Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report on the USA PATRIOT reauthorization Act. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee since its creation almost 3 years ago, I understand the importance of providing our Nation's counter-terror and law enforcement officers with the capabilities to act aggressively to detect and deter terrorist attacks. As Co-Chairman of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, I remain concerned about government encroachments into the private lives of innocent Americans, which can undermine the principles of liberty, freedom of association and protection from unjust searches and seizures that have been embedded in our Constitution and culture. Clearly, the interests of security and privacy must be balanced. Unfortunately, this conference report does not strike the appropriate balance, and I cannot support it. The conference report fails to include essential privacy protections that had been included in the Senate version of this legislation. Specifically, the Senate-passed bill contained key safeguards not included in the conference report regarding the PATRIOT Act's use of so-called ``National Security Letters'' and ``business and library records''. Madam Speaker, as you know, National Security Letters are, in effect, a form of secret administrative subpoena. They are issued by Federal authorities, most often the FBI, without any court supervision, and recipients are prohibited from telling anyone that they have been served. These letters represent a counter-terror tool that must be carefully and judiciously used, provided their secretive nature outside the traditional judicial process. Unlike the Senate-passed bill, however, the conference report does not provide meaningful judicial review of a National Security Letter's gag order. The conference report requires a court to accept as conclusive the government's assertion that a gag order should not be lifted, unless the court determines the government is acting in bad faith. Despite strong opposition to this provision, House Republicans refused to strip it out of the conference report. House Republicans also refused, as an alternative, to impose a sunset on National Security Letter authorities. Such a sunset provision would have ensured closer oversight of, and public accountability for, the use of National Security Letters. The conference report eliminated key protections in the Senate-passed bill regarding the ``business and library records'' provisions. Under the conference report, the government can compel the production of business and library records merely upon the showing that the records are ``relevant'' to a terrorism investigation. By contrast, the Senate- passed bill required the government to show that the records have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. This is a commonsense protection that would not restrict government capabilities, but would prevent government overreaching and fishing expeditions. The House-Senate conference committee had an opportunity to adjust the PATRIOT Act's expiring provisions to protect the rights and liberties of all Americans more effectively. Regrettably, this opportunity was lost and the conference report we are considering today does not contain key privacy protections that had been included in the Senate-passed bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report and support the Democratic substitute offered by Ranking Member Conyers, which strikes the proper balance between security and privacy.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). Last month, 64 Members of this body joined with me in signing a letter urging the Appropriations Committee to say ``no'' to torture and ``yes'' to the McCain and Markey amendments as part of the Defense Appropriations Conference. The McCain amendment, which is the subject of this motion, will prevent the use of inhuman interrogation practices. The Markey amendment will prevent the use of funds in contravention of the UN Convention Against Torture. We need to send a signal to the administration and the rest of the world that we will not dodge our treaty obligations to our international allies under the U.N. Convention Against Torture. We do not support the use of torture as an interrogation method. Torture is morally wrong. Always. And without exception. Not only is torture wrong, confessions obtained from torture are useless. A prisoner will say anything to stop their own suffering. If we do not approve both the McCain and Markey amendments, we will set a precedent that torture is okay for all and open up our own troops to face torture at the hands of our enemies. Our troops already face enough risks. Shouldn't we protect them any way we can? Furthermore, if we reduce ourselves to use the methods that we condemn terrorists for using, we lose our moral high ground. We have always been a beacon to the rest of the world on human rights and the rule of law. Should we change hundreds of years of history for this administration? Reports of ``black sites'' where detainees in US custody are rendered without a trace come on top of reports of prisoner abuse and even death from the use of torture in U.S.-run prisons such as Abu Ghraib. We criticize countries like Syria and Uzbekistan even as our CIA secretly sends detainees to be interrogated by the secret police of these very same human rights violators. It seems obvious, that as a civilized nation, we should not fund torture, use torture as an interrogation tool, or ask other countries to torture for us, yet, for reasons beyond my imagination, we are still discussing this arcane, abhorrent practice today. The adoption of the McCain and Markey amendments is an important step towards both restoring our nation's reputation for respecting human rights and preventing shameful abuses similar to those that occurred in Abu Ghraib. We can not tolerate torture by any U.S. official. It is blood on all of our hands, on our countries good name. I support the McCain and Markey amendments and urge the conferees to do so as well.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for from Michigan for holding this Special Order, this well-deserved Special Order. I have had the privilege of serving on the Energy and Commerce Committee for 30 years with Mr. Dingell, and I have seen him through three energy crises, two Clean Air Acts, a complete rewrite of the 1934 Communications Act, the creation of Super Fund, on and on and on and on. And he is, without question, going to go down as one of the great congressmen who have ever served in the history of this institution. And I am not going to go through the entire litany, but what I am going to do is, because I had a front-row seat all those years, and these years continue, and what I am about to describe to the Members continues even this week in the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am just going to take the Members back through time and give them some idea of what happens on our committee on a regular basis because, before John Dingell was elected to Congress, he was an assistant District Attorney in the State of Michigan where he learned many skills, including the art of inducing recalcitrant witnesses into cooperating. Some of my most memorable moments as his colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee have occurred as an observer of this talent, judiciously but forcefully applied, to those who over the years have accepted invitations to give testimony on one subject or another before the Energy and Commerce Committee. I have kept a little list of some of the more effective rhetorical gambits, verbal jabs, crosses and haymakers that tend to leave the witness to whom they are directed a little stunned just as he or she is being called upon to respond. I have culled the list to bring some of the best, which I humbly share with the Members tonight as we celebrate a public life whose tenure in service is as long as its beneficial impact on America is wide and deep. Mr. Speaker, I give you the top ten John Dingell hearing questions that mean you are in real trouble. Number ten: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Number nine: Would the gentleman yield for a few questions, as I am trying to better understand where the witness is going, what the witness is saying? Number eight: Does the very distinguished gentleman know how much affection and respect that I have for him? Number seven: Perhaps if I direct a few questions to the distinguished majority counsel, we might be able to shed a little light on the gentleman's proposal. Number six: Is the witness at all familiar with the Tucker Act? Number five: I hear what you are saying, but what are you telling me? Number four: That is an excellent answer but not to the question that I asked. Number three: I am just a poor Polish lawyer. Perhaps you could help explain a few things to me? Number two: Did you happen to know that my father wrote that law? And the number one John Dingell hearing question that means that you are in real trouble: Did you know that I wrote that law? Mr. Speaker, one of the great congressmen of all time is being honored on his 50th but not by far his last year in this institution. May he stay here forever. I thank all here for honoring this gentleman tonight. And I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for holding this Special Order.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we must prevent Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Goss from carving out a special exemption for the CIA to the McCain amendment barring torture, a Bush-Cheney-Goss EZ pass around the law. But we should also realize that even if we ban torture by U.S. Government agencies, the CIA is likely to increase the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition, where they seize or kidnap suspects and send them to countries like Syria or Uzbekistan which are likely to subject the prisoners to torture. The Secretary of State just flew around Europe trying to explain why the United States is continuing to snatch citizens off the streets of Italy and Germany and fly them on CIA planes to secret prisons where they may be tortured. Earlier this year, I attached an amendment to the defense authorization bill to stop this practice. If we want to shut down the fast lane for torturers, we need to adopt both the McCain amendment on torture and the Markey amendment barring the outsourcing of torture to countries that do torture around the world in the name of the United States of America and the CIA.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this $56 billion tax break, mostly for millionaires in our country. Forty-five percent of this tax break goes to the ultra rich in our country, the top 1 percent average getting $32,000 apiece in tax breaks out of this bill. So how do they get the money? Well, last month, the Republicans lectured us on the need to have fiscal discipline. They had to cut Medicaid for the poorest seniors and kids. They had to cut student loans for children across our country. They had to cut the food stamp program for kids. But guess what? The amount of money that they were cutting on food stamps and Medicaid and health care services and student loans is exactly equal to the amount of money they are giving in tax breaks to millionaires. In other words, every dollar that is cut out of the Medicaid program is going to be put over here into tax breaks for millionaires. $50 billion. $50 billion cut in Medicaid and student loans, $50 billion in tax cuts for the rich. For health care programs, as they cut the health care programs, it goes over here today on a tax cut for millionaires. When they cut student loans the money comes from kids and it is going over here to millionaires. And by the way, they are $6 billion short, so they are just going to increase the deficit. Why? So they can give more tax breaks over here to millionaires. More tax breaks for millionaires. Cut poor people, cut children, cut Medicaid benefits, cut the money that we are going to be giving to seniors, to keep them in nursing homes with Alzheimer's and with Parkinson's disease, just keep cutting it. Give more tax breaks to the millionaires. Something is going to have to be cut. They cut the poorest. They cut the most vulnerable. They cut the youngest. And where does the money go? The money goes to millionaires. That is what this whole thing is about. It is one big scam. You know, there is an old joke. The priest goes up into the pulpit on Sunday and he says, on Wednesday, Father O'Brien will lecture on the evils of gambling in the church hall. On Thursday in the church hall, bingo. Last month the Republicans lectured us on the need for them to cut poor people to do something about the deficit. Today, bingo. Tax cuts for the millionaires. Every millionaire is a winner in America under the Republicans' plan. But the money is all coming from the poorest people in our country and it is going over into the hands of those who need it least. Vote no on this Republican atrocity in our country at a time when the poor need it the most and the rich need it the least. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) was a hero in Vietnam. The gentleman is a hero today. We know that the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about nuclear weapons in Iraq, about al Qaeda in Iraq. And now out here on the House floor, in a continuation of their deliberate misleading of the American public, they are refusing to have a debate on the Murtha resolution. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has called for a debate on the redeployment of troops consistent with protecting their security and the security of our country and maintaining over the horizon forces to protect our country, to promote democracy and diplomacy that will protect our country. What this group of Republicans, what the Bush-Cheney White House is doing today is a continuation of the perpetuation of the fraud on the American public. This is not the debate on the Murtha resolution. This is an attempt to undermine the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), to continue their attempt to undermine any critic of their administration rather than having a real debate on the war in Iraq that serves the American people, the American fighting men and women, and every single person in the world. I have known Jack Murtha for nearly 30 years and I have enormous respect for his patriotism and his expertise on military matters. I've heard Jack Murtha speak about what is going on in Iraq and about the adverse effect that this war is having on our troops and our Nation's security. I agree with him that it is time for us to start bringing our troops home, and I support his proposal to do so. This is a war that was based on false and misleading intelligence from the Bush Administration about Iraqi nuclear weapons, and which has been bungled at almost every stage by incompetence and mismanagement on the part of the White House and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon. Our brave troops deserve better than to be asked to continue risking their lives for a mistake. At this point it has become clear that our troop presence in Iraq is making the situation over there worse, not better. The Iraqi people need to know that the U.S. is going to end its occupation of their country, and that they need to assume responsibility for their own security. We should get our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, consistent with ensuring their safety. Instead of continuing this diversion, which has only harmed America's international reputation, we should refocus our nation's energies on capturing Osama bin Laden and disrupting and destroying the Al Qaeda terrorist organization that was responsible for the September 11th attacks.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, what we have going on here tonight is a huge con game. That is what the Republicans are playing on the American public. A re-con-ciliation game. What they do, these Republicans, is they cut the money from Medicaid. Sixty percent of all seniors are on Medicaid in nursing homes. One third of all babies born in the United States are born on Medicaid. They are cutting student loans. They are cutting money from food stamps for poor people. They tell us they want to reduce the deficit. But, no, their money goes over to the ``ways and means'' Republicans who are giving a $50 billion tax break to the wealthiest Americans. Fifty-three percent of the dividends of the capital gains breaks go to the fat cat Republicans. And then because they are not happy with that, they borrow another $7 billion for more tax breaks, increasing the deficit, which will bring them back here next year with crocodile tears about how much they care about the deficit, which will bring them back to the poor people, seniors in nursing homes, one third of all babies, student loans, for more tax breaks to give away to the wealthiest in America. It is a re-con-ciliation game they are playing. They do not care about the deficit. They only care about these Republican fat-cat millionaires who are getting this money after all of the programs for the poorest seniors and children and students in America are cut as they increase the deficit, a con game where they increase the deficit while taking the money from the poorest in our country. Vote ``no'' on this re-con-ciliation con game where the crocodile tears will be shed for the rest of the night about how much they care about the deficits when all it is, is a way to transfer money to every millionaire in America. Vote ``no'' on this con game.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Conference Report. This bill inadequately funds virtually every area of need. It slashes $1.5 billion from our country's critical health, human services, education and labor programs. While the Bush administration has never fully funded the No Child Left Behind Act, this bill goes a step further by actually cutting total Federal education funding for the first time in a decade--cutting No Child Left Behind by $14 billion below the authorized level, slashing special education, safe and drug free schools, education technology grants and freezing the maximum Pell grant award for the fourth year in a row despite rising tuition costs. While people are trying to get re-trained because their jobs have been outsourced overseas, this bill cuts adult job training by $31 million and youth job training by $36 million. At a time when we are trying to prepare our country for the aging of the baby boomers and threat of pandemic flu, this bill cuts funding for healthcare. It cuts the CDC's budget by $249 million and provides the smallest percentage increase to NIH--less than 1 percent--since 1970. It doesn't provide any money for pandemic flu preparedness and eliminates 10 critical health care programs, including trauma care and the health community access program and cuts the health professions training grants by 69 percent making it even harder to recruit qualified health professionals. The bill before us today would also freeze funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, LIHEAP, at $2.18 billion, counting both basic formula grants and emergency grants--the FY 2005 level. LIHEAP serves about 5 million households, the majority of which have at least one member who is elderly, disabled, or a child under age five. LIHEAP appropriations have failed to keep up with rapid increases in energy costs over the past several years. The conference report is freezing LIHEAP even though consumers are expected to pay 52 percent more for natural gas, 30 percent more for home heating oil, and 11 percent more for electricity this winter. Back in August, the Republican majority heralded the passage of their massive energy bill, a bill that contained $14 billion in tax breaks-- most of them for wealthy oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries. At the time, they argued that their bill was ``balanced'' because, among other things, it provided $5.1 billion in annual authorizations for the LIHEAP program. But now, in this bill, we see that Republicans are not willing to fully fund LIHEAP. Under this bill, the Republicans would freeze LIHEAP funding at last year's level, despite the skyrocketing prices consumers will be paying for natural gas and home heating oil this winter. Later today, the Republicans will be bringing up their Reconciliation bill, a bill that provides an additional $1 billion for LIHEAP. But in the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Republicans voted against an amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, and myself to increase LIHEAP funding up to the full $5.1 billion level. The Republican leadership isn't even going to allow Democrats to offer an amendment to increase LIHEAP funding up to that level. The Republicans won't fully fund LIHEAP because they have other priorities. Their budget makes that quite clear. Tax cuts for millionaires, tax cuts for the giant oil companies, weakening environmental regulations for their business cronies. Those are the priorities for the Republican-controlled Congress. Funding for education, health care and low-income home energy assistance so that seniors on fixed incomes, and poor families can heat their homes this winter, are not their priorities. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Wayne Jaquith upon the occasion of his impending retirement. Over the last two decades, Wayne Jaquith has worked tirelessly to advance the cause of peace, security and disarmament. Since June of 1999, he has coordinated the Peace and Security Funders Group, an organization which works with various philanthropic organizations interested in peace and disarmament issues. From December 1997 through May 1999, Wayne founded and ran the Peace Philanthropy Project, which sought to cultivate new philanthropy on peace and security issues. In 2002, Wayne also co-founded the Iraq Peace Fund, and served on its distribution committee. He also has been a consultant to W. Alton Jones Foundation, Ploughshares Fund and Turner Foundation. Until July 1997, Wayne was president and founder of National Security News Service, Natural Resources News Service and Public Education Center. From 1989 through 1992, he served first as vice president and then as president of Council for a Livable World Education Fund, and as Boston director of Council for a Livable World. From 1978 through 1988, Wayne served successively as executive director of Nantucket Land Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Control and Ploughshares Fund. He was co-founder of many coalitions including Professionals Coalition for Nuclear Arms Control, Coalition for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers and the Arms Transfer Working Group. Wayne has been an invaluable asset to the peace and disarmament community for many years. He will be missed. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, in the coming weeks, Democrats will be laying out a comprehensive energy strategy and a vision for America's energy future. Today, Representative Rahm Emanuel and I are beginning that process by introducing a bill that would impose a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. The Windfall Profits and Consumer Assistance Act of 2005 would impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies on oil sold above $40 a barrel. Our bill would then use half of the revenue generated by this tax to fund a tax rebate for all American consumers to help them deal with their high gas and energy costs. Our bill would use the other half of the tax revenue to supplement funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program that helps poor families and seniors of fixed incomes pay their energy bills. Now, more than ever, huge sums of money are gushing into the pockets of the oil and gas industry. Exxon and Shell recently reported third quarter profits that were $2 and $3 billion more than the greatest quarterly profits we have ever seen, from any company, in the history of the world. These historic profits are coming as the result of oil prices that are currently around $60 a barrel and have recently been near $70 a barrel. Meanwhile, American consumers are facing astronomical prices at the pump and with winter coming, an impending home heating crisis. According to projections in the Energy Information Administration's recently released ``Short-Term Energy Outlook and Winter Fuels Outlook,'' home heating oil prices are likely to be 31.5 percent higher than they were last year. This increase translates into an average consumer expenditure of $1,577--an increase of $378 over last winter. Moreover, last year only 15.6 percent of households eligible for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program nationwide were served. We can and must do better in addressing the additional burden that both average consumers and low-income consumers will face as a result of the current price increases. Our bill would take a portion of the historic high profits that oil companies are making and use it to help the millions of American consumers who are bearing the brunt of high energy costs. Our bill will help reverse the Bush Administration's policy to ``Leave No Oil Company Behind'' and would provide relief to American consumers who are paying the price for the Republican Party's energy mistakes.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the conference report has deleted all funding for the nuclear bunker buster program. This action reflects the second time that the Congress has decided to reject the Bush administration's request for this dangerous and unnecessary weapon, and I am hopeful that this action will end the debate on this issue once and for all. The United States faces a serious national security threat from the proliferation of nuclear weapons materials and technologies, most notably in North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. The pursuit of new nuclear weapons such as the Bush administration's proposed nuclear bunker buster sends a dangerously mixed signal to the rest of the world and erodes our nonproliferation credibility. Nations that see the U.S. expanding and diversifying our nuclear arsenal are encouraged to seek or maintain nuclear deterrents of their own and ignore nonproliferation obligations. Additionally, a U.S. move toward expanding and diversifying our nuclear stockpile is contrary to our legal obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT, which clearly requires the United States to work toward reducing our nuclear arsenal. In light of the adverse impact of the pursuit of the nuclear bunker buster and any other new nuclear weapon on international nonproliferation efforts, the fact that the bunker buster would inevitably spread high levels of radiation above ground, and existing U.S. earth-penetrating and other conventional weapons capabilities, the Bush administration's proposed nuclear bunker buster study and the development of any new nuclear weapons are a dangerous and wasteful use of taxpayer money. While I am pleased at the outcome on the bunker buster, I am very concerned that this appropriations bill provides $80 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative--an increase of $10 million over the amount requested for this program. In addition, the bill provides an additional $50 million in nuclear waste disposal funding to support development of a spent nuclear fuel recycling plan. These proposals are aimed at reviving nuclear reprocessing--an idea that Congress has considered and rejected in the past. The conference report contains language that directs the Department of Energy to use this money to accelerate the development of a separations technology that can address the current inventories of commercial spent nuclear fuel and select the preferred technology no later than the end of fiscal year 2007. Essentially, the Appropriations Committee is telling DOE that it doesn't believe Yucca Mountain will ever be opened, so it now wants the Department to instead embark on a crash program to start reprocessing nuclear waste. I warned back in 1987 that the decision to limit the search for a deep underground repository to the Yucca Mountain site and to bar examination of other alternative sites was a risky one. If Yucca Mountain proved unsuitable, or if it could not meet the NRC's licensing requirements, then our country efforts to find a solution to the nuclear waste problem would be forced back to square one. Now, it appears that my warnings are being borne out. The Yucca Mountain repository is falling apart in the face of serious scientific and technical problems. But rather than come back to Congress and ask for legislation that would reopen the search for a permanent