Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to begin by first thanking my good and great friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), for that wonderful opening statement and to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), to the great Member of Congress from the State of Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the entire House of Representatives, for his wonderful work on this legislation, and to all the Members who participated in the formulation of this excellent piece of legislation. I want to thank all of them for their help in putting this bill together today.

The goal of this legislation is to establish a policy mechanism that may assist the Federal Government in reallocating airwave frequencies from the Federal Government to the Federal Communications Commission. Ensuring the best use of such frequencies for the public is a vital function of both the National Telecommunications Information Agency and the Federal Communications Commission. The bill we bring to the House floor this morning proposes the creation of a fund derived from FCC auction revenue to pay the military and other Federal users for moving out of particular bands of frequencies. Establishing such a mechanism when and if the FCC chooses to license certain government frequencies through auctions may bring greater certainty to the process and may also speed along the availability of certain frequencies. In addition, one issue that we will need to continue to focus on is the necessity of ensuring that the money raised is spent wisely and with adequate oversight. We have returned to an era of Federal budget deficits for as far as the eye can see and, as a result, this is a very important issue.

The bill does contain improved oversight and reporting provisions to guard against cost overruns by Federal entities that seek to use money in the Spectrum Relocation Fund, but this process will likely need ongoing review as the bill is implemented.

I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) for their work in this area.

Second, it is important to note that today's bill puts in place a new policy for Federal spectrum reallocations. It does so through establishing a Federal fund derived from auction proceeds to compensate the Federal users for the costs associated with moving out of their current frequencies.

One issue that arose during the committee consideration of this bill is that this new policy is only operative in circumstances when an auction actually occurs. I think it is important to recognize that in the future certain frequencies utilized by Federal entities may be reallocated by the Federal Communications Commission, yet not licensed through auctions. They may be for public safety, noncommercial uses, shared frequencies, or unlicensed use such as the so-called WiFi technologies. In other words, in order to ensure the highest and best use of such frequencies for the public, the FCC may seek to allocate or assign such frequencies without auctions.

In recent years it has become evident that one of the telecommunications sector's economic bright spots has been unlicensed applications such at WiFi. Ensuring that we have a policy in place to permit the Federal Communications Commission to continue to promote unlicensed spectrum is important. But in addition, retaining the historic flexibility for the Federal Communications Commission to allocate frequencies for both commercial and noncommercial use is something we should safeguard, even as we put in place a new policy to compensate Federal users for the costs of moving out.

We do not want the absence of an articulated policy for unlicensed use, shared use, public safety use, or noncommercial use to be construed as compelling the FCC to use auctions whenever it intends to move a Federal user to another frequency band.

I am pleased that the legislation contains a provision that I authored in this policy area. First, the provision safeguards the FCC's historic authority to allocate frequencies as the public interest is deemed to be best served. Second, it also directs the National Telecommunications Information Agency to develop reports on various policy options to compensate Federal entities for relocation costs when such entities' frequencies are allocated by the commission for unlicensed public safety, shared or noncommercial use.

Finally, I believe that when the Federal Communications Commission does decide to proceed with auctions as a means of granting licenses for use of the public's airwaves the public deserves to reap the benefits of the sale of licenses to its airwaves. These benefits should not only manifest themselves in the offering of new commercial services or the temporary infusion of cash into the Federal Treasury as under current law.

I have proposed in H.R. 1396 that the public should also enjoy the dividends that can be reaped by reinvesting auction money into a Digital Dividends trust fund. This fund would generate interest, and that interest could be used in the form of grants to promote educational technology projects, public safety telecommunications initiatives, software R&D, teacher training, and digitizing for online access the important cultural assets held in our Nation's libraries and museums, among other initiatives.

Investing surplus auction revenues in this manner is a wise investment. It supports the educational infrastructure of our country. It will help to better prepare our citizens for an information-rich, knowledge-based economy. An educated citizenry is indispensable to our democracy. Educating citizens so that they possess the necessary digital skill set that they will need in order to compete in a modern global economy will make us a more secure, more productive country for the generations to come.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Upton), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and all of the Members who have helped to construct this very progressive legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the principal cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would add to that litany of saints which was just uttered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns). I would also like to add the names of David Schooler, who is counsel to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the Democrats on the committee, and to Colin Crowell on my staff, who participated in the drafting of this legislation right from its inception.

During the course of the actual drafting of the bill, his first son Gavin was born, while balancing those two important responsibilities. Both of them have come out extremely well over the last month. I think our country for the future is much brighter because of the work of Colin for our Nation over this past year.

I hope that the other Members of this great Chamber deem fit to pass this important legislation today, which will help us become stronger economically while not undermining the defense of our Nation at all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House of Representatives take this opportunity to honor Gerard Doherty, a man who has dedicated his enormous talents and unlimited energy to public service and charitable ventures throughout his life.

Gerard Doherty is an exceptional leader in Charlestown, in our Commonwealth of Massachusetts and throughout our Nation. Mr. Doherty is one of the founders of the John F. Kennedy Family Service Center. He serves as a member of the Boston Public Library Foundation, the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and the Suffolk University Board of Trustees. He is remembered on Beacon Hill as one of our most respected members of The Great and General Court, where he was elected to four terms as State Representative from Charlestown.

Because of his efforts to improve educational opportunities for children, Gerard Doherty has received numerous awards including an honorary doctorate degree from Our Lady of the Elms College. And Mr. Speaker, when I return to my alma mater of Malden Catholic High School to attend a basketball game, I take great pride in walking through the doors of the Gerard and Marilyn Doherty Gymnasium, dedicated in the name of MC's most beloved couple.

Gerard Doherty has also placed his indelible mark on national politics. He served as a close and trusted advisor to President John F. Kennedy, Presidential Campaign Director for both Senator Robert F. Kennedy and President Jimmy Carter and Campaign Manager for Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor one of the Bay State's most famous sons on his 75th birthday. Gerard Doherty's commitment to public service and community philanthropy has made an immeasurable impact in his community, in our State and throughout our Nation.

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.

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 George Miller, Bill Pascrell, Barney Frank, Frank Pallone, Richard Neal, Jan Schakowsky, Jim McGovern, Carolyn Maloney and John Tierney.

support for the bill

We are supported in this endeavor by the nation's leading consumer- protection advocates, including Consumer's Union, the Consumer Federation of America, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, Saferparks.org, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Moreover, the nation's pediatricians--the doctors who treat the injuries suffered by children on amusement park rides--have endorsed our bill. According 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. Fifty-five fatalities have occurred on amusement park rides in the last 15 years, 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.)

Since that week, there have been six more fatalities on amusement park rides, including an 11-year-old girl just over two weeks ago at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois.

