Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I will be the last remaining speaker, yes, sir.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention, the gentleman from Connecticut's (Mr. Shays) intention, that once we close the loophole on passenger planes that allow for cargo to go on unscreened, then we will move on to the next step, which is the cargo that goes on cargo planes. But I think the first job is to make sure that passengers are protected and then in the next step, as the gentleman said, we will move on to do the same for cargo planes.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for a colloquy.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, every time we fly we wait in security lines. We empty our pockets, we remove our shoes. Sleeping babies are taken out of their baby carriers. We have to walk through metal detectors, we have to have our baggage inspected. Even grandma with her walker needs to be physically inspected at security checkpoints. We do not complain much as Americans because we all know this is all aimed at improving the security of every single flying passenger in our country. But what people do not realize is that right next to our baggage, right underneath our now-screened shoes, cargo is placed which has not been screened at all. For example, if a passenger were carrying onto a plane a package this size, it is going to get screened. It is going through the metal detector. It is going to be looked at. But if it is shipped as cargo and it is 16 ounces or less, it automatically does not get screened at all. They think this is not dangerous if it comes as cargo. But if a passenger carries it onto that very same plane, it is going to be checked. The only difference is if you are carrying it, you are on the plane with it. But if someone sends it as cargo, they are not on that plane. What is dangerous about that? What is dangerous about it is that the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie was brought down by a package this size. That is what is wrong. We should not have passengers on American planes that have this kind of danger that al Qaeda could exploit that could wind up with a catastrophe which shocks the world. Moreover, cargo which is this size, which is not too much bigger than a lot of people's traveling bags for the summer, this does not get screened except in very rare instances. It goes right into the belly of the plane, the same way that your baggage goes there but without the screening. So that is a loophole, unfortunately, that al Qaeda could exploit and we know that al Qaeda continues to say and our Bush administration security officials confirm that al Qaeda continues to put passenger aircraft at the very top of their terrorist target list. So the amendment which we are making here today, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and myself, is the same amendment which we made last year to this bill which passed on the House floor 278-146. The reason it passed is obvious, it makes no sense to put all of the families in our country, especially as vacation time is arriving, on planes that have all of these packages that are unscreened even as they, the American families, have been put through the toughest possible screening possible. So our amendment calls for the screening of this cargo, that it should not go onto the planes unless it is screened. Why should bags in the bay of a passenger plane be screened, that is the bags of the passengers, but the other half not be screened even though the people who put those packages on are not even flying on the plane? This is something that in our opinion makes no sense whatsoever. We continue to see data on the number of planes. It turns out that al Qaeda was targeting 10 planes for hijacking. We know they are obsessed with them and we know that we are obsessed with the planes that are the passenger planes. Let us not allow our people in our country, our passengers, and yes, yes, we are talking about the American family here. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the people who are in the galleries today who flew here to Washington. It was on their planes, and as they fly out of Washington today, as they fly anywhere in America today, it is the baggage on their planes that had cargo on it. These people deserve protection. That is the simple heart of our argument; that it is just plain wrong to put Americans on planes with unscreened cargo, especially since the technology is already there. The vast majority of cargo could be screened with the existing technology that already screens our bags. It is the same size as our bags or smaller. How can they escape being screened? Mr. Chairman, I ask for Members' support. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I will make the argument over the next 30 minutes or so and we hope that we once again send a strong message that we want to have all of this baggage screened. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is part of a continuing pattern where the Republican majority shuts out the Democratic Party. But more importantly, they shut out, yes, the American public. No hearings on this bill. No discussion on this bill. No involvement of the American public in discussing a bill which could have profound impact on the environment and the health of Americans all across our country. It is a continuing pattern of disrespect for the American public that they are not able to have hearings on issues that are so central to their families' environmental and health care well-being. They bring it out here to the floor and what do they say to the Democratic Party and, yes, to the American people? There are no amendments that can be made to this bill. We have conceived it in secret and we are going to pass it without amendment or without discussion, and that is the height of political arrogance because it leaves out the American people from the discussion. It assumes that a small number of oil company executives working with members of the Republican Party can decide what is best for our country, when obviously it is pretty evident from all of the higher gas prices and the mess that we have got in the country that that is not the best way to go, that the American people should be involved. What do they say? They say we need this bill, quote/unquote, to revitalize the refining industry. Well, today the biggest oil refiners in the United States are Exxon-Mobil, Conoco-Phillips, BP, Valero and Royal Dutch Shell. Together they comprise 50 percent of domestic refinery capacity in the United States. Ten years ago they only controlled about a third of domestic refinery capacity. So how are they doing with this incredible increase that they have had over the last few years? Well, Valero Energy Corporation reported record earnings in its April 2004 quarterly report. Here is what they said. ``With respect to refined product fundamentals, gasoline margins remain at record levels. As we look at the balance of 2004, it is obvious that this is going to be another year of record earnings for us,'' the Valero Refining Company. That is great news if you are a Valero