Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Resolution. The Resolution before this House today engages in a rhetorical fiction. The Republican Leadership has grafted into this Resolution language which confuses the War in Iraq with the War Against Terror. Iraq did not have anything to do with the September 11th attacks. We did not invade Iraq because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq because the Bush Administration convinced Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein had acquired nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and might use them. The terrorism now taking place in Iraq is the direct result of the war, not its cause. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the facts. The fact is, this war was a very bad mistake. The Administration launched an invasion into Iraq in March of 2003 even though the Administration knew from the reports it was getting back from the IAEA and the UN inspectors that there where no nuclear or other WMDs at the sites identified by the CIA, by British Intelligence, and by other sources. Now we are bogged down in a quagmire with no end in sight. In February of this year, the President was asked when we could expect all American troops to be out of Iraq, and he replied that this was a decision for a future President and a future Iraqi government to make. In other words, if we continue to pursue the Bush Administration's policies, we will likely have troops deployed in Iraq until at least January of 2009--that's nearly three years from now! What has been the cost of this war in terms of blood? 2,500 U.S. troops killed. More than 18,400 American troops wounded. An estimated 38,000 Iraqi civilians killed. What has been the cost of this war in terms of treasure? Nearly $320 billion so far . . . Just think of all the good we could have done in this world or in this country if we had devoted $320 billion for health care, for education, for fighting poverty or creating jobs. What has been the cost in terms of America's influence around the world? It has been severely compromised. We ``cried wolf' over non-existent Iraqi WMDs, over alleged connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda; We failed to deploy enough troops to suppress the insurgency; We put inadequately trained troops in charge of Abu Ghraib prison; It's time to pursue a new direction. The Iraqis are standing up, but we are standing still, staying the course. It is time to redeploy an increasing percentage of our forces to an over-the-horizon presence, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has suggested in the legislation he introduced last year. We should not be planning on maintaining any military bases in Iraq or any long-term troop presence in that country. It is time for us to bring this war to an end, and to bring our troops home. Vote NO on this resolution because it is as much a fraud as the reasons the Bush Administration gave for invading Iraq in the first place. I urge defeat of the Resolution.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the passing of Mr. Charles Haughey, former Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland, and to offer my deepest condolences today to the Irish nation and to Mr. Haughey's family and loved ones, including especially his wife Maureen, his daughter Eimear and his sons Conor, Cian and Sean. Mr. Haughey served both his constituency and the Irish nation with distinction and honor over his 35-year career in Dail Eireann. He will be most remembered for his key roles in laying the foundations for Ireland's economic rebirth, and in promoting and furthering progress towards a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. John Hume, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, praised Haughey, saying ``he worked very closely with me in preparation for the whole movement to get a lasting peace and an end to violence with The Downing Street Declaration. He privately worked with me in the preparation of that Declaration . . . Charles Haughey made a positive contribution to ending violence and achieving peace on our streets.'' Charles Haughey was a major figure in the history of the Irish Republic, and his work for peace and prosperity at home will forever be remembered by friends of this small island so important to the history of our own country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by Reps. Anna Eshoo, Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, Jim Oberstar, Bernie Sanders, Sam Farr, Lois Capps, Jim McGovern, Betty McCollum, Bill Delahunt, Jay Inslee, John Olver and Jim Moran in introducing a bill entitled, ``No Special Tax Subsidies for Gas Guzzlers Act.'' With our budget deficit running at near record levels the federal tax incentives, it seems odd that we would find it fiscally responsible to provide incentives to purchase automobiles which are especially inefficient. In fact, this runs directly contrary to other public policy initiatives, such as the fuel economy standards and the gas guzzler tax, which were adopted to try to keep the fleet of cars on the road from using more gasoline than is necessary. Now that we have troops in the Middle East, these odd, counter-productive incentives can also be viewed as directly undermining our need to break the national addiction