crimes that were being committed in Central America. He elevated that to a point where Congress had to deal with it. He mobilized the Jesuit community, the moral community not only here but around the world to focus on what was happening in Central America. It was Father Drinan. And he was literally risking his life when he went down there in those early years. There was no protection for him. That was the unwavering commitment of his life, that he would use it in order to advance the cause of those who were most powerless. And at Trinity College, as Speaker Pelosi said, on the day before she was sworn in he delivered a sermon to each of us who was there on our responsibilities to help the children of Darfur, the children of Katrina, and every child in need of help around the planet. And he told us that it was our job here to make sure that those children were taken care of, that God's work was truly our own here in this great body. Now, when Father Drinan was forced to choose between political life and his priestly life, it really wasn't a choice. On that day, I went up into his office and sat with him and I asked him how he felt. And he said, ``Eddie, it really isn't a difficult choice. I am a priest for life, not a politician. I will find other ways to serve God, and I will be able to accept this, although it is difficult.'' And that is just how he was. And for the next 26 years, it can be argued that he had the most productive part of his life, because during those 26 years he, then at Georgetown Law School, trained thousands of young lawyers to go out across this country and across this world in order to advocate on behalf of human rights. So he showed us how we could pursue justice, seek continued incremental progress towards peace, towards a more just distribution of society's assets, and towards a Nation which celebrated diversity and fostered tolerance. In the final analysis, Father Robert Drinan was a gift to all of us. Here in the House of Representatives, the memory of this iconic and comprehensively decent man of our friend and our colleague will be long remembered and venerated. He will be sorely missed not just here in Washington and in Massachusetts, but all around the world. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of announcing to the House that one of our most beloved former Members, Father Robert Drinan, has passed away. He served five terms in the House of Representatives, from 1971 to 1981. Those of us who served with him and those who came to know him subsequently through his work as an educator and a moral leader admired his lifelong commitment to public service, loved him for his friendship and will miss his remarkable spirit. He was truly a great man. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House be made in order so that we may observe a moment of silence in memory of Father Robert Drinan.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his great work and for yielding, and I thank Mr. Hinchey, who has worked with me over the past 2 years to bring to the attention of the American people this issue of the fact that there is drilling going on off the shores of our public country on public lands where there are no royalties being paid, whether it is $30, $40, $50, $60, $70, or $80 a barrel. Here is what President Bush said about that on April 19, 2005. ``I will tell you, with $55 oil, we don't need the incentives to oil and gas companies to explore,'' Bush said in a speech in April. So what are we saying? We are saying keep your contracts. You don't have to change the contracts. Keep them. But if you want new contracts on new drilling sites, renegotiate the old contracts or pay a $9 fee. You can keep the sanctity of the old contracts, but you are not entitled to new contracts. Very simple. Then, after the money is recollected, we are going to create a Renewable Energy Strategic Fund to change and put our country heading in a new direction. Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are considering today represents the important first step in charting a new direction for the nation's energy policy. H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, repeals the unnecessary and I wasteful tax breaks and royalty-free drilling rights for big oil and gas companies, and instead creates a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve that would invest in clean, renewable energy sources and clean alternative fuels like ethanol, as well as energy efficiency and conservation. At a time when they are making record profits and American consumers are being tipped upside down at the pump we should not be giving massive subsidies and tax breaks to big oil companies. Even President Bush conceded in an April 19, 2005 Washington Post article, ``I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. * * * There are plenty of incentives.'' Even George Bush admits that at $55 dollars, the price of oil is enough of an incentive for oil companies to drill and they don't need the additional taxpayer subsidies that were created under the Republican Congress. Today, with H.R. 6, we are simply going to repeal the most egregious of those unnecessary incentives and tax breaks to big oil. In addition, H.R. 6 will put an end to oil companies drilling for free on public land when oil prices are high. The Government Accountability Office has estimated that the American taxpayers stand to lose at least $10 billion from leases issued in the late 90s that do not suspend so-called royalty relief. H.R. 6 would correct this problem by barring oil companies from purchasing new leases unless they had either renegotiated their existing faulty leases or agreed to pay a fee on the production of oil and gas from those leases. Now, I have heard some Members on the other side of the aisle argue that if we were to pass the royalty relief fixes included in H.R. 6 and take back from big oil the $10 billion or more that rightfully belongs to the American people, it will violate the contracts that they are holding. That it will turn our country into Bolivia or Russia. But let me be clear--we have spoken to the top constitutional lawyers in the country and they all agree that we are on the firmest of constitutional ground. The contracts that