Energy shareholder. What about all the American gasoline consumers? Why has it not been great for them? What about other refiners? Perhaps they are hurting as well. Let us find out. Let us look at Exxon-Mobil's May 2004 quarterly report. Here is what they have to say about themselves. U.S. downstream earnings were $393 million, up $218 million mainly due to higher refining margins. Great news for Exxon-Mobil shareholders. Their investment does not seem like it needs to be revitalized much if they have had more than a doubling of their revenues. Well, how about Conoco-Phillips, how are they doing? Guess what? There is good news again. Here is what Conoco-Phillips had to report in their April 2004 quarterly report. Refining and marketing income from continuing operations was up $464 million, up from $202 million in the previous quarter and $389 million in the first quarter of 2003. Improvements over the fourth quarter of 2003 were primarily driven by higher refining margins. These improvements were partially offset by lower U.S. retail and wholesale marketing margins. The improved results from the first quarter of 2003 were attributable to higher U.S. refining margins and volumes, partially offset by lower U.S. retail and wholesale marketing margins. Now, I could go through BP, which once again makes the same point. How about Royal Dutch Shell? Again, they are making the same point. Shell, Shell says that they are watching increased margins. Not so great news for the consumer but great news for each one of those oil companies. So your question, I guess, is why do they not take all these profits and expand their refining capacity? Why do they not just, rather than blaming it on the environment and the health care laws of the United States, just take all these huge profits that they get from tipping the American consumer upside down and shaking money out of their pockets and improve them? I will tell you why they do not do that. They do not do that because they do not want to call upon the Justice Department. They do not want to call upon the Federal Trade Commission to look at the incredible consolidation that has occurred in the refining industry over the last 10 years. They do not want to look at what happens when fewer and fewer companies control the refining industry and you wind up with a conscious or unconscious parallelism of interest, which essentially means they all have a stake in raising prices because there are so few of them and there are no other competitors out there who can act on behalf of consumers by lowering prices. But for crying out loud, do not blame the health care laws that protect the American public. Do not blame the environmental laws. Blame these companies with record profits which do not want to expand the refining industry themselves. Please, please, do not exclude the American public from the debate on this bill, have no questions asked, and then blame the laws that have been passed to protect their health and environment for what the refiners are doing in hurting the American consumer.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the race to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease is 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, nearly 16 million Americans will have Alzheimer's disease by the year 2050. Today I am introducing the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2004, to honor President Ronald Reagan and his forward thinking in establishing an awareness of this disease and his guidance in directing the National Institute on Aging to establish the Alzheimer's Disease Centers. I am joined by Representative Christopher Smith, Co-chair of the Congressional Alzheimer's Taskforce, Representatives Robert Menendez, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Gene Green, Dale Kildee, Donald A. Manzullo, Karen McCarthy, Marty Meehan, Richard E. Neal, Ron Kind, Patrick Kennedy, and Jim McDermott. The Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2004 expands the federal government's efforts to find new ways to prevent, treat, and care for patients with Alzheimer's. This bill focuses on enhancing our research efforts by authorizing NIH's Preventive Initiative, which directs NIH to identify possible preventive interventions and conduct clinical trials to test their effectiveness. This bill authorizes significant increase in funding for the Nation Institute on Aging and cooperative clinical research at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) to improve the existing clinical trial infrastructure, develop new ways to design clinical trials, and make it easier for patients to enroll. The bill also focuses efforts to help the caregivers of Alzheimer's patients. Presently, care giving comes at enormous physical, emotional, and financial sacrifice. One in eight Alzheimer caregivers becomes ill or injured as a direct result of care giving, and older caregivers are three times more likely to become clinically depressed than others in their age group. Research is needed to find better ways to help caregivers bear this tremendous, at times overwhelming responsibility. This bill reauthorizes the Alzheimer's Demonstration Grant Program. These grants allow states to provide services like home care, respite care, and day care to patients and families, with Alzheimer's disease. Mr. Speaker the best way to fight this disease and reduce the number of patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease is to find ways to prevent it before it starts. Investments we make now in Alzheimer's disease and aging research 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. Congress must act now to strengthen the federal commitment to preventive Alzheimer's and to finding a cure for this devastating disease and provide for caregivers.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Does the Republican energy bill help the American consumer? Does it have any meaningful help whatsoever? Well, the answer is no. And who do we get the answer from? We get the answer from the Department of Energy, the Bush administration. Here is what it says. It says, ``The impact of this bill analyzed in this report on total primary energy consumption is small on a fuel specific basis; changes to production, consumption, imports and prices are negligible.'' What else does it say? It says, ``In 2015 the average gasoline prices relative to the reference case are 3 cents per gallon higher and average reformulated gasoline prices are 8 cents per gallon higher than in the reference case,'' meaning today. So this bill, according to the Bush administration's own Department of Energy, is going to lead to gas prices that are 3 to 8 cents higher than today. The American people are thinking, I wonder what Congress is going to do about high gasoline prices? Well, according to the Bush administrations's own Department of Energy, this bill will increase them by 3 to 8 cents per gallon. That is a travesty. This bill will have a negligible impact on energy production, a negligible impact on energy consumption, a negligible impact on energy imports, will increase the price of gasoline by 3 cents