Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, thank you Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Emeritus Dingell, Chairman Rangel and Chairman Miller for your leadership in bringing us to this historic day.

For almost a century, we have been laying the groundwork for comprehensive health care reform in our country--ever since Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party included health insurance coverage in its platform for the 1912 elections.

Since then, there has been some progress--Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for the poor, CHIP for children,--as well as successful efforts in some states, including the landmark health reform law enacted in my home state of Massachusetts three years ago. But we have continued to come up short. And now the 46 million Americans without health care are paying the price.

Our health care system has been ailing for decades, and now it's in intensive care. The consequences of this broken health care system are severe--the number one cause of personal bankruptcies today is medical bills--Americans going broke when they get sick. And 80 percent of these medical bankruptcies strike Americans who actually have insurance. It is unconscionable that so many Americans have to fight their insurance companies while they fight for their very lives. Their insurance policies fail to cover all of the astronomical costs associated with their treatment. They are insured, but not covered.

I recently received a letter from a constituent that illustrates one of the reasons why we need health care reform now. Peter returned home from the hospital to find a bill informing him that his insurance company denied coverage for the anesthesia used during his operation. The insurance company deemed the anesthesia ``medically unnecessary'' and billed him $10,000.

He had open heart surgery, Mr. Chairman. So he asked me, did the insurance company expect him to ``take a swig of whiskey and bite a bullet'' while the surgeon cut open his chest? Unbelievable, Mr. Chairman, but true. Like too many Americans, he was insured, but not covered. We desperately need health care reform because there are too many stories like Pete's all across the country.

My Republican colleagues want to put a Band-Aid on our badly broken system, but what it really needs is CPR--Coverage, Prevention and Research. That's exactly what our health bill delivers for the American people.

We expand COVERAGE to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable care.

We invest in PREVENTION to transform our system from a ``sick care'' system into a true health care system.

We support RESEARCH, building on the $10.4 billion down payment in the recovery and reinvestment act for NIH. In this bill, we will invest in comparative effectiveness research to help improve the quality of care and reduce costs.

The Republicans' plan is really quite simple: You're On Your Own. The Republican plan tells Americans--``If you get sick and don't have insurance, you're on your own.'' The Republican plan tells Americans if you are denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition ``You're on your own.'' Republican Leaders in Washington seem to be suffering from a pre-existing condition of their own--a heart of stone. If you kicked their heart, you'd break your toe! And under the Republican plan, they could be denied coverage.

The Republicans say the Democratic Plan will put the government between you and your doctor, but the doctors who make up the American Medical Association support the Democratic bill, not the Republican Plan. They say it will hurt small businesses but the Main Street Alliance, representing thousands of small businesses around the country, support the Democratic bill, not the Republican Plan. The Republicans claim the Democratic bill will hurt seniors, but the AARP has endorsed the Democratic bill, not the Republican Plan.

There are reasons why the AARP supports the Democratic bill. The Democratic bill will close the Medicare part D donut hole, the Republican bill does not. We provide support for low-income seniors, they do not. We will extend the solvency of Medicare, they do not.

You know, GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now it stands for Grandstand, Oppose, and Pretend. They grandstand with phony claims about non-existent death panels. They oppose any real reform. And with this Substitute they pretend to offer a solution while really doing nothing. GOP--Grandstand, Oppose, and Pretend.

Make no mistake about it; the Republican substitute is not real reform. It does nothing to curb skyrocketing health care costs. It does nothing to provide real insurance coverage to millions who are now uninsured. It does nothing to stop the unfair practices of insurance companies.

Mr. Speaker, there are too many Americans living in fear of a terrorist attack, but not the kind that comes from a gunshot, bomb or box cutter. It's the kind that may strike during a phone call from the doctor's office or during a check-up when the doctor delivers devastating news: ``You have cancer''; ``Your memory loss is early onset Alzheimer's''; ``The numbness is Parkinson's''; ``The Lou Gehrig's Disease that claimed your grandfather will strike you one day.''

We can fight against the terror of disease by reforming our health care system with better coordination, focusing on prevention, and ensuring that all Americans have access to quality, affordable care. And that's exactly what our bill will do.

I am pleased that this historic bill includes provisions that I authored, including:

A Medicare program to provide coordinated care to severely ill patients by a team of doctors and other health care professionals right in the beneficiaries' own homes, allowing these frail Americans to remain independent as long as possible.

A provision to allow patients with rare diseases, like cystic fibrosis, to participate in clinical trial research to find a cure for their devastating disease without losing eligibility for the Social Security benefits they depend on.

A safeguard to ensure that insurance companies don't game the new health care exchange by cherry-picking only healthy individuals.

Today, we are here to write a new chapter in our century-long effort to provide every American with the health care coverage they need and deserve.

Today we can vote for a bill that uses the American values of choice, innovation, and competition to address some of our nation's greatest challenges--skyrocketing health care costs, millions without health insurance, and millions more who are under-insured and struggling to pay their medical bills.

Today we can pass legislation that gives all Americans access to quality, affordable health care. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this bill.

The Republican plan is really quite simple: you're on your own.

The Republican plan tells Americans if you get sick and you don't have insurance, you're on your own. The Republican plan tells Americans if you are denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, you're on your own.

The Republican leaders in Washington seem to be suffering from their own preexisting condition: a heart of stone. If you kicked them in the heart, you would break your toe.

They say that the Democratic plan will put the government between you and your doctor, but the doctors who make up the American Medical Association support the Democratic bill and not the Republican bill. The Republicans claim the Democratic bill will hurt seniors, but AARP has endorsed the Democratic bill and not the Republican bill. Why does AARP support the Democratic bill? Because the Democratic bill will close the Medicare part D doughnut hole for seniors. The Republican bill does not. We provide support for low-income seniors; they do not. We will extend the solvency of Medicare; they do not. Right now 60 percent of all bankruptcies in America are because of medical expenses. The Democratic bill makes sure that never happens again; the Republican bill does not.

