Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to any amendments that would strike the longstanding existing moratoria on offshore oil and gas drilling along the East and West Coasts.

When you look at these amendments, you see that they are particularly empty of any promise to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Right now, without these amendments, drilling is already allowed in areas holding roughly 80 percent of the estimated oil and gas resources. In fact, of the 8,000 active leases oil companies hold in the Gulf of Mexico, more than 6,000 have yet to begin producing oil. So if you are worried about making sure that the oil and gas industry has access to the Outer Continental Shelf, stop worrying. They already have more leases than they know what to do with. They have been given the right to drill for the vast majority of oil and gas offshore and are not even producing from the majority of leases they hold in the Gulf. The oil companies should begin producing on the leases they already hold, not looking to acquire new ones in environmentally sensitive areas that do not even have large estimated oil and gas resources.

Moreover, let's not forget the Republican leadership just rammed through an offshore drilling bill in the waning hours of the last Congress as a going out of business bonanza for big oil. That legislation opened up additional areas in the Gulf of Mexico holding 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. But barely six months later, drilling proponents are back for another bite at the apple, once again attempting to give away our important coastal areas away to Big Oil.

G.O.P still stands for the Gas and Oil Party.

It is highly misleading to suggest that we can solve the problem of our oil dependence or high gas prices with more drilling, when the real answer is not more drilling, but using technology to make our cars and SUVs more energy efficient. After Congress mandated a doubling of fuel economy standards from 13.5 to 27.5 miles per gallon, our dependence on foreign oil went from 46.5% in 1977 to 27% in 1985 but we are now back up to 60%.

We should be making our vehicles more efficient, not giving away our public lands to big oil companies that are making record profits. Soon, this House will have an opportunity to go on Record on the Markey- Platts legislation, which would mandate a 35 mile per gallon combined fleet fuel efficiency standard--an improvement that will allow us to reduce our consumption by roughly the same amount of oil that we currently import from the Persian Gulf by 2022.

I am pleased that the underlying bill once again includes language authored by myself and Mr. Hinchey that would give oil companies a strong incentive to renegotiate the faulty leases from 1998 and 1999. The Government Accountability Office has estimated that these leases could cost the American taxpayers more than $10 billion. The House has gone on record time and time again in overwhelming support of putting real pressure to renegotiate on every company holding these leases. Last year, the House adopted the Markey-Hinchey royalty relief fix that is included in this bill by a vote of 252-165 and earlier this year this body passed the royalty fixes contained in H.R. 6 by a vote of 264-163. It is time to put an end to big oil's free ride. I urge opposition to any amendments that would open up our coastlines to drilling and strongly support passage of the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson for their clear vision and their courage in producing this bill. This bill represents an historic shift in policy, and that is why this bill deserves such strong support.

This bill almost doubles the funding for real nuclear nonproliferation programs, both in the former Soviet Union and around the world, adding close to $1 billion for the most effective programs. The bill provides dramatic increases over the President's request for the program, and I commend Mr. Visclosky and Mr. Hobson for their crucial, long overdue investment in the security of the United States. We are here only because of their leadership.

Secondly, while the President wants to build thousands of new warheads at a price tag of up to $100 billion, this bill puts a brake on the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and it demands an explanation of why the United States needs to build thousands of new nuclear weapons even as we are, with agreements with the Russians, trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in this world.

I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for dramatically realigning our nuclear priorities in such a positive manner. I urge adoption of this historic measure.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 251) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit manipulation of caller identification information, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill which I offer today with an amendment under suspension of the rules. This is a consensus, noncontroversial bill, and it is sponsored by our colleague, Representative Eliot Engel from the State of New York. A similar bill, sponsored by full Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Joe Barton, passed the House in the last Congress unanimously.

I want to commend Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee Ranking Member Fred Upton for his work and cooperation on this measure, and I commend full committee Chairman John Dingell for his excellent efforts on this bill as well.

This legislation addresses issues regarding so-called ``caller ID spoofing.'' ``Spoofing'' is when a caller masks or changes the caller ID information of their call in a way that disguises the true origination number of the caller. In many instances, a call recipient may be subject to pretexting through spoofing, which can lead to fraud, personal ID theft, harassment or otherwise put the safety of the call recipient in danger.

On the other hand, lest we think that spoofing always has nefarious aims, we must recognize that there may be circumstances when a person's safety may be put in danger if their true and accurate call origination information is disclosed as well.

For instance, Members of Congress often have direct lines in their offices in order to ensure that such lines do not become generally public and, therefore, remain useful to us. It may be necessary to keep such direct numbers confidential and have the outgoing caller ID information indicate a different number at which offices can be reached for return calls; that gives the recipient a legitimate phone number to call back, but keeps confidential lines that must remain private.