a gallon for regular. It will increase gas prices by 8 cents a gallon for reformulated. It provides $23 billion worth of special interest tax breaks for the oil, gas, coal, nuclear, utility industry. It weakens the Clean Air Act. It weakens the Clean Water Act. It repeals the protections against cross-subsidies amongst these big energy giants. But what is not in here? SUVs, automobiles, vehicles, where we put 70 percent of all oil in our country. Not a word. We will not be doing anything about that in this bill. We now import 60 percent of our oil and we have 135,000 young people over in the Middle East. This bill does not do anything about that. We are coming back in 15 more years importing 80 percent of our oil as the next generation of young men and women go over to the Middle East to protect the oil lines coming into our country. This bill does not meet the challenge of those 135,000 young men and women over in the Middle East. It does not meet the challenge of the 24 million children and adults with asthma in our country from all of this pollution. It does not meet the challenge of 60, 70, 80 percent of our oil being imported into our country. It does not meet the challenge of the day. We have young men and women over in the Middle East. This bill does not reduce our dependence upon imported oil. It raises the price of gasoline at the pump, and it leaves the next generation wondering when they will have to go over to the Middle East. This bill is a failure. It does not do the job for the American public. It must be rejected as historically inappropriate for the challenge this generation faces to meet the challenge of the times that we live in.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4513, the Renewable Energy Project Siting Improvement Act. This bill should really be called the Nonnegotiable Energy Project Siting Act. This is a gift to those who would like to gut the National Environmental Policy Act, wrapped in the green paper of renewable energy. If the Republican leadership really cared about increasing renewable energy use in America, today we would be debating the extension of a renewable energy production tax credit, or a renewable portfolio standard or even national interconnection standards. Those are the policy priorities of the renewable energy industry, not gutting our national environmental laws. Instead of taking up those policy priorities, the Republican leadership has decided instead to just take the public out of the process. H.R. 4513 would eliminate the requirement that any alternative other than not building the project be considered, and it limits the public comment period to just 20 days. 20 days is an inadequate amount of time for the public to respond to complicated energy projects like hydroelectric dams and waste incineration, which are included in the bill's broad definition of ``renewable energy project.'' This bill says to sportsmen and Indian tribes that their comments on potentially harmful dam projects don't matter. This bill says to parents that their comments on plans to build dirty waste incinerators next to their children's schools don't matter. This is a Republican solution in search of a problem. You'll hear a lot about wind energy today, but the fact of the matter is that 6374 megawatts of wind power have been developed under the current regulations. It is the start-stop nature of the renewable energy production tax credits under the Republican controlled Congress and White House that are making it difficult for developers to bring more wind energy online. Democrats are ready to debate long-term production tax credits. Democrats are ready to debate a national Renewable Portfolio Standard. Democrats are ready to debate interconnection standards. But instead the Republicans just want to eliminate public involvement in energy projects that impact their families. I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided bill and preserve the public's right to comment on energy projects--renewable or not-- that impact their families.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, if we had a rule prohibiting false or misleading short titles on legislation, I would offer a point of order that the Gasoline Price Reduction Act being brought before the body today is a blatant violation of honesty and presentation of legislation because the bill does absolutely nothing to deal with the real causes of the increase in the price of gasoline at the pump. With this bill the Republicans have identified a problem. Gas prices are too high. The consumers are paying an arm for regular. They are paying a leg for plus, and for their first born they get premium. We need to do something, says the Republicans. The Democrats agree, but the Republicans have offered up a false solution. They say, let us waive the Clean Air Act. We have 24 million Americans with asthma. We have 8 million children in America with asthma. Is the solution to high gasoline prices waiving the Clean Air Act? We have a dramatic rise in breast cancer, in prostate cancer in America, much of it environmentally related, what we breathe in the air, but what is the Republican solution to that? They say, well, let us regulate softly and carry a big inhaler. That is the message to the children of our country. So what is the problem? Well, the Saudi Arabians, of course, took about 1 million barrels of oil off the market a year ago, and we heard just a little whisper from this White House that the Saudi Arabians were playing games with the oil prices in our country. The GAO actually did a study a year ago that indicated that all the oil company mergers in the 1990s led to a dramatic increase in gasoline prices. Are they investigating all these oil company mergers in America? Are they investigating what the Saudi Arabians are doing? Have we seen those hearings? No. Their answer is that it is the clean air that children are breathing in the United States that is the problem. We hear the complaints from the Republican Party, the air is too clean, the water in America is getting too clean; that is the problem, not what is going on in OPEC, not what is going on with the oil companies. What is their solution? Their solution is whenever there is a significant fuel supply disruption that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bush administration, every polluter's ally EPA, is able to waive the Clean Air Act requirements to protect the children's air in America. That is what this bill is, the Gasoline Price Reduction Act. The Increase in Pollution Children Breathe Act is what it really is. Now, we say to the Republicans, we say to the White House, will you please deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 600 million gallons that the American people have purchased as a weapon against price gouging by the oil companies and by OPEC? They say, oh, no, that would be a disruption in the free market if we actually use the oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to drive down prices. Their answer is to increase pollution in the air that the children breathe, that the seniors breathe in our country. That is what this