You know, the GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now it stands for ``grandstand, oppose, and pretend.'' They grandstand with phony claims about nonexistent death panels. They oppose any real reform. And with this substitute they pretend to offer a solution while really doing nothing. GOP: grandstand, oppose, and pretend.

And make no mistake about it, the Republican substitute is not real reform. It does nothing to curb skyrocketing health care costs. It does nothing to provide real insurance coverage to millions who are now uninsured. It does nothing to stop the unfair practices of insurance companies.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican ``do-nothing'' substitute.

I thank the gentleman for his excellent work on this legislation. We are not talking here about an environmental bill. We are talking about a security bill. We are talking about the targets which we know al Qaeda has on their target list. That's what this whole debate is about. It's to protect the American people from the attempts by al Qaeda to come back to our country and to strike us once again, and we must protect against that attack. That's all this debate is about.

It's not any attempt to have an environmental agenda here at all. It is solely to ensure that al Qaeda cannot attack us in our country and to put in place the same protections at chemical facilities that we now have at airports, that we now have at nuclear power plants. That is all that this debate is about, and I urge support for the manager's amendment propounded by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.

I rise to claim the 5 minutes in opposition to the Barton amendment.

Mr. Chair, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

This is a very simple principle that the gentleman from New Jersey has been making reference to. Al Qaeda was in Newark, New Jersey, on September 11. Al Qaeda was in Boston on September 11. Al Qaeda attacked New York City on September 11. If the Governor of New York, if the Governor of Massachusetts, if the Governor of New Jersey wishes to promulgate stronger regulations to protect the chemical facilities in their States, that should be their right.

They should be making the public safety determination.

These people who rushed into the World Trade Center, these first responders, they're firemen, they're policemen from the local community. They're health care workers from the local community. They're heroes. But while waiting for the Federal Government to come, it is the local public safety people who have to respond. If they want to put stronger protections

around these facilities, knowing that al Qaeda was there on September 11th already, that that is where the attack emanated from, they should have their right. That is why the National Governors Association opposes this amendment. They should have, as the highest public safety official in their States, the right to determine how much protection they give to their citizens, how much extra measure of safety they give for their policemen, for their firemen, for their public health officials who will have to rush in in the aftermath of a successful attack.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Barton amendment.

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

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

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

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from Texas.

I thank the gentlelady.

Can we get a review of where we are in time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I will complete debate on this amendment. I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, what we're doing here is not providing more security in the classic sense of the word. What we're really doing is saying, what happens if al Qaeda is successful in penetrating into the heart of a chemical facility? What will the consequences be for the workers on site? What will the consequences be for the population area in the vicinity of that chemical facility? That's what this debate is all about.

What we are trying to do is to minimize the impact after al Qaeda has in fact been successful in launching an attack on a chemical facility. But what we say in the language is that, while there has to be an evaluation of the level of security at each one of the facilities, the language in our bill makes it quite clear that if the inherently safer technology or process costs too much, it doesn't have to be implemented. If there is no feasible, safer technology or process, the facility doesn't have to implement one. If implementing the inherently safer technology or process would not reduce the risk at the facility or would shift it elsewhere, it doesn't have to be implemented.

And so what we say here is that, yes, we need to make it clear that we don't want al Qaeda to have a successful attack, and if it is successful, have catastrophic consequences, but at the same time, there has to be an evaluation as to whether or not it is economically feasible at each facility. That is the balance which we strike. But I don't think anyone here for a second would want to have unnecessarily dangerous chemicals in highly populated areas that, if al Qaeda could be successful, would cause an event which would once again cripple our economy as did the attack on September 11. That is the heart of terrorism, having a population which is frightened.

At Logan Airport, we lost 27 percent of our air traffic for 2 years after 9/11. The same thing happened in Newark. It happened at LaGuardia; it happened at JFK. It happened all around the country. It plummeted, and that was key to their success.

So this amendment is something that was language developed in close consultation with and considerable input from the American Chemistry Council. It is something which should be adopted, and the amendment which is under consideration should be rejected.

I just want to say that this is just giving the right to ordinary people to sue their own government because they're not providing for the security around facilities that could be attacked by al Qaeda. This is at the essence of the philosophy of the tea-baggers, to give ordinary citizens the right to challenge their government, to be able to rise up and to be able to say, you are not doing your job to protect us, your fundamental responsibility to protect the security of citizens in their homes and where they work.

I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, and I thank him for his great work on this historic legislation.

Unemployment has not been under 4 percent since September 11. One of the reasons that it has not been under 4 percent since September 11 is the attack on September 11, which paralyzed our airline industry, paralyzed our tourism industry, and led to a precipitous drop in GDP because of the reaction to it.

And by the way, these workers that the Republicans want to protect, well, we received a letter from the Steelworkers, the Communications Workers, the Autoworkers, the Chemical Workers, the Teamsters, the SEIU. Here is their letter to us: ``We oppose amendments that purport to protect jobs but

in fact only hinder the implementation of methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack.''

And why do they take that position? They take that position because the attack is coming on them, the workers at these plants.

So the nuclear industry, we have the protections in place, the aviation industry, the cargo industry, the rail industry, the shipping industry; but the chemical industry, with facilities in urban areas or near large population areas, the Republicans for 7 years have said no protection. When unemployment was at 5 percent, they said no; 6 percent; 7 percent; 8 percent; 9 percent; no, no, no, no protection for these workers at chemical facilities and those who live around them.

Al Qaeda has metastasized in the last 7 years. They are coming back; that is their goal. Chemical facilities are at the top of their terrorist target list. We are trying to, finally, in this one last industry, put in place the security around these facilities to protect the American people, to protect the workers at these facilities. That's what this debate is all about. This amendment will undermine, will make it impossible for us to give those protections to the American people.

