Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill which will do unacceptable damage to the international nuclear nonproliferation regime.

I have worked for over three years in opposition to the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement because of its disastrous implications for nonproliferation. I've been called the ``Arch-Critic'' of the deal; but really I see myself as the ``Arch-Defender'' of nuclear nonproliferation. Halting the spread of nuclear weapons is not something over which the United States can afford to compromise; this issue is central to both international stability and our own security here at home. I'm not ``attacking'' India, I am defending the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

My goal has been to get meaningful nonproliferation conditions included in the agreement at all levels, including at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG). But the Bush administration fought this at every turn.

The legislation I introduced in 2005, H. Con. Res. 318 outlined the serious nonproliferation problems of the proposed India nuclear cooperation agreement.

I testified before the House International Relations Committee on May 11, 2006 and explained the incredible dangers of the President's proposal. I told them that the deal was ``ill-conceived, that it undermines U.S. national security interests, and that it sets a dangerous precedent that will be exploited by our adversaries and rivals.'' I continue to believe that this is the case.

In response to the issues I and others raised regarding the threat to Congressional prerogatives from the administration's draft bill, the bill that was actually introduced removed many of the worst ``blank check'' provisions of the Administration bill. For instance, the administration bill would not have allowed the Congress to even see India's IAEA Safeguards Agreement or the Nuclear Suppliers' Group rule change before we voted on whether or not to give final approval.

The Motion to Recommit which I offered during floor debate on July 26, 2006 focused on India's dangerous relationship with Iran. My motion would have required India to help us halt Iran's nuclear program. It received 192 votes--the strongest vote that opponents of the deal were able to muster. Sadly, however, it was not included in the final bill.

But after the Congress passed the Henry J. Hyde Act of 2006, to allow in principle nuclear trade with India, the Bush Administration ignored many of the most important nonproliferation-related conditions and requirements which were contained in that legislation. President Bush has negotiated a deal with India which is universally recognized by nonproliferation experts as ripping an enormous hole in the nonproliferation regime by granting unprecedented concessions to India, a country that has never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain for the Record, the problems inherent with this bill, and more generally with President Bush's now three-year campaign to carve out a massive loophole to the nonproliferation rules on behalf of India.

Administration Arguments Fail the Reality Test

In selling its proposal for the nuclear cooperation agreement with India, the Bush Administration relied on arguments which simply fail the realty test. Among the most glaringly false arguments on which the administration continues to rely to this day are that the nuclear deal will unlock India for American commerce, and that India will be a natural strategic partner with the United States,

The U.S.-India trade relationship

The Bush Administration has argued that the nuclear cooperation agreement will exponentially boost commerce with India. They also argued repeatedly that if the nuclear deal were not immediately approved by the Congress, the U.S. would lose the benefit of this trade.

But in reality, we already have strong and growing trade ties with India, and there is no reason to believe that this will be substantially altered by the nuclear cooperation agreement. Furthermore, I believe that the Bush Administration has sought to use this false economic argument to rush Congressional approval.

The truth is that since 2000, Indian exports to the United States have doubled, and U.S. exports to India have almost tripled. In the last 30 years, total bilateral trade has grown almost 8-fold, an enormous increase. In 2006, our total bilateral trade topped $31.9 billion, growing at a whopping 18.9% over the previous year. Even during the worst moments of the U.S.-India relationship, for instance after the 1974 and 1998 Indian nuclear tests, trade continued to grow at rapid rates.

The bottom line is that trade between the United States and India will continue to grow, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the nuclear cooperation agreement.

The U.S.-India strategic relationship

The Bush administration has repeatedly called the U.S.-Indian relationship a ``Strategic Partnership.'' I am a strong supporter of India, and I believe that the United States and India must, and will, continue to have a relationship marked by mutual cooperation and shared values. But I do not believe, as the Bush Administration has essentially argued, that India will become a subservient partner to the United States.

The reality is that India has always followed a fiercely independent foreign policy, and will certainly continue to do so. In fact, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told his Parliament in August of 2006 that, ``Our sole guiding principle in regard to our foreign policy, whether it is on Iran or any other country, will be dictated entirely by our national interest.''

The first major test of the U.S.-India strategic partnership is the question of how to deal with Iran's nuclear program. If lndia really were a steady strategic partner to the United States, New Delhi would be actively supporting the U.S. in halting the Iranian nuclear program. But instead of assisting the U.S. with Iran, India's longstanding strategic relationship with Iran has only grown stronger.

Let me list some of India's actions vis-a-vis Iran which have led me to conclude that India is not fully and actively supporting United States' efforts to sanction and isolate Iran for its ongoing nuclear program: India has repeatedly defended Iran's nuclear program; India has developed intelligence outposts in Iran near the Pakistani border; India and Iran have held two joint naval exercises, in March 2003 and March 2006; The 2003 Iranian-Indian New Delhi Declaration explicitly raised concerns about U.S. unilateralism in Iraq; Indian scientists have been sanctioned by the U.S. for WMD-related transfers to Iran, most recently in July 2006; India is pursuing an $8 billion gas pipeline from Iran. India has committed to help Iran build a Liquefied Natural Gas terminal; the two countries established the Indian-Iranian Joint Working Group on Counter Terrorism in 2003; and India is developing a port in south-east Iran which analysts believe will be a naval base.

The other major test of the U.S.-India strategic partnership is how to address the rise of China. Some supporters of the nuclear deal will admit, in their more candid moments, that the real driver behind this enormous change is a desire on the part of the Bush Administration that India become the U.S. ``hedge'' to contain China's rise in Asia.

But India has no desire for conflict of any kind with China, and India will not act as an American proxy. To put it simply, it is not in India's interest to risk poor relations with China. China is India's second largest trading partner. India and China signed an energy agreement to prevent them from bidding for the same resources and driving up prices, in January 2006. Total bilateral India-China trade has grown at over 30% every year since 1999, even faster than India- U.S. trade has grown.

China is simply too valuable as a partner, and too potentially threatening as an enemy, for India to seek anything but positive relations. And all the armchair strategists who have been trying to sell the idea of India as an American proxy against China are absolutely foolish. It's not going to happen.

I am not arguing that India cannot or should not have an independent foreign policy. I'm arguing it inevitably will chart its own course, as any powerful nation would be expected to do. My colleagues should be realistic about what we can expect from India in terms of support for U.S. foreign policy priorities. The Bush Administration seems to think that by granting India international nuclear trade we are locking them into a permanent foreign policy alliance with the U.S. That is absolutely naive, and I believe that the Bush Administration's strategic calculation that they are getting a permanent ally in exchange for a wholesale change of international nonproliferation rules is simply wrong.