repository, which the nuclear industry and its supporters in Congress know would be politically hazardous, the appropriators now appear to be effectively abandoning the notion of deep underground burial. Instead, they want to reprocess the waste and store it in above ground ``interim'' storage facilities. Now, you would think that such a fundamental rewrite of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act would actually require action by the committee that actually has jurisdiction over the act in the first place. In the House, that would be the Energy and Commerce Committee. However, in this bill the directive to prioritize reprocessing is being made without any participation by the Energy and Commerce Committee. The committee doesn't even get a copy of the report mandated by the Appropriations conferees. Yes, there was language in the Energy Policy Act which authorized R&D on reprocessing. I opposed that language, and sought unsuccessfully to remove it from the bill. But R&D is far different from moving to full- scale engineering of reprocessing technologies with a short-term deployment objective. That is what is being proposed in the bill before us today. This conference report is actually talking about setting a target for site selection in fiscal year 2007, and a target for initiation of construction of one or more integrated spent fuel recycling facilities in fiscal year 2010. This has enormous implications for the future of efforts to permanently dispose of the Nation's nuclear waste in a deep underground repository. It effectively means that there will be no deep underground repository. It effectively means that there will be no deep underground burial of waste in our lifetimes. So, all of the billions paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund over the years will soon see those funds be diverted over to supporting this new unproven and risky scheme of reprocessing. This is a huge policy shift. Since the 1970's we have had a policy in this country against reprocessing spent fuel, both because of the risk of nonproliferation and because reprocessing is not economical. In recent years, Republican leaders in Washington have decided they want to undo that policy, however. I am fundamentally opposed to reprocessing, because I believe that a revival of domestic reprocessing would undermine America's nuclear nonproliferation efforts, cost us enormous amounts of money, will not solve the nuclear waste problem, and won't increase nuclear safety. With respect to the proliferation risks--just look at North Korea. It has been reprocessing spent fuel from its reactors to use in nuclear bombs. In response, President Bush has asked the Nuclear Suppliers Group to limit access to reprocessing technology, arguing that: This step will prevent new states from developing the means to produce fissile material for nuclear bombs. At the same time, the U.S. is confronting Iran over its plan to develop a full uranium enrichment program. How are we going to credibly ask the rest of the world to support us when we tell Iran or any other nation that they cannot have the full fuel cycle or reprocessing when we have one here at home? It just won't fly. America cannot preach nuclear temperance from a barstool. We cannot credibly tell other nations that they should refrain from reprocessing or other nuclear fuel cycle activities abroad when we are engaging in these same exact activities here at home. That is why President Gerald Ford called for an end to commercial reprocessing back in 1976, and why no President since then has successfully revived reprocessing. In addition to the serious adverse nonproliferation consequences, reprocessing also is not economical. A MIT study put the cost of reprocessing at four times that of as once-through nuclear power. The current price of concentrated uranium ``yellowcake'' in the spot market is about $53.00/kg. For reprocessing to be economical, there must be a sustained 8-fold increase in the long-term price of uranium. That is not likely to occur anytime soon. On top of that is the cost of building a plant. As a benchmark, Japan's nearly completed Rokkasho reprocessing plant--20 years in the making--costs on the order of $20 billion. I have seen some cost estimates for a U.S. reprocessing program that run as high as $65 billion. That is not something that is economically viable at a time of huge Federal budget deficites. Moreover, reprocessing will not really alleviate the nuclear waste problem. Talk to the folks at Savannah River where over 30 million gallons of high-level were left behind from reprocessing. Under this bill, Savannah River may be targeted again for interim storage for spent fuel, awaiting reprocessing. So might Hanford and Idaho or other Federal sites. The conference report states that funding in the Nuclear Waste Disposal Account will be used: to prepare the overall program plan and to initiate a competition to select one or more sites suitable for development of integrated recycling facilities (i.e., separation of spent fuel, fabrication of mixed oxide fuel, vitrification of waste products, and process storage) and initiate work on an Environmental Impact Statement. The site competition should not be limited to DOE sites, but should be open to a wide range of other possible federal and non- federal sites on a strictly voluntary basis. These reprocessing sites will become de facto nuclear waste dumps. Which State is going to ``volunteer'' to become a nuclear waste dump? Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, such a site cannot legally be located at the Yucca Mountain site. So, where is it going to go? How long will the waste be stored there? The spent nuclear fuel cannot even be handled to be reprocessed for 5 to 15 years--it is so radioactive. So we know already that ``interim storage'' could last for a very long time. And if we construct these ``interim'' waste dumps, what happens next? What will happen to all this waste when the hard reality of the disastrous economics combined with the fact that our government is already too deep in deficit that it will be unable to subsidize such a program forever? There are simply too many unanswered questions. It is also not accurate to suggest, as some do, that reprocessing is safe. Twenty tons of highly radioactive material leaked from a broken pipe at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in the United Kingdom in April of this year. Senior officials at the UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns the Sellafield reprocessing have pushed to close THORP altogether, arguing that it is more cost- effective to close the plant now rather than repair the problems only to decommission the plant as planned in 2012. Is that the kind of mess we want happening over here? When the House version of this bill was being debated on the House floor last summer, I offered an amendment which would have transferred the $15.5 million appropriated for reprocessing and interim storage to several energy efficiency priority programs that were underfunded in the bill. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated. I continue to be opposed to the reprocessing language in the bill. I intend to continue raising questions about this proposal, both in the Energy and Commerce Committee and on this floor. Finally, on another matter, I am very concerned about the cuts that have been made in energy efficiency programs in this bill. We are in the middle of an energy emergency. We had a hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee last week that showed the impact that these high prices are having across the board, in every sector of the economy. The Senate will be holding a hearing today on price gouging by big oil companies and the $100 billion in oil company profits projected for 2005. There are things that we can do in this area. What we are seeing is missed opportunities. The House Bill for the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations provided $41 million for the State Energy Program. The Senate bill provided $41 million for the State Energy Program. Now we go to conference and the conference report provides $36 million, which is $8 million below fiscal year 2005 levels--almost a 20 percent cut. We are in the midst of an energy crisis. This program implements energy efficiency programs and energy emergency preparedness activities in every State in our country. A recent National Laboratory study concluded that for every $1 invested, we get $7.22 in return in energy savings. This makes no sense. We should be increasing these programs, not cutting them.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce, along with Representatives Hart, Baca and Ford, the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, or CAMRA Act. This bill has also been introduced in the Senate by Senators Lieberman, Brownback, Clinton, Santorum, and Durbin. Our children live in the information age, and our country has one of the most powerful and sophisticated information technology systems in the world. While this system entertains them, it is not always harmless entertainment. Media have the potential to facilitate the healthy growth of our children. They also have the potential to harm. We have a stake in finding out exactly what that role is. We have a responsibility to take action. Access to the knowledge that we need for informed decision-making requires us to make an investment: An investment in research, an investment in and for our children, an investment in our collective future. The benefits to our youth and our Nation's families are immeasurable. In order to ensure that we are doing our very best for our children, the behavioral and health recommendations and public policy decisions we make should be based on objective behavioral, social, and scientific research. Yet no Federal research agency has responsibility for overseeing and setting a coherent media research agenda that can guide these policy decisions. Instead, Federal agencies fund media research in a piecemeal fashion, resulting in a patch work quilt of findings. We can do better than that. The bill we are introducing today would remedy this problem. The CAMRA Act will provide an overarching view of media effects by establishing a program devoted to Children and Media within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This program of research, to be vetted by the National Academy of Sciences, will fund and energize a coherent program of research that illuminates the role of media in children's cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and behavioral development. The research will cover all forms of electronic media, including television, movies, DVDs, interactive video games, cell phones, and the Internet, and will encourage research involving children of all ages--even babies and toddlers. The bill also calls for a report to Congress about the effectiveness of this research program in filling this void in our knowledge base. In order to accomplish these goals, we are authorizing $90 million dollars to be phased in gradually across the next 5 years. The cost to our budget is minimal and can well result in significant savings in other budget areas. This legislation has strong support among researchers and children's advocates. Ted Lempert, President of Children Now, a national nonprofit organization which for years has focused on the need for policymakers to keep pace with the rising influence of media on children, writes: ``CAMRA's establishment of a program on children and the media within the Center for Disease Control and Prevention will provide invaluable insight into the role and impact of electronic media on the children's development. Kids are spending more time with media than on any other activity except for sleeping, yet there are sizeable gaps in what we know about the role media play in children's cognitive, physical and behavioral development.'' Jim Steyer, founder and CEO of Common Sense Media, a leading non- partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to promoting a healthy media environment for children, supports CAMRA, saying ``We enthusiastically endorse the funding of coherent research which will better illuminate the role of media in children's cognitive, social, emotional, physical and behavioral development. In an increasingly digital world where convergence of technologies provides entertainment, information and interactive possibilities to consumers, there are discernable knowledge gaps about the role of media on children's healthy development.'' Michael Rich, Director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, also wrote the following in support this bill: ``As a caring society we assess and respond to the quality of the air children breathe, the water they drink, and the food they consume. You and your co-sponsors are to be commended and supported for your foresight and leadership in directing the National Institutes of Health to investigate what we are feeding our children's minds and how that is likely to affect their health and development, now and in the future.'' From the cradle to the grave, our children now live and develop in a world of media--a world that is increasingly digital, and a world where access is at their fingertips. This emerging digital world is well known to our children, but its effects on their development are not well understood. Young people today are spending an average of 6\1/2\ hours with media each day. For those who are under age 6, 2 hours of exposure to screen media each day is common, even for those who are under age 2. That is about as much time as children under age 6 spend playing outdoors, and it is much more time than they spend reading or being read to by their parents. How does this investment of time affect children's physical development, their cognitive development, or their moral values? Unfortunately, we still have very limited information about how media, particularly the newer interactive media, affect children's development. Why? We have not charged any Federal agency with ensuring an ongoing funding base to establish a coherent research agenda about the impact of media on children's lives. This lack of a coordinated government-sponsored effort to understand the effects of media on children's development is truly an oversight on our part, as the potential payoffs for this kind of knowledge are enormous. Consider our current national health crisis of childhood obesity. The number of U.S. children and teenagers who are overweight has more than tripled from the 1960's through 2002. We think that media exposure is partly the cause of this epidemic. Is it? Is time spent viewing screens and its accompanying sedentary lifestyle contributing to childhood and adolescent obesity? Or is the constant bombardment of advertisements for sugar-coated cereals, snack foods, and candy that pervade children's television advertisements the culprit? How do the newer online forms of ``stealth marketing'', such as advergaming where food products are embedded in computer games, affect children's and adolescents' eating patterns? Cell phones are one of the latest emerging high-tech gadgets to own, and cell phone/iPod combination devices are now on the market. What will happen when pop-up advertisements begin to appear on children's cell phones that specifically target them for the junk food that they like best at a place where that food is easily obtainable? The answer to the obesity and media question is complex. A committee at the National Academy of Sciences is currently charged with studying the link between media advertising and childhood obesity. Will the National Academy of Sciences panel have the data they need to answer this important question? A definitive answer has the potential to save a considerable amount of money in other areas of our budget. For example, child health care costs that are linked to childhood obesity issues could be reduced by understanding and altering media diets. After two adolescent boys shot and killed some of their teachers, classmates, and then turned their guns on themselves at Columbine High School, we asked ourselves if media played some role in this tragedy. Did these boys learn to kill in part from playing first-person shooter video games like Doom where they acted as a killer? Were they rehearsing criminal activities when playing this game? There is rising concern about extremely violent video games. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill October 7 that will prohibit the sale of ``ultraviolent'' video games to children under 18 without parental approval. In August, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution calling for less violence in computer and video games sold to children, citing research suggesting that the games contribute to aggressive behavior. The Federal Trade Commission reports that 40 percent of children under 18 play mature-rated video games. A person who plays mature-rated video games at least 40 minutes per day views 5,400 incidents of aggression per month, according to the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. With so many of our children immersed in an electronic environment saturated with violent images, we have cause for serious concern. In the violence and media area, Congress passed legislation so that research was conducted about the relationship between media violence and childhood aggression, and as a result, we know more. Even though much of this database is older and involves the link between exposure to violent television programs and childhood aggression, some answers were forthcoming about how the Columbine tragedy could have taken place. Even so, there is still a considerable amount of speculation about the more complex questions. Why did these particular boys, for example, pull the trigger in real life while others who played Doom confine their aggressive acts to the gaming context? We need to be able to answer questions about which children under what circumstances will translate game playing into reallife lethal actions. Investing in media research could potentially reduce our budgets associated with adolescent crime and delinquency as well as reduce real-life human misery and suffering. Many of us believe that our children are becoming increasingly materialistic. Does exposure to commercial advertising and the ``good life'' experienced by media characters partly explain materialistic attitudes? We're not sure. Why then are we exposing children to heavy doses of advertisements in many of our nation's schools through Channel1 Network where ``free'' television sets to schools are provided in exchange for a small fee: unfettered access to advertise to children during school time? As streaming video programming proliferates on computers, cell phones and personal digital assistants, advertisers have more avenues to reach our children and bombard them with pro- consumption messages. As technology advances and becomes increasingly widespread among younger children, parents are justifiably concerned about losing control over the messages their children receive. Recent research using brain-mapping techniques finds that an adult who sees images of desired products demonstrates patterns of brain activation that are typically associated with reaching out with a hand. How does repeatedly seeing attractive products affect our children and their developing brains? What will happen when our children will be able to click on their television screen and go directly to sites that advertise the products that they see in their favorite programs? Or use their cell phone/iPod to download music or pay for products that they want immediately? Why should they wait? Why should they work for long- term goals? Exactly what kind of values are we cultivating in our children, and what role does exposure to media content play in the development of those values? A research report linked very early television viewing with later symptoms that are common in children who have attention deficit disorders. However, we don't know the direction of the relationship. Does television viewing cause attention deficits, or do children who have attention deficits find television viewing experiences more engaging than children who don't have attention problems? Or do parents whose children have difficulty sustaining attention let them watch more television to encourage more sitting and less hyperactive behavior? How will Internet experiences, particularly those where children move rapidly across different windows, influence attention patterns and attention problems? Once again, we don't know the answer. If early television exposure does disrupt the development of children's attention patterns, resulting in their placement in special education programs, actions taken to reduce screen exposure during the early years could lead to subsequent reductions in children's need for special education classes, thereby saving money while fostering children's development in positive ways. We want no child left behind in the 21st century. Many of us believe that time spent with computers is good for our children, teaching them the skills that they will need for success in the 21st century. Are we right? How is time spent with computers different from time spent with television? Or time spent with books? What are the underlying mechanisms that facilitate or disrupt children's learning from these varying media? Can academic development be fostered by the use of interactive online programs designed to teach as they entertain? In the first 6 years of life, Caucasian more so than African American or Latino children have Internet access from their homes. Can our newer interactive media help ensure that no child is left behind, or will disparities in access result in leaving some behind and not others? The questions about how media affect the development of our children are clearly important, abundant, and complex. Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are in short supply. Such gaps in our knowledge base limit our ability to make informed decisions about media policy. We know that media are important. Over the years, we have held numerous hearings in these chambers about how exposure to media violence affects childhood aggression. We passed legislation to maximize the documented benefits of exposure to educational media, such as the Children's Television Act which requires broadcasters to provide educational and informational television programs for children. Can we foster children's moral values when they are exposed to prosocial programs that foster helping, sharing, and cooperating like those that have come into being as a result of the Children's Television Act? We acted to protect our children from unfair commercial practices by passing the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act which provides safeguards from exploitation for our youth as they explore the Internet, a popular pastime for them. Yet the Internet has provided new ways to reach children with marketing that we barely know is taking place, making our ability to protect our children all the more difficult. We worry about our children's inadvertent exposure to online pornography--about how that kind of exposure may undermine their moral values and standards of decency. In these halls of Congress, we acted to protect our children by passing the Communications Decency Act, the Child Online Protection Act, and the Children's Internet Protection Act to shield children from exposure to sexually-explicit online content that is deemed harmful to minors. While we all agree that we need to protect our children from online pornography, we know very little about how to address even the most practical of questions such as how to prevent children from falling prey to adult strangers who approach them online. There are so many areas in which our understanding is preliminary at best, particularly in those areas that involve the effects of our newer digital media. By passing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, we can advance knowledge and enhance the constructive effects of media while minimizing the negative ones. We can make future media policies that are grounded in a solid knowledge base. We can be proactive, rather than reactive. In so doing, we build a better Nation for our youth, fostering the kinds of values that are the backbone of this great Nation of ours, and we create a better foundation to guide future media policies about the digital experiences that pervade our children's daily lives.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have decided not to bring the bill to the House floor today which would slash Medicaid, slash programs for student loans, slash programs for poor people because many conservatives say they are not cutting enough programs for poor people, all to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. All to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. And what is the excuse they have used? Hurricane Katrina. That is why they must cut more programs for poor people, because they do not want to cut the tax cuts, and now they want to delay because Hurricane Wilma is on the way, and the Republicans are saying, Let us wait until the weekend is over and see how big that hurricane is, and then we will be able to cut more programs for poor people, more programs for those most in need in our society, rather than touching those tax breaks for the wealthiest in our country. Mr. Speaker, hurricanes are the greatest friend conservative Republicans ever had to hurt the poorest people in the country and protect the wealthiest.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, Catholics have a sacrament, the sacrament of penance, which they call reconciliation. It is a time when you revisit your own life to take a close look at how your daily actions square with what you believe. As a Catholic, looking at this budget, I cannot square the moral values of our country, opportunity, equality and justice, with the practical impact that this budget proposal will have on the lives of working American families. This year, thanks to President Bush's tax-cutting program, the U.S. Government will deliver up to $106 billion to the multiple bank accounts of some of the wealthiest Americans. This government program to help wealthy Americans spend more money now forces a false crunch on our resources, a $50 billion cut that Republicans believe should come from Medicaid, food stamps, and student loans. Who will feel the impact of these cuts? Well, almost 60 percent of all people in nursing homes who are on Medicaid, and one-third of all babies who are born on Medicaid, and 8 million Americans with disabilities who depend on Medicaid, and 36 million Americans who have to worry about going hungry. How do we, as a Congress, reconcile the fact that these cuts will disproportionately affect low-income Americans, the elderly, and the poor? The answer is we should not reconcile ourselves to such an action, not for 1 minute, not for a nanosecond. If we are going to dramatically change for the worse the lives of millions of children and families and senior citizens across the country, it had better be because we had to, not because we chose to. And there is no doubt that Republicans have now chosen to rob the poor to maintain and create new tax breaks for the rich. We are not simply robbing the poor of resources. The proposed cuts are robbing the poor of opportunity. The reconciliation budget targets programs that work to bridge the gap between rich and poor, Medicaid, food stamps, and student loans, that strive to even the playing field for all American families. Eight weeks ago, across the United States, Americans saw the faces of other Americans staring up at them from television screens scratching out desperate signs on rooftops. Help us, the signs said. Grandmothers, brothers, nieces, nephews, newborns, the faces of families who could be our families, neighbors who could be our neighbors, but desperate, alone, and calling out to the world to see. Across the country, Americans answered with one voice: we are better than this. This is wrong. This is immoral. This must not be allowed to continue. We must take care of our own. It is our responsibility. It is our duty. It is who we are as a people. As a country, we saw that 100,000 people were trapped in New Orleans because they did not have automobiles to escape the flood waters. We found that 50 percent of all children in Louisiana live in poverty. In response to this national revelation, Republicans have revisited our national budget and made a decision to cut programs from the poorest of the poor while protecting a new tax cut giveaway to the richest of the rich. Instead of limiting these tax cuts to millionaires, the Republicans have decided to rebuild New Orleans