Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, twelve million baby boomers will have Alzheimer's. Three million baby boomers will suffer from Parkinson's disease. Juvenile diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, spinal cord injuries will wreak havoc on the daily lives of millions of American families. These diseases are going to bankrupt the health care system of our country unless we take action. Today, we can take dramatic action, a step, to deal with this looming crisis. President Bush has threatened to use his first veto to prevent scientists from using Federal funds to search for these cures. This is wrong. Stem cell research is the light of life, the way out of the darkness, the life-giving, life-enhancing, life-extending path to hope. Hope is the most important four-letter word in the language. We must vote for hope, vote for life, vote for a brighter future for all of our loved ones. Vote for hope for a small girl forced to stick a needle three times a day into her young arm. Vote for hope for a beloved mother whose loss of balance leads to falls in the night. Vote for hope for a spouse who realizes that his memory of life and family are dissolving into a forgetful haze. Vote ``yes'' so that the next generation of children will have to turn to the history books to know that there ever was such a thing as juvenile diabetes or Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or any of these plagues that affect our Nation today and are going to turn into a crisis in the next generation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, Memorial Day is the beginning of the season when American families take their children to our amusement parks for a day of fun and sun. Unfortunately, it is also the case that over 75 percent of the serious injuries suffered on these rides occur between the months of May and September. Most of America thinks that the rides at these parks are subject to oversight by the Nation's top consumer safety watchdog--the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). But this is not true. The industry used to be subject to federal safety regulation, but in 1981 it succeeded in carving out a special-interest political exemption in the law--the so-called Roller Coaster Loophole. This loophole is a dangerous gap in child safety and prevention, and it is having serious consequences. Since 1987, 64 people have died on an amusement park ride, and the vast majority of those deaths have occurred on rides that are totally unregulated at the federal level. It is time to put the safety of our children first--it is time to close the Roller Coaster Loophole. Today I am introducing the National Amusement Park Ride Safety Act, to restore safety oversight to a largely unregulated industry. I am joined in this effort by Representatives Schakowsky (IL), Rangel (NY), Neal (MA), Payne (NJ), McGovern (MA), Norton (DC), Maloney (NY), Kucinich (OR), Frank (MA), Brown, S. (OR) and Eshoo (CA). support for the bill We are supported in this endeavor by the Nation's leading consumer- protection advocates, including Saferparks.org, the Consumer Federation of America, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, and Kids in Danger. Excerpts from their letters of endorsement include: ``Children are uniquely vulnerable to hazards associated with amusement ride machinery. . . It is simply indefensible for Congress to allow a special interest loophole of this magnitude in an industry that serves up high-speed thrills to 300 million paying customers every year, especially when most of the resulting injuries accrue to children.''--Kathy Fackler, Saferparks.org. ``Federal oversight is crucial to the prevention of any future deaths and injuries with fixed site amusement parks due to the vast variation in state laws and the absence of any regulation in some states.''--Rachel Weintraub, Consumer Federation of America and Lindsey Johnson, U.S. Public Interest Research Group. ``The CPSC must be granted jurisdiction of fixed-site amusement park rides in order for all states to benefit from federal investigation of safety hazards.''--Alan Korn, National SAFE KIDS Campaign. ``Unregulated amusement rides are not what consumers expect when they visit some of the best-known tourist attractions in the U.S. Consumers expect that someone has made sure the ride is as safe as possible and that the government oversees such safety.''--Nancy Cowles, Kids In Danger. Last year, the Nation's pediatricians--the doctors who treat the injuries suffered by children on amusement park rides--endorsed our bill. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, ``a first step to prevention of these injuries is adopting stronger safety regulations that allow for better inspection and oversight of the fixed-rides.'' the problem with state-only regulation ``Fixed'' or ``fixed-site'' rides are found predominantly in destination theme parks. When an accident occurs on such rides, the law actually prevents the CPSC from even setting foot in the park to find out what happened. In some States, an investigation may occur, but in many, there is literally no regulatory oversight at all. And no matter how diligent a particular state might be, there is no substitute for federal oversight of an industry where; park visitors often come from out-of-state; a single manufacturer will sell versions of the same ride to park operators in many different States; no State has the jurisdiction, resources or mission to ensure that the safety lessons learned within its borders are shared systematically with every other State. rides can kill, not just thrill Although the overall risk of death on an amusement park ride is very small, it is not zero. Sixty-four have occurred on amusement park rides since 1987, and over two-thirds occur on ``fixed-site'' rides in our theme parks. In August 1999, 4 deaths occurred on roller coasters in just one week, ``one of the most calamitous weeks in the history of America's amusement parks,'' according to U.S. News and World Report: August 22--a 12-year-old boy fell to his death after slipping through a harness on the Drop Zone ride at Paramount's Great America Theme Park in Santa Clara, California; August 23--a 20-year-old man died on the Shockwave roller coaster at Paramount King's Dominion theme park near Richmond, Virginia; August 28--a 39-year-old woman and her 8-year-old daughter were killed when their car slid backward down a 30-foot ascent and crashed into another car, injuring two others on the Wild Wonder roller coaster at Gillian's Wonderland Pier in Ocean City, New Jersey. In 2003: An 11-year-old girl died at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois. A 32-year-old woman was killed when she fell from the Raven roller coaster at Holiday World & Splashin' Safari theme park in Santa Claus, Indiana. A 53-year-old woman was killed after being struck by the Joker's Jukebox ride at Six Flags New Orleans. She was checking to make sure her grandson's seat belt was properly fastened. A 34-year-old woman died a day after suffering a heart attack during her ride on the Top Gun roller coaster at Paramount's Kings Island theme park in Cincinnati, Ohio. An 8-year-old boy has died from injuries he suffered on a bumper car ride last month at the Lake County Fair in Ohio. The boy was severely shocked when he touched a pole on a bumper car ride called the Scooter. In 2004: A 51-year-old woman was killed after she fell 60 feet from an amusement ride called the Hawk at the Rockin Raceway in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. The owner was later convicted of reckless homicide for bypassing the ride safety system. A 55-year-old man suffered fatal injuries when he fell from the Superman Ride of Steel roller coaster at Six Flags New England theme park in Agawam, Massachusetts. At Playland amusement park in Rye, New York, a 7-year-old girl suffered massive head injuries when she fell from the park's Mind Scrambler ride. She was rushed to a hospital where she was pronounced dead. A 4-year-old boy died from injuries he suffered last Thursday at Water Works, a water park