Every one of these is an unspeakable horror for the families. 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. As a result, 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. That's just plain wrong.

fatalities per mile compared to trains, planes, buses and autos

The industry attempts to justify their special-interest exemption by pretending that there is no risk in riding machines that carry human beings 70, 80 or 90 miles an hour. The rides are very short, and most people are not injured. But in fact, the number of fatalities per passenger mile on roller coasters is higher than on passenger trains, passenger buses, and passenger planes. The National Safety Council uses a standard method of comparing risk of injury per distance traveled. As can be seen from the following table, riding on a roller coaster is generally safer than driving a car, but is not generally safer than riding a passenger bus, train or airplane:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fatalities Fatalities

Mr. Chairman, we are not going to be debating star wars, the missile defense program, out here on the House floor.

Now I made a request to the Committee on Rules that they put in order an amendment which I wanted to make which said that the missile defense system cannot be deployed until it is proven to work. In other words, the old defense test that you have got to fly before you buy. And that applies to every other weapons system, but it is not going to apply to missile defense. They want to deploy it even before they have proven that it works.

Now the interesting thing is that it is kind of a fantastical concept, but the Missile Defense Agency has actually put together, I am not kidding you, a Missile Defense Agency coloring book which they pass out to schools so they can help kids to understand how this system, which they do not want to test before it flies, will work. They actually have crayons that go with it. I am not kidding you. But unfortunately it says ``Made in China'' on the crayons, which means we should color this part Red in the book for the Red Chinese that we are going to deploy the missile system to protect ourselves against.

Then you reach the next part of the little coloring book, Ronald Reagan, who we can color red, white and blue, a great patriot who really believed in this system. He always did. But unfortunately it has yet to be proven to work. So that is red, white and blue.

Next we have the ground-based mid-course defense. Unfortunately, the incoming missile has to yell ``yoo-hoo'' at the rest of the world so that it can be shot down by the Defense Department. So we can color that black.

Finally, we have the airborne laser in the cartoon which is supposed to be on a plane. But the plane is so weighted down that it cannot fly, so we can color that gold for gold-plated for the Defense Department.

None of this will be debated on the House floor, although they have taken the time to give us a missile defense coloring book so we can all play out here on the floor rather than debate the national defense of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

The bunkers which the Republicans want to drop these nuclear bombs on are in the middle of Baghdad. They are in the middle of P'yongyang in North Korea. These bombs, these nuclear bombs, are bigger and more powerful than the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima. We are like those that would preach temperance from a barstool. We cannot tell the other countries in the world that nuclear weapons are unusable if we are at the same time saying that one can use them, that one can be successful and that one can win if one drops nuclear weapons in the middle of the most densely populated cities in the world.

We just brought Iraq to its knees in 3 weeks using conventional weapons. The signal the Republicans are sending is that nuclear weapons are usable and they are usable in the middle of cities where bunkers are being built. And they are wrong, and it is immoral for our country to be taking this step.

Mr. Chairman, last October I voted for the Bush resolution on Iraq. The reason I did is the President said he wanted to stop Saddam Hussein from obtaining a nuclear weapon, that we were going to stop him and anyone else in the world from the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. The message the Republicans are sending to the world today is that nuclear weapons are usable. If the Russians send nuclear weapons to the United States, shoot them at us, every Trident submarine we have has up to 100 nuclear weapons on it. Russia will be destroyed in 1 day. But if we use one nuclear weapon in Baghdad, in Damascus, in P'yongyang, we will send a signal to dozens of countries in the world that nuclear weapons are usable, and that will destroy our moral and political credibility to end the spread of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, on this planet. This is the most important vote we are going to have, and I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Tauscher amendment so that we fulfill the commitment of those who voted on the resolution to support a war with Iraq in order to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to use that 1 minute to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for his amendment and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), because we clearly have a meeting of the minds here that there should be an ongoing accounting of what is going on in the area of dismantling of these weapons in the former Soviet Union.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) I think has put his finger on a very real defect that exists in the current system. By ensuring that there will be an accounting scheme that is put into place, I think that we are going to be able to much more quickly advance the goal of nuclear nonproliferation.

I thank the gentleman for making his very important amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it's been said that the French drink champagne only when they're happy or when they're sad. Otherwise, they never touch it . . . unless they're thirsty.

This is kind of like the Republicans' approach to tax cuts. Republicans propose tax cuts when the budget is in surplus. They propose tax cuts when the budget is in deficit. Otherwise, they never propose tax cuts . . . unless they're thirsty for more giveaways for the rich.

President Bush took office with a projected $5.6 trillion budget surplus and the Republicans immediately called for a huge tax cut. Now the Republicans have turned that surplus into what will be a $4.0 trillion budget deficit by 2011, and they are still calling for a huge tax cut.

Republicans have violated the First Law of Holes, which is ``When you're in one, stop digging.''

Although the war in Iraq has ended, but President Bush has dropped his own version of the MOAB--the Mother Of All Budgets--on the American economy.

Unlike the Army's MOAB, the Bush MOAB devastates the Medicare program and the Social Security trust fund.

The Bush MOAB pounds the Social Security and Medicare trust funds for the Greatest Generation who built this country.

The Bush MOAB shells funding for health care for America's veterans.

And the Bush MOAB obliterates education funding for our children and jobs for Americans out of work.

As the Bush administration and this Republican Congress drop a MOAB on the American people and our economy, they are also air dropping bottles of champagne on the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our country who will be the primary beneficiaries of this selfish and unprecedented tax cut. Because according to the GOP, there is no bad time for a tax cut--if you ask a majority of Americans, they'll tell you that in a devastated economy at a time of war, it is IMMORAL to cut taxes for the wealthiest at the expense of the poorest Americans.

We should be putting funds aside to help care for the estimated 14 million Americans who will have Alzheimer's by the middle of the century, the more than 1 million people who suffer from Parkinson's Disease, or the 30,000 Americans afflicted with Lou Gehrig's Disease.

We should be putting funds aside to care for the Baby Boomers, who will be retiring in huge numbers at the end of the decade. This group will soon begin drawing an estimated $25 trillion in Social Security and Medicare benefits, which are currently unfunded.

This Republican tax cut and Bush MOAB blows up our country's fiscal future and the potential for our government to take care of those who built this country and fought for this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from South Dakota for their support for this resolution. The entire Massachusetts delegation appreciates the recognition which these couple of days have played in the history of our country, and over in the Senate, Senator Kennedy was able to pass the identical resolution, because it does mean a lot to Massachusetts and to Maine, as both States celebrate this day as a holiday. But it also means a lot to our country, because it was a shining moment in the history of the United States, because it was the beginning of the most enduring, free, and democratic experiment in the world. These were, after all, Minutemen, people who left their homes to fight an enemy from abroad, much like our Army reservists, our National Guardsmen are doing right now. These are the original Minutemen, the original guards, the original militia that fought to protect our country.

On April 19 in 1775, the American colonists in Lexington, in Concord, in Medford, in Arlington, in Lincoln, and in ``every Middlesex village and town rose'' up to claim their inherent right to govern themselves, free of the whims of the English king.