to imported oil. This legislation corrects two incentives which are out-of-step with the times--the SUV Tax Loophole and the Gas Guzzler Tax loophole. Some estimate suggest that if we reform either of these perverse incentives so that SUVs receive the same tax treatment as they would if they were classified as passenger vehicles, the savings would be at least $1 billion over 10 years. The federal tax code affects the purchase of heavy-duty SUVs through preferential tax treatment of depreciation for motor vehicles and passenger cars. Recently, the Congressional Research Service reviewed this situation and concluded that for a hypothetical purchase made in 2005, a businessman would realize a much higher after tax return on investment by purchasing an SUV instead of a similarly priced passenger car--$3,000 higher in the example given. ``In this treatment lies the most important tax subsidy for the purchase of these SUVs for business use.'' (``Tax Preferences for Sport Utility Vehicles,'' Guenther, Gary, Congressional Research Service, (RL32173), April 4, 2006, p. 5.) The report notes that ``there is no question that current depreciation rules favor the purchase of heavy-duty SUVs over lighter SUVs or passenger cars of comparable value. Supporting evidence can be found in the greater tax benefit to business taxpayers from buying an SUV exempt from the depreciation caps on luxury passenger cars than from buying a vehicle subject to those caps. This added benefit stems from the accelerated depreciation for heavy-duty SUVs available under IRC section 179.'' Ibid, p. 11. The Report goes on to note that when Congress moved in 2004 to reduce the expensing allowance for SUVs from $100,000 to $25,000, it may have thought it was significantly reducing the tax tilt to SUVs, but in fact ``it did little to curtail the tax preference for buying these vehicles under current depreciation rules.'' Ibid, p. 13. The legislation we are introducing today will eliminate the tax tilt so that a businessman is not led to buy the heavier vehicle by virtue of a perverse tax incentive. There may be other reasons to buy the larger vehicle, but a tax preference should not be one of them. Cars which consume excessive quantities of gas are subject to a `gas guzzler' tax which is intended to encourage automakers to produce and develop more fuel efficient vehicles. This tax has been highly effective. During the model year (MY) 2003, fewer than 100,000 (or 1.3%) of cars purchased were gas guzzlers. However, the tax is only subject to passenger vehicles, which means that SUV's escape the gas guzzler tax entirely! This bill would incorporate SUV's into the gas guzzler tax schedule that applies to other passenger vehicles. The gas guzzler tax originated with the Energy Tax Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-618), and the IRS issued the first regulations to implement it in 1980. It applies to domestic sales of automobiles by manufacturers and importers, who are required to pay the tax. IRC section 4064(b) defines an automobile as any ``four-wheeled vehicle propelled by fuel which is manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways.'' Until the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, P.L. 109-59) in August 2005, the definition of automobiles also stipulated that such vehicles have an unloaded gross vehicle weight of 6,000 pounds or less; the act repealed this weight limitation, subjecting all vehicles meeting the remaining criteria for an automobile to the tax, irrespective of their weight. Certain vehicles are exempt from the tax: namely, emergency vehicles such as ambulances and police cars, cars with a gas mileage rating of 22.5 miles per gallon (mpg) and over, and all ``light trucks'' including SUVs of all weights. Whether a gas guzzler tax is owed--and if so, the amount of the tax--depends on an automobile's combined city and highway fuel economy rating, which is defined as the average number of miles traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency. The current tax ranges from $1,000 for cars with a fuel economy rating of at least 21.5 miles per gallon but less than 22.5 miles per gallon to $7,700 for cars with a rating of less than 12.5 miles per gallon. These amounts have been in effect since the enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101- 508). In FY2004, the tax raised $141 million in revenue, up from $71 million in FY2000. Again, the Congressional Research Service analyzed the SUV exemption from the gas guzzler tax, noting that by exempting SUVs, demand for heavy-duty SUVs is likely to be greater than it would be if they were subject to the tax and buyers were forced to bear its burden. Since most heavy-duty SUVs get relatively low gas mileage, retail prices could be as much as $4,500 to $7,700 higher for many models if current law were changed to subject them to the tax and importers, manufacturers, and dealers were to pass the full amount of the tax on to buyers. In applying the gas guzzler tax to SUVs, the legislation makes certain exceptions for vehicles clearly intended for carrying heavy loads, pick up trucks with open beds, and so forth. For years we have stood idly by while watching our energy dependence soar as consumers responded to these perverse loopholes and upside-down tax incentives. The health of our environment and the safety of those purchasing small vehicles is affected adversely by giving preferences to inefficient SUVs. While we complain that China is now affecting demand for world oil, we continue to tolerate a tax code which artificially skews in favor of the purchase of the least efficient vehicles. We no longer have the luxury of ignoring this ridiculous situation. Please join us in supporting efforts to reform this self-inflicted source of wasted gasoline and oil.