these oil companies are holding allow for the federal government to impose fees like the ones in this bill. Furthermore, the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service has said time and time again that including a condition in new oil and gas leases to exclude oil companies that have not renegotiated their faulty leases would not abrogate existing contracts or constitute a takings. All H.R. 6 does is give these big oil companies a choice-- they can continue producing royalty-free oil no matter how high the price of oil climbs, that's fine, but then they're not going to get any new leases from the Federal Government. And more than that, this House has already adopted the royalty relief fixes included in H.R. 6 by overwhelming, bipartisan votes. Many of my Republican colleagues voted for both of those provisions. The House adopted the Markey-Hinchey amendment to the Interior appropriations bill to provide an incentive for these companies to renegotiate by suspending their ability to bid on new leases by a vote of 252-165. The House also voted last year to impose a $9 per barrel fee on oil produced from these leases in a bill authored by former Resources Chairman Pombo. That Pombo fee is this bill, and the Markey-Hinchey suspension on bidding for new leases is also there as an alternative. So, this is something that the House has already voted to do two times. Two times, this House has said that we want to put real pressure on all the oil and gas companies holding those 1998-1999 leases to renegotiate. However, the Bush Administration has consistently opposed our efforts to bring every oil company holding one of these leases back to the negotiating table and it continues to oppose the provisions in H.R. 6 that would do so. Instead, the Bush Administration has argued that we should allow oil companies to ``voluntarily'' renegotiate with the Minerals Management Service. However, of the 56 companies holding these leases, only 5 have voluntarily agreed to renegotiate. When billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake, that is simply not an acceptable rate of return. H.R. 6 says that it is time for the oil companies to stop playing Uncle Sam for Uncle Sucker. According to an Interior Department's Inspector General's report that came out today, senior officials at the Minerals Management Service have known about these faulty leases for nearly three years, yet sat idly by and did absolutely nothing while big oil companies failed to pay nearly $1 billion in royalties that rightfully belonged to the American people. If the allegations in the IG's report are true, top Bush Administration officials have aided and abetted one of the greatest heists in history. We should not now leave those same officials in charge of getting oil companies to ``voluntarily'' renegotiate those same leases. Finally today, as part of the first 100 hours, we are starting the comprehensive debate about our nation's energy policy that we should have been having over the last 6 years. Finally today, we are beginning to talk about how we can radically increase the amount of renewable fuels such as ethanol we consume in the country. Finally today, we are beginning to talk on the Floor of the People's House about how to make our appliances or our buildings or our vehicles more energy efficient so that we can reduce our consumption of foreign oil and our emissions of greenhouse gasses. Adopting H.R. 6 will allow us to begin to move in a new, clean direction on energy and put an end to the free ride that big oil has had under the Bush Administration. This bill is a beginning. It is the beginning of a change in direction, away from subsidizing an industry that doesn't need extra financial incentives, and towards the technologies that do need a helping hand. Today, we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that we can tap to help American consumers in the event of another Middle East oil embargo or crisis. But with this bill we create a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve, that we can tap to ensure that America can move towards energy independence. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 6.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill today is a historic bill. What it is going to do is to reclaim billions of dollars, the GAO says upwards of $10 billion, which will then be moved over from unnecessary tax breaks and royalty relief for oil and gas companies, and moved over to a Strategic Renewable and Energy Efficiency Reserve so that we can change the direction of energy in our country by just taking back that which is undeserved in tax breaks and royalty relief. So, what's the issue? Well, the issue is that back in 1998 and 1999 the oil industry received royalty breaks that didn't require them to pay any royalties back to the American people, the American taxpayer, as they drilled on the public lands of our country. What this bill does is it gives a choice to the oil and gas industry: either renegotiate those leases or pay a fee going forward for the drilling on those lands. And that money will then go into a trust fund for renewables, for energy conservation, for ethanol, so that we can move in a new energy direction for the 21st century. It is a quite simple formula. Now, the royalty relief, the change in how royalties are collected, it has already passed here on the House floor. But it was then blocked by the Bush administration. The $9 fee was the Pombo amendment. That has already passed on the House floor. So we are not talking about things that haven't already been debated. We are not talking about things that have already passed. What we are talking about are things that the Bush administration then blocked from becoming law. And what the Democrats are adding is just that it be put into a renewable and a conservation and ethanol trust fund so that we can move this country into a new energy direction. I hope that this rule passes, and then I hope that we have an overwhelming vote, as we have had twice before in the past, by the way, on this royalty issue by all Members of the House, so that we can finally move in a new direction for the 21st century in energy policy. Mr. Speaker, the bill that we will consider later