bill is all about. And how long will the EPA have to keep this reduction in clean air protections on the books? Forever, indefinite. So we could have the worst possible supply disruption, and this administration says it will never deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but will immediately take the Clean Air Act off the books. So the language is actually whenever the EPA, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, deems necessary by reason of such fuel supply disruption. So GOP, it used to stand for Grand Old Party, now it stands for Gas and Oil Party, now it stands for Gang of Polluters. Their solution to high gasoline prices is to pollute, not to go to OPEC, not to go to the oil companies. It is to pollute. This bill is absolutely atrocious. I beg Members, please do not be misled. This bill is nothing more than something that will result in more and more children in our country needing inhalers. Members should not vote for it. There is a direct correlation between the amount of pollution that goes in the air and the amount of disease we see in our country. We do not have to find this false solution to deal with the problem when it is so obvious what is going wrong in the oil markets, our OPEC allies.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to celebrate the memory of Gertrude Holder, who recently passed away on the 30th of May at the age of 85. Gertrude was a dedicated citizen who served her Nation and community throughout her life. A daughter of Russian immigrants, for 35 years Ms. Holder helped federal agencies of the United States better serve the public while employed by the General Services Administration. As a retiree, she continued to benefit her surrounding citizens. She could be often found volunteering to help voters at the polling place of her local senior citizens' center in Revere, Massachusetts. A tribute to the vitality of her public service, her grandson served as a Congressional Page under the late Congressman Joseph Moakley. Unquestionably, her spirit of public service will be passed on to her daughter, son, five grandchildren, three great-grandchildren, and community.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman and I have been making this amendment for 3 years, $500 million on a program for a weapon which is unusable. Can you imagine on the first day of Shock and Awe if we had dropped a nuclear bunker buster in the middle of Baghdad to get Saddam Hussein, and he was not in the command bunker, he was not there at all? The catastrophe for our country across the whole world would have been disastrous. We found him in a spider hole, 5 feet deep. You cannot drop a nuclear bomb in the middle of a city. It is an unusable weapon. Our threat is that Iran and North Korea and other terrorist groups are trying to get a nuclear weapon. We cannot preach temperance from a bar stool; you cannot tell a kid not to smoke while holding a Camel cigarette in your hand. If we want other countries to disavow the desire to develop nuclear weapons, we cannot be developing new usable nuclear weapons, which is what the Republican majority, the Bush administration, wants to do. We must use our political and our moral high ground to convince every other country in the world to disavow that interest. This is the worst public policy decision that the Bush administration is making. We started a war in Iraq because of our fear of him having nuclear weapons. We are sending a signal to Iran, to North Korea, to Syria, to Egypt, to every other country in the world, that nuclear weapons are usable and we will use them. Well, they will develop them as well, Mr. Chairman, and the next generations of Americans will be less secure, not more secure. Vote for the Tauscher amendment if you care about the security of the children and the grandchildren in our country. It is the only way in which we can convince this military-industrial complex that they could not have won in Iraq if they had used nuclear weapons. They would have destroyed our capacity for evermore to be a political and moral force in the world.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to dedicate the World War II Memorial in Washington DC next week, and remember the sacrifices of the Greatest Generation who repelled the forces of tyranny and hate in Europe and the Pacific 50 years ago, let us also pause to honor a new generation of brave Americans that have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. We observe a moment of silence for those brave young men and women that have given their life while serving our Nation in the War on Terror. Throughout the history of this Nation, the soldiers of our Armed Forces have fought to preserve the ideals of democracy, freedom, and liberty. The tragic events of September 11th, 2001, reminded us that there is no permanent respite from the need to maintain our guard in an unstable world. Even as Communism and the Cold War have faded into history's mists, radical and dangerous new groups and individuals are ready to rise to test the willingness of America to defend itself. The sacrifices of our sons and daughters fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that when duty calls, America is ready. Hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform have bravely answered the call to duty and traveled far beyond our borders to preserve and protect our nation in its time of need. Our Armed Forces are working today throughout the globe to ensure that future generations of Americans can live in a free and peaceful society. Today, we pause to remember our young men and women who answered the call, fought bravely, and sacrificed much to preserve our freedom. It is with a heavy but grateful heart that we thank our fallen soldiers and their families in these difficult times. We can never fully repay their service, but we must never forget their sacrifice.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget reminds me of Saint Augustine's famous prayer, ``Lord, make me chaste but not just yet.'' The budget resolution covers only 1 year, not the 5 years normally covered, in order to hide the true scope of the deficits their tax cuts have created. Its pay-as-you-go provisions do not apply to all of the Republican tax cuts. Oh, Lord, our Republican friends pray, make us fiscally chaste, but not just yet, and only for a year when it comes to the tax cuts we have given to our wealthy friends. Since taking office, President Bush's reckless tax cutting policy has drilled a massive fiscal hole in our economy. Today, the Republican budget resolution drills even deeper. Republicans are giving us Energizer Bunny deficits. They keep growing and growing and growing. But the Republican paradox is that they hate the government, but they have to run for office in order to make sure that the government does not work, and the perfect form of that is when they control the House, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court because then they can take the notion of benign neglect which does not harm, it does not hurt, and turn it into designed neglect where the tax cuts are so massive that cuts in Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid and education and the environment and every other program that has been put on the books over the last 60 years, as each year goes by, has a meat cleaver that has to be applied to it in order to make sure that tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percentile is preserved. Mr. Speaker, this Republican budget reminds me of Saint Augustine's famous prayer, ``Lord make me chaste, but not just yet.'' The budget resolution covers only one year, not the five years normally covered--in order to hide the true scope of the deficits their tax cuts have created. And its pay-as-you-go provisions don't apply to all of the Republican tax cuts! Oh Lord, our Republican friends pray, make us fiscally chaste, not just yet, and only for a year when it comes to the tax cuts we've given to our wealthy friends. Since taking office, President Bush's reckless tax cutting policy has drilled a massive fiscal hole in our economy. Today, the Republican budget resolution drills even deeper. Republicans are giving us Energizer Bunny deficits--they keep growing, and growing, and growing . . . Just 3\1/2\ years ago, CBO projected a $5.6 billion surplus over the next 10 years. Today, we're looking at a whopping $4.4 trillion deficit through 2014. The Republican budget on the Floor today reinforces this astonishing reversal of fortune. It is a stunning, self-inflicted fiscal wound that will fester for generations yet to come. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the budget deficit in 2004 will top last year's all-time high deficit and reach $600 billion when current borrowing from the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds are included. This resolution before us today will essentially freeze non-defense, non-homeland discretionary programs. Its budget proposes $13 billion in mandatory cuts over 5 years under the guise of reducing waste, fraud and abuse. But in reality these cuts could slash veterans' health care, Medicaid, unemployment assistance and other domestic programs that Americans depend on. The Republican budget scheme calls not for benign neglect of Social Security, Medicare, health care, education and other domestic programs, but designed neglect, in order to siphon away the money the federal government needs to meet its obligations under critical programs that benefit seniors, veterans, the environment and our children. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reported that during cabinet meetings early in the Bush Administration, Vice President Cheney brushed off concerns about tax cuts causing huge deficits by saying ``Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.'' The Republican paradox is that Conservatives hate government, but they have to run for office to make sure it doesn't work. With this budget resolution, they will have succeeded--but their success spells disaster for all of those Americans who depend on the Federal government to help them, and for the future generations who will be stuck with the tab for the tax cuts the Republicans have given to the wealthy. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney is wrong. Deficits do matter. Defeat this wrong-headed budget resolution, so that we can stop digging the deficit hole deeper.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following statement for the Record: On behalf of the National Volunteer Fire Council and the more than 800,000 members of America's volunteer fire and emergency services, I would like to thank Representative Ed Markey (MA) and Peter King (NY) for their steadfast leadership and long-time commitment to the implementation of fire safety standards for cigarettes. H.R. 4155 is bipartisan legislation which will set a reasonable ignition standard for cigarettes and help to prevent an estimated 800 deaths, 2,200 injuries and nearly $560 million dollars in damages caused by cigarette ignited fires every year. Cigarettes are the leading cause of fatal fires and children and firefighters themselves are at extremely high risk for burn and fire injuries from these fires. That is why this issue resonates so strongly for us and continues to be a priority of our organization. As everyone is aware, both New York State and Canada have passed cigarette fire safety standards that are due to go into effect this summer. This legislation will require that the CPSC adopt the New York cigarette fire safety standard as the national standard. On April 30, a 69-year-old Portland, Oregon woman died after a cigarette she was smoking in bed ignited a fire. On April 28, a 64- year-old Pensacola, Florida woman was killed in a house fire that was started by a lit cigarette. On April 27, a Kingsbury, New York man died in a fire at his home when he fell asleep while smoking. We need to pass this legislation immediately to put an end to the seemingly endless list of tragedies caused by cigarette-related fires. I would like to again thank Representatives Markey and King and the bipartisan group of Members of Congress who are cosponsors of this bill for their leadership on this lifesaving piece of legislation. The volunteer fire service in America stands behind you and we stand ready to assist you in anyway possible to pass the Cigarette Fire Safety Act. Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day in the history of the workers of the United States. The Republican Party is bringing out here onto the floor of Congress an all-out assault on the protection of the rights of people who work in the fields of our country, in the factories of our country, in the offices of our country. What they are saying is that they are going to try to tie the hands of OSHA to protect the rights of workers to be living and working in safe and healthy environments. And how do they do it? Well, the way they do it is they make it possible for there to be a wholesale delay in the implementation of improvements in health and safety protections in the workplace. They make it very difficult for the Secretary of Labor to exercise the authority of that agency to move in and to protect our workers. And they make it almost impossible to even bring a case unless the agency is 100 percent sure it is going to win the case. As a result, the hands of this agency are going to be tied by the Republican legislation out here on the floor. GOP. It used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now it stands for ``gut OSHA protections'' for ordinary workers in our country. And it is all part of a pattern. The same thing happened with overtime pay. With overtime pay they want to make it very difficult for workers to be able to collect that bonus that helps their families across our country. GOP. It used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now it stands for ``gut overtime pay, ``or ``gut OSHA protections.'' And on the minimum wage, you know, Harry Truman used to say about the Republican Party, ``Oh, the Republican Party believes in the minimum wage. The lower the minimum, the better.'' And here we are, year after year trying to improve the lot of working people by giving them that increase