While this day is already celebrated as a State holiday in both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and in the State of Maine, and the national significance of the events surrounding the ``shot heard 'round the world'' is unquestioned, the recent establishment of a national day of remembrance on September 11 as ``Patriot Day'' has understandably confused some Americans regarding ``Patriots' Day'' in April.

Today's resolution helps remind everyone that while we now observe a solemn moment in our country's history every September 11 in honor of the victims of that terrorist attack, the freedoms which we cherish had their origins more than 2 centuries ago. And the legacy of those fateful spring days in April of 1775 define the core of our American character.

The words are etched into the brains of every American school child and they resonate still:

``One if by land, 2 if by sea! Listen, my children, and you shall hear of the midnight ride of Paul Revere. Here once the embattled farmers stood and fired the shot heard 'round the world.''

It is the foundational poetry of a free people, the remembrance of our roots, and it is the inspiration for the annual proclamation of Patriots' Day, both in Massachusetts and Maine, and similar observances in many other States as the schools, historical societies and other organizations devoted to the living memory of American milestones make a special effort to relearn the lessons of the past as a guide to an uncertain future.

So today, we ask the House of Representatives to unite in celebration of Patriots' Day, a day of soaring significance not just to our own free people, but to people everywhere who aspire to a system of government that respects the rights and the liberties of all of its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record at the conclusion of my remarks the poem ``Paul Revere's Ride'' by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and ``The Concord Hymn'' by Ralph Waldo Emerson. First, I would just carry on a little bit further than the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) did with his reading of ``Paul Revere's Ride,'' although I will not read it in its entirety. His voice is something that I think does greater justice to the poem than I could possibly hope to attempt, but I will very briefly just remind people of that great poem.

Listen my children and you shall hear

Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,

On the 18th of April, in seventy-five;

Hardly a man is now alive

Who remembers that famous day and year.

He said to his friend, ``If the British march

By land or sea from the town to-night,

Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch

Of the North Church tower as a signal light,--

One if by land, two if by sea;

And I on the opposite shore will be,

Ready to ride and spread the alarm

Through every Middlesex village and farm,

For the country folk to be up and to arm.

So through the night rode Paul Revere, and so through the night went his cry of alarm to every Middlesex village and farm; a cry of defiance and not of fear; a voice in the darkness, a knock at the door, and a word that will echo forevermore.

For born on the night wind of the past, through all of our history to the last, in the hour of darkness, in peril and need, the people will wake and listen to hear hurrying hoofbeats of that steed and the midnight message of Paul Revere.

This was the beginning of our country, and it is appropriately commemorated both by the celebration of Patriots' Day and by this resolution today.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his work, and I thank the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Janklow) once again for his eloquent words on this subject.

I include for the Record the poems ``Paul Revere's Ride'' by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and ``Concord Hymn'' by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

The poems referred to are as follows:

Paul Revere's Ride

(By Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)

Listen my children and you shall hear

Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,

On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;

Hardly a man is now alive

Who remembers that famous day and year.

He said to his friend, ``If the British march

By land or sea from the town to-night,

Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch

Of the North Church tower as a signal light,--

One if by land, and two if by sea;

And I on the opposite shore will be,

Ready to ride and spread the alarm

Through every Middlesex village and farm,

For the country folk to be up and to arm.''

Then he said ``Good-night!'' and with muffled oar

Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,

Just as the moon rose over the bay,

Where swinging wide at her moorings lay

The Somerset, British man-of-war;

A phantom ship, with each mast and spar

Across the moon like a prison bar,

And a huge black hulk, that was magnified

By its own reflection in the tide.

Meanwhile, his friend through alley and street

Wanders and watches, with eager ears,

Till in the silence around him he hears

The muster of men at the barrack door,

The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,

And the measured tread of the grenadiers,

Marching down to their boats on the shore.

Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church,

By the wooden stars, with stealthy tread,

To the belfry chamber overhead,

And startled the pigeons from their perch

On the sombre rafters, that round him made

Masses and moving shapes of shade,--

By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,

To the highest window in the wall,

Where he paused to listen and look down

A moment on the roofs of the town

And the moonlight flowing over all.

Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead,

In their night encampment on the hill,

Wrapped in silence so deep and still

That he could hear, like a sentinel's tread,

The watchful night-wind, as it went

Creeping along from tent to tent,

And seeming to whisper, ``All is well!''

A moment only he feels the spell

Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread

Of the lonely belfry and the dead;

For suddenly all his thoughts are bent

On a shadowy something far away,

Where the river widens to meet the bay,--

A line of black that bends and floats

On the rising tide like a bridge of boats.

Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,

Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride

On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.

Now he patted his horse's side,

Now he gazed at the landscape far and near,

Then, impetuous, stamped the earth,

And turned and tightened his saddle girth;

But mostly he watched with eager search

The belfry tower of the Old North Church,

As it rose above the graves on the hill,

Lonely and spectral and sombre and still.

And lo! as he looks, on the belfry's height

A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!

He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,

But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight

A second lamp in the belfry burns.

A hurry of hoofs in a village street,

A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,

And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark

Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet;

That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,

The fate of a nation was riding that night;

And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,

Kindled the land into flame with its heat.

He has left the village and mounted the steep,

And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,

Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides;

And under the alders that skirt its edge,

Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,

Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.

It was twelve by the village clock

When he crossed the bridge into Medford town.

He heard the crowing of the cock,

And the barking of the farmer's dog,

And felt the damp of the river fog,

That rises after the sun goes down.

It was one by the village clock,

When he galloped into Lexington.

He saw the gilded weathercock

Swim in the moonlight as he passed,

And the meeting-house windows, black and bare,

Gaze at him with a spectral glare,

As if they already stood aghast

At the bloody work they would look upon.

It was two by the village clock,

When he came to the bridge in Concord town.

He heard the bleating of the flock,

And the twitter of birds among the trees,

And felt the breath of the morning breeze

Blowing over the meadow brown.

And one was safe and asleep in his bed

Who at the bridge would be first to fall,

Who that day would be lying dead,

Pierced by a British musket ball.

You know the rest. In the books you have read

How the British Regulars fired and fled,--

How the farmers gave them ball for ball,

From behind each fence and farmyard wall,

Chasing the redcoats down the lane,

Then crossing the fields to emerge again

Under the trees at the turn of the road,

And only pausing to fire and load.

So through the night rode Paul Revere;

And so through the night went his cry of alarm

To every Middlesex village and farm,--

A cry of defiance, and not of fear,

A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,

And a word that shall echo for evermore!

For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,

Through all our history, to the last,

In the hour of darkness and peril and need,

The people will waken and listen to hear

The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,

And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues from Massachusetts and I are introducing identical resolutions in both the House and the Senate that celebrate a shining moment in the history of the United States, the beginning of the most enduring free and democratic experiment in the world. On April 19, 1775, the American colonists in Lexington, in Concord and in ``every Middlesex village and town'' rose up to claim their inherent right to govern themselves, free of the whims of the English king.