We need a resounding ``no'' against this recommittal motion. We must stand up for the workers of this country; we must give them the protection that they need. Vote ``no'' on the recommittal motion of the Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3276) to promote the production of molybdenum- 99 in the United States for medical isotope production, and to condition and phase out the export of highly enriched uranium for the production of medical isotopes, as amended.

I reluctantly, but I think graciously, congratulate the Speaker and his Yankees on their victory in the World Series. Twenty-seven times----

I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's warning to me to not go overboard; but it is, without question, a historic day.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, the American Medical Isotopes Production Act will safeguard Americans' health care and our national security. By helping to establish production of critical medical isotopes here at home, the American Medical Isotopes Production Act will end our dependence on aging nuclear reactors outside of our borders. And by responsibly ending the export of weapons-usable, highly enriched uranium for medical isotope production, this bill will give a much-needed boost to U.S. efforts to permanently convert all reactors away from the unnecessary and dangerous use of bomb-quality material.

The bipartisan bill authorizes $163 million for the Department of Energy to evaluate and support projects in the private sector or at universities to develop domestic sources of the most critical medical isotopes. This is necessary because we currently face a daunting supply shortage caused by technical problems at the aging foreign reactors upon which we are presently reliant. With a robust and reliable domestic production capacity, the 50,000 daily procedures which normally occur in this country, including for cancer scans and bone and brain imaging, will be secure.

The nuclear nonproliferation benefits of this bill are significant and they are timely. Shockingly, the United States still allows for nuclear weapons-grade highly enriched uranium to be exported to other countries for medical isotope production. This 1950s-era policy simply does not work in a post-9/11 world. It is dangerous, unnecessary, and it must come to an end. We simply cannot afford to have additional nuclear weapons materials in circulation when we know that terrorists would like nothing more than to steal or buy such dangerous materials.

Fortunately, according to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no technical or economic reasons why medical isotopes cannot be produced with low enriched uranium.

Currently, nuclear medicine is practiced mostly in the most developed countries, like the United States. But that is changing. And as more countries practice more nuclear medicine, more medical isotopes will need to be produced. In preparation for this, it is absolutely essential that we stop using highly enriched uranium for this purpose.

Previously, the United States spread these dangerous technologies around the world, including to some surprising places. For instance, the United States built a reactor in Iran which we fueled with weapons- grade uranium. Today, the Iranians want to use this reactor to produce medical isotopes, and negotiations are ongoing on this point. Fortunately for the world, the Iranian reactor was converted to low enriched uranium by Argentina in the 1980s. Converting reactors away from the use of highly enriched uranium, both at home and abroad, is very much in our national security interest. And that is exactly what this bill will do.

By sending a clear signal that the United States will no longer export this dangerous material, H.R. 3276 will accelerate U.S. efforts to convert reactors around the world from highly enriched to low enriched uranium. In fact, this has already begun, as the Department of Energy testified in September that all the medical isotope production reactors around the world which still use highly enriched uranium have approached the Department of Energy to ask for assistance in converting to low enriched uranium in the past few years.

This bill has the support of a wide variety of stakeholders, including the unanimous support of industry and the nuclear medical community, and nuclear nonproliferation advocates.

This is also a bipartisan bill, and I would like very much to thank my friend Fred Upton from Michigan for working in such a bipartisan fashion. This is the way it should be done, and we thank him and we thank the other members of the minority and the majority for working towards this conclusion. You could not have a more excellent partner. Mr. Waxman and I and the other members of the committee want to note the incredible cooperation that did exist.

This bill will help to ensure that America has a reliable domestic source of the radio isotopes needed for life-

saving medical procedures, it will close a dangerous loophole in our Nation's nonproliferation policy by phasing out exports of highly enriched uranium, and it does so without increasing the Federal deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

The gentleman is correct. Neither this provision nor the bill as a whole give any preference whatsoever to any technology type. The purpose of this provision is to give the Department of Energy the greatest number of options for dealing with the medical isotope crisis while also maintaining the incentive for reactors to convert to low enriched uranium fuel.

The bill includes several conditions on reactors using the exemption to ensure that their conversion to low enriched uranium fuel is successful. I fully expect the Department of Energy to give full consideration to every application for these funds, and to do so in an equitable and technology-neutral manner.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letters of support for H.R. 3276, including from the Society For Nuclear Medicine, the American College of Cardiology, the Health Physics Society and the Union of Concerned Scientists

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise in support of the Chemical and Water Security Act, legislation that is a product of about 9 months of effort by the House Energy and Commerce, Homeland Security, and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. We've worked as partners towards the final construction of this legislation.

Now, I come from a district that was home to some of the 9/11 terrorists before they launched their attacks, before they walked in our streets, scoped out our airports, rehearsed their mission. The September 11th attacks demonstrated that America's very strengths, its technology, could be turned into weapons of mass destruction to be used against us.

Mohammed Atta and the other nine terrorists that hijacked those two planes at Logan Airport on September 11th were roaming around my district for about a year trying to determine how they could exploit deficiencies in technology. And when they found it, they struck. And more than 150 people were on those planes flying from Logan towards New York City. It is something that is etched forever in my mind, and I am committed to ensuring that it is not repeated.

Since 9/11, as a result of what happened on that day, we have enacted legislation to secure aviation, to secure maritime, rail, mass transit, nuclear energy, and other sectors. But what we have yet to do is act on comprehensive legislation to secure the facilities that make or store dangerous chemicals. Instead, we have relied on an incomplete and an adequate legislative rider that was inserted into an appropriations bill in 2006 that amounted to little more than a long run-on sentence.

The chemical sector represents the best of American technological might. Its products help to purify our water; make the microchips used in our computers, cell phones, and military technologies; refine our oil; grow our food. But these same chemicals could also be turned into a weapon of mass destruction, something we are reminded of just recently when we learned of a disrupted terrorist plot to use hydrogen peroxide purchased in Colorado for a bomb planned to be detonated in New York.