in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. Lifeguards found the boy floating in five feet of water after he nearly drowned. A 13-year-old boy died from internal injuries he suffered in an accident at Wacky Waters Adventure Park in Davenport, Iowa. Witnesses say that the boy fell from a rappelling rope into a pool of water. A 39-year-old man died from a fall while boarding the Revenge of the Mummy roller coaster at Universal Studios theme park in Orlando, Florida. Every one of these is an unspeakable horror for the families, and every one of them deserves to be investigated by a federal safety expert with the knowledge and the power to ensure that what happened at the accident site does not get repeated in other States. It is simply inexcusable that when a loved one dies or is seriously injured on these rides, there is no system in place to ensure that the ride is investigated, the causes determined, and the flaws fixed, not just on that ride, but on every similar ride in every other state. The reason this system does not exist is the Roller Coaster Loophole. Every other consumer product affecting interstate commerce--a bicycle or a baby carriage, for example--endures CPSC oversight. But the theme park industry acts as if its commercial success depends on remaining exempt from CPSC oversight. When a child is injured on a defective bicycle, the CPSC can prevent similar accidents by ensuring that the defect is repaired. If that same child has an accident on a faulty roller coaster, no CPSC investigation is allowed. But the industry has its loophole, and it is placing its priority on protecting its special- interest privileges, rather than its special duty to ensure the safety of its patrons. That's just plain wrong.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my good friend and colleague Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH) in introducing the ``Digital Opportunity Investment Trust Act.'' Mr. Speaker, I have long believed that when the Federal Communications Commission decides to proceed with auctions as a means of granting licenses to the public's airwaves, that the public deserves to reap the benefits. These benefits should manifest themselves not only in the more rapid offering of new, competitive commercial wireless services or the deployment of technological innovations, but also in the ``dividends'' that can be reaped by re-investing the auction money wisely. The legislation we are introducing today, proposes taking auction revenue and creating a permanent trust fund in order to fund grants for public interest telecommunications initiatives. I believe harnessing this resource and re-investing it for such initiatives will be vital to our national economic security and for leaving to the next generation the cultural and educational assets of our great country in an accessible digital form. Mr. Speaker, ensuring that the research and development into the software and telecommunications tools that will animate the technologies for use in classrooms and workplaces around the country is a sound investment. Making available additional resources for public televisions and radio stations for their needs in the digital era is also vital. Finally, our nation's libraries, museums, universities are great repositories of information and possess the tremendous wealth of our cultural heritage. These treasurers can and ought to be digitized in a way that makes them accessible to all our citizens, both online and over-the-air using our national public broadcasting system. This will help to ensure we have an informed and skilled citizenry for our civic institutions. Putting these great educational resources at the heart of the technological transformation our society is undergoing will strengthen our democracy in fundamental ways. For all of these reasons, I believe we must rise to the challenge of funding advanced research and development for education and technology training in a way that reflects the urgent need to do so and the current, inadequate resources being put to these efforts. Telecommunications technology has an awesome potential to affect change positively by driving economic growth, preparing our citizens for the tough challenges ahead, and enriching our democracy. Yet without a plan, it will remain just that--merely the ``potential'' and ``promise'' but not the reality. That's why I believe we ought to reinvest the auction resources we obtain from winning bidders to the public's airways. A permanent trust fund built from these funds will go a long way in meeting the need and that is what our legislation is designed and intended to do.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, in this recommitment motion, you will get a chance, on the majority side, to vote on whether or not you want to screen cargo that is on passenger planes. We take off our shoes. Americans take off their shoes, families putting their children on flights to head on vacation or go to school. They all take off their shoes. But underneath, in the cargo bay of those passenger planes, almost none of the cargo which sits right next to those bags is screened. If something is this size, 16 ounces, no paperwork. Nothing. If it is the same size as the bag your children and you have, it does not get screened. It is going on right next to your bags. And so what our amendment says is, you got a warning. The cargo on this plane has not been screened for explosives. That is the Republican bill. The Democratic substitute says that 100 percent of all baggage, all cargo as well, on passenger planes is screened. If you care about your families, if you care about implementing one of the key recommendations in the 9/11 report, then vote for the Democratic recommittal motion. This is the only chance you are going to have to vote on this issue. Vote ``yes'' on the recommittal motion.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The Republican leadership has denied a debate on the House floor on the very important issue that passengers who fly on commercial flights across America, tens of millions of Americans a year who put their families on commercial flights, are put in the situation where they take off their shoes, they have their computers checked, they have their bags which are inspected on those passenger flights, because we know that al Qaeda is trying to infiltrate commercial flights in America. But the cargo, the cargo which goes on that very same plane, of somebody who did not buy a ticket on that flight but placed the cargo on that plane, is going to fly without being screened at all. Almost none of the cargo on American planes that carry passengers across our country is screened, although that cargo is almost the same size as your bags, which are on the same plane. So you have your bags screened, you have your family screened, but the cargo on that plane is not screened. How much sense does that make, that your shoes are screened but that the cargo on the very same plane is not screened? And do my colleagues want to hear something else even more absurd? If it is a package 16 ounces or less, they do not even look at the paperwork for it. It goes on that passenger plane automatically. Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. In the past week, we have had two planes diverted that were coming from overseas because the no-fly terrorist list had not been completely checked before the plane was in midair, and it caused diversions both times. How can we allow the back door of planes to have cargo placed upon it that is not screened? It is absolutely wrong. And the fact that the technology exists, that the Israelis screen the cargo, that other countries screen the cargo, how can we place tens of millions of Americans who place their families on planes, going to vacation, going back to school, on planes where the cargo is not inspected, and then have the Republicans say, we are not going to have a debate on that on the House floor. My amendment with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) would have guaranteed that over the next 3 years technology would have been put in place that would have guaranteed that every single bit of cargo that goes on passenger planes is screened. And all we asked from the Republicans was that if you are not going to allow us to even make that amendment on the House floor, at least let us have a warning, a warning to all American families at the airports that you are placing your children on planes to go back to school or go to vacation when the cargo on that plane has not been screened. Every American parent has the right to know that their children are being placed on planes to go to vacation or go to school without it being screened. Every American family has the right to know that when they put their children on passenger planes in America that almost none of the cargo has been screened, and then they can make the decision for themselves. I think that parents would not put their children on planes if the cargo has not been screened. They themselves, they might get on the plane. But for the Republicans to not allow us to have a debate on the House floor on this issue, as we know that al Qaeda continues to target commercial aircraft as their number one terrorist target, is absolutely wrong. So I ask opposition to this bill. It just is not dealing with the real issues that threaten the American public. Rapiscan Systems, Hawthorne, CA, May 9, 2005. Hon. Edward J. Markey, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Markey: We applaud your efforts to focus more attention on the glaring hole in the United States' aviation security--lack of air cargo inspection. Rapiscan Systems develops, manufactures, installs and services the world's widest array of non-intrusive inspection systems for airports, seaports, border crossings, military installation. Currently Rapiscan Systems provides nearly half of the checkpoint security systems at U.S. airports. Included in our portfolio of systems is an air cargo inspection system that can inspect fully-loaded cargo containers. This system is being installed at George H.W. Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas and Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport in Alaska. containerized air cargo inspection technology exists and is being installed at U.S. airports In the late 1980's in response to the Pan Am 103 bombing, the United States Department of Defense began development of a material-specific bomb detection technology for aviation. As a result of this effort, the Ancore Corporation (now Rapiscan Systems Neutronics and Advanced Technologies Division) developed Pulsed-Fast Neutron Analysis (PFNA) technology. PFNA can automatically detect all explosives, chemical weapons, radioactive materials, narcotics and even hazardous aviation cargo. This technology was most recently deployed to the Ysleta border crossing in El Paso, TX. Rapiscan Systems is currently deploying two PFNA air cargo inspection systems at U.S. airports: George H.W. Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston and Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. Both of these installations are part of Transportation Security Administration programs. Similar neutron-based systems have been installed internationally, including an air cargo inspection facility at Taipei airport in Taiwan. containerized cargo inspection maintains current air cargo flow of commerce While TSA and other government agencies have evaluated break-bulk cargo x-ray inspection systems (Rapiscan also manufacturers these systems), only PFNA can inspect containerized cargo. The difficulty with break-bulk systems is that they require containerized or palletized cargo to be unpacked to inspect. This adds hours to inspection time and makes some technologies unfeasible for fast delivery air cargo. PFNA systems inspect fully loaded cargo containers and pallets for aviation-quantity threats (established by TSA). This allows for fast inspection without unpacking. PFNA systems meet the time constraints of the air cargo environment. air cargo inspection can be provided with current screener corps Another common argument against air cargo inspection is that they technologies will require hundreds of new TSA screeners to operate and inspect. Because PFNA provides automatic, material specific inspection each system only requires a single operator. And since, PFNA systems can inspect 6-10 containers per hour, most airports will only require one to two systems. As congress debates the policy surrounding air cargo inspection, Rapiscan Systems offers to help Members and staff investigate the current availability and state of cargo inspection technologies. While cost and level of risk shou1d factor into this debate, the question of the availability of technology to inspect air cargo has already been answered. Thank you again for your efforts to call attention to and rectify this important homeland security issue. Please let me know if Rapiscan Systems can be helpful in your continued efforts. Sincerely, Peter Kant, Vice President, Government Affairs.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, right now in the Republican bill there is no protection added for the single greatest problem that we know still exists, which is the protection of chemical facilities in the United States of America. Whether it be on land or in rail cars, both of these chemical-type storage areas are still wide open. Secondly, whistleblowers, if they turn in a shareholder scandal at Enron, get more protection than a nuclear power plant guard or a TSA guard who, as a latter day homeland security Paul Revere comes forward to warn the public that there is danger, the Republicans do not protect these whistleblowers. The Democratic bill does. Finally, the cargo which goes onto planes in America, passenger planes, is not screened. Something this size, not screened. Something this size, which is cargo, which goes on to passenger planes next to our bags, is not screened. The Republican bill says this to those people: Warning, cargo on this plane has not been screened for explosives for your children. Vote for the substitute if my colleagues want to protect the children and families of this country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, under cover of darkness and hidden from public view, the Republican-controlled Committee on Rules cooked up an unwise, unfair and ill-considered rule that shuts out dozens of Democratic amendments designed to close dangerous homeland security loopholes that put the American public at risk. For example, one of the amendments would have been one made by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and myself which would have ensured that all cargo which is placed upon passenger planes in the United States was screened, so when the people in this gallery and people around the country step on planes they have to take off their shoes, their bags go through, they are screened, their bags are put in the belly of the plane, they are screened, but the cargo, the cargo, which is placed on the very same plane, is not screened. The people on the plane are accompanying their bags. The people who are sending cargo are not on the plane. Al Qaeda is like water. It looks for the least resistance. That on a plane is where the least resistance is, in the cargo bay. We should not put Americans on planes where the cargo has not been screened knowing that al Qaeda continues to place civilian aircraft at the top of their terrorist target list. It is wrong for the Republicans not to have a debate about this incredible, glaring vulnerability in passenger aircraft as hundreds of millions of Americans put their families on planes, especially as we are nearing the fourth anniversary of 9/11. Another amendment, one dealing with the hundreds of thousands of shipments of extremely hazardous materials which go through the cities and towns of the United States every single year. This is a photograph of one of those hazardous material shipments within a couple of blocks of the Capitol. The Republicans would not put in order an amendment that would ensure that a rule-making by the Federal Government would be put in place in order to make sure that we would increase the security for the shipment of these hazardous materials through the cities and towns of the United States of America. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and I made a request to the Committee on Rules, let us debate it out here on the House floor, let us debate if we want to put any additional security protections on something, which, for all intents and purposes, has no security around it as it goes through the cities and towns of the United States. What a target for al Qaeda this would be. But the Republicans say no debate on that. No debate on putting cargo into the bay of passenger planes that people fly every single day across America after they have taken off their shoes. Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. The Republican Party is putting a gag on debate on the most important issues that face the security of America and attacks by al Qaeda on our country. And this issue, especially the issue of cargo on planes, is an absolute reprehensible neglect of the responsibility that Congress has for the flying American public.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, and to reiterate the importance of the Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI. Since the establishment of the UASI program, communities that the Department of Homeland Security has designated as being subject to a high threat of terrorist attack have received the funding to develop coordinated, integrated plans that leverage the capabilities of the cities and towns within the UASI region that are needed to respond effectively in the event of a terrorist attack. During committee consideration of this legislation, I prepared an amendment to amend the bill to include within the ``region'' definition any geographic area that has been designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a high-threat urban area as part of the Department's UASI program. My amendment was intended to permit these UASI regions to continue their important plans and strategies to prevent, prepare for, and respond to terrorist attacks. I noted that the UASI program is consistent with the purpose of H.R. 1544--namely that resources should be set aside for communities faced with unique threats and vulnerabilities, such as extensive critical infrastructure and large populations, which make them tempting targets for terrorists. After receiving assurances from the chairman that he shares my interest in refining the legislation's definition of region, I withdrew my amendment. I understand that the chairman has discussed this important issue with the States and the UASI jurisdictions, and I appreciate the chairman's pledge to work with me, the UASI jurisdictions, and the States to address the UASI designation issue as this legislation moves forward. It is my hope that the UASI program will be preserved in the final version of the legislation we are considering today. The Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act appropriately directs resources towards those areas that face the highest threat of a terrorist attack, rather than disbursing homeland security funds without regard to risk. The 9/11 Commission has endorsed this risk- based approach to homeland security funding, the UASI program is consistent with this methodology and should be preserved.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this legislation in March, it voted 420-2 to approve an amendment, which I authored, which reaffirms the U.S. commitment under the Convention Against Torture to not engage in torture, and to not render or transfer people to countries where they are likely to face torture. The U.S. signed this treaty under President Reagan, and the Senate ratified it in 1994. Despite our commitments under this treaty and the recent statements made by the Bush Administration emphasizing that the U.S. is emphatically and unambiguously against the use of torture, there have been repeated reports in the press indicating that the U.S. has been sending detainees to countries where they are likely to face torture, including to countries who have become notorious for their human rights violations. The practice of extraordinary rendition is shrouded in secrecy. An unmarked plane arrives in the middle of the night carrying men wearing plain clothes and black hoods, to take custody of the prisoners, cut off their clothes, drug them on the spot, shackle them, and fly off into the night. President Bush signed a secret directive reported to speed up the process by eliminating the case by case evaluation. And while unofficial estimates put the number of renditions since 9/11 to be between 100 and 150, the actual number of renditions remains a secret. The Administration maintains that it is in full compliance with the Convention Against Torture. Compliance, they say, is guaranteed by the dubious practice of asking countries known to torture prisoners for ``promises'' that they will not torture our prisoners. These so-called ``diplomatic assurances'' then provide the cover for sending a suspect to that country to undergo interrogation. The list of countries where the detainees have been rendered includes Syria, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. So here is the sand on which the Administration stands--at the same time that we exhort the international community to isolate Syria for thumbing its nose at U.N. resolutions to get out of Lebanon, the United States has apparently been willing to accept Syrian promises that it will comply with the Convention Against Torture. Here is what the State Department's annual human rights report says about Syria's methods of interrogation: ``administering electrical shocks, pulling out fingernails, forcing objects into the rectum, . . .'' And the list goes on. How about Uzbekistan?--``suffocation, electric shock, rape, beatings, and boiling prisoners to death . . .'' And the list goes on. The so-called ``diplomatic assurances'' that we have received from the torturers that they will not torture those we send them are not credible, and the Administration knows it. CIA Director Porter Goss basically acknowledged as much when he stated: ``But of course once they're out of our control, there's only so much we can do.'' Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed this, when he said ``Once someone is rendered, we can't fully control what that country might do.'' Section 1031 of the conference report would prohibit the use of any funds included in this Supplemental appropriations bill to subject any person in custody or under the control of the United States to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. While the Conferees approved Senate language that is slightly different from that of the House-passed amendment, I am nevertheless supportive of this language. I support it because I read Section 1031 to clearly prohibit any appropriated funds from being spent to subject any person in U.S. custody or control to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by transferring, extraditing, or rendering such persons to countries where they are likely to face torture. This is because such actions clearly would be prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, a treaty signed and ratified by the United States. Article 3 of the Convention clearly states that: ``No State Party shall expel, return (``refouler'') or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'' Article 3 of the Convention further states that: ``For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights.'' It would be my expectation that the funding limitation contained in Section 1031 would therefore prohibit funds from being used to transfer persons to any Nation where the person was likely to face torture, and that under Section 1031, funds could not be used for transfers or renditions in situations where the U.S. government had found there to be a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights. I would also note that in a September 2004 report to the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture expressed concern that reliance on diplomatic assurances is a ``practice that is increasingly undermining the principle of non- refoulement'' and observed that where torture is systematic, ``the principal of non-refoulement must be strictly observed and diplomatic assurances should not be resorted to.'' We take pride that even as our Nation fought for its survival against the Nazis and the Japanese Empire during World War II, that we did not ask our ``Greatest Generation'' to engage in torture or other war crimes. The legacy of the U.S. then, and now as we prosecute the War on Terror, is that we uphold our commitment to justice--even in the face of shadows of terror and war. The test of a Nation is found as much in how it wages war as in how it promotes the values of peace and democracy. That is what we must do today.