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I might add that I am not in opposition to the manager's amendment except to the extent to which the manager's amendment does not include language on nondiscrimination. Language which would ensure that all parts of a community receive the lower cable rates, not just the good parts of town where the telephone companies are going to deploy. There is no provision in here that deals in a meaningful way with net neutrality to ensure that the Internet as we know it is preserved, protected for the future, that entrepreneurs know that they can have access to it without having to pay a discriminatory entry fee, that the telephone companies cannot tip these entrepreneurs upside down and shake money out of their pockets. That is the problem that I have with the manager's amendment. It is not that I object to what is in it. It is really what is not in it, what should have been included, what would have led to this bill being characterized as a bill which was balanced. By the way, the bill which we had agreed upon on a handshake deal, Democrats and Republicans, was a balanced bill. It did include protections for the Internet. It did include protections for rate payers. But all of that, obviously, was objected to by the Bell companies. Let me just make this point once again. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the creation of the Internet. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the development of the World Wide Web. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the browser in its development. In fact, AT&T was asked if they wanted to build the Internet, the packet switch network in 1966. They turned the contract down when the government went to them. And so a company named BB&N, Bolt, Betranick and Newman got the contract. It was a very small company, not AT&T. They have had nothing to do with the development of the Internet, but now at this late date, they want to come in and to create these bottleneck control points that allow them to extract Internet taxes, Internet fees from companies and individuals who have been using the Internet for a generation. It is this absence of nondiscriminatory language in the manager's amendment and in the bill to which I object, and I think as time goes on and, obviously, the majority has been unwilling to have this debate in the full light of day. We will be finishing this some time around midnight. And the key amendments, of course, were not even put in order for us to debate, with the exception of net neutrality which we will have 10 minutes to the proponents of net neutrality to make their case. You can barely explain the concept in 10 minutes, much less have a full debate on what the implications of it are. But that is all part of the plan by the telephone companies and the Republican majority not to have a full debate on it. But the consequences for our country are going to be dramatic in the long run. It has taken a long time to get to this point where America has been the leader in the Internet. And tonight monopolies have arrived, finally, belatedly, as they have come to understand this technology. But a little bit of history is important to understand. They never purchased their first foot of fiber optic until the government broke up AT&T in 1984. They never deployed their first broadband technology until 1997 after we passed the Telecommunications Act. It has always taken the government to ensure that AT&T, these telephone companies, do, in fact, innovate, such as the word can be used, when you are describing a telephone company. The real storyline over the last 20 years has been hundreds of thousands of smaller companies using the Internet, innovating on the Internet, creating jobs and revolutionizing not only our own country's ability to communicate and create jobs, but the rest of the world's as well. So I do not object to the manager's amendment for what is in it but rather for what is not in it. And, unfortunately, the same thing can be said for amendments which are not going to be debated here tonight because of the Republican recalcitrance, their unwillingness to have a full blown debate on perhaps the central growth issue that we will have before the Congress on this session. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a failure. It fails the challenge to ensure that this broadband technology will be deployed in every neighborhood in America. The Bell Companies oppose it, and the Republicans are not going to allow us to even have that debate here on the House floor. Why is it important? Because in a post-GATT, post-NAFTA world, we have to make sure that every family and every child in every family has access to this high tech skillset which can only come from access to this broadband technology. The telephone companies do not want the responsibility to build out into the poor side of the town, the Republicans have not built that responsibility into the bill, and they have prohibited the Democrats from making that amendment. And their bill also fails the Internet. It fails the nondiscriminatory history of the Internet which has required, which has made possible for entrepreneurs and individuals on a nondiscriminatory basis, to use the Internet. We want to have a debate on net neutrality. All the Republicans are willing to give to the proponents of the Net neutrality, the central constitutional protection built into the Internet for the last 20 years, is 10 minutes. That is a disgrace. The whole way we are making this bill is really a tribute to the Republican control of Congress and their lack of willingness to have full and open debate on the most important post-GATT, post-NAFTA issues we could debate, the access to a 21st century skillset and the ability for entrepreneurs to use the information superhighway to create the new jobs. I urge a ``no'' vote on final passage on this bill.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. MARKEY. Could I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, here is the really perverse part of this. The telephone company is going to come into town, and they are going to start offering lower rates on the good part of town, as they are delivering the service. The people on the other side of town, the poorer part of town, are going to say, hey, do we get the lower rates too in town? Because under the cable-negotiated agreement with the city, everyone got the same rate in town. Well, the telephone company will not offer that same lower rate to the other part of the town, only to the people on the good part of town, which is where they are going. So we said to the majority, the Republicans, well, let's make sure everyone in town gets that lower rate, because now we know what the rate should be for that community, because they are offering it to the good side of town. The Republicans say, oh, no, we are not going to give the lower rate to the poor side of town where the telephone company is not going to, because they are not going there. And the cable industry says, fine, we are going to raise rates on that side of town because the telephone company is telling us we are not going there. So we are going to have again this crazy situation where they are going to the homes, and we are going to wind up with this perverse result where they are going to the good side of town, they are going to the good communities. They are going to have lower cable rates because they are going to have competition. And the telephone companies have told us over and over and over again they are not going to the other side of town. They are not going to the poorer communities, and we object to any amendment by Democrats on the floor that will make us do the poor part of town, that will make us go to the other side of town. We are going to fight it and we are going to ask the Republicans to not even allow for a debate on the House floor that will help the people on the poor side of town get the lower rates. That is what this bill at its heart is all about tonight, the ability of the telephone companies to cherry-pick the wealthiest families in America to have competing cable service.

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

Mr. MARKEY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. This is a historic bill. Without question, the Republican majority is not respecting the importance of the issue. Tonight, we will have a debate on net neutrality that will last 20 minutes, 10 minutes on either side. That is, without question, a disgrace. We debate week after week out here on the House floor, namings of post offices that each get 40 minutes. Here we are talking about an engine of economic growth which has transformed our economy and the global economy over the last 15 years. And it has done so with provisions which guaranteed nondiscrimination to the smallest players being able to enter with their ideas and communicate across our country and across the globe. What the Republicans are doing tonight is they are refusing to have a debate on who is going to be benefited from it. That is, will the telephone companies be responsible for building-out across all communities? Their bill says you don't have to, and they won't allow us an amendment out here on the floor so that we can have that debate. Will there be redlining? We believe there should not be. The Republicans refuse to allow Hilda Solis's amendment out here on the floor so we can have a full debate on it. Will there be a bill that passes tonight which is defeatist in terms of entrepreneurs and equal access, democratization of access to opportunity because of access to this new technology in every part of the community? Or will it be a bill that has a future orientation, looking ahead over the next century as to who Americans are going to be, what the nature of our economy is going to be in terms of these entrepreneurs playing this change agent role? Or will we have this bill that has been put together behind closed doors with the most powerful three or four companies in America, the telephone companies who had nothing to do with the construction of the Internet?

Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, so again we hear the argument that this is going to lower cable rates. And it will lower cable rates, I don't deny that, on the good side of town, which is where they are going with their Harvard Business School 3-by-5 card, ``go to the wealthy side of town and offer them a package of broadband services to compete against the cable companies.'' Rates are going down. But the problem is on the other side of town, once this bill passes, once the telephone company comes into town, the cable company is no longer bound by the agreement that it made with the city. So the cable industry, and they testified to this in the committee, they can then raise rates on the parts of town that the telephone company is not going to go to and provide cable service. So you are going to wind up with this incredible situation where we, that is, Congressmen in our parts of town, we are going to have lower cable rates. But people on the other side of town, and you don't have to be a summa cum laude, you from Harvard Business School, to understand this, the people on the other side of town are not going to get this service, because obviously the Republicans are protecting AT&T and Verizon by prohibiting us having this discussion here on the floor. They won't even let the discussion take place, because they know that is what is going to happen, that the other side of town isn't going to get this service, because AT&T doesn't want us to have to mandate that if they are going into the town, they just can't cherry-pick the good parts of town. They are going to have to do everybody. And if they don't do everybody, what do you think is going to happen when there is no competition? Rates are going up in that part of town, because that part of the town will be a monopoly.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute at this time. Mr. Chairman, let me explain one of the real problems with this bill. In testimony before the Commerce Committee on this legislation, I asked the head of the national cable industry what they would do once this bill passed, and the answer was quite revealing. They said that after this bill passes, since the telephone companies are going to go into the wealthy side of town in order to deploy their new broadband systems, that under the legislation they no longer had any responsibility to serve the whole community. They had no responsibility to continue to upgrade on the other side of the town, which the cable industry is already serving, because every mayor always extracted that from every cable company as they came into town. So we are going to wind up with a perverse situation where the cable industry on the poor side of town is able to raise rates because the telephone companies won't promise to go there and actually compete against the cable company. And the Republicans oppose even having a debate on the House floor in order to accomplish that, and so we wind up with a situation where the wealthy people are going to have two competitors and have lower rates, and the poor people are going to have only one company that is saying they are going to raise rates because there will be no competition. It is a perverse result for cable subscribers in America.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for raising this very important issue, and really, since the beginning of my career on the Telecommunications Subcommittee, working with Mickey Leland from your district, adding in language that ensured a larger percentage of minority participation in legislation, it is without question a high goal. What I think we all want to be sure of here is that in communities it does not take resources away from municipalities that might have gone to those very same communities, but I think we can work together in order to accomplish that.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, is there anything left with the Contract With America? Is that an appropriate parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, under the rules, is it the Congressional Budget Office that determines whether or not an item is an unfunded mandate or not?

Mr. MARKEY. And in this instance, has the CBO not determined that there is an unfunded mandate that could be upwards of 500 million to 1.5 billion on cities and towns over the next 5 years?