While the Department of Homeland Security has done an admirable job of implementing the rather hastily crafted legislative rider from 2006, the bill before us today closes the loopholes left open by that provision that could be exploited by terrorists.

The bill contains provisions that represent more than 5 years of work on my part to ensure that facilities containing toxic chemicals switch to safer processes or substances only when it is technologically and economically feasible to do so. Terrorists cannot blow up what is no longer there. The language in this bill represents a true compromise that the Energy and Commerce Committee developed in close consultation with and using considerable input from the American Chemistry Council. Only the riskiest facilities would be subject to this provision. The Department of Homeland Security puts the number at between 100 and 200 out of a total of more than 6,000 regulated facilities.

Under 3 percent of the chemical facilities in our country would be covered under this legislation, the most dangerous, the most vulnerable, the most likely targets by al Qaeda in our country. And we know that al Qaeda has metastasized around the world. They are still trying to find the most vulnerable way that our country can be exploited, and it is our job to make sure that we pass the legislation that closes those vulnerabilities.

The American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates have endorsed the citizen enforcement provisions which were added in the Energy and Environment Subcommittee markup. These provisions remove all lawsuits against private companies, a change that the Chamber of Commerce has also deemed positive. The bill retains the ability for citizens to bring suit only against the Department of Homeland Security for failure to perform nondiscretionary duties and against Federal facilities for failure to comply with orders. It also establishes a citizen petition process to give citizens an official forum to report alleged security problems at private facilities to the Department of Homeland Security.

The legislation closes what both the Bush and Obama administrations have called a ``critical security gap'' for drinking water and wastewater facilities that were exempted from the 2006 law and the powers given to the Department of Homeland Security to close homeland security gaps that can be exploited by al Qaeda. In this bill, we grant the Environmental Protection Agency authority to establish a parallel security program for the water sector, consistent with the Bush and Obama administrations' views that EPA should be the lead regulator for these facilities.

Like the chemical facility language, drinking and wastewater facilities that use and store chemicals in amounts that could cause injury in the event of a release must assess whether they can switch to safer chemicals or processes and that these processes may be required by State regulators only if, and I repeat, only if they are economically and technologically feasible and if their adoption will not impair water quality. The Blue-Green coalition of environmental and labor organizations, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, whose member utilities provide safe drinking to more than 125 million Americans, and the Association of California Water Agencies have all endorsed the drinking water title of this bill.

This legislation is a compromise. We engaged with all of the stakeholders and crafted language that addresses all of the concerns. And it is notable that even the Chamber of Commerce has said that it ``recognizes that several provisions have been reworked and modified to address concerns raised by the business community.''

This, ladies and gentlemen of the House, is still a glaring regulatory black hole that we must ensure is closed. We cannot allow al Qaeda to exploit this weakness that exists in the security that we place around the chemical facilities in our country. We know that it is at or near the very top of the al Qaeda target terrorist list. This legislation closes that loophole. It ensures that we are going to provide the protection for the American public from that attack, which we know somewhere in the world al Qaeda is planning if they can only find the way to exploit a weakness in our defense.

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

Mr. Chair, will you inform us as to how much time is remaining on either side.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Michal Freedhoff from my staff; and Alison Cassady, David Leviss, Jacqueline Cohen, Phil Barnett, Greg Dotson, Kristin Amerling, Peter Ketcham-Caldwill and Melissa Cheatham from Chairman Waxman's staff. I would also like to thank Chris Debosier of Mr. Melancon's staff and Derrick Ramos from Mr. Green's staff.

This is not an environmental bill. This is not a bill banning chemicals. This is a bill about national security, to make sure that al Qaeda cannot turn a chemical facility in our country into a weapon of mass destruction in some hometown in our country. That is what this bill is all about.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3585, the Solar Technology Roadmap Act. The solar energy that strikes the earth in a single hour is enough to power the world's energy needs for a year. This bill will help America develop the technology to harness that massive solar energy potential. I commend Representative Giffords for sponsoring this legislation and Chairman Gordon for his leadership in moving it forward.

The market for solar photovoltaics is growing 40 percent annually. This scaling up of production, combined with developments in the technology, has led to a rapid reduction in the cost of solar energy. While the cost of building conventional power plants has, in many cases, doubled over the last decade, the cost of solar has fallen nearly 30 percent. Many people within the industry now believe solar photovoltaics could be competitive with conventionally-generated electricity from the grid by 2015.

Solar photovoltaic technology was born and developed in the United States. Our publicly-funded national laboratories and our universities such as MIT advanced this technology for decades until the private sector more recently adopted it and began manufacturing solar photovoltaics on a large scale. Unfortunately, we've recently watched this All-American technology become commercialized in Japan, Germany, and China. Today, only two of the world's ten largest solar companies are based in the United States. This means most of the new jobs and intellectual property in this rapidly growing field are accumulating overseas as well. The bill before us today would double down on our solar research program and ensure that solar technology can be developed here with an eye toward private-sector adoption and market deployment.

But to fully reestablish American leadership in this and other rapidly growing clean energy industries and allow the United States to lead in the creation of a clean energy economy, we must also enact into law the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which was passed by the House in June. This legislation, which I authored with Chairman Waxman, would put the incentives in place to stimulate demand for solar and other renewable technologies here at home while unleashing American entrepreneurs to transform the entire energy sector into America's next high-tech, innovation industry.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. Con. Res. 43, a resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to former Massachusetts Senator Edward W. Brooke III.

There are few individuals more deserving of a Congressional Gold Medal, the highest award of national appreciation from the U.S. Congress, than my friend, the former Senator of my state, Ed Brooke.

Throughout Senator Brooke's life, he has worked to bridge the great divides in our country.

In 1966, in the crucible of racism, prejudice, and segregation, Senator Edward W. Brooke stood as an embodiment of the change our country needed to move beyond the dark legacy of racial discrimination and prejudice in America. The first popularly elected African-America Senator, Senator Brooke's election stood as an example of what our nation could be when he noted that the voters of Massachusetts saw beyond skin color to ``judge you on your merit and your worth alone''.