that they need in the minimum wage; and, like OSHA, and like overtime pay, it is all part of a deliberate assault upon the working men and women in our country, in their workplace, for their families, that makes it difficult to protect them. And when it comes to unemployment benefits as well, they also stand in the way of helping those families have the protections when they need it with unemployment benefits. So it is all part of a pattern. And, today, on the House floor, with four separate bills all aimed at a different part of OSHA, they continue this assault upon the progress that was made to improve the lives of working people in the workplace. I remember when I was a boy, my father used to walk around without one of his fingers that he lost in an accident in the workplace. And I think of how far we have come in terms of the protections which we give to families, because so many thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of workers were just constantly subjected to the risk of being injured in ways that would forever alter their lives, and because of OSHA that has changed. But when the Republicans control the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, you can see this lingering resentment of the laws which were put on the books to protect these ordinary people, these laws which they voted against when they were originally proposed. And what we are seeing here today is that continuing assault to turn into a relic an agency which has so dramatically changed the lives of ordinary people. Oppose each and every one of these Republican assaults upon the working men and women in our country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlemen's amendment. Knowledge is power, or as Francis Bacon used to say ``Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.'' Bacon inspired both this observation and what we have come to know as the scientific method, the underpinning of modern science. Whatever the inspiration for his famous quote, it appears that from the very beginning, science and politics mixed. Here in Congress we rely on scientists to inform policy, since the term congressional ``expert'' is really an oxymoron--like ``Jumbo Shrimp'' or ``Jobless Recovery.'' Scientists tell us whether Yucca Mountain can be used to safely store nuclear waste for a hundred thousand years, how fast global warming is occurring, and whether therapeutic cloning is possible. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has taken its relentless drive to weaken the environmental regulations of this country to a whole new level, and it has politicized the scientific process in a way we haven't seen since Galileo was tried and jailed by the Inquisition. Lead is one of the most dangerous and potent toxins to the brains of young children. A year and a half ago, I learned that the Bush administration had rejected the CDC staff nominations of three renowned scientists to its Advisory Panel on Preventing Childhood Lead Poisoning. In their place, individuals with clear ties to the lead industry were nominated--including one who had actually been nominated by the lead industry, and another who was an expert witness for the lead industry, testifying that lead posed very little health risk in lawsuits brought against it. Clearly, the lead industry was unhappy with the CDC panel, which was considering revising the safe blood lead levels downward. So it decided to perform a little policy alchemy by compromising the advisory committee process. I tried to head it off by issuing a report entitled ``Turning Lead into Gold: How the Bush Administration is Poisoning the Lead Advisory Committee at the CDC.'' While one of the nominees admitted her conflict of interest and bowed out, the other industry nominees serve on that panel today. The lead industry seems to have gotten its way for now. This same committee just recently decided not to lower the lead level of concern, despite a clear finding by a CDC working group that there are adverse health effects at the lower level. To add insult to injury, the President is proposing a $35 million cut in funds for lead abatement in low-income homes. In the face of significant national drinking water needs--illustrated by the shocking revelations of extremely high lead levels in the Washington, DC, water--the President's budget also proposes to cut water quality funding by $822 million. This all adds up to a policy that counts politics more than all of the science on the adverse effects of lead on young children. Vote ``yes'' on the Waxman-Tierney amendment to restore integrity to the government's scientific process.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago today, in the landmark Brown v. the Board of Education, Chief Justice Warren declared, unanimously, that ``in the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place.'' Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. The Brown decision promised that every child, regardless of the color of his or her skin, would have unequivocal access to quality education and an equal opportunity to pursue his/her dreams. Since that moment, our society has evolved to the point where the idea of intentionally separating students on the basis of on the color of their skin in the United States of America is appalling. However, while we should certainly celebrate the demise of overt official racism, we must also critically examine where we are at this historical moment, recognize the many challenges ahead and reaffirm our commitment to making Brown v. Board a reality. In Massachusetts we tend to think about segregation and racial disparity as a southern phenomenon, alien to our abolitionist New England roots. But a recent study released by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University found that the Metro-Boston area still remains a widely segregated society. In fact, 70 percent of white students attend suburban schools that are over 90 percent white, while more than 75 percent of black and Latino students attend schools in the inner city or in one of the urbanized satellite cities. The segregated schools of today are arguably no more equal than the segregated schools of the past. Students who attend high minority and high poverty schools are far less likely to graduate on time, be taught by a ``highly qualified teacher'' and apply to college, and are far more likely to drop out of school, score poorly on the SATs, and fail the MCAS. I am proud of what has happened in my hometown, where Mayor Howard seized an opportunity to modernize the entire school system so that everybody in this diverse working-class community feels that people care about the education of Malden's children, regardless of race or income. Unfortunately, this is the exception, not the rule. Efforts at the national level to support such initiatives have been very uneven. The No Child Left Behind NCLB Act set lofty goals but is failing to provide the funding and the assistance needed to achieve those goals. President Bush's budget for next year failed to provide $9.4 billion of promised money to K-12 education, $7.2 billion of which was intended to help schools educate our country's most impoverished children. In order for our schools to make ``adequate yearly progress,'' the President needs to provide ``adequate yearly funding.'' Almost every day, I get calls from constituents, and communicate with teachers about the many problems with implementing standards without financial support. Our work is clearly not done and there is too much at stake to leave the work unfinished. Education is not only a ladder of opportunity, but it is also an investment in our future. Our nation's security, economy, and place on the world stage depends on the success our educational system. Although children are only 24 percent of the population, they're 100 percent of our future and we cannot afford to provide any child with a substandard education.