today represents the important first step in charting a new direction for the Nation's energy policy. H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, which repeals the unnecessary and wasteful tax breaks and royalty-free drilling rights for big oil and gas companies, and instead creates a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve that would invest in clean, renewable energy sources and clean alternative fuels like ethanol, as well as energy efficiency and conservation. H.R. 6 will put an end to oil companies drilling for free on public land no matter how high oil prices climb. The Government Accountability Office has estimated that the American taxpayers stand to lose at least $10 billion from leases issued in the late '90s that do not suspend so- called royalty relief. H.R. 6 would correct this problem by barring companies from purchasing new leases unless they had either renegotiated their existing faulty leases or agreed to pay a fee on the production of oil and gas from those leases. The House has already adopted the royalty relief fixes included in H.R. 6 by overwhelming, bipartisan votes. By a vote of 252-165, the House adopted the Markey-Hinchey amendment to the Interior appropriations bill to provide a strong incentive for these companies to renegotiate. The House also voted last year to impose a $9 per barrel fee on oil produced from these leases in a bill authored by former Resources Chairman Pombo. Both those provisions are in H.R. 6. So two times this House has said that we want to put real pressure to renegotiate on all the oil and gas companies holding those 1998-1999 leases. However, the Bush administration has consistently opposed our efforts to bring every oil company holding one of these leases back to the negotiating table and it continues to oppose the provisions in H.R. 6 that would do so. Instead, the Bush administration has argued that we should allow oil companies to ``voluntarily'' renegotiate with the Minerals Management Service. However, of the 56 companies holding these leases, only 5 have voluntarily agreed to renegotiate. When billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake, that is simply not an acceptable rate of return. This bill says that it's time for the oil companies to stop playing Uncle Sam for Uncle Sucker. Passage of H.R. 6 will allow us to begin to move in a new, clean direction on energy and put an end to the free ride that big oil has had under the Bush administration. H.R. 6 represents the beginning of a change in direction, away from subsidizing industries that don't need extra financial incentives, and towards the technologies that do need a helping hand and I urge its adoption.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker I rise in strong support of House Resolution 61, a resolution which honors the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for his outstanding contributions to our country in the past and the continuing impact of his life and legacy. Born on January 15, 1929, Martin Luther King, Jr., was destined to follow in his grandfather's and father's footsteps as a Baptist minister, but no one could have known he would play such an important role in this history of our Nation. After graduating from high school at the age of 15, Martin Luther King, Jr., attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA., just as his grandfather and father had done before. He became a pastor in Ebenezer Baptist Church, and quickly rose to become the leader of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, inspiring first the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955, and subsequently a nationwide battle to bring an end to racial discrimination in our Nation's laws and public accommodations, and to ensure full voting rights for African Americans. Though bus boycotts had been attempted before, none lasted as long, drew as much attention or were as successful. The Montgomery Bus boycott lasted for almost an entire year and had a profound effect on the businesses in Montgomery. In recognition of his great leadership, Reverend King was the youngest person ever to win a Nobel Peace Prize at the age of 35. He donated all of the prize money to the Civil Rights Movement. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a spiritual giant who possessed a keen intellect and remarkable insights on the human condition. In Massachusetts, we feel a sense of privilege knowing that this extraordinary historic figure lived and learned among us during his lifetime. In 1955, he received a Doctorate of Philosophy in Systematic Theology from Boston University. He also studied at Harvard University. But most important, it was in Boston that he met Coretta Scott, who became his wife, the mother of his four children, and his indispensable partner in a destiny of struggle, transformation and remarkable achievement. Many of the words of Dr. King speak greatly to the adversities that we still face today. As we work to change the direction of our country, those of us in government must repeatedly seek out those with whom we may sometimes disagree to accomplish those great things that are most worth doing. ``Like an unchecked cancer,'' said Dr. King, ``hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.'' As Dr. King so eloquently put it, ``In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.'' I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4, The Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. We've heard about how Wal-Mart reduces costs through the purchasing power of their ``Sam's Clubs.'' Well today we are establishing ``Uncle Sam's Club'', a smart way of pooling the enormous purchasing power of the Medicare program and enabling the Secretary to drive down the cost of prescription drugs through negotiation. Fortune 500 companies and large pharmacy chains all across the country negotiate for better drug prices on behalf of their patients. It is now time for the Secretary of HHS to do the same on behalf of millions of seniors in the Medicare program. When the Republicans passed their prescription drug bill, they explicitly prohibited the Secretary of HHS from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to get better drug prices for seniors. They