When asked to comment on what many considered to be an improbable electoral victory, Senator Brooke responded by saying he was committed to ``unite men who have not been united before.'' Throughout his tenure in the U.S. Senate, Senator Brooke did just that. Senator Brooke sought to reduce the economic and racial division in our country, particularly in the area of U.S. housing policy. Senator Brooke co-authored the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, or national origin. Still, to this very day, the Fair Housing Act remains a cornerstone of our housing policy.

On all issues of justice and equality, regardless of sex, race, or religion, there has been no stronger advocate. When Title IX of the 1972 Education Act was in jeopardy in the Senate, Senator Brooke took the lead to ensure that women and girls would be guaranteed equal educational opportunities. When the extension and expansion of the Voting Rights Act came before the Senate in 1975, it was the respected voice of Senator Brooke that helped to garner an extension of the Voting Rights Act. Whenever there was an opportunity to protect and defend the fundamental civil rights of Americans who had suffered from discrimination, Senator Brooke was there, serving as a powerful voice for justice.

Thirty years later, Senator Brooke's legacy is reflected by an America that is very different from the nation that existed when he first arrived in the Senate, an America which has made enormous progress in breaking down the barriers of racial discrimination and inequality that once divided our nation.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I stand to support and recognize a great leader, who never lost his passion for bridging our nation's divides by uniting men and women under the belief that we all are created equal.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to address briefly the language of Section 401 of the conference report, which requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide a report on barriers to the issuance of a combined construction and operating licenses (COLs).

As the Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the NRC, I want to ensure that the Commission, in responding to Section 401, remains cognizant of its responsibilities to comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NRC regulations in the issuing of COLs to new nuclear power plants. These laws cannot be overridden or even challenged by a reporting requirement appended to an annual appropriations bill.

The NRC should, of course, review COL applications in an efficient fashion, without undue or unwarranted delays. However, speed of action is not the only policy interest that the Congress has with respect to licensing. Public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the licensing process requires the Commission to ensure that licensees comply with the substantive safety requirements of the law and of NRC regulations. The Commission must therefore assure that it does not sacrifice crucial safety evaluations, public input or adequate environmental review as part of any effort to streamline or accelerate its regulatory functions.

Under Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC is directed, after holding a public hearing, to ``issue to the applicant a combined construction and operating license if the application contains sufficient information to support the issuance of a combined license and the Commission determines that there is reasonable assurance that the facility will be constructed and will operate in conformity with the license, the provisions of this Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations.''

The Act further stipulates that in conducting its licensing activities, ``The Commission shall identify within the combined license the inspections, tests, and analyses, including those applicable to emergency planning, that the licensee shall perform, and the acceptance criteria that, if met, are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of this Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations.''

Moreover, the Act mandates that: ``Following issuance of the combined license, the Commission shall ensure that the prescribed inspections, tests, and analyses are performed and, prior to operation of the facility, shall find that the prescribed acceptance criteria are met.''

In addition, NRC regulations 10 CFR Part 51 and 10 CFR Part 52 implement the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA in regards to the licensing process. Under these regulations, for example, the NRC is required to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) as part of the COL application. According to the NRC website, ``the NRC staff estimates that the environmental review process will take approximately 24 months. This includes scoping, issuance of the draft EIS, a comment period, and issuance of the final EIS.''

While it is true that the necessary reviews take time, the NRC's licensing regulations were enacted to protect the public from poorly sited locations, untested reactor designs, and other factors that could lead to environmental damage, unsafe construction, or even catastrophic nuclear emergencies. I support an efficient and effective NRC licensing process as long as it does not come at the expense of the safeguards codified in existing law.

In point of fact, it does not appear that the licensing process itself is to blame for any delays in new reactor approval. In 2007 the NRC established the Office of New Reactors (NRO), separate from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, so that the NRO can focus solely on the review of new reactors. Indeed, NRC Chairman, Dr. Gregory Jaczko, has repeatedly stated that the licensing delays are ``almost exclusively tied to challenges with the [reactor] designs not being complete,'' resulting in license applications that reference uncertified design plans. This bottleneck has far more to do with the iterative design approval process, than with potential internal NRC barriers such as inefficient administration or inadequate funding. Certainly all must agree that it is impossible for the NRC to approve a license application for which there is not yet an approved design!

Finally, I would note that while Section 401 mandates report submission to the committees on Appropriations, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is the NRC's authorizing committee, also expects to receive copies of any reports submitted pursuant to this Section.

I look forward to seeing the Commission's report on this matter, and I urge the Commission to pay careful heed to the current laws and regulations under which the NRC operates, so that we ensure that the nuclear reactor application process works properly.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

I say that while noting that Representative Neal from Massachusetts and Representative Capuano from Massachusetts want to, at this point, insert their written statements in honor of Senator Kennedy, and that is why I made that unanimous consent request. But it is also for the purpose of any other Member seeking to be recognized to be able to insert their comments at this point.

We rise to honor our friend and our mentor, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, one of the greatest Senators in the history of the United States. He will be on a very short list of the greatest who have ever lived and served our country. We tonight gather, noting that his son, Patrick, serves with us here in the House of Representatives, and we extend our best to him and to his sister, Kara, and to Teddy, Jr., as well as and especially to his beloved wife, Vicky, and to all of the other members of the Kennedy family.

He was, without question, ``an idealist without illusions,'' in the words of his brother. He worked as best he could to achieve the goals that he set for our country while at the same time reaching across the aisle to find partners that he could work with in order to accomplish those legislative goals. Without question, it was our great honor, as the Massachusetts delegation, to work with him for all of those years.

Let me, at this point, turn and recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and then we will go through and recognize the other members of our delegation and other Members who have joined here to speak about the Senator. I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank the gentleman very much, and I turn and recognize now a good friend of the senator, Bill Delahunt from Quincy.