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, more than three and a half years after the September 11th attacks, gaping loopholes in our country's homeland security continue to put Americans at risk of another devastating attack. The Department of Homeland Security's former Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin testified recently before the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight. Mr. Ervin told the Subcommittee that: ``Even in the area where the most time, attention, and resources have been invested--aviation security--serious vulnerabilities remain.'' One of our most dangerous vulnerabilities is the failure to screen 100 percent of the cargo that is carried on passenger planes and all- cargo aircraft. Every time we fly, we wait in security lines, empty our pockets, remove our shoes, walk through metal detectors, and have our baggage inspected. We do not complain much--after all, we are told that this is required to keep our planes secure--and we accept that. But what many people do not realize is that every time commercial cargo is loaded onto the very same passenger planes or placed on aircraft that transport only cargo, almost none of it is ever inspected at all. The security risk created by unscreened cargo is not just theoretical: Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb contained in unscreened baggage, and Air India flight 182 was downed in 1985 off the coast of Ireland by a bomb placed in unscreened luggage. Uninspected freight on all-cargo carriers also poses a serious danger. Last summer, the 9/11 Commission reported that Al Qaeda operative Zacharias Moussaoui's terrorist plans included ``buying four tons of ammonium nitrate for bombs to be planted on cargo planes.'' Ammonium nitrate is the same chemical compound that Timothy McVeigh used to kill 168 innocent men, women and children at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City 10 years ago. Less than two years ago, a young man shipped himself undetected aboard a cargo plane from New York to Texas. We were lucky he was just a lonely twenty- something, not a terrorist. It is long past the time when we should have adopted a policy that subjects cargo on passenger and all-cargo aircraft to the same level of screening that is performed daily on passengers' checked and carry-on luggage. Today, Representative Christopher Shays (R-CT) and I are introducing the Air Cargo Security Act to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish and begin implementing a system to inspect all the cargo transported on passenger planes and all-cargo carriers, so that this cargo is subject to the same level of scrutiny as passengers' luggage. Our legislation also. includes additional measures to close the cargo loophole, such as: a mandate that the Secretary of Homeland Secretary establish systems to inspect cargo using equipment, technology and personnel that meet, at a minimum, the same standards established to inspect passenger baggage; a requirement that the Secretary of Homeland Security monitor and evaluate the research and development of effective cargo screening technologies; establishment of a system of regular inspection of shipping facilities for shipments of cargo to ensure that appropriate security controls and systems are observed, both at facilities inside the U.S. and abroad; a directive that the Secretary of Homeland Security report to Congress on the number of cargo shipping facilities that have been inspected, the number of facilities that have failed to comply with security controls, and the number of agreements concluded with foreign aviation authorities to ensure that regular inspections are conducted for cargo transported to the United States; and creation of a training and evaluation program for cargo handlers to improve the security ensure that cargo is safeguarded from security breaches. The House has voted overwhelmingly--by votes of 278 to 146 and 347 to 47--to require 100 percent screening of cargo carried on passenger planes. The airline industry and the Bush Administration strenuously objected to the 100 percent screening mandate, and the Senate ultimately dropped it from the final version of the Department's FY04 appropriations bill. Last year, the House narrowly defeated our 100 percent screening amendment after strong opposition from the airline industry. The experts who are our aviation system's ``eyes and ears''--namely, the pilots and flight attendants who work aboard aircraft everyday-- have endorsed the Air Cargo Security Act. The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA), which represents 22,000 pilots at American Airlines, Southwest, AirTran and other airlines, and the Association of Flight Attendants, with its 46,000 members, have endorsed this important legislation. Since introducing similar legislation last year, I have addressed the concerns of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) by including all-cargo carriers under the 100 percent cargo screening mandate and providing for federal appropriations to implement this mandate. When I offered the Air Cargo Security Act as an amendment during the committee mark-up of the Homeland Security Department's FY06 authorization bill, ALPA supported my amendment. While last year's appropriations bill for the Department and the 9/11 reform implementation act included funding for cargo screening R&D, additional cargo inspectors, and related provisions, these measures do not go far enough. TSA currently handles the screening of cargo carried on passenger planes by using a process it calls the ``Known Shipper Program.'' The Known Shipper Program requires only paperwork to be filed, but no screening to be done. Mail and packages weighing less than 16 ounces are not even subject to the paperwork check--they are loaded straight onto the plane without even a perfunctory paper check! When it comes to freight on all-cargo carriers, inspection is the exception, not the rule--only a tiny portion is physically inspected before loading onboard. TSA now requires air carriers to conduct random inspections of cargo that are randomly verified by TSA--but this still results in almost none of the cargo on passenger planes being physically inspected for explosives or other dangerous materials. TSA is unable to inform us of how many cargo inspections are performed by the air carriers because the air carriers do not have to report to TSA the number of cargo inspections they conduct. Some have argued that the technology to screen 100 percent of cargo is not available. But there are numerous companies that are currently selling technology that is being used to screen cargo, including American Science and Engineering; L3 Security and Detection Systems; and Raytheon CargoScreen. Some have argued that 100 percent screening is not technically feasible. But countries including Israel, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands routinely screen cargo. Moreover, Logan Airport in Massachusetts, which has been conducting a cargo screening pilot program, reported in February that ``100 percent of all air cargo on all types of aircraft is technically possible.'' According to Massport, which is responsible for the operation of Logan Airport, a federal mandate to screen 100 percent of cargo and a funding mechanism to distribute cost among the major players involved are required. The Air Cargo Security Act provides this mandate and authorizes the appropriations needed to accomplish it. Some have argued that the Known Shipper Program is enough to assure the security of cargo. The Known Shipper Program is dangerously flawed and easily exploited. TSA has admitted that it has not audited most of the so-called known shippers in its database, and packages weighing less than 16 ounces are not even subject to the Known Shipper Program, even though the bomb that brought down Pan-Am Flight 103 contained less than 16 ounces of explosive! I urge my colleagues to support the Air Cargo Security Act and close a dangerous loophole that puts our Nation at risk.