While this day is already celebrated as a state holiday in both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of Maine, and the national significance of the events surrounding the ``shot heard `round the world'' is unquestioned, the recent establishment of a national day of remembrance on September 11 as ``Patriot Day'' has understandably confused some Americans regarding ``Patriot's Day'' in April. We introduce this resolution not in any way to diminish ``Patriot Day,'' but only to remind our colleagues and the public that ``Patriot's Day'' continues to serve every year as a reminder of the origins of the freedoms we enjoy today.

So this year we ask all Americans to join us in celebrating Patriot's Day, 2003, to be celebrated on Monday April 21. As a reminder of this day, I am including excerpts from Longfellow's ``Paul Revere's Ride'' and from Emerson's ``The Concord Hymn''

Paul Revere's Ride

``Listen my children and you shall hear

Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,

On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;

Hardly a man is now alive

Who remembers that famous day and year.

He said to his friend, ``If the British march

By land or sea from the town to-night,

Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch

Of the North Church tower as a signal light,

One if by land, and two if by sea;

And I on the opposite shore will be,

Ready to ride and spread the alarm

Through every Middlesex village and farm,

For the country folk to be up and to arm . . .''

So through the night rode Paul Revere;

And so through the night went his cry of alarm

To every Middlesex village and farm,

A cry of defiance, and not of fear,

A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,

And a word that shall echo for evermore!

For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,

Through all our history, to the last,

In the hour of darkness and peril and need,

The people will waken and listen to hear

The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,

And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

The Concord Hymn

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,

Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,

Here once the embattled farmers stood

And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;

Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;

And Time the ruined bridge has swept

Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,

We set today a votive stone;

That memory may their deed redeem,

When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those heroes dare

To die, and leave their children free,

Bid Time and Nature gently spare

The shaft we raise to them and thee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

This rule does not allow the Democrats to make the amendments which are appropriate on the environmental side. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) is looking at an innovative, more balanced approach to Federal lands, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), to ensure that our hydroelectric laws are protected so that conservation and fishing and other issues are given the same weight as the generation of electricity.

The Waxman amendment would reduce imported oil by 600,000 barrels. The amount that we import from Iraq, that is not put in order.

The Oberstar amendment, which would change the relationship between the Clean Water Act and oil and gas drilling in the United States, reducing the amount of protections that are given against the water of our country being polluted.

And at a higher level, this bill, in general, is completely unbalanced.

I think the American people, as they are watching this debate, probably assume that since we put 70 percent of all of the oil which we consume in this country into gasoline tanks, that we will probably be changing that so we can reduce the amount of oil that SUVs and light trucks and automobiles consume in our country, so that Iran and Saudi Arabia and other countries, we are not sucked even deeper into their internal affairs. But no, the majority bill, the Republican bill, does not do anything about our dependence on imported oil, due to our ever- increasing dependence on imported oil because of the inefficiency of our vehicles.

The Democrats want to make these vehicles more efficient, keep the same size weight and the same safety, but make sure that they consume less oil. We are at 65 percent dependence upon imported oil today. We will be at 75 and 80 percent by 2010 and 2015 on imported oil unless we do something about where we put that oil after we bring it into our country.

This is not a fair rule. Other amendments should have been put in order. I urge a ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent amendment. I am looking forward to the gentleman's support on that when we debate it, yes.

Mr. Speaker, that, as well, is an amendment which we are hoping for support.

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying it is a totally bad rule. Obviously, there are some amendments which have been put in order that are appropriate.

What we are saying is that the American people have an expectation that the Congress of our country, at a minimum, would look at all of the rest of the issues, as well, and not exclude them from debate here on the House floor.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a momentous debate. With 250,000 young men and women in Iraq fighting for all of us, we know that this Congress has a tremendous responsibility as we consider our national energy policy for the next decade to make decisions which will make it less likely that we are drawn into global conflicts in the future because of our dependence upon imported oil. That is why the provision which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and others asked to be put in

order out here on the House floor, that is why the Waxman amendment, that is why the Dingell amendment, which deals with fraud in the electricity marketplace, that is why the Rahall amendment and so many of the other issues we were talking about, are so central.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is raising the issue in the electricity marketplace of whether or not we are going to deal with the issue of fraud, of ensuring that we have an audit trail, which is going to make it possible for us to track activity which undermines the integrity of the marketplace; and that debate is a critical one here today.

In addition, we are going to debate whether or not we should be drilling in the pristine Arctic wilderness. Should we be going to the pristine wilderness of our country before we ensure that the motor vehicles in our country, the SUVs, the light trucks, the automobiles that are in our national fleet, are made more efficient.

Under the majority provision here today, we do not do anything about that. Instead, we turn to this pristine area in our country first. I believe that that is morally wrong, that we have a responsibility first to deal with the technologies that consume the energy in our society.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

American needs a balanced and comprehensive national energy policy. But the bill before us today is neither balanced nor comprehensive.

it is a polluting bill. It unnecessarily sweeps aside a wide range of environmental and anti-pollution protections in the name of increasing oil and gas drilling throughout the country, and burning more and more fossil fuels that spew pollutants into our air and water.

It is also a dangerous bill. It rolls back key consumer protections in the electricity and natural gas markets, such as the Public Utility Holding Company Act, while simultaneously failing to give federal regulators the full power they need to serve as the ``cop on the beat'' and prevent the type of fraud and manipulation that we have seen in electricity and natural gas markets in recent years.

We need a more balanced approach to national energy policy. Democrats support reasonable measures to increase energy production, but we also want to see measures aimed at improving energy efficiency and promoting alternative renewable generation technologies. For the most part, this bill ignores efficiency and renewables.

Yes, there is a modest appliance efficiency title. But does that title direct the Department of Energy to stop trying to rollback central air conditioning efficiency standards from the standards adopted by the Clinton Administration? Does it fully address the problem President Bush has identified of ``energy vampire'' standby power or battery charger systems for VCRS, DVDs, computers, that waste electricity? No, it does not.

And what about motor vehicle fuel efficiency? Two-thirds of all the oil we consume is used by the transportation sector. Does this bill do anything to improve automobile fuel efficiency or close the SUV loophole and require light trucks to use commercially available technologies that the National Academy of Sciences says could be deployed today? No, it does not.

And on renewables, yes, there are some tax credits in this bill for renewables. But the House Republicans have now altered this provision so that a dirty facility that burns municipal solid waste to produce energy would now qualify for the renewables credit.

Now, there are some provisions of this bill that I support. The Committee adopted the Cox-Markey amendments barring any indemnification of contractors that ship nuclear technology to North Korea or other countries on the terrorism list, and outlawing any exports, re-exports, or transfers of nuclear technology, materials or information to such countries. This amendment will effectively end any further efforts to transfer light water reactors to North Korea, and would prevent any similar efforts from being undertaken in Iran or Syria in the future. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his work on these measures, and I have been pleased to work with and support him in his endeavors.