U.S. Violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which the United States is a signatory, states that, ``Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.'' However, the U.S.-India nuclear agreement could put the United States in violation of this central obligation, since India's nuclear weapons program is likely to both indirectly and directly benefit from the terms of civilian nuclear trade, and since the United States could therefore be said to be ``encouraging'' India's manufacture of nuclear weapons.

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service analyzed at my request the question of whether the U.S.-India nuclear agreement could violate the United States' obligations under the NPT, and identified three ways in which this could occur. First, it analyzed the ``separation plan'' under which India's civilian and military nuclear facilities will be disentangled. Second, it investigated whether U.S. de-facto recognition of lndia as a nuclear power could encourage India to continue its production of weapons. And third, it examines the most significant issue of U.S. assistance to India's weapons program: how imported nuclear fuel would free up India's domestic uranium for use in its weapons program.

Without a credible separation plan, the United States could wind up transferring technology directly into India's weapons program. The CRS analysis states:

It should be noted that while IAEA safeguards ensure that

nuclear material is not diverted, there are no procedures or

measures in place to ensure that information, technology and

know-how are not transferred from the civil sector to the

military sector. This could become a key loophole,

particularly because the separation plan places 8 indigenous

power reactors under safeguards, while leaving at least 8

indigenous power reactors outside of safeguards. Without

additional measures to prevent the transfer of personnel

or knowledge from the safeguarded program to the

unsafeguarded program, there would be little assurallce

that assistance to the safeguarded program could not

migrate to the military program.

By changing U.S. law to allow for nuclear trade with India, the United States will grant international legitimacy to India's nuclear arsenal. The CRS analysis states:

The United States is not granting de jure recognition to

India as a nuclear weapon state, because doing so would

require amendment of the NPT, a prospect that is

unattainable, according to most experts. Nonetheless, a

successful U.S. effort to gain an exemption in U.S. nuclear

cooperation law would place India in the company of only four

other nations--the United Kingdom, France, China, and

Russia--all de jure nuclear weapon states. While this may not

constitute formal recognition of India as a nuclear weapon

state, many observers believe that it legitimizes India's

nuclear weapons program, thus providing de facto recognition.

Critics of the President Bush's plan for the U.S.-India nuclear agreement long argued that allowing India to import uranium for its civilian reactors would free up its domestic fuel sources to concentrate exclusively on weapons production, giving India a vast new capacity for the manufacture of fissile material for weapons. The CRS analysis agreed with this argument, calling this indirect benefit to India's weapons program ``a clear consequence of such cooperation.'' The analysis continues:

Secretary Rice seemed to be suggesting that having more

uranium would not encourage or assist India's nuclear weapons

program because it already had the fissile material it

needed. If, as Secretary Rice suggests, the military

requirements are dwarfed by civilian requirements, then

finding international sources for civilian requirements could

result in a windfall for the weapons program.

It is my strong belief that the NPT is the single most important international security agreement in existence. Furthermore the United States has a unique responsibility as the sole remaining superpower, as well as the driving force behind the drafting of the NPT in the middle of the last century, to exert constant vigilance on behalf of this extraordinarily significant treaty. If the United States does not strictly adhere to its NPT commitments then we are likely to see a dramatic and dangerous deterioration in the strength and stability ofthe Treaty.

Inconsistencies between the Hyde Act and the ``123'' Agreement

The Hyde Act of 2006 set numerous requirements for the negotiation of the technical bilateral agreement for nuclear cooperation, known as the ``123 Agreement'' in reference to Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. However, the Bush Administration did not meet these requirements, and the 123 Agreement is therefore inconsistent with the law.

The most important inconsistencies between the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement are: nuclear testing and the termination of U.S. nuclear supply; assurances of nuclear supply to India in the case of supply ``disruption;'' and, the reprocessing of U.S.-origin nuclear material.

Nuclear Testing and the Termination of U.S. Nuclear Supply

The Atomic Energy Act requires, and the Hyde Act reinforces, that nuclear trade with any nation will terminate if that nation conducts a nuclear test. In addition, U.S. law provides that the United States may demand the return of all transferred nuclear materials and technology in case of a test.

Almost all other 123 Agreements state these requirements and rights explicitly. But the U.S.-India 123 Agreement doesn't. The India 123 Agreement provides no detail at all on the kinds of actions that will result in termination. Given the difficult disagreements in the past

with India on nuclear rights and responsibilities, this is not wise. In addition, the India 123 Agreement does not state that the United States has the right to demand the return of all transferred nuclear materials and technology if India conducts a test.

Because the 123 Agreement lacks these specific statements of the consequences of an Indian nuclear test, many in India argue that they not only have an unfettered right to test their nuclear weapons, but that no consequences will follow if they do. This is not what Congress intended with the Hyde Act, which specifically requires that cooperation end if India tests a nuclear bomb.

Assurances of Nuclear Supply to India in the Case of Supply

``Disruption''

The 123 Agreement contains two unprecedented clauses with respect to assuring India a supply of nuclear fuel under all scenarios, even if they test a bomb.

First, the 123 Agreement commits the United States to ``support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of the reactor.'' This means that the United States will assist India in stockpiling uranium from international suppliers. If supply was terminated for any reason, even if India failed to uphold its nonproliferation commitments, such as by testing a nuclear bomb, India could use this stockpile of fuel as a cushion against another supply cutoff. This clause flies in the face of the Hyde Act, which states that any fuel reserve should not exceed normal reactor operating requirements.

Second, if India should ever have a fuel supply disruption, the U.S. is to convene ``a group of friendly supplier countries . . . to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India.'' Again, this would take place in the event of any disruption of supply, including due to India exploding a nuclear bomb.

This renders toothless the requirement in the Atomic Energy Act to stop nuclear exports to a country that tests a nuclear weapon. Will India care that U.S. cooperation is cut off if the U.S. itself is turning around and asking other countries to step in and provide the nuclear fuel to India? Would you think twice about illegally parking if you know your ticket will be paid for?

The Hyde Act specifically states that the United States is to seek to prevent other countries from providing India with nuclear material or technology if our own cooperation is cut off. The 123 Agreement should say the same thing, but it doesn't.

Reprocessing U.S.-origin nuclear material

As a matter of policy, the United States doesn't transfer enrichment, reprocessing, or heavy water production equipment to any state because of the dangerous utility of those technologies for nuclear weapons programs. In fact, in February 2004, President Bush said that ``enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.'' And he had it right!