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican Budget Conference Report. The Republican budget makes huge cuts to critical programs for the poor and the most vulnerable in our country in order to give away $106 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society. The Republican budget instructs the Energy and Commerce committee to cut $14.7 billion, of which at least $10 billion is supposed to be cut from the Medicaid program that serves nearly 50 million Americans. Medicaid provides health care not only to poor moms and kids, but also to the elderly and the disabled. The Republicans will tell you that they have to cut Medicaid because we are in state of fiscal crisis. And it's true we are in the midst of crisis. But it is a manufactured crisis. If you add up all the spending that Congress has approved since 2001, you will see that: 48 percent of all the spending has gone to tax cuts, 37 percent has gone to Defense and Homeland Security, and only 15% has gone to Domestic programs. It is clear when you look at these numbers that the deficit did not balloon upward due to social programs, or even the war in Iraq. The deficit came from the Republican's irresponsible tax giveaways to help their fat cat friends get fatter and fatter and fatter. This Republican budget asks the mothers and grandmothers in the nursing home, the disabled children, the poor, those with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, to sacrifice their health and dignity in order to finance the tax cuts of the wealthiest 1 percent in this country. It asks those who have nothing to sacrifice everything, and those who have everything to sacrifice nothing. This budget is about giving $106 billion away in tax cuts, cutting up to $14.7 billion from the Medicaid program. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this shortsighted, fiscally irresponsible, and immoral budget.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican Budget Conference Report. One of the most egregious offenses committed in the Republican Budget is the proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. Although a budget should have nothing to do with controversial environmental policy decisions, this budget would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge through backdoor budget chicanery. In poll after poll, the American people have expressed their disapproval of using the budget to decide such a contentious issue. The Republican Majority knows that it cannot pass this measure as standalone legislation. By shoehorning the Arctic Refuge into the budget, they are making an end-run around the legislative process, knowing that it cannot pass in the Senate any other way. While the budget claims that oil leases from the Arctic Refuge will generate $2.4 billion in revenue, this appears to be a case of gross deception and misinformation. When the President's Office of Management and Budget was asked why it is assuming that the oil leases in the Refuge will sell for amounts that are hundreds of times greater than the average North Slope lease over the last 15 years, OMB passed the buck--they said, ``Go ask Interior; we don't know.'' Ladies and gentleman, we deserve more than such dodges and lame excuses. This Republican budget will destroy forever the wilderness quality of one of God's most magnificent ecological systems on the basis of illusory economic projections. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this shortsighted, fiscally irresponsible, and immoral budget.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today we gather to remember and commemorate the Armenian Genocide, one of the darkest chapters of World War I, and the first of the series of genocides we saw in the 20th Century. The Armenian Genocide is sometimes called the ``Forgotten Genocide.'' In fact, as most of you know, back in 1939, prior to the invasion of Poland, Adolph Hitler argued that his plans for a Jewish holocaust would, in the end, be tolerated by the West, stating: ``After all, who remembers the Armenians.'' Who remembers the Armenians? Today, we provide an answer: We Do! We Remember! We do so because it is important, indeed it is essential to remember and reflect upon these events, but we also do so because we know that the Armenian people today struggle on an ongoing basis to confront and surmount the legacies and the consequences of those dark days. Consider, for a moment, what might have been. At the end of the first World War, the American public was acutely aware of the atrocities that had been committed against the Armenian people from 1915 on--atrocities that we knew had resulted in the death of more than 1 million Armenians and left the remaining Armenian population starving and destitute. At the time, U.S. Ambassador Henry Morganthau reported that ``When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were simply giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.'' A military mission headed by Major General James Harbord in 1919 had been sent to report on conditions in the region and make recommendations to U.S. policy makers. General Harbord sent a clear message about the defenselessness of the Armenians and the dangers they still faced. By the time of the Paris Peace negotiations at the end of the War, President Wilson was committed to the notion of using the proposed League of Nations to help the Armenians. In a September 6, 1919 speech on the Treaty creating the League, he spoke of the Armenian Genocide, ``When I think of words piled upon words, of debate following debate, when these unspeakable things that cannot be handled until the debate is over are happening, in these pitiful parts of the world, I wonder that men do not wake up to the moral responsibility of what they are doing. Great peoples are driven out upon a desert, where there is no food and can be none, and they are driven to die, and then men, women, and children thrown into a common grave, so imperfectly covered up that here and there is a pitiful arm stretched out to heaven, and there is no pity in the world. When shall we wake up to the moral responsibility of this great occasion?'' On May 24, 1920, Wilson proposed to create a U.S. mandate in Armenia, in which we would have sent in troops to maintain the peace and provide assistance to help the Armenian people establish a functioning government and economy. But the proposed U.S. mandate never occurred. Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge from Massachusetts, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who earlier had championed the cause of the Armenians, refused to support President Wilson's proposed Mandate. Senator Lodge said at the time, ``To invite this country to take charge of that crossroads of the nations in Armenia, to commit itself to sending its troops there for an indefinite period, and to bear the expenses involved for an indefinite period, is something for which I could never bring myself to vote.'' And on June 1, 1920, he, along with the other Republican isolationists in the Senate voted 34 to 43 and 34 to 41 against two Democratic amendments that would have fully or partially authorized the Mandate. And so, Armenia was left on its own, open to attack from both Turkey and the Soviet Union. And the Armenians made a fateful decision. Rather than accept Turkish dominance and the prospect of additional killings, they signed an agreement with the Soviet leadership's point man in the Caucuses--a man named Josef Stalin--to join the Soviet Union. That fateful decision led them to more than 60 years of Armenian suffering under the yoke of the Communists. So, as we all gather together to consider the legacy of the Armenian genocide and the Diaspora it created, it is also appropriate for America as a nation to consider what can be done to give something back to those who, by tragic circumstances, were forced to live through unspeakable atrocities during the Genocide only to then come under the control of a brutal Soviet rule. Armenia today faces enormous economic and political challenges: It has hostile neighbors. It faces blockades that stifle trade and economic opportunities. It needs economic and military assistance. There is much that the U.S. government can and should do to assist the Armenian people: We should grant Armenia Permanent Normal Trading Relations status, so as to facilitate the growth of trade and economic relations. We should provide Armenia with the economic and military assistance it needs to develop its economy and ensure its security. We should press for an end to the Turkish and Azerbaijani economic blockades. The writer Milan Kundera once wrote that ``The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.'' There are those that would deny the Armenian Genocide, just as there are those that deny the reality of the Nazi Holocaust. In commemorating the Armenian Genocide, as we do this evening, we all collectively engage in that struggle of memory against forgetting. But we do this not only to remember the past, but to animate the future with a commitment to prevent such things from ever happening again, and to strive towards making a better future for the Armenian people, a people who have suffered so much. In September of 1919, President Woodrow Wilson spoke of his vision of a future Armenia. He said, ``Armenia is to be redeemed . . . So that at last this great people, struggling through night after night of terror, knowing not when they may come out into a time when they can enjoy their rights as free people that they never dreamed they would be able to exercise.'' It has taken Armenia decades to reach a point where its people could enjoy their rights as a free people--the rights Wilson spoke of. Today, we have an opportunity to help ensure that they can build a better future. And so, I look forward to continuing to work with the Armenian- American community and Members of the Congressional Caucus on Armenia to address the issues facing this region, so that together we build something positive, something hopeful, something good for the future--a peaceful, prosperous Armenia with close ties to the United States.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this photo behind me is an LNG tanker in Boston Harbor delivering LNG to Everett, Massachusetts. Right behind you can see East Boston High School. If there was a terrorist attack, if there was an accident, you would not call the Federal Government. It would be the local police, the local fire department, the local emergency medical technicians that would respond. The Republican bill eliminates the State and local participation in determining where a facility like this would be placed. Now, it is not like there is a crisis. In America there were two of these facilities in 2001. There are now five. Six more have already been licensed by the State governments and the Federal Government in the United States. There is no crisis. So why are the mayors, why are the Governors being walled out? It is because the Republican majority wants to hand it over to the Federal Government and to the natural gas industry. But it would be very dangerous to exclude the communities that are most affected, especially when States know they need the LNG, we admit that, but we want to put it in more remote areas in the State or perhaps offshore and have it be piped in. But the Republican majority says, no, we want to put it in the most densely populated areas and wall out all Governors, all State officials. Vote ``yes'' for the Castle amendment. Protect States' rights.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this issue is one of whether or not you want the Federal Government to decide if you are on a coastline in the United States that an LNG facility is coming to your district. If you want your governor, your mayors to have a role, some role, in deciding where an LNG facility is located, which would have catastrophic consequences if there was an accident or terrorist attack, you vote ``aye'' on the Castle amendment. If you just want the Federal Government to decide in the middle of your district where this most attractive of all terrorist targets will be located, then you vote ``no,'' but understand the consequences on the floor today.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this issue, and I am proud to follow his leadership on this amendment. Last Thursday, President Bush addressed the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Here is what he said: ``I will tell you, with $55 a barrel oil, we do not need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent. It is really important,'' said the President. ``It is an important part of our economic security and it is an important part of our national security.'' Those were the President's words last week. But the President then went on to call upon Congress to pass the Republican energy bill, a bill replete with a rich assortment of tax and deregulatory incentives for the oil and gas companies to explore, even though they are essentially already drowning in windfall profits. The price of oil has doubled essentially from $25 a barrel to more than $50 a barrel. That is all extra cash in the oil companies' pockets. So the President, I think, has to rely upon his own Energy Department, because his own Energy Department has acknowledged that this bill that we are debating would result in only negligible changes to overall demand, production, and imports, a bill that the Energy Department acknowledges will actually increase gasoline prices at the pump between 3.5 and 8 cents a gallon. The bill will increase the price of gasoline. So even though the President says the oil companies do not need incentives to drill when prices are so high, in this bill we are providing more than $3 billion in tax incentives to Big Oil. This is just at the point at which all of their profits are doubling. We are giving them tax breaks. It is absolutely unbelievable. So what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) has done is put out a series of provisions. If Members do not want to support increasing fuel economy standards for SUVs and automobiles so we can take on OPEC, what we have is another series of alternatives that can be engaged in which are much less Draconian, but will at least give us some improvement in the way this country interrelates with gas, oil, and other energy sources. If Members feel that the Boehlert-Markey amendment is too radical, this is your cup of tea. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) for his help on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of this amendment. Last Thursday, the President addressed the American Society of Newspaper Editors. He said: I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent. It's really important. It's an important part of our economic security, and it's an important part of our national security. But the President then went on to call upon Congress to pass the Republican energy bill--a bill replete with a rich assortment of tax and deregulatory ``incentives'' for the oil and gas companies to explore, a bill that the President's own Energy Department has acknowledged would result in only ``negligible'' changes to overall demand, production and imports, a bill that the Energy Department acknowledges will actually increase gasoline prices at the pump by between 3.5 and 8 cents a gallon. So, even though the President says the oil companies don't need ``incentives'' to drill when prices are so high, we are providing more than $3 billion in tax incentives to Big Oil. We are giving them ``royalty relief'' so they don't have to pay the public a fair price for drilling on public lands. That is what H.R. 6 offers up as a solution to high oil and gasoline prices. This bill says let's give more tax breaks to oil and gas companies that even a President who was a former Texas oil man has said are not needed. This bill says let's enact proposals that would actullay increase the price that consumers pay to fill up their gas tanks. That is no solution. The amendment being offered by the gentleman from New York and myself takes a different approach. While I continue to believe that the real solution to the current high gas prices is increased efficiency, the House has already debated that issue. This amendment says, if you aren't willing to take the step of mandating higher fuel efficiency standards, are you at least will to take some more modest steps? On the issue of gas prices, our amendment says, when oil prices are at record highs, let's stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Let's return to the principle of considering the impact of oil and gas prices and the economy when we are making decisions about whether and when to fill the Reserve. Are you at least willing to do that? At the same time, our amendment expresses the Sense of Congress that the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department should exercise vigorous oversight of our Nation's oil and gas markets to guard against price gouging or market manipulation. It expresses the Sense of Congress that the President should put pressure on OPEC and non-OPEC oil producers to increase oil production to help bring down prices. It gives the FTC the power to require full disclosure by refiners and distributors of fuel pricing policies, costs, and profits, so consumers will be better able to determine whether the oil companies are profiteering from the current volatility in oil markets. Are you at least willing to do that? Our amendment also would extend the renewable energy production tax credit for 5 years, so that companies know that there will be incentives out there to make the investment in building new solar, wind, geothermal and biomass technologies, so we can become less dependent on coal and natural gas to generate electricity. Our amendment strikes the cap on Energy Savings Performance Contracts, an important tool used by the Federal government to reduce the amount of energy consumed in Federal buildings across the country. Our amendment would put in place three additional appliance efficiency standards--commercial packaged air conditioners and heat pumps, residential dehumidifiers, and commercial spray valves used in restaurants. In addition, under the amendment, efficiency standards for residential and commercial furnaces and boilers, which have been languishing over at the Energy Department for more than 10 years, would be speeded up. We would strike the Home Depot ceiling fan language that immediately preempts state ceiling fan standards before there's even a Federal standard in place. We would provide a new 10 percent investment tax credit for high- efficient combined heat and power systems. We would provide a tax deduction for expenses needed to reduce energy use of new and existing commercial buildings by 50 percent below model commercial codes. We would provide a tax credit for new homes that reduce energy costs by 20-50 percent, and we'd provide a tax deduction for expenses needed to cut energy use at new and existing commercial buildings. We would provide for the creation of an Emerging Technology Trust Fund to help develop emerging technologies for more efficient and renewable energy sources, as well as a Small Business Commercialization Program, to provide assistance for small businesses and start-up companies trying to introduce alternative energy and efficiency technologies into the marketplace. Finally, our amendment includes the Dingell Democratic alternative amendment on electricity, which would preserve the bill's mandatory reliability provisions, but delete its proposed repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act. The Dingell language would also give FERC stronger legal authorities to police electricity and natural gas markets for fraud. The Bishop-Markey Democratic enbloc amendments make some modest but useful steps toward making this energy bill a more a balanced bill and a more consumer friendly bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure, a place of ancient wilderness that remains much the same as it was at the end of the last Ice Age. It is one of the few places remaining in America where man has not scarred the land. It is a place where roads do not pave the way and where the animals truly do roam free. The refuge is home to the 130,000-strong porcupine caribou herd as well as polar bears, musk oxen and even more than 130 species of migratory birds. All wildlife refuges have, by bipartisan consensus, been set aside to ensure that a few special places, natural places, will not succumb to the pressures of commercial exploitation. The Arctic refuge is one of the most unique wild and irreplaceable refuges of all. If we allow the oil and gas drillers into this refuge, we might as well say good-bye to protection of all 544 refuges in this country. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the crown jewel of the wildlife refuge system in the United States. Of those 544 refuges, it is estimated that 60 percent of them have the potential for oil and gas development. Overturning the 39-year precedent of never leasing a wildlife refuge to the oil companies where leases did not previously exist will set in motion a series of events that will endanger each of the other 543 refuges spread throughout the States and districts of the Members of this body. Besides the wildlife refuges, drilling in the Arctic refuge is widely seen as the first step in lifting the moratoria on drilling on the outer continental shelf of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, specifically in Florida and California. The chairman of ExxonMobil recently said that drilling in the Arctic refuge is representative of the broader issue of whether drilling will be allowed in other environmentally sensitive places such as the coasts of California and Florida. In a 2003 speech to the Republican Caucus, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay proclaimed the issue of the Arctic refuge is about precedent and repeatedly referred to its symbolism. Matthew Simmons, an oil industry banker and former Bush adviser, recently told the New York Times that if you cannot do ANWR, you will never be able to drill in the promising areas. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a huge test for us. The Republican majority has decided not to do anything about making SUVs and automobiles more fuel efficient, and that is where 70 percent of all gasoline, all oil, goes, into those gasoline tanks. Instead of making those vehicles more efficient, what they have decided to do is to construct a gasoline station on top of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in order to fuel those inefficient vehicles. We must stop them. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. The provisions which are in the bill already are good. It is that they just do not go far enough to deal with this electricity crisis that we saw that went across the country. What the Dingell amendment does is very simple. It creates an antifraud authority at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with tough, new criminal and civil penalties. It ensures, in other words, that they can get the real job done. It also provides real transparency on pricing and trading of electricity in this marketplace. It also prohibits self-dealing, interaffiliate dealing. All of the kinds of activities which were identified in the aftermath of the Enron and the related scandals is prohibited; and the authority is given to the FERC in order to make sure that they get the job done. This is the needed final piece to make sure we do not see a repetition of what happened at Enron. Vote ``aye'' on the Dingell amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.