There are many doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers and other professionals who would similarly like to keep direct confidential lines private in this way, who have no intention of misleading anyone.

In addition, there may be instances, for example, when a woman at a shelter seeks to reach her children, when spoofing is important to safeguard someone's safety. Moreover, informants to law enforcement tip lines or whistle blowers have additional reasons for why their calling information should remain private. We should not outlaw any of these practices, and I think the legislation needs some improvement and clarification in these areas.

What we seek in caller ID policy is balance. This has been the case since we held hearings in the Telecommunications Subcommittee in the early 1990s on caller ID, when we sought to take into account emerging caller ID technology in a way that also allowed callers to block their origination number on a per call or per line basis. Technology also allowed call recipients to refuse to receive calls by anyone who is blocking their caller ID information from going through.

This is much-needed legislation. I urge support by all Members of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude by thanking all of the Members, led by Mr. Engel; the very, very helpful comments from Ms. Harman in clarification of the intent of this legislation; Mr. Dingell, the chairman of the full committee; along with Mr. Barton, the ranking member, Mr. Upton and Mr. Stearns. This is a completely bipartisan piece of legislation, and we thank them for this cooperation. This is the way telecommunications legislation should be passed.

I would also like to commend the staff: Tim Powderly from the majority staff and Neil Fried and Courtney Reinhard from the Republican committee staff. I also want to thank Pete Goodloe and Gregg Rothschild from Mr. Dingell's staff; Cristina Batt from Mr. Engel's staff; and Colin Crowell on my staff, who has been doing this type of legislation for 17 years, going back to the beginning of the discussion of all of these caller ID-related issues.

And, finally, I would like to thank Johanna Shelton on her last bill on the House floor. Johanna has been incredibly competent, more than competent. She really brings the word ``excellence'' into congressional and legislative service. And this will be her last bill on the floor, and there is lamenting of a magnitude hard to fully measure on the Democratic side that her leaving is creating, although I understand her husband is not sharing that sentiment as she leaves her service here.

And it is that duality that we all have to deal with here in our congressional service. But for my part, there has been no more dedicated public servant that I have met in my time here in Congress, and we will miss her service, and we thank her for all of her great work.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 152, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the reunification of the city of Jerusalem.

The city of Jerusalem is a unique place in the world, steeped in history and faith, the eternal heart of three major world religions. Jerusalem has suffered war and conquest repeatedly throughout the ages, but I have faith that Jerusalem will never be fractured again.

Jews, Muslims, and Christians all find a spiritual home in Jerusalem, and it is essential that Jerusalem remain open to worshippers of all faiths. Unfortunately, for too many years of its history, access to the holy sites in Jerusalem was denied to some. But for the last 40 years, Israel has guaranteed access to all faiths, and the world community has been able to visit Jerusalem freely. I applaud Israel for this principled and fair policy, which has surely not always been easy to maintain. It is an important affirmation of Israel's humane and democratic values that a country which finds itself under frequent attack would maintain a commitment to the openness of a site of such international importance as Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, the great emotion people feel about the holy city of Jerusalem has frequently found a false outlet in violence against others. It is a great sadness to me, and a great injustice against the history and sanctity of Jerusalem, that the city has been a flashpoint for so much violence in my lifetime.

I am deeply disappointed and frustrated that in the past several years the Middle East peace process has been derailed from the promising moments during the Clinton presidency. President Clinton was as deeply involved, at a personal as well as a political level, with the quest to find a permanent solution to the problems of the region as any world leader has ever been. While he was not quite able to attain the overarching peace agreement that he had worked so hard to achieve, President Clinton recognized that finding a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue needed to be a foreign policy priority of the United States.

Since President Clinton left office, the involvement of the United States in the Middle East peace process has been scattered, sporadic, and ineffectual. Instead of redoubling our efforts to find peace, the United States launched a disastrous war in Iraq. We have sparked a bloody civil war in that country, inflamed Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Middle East, empowered the dangerous regime in Iran, ignored the frustrations and economic despair of the Palestinians, and damaged the immediate security of our great ally in the region--Israel.

On the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, I view that city as a symbol of hope in the bleak landscape of the Middle East. Through Israel's commitment to the openness of Jerusalem, worshippers of all faiths can visit the holy Old City and see the beauty of its timeless stone buildings and ancient walls.

The United States has always stood steadfast with its close ally Israel, and we must never cease doing so. We must recommit ourselves to the peace process in the Middle East, and lead the international community in forging a path to reconciliation and coexistence. We must dedicate ourselves to bringing about a new peaceful history in this divisive region, so that future generations may continue to find spiritual renewal in Jerusalem.