And reinforcing the point, the Hyde Act states that, ``Given the special sensitivity of equipment and technologies related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and the production of heavy water,'' the United States will work to further restrict the transfers of such technologies to India.

Yet, the U.S. has given India the right to reprocess our nuclear material, and promised cooperation in reprocessing technologies! How will the U.S. be able to stop other countries from transferring reprocessing technologies and other sensitive technologies if we are making such transfers ourselves?

The fact of the matter is that President Bush negotiated an agreement with India that does not meet the requirements of U.S. law, on testing, on assurances of supply, and on reprocessing.

Problems relating to International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards

The Hyde Act of 2006 set numerous requirements relating to India's negotiations and declarations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). While a number of these key requirements have not met, President Bush made a formal declaration that all of the Hyde Act requirements were fulfilled.

Separation plan

Section 104(b)(1) of the Hyde Act requires the President to determine that India must provide to the United States and the IAEA ``a credible plan to separate civil and military nuclear facilities, materials, and programs.'' However, the separation plan that India has provided is not credible from a nonproliferation perspective, since it will not prevent all materials from moving between the civilian and military spheres.

Under the separation plan, India will be allowed to use domestically produced heavy water to moderate its safeguarded civilian reactors. However, the domestically produced heavy water itself will not be safeguarded, and safeguards will be removed from old heavy water as it is removed from the reactor in exchange for new heavy water. This creates a serious problem within the separation plan, as the old heavy water will contain tritium, a nuclear byproduct material which is used to boost the yield of nuclear weapons.

India will be able to use tritium generated in its ``safeguarded'' reactors to boost the yield of its nuclear weapons, making the civilian-military separation plan utterly meaningless from a nonproliferation perspective. Yet, on September 10, 2008, President Bush made a formal declaration that ``India has provided the United States and the IAEA with a credible plan to separate civil and military nuclear facilities, materials, and programs.''

India's declaration to the International Atomic Energy Agency

Section 104(b)(1) of the Hyde Act requires the President to determine that:

India has ``filed a declaration regarding its civil facilities and materials with the IAEA.''

However, India has not filed such a declaration with the lAEA, and has stated that it will not do so until after the 123 Agreement has been approved.

Yet, on September 10, 2008, President Bush made a formal declaration that, India . . . has ``filed a declaration regarding its civil facilities and materials with the IAEA.''

India's progress towards concluding an Additional Protocol

Section 104(b)(3) of the Hyde Act requires the President to determine that:

India and the IAEA are making substantial progress toward

concluding an Additional Protocol consistent with IAEA

principles, practices, and policies that would apply to

India's civil nuclear program.

The ``substantial progress'' required by the Hyde Act has simply not occurred. India and the lAEA have met just one time to discuss negotiations of an Additional Protocol, and one concept paper has been exchanged. No one knows what the final Additional Protocol will look like, if indeed one is ever successfully negotiated.

Yet, September 10, 2008, President Bush made a formal declaration that, ``India and the IAEA are making substantial progress toward concluding an Additional Protocol consistent with IAEA principles, practices, and policies that would apply to India's civil nuclear program.''

Problems relating to the Nuclear Suppliers' Group Waiver

The Hyde Act of 2006 set numerous statements of United States policy relating to the negotiation of a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) guidelines for international nuclear trade with India. However, the Bush Administration ignored many of these statements of policy, and in at least one instance aggressively pursued a policy which was directly contradicted by the Hyde Act.

Termination of NSG supply in response to violations

Section 103(a)(4) of the Hyde Act states that it is the policy of the United States to:

Strengthen the NSG guidelines and decisions concerning

consultation by members regarding violations of supplier and

recipient understandings by instituting the practice of a

timely and coordinated response by NSG members to all such

violations, including termination of nuclear transfers to an

involved recipient, that discourages individual NSG members

from continuing cooperation with such recipient until such

time as a consensus regarding a coordinated response has been

achieved.

However, the United States did not seek to establish strengthen the NSG guidelines to require a termination of NSG supply to a recipient states in the event of a violation of supplier and recipient understandings. In fact, many NSG member states sought to strengthen the NSG guidelines in this manner but could not because opposition by the Bush Administration. In this case the Bush Administration actively worked to thwart the policy of the United States as set by Congress in the Hyde Act.

Enrichment and reprocessing restriction

Section 103(a)(5) of the Hyde Act states that it is the policy of the United States to:

Given the special sensitivity of equipment and technologies

related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of

spent nuclear fuel, and the production of heavy water, work

with members of the NSG, individually and collectively, to

further restrict the transfers of such equipment and

technologies, including to India.

However, the United States did not seek to strengthen NSG guidelines to restrict the transfers of enrichment and reprocessing technologies, despite having sought such a restriction for four years. In 2004, President Bush declared in a major speech on nonproliferation that achieving a historic international restriction on transfers of enrichment and reprocessing was one of his administration's highest priorities. For the next four years, the Bush Administration sought to achieve such a restriction at the NSG, yet abandoned this issue during the negotiations regarding India.

Universalizing U.S. termination triggers

Section 103(a)(6) of the Hyde Act states that it is the policy of the United States to:

Seek to prevent the transfer to a country of nuclear

equipment, materials, or technology from other participating

governments in the NSG or from any other source if nuclear

transfers to that country are suspended or terminated

pursuant to this title, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42

U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), or any other United States law.

However, the United States did not seek to amend NSG guidelines to ensure that all international nuclear supply to India would be terminated if U.S. law required U.S. nuclear trade to be terminated. Such a rule would not only have significantly strengthened international nonproliferation policy, but it would have protected American firms from the possibility of being the only firms in the world barred from trade with India.

Madam Speaker, this bill, and the nuclear cooperation agreement with India which it approves, will do great damage to the international nuclear nonproliferation regime. Can we afford to undermine the nonproliferation rules at the very moment when Iran is speeding toward a viable nuclear capability, when North Korea is redoubling its intransigence and throwing out IAEA observers, and when Venezuela is requesting nuclear cooperation from Russia? No, we cannot. I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the implications of this bill for international stability and U.S. security, and vote against H.R. 7081.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Independence at Home Act. I am pleased to introduce this important legislation today with my colleagues in the House, Representatives. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), and my colleagues in the Senate, Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Our legislation is designed to improve the quality of care received by a particularly vulnerable portion of the Medicare population-- beneficiaries with multiple chronic and debilitating diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, diabetes and other conditions. Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions account for a disproportionate share of Medicare spending compared to their representation in the overall Medicare population. Specifically, CMS reports that each year, 10 percent of the Medicare population accounts for two-thirds of all Medicare fee-for-service program payments. Because this population sees an average of 13 physicians and fills about 50 prescriptions per year, beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions often receive disjointed care from health providers, including conflicting information and multiple diagnoses for the same symptoms.