seem to have forgotten that the government is supposed to work for the public interest, not the special interests. Unfortunately, it has become necessary to remove that giveaway to the special interests and remind the Secretary of his public interest obligations. In this bill we require the Secretary to work on behalf of seniors and people with disabilities to make sure they get the best possible deal on prescription drugs. The Republican's prescription drug bill has failed to get the cost of prescription drugs under control. Last year drug prices rose at twice the rate of inflation. The Medicare Prescription Drug Act was supposed to help seniors pay for their prescription drugs, but instead it became a means to keep drug prices and company profits at record high levels. It is long past time for the Secretary to use his negotiating power to help seniors avoid choosing between buying the drugs they need and paying for their rent or food. Vote for your constituents for a change. It is good medicine. Vote for H.R. 4.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Last year, the President vetoed the hope and crushed the dreams of millions of patients and their families. With the stroke of a pen, the President used his very first veto to block this bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and to continue to impose severe restrictions on stem cell research. We are now giving the President a second chance to move beyond his Luddite moment in American scientific history to a new moment of scientific enlightenment and hope. We must let hope triumph over fear and science, triumph over ideology. Diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, and cancer wreak havoc on the lives of millions of Americans. We can free our loved ones from this pain, but only if we free science to find the keys. Embryonic stem cell research is the flickering candle of medical promise that gives hope for the treatment and cure of these devastating diseases, researchers' medicines' field of dreams from which we can harvest the findings that can give hope to millions of families. Please do not condemn the afflicted to another generation of darkness. It is past time to take this critical step towards fulfilling our moral obligation to do all we can to reduce pain and suffering around the world and to support ethical, comprehensive stem cell research. I thank the gentlelady from Colorado, and I thank all Members for their work on this critically important historic litigation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today Democrats ae fulfilling a pledge to millions of working famllies who have struggled for too long to make ends meet with a minimum wage that has failed to keep pace with skyrocketing housing, health care, energy and other costs. President Franklin Roosevelt told us, ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'' The federal minimum wage has remained unchanged for nearly 10 years, and its purchasing power has plummeted to the lowest level in more than half a century. It is unacceptable and immoral that millions of Americans have been working full-time and year-round while still being unable to afford the basic necessities of life. By increasing the federal minimum wage by $2.10--from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over 2 years--we are giving a long overdue pay raise to about 13 million Americans, which amounts to an additional $4,400 per year for a family of three. I am proud that my home state of Massachusetts already has taken similar action, increasing the Commonwealth's minimum wage to $7.50 effective January 1, 2007. A total of twenty-eight states along with the District of Columbia have a state minimum wage above the current federal level. It is time for the federal government to catch up. Raising the minimum wage will make an important difference in the lives of hardworking Americans across the country. The Senate should quickly pass similar legislation and President Bush should sign into law this much-needed increase as soon as it reaches his desk.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, the Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act honors two great American visionaries by designating the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness in their names and giving permanent protection to this great unspoiled wild place. Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower began the bipartisan legacy of fighting to protect this majestic area for future generations of Americans when he set aside the core of the Refuge in 1960. Twenty years later, in 1980, Democratic Representative Morris Udall succeeded in doubling the size of the Refuge, protecting even more of this untrammeled wilderness from oil drilling. President Eisenhower and Morris Udall had the vision to protect a remote but very special piece of pristine wilderness. I am proud to introduce legislation today along with Representative Jim Ramstad of Minnesota that would complete the job they began by giving permanent protection to the coastal plain of the Refuge. I am also proud to introduce this legislation under the bill number H.R. 39, a bill number with important historical significance in the effort to preserve the land within the Arctic Refuge. H.R. 39 was the bill number given to Mo Udall's Alaska Natural Interest Lands Conservation Act that became law in 1980, expanding the area President Eisenhower had set aside and renaming it as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Representative Udall later began introducing his legislation to designate the coastal plain of the Refuge as wilderness under that same bill number. This bill number offers an important reminder of the history of this special place. The coastal plain is the biological heart of the Refuge and is central to the survival of many unique species of animals including caribou, polar bears, musk oxen, wolves, and over 160 species of birds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calls the coastal plain the ``center for wildlife activity'' in the Refuge. If we were to allow drilling in the Refuge it would irreparably disrupt this important ecosystem and one of our last great wild places will be forever scared and destroyed. In