The bill also contains amendments I attached to similar legislation in the last Congress which would require the NRC to issue new rules to increase the security of nuclear facilities on a permanent basis and the transportation of nuclear materials against the terrorist threat, and to assure public access to non-classified information about non- public NRC meetings. It also contains some new NRC and DOE whistleblower protection measures I authored that would close loopholes in the law and strengthen protections for those brave individuals that report wrongdoing at the NRC, DOE, or their contractors. I thank Chairman Barton, Chairman Tauzin, and Ranking Members Dingell and Boucher for working with me to include these provisions in the bill.

In addition, the bill includes an amendment I worked out with the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from Texas directing the FERC to take action to assure public access to natural gas market price information. This provision is intended to ensure that FERC or its designee to obtain information from any party needed to enable it to compile accurate natural gas price indexes. A series of studies and investigations by FERC and other federal authorities has revealed widespread manipulation of existing natural gas price indexes, and this provision is aimed at ensuring that FERC, state regulators, and the public can obtain access to the type of information they need to monitor the markets or determine market prices. At the same time, the provision does not require sensitive, transaction-specific information to be made public--though such information would be accessible to federal or state regulators.

These are useful and important provisions, and I support them. At the same time, I cannot support this legislation in its current form because of other harmful provisions in the bill.

The electricity title contains provisions repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act, enshrining incumbent utility monopolies with anti-competitive and discriminatory ``native load'' protections, so-called ``contract sanctity'' language that is clearly aimed at preventing FERC from assuring just and reasonable rates, and a figleaf ``round-tripping'' provision that outlaws only one of the many manipulative practices we have seen in the electricity markets, while leaving the others untouched.

The hydropower title replaces the bipartisan hydro agreement reached in the last Congress with an unfair provision that gives dam owners special status to change environmental or other conditions imposed as part of the re-licensing process. This upsets the balance between how power and non-power values (such as fish and habitat protection, recreation, navigation, and irrigation) are dealt with in the Federal Power Act.

The oil and gas-related provisions in the Commerce and Resources titles would strip away environmental protections relating to the oil and gas industry. It would: Restrict the ability of California and other states to protect their coastal areas by amending the Coastal Zone Management Act; amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to allow more water pollution by creating a permanent exemption from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) storm water rule; prevent the EPA from barring the injection of diesel fuel into underground sources of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing by excluding oil and gas operations from the Safe Drinking Water Act; grant multinational oil and gas companies licenses to drill on public lands and in coastal waters while avoiding obligations to pay hundreds of millions in royalties, depriving the U.S. Treasury of a key source of revenue; further add to the taxpayer's burden by allowing oil and gas companies to be reimbursed for the costs of permitting their activities under the National Environmental Policy Act, an estimated $165 million over ten years.

If these provisions are not stripped from this bill, either today or later in the legislative process, H.R. 6 should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

The United States has 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world. The Middle East has 75 percent. Technological genius is what we are all about. We see that in the Middle East right now. That is our strength.

We doubled the fuel economy in our country from 13 to 26 miles per gallon back in the middle of 1980s. With it, we had a plummeting of oil imports. Since 1987 we have slipped backwards in technology, and there has been a dramatic rise in the import of imported oil, up to 65 percent of our total oil. We can see the direct correlation between the power OPEC has over us and the increase in the number of SUVs and light trucks, with no controls, which are sold in our country.

When we reach 70 percent and 75 percent dependence upon imported oil, Iran and Syria and other countries that have large oil reserves over there, including Saudi Arabia, looking at us 10 years from now, will wonder why on the floor of the Congress with 250,000 troops over in the Middle East securing the oil fields of Iraq, we did not also increase the fuel economy standards of the Hummer 1s that are roaming the streets of the United States consuming gasoline at a rate of 11 miles per gallon.

It is one thing to have young men and women in these vehicles in the Middle East securing oil. It is another thing in our country not to have a plan to increase the fuel efficiency that reduces our oil consumption, to avoid the necessity of sending them back there again.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the coauthor of the amendment with me.

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

So the two opponents of the amendment are each able to speak before the proponent of the amendment at the conclusion of debate?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

In 1987, the fuel economy standard for the United States reached 27 miles per gallon. It had increased to that amount over a 10-year period because of an act of Congress. That act of Congress changed our relationship with imported oil so that it reduced dramatically our dependence upon imported oil.

Since that time, we have sequenced the human genome in medicine, revolutionizing that industry. We have deployed the Internet around the world, revolutionizing communications. We have changed our defense technology such that we could bring a country like Iraq to its knees within 3 weeks. But in fuel economy standards, we have gone backwards, back to 24 miles per gallon, increasing to 65 percent our dependence upon imported oil.

If we do not pass this amendment, we will have 70 and 75 and 80 percent dependence upon imported oil over the next generation.

This is the most important amendment we are going to consider today. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Boehlert-Markey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, in our committee, we had a huge, successful string of hearings dealing with the Enron crisis and the aftermath of that set of scandals which rippled through the entire electricity and natural gas marketplace.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, responding to our inquiries with regard to what they needed in order to deal with that crisis, said that there are seven deadly sins in this marketplace. Enron called them things like, Ricochet, Fat Boy, Death Star, Wheel Out, Get Shorty. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission called them the seven deadly sins of Enron. And the seventh one, Round Tripping.

This legislation only bans one of the seven deadly sins of Enron, Round Tripping. That would be like saying, well, we are outlawing sloth, but we are not going to do anything about pride, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, we will let them all stay on the books.

So what the Dingell language does is say that we give antifraud authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission so they can go against each and every one of the seven deadly sins of Enron and all of those other companies that were engaging in systematic defrauding of American consumers and competitors of those companies across our country.

And, in addition, the Dingell language dramatically increases the penalties that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can impose upon these companies so that when they get caught, the punishment fits the crime.

The Dingell language mandates that electronic trails of all these documentations have to be kept. They cannot just put it on a piece of paper, written in pencil. That makes it almost impossible to reconstruct the trail of what they were doing in their efforts to defraud the American consumer and the other companies across the country, an electronic trail like we have at the Securities and Exchange Commission, or at the CFTC, at other trading entities for equity and futures and options all around the world, everywhere but in the electricity and natural gas on-line trading marketplace. There we are still using pencil and paper like it was the 1980s, ancient history in trading in the world, and we want to bring it forward.

The Dingell amendment does that, so that when they commit the crime, we will be able to identify it, the FERC will be able to trail it, stop it, and then the punishment under the Dingell amendment will fit what they did to the American consumer and public. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dingell substitute and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

If you are concerned at all about the threat of fraud and manipulation in electricity markets, you should vote for the Dingell Democratic substitute.

The Dingell substitute would add a basic antifraud provision to the Federal Power Act, giving the FERC the tools needed to bring enforcement actions using this antifraud authority, and impose tough civil and criminal penalties on those who violate the antifraud or other pvosions of the Federal Power Act.

The first part of the amendment is a basic antifraud provision that uses language identical to that of the antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, which have been in place for the last 65 years. It creates a general antifraud prohibition intended to be broad in application, making it unlawful for any entity, directly or indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, to use or employ any fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with the purchase or sale of electricity or natural gas in contravention of such rules and regulations as the FERC shall prescribe.