The Independence at Home Act addresses the critical needs of these patients, for whom coordinated care has the greatest potential to achieve positive results. Through the creation

of a 3-year demonstration project in 26 states, our legislation provides for patient-centered health care directed by physicians and nurse practitioners working as part of a team of caregivers qualified to deliver quality health services for this specific Medicare patient group. The Independence at Home program is designed to fund better health care and improved health care technology through savings it achieves, using an innovative health care delivery model to permit the growing number of Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible and to receive care in a setting that is preferred by the beneficiary involved and the family of such beneficiary.

In addition to delivering holistic, preventive care that enables patients to remain in their own homes, the Independence at Home demonstration projects hold providers accountable for quality outcomes, patient satisfaction, and a mandatory minimum 5 percent savings on an annual basis compared to Medicare costs that would have been incurred if the beneficiary had not participated in the demonstration project. Our bill generates these savings by providing comprehensive and coordinated care to the highest cost Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions, reducing duplicative and unnecessary services and avoiding unnecessary hospitalizations and emergency room visits. As demonstrated by the Veterans Administration and many other existing programs, the Independence at Home Act has the potential both to promote quality, effective care and significantly reduce costs.

Our bill has been endorsed by the American Academy of Home Care Physicians; AARP; the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners; the National Family Caregivers Association; the Family Caregiver Alliance/ National Center on Caregiving; the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging; the Maryland-National Capital Home Care Association; the Visiting Nurse Associations of America, and Intel Corp.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the bill as I am, in fact, opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill and to the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal.

Most people think that this is a debate about India. It is not. We are all friends of India, and we are all united in our view that the United States and India share a bright future of strong relations. This is a debate about Iran. This is a debate about North Korea, about Pakistan, about Venezuela, about any other country in the world that harbors the goal of acquiring nuclear weapons.

With this vote, we are shattering the nonproliferation rules. And the next three countries to march through the broken glass will be Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. And there are others with their nose up against the window getting ready as well. Flashing a green light to India sends a dangerous signal to all of those countries because these policies are interconnected.

We are now seeing the devastating financial consequences of years of Wall Street recklessness. The subprime mortgage pushers pretended that the laws of supply and demand no longer applied and that home values would always go up. Well, they were wrong. The Bush administration argues that breaking the nuclear rules for India will not lead to broken rules for anyone else. The Bush administration is wrong. And this deal will have serious consequences for our national security. Like the financial crisis that is now gripping the globe, this disastrous nuclear deal will come back to haunt us because there is no bailout for a nuclear bomb.

Nonproliferation experts tell us that India will be able to increase its annual nuclear weapons production from seven bombs per year to 40 or 50 bombs per year. That is absolutely a crazy situation for us to be engaging in. Does the Bush administration think that nobody is watching what we are doing? Pakistan is watching. Pakistan is watching its arch rival get welcomed into ``the nuclear club.'' Does the Bush administration think that Pakistan will just watch India ramp up its nuclear weapons production and do nothing? Pakistan will respond. Pakistan warned us this summer that this deal, and I quote, ``threatens to increase the chances of a nuclear arms race.''

Right now, according to nonproliferation experts, Pakistan is building two new reactors to dramatically increase its nuclear weapons production. The first of these new reactors could come online within a year. Pakistan is essentially telling India, ``We're in this game, too. We will match you step to step.''

This is an all out nuclear arms race. That is what President Bush should be working on, not fueling it, but trying to negotiate an end to it. This is what a nuclear arms race looks like. We lived through one with the Soviet Union, now we are fueling one in Southeast Asia.

And who is Pakistan? A.Q. Khan, right here, the world's number one nuclear proliferator, a criminal against humanity, he is in Pakistan. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, the people that actually attacked us on 9/11--and we know have attempted to acquire weapons of mass destruction--they are in Pakistan. And the Pakistani government, upon which we are relying to safeguard the nuclear weapons and materials, is dangerously unstable. We are feeding the fire of a nuclear arms race in the one country, Pakistan, where we can least afford to do so.

It's incredibly ironic that next here on the House floor we will consider a bill to increase sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program because the bill we're considering now makes an Iranian nuclear weapon much harder to

prevent. By breaking the rules for India, we're making it less likely that the rules will hold against Iran or anyone else.

Iran is looking at this deal for India and they're saying, ``Where can I sign up?'' ``I want that deal.'' And where is it written that once these new rules are set up, that the Venezuelans can't cut the same deal with the Chinese, that the Iranians and the Russians will just continue merrily along the way? They will be pointing at us. They will be pointing at our explanation that we can cut a separate deal here with India. That is what we are establishing in this bill. This is the new regime for the world, not a comprehensive policy, but each big country who wants to cut a deal with a nuclear aspiring country can do so.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is the bedrock of our efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. It is the foundation upon which all of our work rests. And this deal is ripping that foundation up by its roots.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are at an historic point. This deal allows for a country which is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to be exempted from it. It's an historic moment not only in the history of the United States, but of the world.

This nuclear nonproliferation regime that President Kennedy told us we had to establish has worked. In 1963, when he said, by the year 2000 we might have to count the countries that don't have nuclear weapons because they will be fewer than those that do unless we put a regime in place, was accurate. And if you look now, in 2008, almost no new countries have obtained nuclear weapons since 1963; quite an achievement. But here tonight, we're about to create a new global regime. And we will look back on this in the same way that we look back on the day when we began to allow subprime loans, and we will wonder how a global nuclear catastrophe was created, and we will point back to this evening.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to increase some sanctions against Iran in response to it's ongoing nuclear program. One important provision, which I have fought for in my state of Massachusetts, is to grant State governments the authority to divest their funds from companies investing in Iran's petroleum sector.

But ladies and gentlemen, who are we kidding here? We just passed a bill which will break all the nonproliferation rules for India. And somehow we think doing that won't have any impact on our ability to prevent an Iranian bomb?

These policies are interconnected.

By breaking the rules for India, we're making it less likely that the rules will hold against Iran, or anyone else.

Iran is looking at the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal and they are saying, ``Where can I sign up? I want that deal!''

In our efforts to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, this bill moves us one step forward, but the India Nuclear Deal takes us 20 steps back.

If you want to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb, you should vote for this bill, and you must vote against the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal.