on the backs of the poorest people from the rest of the country. This is a moral question, not a budget matter. The Republicans are building the high levees around their threatened tax cuts, while letting the flood swamp the programs that matter for the rest of Americans. This is what the debate is really all about. It is about our values as a Nation and how they are reflected in how we govern, how America should treat its neighbors, our fellow Americans, who by an accident of birth came into this world unable to see or who were born into a family without the means to put food on the table, or who had the misfortune to develop Alzheimer's. Should we let them starve? Should we tell their children they will never go to college because their parents cannot pay the tuition? Shall we turn them away from the hospitals because they cannot afford the care and do not have the insurance? Or should we as a country decide that in this land of plenty no one should go without basic human dignity? As a Catholic, I was brought up to believe that character is judged by how we treat the least amongst us. This budget does not pass that test, and my hope is that tomorrow we as a Congress will rise up to defeat it. Poverty is on the rise in our country, 37 million Americans are now in poverty. A family of two in poverty--a single mother with her child--is living on $1,069 a month. About 14 million Americans are living on half of poverty. A single mother with her child living at half of poverty is trying to survive on $535 a month. That is two people living on $123.37 a week. And each day in America 2,385 more babies are born into poverty. The Republicans will say that society has little obligation to help the poor because they fail to take personal responsibility for their lives. The United States has highest GDP in the world. We are first in military technology; first in military exports; first in Gross Domestic Product; first in the number of millionaires and billionaires; and first in health technology. But we rank 12th in living standards among our poorest one-fifth; 13th in the gap between rich and poor; 14th in efforts to lift children out of poverty; 18th in the percent of children in poverty; and 37th in the health status of our citizens. We should be working to close these gaps and ensure that all Americans have a fair chance at life and are treated with basic human dignity. Instead, this reconciliation plan will take away food, health care, education and the ability to live in dignity in old age from people who have no other options. This budget will proliferate existing inequalities. I simply cannot reconcile this budget with my values because this budget does not reflect who we are as a nation and what we believe our responsibility is to other Americans. We will be judged by how we take care of the least of our people. We will be judged by our decision to turn our backs on those Americans who were driven to cry out HELP--We are your neighbors, your grandmothers, your children. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this shortsighted, fiscally. irresponsible and immoral budget.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the award of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei. Today the IAEA and Dr. ElBaradei were jointly awarded this most prestigious of awards for their active efforts against the spread of nuclear arms and against the misuse of nuclear energy for military purposes. As we know, Dr. ElBaradei and the IAEA were asked by the United Nations, at the urging of the United States, to serve the cause of world peace by engaging in a vigorous effort to find whatever evidence might exist of a Nuclear Weapons program in Iraq through anytime, anywhere inspections. Dr. ElBaradei and the IAEA did their jobs, and the world had an opportunity both to serve the cause of preventing weapons proliferation and heading off a very costly war. Unfortunately, the United States decided to forego this opportunity, and war ensued. Now, the world is turning once again to the IAEA as the only way to prevent weapons proliferation in Iraq and in North Korea. Will the IAEA be supported this time? The Nobel Committee's decision to recognize the work of the IAEA, and of Dr. ElBaradei, increases the likelihood that such support will be forthcoming. It is needed now more than ever. I submit below an excerpt from the press release from the Nobel Committee, describing why the important work of the IAEA and Dr. ElBaradei is deserved of such an honor. At a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to underline that this threat must be met through the broadest possible international cooperation. This principle finds its clearest expression today in the work of the IAEA and its Director General. In the nuclear non-proliferation regime, it is the IAEA which controls that nuclear energy is not misused for military purposes, and the Director General has stood out as an unafraid advocate of new measures to strengthen that regime. At a time when disarmament efforts appear deadlocked, when there is a danger that nuclear arms will spread both to states and to terrorist groups, and when nuclear power again appears to be playing an increasingly significant role, IAEA's work is of incalculable importance. In his will, Alfred Nobel wrote that the Peace Prize should, among other criteria, be awarded to whoever had done most for the ``abolition or reduction of standing armies''. In its application of this criterion in recent decades, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has concentrated on the struggle to diminish the significance of nuclear arms in international politics, with a view to their abolition. That the world has achieved little in this respect makes active opposition to nuclear arms all the more important today.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I observe that we are operating in a 5- minute vote, and we are now nearing 20 minutes for this vote to have been completed. Mr. Speaker, where does the point at which at the discretion of the Chair is no longer being used for the convenience of the Members but instead in order to abuse the discretion that the Chair has in keeping----

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). The bill before us today proposes to gut the Clean Air Act in order to promote construction of more refineries. It is predicated upon the false premise that somehow our nation's environmental laws somehow stand in the way of the oil companies' attempts to build new refineries. Nothing could be further from the truth. The oil companies have shut down 30 refineries over the last decade. They've ordered 1 new refinery, and that one got its permit through the EPA in 9 months! The Republican Energy bill that we passed just 8 weeks ago contained a refinery siting proposal that the Speaker of the House said ``promotes greater refinery capacity so more gasoline will be on the market and it increases gasoline supply by putting an end to the proliferation of boutique fuels.'' The bill before us today repeals that provision. Why? Has the Majority lost confidence in its own new law? The Republican Energy bill that we passed just 8 weeks ago contained boutique fuels language that you, Mr. Chairman, praised on the House floor, arguing that they would ``make it more efficient to use our boutique fuels'' by reducing the number of these fuels ``so that we have greater transportability of our boutique fuels between those regions of the country that need those fuel sources.'' Now, the bill you have brought before us today has repealed that provision. Why? Has the Majority lost confidence that its earlier boutique fuels solution would work? The Republican Energy bill that we passed just 8 weeks ago dropped provisions of the House bill that would have weakened the Clean Air Act. These provisions were dropped because there was bipartisan opposition to their adoption, and Chairman Domenici stated during the conference that the bill could not pass the Senate if they were included. The language that delays compliance with the Clean Air Act was resurrected. Why? Does the Majority really think that they've picked up any more votes for dirtying our Nation's air due to the terrible tragedies Katrina and Rita? Why would we allow the EPA to extend deadlines for cleaning up ozone pollution, in some cases until 2015, without imposing any of the additional cleanup requirements mandated under current law? The proponents of this bad provision are trying to justify it by saying it is for the ``protection'' of downwind States. However, just yesterday, 9 Attorneys General, including 6 from ``downwind'' States such as Massachusetts, sent a letter to the House leadership opposing this bill. Well if the States that are the supposed beneficiaries of these relaxed regulations don't want them, then who does? The polluters, that's who! The bottom line is that these rollbacks of clean air requirements don't benefit the states that have to breathe dirty air for another 10 years, they benefit the corporations that don't want to clean up their power plants. This bill before us today also proposes to preempt the ability of state or local officials to make decisions regarding the siting of a new refinery or an oil pipeline. Instead of allowing State and local officials to make land use decisions, to consider environmental impacts, impacts on local communities, on historic or cultural sites, or other factors, we are going to have the bureaucrats at the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission make these decisions. State and local officials, the cities, the Mayors, all oppose doing this. The Democratic Substitute would replace the many objectionable provisions of the underlying bill with language that would give the Federal Trade Commission new authority to investigate and punish certain manipulative or abusive practices during any presidentially declared national or regional ``energy emergency.'' It would bar any party from selling crude oil, gasoline, home heating oil or other petroleum products at a price that is unconscionably excessive or which takes unfair advantage of the circumstances to increase prices unreasonably. At the same time, the Substitute creates a new Strategic Refinery Reserve that builds on the highly successful Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Refinery Reserve would provide the Federal Government with the ability to produce gasoline, home heating oil, or other refined petroleum products during an energy emergency. It would be designed to be able to serve 5 percent of daily demand. During non-emergency periods, the Reserve would produce petroleum products to serve demand from the Federal government, including the Department of Defense. It would also serve demand from State and local governments that elected to opt-in to receiving fuel supplies from the Reserve. The Substitute avoids the extreme overreaching of the underlying bill. It limits our response to the two issues that have been highlighted for us all as the result of Katrina and Rita--the need for a Federal price gouging law and the need for a Federal refinery reserve. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. We cannot begin to discuss how we are going to reduce our dependence upon imported oil unless we debate increasing the fuel economy standards for automobiles and SUVs in the United States. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and I have made this amendment for 4 years in a row. Now that the public's attention is on it, the Republican majority refuses to have a debate on how we can dramatically increase the fuel economy standards for SUVs and automobiles, and we put 70 percent of all the oil we consume into gasoline tanks. We also are not having the debate out here on solar energy. Europe now outspends us on solar energy by four to one. Japan outspends us four to one. China is now passing us. No debate, however, under the Republican rules, on solar energy as a solution. Instead, what we have here is new law which will allow for refineries to be built on closed-down military bases, on wildlife refuges, with a mayor or a State incapable of blocking it. In fact, if the State or city sues and loses, they must pay the legal bills of Exxon-Mobil. But if the city wins, Exxon-Mobil does not have to pay the legal bills of the city. That just shows you how backwards all of this is. We should be debating a futuristic, innovative, energy strategy to cut in half our dependence upon imported oil, to use automotive technologies, to use solar and wind, to quadruple our expenditures, to surpass the world, to be number one looking over our shoulders at number two and three in the world, to do what President Kennedy did in responding to the Sputnik challenge of the Soviet Union. Instead, our industry that engaged in a conspiracy to shut down 30 refineries in the last 10 years is now coming here and asking us to waive the Clean Air Act as the answer to their irresponsible actions. That is absolutely wrong. This bill must be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. The race is on. It is a worldwide race among nations to embrace and own the energy technology of the future. Right now, the United States is not even at the starting line. We're not even tying up the laces on our running shoes. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy, of our security, or our lives. Oil, black gold, runs our cars, machines, and planes and heats our homes--what if it just stopped coming? Think about it. It would take simply a decision of one or two oil producing nations to cut off critical supplies of oil to the U.S. tomorrow. The impact of such disruption to our economy would be crippling. Al Qaeda has already identified this American vulnerability--our energy dependency Achilles heel. They call on jihadists everywhere to attack not just people, but also oil wells and pipelines, arguing that ``the killing of 10 American soldiers is nothing compared to the impact of the rise in oil prices on America and the disruption that it causes in the international economy.'' The decisions being made today by the Republican-controlled Congress are handicapping our nation at the starting line. While this House is busying itself with the care and feeding of the industries of the last century--oil and gas production and refining, we are doing precious little to develop the energy technologies of the 21st Century. The only solution the Republican Leadership in Congress has to offer up to our current energy problems is giving oil companies more giveaways and more exemptions from environmental laws. Meanwhile, other nations around the world are beginning to race ahead of us. The European Union already has set a target of meeting at least 20 percent of its overall energy consumption with renewable energy technologies by 2020. They've just passed a resolution in the European Parliament to increase that target up to 25 percent. Aggressive renewable energy policies have put Europe on track to increase electricity generated from wind ten-fold and from solar photovoltaics 45 times by 2020. A major factor making this rapid growth possible is the significant investments European governments have made in R&D. We spend a paltry $80 million on photovoltaics, for example, whereas Europe spends $300 million. So does Japan. What's more, according to Christopher Flavin, Chairman of the World Watch Institute, China is set to overtake everyone. ``In 5 years' time we see China as a world leader in this department. . . . Already, 35- million homes in China get their hot water from solar collectors. That is more than the rest of the world combined.'' China has also adopted CAFE standards that by 2008 will require cars to get 40 miles per gallon and trucks to get 21 miles per gallon. China is also purchasing Hybrids from abroad and developing hybrid production capabilities. How do we expect to keep up, let alone lead, in these emerging innovative energy technology markets if we starve our R&D sector and refuse to set bold goals that stimulate creativity and achievement? Americans know in their bones that we need to do more--that we are lagging behind in this race. Every time we pull up to the pump and watch the cost of the gasoline filling up our cars, ringing up to $40.00 for a tank that is barely full, we are reminded of the need to get out of this mess. Consumers are paying the price for the Republican Congress' submissiveness to the Big Oil companies, for its lack of vision. Consumers lose when the Republican Congress allows America to slip behind the pack of nations racing to lead the energy industries of the future. Right now, we have few choices but to return to the pump, fill our cars and hope that this spike that has lasted for over 2 years is going to break soon. We owe our citizens a new vision for America's energy future to hang their hopes on. Hope without vision is a four letter word--our vision for restoring America's greatness through an energy challenge gives wings to the hopes of Americans wondering when this crunch will end. This is a can-do Nation that has never stepped down from a challenge. Today we cannot afford to walk away from the challenge to lead the world in the future of energy technology. In 1961, President Kennedy announced a goal of sending a Man to the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. By 1969, Neil Armstrong was standing on the Moon looking up at the earth. We need a similar visionary leadership today. Instead of the bill before us now, we should be bringing a bill to the floor of this House which would: Adopt a national policy of cutting our dependence on imported oil in half within the next decade. Recognize that since we consume 25 percent of the world's energy but have only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, we cannot drill our way into energy independence. Embrace innovative energy technologies to improve the fuel efficiency of our cars and SUVs so that we make our motor vehicles at least 1 mile per gallon more efficient every year for the next 10 years. Launch a Manhattan Project scale R&D initiative that is twice the size of comparable programs in the European Union, Japan, and China combined. Mandate that at least 30 percent of our Nation's overall energy needs be met with solar, wind or other renewable energy sources, or with energy efficiency measures. Create public and private partnerships to help rapidly commercialize and deploy a whole new generation of super-efficiency hybrid vehicles to deploy solar energy to our homes and businesses, to broadly deploy wind turbines around the country, to deploy Fuel Cells, clean-burning coal, more efficient natural gas and alternative fuels. The U.S. is the technological engine of the world and we must lead the innovation in wind, solar energy and new fuel sources. We cannot, we must not lose this race. If the Democrats were in charge of this House, we would be challenging America to establish a national oil savings goal, drive the future of the energy industry, and revolutionize our domestic use of fuels. Democrats would be setting an agenda of innovation and establishing measurable goals to test the success of this to measure the success of their energy policy. We would be demonstrating that a modern economy can grow and provide jobs to its citizens without sacrificing the quality of its air, its water or its most precious natural heritage areas. That is what we need to be doing on the Floor of this House, and that is what the bill before us today entirely fails to do. I urge the House to vote down this bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. The bill we are debating today is exactly what the American people expect from a Republican Congress. It is a set of giveaways to big oil and to big gas, while simultaneously out here on the floor the last two speakers are calling for a gutting of environmental laws and cutting of Medicaid and other social programs for the poorest people in our country as a response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This Republican Party is so out of touch that it believes that the oil and gas industries, the wealthiest industries in our country, the industries that are tipping American consumers upside-down and shaking money out of their pockets, is the first bill they should bring to the floor to respond to Hurricane Katrina, even after 10 years of a conscious conspiracy on the part of the oil industry to shut down 30 refineries, voluntarily. And the reason is clear. In a series of memos 10 years ago, the oil industry said that we have too much refining capacity in our country. We must shut it down if we want to charge the consumers in our country more money. That is what is going on out here on the floor, this leave-no-oilman- behind bill. We cannot fund leave No Child Behind, but can leave-no- oilman, who today planned this complete catastrophe that occurs because they shut down 30 refineries. They shut them down deliberately to cause this crisis. We should be debating out here on the floor, which the Republicans refuse to do. Increasing fuel economy standards for automobiles, they refuse to even allow that debate out here on the floor. Increasing, doubling, tripling, quadrupling solar energy, wind energy out here on the floor, they refuse to have that debate. Instead, it is this leave- no-oilman-behind bill. Today, they have failed the historic test of preparing our country for this day. We are here because this party believes that an energy policy is the President holding the hand of a Saudi prince and taking him in for a barbecue at Crawford, that it can substitute for the kind of plan which President Kennedy had in 1961 when the Soviets were challenging our supremacy in outer space. President Kennedy had a plan for us to take on the Soviet Union. This administration says there is no magic wand, and, if there is one, it is only to give more breaks, more environmental breaks, more subsidies, to the oil and gas industry, which is reporting profits that they admit they cannot even spend themselves. There is no plan from the Republican Party, except giving more to the largest industries that have dug this hole. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party is in violation of the first law of holes: When you are in one, stop digging. What they have out here today on the floor is a huge excavation device digging our country ever deeper, without looking at automotive technology, solar technology and the future of technology for our country. Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3893, the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005.'' Let me begin by saying that I've been in Congress for 29 years now, and this is absolutely the worst energy bill that I've seen in the last eight weeks. Moreover, the Rule that we are considering this morning is pretty much a gag Rule. It makes only one Substitute in order, and it bars the amendment filed by the Gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), myself, and the Gentlelady from California (Ms. Eshoo) to mandate new fuel efficiency standards for cars and SUVs. This amendment was identical to one that I offered in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and it is unconscionable that at a time when gas prices are over $3.00 a gallon nationwide that the Republican Leadership of this House would deny the Members an opportunity to debate the issue of whether or not to increase CAFE standards. What is the Republican Leadership afraid of? Are they afraid that the Members, if given an opportunity to approve a measure that might actually do something to reduce gas prices, might vote for a fuel efficiency standard increase? We should be able to have that debate and vote on this issue today. The last Energy bill that President Bush signed into law way back in August was praised by the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who said its boutique fuels provisions would ``make it more efficient to use our boutique fuels'' by reducing the number of these fuels ``so that we have greater transportability of our boutique fuels between those regions of the country that need those fuel sources.'' Eight weeks later, we are about to take up a bill that repeals those boutique fuels provisions and replaces them with a completely new boutique fuels statute. Without any hearings, and without any Record, we're just going to rewrite those provisions. When the last Republican energy bill was on the House floor in July, the Speaker of the House said it ``promotes greater refinery capacity so more gasoline will be on the market and it increases gasoline supply by putting an end to the proliferation of boutique fuels.'' Eight weeks later, this House is about to repeal the refinery provisions the Speaker praised, and replace with a whole new refinery bill. This bill is based on a false premise, the premise that somehow our Nation's environmental laws stand in the way of building more refineries around the country. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Clean Air Act isn't the problem, it's the Anti-Competitive Acts of the oil companies that has lead to our current problems. Consider these facts. Since 1994, 30 refineries have been closed across the country, reducing the Nation's refinery capacity by a collective 750,000 barrels per day. This reduction represents nearly 5% of the Nation's current refinery production capability of 17.1 million barrels per day. Twenty-one of the 30 refineries that the refiners voluntarily closed--or 78% of the shut down refinery capacity--were located in states that are not on the Gulf Coast and therefore would not have been affected by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita. Nine of the top 10 producing refineries that were shut down were located outside the Gulf Coast, including 3 in Illinois, one in Kansas, one in Michigan, 2 in California, and 1 in Washington. Why are these refineries being closed down? Is it environmental regulations? No. During this same period, the refinery industry increased capacity at existing sites--with all the permits and approvals granted by the EPA. The one new refinery permit application that was submitted out in Arizona was approved by the EPA in less than a year. So, why did the oil companies close these refineries? The reason is very clear. During the last decade, there was a wave of mergers in the refinery industry. The Big Oil companies got bigger, and as they gobbled up their smaller competitors, they closed down certain refineries for strategic business reasons. Oil industry documents from the mid-1990s suggest that at that time, major players sought to shut down refineries in order to decrease supply and thereby drive up prices. Consider this: A 1996 Chevron internal memo stated that ``A senior energy analyst at the recent API [American Petroleum Institute] convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins.'' A March 1996 memo from Texaco discussed concerns that ``the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus of refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. . . . This results in very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or demand for gasoline.'' It seems clear that the oil industry, in closing 30 refineries over the course of the last decade, was pursuing a deliberate business profit-maximization strategy aimed at addressing the oil industry's ``problem'' of low profit margins in refinery operations. By closing down refineries, and by consolidating any increased production at existing refineries, the oil industry has been able to drive up their profit margins. This strategy has worked out quite well for the oil industry. During the course of this year, the profit margins of each of these companies have risen higher and higher and higher. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, there's been a 255 percent average increase in refiner profit margins over the last two years. Now, all of that is great news if you are a shareholder in any of the big companies. But it's terrible news if you're a consumer paying $3.00 a gallon or more to fill up the gas tank on your car or paying a $1,000 more this winter to fill up the oil tank to heat your home. So, what does this bill proposed to do? Is it going to impose a windfall profit tax on the big oil companies? No. Is it going to mandate an increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and SUVs so we can begin reducing consumer demand? No. Is it going to promote investment in and deployment of solar and wind energy technologies that could be an alternative to natural gas? No. Is it going to give the Federal Trade Commission and the State Attorneys General tough new enforcement powers to go after price gouging at both the wholesale and retail level? No. What this bill proposes is more giveaways for the big oil and gas companies at the expense of consumers and the environment. This bill shamelessly tries to exploit the terrible human tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to advance a radical anti-environmental agenda, of gutting the Clean Air Act, of gutting the principle of local control over land use decisions, all to advance an oil company agenda. The sponsors of this bill call it the GAS Act. In reality, it should be called the ``Leave no Oil Company Behind Act.'' This is a terrible bill. It deserves to be defeated. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Rule and a ``no'' vote on final passage.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the conference report we are considering today on the House Floor fails to close dangerous homeland security loopholes that continue to put Americans at risk more than four years after the 9/11 attacks. Despite the urgent need to increase protections against terrorists determined to strike our country, serious vulnerabilities persist in a range of major areas: Nuclear terrorism: Non-proliferation expert Graham Allison has said that ``more likely than not'' there will be an act of nuclear terrorist attack in our country. Al Qaeda views obtaining nuclear weapons as a religious duty. There are tens of thousands of nuclear weapons-worth of highly enriched uranium in the former Soviet Union, but we do not have the technology that can reliably detect it at our ports of entry. Chemical plant security: More than 100 facilities in 23 States could threaten 1 million or more people if terrorists attacked the facility. There are no federal security requirements for chemical plants--the industry secures itself if it decides, on its own, to do so. ``60 Minutes'' did a segment where they literally walked right through an open front gate into a chemical plant outside downtown Pittsburgh. At one facility, the reporter climbed up onto a tank containing toxic material and shouted ``hello, I'm on your tank.'' There were no guards and no one tried to stop him. There are nightclubs in New York City that are harder to get into than some of our chemical plants. Leaks of toxic chemicals can be devastating. In India in 1984, a leak at a chemical plant in Bhopal killed at least 4,000 people and injured hundreds of thousands more. Transportation of extremely hazardous materials: Shipments of extremely hazardous materials such as chlorine routinely travel through densely populated areas of our country. These shipments are mobile chemical weapons that often share the same track as urban passenger rail systems and could kill or injure 100,000 people within half an hour. In a report released by the Teamsters Rail Conference last week that surveyed rail employees, 63 percent of those surveyed indicated that their train or equipment was delayed or left unattended for an extended period of time that day, and of those, 55 percent indicated that there were hazardous materials aboard the train. LNG Security: One of Millenium Bomb plotters planning to attack Los Angeles International Airport was smuggled into the country on an LNG tanker docking in Everett, MA in my Congressional District. Terrorists may target LNG tankers and terminals, resulting in catastrophic consequences for surrounding communities. In 1979, my bill to require such remote sitting was signed into law. But the Bush Administration is trying to undermine it, opening up the possibility an LNG plant would be placed, like a sitting duck, in the middle of an urban area, where an attack or accident would cause incredible devastation. Energy Bill signed into law in August 2005 froze out local officials from site decision-making process, so now convenience for energy companies, rather than security safeguards for surrounding community, will determine where facilities are built. Last month, I offered an amendment to the Coast Guard reauthorization bill to require the involvement of the Coast Guard, which is part of the Homeland Security Department, in siting decisions. My amendment was defeated on the House Floor. Republicans claim to support local control and the right of states to fend off federal encroachments. But when it comes to LNG siting, Republicans cut out mayors and governors and state homeland security officials from carrying out one of their most important responsibilities--protecting the public. Aviation: Approximately 22 percent of all cargo transported by air in the United States is carried on passenger planes. This cargo consumes about half of the space in the cargo bay on a typical flight, and almost none of it is ever inspected! In the past, this cargo loophole has been exploited with deadly results, such as when Pam Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb hidden in unscreened baggage. I asked Secretary Chertoff if he would support a requirement that 100 percent of the cargo carried on passenger planes be inspected, just as all checked bags, carry-on bags and passengers are currently inspected before boarding? He said ``No.'' Why should the booties of babies be scrutinized for bombs, but no one checks the cargo bound for the belly of a Boeing? The Bush Administration says we should trust the shipper. But we must apply the Reagan Doctrine to cargo security--Trust, but verify. Public transit: The attacks in London and Madrid clearly demonstrated our vulnerability to similar strikes against our transit systems here in the United States. Despite these wake-up calls, this conference report provides only slightly more funding than what is being provided today. Ranking Members Obey and Sabo offered amendments during the conference to increase funding for public transit security, but these amendments were defeated by the unanimous opposition from Republicans on the conference committee. The American Public Transportation Association has identified $6 billion in transit security needs for U.S. public transportation systems, approximately the same amount of money we're spending each month in Iraq. Since September 11, the federal government has spent $18 billion on passenger air security, but only $250 million on transit security. Yet, Americans take public transportation 32 million times a day--16 times more than they fly. Biological Weapons: Four years after the unsolved anthrax attacks on the Capitol that killed innocent workers, DHS has only completed material threat assessments on FOUR of the biological, chemical and radiological agents that it is required to assess under Project Bioshield. I asked Secretary Chertoff if he would commit to completing the rest of these threat assessments within 60 days. He said ``No.'' Today's conference report does not adequately address these issues. This bill does not: Require chemical plants to be protected by armed guards trained to prevent attacks by sophisticated, suicidal terrorists or require chemical companies to substitute safer technologies and chemicals in their processes whenever possible, so if terrorists penetrate a plant, damage they could cause would be dramatically reduced. Requiring re-routing of extremely hazardous materials whenever possible to reduce the threat of an attack on a chemical shipment in a densely populated area. Mandate that LNG facilities should be built in remote locations far away from population centers or ensure that security officials, including state and local government representatives are involved in siting process. Require that all the commercial cargo carried on passenger planes be inspected for bombs, just as all passengers and their luggage are. Direct the Department of Homeland Security to complete all of the 60 material threat assessments and purchase all of the vaccine doses required under Project Bioshield. Republicans continue to nickel and dime homeland security while writing a blank check for the war in Iraq. Specifically, the discretionary funding provided in this bill is $1.3 billion, only 4.5 percent more than last year, which is just slightly more than the rate of inflation. When Ranking Members Obey and Sabo attempted to add $1.7 billion for FEMA disaster mitigation programs, emergency management grants, chemical, transit and port security, and other critical security programs such as aviation security and Coast Guard operations, they were defeated by Republicans on a party-line vote. Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita washed away the illusion that the Federal government is better prepared to respond to a natural disaster or terrorist attack than it was on 9/11. Not only are we not prepared for a natural or man-made disaster such as a dirty bomb, we are not taking the preventive measures to reduce the risk of these devastating events. This conference report does not provide for qualified, experienced leadership at FEMA, nor does it return FEMA to the staffing levels of the 1990s. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report, which fails to address pressing, well-known homeland security weaknesses. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time. It is not so much what is in this bill; it is what is not in this bill. What we have here is a bill which does not, in fact, deal with all of the threats which are posed by al Qaeda. Right now, across our country, it is harder to get into some night clubs in New York City than it is to get into chemical facilities across our country. There are 23 States that have over 100 facilities that could cause injuries or deaths to 1 million people. This bill still does not mandate armed guards at chemical facilities. The nuclear power industry still does not have a permanent upgrade of the protections which are needed against an al Qaeda attack, even though we know that al Qaeda has nuclear power plants at the top of their terrorist target list. Public transit. While $18 billion has been spent on airlines, only a small fraction of that has been spent on mass transit to protect against al Qaeda attacks, even though we have been warned in Madrid, warned in London, and even today, New York is in fear that there could be an attack on that city. LNG: What the Republicans have done this year is they have told mayors they have no say over where LNG facilities would go. Governors have no say. And the Coast Guard has no say. Only the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, dealing with the wish lists of the oil and gas industry, can decide where they go, but in the City of Boston and in dozens of cities across our country, they are going to have a homeland security nightmare trying to protect if al Qaeda attacked an LNG facility. When it comes to hazardous material shipments, this majority Republican Party still refuses to have a mandate that there is a rerouting of those dangerous chemicals, the chlorines and the others that, if they were attacked, would cause catastrophic injuries in our country. And in aviation, still only a small fraction of all of the cargo that goes on passenger planes in our country is inspected. So the people in our country must take off their shoes, put their computer through, their bags go through, all of it is screened, and they are sitting in the passenger section of the plane, and then underneath their feet will come all of this cargo that has not been screened. This bill has only a very slight increase in its budget, but the budget itself does not determine whether or not we have good homeland security. This Republican majority still refuses to tell the chemical, the nuclear, the LNG, the hazardous material industry, the aviation industry that there is a regulatory black hole through which al Qaeda can come to attack the very list of targets that they put at the top of their terrorist target list. Not enough money and no mandates on the industry. Mr. Speaker, catastrophe is bred by complacency, and that is what this bill is. Mr. Speaker, the conference report we are considering today on the House Floor fails to close dangerous homeland security loopholes that continue to put Americans at risk more than 4 years after the 9/11 attacks. Despite the urgent need to increase protections against terrorists determined to strike our country, serious vulnerabilities persist in a range of major areas: Chemical plant security: More than 100 facilities in 23 States could threaten 1 million or more people if terrorists attacked the facility. There are no federal security requirements for chemical plants--the industry secures itself if it decides, on its own, to do so. ``60 Minutes'' did a segment where they literally walked right through an open front gate into a chemical plant outside downtown Pittsburgh. At one facility, the reporter climbed up onto a tank containing toxic material and shouted ``hello, I'm on your tank.'' There were no guards and no one tried to stop him. There are nightclubs in New York City that are harder to get into than some of our chemical plants. Leaks of toxic chemicals can be devastating. In India in 1984, a leak at a chemical plant in Bhopal killed at least 4,000 people and injured hundreds of thousands more. Transportation of extremely hazardous materials: Shipments of extremely hazardous materials such as chlorine routinely travel through densely populated areas of our country. These shipments are mobile chemical weapons that often share the same track as urban passenger rail systems and could kill or injure 100,000 people within half an hour. In a report released by the Teamsters Rail Conference last week that surveyed rail employees, 63 percent of those surveyed indicated that their train or equipment was delayed or left unattended for an extended period of time that day, and of those, 55 percent indicated that there were hazardous materials aboard that train. LNG Security: One of Millennium Bomb plotters planning to attack Los Angeles International Airport was smuggled into the country on an LNG tanker docking in Everett, MA in my Congressional District. Terrorists may target LNG tankers and terminals, resulting in catastrophic consequences for surrounding communities. In 1979, my bill to require such remote siting was signed into law. But the Bush Administration is trying to undermine it, opening up the possibility an LNG plant would be placed, like a sitting duck, in the middle of an urban area, where an attack or accident would cause incredible devastation. Energy Bill signed into law in August 2005 froze out local officials from site decision-making process, so now convenience for energy