In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we've heard testimony from the FERC about

what Chairman Pat Wood referred to as the ``Seven Deadly Sins'' of Enron's market manipulations--trading practices known as ``Price Manipulation-Load Shift,'' ``Export of California Power Richochet'' or ``Megawatt Laundering,'' ``Fat Boy or Incing Load'', ``Non-Firm Exports, ``Death Star,'' Wheel Out,'' ``Get Shorty,'' and ``Selling Non-Firm Energy as Firm Energy.''

But the bill before us today prohibits only one of the Seven Deadly sins--Roundtripping.

That's like saying that we're outlawing sloth, but we're not going to do anything about pride, envy, gluttony, anger, greed, or lust!

The Dingell substitute would fix that. We shouldn't just be outlawing one of Enron's Seven Deadly Sins, we should be addressing them all.

FERC should not always have to fall back on its ``Just and Reasonable'' rate authority when it is confronted with fraudulent activities, and there should be a higher penalty available to FERC when a fraud or manipulation has occurred than merely ordering a refund of excessive charges. That is why this amendment is needed.

In addition, the substitute amendment gives the FERC the power to direct the establishment of electronic audit trails which are a fundamental feature of securities and commodities markets. By requiring market participants to make and keep time-stamped trading records in electronic form and to periodically provide them to the regulator, audit trails give FERC the ability to conduct market surveillance and to investigate suspicious and possibly fraudulent or manipulative trading activities. Such audit trails have been in place for many years in our stock and bond markets, and in our nation's futures markets.

The amendment also strengthens the civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Federal Power Act. The current penalties are absurdly low--$5,000--which is chump change for one of these huge companies. The bill increases these penalties to up to $1 million. That's an improvement, but it is not good enough. What we've done in the substitute is to increase the criminal penalties up to the levels the House Republicans pressed for when they added the Sensenbrenner amendment to the recently enacted Sarbanes-Oxley bill--up to $5 million for individuals and $25 million for companies. In addition, the penalties section also enhances the ability of the court to censure or place limitations on the activities of individuals found to have engaged in serious violations enumerated in the provision. This is drawn directly from section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act, and has been an important enforcement tool for the SEC for many, many years.

If we have learned anything over the course of the 3 years following the Enron scandal, and the subsequent revelations of widespread fraud and market manipulation in the Western electricity markets, it is that the perfect markets assumed by free market ideologues differ from the real markets observed by consumers.

In fact, the FERC staff has now issued two huge reports on their investigations into the Western electricity markets. What they found was a market that was rigged, transparency systems that could be gamed, and electricity and gas prices that were unjust and unreasonable.

But, the FERC staff report also shows the problem that FERC has from a regulatory and enforcement perspective is that the limitations of current law force it to go after fraudulent companies or rigged electricity markets by prosecuting for filing violations, or commencing rate-making proceedings, when the real heart of the issue is fraud. The House Majority proposal responds to these findings only half-heartedly with a proposal so narrowly circumscribed as to miss most of the Enron- style shenanigans.

Chairman Wood expressed support for the antifraud provisions of the Dingell substitute when I offered them as an amendment and he and his staff have suggested changes to these sections that have been incorporated into the amendment the gentleman from Michigan is offering today. So if you are against fraud in our nation's market, if you want FERC to be able to take action against those who would manipulate these markets at the expense of consumers, you need to vote for the Dingell amendment today.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, yes, I would like to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, when is 2,000 acres, not 2,000 acres? Well, it is when we are talking about the Wilson amendment. This amendment does not mandate that the 2,000 acres be contiguous or that we count roads necessary for production or the gravel mines necessary to build the roads and the pipelines necessary to move oil to market. It would only count when their support posts touch the ground. This is accounting that would make Arthur Andersen very proud.

I have a poster which shows my colleagues what proponents of this amendment want us to believe will happen in the Arctic refuge. Here is the red dot placed randomly on the 1002 area of the Arctic refuge, what we are all debating about. The dot is intended to mislead us into believing that its impact on the refuge would be very small. None of us, of course, knows exactly what the industry would do if we let them loose in the refuge because drilling and producing oil is a messy, inexact, unpredictable business. One thing we know for sure is that it would not look like a nice, neat, red dot on a white background.

The overlay is much more realistic in terms of what we can expect. This is taken from a 1987 environmental impact statement of the Department of the Interior, the same environmental impact statement the underlying bill says is good enough for starting a leasing program.

As we can see, it is not a red dot. It represents impacts estimated by the Department of the Interior spreading over 130,000 acres to 303,000 acres, one-fifth of the entire 1002 area, not a 2,000-acre dot.

This shows the pipelines needed to get the oil out of the refuge, the feeder lines to the wellheads and the impact area around the facilities.

The surface area is extensive and stretches across the entire refuge.

It shows oil extraction the way it appears when it is a serious mineral extraction exercise.

Now, just so the listening audience can have an idea as to how much 2,000 acres is, the entire New Jersey Turnpike, 12 lanes, going 100 miles through the entire State of New Jersey, is 1,800 acres. The entire New Jersey Turnpike. Put the entire New Jersey Turnpike, 12 lanes, across 100 miles of this Arctic Refuge. That will give my colleagues an idea of what 2,000 acres looks like. And lest anyone believe that is still a pristine area, they do not understand that oil and pristine wilderness do not go together.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. 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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as I read the gentleman's amendment, it says that amounts that are received by the United States as bonuses for leases under this title and deposited with the Treasury ``may be appropriated to HHS'' to help fund the low-income assistance program.

If the gentleman would be willing to engage in a colloquy with me, it seems that it would be entirely discretionary as to whether or not the Committee on Appropriations actually uses the funds that would be raised in order to help the LIHEAP program; is that so?

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

So as Members are voting, they are not voting for an actual appropriation for additional money for LIHEAP. As the gentleman knows, in past years the Congress has authorized fairly substantially high levels of funding for LIHEAP, and yet the Committee on Appropriations has never quite felt that they had to honor the authorization level. As a result, we have had some difficulty ensuring that the full funding for heating assistance is on the books.

Mr. Chairman, my point is there is going to be a tremendous amount of budgetary pressure on Congress for the remainder of the year. The war in Iraq has yet to be completely paid for, the deficit continues to explode, and the Committee on Appropriations will know that language like this did pass; but my experience in the past has been that they regard it with about as much weight as the piece of paper upon which it is printed. That is a sad experience for Members on authorizing committees. Has the gentleman had the same experience in the past with the Committee on Appropriations?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the good news about the bill itself is on a bipartisan basis, the legislation which we have before us actually does authorize $3.4 billion for the LIHEAP program, which is great news. It is something that essentially reflects the bipartisan support which exists for this program on both sides of the aisle, and we do not really have a debate over that at all.

The amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) asks the Committee on Appropriations to use this money that may be raised from leasing in the Arctic, but they do not have to abide by that, and that is the bottom line in terms of the bite that this amendment would have on anything that the appropriators would do.

It should be noted by Members that there is in fact no binding effect which the amendment would have in terms of increasing the actual appropriations that would be set aside for the low-income program. Unfortunately, over the years, the appropriators have always fallen far short of the dollar amount that our committee has authorized to be spent on the low-income program.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we already have in the underlying bill authorized $3.4 billion, and they can find it from wherever the revenues are that come in, including the revenues that might come in if there is ever any drilling up in the Arctic refuge; but they would not be constrained in terms of their ability to use it for these purposes, although the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and I are lifelong authorizers, and so we understand the relationship that exists between what it is that we exhort that committee to do and what they ultimately reserve the right to put in place in an actual spending bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?

And what is the order of close on this amendment?

Mr. Chairman, then I reserve that right to close. I am the remaining speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It seems to me that if there is a real concern about appropriating money up to the full $3.4 billion level that is authorized in the underlying energy bill that is supported on a bipartisan basis here on the floor today, at least that part of the bill, then the best thing that we can do is to make it clear to the appropriators that each of us wants that level to be reached in the appropriations process.

The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and I are circulating a letter to Members to ensure that, not like last year where all the appropriators could find was $1.8 billion, but this year they find $3.4 billion so that the cold-weather States and those hot-weather States, whether it be Massachusetts or Mississippi, any other State in the Union, all are able to be fully funded under this low-income program. And I think that that is the only realistic way in which we are going to be able to ensure that we do take care of this problem. Because ultimately the appropriators are left to their own discretion in terms of how much money they want to appropriate for any program, and I am just afraid that with the war in Iraq, with the looming budget deficits that are just skyrocketing, perhaps as high as $500 billion this year, that this language just will not do the job in terms of getting them to take care of this very important program.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 5.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) so she may control those 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

This is an issue about going to a pristine area in the Arctic and drilling in order to build a pipeline, in order to bring the oil down to California to put it in SUVs that get 12, 13 miles per gallon. The people who propounded this amendment just voted against an amendment that would have increased the fuel economy standards up to 30 miles per gallon for SUVs. Rather than do that, they say to future generations that they would prefer to desecrate this sacred refuge.

Now, I saw a Roll Call about a week ago and the Congressman from Montana's picture was in there. He was a staffer at the time. He had a beard. He had some glasses. He looked a lot younger. I did, too. People change, but there are certain things that should not change. The Arctic Refuge is one of those things. And I think, unless we have a compelling reason not to increase the fuel economy standards of SUVs that we have no right to first go to a pristine wilderness that should be preserved for the next generation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and I introduced legislation to deal with the issue of highly enriched uranium that is of U.S. origin that should be secured no matter where it is, here or around the world, so that we can preclude that material's being used for nuclear weapons.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) improves upon it. He wants it out of an even more dangerous area, and that is the former Soviet Union, all the loose nuclear material; and the opportunity that the United States has to play a lead role in taking that nuclear material, bringing it to the United States, getting it out of harm's way. And I am glad that the gentleman from Louisiana and the Republican leadership is accepting this amendment because, in the long run, there may be no more important amendment that we consider.

Mr. Speaker, over in Iraq the Air Force is preparing to deploy its newest bomb, the MOAB, the mother of all bombs, if needed, against the remaining Republican Guards.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, the House of Representatives Republican guard is now deploying its very own legislative MOAB, the mother of all budgets; and it is a mother. This Republican legislative MOAB blows a huge crater into our economy, irresponsibly piling up $1 trillion of new debt, increasing the debt limit by $860 billion.

The Republicans say Osama ate our budget homework. Saddam ate our surplus; it is not our fault. But it is their fault. I would say to those Members who would vote for this budget, they have the freedom to choose whether or not to cut taxes for the richest in our country at a time of war and national emergency, and they have made their decision to drop this legislative MOAB into the middle of our economy, and the collateral damage will hit the poorest in our society.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, who opposes this bill? The nurses, the police, the fire, the Public Health Association of the United States. They all oppose it. These are the health care heroes in our country. The reason that legislation is so important is that these people are going to be asked to put their lives on the line. They are the first responders. How busy are we that we can give them 20 minutes of debate, each side having 20 minutes to debate their fate? How hard would it be for us to have worked all day Friday to allow amendments to have been made that represents what the teachers, what the nurses, what the doctors, what the police and what the fire want for protections? How hard would it have been for us to have worked all day today if there is an emergency? Do we not as Members of Congress owe to these heroes working on a Friday and a Monday so we can debate what their needs are?

Then why is it important? It is important because the adverse reactions from the smallpox vaccine are a real concern. This bill coerces volunteers to be vaccinated within 180 days after the regulations are issued or they lose their rights to lost wages and to disability payments and even to death payments. They lose them. A pregnant nurse has only 180 days to be vaccinated after her baby is born.

This is wrong. Vote ``no'' on this bill. Let us have a full debate on the House floor with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Spectrum Commons and Digital Dividends Act.'' I am proposing this measure in order to advance three key goals: (1) establishment of a ``Spectrum Commons;'' (2) creation of a permanent public interest telecommunications trust fund for education technology grants; and (3) ensuring that sound wireless telecommunications policymaking is not unduly skewed by unrelated budgetary initiatives.

Spectrum Commons

Mr. Speaker, the legislation I introduce today promotes the goal of creating a ``Spectrum Commons.'' High tech manufacturers, entrepreneurs and the proverbial ``kid in the garage'' could make more robust use of wireless communications if sufficient spectrum were available in unlicensed form for the general public. The bill requires the FCC to establish a 20 MHz band of contiguous frequencies below the 2 GHz band, as well as between 3 to 500 MHz located between the 2 GHz and 6 GHz bands. These swaths of airwaves would constitute the ``Spectrum Commons'' and therefore would remain open to the public and unlicensed. Such a public set-aside could foster the formation of an open platform for innovation, entrepreneurial activity, and public communications.

An unlicensed area of the airwaves will permit the public, through the use of `smart' radio technology and better receiver equipment, to harness the airwaves for countless applications but only if the government is willing to give back to the public a portion of its own airwaves in such an unlicensed format. From ``wi-fi'' technology and low power ``Bluetooth'' wireless connections, to so-called ``802.11'' and successor protocols, wireless local area networks and Net connections, utilization of publicly available airwaves can help connect people and businesses in cost-effective and spectrum-efficient ways. Moreover, the designation of cleared bands at such different locations in the frequency spectrum sets the stage for varied applications to emerge reflecting the respective physical properties that such bands currently possess.

The ``Spectrum Commons'' will also help to propel economic growth and innovation by opening up the airwaves to new marketplace entry by individuals and entities unaffiliated with established network providers, such as incumbent cable, telephone, or wireless carriers. In addition, ensuring sufficient unlicensed spectrum would also militate against unhealthy consolidation of spectrum in the hands of too few providers.