Madam Speaker, I am introducing the Georges Bank Preservation Act today because America's most valuable fishery and one of the Nation's most important marine areas, Georges Bank, will be in the crosshairs of the oil and gas industry when the moratorium on offshore drilling expires October 1. Georges Bank is a fragile environmental region that is already recovering from other recent pressures like over-fishing. Allowing oil and gas drilling in Georges Bank could forever destroy this ecosystem and our nation's most important fishery.

This legislation would prohibit the Federal Government from issuing any lease authorizing exploration, development, or production of oil or natural gas in Georges Bank. Keeping protections against drilling in Georges Bank would affect less than 2 percent of Federal land on the outer Continental Shelf. The legislation would also protect any areas designated as marine national monuments or national marine sanctuaries, including the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Massachusetts. The language in the Georges Bank Preservation Act is identical to what was included in H.R. 6899, which has already passed the House in an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 236-189.

The Northeast fishery landings are valued at approximately $800 million annually and Georges Bank is the key to the region. New Bedford, MA is by far the most productive fishing port in the United States, in terms of value of catch. Its $268 million catch in 2007 was nearly equal to the combined value of the catches of Dutch Harbor, AK and Kodiak Harbor, AK--the second and third most valuable fishing ports in the Nation. New Bedford has been number 1 for 8 straight years. Last year, commercial fishing brought nearly $350 million into Massachusetts alone.

There has been a moratorium on fishing in areas of Georges Bank for over a decade and we are seeing signs of recovery. If we were to allow oil drilling at this critical time in the recovery of Georges Bank, it would be disastrous to the full restoration of this critical marine habitat.

Canada--which has a claim to approximately one-fifth of Georges Bank--recognizes the region's importance and fragility and has a moratorium on drilling in the area through 2012. We need to send a signal to Canada that we too will keep in place the protections against drilling in this unique marine ecosystem.

Georges Bank is geologically and biologically unique. Warm and cold currents come together and circulate to help make the shallow water's depth, temperature, and nutrient content perfect for life. Georges Bank is home to more than 100 species of fish and shellfish, including cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, herring, and sea scallops.

While I will continue to fight for a full extension of the moratorium on offshore drilling on the east and west coasts of the United States, I am introducing this bill today--along with my colleagues in the Massachusetts delegation, to highlight the vital importance of protecting the Georges Banks and other particularly sensitive offshore lands from the environmental hazards associated with oil and natural gas exploration and production.

We must not let Big Oil claim one of New England's most important economic and environmental treasures. The Georges Bank Preservation Act will prevent the oil and gas industry from invading America's most precious fishery and one of our Nation's most unique marine habitats.

I thank the gentleman very much.

President Bush and the Senate Republicans have been given opportunity after opportunity to pass tax credit extensions for renewable energy. In just the past year and a half, the Republican leadership has followed the marching orders of the Bush administration and voted 13 times against Democratic efforts to increase our use of renewable energy, help protect consumers from high energy prices, and ensure that Big Oil pays its fair share. They have refused time after time, instead siding with Big Oil and their fossil fuel friends even as oil prices remain sky high.

Now the Senate Republicans couldn't resist this time around, either, sending us a renewable energy tax package stuffed with goodies for coal-to-liquids, tar sands, and oil shale. Big Oil even gets to keep most of their tax breaks even though they're tipping consumers upside down and shaking money out of their pockets. They also want to shake them upside down as taxpayers and get more money as tax breaks from the American people.

The only thing renewable about Republican energy policy for the last 8 years has been their inexhaustible support for the Big Oil agenda.

I commend the great work of Chairman Rangel in stripping harmful and unnecessary provisions and giving us a genuine clean energy tax package to vote upon today.

This bill primes the renewable energy engine and gives coal a clean path forward with more than $1 billion in tax incentives to demonstrate carbon capture and sequestration. This may be the last chance to get these renewable energy incentives passed into law. If President Bush and Senate Republicans shoot this package down like they've shot down every other opportunity for clean energy tax breaks, then there may not be another opportunity.

Solar and wind companies are delaying projects because of investment uncertainty. History has shown that renewable energy deployment could fall 70 percent or more if these tax incentives lapse. That would translate into a loss of 116,000 job opportunities and $19 billion in private investment loss in 2009 alone. That's one more legacy I fear President Bush has no problem in carrying back to Crawford, Texas: Champaign celebrations for Big Oil and red ink and pink slips for America's high tech energy companies and their green collar workers.

Last year in the United States, more wind capacity was installed than any other source with the exception of natural gas. Thirty-five percent of all new electrical generating capacity installed in the United States last year was wind power.

This year, over 40 percent of all new electrical generating capacity in the United States will be new wind power. Solar photovoltaic installations also increased an amazing 80 percent last year. 2008 will surpass that. But what about 2009? What about 2010?

This bill before us invests in the renewable revolution that will transform America. Electric cars, cellulosic biofuels, wind and solar will assert our energy independence over the coming decade if the President signs this bill.

After 8 years of running on a Bush-Cheney-Big Oil energy plan, America, it is time for an oil change. It is time for us to move off the oil agenda and move on to the solar, the wind, the biofuels.

The slogan for this Congress should be ``Change, baby, change!'' That is not what the Republicans are talking about.

Madam Speaker, Last week, our Nation commemorated the seventh anniversary of the most devastating attack on our country since Pearl Harbor. We remembered the victims and their families, and we also honored the heroism of the fire fighters, police officers, emergency workers and everyday Americans who rushed to help those caught in the almost unimaginable violence on that day.

The attack has left an indelible mark on our Nation. The two planes that were crashed into the World Trade Center towers took off from Boston's Logan Airport on that clear Tuesday morning.

Last week at Logan Airport, a new memorial was dedicated to the 147 men, women and children who perished on American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a statement from Massachusetts Port Authority Chairman Dr. John Quelch on the occasion of the dedication of the 9/11 memorial at Logan Airport.

We will never forget the heroism of the Americans affected by the September 11th attacks.

Remarks of Dr. John A. Quelch

For the past 7 years, there have already been two memorials

at Logan Airport, dedicated to the 147 men, women and

children who perished the morning of September 11, 2001 on

American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175.

One stands outside Gate 32 in American Airline's Terminal

B. The other stands outside Gate 19 in United's Terminal C.

Both memorials appeared spontaneously, raised by airport and

airline employees without fanfare or ceremony. These two

memorials are one and the same. And there is no grander

memorial. That memorial is the flag of the United States of

America.