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill claims to be a cure for the high cost of insurance premiums paid by doctors. But it's really just what the insurance companies ordered. It's a public policy placebo that doesn't relieve the sting doctors are feeling from sky-high insurance premiums. It only offers the illusion of relief, while pumping cash into the bottom line of the insurance companies. Capping damages may save insurance companies money when their policyholders are sued, but the bill doesn't require insurers to pass along one cent of savings to doctors in the form of lower medical liability premiums. Last year, when H.R. 5, the so-called ``HEALTH'' Act, was considered in the Energy and Commerce Committee, I offered an amendment to ensure that any savings from the bill's caps on damages for patient pain and suffering would be passed along to doctors in the form of reductions in their liability insurance premiums. This would directly protect innocent doctors from the impact of rising insurance rates brought about by negligence, while increasing the likelihood that consumers would see some benefit from caps. The Republican side defeated my amendment. I asked the Rules Committee to make my amendment in order so that we could have a full and open debate on it during Floor consideration, but the Republicans refused to make my amendment in order. This year, the Republican Majority went one step further--not only did Republicans refuse to make my amendment in order, they completed bypassed the Committee process altogether, ramming this bill right to the House Floor without any hearings and without any opportunity to amend it in Committee. The amendment I offered last year in Committee established the ``missing link'' in this bill between liability caps and lower premiums for physicians. It would have balanced the competing interests in a way that would allow some progress on this issue. But balance does not seem to be what the Republican leadership is looking for. Instead, they bring forward a bill that no one can amend at all and which blames rising premiums on the victims of medical errors by capping their damages for pain and suffering, while completely ignoring the effect that insurers' own bad business decisions have on the high cost of premiums. Such a slanted, one-dimensional view of the problem is bad for doctors and bad for patients. Without any guarantee that savings from the bill's cap on damages will go to doctors--not the insurance industry--this bill deserves to be defeated. Someday, we will see a majority in this Congress that is willing to go to bat for consumers and doctors alike to reduce the soaring cost of providing good medicine, instead of handing out ``discount cards'' that are becoming a license to raise prices across the board. Sadly, that day has not yet arrived. I urge my colleagues to reject this harmful bill. Put the interests of physicians and patients above insurance company profiteering. Vote ``No'' on H.R. 4280.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Video Description Restoration Act of 2004.'' Mr. Speaker, the language in this bill is identical to provisions in Section 9 of Senate bill S. 1264, sponsored by Senators John McCain and Fritz Hollings. Mr. Speaker, we have a long history in telecommunications policy of trying to ensure that the benefits of technology reach all segments of American society. Our policies, enacted by Congress and implemented by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), have sought to further the three principal goals of telecommunications policy, namely, universal service, diversity, and localism--even as such policy objectives are buffeted by rapid technological change and competition. For instance, in the late 1980s, the Telecommunications Subcommittee enacted legislation to include a decoder chip in all televisions to ensure that the deaf and hard-of-hearing community had affordable access to closed captioning. While the industry opposed such efforts as being too costly, with exaggerated claims of how much the price of televisions would rise as a result of this mandate, the technology cost was minimal and now turns out to be about a dollar a set. The FCC's video description rules were designed to similarly serve a community, in this case the blind community, in a modest effort to ensure that television was available to that community. Video description is the insertion of narration about the visual setting and background when that information is not already included in the audio portion of the program. Because television is a mainstay for information, news, and family-oriented viewing in the home, it is important that steps are taken, in furtherance of longstanding universal service goals, to reach the blind community. This bill would restore the video programming rules. Recently the DC Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the rules, alleging that the Commission did not have sufficient authority to promulgate such rules. Passage of this legislation would remove any ambiguity. I believe Congress ought to give the Commission clear guidance that such rules should be reinstated in a way that no court could question the intent of Congress that the Commission should have such authority. Moreover, by approving such legislation, Congress can also establish that such video description rules do not regulate content in violation of any Constitutional protections. Broadcasters are free to air whatever content they wish over the course of a week. The video description rules simply require that a modest portion of such speech be made available to all listeners, including those who cannot see. The regulations would not stipulate which speech is acceptable, favored, or otherwise and broadcasters can choose which speech they wish to make available to the blind community. In fact, rather than infringing upon speech, the rules celebrate it, essentially saying that such speech is so important, so valued, that more Americans deserve to be able to hear it over their public airwaves, as broadcast by public licensees who are required by law to serve the public interest. Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will move legislation this year to re- instate these important video description rules and look forward to working with all of my colleagues on this issue in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce ``The Amusement Park Ride Child Labor Act of 2004, an act that directs the Secretary of Labor to prohibit the employment of minors as ride operators. For the sake of both the young employees and the park patrons, who are disproportionately children themselves, the Department of Labor should recognize that operating roller coasters and thrill rides requires split-second judgments that, if mishandled, can injure both the operator and dozens of riders. Let minors take the non-hazardous jobs in our parks--let adults run the rides. If it were ever wise to allow minors to operate amusement park rides, it is not a safe practice today. Based on the National Electronic Information Surveillance System (NEISS), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) estimates that, nationwide, 800 employees are injured operating amusement park rides each year. This is in addition to the estimated 6,800-10,700 patrons injured on amusement park rides each year. The potential for dangerous, debilitating and sometimes deadly consequences when persons operating amusement park rides make misjudgments, either in the operation of the ride itself or in the reaction to a situation brought on by rider error or ride malfunction, is very serious. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 114 employees died while attending to amusement and recreation facilities during the 10-year period 1992-2002, and 7 of those fatalities involved children under the age of 18. During 2001, nonfatal injuries suffered by amusement ride attendants totaled 2,475, and nearly one out of every five injuries was suffered by a child employee. The fact is that in the past 15 years, the speed and complexity of amusement park rides has risen dramatically. All of the nation's 15 fastest coasters have been built in the last 10 years. But clearly, the margin for error is much narrower for the operator of a ride traveling at 100 mph than on a ride traveling 50 mph. People make mistakes, and the riders often act like children, because they often are children. This situation is dangerously compounded by allowing young teenagers to be put in charge of running these high-tech, high-speed machines. The following are just a few examples of tragedies involving ride operators under the age of eighteen. In August 1999, a 16-year-old boy ride attendant died from injuries he suffered at Lake Compounce amusement park in Bristol, Connecticut. The boy was working as a ride attendant on the ``Tornado,'' a spinning ride more commonly known as the ``Scrambler.'' The accident happened when the boy stepped onto the ride before it had come to a complete stop. His legs got caught underneath the ride and he was dragged until the operator activated the emergency stop. The boy was left pinned underneath the ride from the waist down. Firefighters used inflatable devices to lift the ride off of the victim. After the boy was freed, he was transported by helicopter to a hospital, where he underwent surgery. His injuries included a head wound and broken bones, in addition to possible broken arms, dislocated shoulders, and multiple internal injuries. In June 1997, a 17-year-old ride operator at Celebration Station in Tulsa, Oklahoma was killed while operating a swinging boat ride. The teen fell into the frame of the ride in an area underneath the boat while the ride was in motion. He was crushed and died within 15 minutes. Five children were passengers on the ride at the time of the accident. Investigators from the Oklahoma Department of Labor ruled the death accidental, saying that the ride had not experienced any mechanical failure. In June 1996, a 16-year-old ride operator at Bonkers 19 Amusement Park in Weymouth, Massachusetts started the Mini Himalaya ride without notice. A 5-year-old girl's foot was gashed when it was trapped against the ride's track. Later that same year, in September, during the operation of the same ride by a different 16-year-old, part of the scalp of an 8-year-old girl was torn off when her hair became entangled in the motor powering the Mini Himalaya. At least nine states have recognized that it is per se hazardous to employ children 17 years of age or younger as ride operators and have included provisions in their laws to restrict such employment. Alaska, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wisconsin all have 18-year-old age limits. Some include exemption for ``kiddie rides,'' but all have adopted state standards that make it the rule, not the exception, that minors shall not operate the vast majority of park rides in their states. In addition, the Walt Disney Corporation has already recognized the wisdom of avoiding having youngsters placed in charge of the safe operation of their park rides. As a matter of park policy, Disney will not allow anyone younger than 18 years of age to operate a Disney ride. The Department of Labor has jurisdiction over the safety of child amusement park employees. This legislation would be unnecessary if the DOL would simply use its existing authority to restrict this kind of employment. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Chapter 8, Sec. 212, directs the Secretary of Labor to carry out the objectives of the child labor provisions, namely, to prohibit ``oppressive child labor.'' ``Oppressive child labor'' is defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Chapter 8, Sec. 203, as a condition of employment which the Secretary finds and declares as ``particularly hazardous for the employment of children between such ages [16 and 18] or detrimental to their health or well-being.'' Under this provision, the Secretary has issued 17 Hazardous Occupation Orders restricting children from certain hazardous jobs. For example, Order 7 declares ``hazardous'' the operation of most power- driven hoisting apparatus, including nonautomatic elevators exceeding one ton, 29 CFR Sec. 570.58. Most people would agree that an amusement park ride has all the characteristics of a ``power-driven hoist'' that lead to its designation as ``hazardous''--with the exception of the people at the DOL. With the support of the industry, the DOL has helpfully issued guidance to the public that specifically carves out amusement parks rides from this ``hazardous'' designation. It is difficult to understand how the DOL could conclude that operating an elevator is hazardous to a minor, while operating amusement park rides is not. Due to the seasonal nature of the amusement park business, many teenagers under the age of 18 seek summer employment at the parks, something that I applaud and encourage. Most jobs at the parks have nothing to do with hazardous machinery. Teenagers can safely fill jobs such as selling tickets, waiting on tables, or guiding patrons. But when it comes to filling a job as safety-critical as the loading and operation of ride machinery, it is simply irresponsible to risk the health of the employee or the park patrons by giving such a job to a minor. As the amusement park season commences, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and to help improve the safety of our nation's parks.