I recognize the gentleman from Worcester, a good friend of the Senator's, Jim McGovern.

And we thank the gentleman for his excellent comments.

Let me turn now and recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, a good friend of the Senator's, John Olver.

We thank the gentleman so much for his words. Next we recognize another great friend of the Senator, John Tierney, from the State of Massachusetts.

I thank the gentleman very much. And the gentleman is so right. I could call Senator Kennedy one of the greatest Senators in history, I could call him one of a small handful of the greatest Senators in history. But that would be inaccurate. That just wouldn't capture not only how history will record him, but how he wants to be recorded by history. And there will be an accurate reflection of that, I think, as people, as the gentleman pointed out, continue to focus upon his life.

Before I turn to the gentleman from South Boston, let me go back the gentleman from Quincy, Mr. Delahunt.

I thank the gentleman.

No place played a more important role in the history of Massachusetts Irish politics than South Boston, the home of the next friend of Senator Kennedy, Steve Lynch from South Boston, Massachusetts.

We thank the gentleman so much for his words.

In 1974, Paul Tsongas from Lowell was elected to the United States Congress. Today, these many, many years later, Niki Tsongas serves here in the Congress. So the Tsongas and the Kennedy story goes back many years.

I'd like to recognize the gentlelady from Lowell, Niki Tsongas.

We thank the gentlelady so much for those words.

Now we turn to--and a number of Members have alluded to him--the great civil rights leader who knew the Kennedys in the sixties and now serves here in the House of Representatives, Congressman John Lewis from the State of Georgia.

We thank the gentleman so much for his great words. For me, I had the honor of serving for 33 years out of the 47 that Ted Kennedy served in Congress, here as his colleague. It was my great honor. For each of us, there are too many stories to retell.

But for me, it all begins with Ted Kennedy running for the Senate; and from that moment on, whenever he spoke about the war in Vietnam or health care or energy or injustice to any person, no matter where they are in the world, I listened. And not only did I listen, but tens of millions of other people listened as well because he took us on a journey, a journey to issues and people that we did not know of but he wanted us to know about and to respond to.

That was really his greatness, that when he spoke, he was true north. He was someone who you knew that he was speaking from his heart and speaking for issues that really only he had the capacity to draw the attention to, and he used his power to do so. He used the special gift that he had been given to accomplish those goals.

I remember at the Democratic Convention in 1980, Senator Kennedy had asked me and Henry Royce over here, who was chairman of the Banking Committee, to introduce his energy bill which would be the counter to the incumbent President's energy bill. It called for solar and wind and conservation and higher fuel economy standards and a different direction for our country. Although his candidacy failed and energy was the big issue at that time, I got a call to come up to his room right after he gave that great ``The dream shall never die'' speech. He was up in his room with his family--Patrick was there and others.

In that room, there was not a defeated man. There was someone who had been a great victor. There was someone who had brought all of these issues to the American people. In 1983, as Ronald Reagan had pulled out of all arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union--the first time in a generation--he called me, and he said, Eddy, you know what I would like to do, I would like to work with you on a nuclear freeze resolution to end all production of new nuclear weapons in the world. And he said, You know what would be a good idea, why don't we have it at American University, where my brother gave his speech to end all atmospheric nuclear testing?

Then one month later, there was an attention brought to this issue that changed that whole issue, and 3 months later, 1 million people were in Central Park calling for an end to the nuclear arms race. On every single issue he talked about in his entire life, it changed the whole dynamic of that issue because Ted Kennedy stood up and spoke to it. He inspired me; and he inspired, I think, millions of people across the planet to change the course of their lives.

So it has been a great honor for me and for all of the rest of our delegation to be able to work with him. It is an especially great honor to have as our concluding speaker this evening, his son. His son, who is our colleague here

in the House of Representatives, who in and of himself is a great United States Congressman and who continues the Kennedy tradition of fighting for those causes that other people do not want to fight for and to bring the attention to those who are most in need of help in our country and in our world.

It is my great honor to recognize the great Congressman from the State of Rhode Island, Patrick Kennedy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his great words. And we thank all of the other Members for their participation in this Special Order.

The Record is going to remain open so any Member that wishes to make a comment about our great Senator Ted Kennedy may do so.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Senator Edward M. Kennedy--a mentor, a friend and the greatest Senator our country has ever known.

While it is still difficult to imagine these hallowed halls without Teddy, today we honor the man who was an inspiration to all of us who have answered the call to public service. And while one hour is not nearly enough to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Sen. Kennedy, today we pause to celebrate the life of this extraordinary man.

Never afraid to 'sail against the wind' in the name of justice, equality and opportunity, Teddy was a treasured friend, a tireless advocate for the people of Massachusetts and a legislator without peer. Throughout his distinguished career, he helped bring health care to millions of children, enabled many young people to afford a college education and ensured that so many of our citizens could realize the American dream.

I am honored to serve with his son Patrick and to know his other children Teddy Jr. and Kara, his beloved wife Vicki and all the members of the Kennedy family. And there is no doubt that his trusted friend and former staffer, Paul Kirk, will serve with distinction in his interim appointment.

Teddy was `an idealist without illusions,' as his brother, the late President John F. Kennedy used to say. He came to the Senate to get things done. He was unafraid to reach across the aisle to make a deal and he counted some of his staunchest ideological foes among his closest friends. But he never compromised his core beliefs in justice, equality and access to the American dream.

From his first speech on the Senate floor in support of the Civil Rights Act until his valiant final fight for health care reform, when Ted Kennedy spoke, you knew you were hearing the ``true compass'' of a committed, principled progressive.

He transcended petty politics to become ``the lion of the Senate,'' a legislator like no other. Teddy's was an unmatched legislative career, which included 47 years in office, more than 2,500 bills authored and scores of laws bearing his name.