The flags fly proudly to this day, and will likely fly

forever. They symbolize the determination of this airport,

this Nation, and the community assembled here to recover from

that grievous wound.

Today, we dedicate a third memorial as a remembrance of

that day and its impact on all of us. This memorial is

accessible to all who come to this airport. And this memorial

acknowledges each lost soul by name.

It is a simple tribute. A quiet place of reflection.

Hopefully, a place for healing. And, with the passage of

time, a place for learning and education, as well.

This memorial is first and foremost for you, the family

members and friends of those who perished that sunny

September morning. They never asked to make history, yet they

did so in the saddest possible way.

The weight of September 11 also bore heavily on the entire

Logan airport community who were devastated to learn that two

of our flights--our flight 11, our flight 175--were

instruments in the tragedy that unfolded. We at Massport and

the entire Logan family hope that you--and we--will find

comfort in this place. And in the years to come, we hope that

many thousands of visitors--perhaps millions--will also come

here to reflect, to heal and to learn.

Changing our own lives will be the greatest gift we can

give to the departed. They surely expect more from us than to

merely memorialize their names. They surely want us to do

more, work harder, be better, to be inspired by remembering

them.

So, for the sacrifice of those we honor here today, may

this memorial therefore make us better fathers and mothers,

sons and daughters.

For their sacrifice, may we be better custodians of the

public trust, ever vigilant for the public safety.

For their sacrifice may we be better citizens and

neighbors.

And in the morning, with the rising of the sun, and with

the sounds of freedom in the sky, we shall remember them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1485. I commend Chairman Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Lofgren, and Representative Boucher for their tireless work on this most important legislation.

I am particularly pleased that the bill we are voting on today gives Ms. Esther Karinge, a constituent in my district, an opportunity to escape persecution in Kenya and live freely with her son in the United States.

While living in Kenya with her uncle--a local political official-- Esther and her family received harassment and death threats during a time of tremendous political unrest still present in the region. Esther left her home and sought out protection in the United States in 1994.

Esther's case, while strong enough on the grounds that she faced persecution or worse in Kenya, is further complicated by the fact that not long after arriving in the United States, Esther gave birth to her son Nicholas. Nicholas was born prematurely, and was diagnosed with cerebral palsy and deafness. As a single parent to Nicholas, who is wheelchair bound, Esther has gone above and beyond for her now 11-year- old child, who has relied solely on his mother for survival. Because of Nicholas's perseverance, and the unconditional love and support of Esther, doctors believe that Nicholas may someday walk on his own.

Esther has worked hard to secure a better life for herself and her son, while becoming an important part of our community in Malden. For several years, Esther served at the Refugee Immigration Ministry in Malden, Massachusetts, as a case manager working with women who fled their countries for the same reason she did--fear of persecution. Esther also serves as a member of the board of directors for the Immigrant Learning Center, a not-for-profit offering English language classes in my district.

Today, we are one step closer to protecting the life of Esther, and the great potential of her son Nicholas. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Lofgren, and Representative Boucher for their commitment to this body and legislation. I urge adoption of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

I thank the gentle lady.

Mr. Speaker, this is all part of an ongoing effort by the Republicans to change the subject, to have a drilling distraction, anything to get away from what their true agenda is.

This is something that should be opposed. What the Republicans are trying to do here should be opposed, because what this is really all about, and what they are trying to do now, is to avoid the real debate on the fact that this is a comprehensive energy plan that has been brought to the House floor, that this bill deals with renewables. It deals with conservation. It deals with all of these issues that we need to deal with.

We will see if they mean it when they say they want a comprehensive energy plan, because that's what we are going to be debating today, or have they been simply playing politics, which is what this motion is all about. It's intended to avoid the real debate.

We are going to see a lot of crocodile tears here, shed on the Republican side here, after 12 years of controlling the energy committees, after 8 years of having George Bush and Dick Cheney in the White House, after the Department of Energy under Republican control, the crocodile tears are flowing with regard to all of their concern about our energy dependence.

That's what this point of order is all about. It's just another distraction, another attempt to get away from the fact that on renewable, on conservation, on efficiency they did almost nothing. It's almost 12 years that they controlled the United States Congress, until last year, in conjunction with the Bush-Cheney secret energy plan.

The Republicans say they want all of the above, but have they here produced a bill which is truly comprehensive?

No, they have not.

Because their plan is not all of the above. The Republican leadership, the White House, and Big Oil is really concerned with all that's below, not all of

the above, all that's below. Our beaches, 3 miles offshore, all of the oil that's below our national parks, all the oil that's below our most pristine wilderness areas, that's what they are in favor of.

Not all of the above, all that's below. They had 12 years controlling this institution to do something about all of the above, wind, solar, geothermal, efficiency. They did nothing.

All of this is just another attempt to get off the point, to have a distraction, which is why we should reject this point of order. America needs an oil change.

All right, we will permit some more drilling, but you also have to have a strategy for the future. They keep saying on the Republican side, drill, baby, drill.

What we are saying is change, baby, change. They can't change. They are still out here with the Big Oil agenda. They are still out here saying no to wind, no to solar, no to efficiency, no to geothermal, no to the future.

Innovate, baby, innovate. Change, baby, change. That's what this debate is all about, and that's what they are trying to do. They are trying to change the subject. They are trying to distract from the fact that they are interested in more drilling, but not a comprehensive energy plan for our country.

That's why it's great that we are having this debate. Because we see, once again, what they did for 12 years, distract the American public, allow ourselves to become more dependent on imported oil and then come out and try to wash their hands of their responsibilities. Vote ``aye.'' Vote for change.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very simple debate. The Republicans are very upset that the Democrats are going to take the oil companies and make them pay taxes to the American people when they drill on the land owned by the American people, and the Democrats then want to move the money over to wind and solar and plug-in hybrids for tax breaks. So the Democrats are saying that America needs an oil change. So, as Mr. Green just said, we open up vast new areas where the oil industry can drill, drill, drill; drill, baby, drill.

But what we put into the bill is something else as well. We put in change, baby, change. Because we only have 3 percent of the oil in the world, we have 4 percent of the population, and we consume 25 percent of the oil in the world on a daily basis. That is not a long-term recipe.

So we need an oil change. And what we need to do and what we are going to do is allow them to drill in thousands and thousands of additional acres, to go for the oil, to go drill, baby, drill, but then say we need back some of those tax breaks that you don't need at $100 a barrel, $140 a barrel, $4 a gallon at the pump. We don't need to subsidize you anymore.