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, and its chairman Dr. Hans Blix, on the release of their major report entitled, ``Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms.'' I urge my colleagues to consider and heed the vital recommendations put forward by Dr. Blix and the Commission. At a time when the spread of weapons of mass destruction endangers all of humanity and the international community struggles to find unity in the face of this threat, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission shows us a way forward to a WMD-free future. As the former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Dr. Blix is uniquely well-qualified to speak on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and we would do well to listen closely. I would recommend that all of my colleagues read this important and timely report. I ask that a summary of the Report's principal recommendations be inserted into the Record at this point. Weapons of Terror--Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms Synopsis Why Action Is Necessary: Nuclear, biological and chemical arms are the most inhumane of all weapons. Designed to terrify as well as destroy, they can, in the hands of either states or non-state actors, cause destruction on a vastly greater scale than any conventional weapons, and their impact is far more indiscriminate and long-lasting. So long as any state has such weapons--especially nuclear arms--others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain in any state's arsenal, there is a high risk that they will one day be used, by design or accident. Any such use would be catastrophic. Notwithstanding the end of the Cold War balance of terror, stocks of such weapons remain extraordinarily and alarmingly high: some 27,000 in the case of nuclear weapons, of which around 12,000 are still actively deployed. Weapons of mass destruction cannot be uninvented. But they can be outlawed, as biological and chemical weapons already have been, and their use made unthinkable. Compliance, verification and enforcement rules can, with the requisite will, be effectively applied. And with that will, even the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is not beyond the world's reach. Over the past decade, there has been a serious, and dangerous, loss of momentum and direction in disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. Treaty making and implementation have stalled and, as a new wave of proliferation has threatened, unilateral enforcement action has been increasingly advocated. In 2005 there were two loud wake-up calls in the failure of the NPT Review Conference and in the inability of the World Summit to agree on a single line about any WMD issue. It is critical for those calls to be heeded now. What Must Be Done: The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission makes many specific and detailed recommendations throughout its report (see Annex 1 for a consolidated list). The most important of them are summarized below. 1. Agree on general principles of action: Disarmament and non-proliferation are best pursued through a cooperative rule-based international order, applied and enforced through effective multilateral institutions, with the UN Security Council as the ultimate global authority. There is an urgent need to revive meaningful negotiations, through all available intergovernmental mechanisms, on the three main objectives of reducing the danger of present arsenals, preventing proliferation, and outlawing all weapons of mass destruction once and for all. States, individually and collectively, should consistently pursue policies designed to ensure that no state feels a need to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Governments and relevant intergovernmental organizations and nongovernment actors should commence preparations for a World Summit on disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction to generate new momentum for concerted international action. 2. Reduce the danger of present arsenals: no use by states--no access by terrorists: Secure all weapons of mass destruction and all WMD-related material and equipment from theft or other acquisition by terrorists. Take nuclear weapons off high-alert status to reduce the risk of launching by error; make deep reductions in strategic nuclear weapons; place all non-strategic nuclear weapons in centralized storage; and withdraw all such weapons from foreign soil. Prohibit the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, and phase out the production of highly enriched uranium. Diminish the role of nuclear weapons by making no-first-use pledges, by giving assurances not to use them against non- nuclear-weapon states, and by not developing nuclear weapons for new tasks. 3. Prevent proliferation: no new weapon systems--no new possessors: Prohibit any nuclear-weapon tests by bringing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty into force. Revive the fundamental commitments of all NPT parties: the five nuclear-weapon states to negotiate towards nuclear disarmament and the non-nuclear-weapon states to refrain from developing nuclear weapons. Recognize that countries that are not party to the NPT also have a duty to participate in the disarmament process. Continue negotiations with Iran and North Korea to achieve their effective and verified rejection of the nuclear-weapon option, while assuring their security and acknowledging the right of all NPT parties to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Explore international arrangements for an assurance of supply of enriched uranium fuel, and for the disposal of spent fuel, to reduce incentives for national facilities and to diminish proliferation risks. 4. Work towards outlawing all weapons of mass destruction once and for all: Accept the principle that nuclear weapons should be outlawed, as are biological and chemical weapons, and explore the political, legal, technical and procedural options for achieving this within a reasonable time. Complete the implementation of existing regional nuclear- weapon-free zones and work actively to establish zones free of WMD in other regions, particularly and most urgently in the Middle East. Achieve universal compliance with, and effective implementation of, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and speed up the destruction of chemical weapon stocks. Achieve universal compliance with, and effective implementation of, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and improve cooperation between industry, scientists and governments to reinforce the ban on the development and production of biological weapons and to keep abreast of developments in biotechnology. Prevent an arms race in space by prohibiting any stationing or use of weapons in outer space.