this last year, we have seen so-called ``environmentally-gentle'' oil drilling exposed once and for all as the myth that it is. On March 2, 2006, BP workers discovered a quarter-inch hole in a pipeline on Alaska's North Slope that had leaked 267,000 gallons of oil onto the arctic tundra. That recent spill was the largest in the history of the North Slope. Subsequent spills led to the discovery that BP had grossly mismanaged and severely neglected its pipelines and North Slope oil drilling operations, which had previously been touted by drilling proponents as the best and most technologically advanced in the world. The reality is that drilling for oil is a dirty business and opening the Arctic Refuge to drilling would forever ruin this untouched special place. Moreover, if we were to allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge, the crown jewel of the Wildlife Refuge System, it would represent a colossal shift in the policy and precedent governing our wildlife refuges. Prying open the Arctic Refuge for drilling would set a dangerous precedent that would allow the oil companies to select any of the other 544 as the next target for oil drilling. The Bush administration has argued that we have no choice--that we are so dependent on oil that we must start defiling our wildlife refuge system to keep feeding our oil addiction. That is wrong. We have a choice, a better choice, and it is about time that we enact real changes in our energy policy by focusing on conservation rather than seeking to drill for a few short months worth of oil in this pristine refuge. The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's oil but controls only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We cannot drill our way out of our dependence on foreign oil but we can choose to harness our technologic genius to do something real about our dependence on oil. Two-thirds of the oil we consume everyday in the U.S. goes into the gas tanks of our cars, trucks and SUVs. From an energy standpoint, drilling in the Refuge is completely unnecessary. If our cars, trucks and SUVs traveled just 3 miles more per gallon today, we would save more oil than drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would produce at its peak levels of production. But more than that, if we increased fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon over 10 years, we would save more oil within 15 years than we would be able to get out of the Arctic Refuge over its entire 40-50 year production life. The oil fields on the North Slope already annually produce more air pollution and greenhouse gases than the municipality of Washington, D.C. and the Arctic is showing the strains of global warming. Just this last month, the Bush Interior Department proposed listing the Polar Bear as an ``endangered species'' because global warming appears to be so drastically affecting its habitat--particularly the summer ice floes needed to hunt--that the bears are drowning far from shore when the floating ice melts. Last week scientists confirmed that a giant ice shelf--the Ayles Ice Shelf--snapped off of its land anchor just 500 miles south of the North Pole in the Canadian Arctic. This is a feature of the Arctic landscape that is thousands of years old. The remaining ice shelves are 90 percent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906. Our addiction to oil is real and enduring and still largely untreated. Drilling in the refuge would amount to a declaration that we remain in denial about this addiction, its impact on our planet and our obligation to future generations. If Congress were to ever turn the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge into an industrial footprint by allowing oil drilling, the impact on the land and the wildlife would be permanent but the hoped-for energy benefits only temporary. There are some places in our world that are so rare and so special, that we have a responsibility to protect them. The Arctic Refuge is one of those places. As Mo Udall said, ``In our lifetime, we have few opportunities to shape the very Earth on which our descendants will live their lives. In each generation, we have carved up more and more of our once-great natural heritage. There ought to be a few places left in the world the way the Almighty made them.'' The Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act would ensure that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is never carved up by the big oil companies but is instead forever protected for future Americans.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. MARKEY. I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a provision which really is unrelated completely to the tax extenders. There are indeed tax credits and other things, very good; but what they have decided to do is attach a rider to this bill, and that rider is a special sweetheart deal that changes the entire formula for the collection of royalties, that is, taxes, for the American people for oil and gas which is drilled for on public lands. Because of this change in formula, $170 billion is going to be transferred from the pockets of the American taxpayer of 46 States and sent to four States. In the course of the debate this afternoon within the hour, we will be considering an amendment, an amendment which will say that if any oil companies want to drill for the oil in the gulf that is going to be permitted under this new bill, that these companies must renegotiate the old leases which they received back in the 1990s, which, believe it or not, makes it possible for them to escape paying royalties on oil and gas drilled for on public lands in the United States. Even if the price of oil goes to $40, $50, $60, $70, $80 a barrel, oil companies do not pay any more royalties. Well, what our amendment will say is that they must renegotiate. The oil and gas industry must renegotiate with the Federal Government to return those windfall profits on the old leases before they are going to be allowed to drill for these new leases in the Gulf of Mexico. In that way, the taxpayers will reclaim $20 to $30 billion of revenues that can be used for health care, for education, to pay for the war in Iraq, to balance the Federal budget. So I just want all the Members to know that that is the nature of the amendment which is going to come up within the hour. It is fair. If the oil companies are going to receive such a boon out of this bill, if the gulf States are going to receive such a boon out of this bill, as much as I object to it, the least that we should be able to say is that we reclaim those revenues, and as a bonus, Mr. Rangel has inserted into the amendment, which I will be making, a provision which extends the AMT protection for 20 million Americans so their taxes do not go up next year, 2007. So with two things, you reclaim 20 to $30 billion from oil companies and you protect all taxpayers from an increase in the AMT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I only have one speaker remaining.