The taxpayer doesn't need to be tipped upside down and have money shaken out of their pockets as taxpayers to hand over to the oil companies, because they have already been tipped upside down and had money taken out of their pockets as consumers by the oil companies.

So we just take back those tax breaks, put a little bit of a tax on where they don't pay any taxes at all, and where do we shift it over to? Ladies and gentlemen, we shift it over to wind and solar and green buildings and plug-in hybrids. We shift it over to the future. We unleash a technological revolution that will break our dependence upon imported oil.

It is change, baby, change. It is innovate, baby, innovate. These guys are a one-note organization. They have been since two oilmen went to the White House 8 years ago.

Drill, baby, drill is not a long-term strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill.

This energy bill is truly a comprehensive energy plan. I commend the great work of the gentleman from West Virginia, Chairman Rahall, and Chairman Dingell and Chairman Miller in crafting this balanced legislation. I also want to commend Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer for their leadership in pulling together what is truly a bipartisan approach that Members from all regions should be able to support.

The Republican leadership says that they want an ``all of the above'' energy plan. Well, today we get to see if they are serious, or if they have simply been playing politics. This energy bill is a comprehensive energy package that will protect consumers, unleash the renewable energy revolution, increase energy efficiency and conservation and even expand areas for domestic oil production.

While the Republican leadership and the Bush administration have said that they want ``all of the above,'' for the 6 years that they controlled the White House, the House and Senate, they did almost nothing to increase our use of renewable energy and energy efficiency. For 8 years, the two oil men in the White House crafted an energy policy that put the interests of the American Petroleum Institute over the American people, and consumers are now paying the price at the pump for that failed fossil fuel agenda.

One of the first actions the Bush administration took in 2001 after entering the White House was to convene the secret Cheney Energy Task Force to meet with executives from the oil industry and craft an energy policy. Then the Bush administration and the Republican Congress passed an energy bill in 2005 that gave billions of dollars to the oil and gas industries while nickel-and-diming renewables.

And in this Congress, the Republican leadership has followed the marching orders of the Bush administration and voted 13 times to block legislation that Democrats have brought to the floor to increase our use of renewable energy, help protect consumers from high energy prices and ensure that big oil pays its fair share. While the Republican leadership says they want ``all of the above'' they have repeatedly chosen ``none of the above'' and voted against these measures. But here they are

today, crying crocodile tears that all these policies that they have spent their entire career opposing have not been implemented.

The Republican leadership says they want ``all of the above,'' but here they are today, once again opposing a truly comprehensive, compromise energy bill that will not only increase our use of renewable energy but will also provide for more drilling. Perhaps that's because it's not ``all of the above'' that the Republican leadership and big oil are really concerned with, it's really only ``all that's below''-- all the oil that's below our beaches 3 miles offshore, all the oil the below our national parks, all the oil that's below our most pristine wilderness areas.

The comprehensive energy bill that we are considering today will build on last year's tremendous energy bill accomplishment. This bill will adopt a National Renewable Electricity standard to require that 15 percent of the electricity that we generate in 2020 come from renewable sources and efficiency and will create 100,000 jobs. By further increasing the efficiency of our buildings, this comprehensive energy bill will save consumers $200 billion on energy costs. This comprehensive plan will extend the vital tax incentives for solar, wind and other renewables, and ensure that they are paid for, which will prevent the loss of $19 billion in investment and 116,000 jobs next year in these industries. And this comprehensive plan will protect more than 5 million Americans from an impending home heating crisis and an increase in the heating bill of the average family of nearly $600 this winter by funding the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

And the Republicans say they want more offshore drilling, well this bill does that. I remain skeptical that additional offshore drilling will do anything to lower prices but this compromise bill ensures that there will be proper protections for Georges Bank off the coast of New England, which is one of our Nation's most important fisheries, and that if we are going to open more areas to drilling we first ensure that big oil cannot continue to drill for free on public land and reap billions of dollars in unnecessary tax breaks at a time when they are making record profits. With the renewable energy revolution that we will unleash with this bill it will make any additional drilling unnecessary in 20 years.

The comprehensive energy bill that we are considering today, combined with the energy bill that Democrats passed in December, means that Democrats in the 110th will have passed energy bills that achieve one- third of the reductions in global warming pollution needed by 2030 to save the planet and eliminate nearly twice the oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf.

After 8 years of running on a Bush-Cheney-Big Oil energy plan, America, it is time for an oil change! It's time to change our dependence on foreign oil and OPEC. It's time to change from the dirty fossil fuels of the past to the renewable energies of the future. It's time to change to invest in wind and solar. It's time to change to start building green to save families money. The Republicans like to say ``drill, baby, drill,'' but for our Nation's energy policy the American public is saying it's high time we started saying ``change, baby, change.''

Vote ``aye.'' Vote for change.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of inclusion in this legislation of a technical fix to an important provision in the Federal Drug Administration Amendments, FDAAA, that I authored with Congressman Waxman.

When the FDAAA was signed into law last September, it included a drafting error that had the effect of exempting medical devices from the requirement in the FDAAA that adverse events occurring during clinical trials must be reported to the registry and results data bank created by the bill.

There is bipartisan agreement that this exemption resulted from a clerical error, not a deliberate change of policy. The data bank created by the bill is intended to provide patients with comprehensive information about clinical trials that are being conducted so they can consider enrolling in a trial and also learn about the benefits and problems associated with the drugs and medical devices that are being tested.

The drafting error has the effect of only requiring drug companies to report medical problems that surface during clinical trials, exempting device companies.

Everyone agrees that it was not the intent of Congress to exempt devices from reporting adverse events in their clinical trials. Both drug companies and device manufacturers were required to report to the database according to the agreement reached by Members on both sides of the aisle.

I am pleased that this legislation fixes this clerical error.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I commend Chairman Peterson and Chairman Etheridge for their leadership in bringing this measure to the House floor.

When we have mounting evidence that today's high oil prices are due in part to excessive futures and derivatives market speculation, we must take action to help the American consumer who is struggling to pay $4 for a gallon of gas. We must stand up to speculators who are aiding and abetting big oil companies that continue to rake in record profits and laugh all the way to the bank.

In 2000, a regulatory black hole was created that took the cop off the beat when it comes to energy commodities. This law allowed energy commodities to be exempted from virtually all of the laws that we have had in place for agricultural and financial commodities.

At the time this bill passed the House, I argued that this loophole was not in the public interest and that it needed to be fixed in conference in order to prevent harm to energy markets and consumers. But it was not fixed.

The Enron loophole allowed speculators and financial operators to hide their actions from regulators and the public.