companies, rather than security safeguards for surrounding community, will determine where facilities are built. Last month, I offered an amendment to the Coast Guard reauthorization bill to require the involvement of the Coast Guard, which is part of the Homeland Security Department, in siting decisions. My amendment was defeated on the House Floor. Republicans claim to support local control and the right of states to fend off federal encroachments. But when it comes to LNG siting, Republicans cut out mayors and governors and state homeland security officials from carrying out one of their most important responsibilities--protecting the public. Aviation: Approximately 22 percent of all cargo transported by air in the United States is carried on passenger planes. This cargo consumes about half of the space in the cargo bay on a typical flight, and almost none of it is ever inspected! In the past, this cargo loophole has been exploited with deadly results, such as when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb hidden in unscreened baggage. I asked Secretary Chertoff if he would support a requirement that 100 percent of the cargo carried on passenger planes be inspected, just as all checked bags, carry-on bags and passengers are currently inspected before boarding? He said ``No.'' Why should the booties of babies be scrutinized for bombs, but no one checks the cargo bound for the belly of a Boeing? The Bush administration says we should trust the shipper. But we must apply the Reagan Doctrine to cargo security--Trust, but verify. Public transit: The attacks in London and Madrid clearly demonstrated our vulnerability to similar strikes against our transit systems here in the United States. Despite these wake-up calls, this conference report provides only slightly more funding than what is being provided today. Ranking Members Obey and Sabo offered amendments during the conference to increase funding for public transit security, but these amendments were defeated by the unanimous opposition from Republicans on the conference committee. The American Public Transportation Association has identified $6 billion in transit security needs for U.S. public transportation systems, approximately the same amount of money we're spending each month in Iraq. Since September 11, the Federal Government has spent $18 billion on passenger air security, but only $250 million on transit security. Yet, Americans take public transportation 32 million times a day--16 times more than they fly. Biological Weapons: Four years after the unsolved anthrax attacks on the Capitol that killed innocent workers, DHS has only completed material threat assessments on four of the biological, chemical and radiological agents that it is required to assess under Project Bioshield. I asked Secretary Chertoff if he would commit to completing the rest of these threat assessments within 60 days. He said ``no.'' Today's conference report does not adequately address these issues. This bill does not: Require chemical plants to be protected by armed guards trained to prevent attacks by sophisticated, suicidal terrorists or require chemical companies to substitute safer technologies and chemicals in their processes whenever possible, so if terrorists penetrate a plant, damage they could cause would be dramatically reduced. Require re-routing of extremely hazardous materials whenever possible to reduce the threat of an attack on a chemical shipment in a densely populated area. Mandate that LNG facilities should be built in remote locations far away from population centers or ensure that security officials, including State and local government representatives are involved in siting process. Require that all the commercial cargo carried on passenger planes be inspected for bombs, just as all passengers and their luggage are. Direct the Department of Homeland Security to complete all of the 60 material threat assessments and purchase all of the vaccine doses required under Project Bioshield. Republicans continue to nickel and dime homeland security while writing a blank check for the war in Iraq. Specifically, the discretionary funding provided in this bill is $1.3 billion, only 4.5 percent more than last year, which is just slightly more than the rate of inflation. When Ranking Members Obey and Sabo attempted to add $1.7 billion for FEMA disaster mitigation programs, emergency management grants, chemical, transit and port security, and other critical security programs such as aviation security and Coast Guard operations, they were defeated by Republicans on a party-line vote. Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita washed away the illusion that the Federal Government is better prepared to respond to a natural disaster or terrorist attack than it was on 9/11. Not only are we not prepared for a natural or man-made disaster, we are not taking the preventive measures to reduce the risk of these devastating events. This conference report does not provide for qualified, experienced leadership at FEMA, nor does it return FEMA to the staffing levels of the 1990s. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report, which fails to address pressing, well-known homeland security weaknesses. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert-Miller substitute and against the underlying bill. A major factor forcing threatened and endangered species towards extinction is the loss and deterioration of habitat necessary for survival. We cannot expect a species to recover without first ensuring that it has the habitat in which to do so. The Majority has just presented us with this manager's amendment to the underlying bill that would delete not only the protections and enforceability afforded under the designation of critical habitat but also the broader habitat protection provided by the jeopardy definition. We have arrived at a situation where the underlying bill will offer no enforceable protection for the habitat that endangered species need to survive, but will only create a blizzard of unenforceable bureaucratic paperwork which, in the words of Shakespeare, would be ``full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.'' The Boehlert-Miller substitute would retain the enforceable protections for habitat provided under a strong jeopardy definition and I urge its adoption.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a resolution urging the United States Postal Service to act on a pending petition for an Alzheimer's Semi-Postal Stamp. I am joined by Co-chair of the Congressional Alzheimer's Taskforce, Representative Christopher Smith, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Representative John Boozman in a bi-partisan effort to raise funds for Alzheimer's research through the issuance of a semi-postal stamp. The petition of support for the issuance of an Alzheimer's semi- postal has been pending at the United States Post Office for over 4 years. It is long overdue that we honor this petition and allow Alzheimer's the opportunity it deserves to benefit from this public awareness and fundraising campaign. The race to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease is now more urgent than ever. Four and a half million Americans, including one in 10 people over age 65 and nearly half of those over 85, have Alzheimer's disease. Unless science finds a way to prevent or cure this terrible illness, as the baby boomers continue to age, nearly 16 million Americans will have Alzheimer's disease by the year 2050. Mr. Speaker, we need to help and give hope to those who are fighting the moment to moment physical, mental and behavioral battles of Alzheimer's every day. We need to help and give hope to the behind the scenes heroes--the family care-givers who selflessly offer their love and care. And we need to help and give hope to the researchers working hard to find a cure. Working together we can do more--and we must. We must do everything we can to ensure that one day Alzheimer's is a disease of the past and issuing a semi-postal stamp can help do just that. The best way to fight Alzheimer's disease and reduce the number of patients who suffer is to find ways to prevent it before it starts. Investments we make now mean longer, healthier lives for all of us. If we can delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease by even 5 years, it would save this country billions of dollars--and would improve the lives of millions of families. We can act now to strengthen our commitment to prevent Alzheimer's and to finding a cure for this devastating disease. Semi-postal stamps are special stamps which were authorized by Congress as a tool for the United States Postal Service to not only raise funds but awareness of worthy causes. An Alzheimer's stamp would allow the public to directly contribute to research funds by charging a higher price than normal postage for the stamp and allocating most of the proceeds to research on this insidious and debilitating disease. We simply cannot afford to wait another minute, or another four years until we give Alzheimer's the attention and opportunity it deserves. I hope that the Postal Service will act and help to make a difference in the future by allowing us to contribute to Alzheimer's research through a semi-postal stamp today.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which deals with a huge issue which is going to unfold in our country over the next decade, and that is the indisputable need for our country to have a large importation of liquefied natural gas into our country. In New England, already 20 percent of our natural gas is in the form of liquefied natural gas. It comes from overseas. This is a good thing, and it is something that has to expand, not only in New England but all across our country. The good news is that in the year 2001, there were only two LNG facilities licensed in the United States, one of them in Everett, Massachusetts, in the middle of my congressional district. This is something, however, which is a legacy from a period that existed before 9/11. There are now 30 proposed additional LNG facilities in the United States, and nine of them have already been licensed. The question going forward now is not do we need more LNG; the question is how will we have the importation of LNG be done consistent with homeland security principles. And here is the issue: in Boston, right here, coming in a couple of times a month, at least, comes this huge tanker right through the middle of Boston. That is East Boston High School right above it. Outside of Manhattan, this is the most densely populated part of the United States. Now, we cannot do anything about this facility. It is there. Maybe over time we can phase it out, but it is going to be there. The issue is, going forward, what will be the role of the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard which, in this picture, is escorting this LNG tanker right into Boston Harbor, which has to shut down every time one of these tankers comes in? What should the role of the Coast Guard be? What my amendment says is this: since we are going to have this large importation of LNG in terminals all across our country in the next generation, let us: One, require the Coast Guard to prepare a report on any measures needed to ensure public safety and security of the proposed facility and transportation routes to and from the facility; and, two, require the Coast Guard to report on any action taken by the facility owner or by appropriate Federal and State regulators in response to any findings or recommendations made by the Coast Guard with respect to the proposed facility, including what measures have been put in place to mitigate potential risks; and, third, require the Coast Guard to approve any construction or expansion of an LNG facility before it can go forward, and direct the Coast Guard to not approve any such construction or expansion if it determines that the proposed facility or the expansion of the existing facility would pose a substantial risk to public safety and security in light of the potential loss of life and damage to property that could result. We know that if that tank was exploded, if the tanks that are on the land where the tanker is going to unload the LNG, that the event would be catastrophic in the middle of the city of Boston; but the same would be true across the whole country. The Sandia Laboratories, in studying an incident that could occur with a tanker such as this, sees a radius of upwards of 2,000 feet that would have levels of heat and fire that would burn buildings, damage steel tanks and machinery; and one can imagine what would happen to every human being inside that radius. So, for me, to leave it to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to have exclusive jurisdiction over where one of these facilities is sited, without taking into account what the Coast Guard will have to do as a part of the Department of Homeland Security in safeguarding that shipment, is, in a post-9/11 period, reckless. In a post-New Orleans period, it is reckless. We must give the people who live in these densely populated areas the benefit of the doubt that the Coast Guard would raise the questions about homeland security, about what would happen if there were a terrorist attack, and then suggest perhaps that the facility be built offshore, and that there be a pipeline brought in, that the facility be built in a more remote area of the State and a pipeline be built to bring it down; but it should be the Coast Guard, the agency of expertise. I urge an ``aye'' vote to protect public safety in all communities where LNGs will be imported in the generation ahead.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, I appreciate the fact that it is an open rule; and, from a rules perspective, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. So I am out here, and all of a sudden I run into an open rule; and, believe it or not, for me, it is just you have got to make hay when the sun shines, my father used to say. So this is just my opportunity to be able to make the case, knowing at the end of the day that there were other bills that were more appropriate and agencies that had more expertise to be able to do the subject, and at the end of the day knowing that the Coast Guard will be the agency that deals with the consequences of something not being done. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.