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has already pointed out to the gentleman from Georgia that we in Massachusetts and all the rest of the States that aren't involved in this raid on the Federal treasury, are interested in putting together a real comprehensive energy policy for our country. But we have been excluded from this debate, over the 6 years of the Bush/Cheney secret energy task force, of any considerations for environmental consumer conservation-related issues. And this final bill, which comes out here on the floor, is the exclamation point on the Bush Republican energy policy. In this bill, believe it or not, and it is staggering, we are going to allow, as the gentleman from Florida just pointed out, massive new drilling for oil and gas on Federal lands. Now, the States of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi will derive $170 billion. That is right; $170 billion worth of revenues from this drilling. Now, the risk runs to Florida. We have a huge Federal deficit, which we are constantly lectured about from the White House and from the Republican side. But this will drain another $170 billion. The other 46 States in the Union, if they vote for this bill, they deserve to be lectured to on deficit reduction. But if you come from one of these four States, this is the proudest moment you will ever have in your tenure here in the House of Representatives. If you can convince 46 States to give you $170 billion as part of this Outer Continental Shelf drilling, you will never have an achievement bigger than this. If you are one of the other 46 States, you should hang your head in shame. And, by the way, this Congress has already appropriated $80 billion to help the States which have been affected by Hurricane Katrina. We will vote for more, if necessary, to help the States affected by Hurricane Katrina, $80 billion already. But don't come to us and tell us that we should shift the whole formula for who receives benefits from drilling on Federal lands and give it over to four States. Now, to the credit of the Rules Committee, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and the other Democratic Members of the Rules Committee, and I also thank the leadership from the Republican side, they have actually put in order, as part of this bill, an amendment which will be voted upon here out on the House floor. That amendment is one that has already passed the House back in May. It passed overwhelmingly: 252 of us voted for it. That amendment calls for the renegotiation of the leases that were let back in the 1990s that actually, believe it or not, do not require royalties to be paid for by ExxonMobil or other oil and gas companies. When the price of a barrel of oil goes to $50, $60, $70 a barrel, they don't even have to pay royalties to the American people for drilling on public lands. It is all windfall profits. The amendment which we will have out here to vote upon later today will require a renegotiation of all of those contracts so that the Federal taxpayer gets the benefit of the royalties and drilling on public lands when they go above $30 and $40 and $50 and $60 and $70 a barrel, and they at least will reclaim $10 or $20 billion worth of revenues that are strictly going into the pockets of the oil and gas companies right now. Right now, those oil and gas companies are tipping the American taxpayer upside down, shaking money out of their pockets, and putting it into the pockets of their own shareholders. That money should be used to reduce the Federal deficit, to pay for Medicare, for Medicaid, for educational programs. I thank the Rules Committee for putting that amendment in order. I urge the Members of Congress to support that amendment. By the way, one other bonus benefit to the Members out here, that amendment also gives a 1-year extension on relief from the alternate minimum tax. It is a good amendment. I thank the gentleman for making that possible.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me time. This bill that we are considering is an historic mistake, a mistake which will come back to haunt the United States and the world. India has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. We are asking the U.N. to isolate Iran, to force it to comply with its signature on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, not to use civilian nuclear materials in order to create a military nuclear weapon. What are we doing here today? We are saying to India, you do not have to abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at all. You never signed it, we put it on the books because of India, we know that it created an arms race with Pakistan, and instead of enforcing our own law, our own law, we are now out here going to carve out an exception. Now, what do the experts say? Well, the experts say that India produces approximately seven nuclear bombs per year, but they have a limited amount of nuclear material. What are we doing? We are going to provide the nuclear materials for their civilian nuclear program so that it will free up their domestic nuclear materials for their weapons program. What do the experts say? The experts say that is going to increase India's capacity to make nuclear weapons to 40 to 50 nuclear bombs per year. Now, people here say, well, that is fine. Why worry about it? India is a country that we trust. Well, you know who does not trust India? I will tell you who does not trust India: Pakistan does not trust