Digital Dividends Trust Fund

Mr. Speaker, when the FCC does decide to proceed with auctions as a means of granting licenses for use of the public's airways, I believe that the public deserves to reap the benefits of the sale of licenses to its airwaves. Yet these benefits should not only manifest themselves in the offering of new commercial services or the temporary infusion of cash into the Federal treasury as under current law. I propose in this legislation that the public should also enjoy the ``dividends'' that can be reaped by reinvesting money raised through use of a public asset in a manner designed to promote educational technology projects, educational software R&D, as well as initiatives addressing the digital divide.

The bill I am introducing today creates a trust fund, capped at $5 Billion, to cover any reasonable relocation costs incurred by Federal government users of the spectrum when they are moved to other frequency locations. This $5 Billion figure does not represent the full extent of financial assistance available to Federal agencies, it merely reflects the amount that will be available to them through auction revenue. Any additional relocation costs above that amount can be paid for through the traditional appropriations process by which Congress operates and funds such necessary government costs and services.

The bill proposes taking any surplus auction revenue and creating a permanent trust fund (the ``Digital Dividends Trust Fund'') from wireless auction revenue in order to fund such public interest telecommunications initiatives. Splitting the grants into two general categories--``human capital telecommunications investments'' and ``broadband infrastructure investments for public access and rural development''--the Digital Dividends Trust Fund authorizes grants for the following initiatives:

Training of teachers & other personnel at schools and libraries eligible for E-rate funding;

R&D for cutting-edge educational software designed to enhance learning in schools; Digitizing educational materials held in our nation's libraries, archives, and museums;

Technology projects supported by volunteers enrolled in AmeriCorps, Projects enhancing the access of individuals with disabilities to advanced telecommunications services;

Retraining workers and unemployed individuals with skills applicable to the new economy;

After-school programs for youth focused on computer literacy and interaction;

Local and regional programs to expand access to advanced telecommunications in areas available to the general public;

Broadband deployment to low-income housing and community centers and to unserved rural areas; and,

Conversion of public radio and television broadcasting stations to digital broadcasting technology.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is important that telecommunications policymaking reassert itself in wireless policy, where for too long budget priorities have warped sound policy. Since Congress first enacted legislation in 1993 to permit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to distribute certain airwave licenses to the public through the use of auctions, the FCC has used this licensing mechanism numerous times and the U.S. Government has reaped billions of dollars for general revenue purposes. The initial principle behind auctions was to enhance telecommunications policy goals through the efficient licensing of frequency spectrum, where the revenue an auction raised represented an additional benefit to the taxpayer.

Over time, however, the use of auctions has become perverted. They are increasingly advocated primarily for purposes of raising general revenue irrespective of whether such auctions advance sound telecommunications policy. Moreover, the money raised from auctions has been sent directly to the U.S. Treasury. The money from telecommunications auctions was not reinvested in order to enhance our democracy, bridge the digital divide, or promote public interest telecommunications projects. Instead, the auction of licenses for use of the public's airwaves has been subjected to the alchemy of budget scorers intent on transforming thin air into gold.

Legitimate telecommunications policy objectives are often undermined by proposals to auction certain slices of the airwaves on a date dictated by budgetary scoring needs. Instead, auctions should only be scheduled once the appropriate telecommunications policy goals have been agreed upon and the conditions necessary for successful licensing through auctions have been secured.

This legislation requires the FCC, prior to scheduling upcoming auctions, to take action to achieve the timely transition to digital television by establishing rules governing must-carry issues, minimum programming and broadcasting requirements, and digital television receiver benchmarks. It also directs the NTIA and the FCC to take action to secure additional spectrum for advanced wireless services-- including mobile services such as so-called ``3G'' services. Sound telecommunications policy, consistent with the public interest, would be greatly furthered by putting the ``policy horse'' back in front of the ``auction cart.'' The bill seeks to re-establish this principle in wireless policy.

Mr. Speaker, my Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee colleague and chairman, Mr. Upton, has companion legislation addressing similar subject matter. I look forward to working with him, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Mr. Dingell, and other interested members on these telecommunications initiatives and hopefully, by working together constructively, we can achieve consensus legislation for the House to consider later this year.

Mr. Chairman, today we are brought to the floor of this House as America's young men and women are at war in Iraq. The American people expect their elected representatives to address how much this war will cost and how much securing our hometowns will cost in our continuing war against terrorism as well. Instead, the Bush administration is asking this Congress to treat as its highest budget priority the lifting of that very onerous burden felt by the wealthiest of Americans--the double taxation of dividends. We all know what a huge burden double taxation of dividends imposes on the wealthiest Americans. Apparently Republican Party leaders in Washington feel that failing to lift this burden from the shoulders of the rich would be too great a sacrifice, even in wartime. For them, lifting the burden of double taxation of dividends is:

More important than paying for a war in Iraq and the subsequent rebuilding of Iraq.

More important than paying for security at our ports, airports, and nuclear power plants; and

More important than providing affordable health care and medicine to our grandparents.

Last night, President Bush officially created a whole new group of 250,000 war veterans--yet he does not even have enough money in his budget to take care of this country's obligations to veterans of the first Persian Gulf War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, or World War

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join Reps. Cunningham, Crane and Matsui in introducing the Efficient Energy through Certified Technologies (EFFECT) Act of 2003. This bill provides tax incentives to make both new and existing buildings more energy efficient. These incentives are workable, verifiable and will promote market transformation, stimulating the market for energy efficient technology and services.

Building construction and operation represents 15 percent of Gross National Product and buildings consume 35 percent of the Nation's primary energy budget--almost twice as much as cars. This bill would stimulate the economy while decreasing energy consumption. It would improve our national energy security by reducing vulnerability to transmission disruptions and cutting our oil and gas import dependence.

The tax incentives are based totally on energy performance, achieving two critical goals: It assures that projected energy savings will be achieved; and it encourages vigorous competition and innovation in the marketplace, reducing the cost of energy efficiency.

Within 10 years, the EFFECT Act could produce power savings of 110 gigawatts--the equivalent of 275 400 megawatt power plants. The cost savings could be over $30 billion annually. Right now the effect would stimulate the use of existing, off-the-shelf technology that can cost- effectively reduce energy use by 50 percent for existing buildings. This would result in nearly a 6 percent reduction in air pollution emissions over the next 10 years--equivalent to taking 40 percent of our automobiles off the road--and save American homeowners billions of dollars each year in energy costs.

This bill is supported by a coalition of environmentalists and industries, and as shown by the latest Gallup Poll, the American people. In that poll, 60 percent agreed that the United States should emphasize greater conservation by consumers of existing energy supplies, while 29 percent supported production of more oil, gas and coal supplies as the solution.

This bill demonstrates the extraordinary power of energy conservation to reduce the need for wasteful, inefficient, and capital intensive energy projects. There is no other Federal policy proposal that has the potential to save this much energy and peak power or to help the economy so much for so little cost. I urge my colleagues to join the original co-sponsors in passing this bill.