In May, Congress took the first step towards closing the Enron loophole when it passed, over President Bush's veto, the farm bill. That bill contained language that will help bring these commodities trades under greater federal oversight.

In June, this House took the next step, when it approved legislation that directed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to examine excessive oil speculation and use their emergency powers to take corrective action.

But the Congress needs to take further actions to address excessive speculation in these markets.

The bill before us today does that.

It would close the so-called London Loophole that has allowed traders to evade U.S. regulation by offshoring their trades.

It would require additional information to be made public regarding the trading activities of index funds--and other investors--in energy commodities markets.

It would subject over-the-counter energy derivatives transactions to regulatory reporting and recordkeeping requirements, including position reporting.

It positions limits for certain contracts on energy commodities, and mandates position limits for energy commodity speculators.

It requires the Commission to appoint at least 100 new full time employees.

It requires the Commission to mandate routine reporting of certain OTC energy transactions, determine whether such agreements have the potential to disrupt market liquidity and price discovery, cause severe market disturbance, or prevent prices from reflecting supply and demand. If the Commission finds that they have caused problems in these areas, it is authorized to impose and enforce position limits on the involved agreements.

The energy, economic and the environmental crisis we face are all connected. It is time for Congress to stop playing favorites to Big Oil. Cracking down on speculation will not only help families with skyrocketing gas prices, it will give needed relief to the airline industry, the trucking industry and small businesses across my district in Massachusetts. This is a good bill. It is a necessary bill, and I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their excellent work on reaching an agreement on this important legislation to upgrade and modernize the regulations and the Agency charged with ensuring the safety of consumer products.

In the past couple of years, Americans have been shocked to learn that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is an agency in crisis, starved of resources and slow to respond to a growing tsunami of toxic toys and other products that continue to put consumers at risk.

We learned of defective cribs that resulted in deaths whose defects were never fully disclosed to the public. We learned of lead-tainted jewelry and other products, toys coated with a notorious date-rape drug, and unacceptable delays in the investigation and recall of dangerous products on the part of the CPSC. We learned of undue influence by manufacturers within the CPSC itself. With all of these problems, CPSC had come to stand for the ``Can't Protect the Safety of Children'' agency.

The Democratic Congress made reform a priority and embarked in a New Direction. The result is a remarkable success.

We have agreed to BAN lead and pthalates in children's products.

We have agreed to greatly increase funding and personnel for the

Thank you, Mr. Welch.

Madam Speaker, we have on the floor right now for consideration legislation which will make it possible for American consumers, who are being tipped upside down at the gasoline pump every time they go in with their vehicle and having money shaken out of their pockets, to have immediate relief, to have the United States be on the side of the American consumer.

Now what has been happening over the last couple of months is really unfortunate. The Republicans and President Bush have been arguing that the answer is to go and to drill up in the remotest parts of the Arctic, when their own Department of Energy is saying that it will take 10 to 20 years for any of that oil to get to the gas pumps in the United States and, when it does, it will only offer insignificant relief to the American consumer.

Meanwhile, the President went over to Saudi Arabia, just a month and a half ago, to beg the Saudi Arabians to please produce more oil that we can use right now, because that would drop the price in oil. The Saudis said, ``Well, we'll think about it. Maybe we'll produce another two or 300,000 barrels of oil, but you'll have to send back your Secretary of Energy in another 3 weeks for us to talk to him.''

Well, you can either promise the American people something that doesn't happen 10 to 20 years from now,

which is what the Republicans have been doing, or you can use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve right now, which is what our legislation will do, and it will say to the President, Mr. President, you must use 10 percent of all the oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve right now, 70 million barrels of oil, and you must use it over the next 5 or 6 months. That would average out to about 500,000 barrels of oil a day. That's the signal that the marketplace would absolutely respond to, because it would send shivers up the spine of the speculators, of the manipulators, of the OPEC cartel that has been playing games with the American consumer.

How do we know that this is going to work? We know it's going to work because when past Presidents have turned the spigot on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, President Bush I, just before the first Persian Gulf war, the price dropped 33 percent for oil.

In the year 2000 when Bill Clinton used it, it dropped 18 percent. And even when this President Bush used it right after the Katrina storm, it dropped 9 percent. We know this works.

But what's going to happen? The Republican leadership is going to get on a plane and fly up to the Arctic wildlife refuge. Instead, they should get on a plane and fly down to Houston and take a look at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and ask the President to just turn the spigot on and to send that oil right now, not 10 or 20 years from now, but 10 or 20 days from now so that Americans, who are enjoying their August vacations know that the American government is on their side.

The reason the Republicans won't use it, however, is that they argue that we're not in an emergency. I think that is not how the American people view where we are. $4 a gallon for gasoline. The price for home heating oil and natural gas this winter rising by the day. We have the airline industry in crisis. We have the trucking industry in crisis. We have food prices skyrocketing.

The American people believe we are in an energy emergency. What we do in this bill is we say, Mr. President, it might not fit your definition of what an emergency is, but it fits the definition for the American people. We want you to deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve now. We want you to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to protect the American consumer now.

We don't want you to wait, Mr. President, until after some war in Iran and deploy it then too, sir, but please do not wait until then. Please understand that Americans want their oil. They paid for this oil. They've paid $100 billion to put this oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Houston, in Louisiana, in Mississippi. They want relief now.

Vote ``aye'' on this legislation.

I thank the gentleman from Vermont.

You know, this Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an incredible weapon to be used in order to protect the American consumer from being gouged at the pump right now. And the Republican Party and President Bush and Vice President Cheney are talking about anything but using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to protect the American consumer at the pump today. And there's a good reason. Because the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is to the oil industry what kryptonite is to Superman. It saps them of their strength immediately. It decreases dramatically their power over ordinary citizens across our country. And that's why they object to it.

You're going to keep hearing from Republicans how they really want to help consumers 10 and 20 years from now. But you're not going to hear a word about their support for deploying 500,000 or 1 million barrels of oil a day right now into the marketplace that will drive down the price of oil, drive down the price of gasoline at the pump today.

That's what we're going to continue to wait to hear them say.

Now, they have plenty of time left in order to make that statement in this debate today, but you're not going to hear it. You're not going to hear them talking about immediate relief.

They're going to continually talk about oil that will come from drilling on our beaches 10 or 20 years from now. Well, that's fine 10 and 20 years from now, but what are they going to do now? What are they going to do between now and Labor Day when Americans are driving all over the country? They're doing to say, We can't use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We can't drive down the price of oil now. We have to wait.

This is going to be an important bill to give protection to the American consumers.