India. Pakistan, the home of al-Qaeda. Pakistan, the home of A.Q. Khan, the nuclear Pied Piper, the nuclear Johnny Appleseed, who spread nuclear weapons material across the world. Here is what we have learned now: We have learned that Pakistan is constructing its own nuclear weapons manufacturing facility that will increase their capacity from 2 to 3 nuclear bombs per year to 40 to 50 nuclear bombs per year. Now, the Bush administration, as we all know, has already made a mess of our nuclear nonproliferation policy in North Korea, a mess of our nuclear nonproliferation policy in Iraq, a mess of our nuclear nonproliferation policy in Iran. And the world is now looking at us. Pakistan is looking at us. Iran is looking at us. North Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. How will we handle this challenge on the Asian subcontinent? The answer: We are just going to do away with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, because that is what this vote will be on the House floor today. We are just basically saying: It is all over. The rest of the world will not listen to us again. The consequences, the domino effect, the nuclear weapons domino effect begins here, ladies and gentlemen. It begins today. It begins with a policy that says that it is not enough for the United States to have high-tech commerce with India, to have outsourcing of our jobs to India, to have massive increases in diplomatic relations and dozens of other areas with India. No, as a gesture of our friendship with India, we are going to gut our own nuclear nonproliferation policy. Now, back in the debates of 2004, there was really only one thing that George Bush and John Kerry agreed upon, and that was that the most important issue in the world was nuclear nonproliferation. And here we are on the last day of the Republican era in the United States Congress gutting the most important policy, the policy which has kept the reins imperfectly but significantly on the spread of nuclear weapons over the last generation. And this is in a way almost the exclamation point on the end of this Republican era, on the Bush administration's efforts to control nuclear weapons. This era will be looked back at as the era where the Bush administration and the Republicans in this Congress said: Anything goes. Anything for trade with India. When asked, we will surrender our nuclear nonproliferation policy. Pakistan is now in a massive escalation of its nuclear weapons program. Al-Qaeda is headquartered in Pakistan. A.Q. Khan lives in Pakistan in a palace, still not under arrest, still not in prison, his people who helped to spread these nuclear weapons still walking the streets of Pakistan. What kind of administration do we have that instead of saying, we are going to put together a conference that deals with that issue which will threaten us here in the United States, because these materials will escalate massively in the Asian subcontinent. This is in many ways comical. I mean, it really is comical. We are going to debate the end of the nuclear nonproliferation regime in the United States for an hour on the last day of Congress. It is comical. I am scraping here to get an extra minute out of this paltry amount of time to debate what the consequences are of what we are doing. And so, yeah, this is a going-away present to the Bush administration. There has been such a mismanagement of the nuclear nonproliferation policy over these last 6 years that this probably does represent, in a crazy kind of a way, you know, the final statement. But I will tell you, we are going to come back and we will rue this day, because the Pakistanis and the Iranians, they are not going to sit on their hands and allow this to happen. They are going to look at us and they are going to say: These Americans, they preach temperance from a bar stool. They are going to say that this is an era of historic hypocrisy, where the United States expects the rest of the world to listen to us when we tell them that they should not pursue nuclear weapons, while we selectively grant exceptions to countries that never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in the first place. It is a nonsustainable policy. It will come back to haunt us, not today, not tomorrow, but there will be a day in 5 years or 10 years when everyone here today will be able to point back to this moment and say that is the day the historic mistake was made Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. For over three decades it has been the policy of the United States to restrict nuclear trade with India. Why? Because in 1974 India violated its pledges to the United States and Canada to use American and Canadian nuclear technologies only for peaceful purposes. Instead, India used our technology to develop and explode a nuclear bomb. Despite that history, despite the refusal of India to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or to honor its contractual obligations to the United States, this Administration has now undertaken to ignore the past and to ask Congress to approve legislation that will, according to nonproliferation experts from across the political spectrum, enhance India's nuclear bomb-making capacity from 7 bombs a year to over 40 bombs a year. This is exactly the reverse of what we should be doing if we are serious about reducing the spread of nuclear weapons in the world. In fact, it was India's blatant misuse of peaceful American nuclear technologies for a weapons program that prompted the Congress to radically strengthen our nonproliferation laws. And when we were done with that, we went to our allies and established new international guidelines to prevent any other country from doing what India had done: misusing imported nuclear technologies for a secret weapons program. And now, in an act fraught with hypocrisy, irony, and hubris, the Congress will approve a sweeping exception from our nonproliferation laws for the very country that prompted us to strengthen those laws. I fully support strengthening American ties with India on trade, high-tech, military cooperation, and so many other issues, but why do we need to gut our nonproliferation laws at the same time? The simple fact is that we DON'T have to gut our nonproliferation laws in order to improve our relationship with India, but the President took us into the nuclear Twilight Zone, instead. During the Conference, the Bush Administration, reportedly at New Delhi's urging, tried to strip out the few good nonproliferation provisions that the Congress inserted into what is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote a letter asking Congress to remove a requirement that India help us prevent Iran from going nuclear. I don't know what the administration was thinking, telling the Congress that we can't ask for India's help on Iran's nuclear program. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for fighting to ensure that at least an ongoing assessment of India's cooperation with U.S. and international efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions be performed, both at the time that the formal nuclear cooperation agreement is submitted to Congress and every year thereafter. While the Gentleman and I may disagree on the underlying legislation, I appreciate his efforts, and those of Chairman Hyde, to try to address this issue and to try to mitigate some of the damage that this agreement may do to our nation's nuclear nonproliferation policies. But the bottom line is that under the President's plan to fuel India's nuclear power reactors, we're going to free up their nuclear material for weapons. And just this summer, we learned that India's arch-rival Pakistan is building a huge new reactor to make nuclear bomb material. There's a nuclear arms race on in South Asia, and the United States is about to become an accomplice to this arms race. If we want the rest of the world to stop fueling the proliferation of new nuclear weapons, we had better stop throwing gasoline on the fire ourselves. The India Nuclear Deal is bad for U.S. security. It undermines U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts around the world, and it risks fueling an accelerated nuclear arms race in South Asia. Madam Speaker, this is a watershed moment for the world. If the United States goes soft on nuclear weapons proliferation, the entire world will go soft. Countries which in good faith abstained from nuclear weapons development will have a green light to go ahead following the India-U.S. model. In my view, this is a prelude to catastrophe. I cannot imagine that the House will ever again confront a vote that is so central to our leadership, our standing, our moral authority on the issue of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. I urge my colleagues to vote against this Conference Report.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that this weekend Massachusetts crowned three state football champions all from the Seventh Congressional District. The Crimson Tide of Everett, led by Coach John DiBiaso finished the season a perfect 12-0 after a 35-6 win in the Division 1 title game to capture its second Super Bowl victory since 2003. Later that afternoon, the Wayland Warriors, led by their coach Scott Parseghian took to the same field and knocked off their opponent with a convincing 28-0 victory to take home the Division lA crown, finishing the season with an unblemished 13-0 record. Finally, the mighty Vikings of Winthrop, led by their coach Tony Fucillo, rallied to a 25-8 victory in the Division 2A championship game also finishing the season a perfect 13-0. This was a huge boost to a program and a school which only a few short years ago was facing possible elimination of high school athletics all together Each of these teams finished the season ranked among the top three in Massachusetts polls. Mr. Speaker, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to the communities of Everett, Wayland and Winthrop and their student athletes and coaches for their commitment to excellence in their sports and for their hard- earned, well-deserved championship seasons.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This is an historically bad deal. President Bush has done a far better job in negotiating with the Congress to gain acceptance for this deal than he did with the Indians and getting them to accept the essentials of a real nuclear nonproliferation agreement. In this agreement, as we send nuclear materials to India and free up so that the Russians and others can do so as well, here is what is not inspected: Six of India's plutonium-producing reactors will not be inspected. Their heavy-water production facets, not inspected. Plutonium separation facilities, not inspected. Uranium mines, not inspected. Uranium enrichment facilities, not inspected. In other words, their nuclear weapons program, not inspected. This is the deal which we are cutting. This is the deal which the Congress is being asked tonight to bless. Do you know who would accept a deal like that? A.Q. Kahn would accept a deal like that for Pakistan. In fact, President Musharraf of Pakistan said to President Bush on his visit to Pakistan right after his visit to India, he said to President Bush, ``I too would like that deal that you are offering to India.'' President Bush said, ``We cannot give you that deal.'' What are we going to say when China offers that deal to Pakistan? Because they will, ladies and gentlemen. What will we say when all of those plutonium-producing reactors are not inspected? What will we say in 2 years when the Russians offer that same deal to the Iranians? What will we say to the Russians, to the Iranians? If we don't set the standard for nuclear nonproliferation here in the United States in our negotiations with our allies, do not expect there to be higher standards in the negotiations between the Chinese and their allies or the Russians and their allies. Wherever we set the standard, that is going to be the global standard. And when we turn to these other countries and we tell them, no, your standards are not high enough, they are going to call us hypocrites. Ladies and gentlemen, it is an historic night, it is an historic vote. People will look back at this as the moment when the nuclear nonproliferation regime of the world was destroyed. Vote ``no''. Vote ``no'' for history. Vote ``no'' for your conscience. When you look back, this will be one of those moments when you are glad that you voted ``no.''