On issues of war and peace there was no better moral compass than Teddy. He picked up the banner of nuclear arms control from his fallen brother John and fought tirelessly to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and make the world a safer place. Beginning in the 1980s, Teddy worked closely with me to highlight the dangers of a nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and the need to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In 1982, when I introduced the first nuclear freeze resolution in Congress to stop the buildup of nuclear weapons, no one thought we could do it. But it was Teddy who led the fight for a freeze in the Senate, paving the way for a dramatic showdown with President Reagan that made it necessary for the Reagan Administration to embrace nuclear arms control--a course it initially had rejected.

Our country is a better place because of Ted Kennedy. For the worker who struggled to

make ends meet in a minimum wage job, Ted Kennedy was there. For the new mother caring for a newborn, Ted Kennedy was there. For a family in need of health care for a sick child, Ted Kennedy was there. For a planet in peril due to the threat of nuclear war, Teddy was there.

And now we must be there for the causes that Senator Kennedy championed throughout his long and distinguished career.

In his final days, Senator Kennedy wrote a letter to President Obama, reminding us all of just what is at stake in the health care debate. ``What we face is above all a moral issue,'' he wrote. ``At stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our society.''

And there is no one who better understood those principles than Teddy.

At the Democratic Convention in 1980, when it was clear that Teddy's inspired campaign for the nomination had come to an end, he was still fighting for the issues he cared about.

Just hours after he delivered his famous speech declaring that the ``dream shall never die'' I went up to see him in his hotel room headquarters. And what struck me that night and stays with me to this day, was that instead of being heartbroken after coming up short in his quest for the presidency, there was no defeat in that hotel room. Instead, Teddy was triumphant. Despite the difficult day, he was still in high spirits.

Although he was a great Senator before that day, it was on that night, that he truly began his transformation into the ``Lion of the Senate,'' the master legislator fighting for the issues that mattered most: health care, civil rights, education, human rights and others. That night, like so many other nights in his long career, he was able to transcend misfortune and shape something bigger. To commit to a cause larger than himself.

Above all, I will remember Ted Kennedy for his sense of hope. In rough seas and in calm, he always believed our better days were just ahead. In his final fight, the dignity and grace he showed was an inspiration to us all.

And throughout a long life of tragedy and triumph he never faltered in his belief in this country and its highest ideals. From landmark legislation like The Americans with Disabilities Act that touched the lives of millions, to simple gestures like reading to schoolchildren at a school near the capitol, Teddy believed in the American dream and helped so many to realize it.

And although the mighty Lion has passed on, Teddy's roar in defense of the disadvantaged and vulnerable will echo eternally in the halls and history of America, inspiring future generations to service, self- sacrifice and a commitment to our country's highest ideals.

And as we pause to remember this great man, the task now is to follow Teddy's immortal words and ensure that the causes which he championed shall endure, that his hopes will live on and his dreams of a better future for everyone shall never die.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, which I have introduced with the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Tsongas, to honor the Minute Man National Historical Park on its 50th anniversary. Since its inception on September 21, 1959, the park has played a vital role in protecting and preserving the sites in the towns of Lexington, Lincoln, and Concord where the American Revolution began. For 50 years, the park has educated millions of Americans about the extraordinary events that led to the birth of our Nation.

On April 19, 1775, American colonists in ``every Middlesex village and farm'' rose up to throw off the yoke of the English king and claim their inherent right to govern themselves. The Minute Man National Park preserves not just the sites, buildings, and landscapes where these momentous events took place but also the ideals of liberty, democracy, and self-determination that they embodied. The beliefs held in the actions of those spring days in April 1775 remain the cornerstone of our Nation and an inspiration to people everywhere.

The Minute Man National Historical Park is comprised of 1,038 acres, which include 8 miles of trails and 136 historic structures. The park preserves multiple sites along the ``Battle Road,'' the 22-mile route from Boston to Concord where British soldiers and American militia first clashed on April 19, 1775.

The park includes the famed North Bridge, in Concord, where American militia were first ordered to return the fire of the British regulars. Down the road, in Lexington, is the Lexington green, where the first shot was fired that morning and where eight American patriots lost their lives in the opening battle of the Revolutionary War.

The park commemorates Paul Revere's ``midnight ride'' of April 18, 1775, to raise the alarm that the British were marching to destroy military stockpiles and includes the site where Paul Revere was captured by a British patrol. Paul Revere's message was carried on to Concord by his colleagues, William Dawes and Dr. Samuel Prescott, and that message resonates to this day--taught to school children everywhere--``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!'' in the verse of the famous poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

The park contains the Barrett farm in Concord, which was the home of Colonel James Barrett, and contained the militia weapons and munitions that British soldiers were marching on Concord to destroy. The park also includes the Wayside, which was once home to Nathaniel Hawthorne and Louisa May Alcott, and celebrates the writings of the first great American authors, whose voices were those of a free people.

More than 1 million people visit the park every year to learn about these events that have become iconic symbols to every American. Thomas Boylston Adams, a descendent of President John Quincy Adams and the former president of the Massachusetts Historical Society, described the Battle Road as ``a long road, leading even to the present.'' The Battle Road was the first road marched by a people in search of liberty and the road that continues to prove to all people everywhere to this day that freedom is possible.

The Minute Man National Historical Park continues to serve as a vital resource for future generations of Americans and a reminder

of the role that Massachusetts played in the creation of the most free and democratic nation in the world. I commend the fantastic work of the park in upholding these values that remain at the core of our American character and I urge my colleagues to adopt the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this week we commemorate the eighth anniversary of the most devastating attack on our country since Pearl Harbor. The planes which destroyed the World Trade Center towers took off from Boston. The planes carried 142 passengers and crew members, many of them were our neighbors, and the catastrophe almost 200 miles south in Manhattan was also a catastrophe for victims' families and their loved ones and friends in communities across Massachusetts.

The September 11th attacks demonstrated that America's very strengths--its technology and its open society--could be turned into weapons and used against us. We have spent much of the past eight years trying to reduce the opportunities for terrorists to exploit our vulnerabilities; while we can claim significant achievements we must admit that the job is not done.

Two years ago, the Democratic Congress passed legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, designating it as our top priority--H.R. 1. But much work to implement the bill's provisions and other needed homeland security upgrades is still needed, and it is now up to the Obama Administration to end the years of delays, obstruction and catering to industry's demands that was characteristic of the Bush Administration's homeland security policy.

I authored a provision in the 9/11 law to require the screening, within three years, of all the cargo carried on passenger planes to a level of security commensurate with the level of security applied to passengers' checked bags. The statutory deadline is less than one year from now, in August 2010. I am concerned that the system developed by the previous administration to implement the 100 percent screening requirement is facing significant challenges and must be quickly remedied by this Administration in order to comply with the law.

A requirement that I helped to insert into the 9/11 law contains a mandate to scan all inbound maritime cargo at its point of origin by 2012, unless the Department of Homeland Security chooses to extend the deadline for a particular port or group of ports because of technological, economic or other barriers. I believe that Congress included sufficient flexibility in the statutory requirements to address any delays in meeting the 2012 statutory deadline for maritime scanning that may have been caused as a result of inaction by the last Administration, and now the Obama Administration is tasked with implementing this vital security safeguard.

Since 9/11, Congress has enacted legislation to secure the aviation, maritime, rail, mass transit, nuclear energy and other sectors. But what we have yet to do is act on comprehensive legislation to secure the facilities that make or store dangerous chemicals. Instead, we have relied on the incomplete, inadequate and loophole-ridden legislative language that was inserted into a 2007 Appropriations bill behind closed doors that amounted to little more than a long run-on sentence. The Energy and Environment Subcommittee which I chair will soon act on comprehensive chemical security legislation that will close the loopholes in part by requiring each high-risk facility to assess whether it could use safer processes or technologies and provide authority to ensure that the highest-risk facilities do so if it is economically and technologically possible.

The upcoming anniversary is a time for reflection and commemoration. But it is also an opportunity to review the progress we have made towards improving the security of all Americans.

On this 8th anniversary of a terrible tragedy, I am taking time to both remember those who we lost and to rededicate myself to ensuring that such a tragedy will never again be allowed to occur.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 460, I inadvertently did not vote, but intended to vote ``yes.''

I thank the chairman very much, and I very much appreciate your very hard work on extending this program.

This program is a win for consumers who are trading in old gas guzzlers for new hybrids, a win for the recovering economy, and a win for energy independence and the environment as the new vehicles are averaging 60 percent more fuel efficiency than the junkers being taken off the road.

However, I am concerned that we are taking funding from the Renewable Energy Loan Guarantee Program and would express my strong belief that we must find a way of replenishing those funds as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, could you work with me and other Members to ensure that the funds for this program will be replenished?

I thank the chairman very much. I know that this has always been the highest priority for yourself, for Speaker Pelosi, and for the Obama administration, and I look forward to working with you in the future in order to make sure that we have a win-win here for renewable energy and for our fuel-efficient vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 686, I inadvertently did not vote, but intended to vote ``aye''.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, and commend Chairmen Waxman, Barton, Pallone, Dingell, Deal and Stupak for all of their bipartisan and extensive work on this important legislation.

The Food Safety Enhancement Act is a critical part of protecting the health and wellbeing of our citizens from food-borne illnesses and negligent food manufacturers. This bill strengthens the FDA's oversight of our nation's food supply by increasing inspections,

improving traceability, and empowering the agency to order mandatory recalls when necessary.

The FDA is responsible for the safety of 80 percent of our nation's food supply, but only has the resources to inspect food-manufacturing facilities once every 10 years. Over the past several years we have seen an increase in outbreaks of Salmonella, resulting in recalls of tainted food, health problems, and sadly, deaths. The FDA under the Bush Administration failed to take the steps necessary to ensure the safety of our food supply, but this bill, which was approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee with bipartisan support, will change that.

I am pleased that the bill we are considering today also includes a modified version of my bill, the Ban Poisonous Additives--or BPA Act.

BPA is a ubiquitous chemical found in most food and beverage cans and many reusable plastic containers. It was also found in most baby bottles until recently, when major baby bottle manufacturers agreed to voluntarily stop using it because of concerns about its effects on health, which are many: BPA can be linked to increases in breast and prostate cancer risk, heart disease, liver abnormalities and diabetes; BPA can result in adverse impacts to reproductive health; BPA can be linked to increases in obesity, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, brain damage, altered immune function and other problems; BPA can be found at dramatically higher levels in infants than in the rest of the population, and is also found in placental tissue and umbilical cord blood; BPA has been found at higher levels in women with a history of repeated spontaneous miscarriages; and BPA has been shown to alter the effectiveness of chemotherapy in cancer patients.

The Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 calls on FDA to evaluate the approved uses of BPA in food and beverage containers and to tell the Committee on Energy and Commerce whether each use is safe by the end of this year. If FDA finds that BPA isn't safe, it is additionally directed to tell Congress how it plans to protect public health--which could include banning the chemical as well as efforts such as placing warning labels on products that contain it so that the most vulnerable populations will be better able to avoid it.

Not all industries are as receptive to addressing health concerns as the baby bottle manufacturers were. In fact, just recently, the food and packaging industry convened a meeting in Washington at which they devised an expensive public relations claim to combat their consumer confidence crisis. They even concluded that their ``holy grail'' spokesperson would be a pregnant woman who could publicly extol the virtues of BPA, and thought about how to create fears that its removal would lead to scarce or unsafe food products.

Although the baby bottle manufacturers' voluntary action and a variety of State laws banning its use are helpful, what we really need is federal leadership on this vital public health issue, and I am pleased that the FDA has commenced a scientific review of all the data. The language in this bill will ensure that the review occurs quickly and that appropriate steps will be taken to protect public health.

I thank my colleagues for working with me to craft this compromise provision, and I urge support for the underlying bill.