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I come to the floor today to debate funding for President Bush's war in Iraq, yet again, as more innocent Americans and Iraqis fall victim to a horrible and debilitating violence that has not only torn Iraq apart, but threatens the stability of the entire Middle East.

We should not be having this debate at all, because the President should have changed course long ago. The President has had so many opportunities to reevaluate his policies in Iraq that his failure to do so can only be explained by an absolute unwillingness to admit that he has made a grave mistake. He continues to act as if nothing is wrong, even as Baghdad burns and the body count of dead Iraqi civilians and dead American troops continues to rise. He continues to send more troops to Iraq even as the Army, Marines, and National Guard are all straining to the breaking point. He continues to ignore the will of the American people who want an end to this war, even as public opinion turns ever more decisively against his failed war policy

Madam Speaker, it is far past time for a new direction in Iraq. The American people do not want to be there, and the Iraqis do not want to have us there. Only the President and his dwindling cadre of head-in- the-sand advisors believe that the United States is on the right course in Iraq.

I am tremendously disappointed that the President, in the face of the utter collapse of his policies in Iraq, refuses to change course. I supported the first supplemental bill we passed this year for a simple reason: It contained language to force an end to this disastrous war. But in his legendary stubbornness and his inability to see reason, the President vetoed that bill. I also supported the House version of the second supplemental appropriations bill, because that bill established strict benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi Government and military and required the President to certify that progress to the Congress, or else face a cutoff of funds to pursue the war.

But the supplemental that we will vote on today does not require the troops to come home, and does not establish strict benchmarks to ensure accountability, and for these reasons I will oppose it. But today's vote does not end the effort in Congress to end the war. There will be future votes, and I believe that as the public continues to make its opposition to this war clear, there will be continued pressure on the White House and on congressional Republicans to change course. We will end this war eventually, but today I must oppose this appropriations bill because it fails to take the steps needed to advance the goal of bringing our valiant troops home.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and for his leadership on this bill, and the gentleman from Michigan. The bill before us today would give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate and punish wholesale or retail sale of gasoline or other petroleum distillates at prices that are unconscionably excessive or take unfair advantage of consumers during any presidentially declared national or regional energy emergency.

Now, we hear from the Republicans, don't interfere in the free market. Don't touch the free market. Don't have the Federal Government getting in on the side of the consumers. It's just a matter of supply and demand. That's what the Republicans are arguing. Don't interfere with the free market, even if it goes up to $3.20 a gallon for gasoline, $3.80 a gallon for gasoline, $4 a gallon for gasoline. Don't let the Federal Government help out the consumer.

You know what? The Republicans are right. It is a matter of supply and demand. Consumers are forced to supply whatever money the oil companies demand from the consumers. The oil companies have the consumer over a barrel, a barrel of oil that the oil companies control and that they price. They price it wherever they want to put it.

They tip the consumer upside down, the oil companies do, and they shake money out of the pockets of consumers at the pump. The Christians had a better chance against the lions than the consumer has against the oil companies at the pumps in the United States today.

All we are saying is let's give the Federal Government a sword to get into the battle in the arena on behalf of the consumers in America. And the Republicans are saying, we don't want to arm the Federal Trade Commission so they can help the consumers so that they are not tipped upside down. It is clear that high gas prices are hitting families hard, but they are also causing our economy to stall and to sputter like a jalopy.

The bill before us today addresses one potential cause of high prices: price gouging by the oil companies. It sends a signal to oil companies that there will now be a regulator out there that has been empowered to take action when unconscionably high prices are being charged.

The free market, I don't think so. I think that when we look at this oil market, we understand that the consumer is at the whim of the oil companies.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1700, the Community Oriented Policing Services, or C.O.P.S., Program Reauthorization Act. The bill authorizes appropriations of more than $1.1 billion for community policing, community prosecutors and crime- fighting technology grants. The original mission of this program was simple: put 100,000 more police officers on the beat for policing programs. The brainchild of the Clinton administration, the C.O.P.S. program brought members from both parties together with the goal of reducing crime.

The C.O.P.S. program provides grants to local municipalities for crime fighting technologies and for additional community policing

and has been proven to reduce crime, especially violent crime. A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the C.O.P.S. program contributed to a 1.3 percent decline in the overall crime rate and a 2.5 percent reduction in the violent crime rate in 8 years.

But like a patient that stops taking the medication once it starts working, the Bush administration has been taking a step back in law enforcement and homeland security in its effort to gut the program. We must not rest on our laurels and declare, ``Mission Accomplished.'' The President has declared we live in an age of terrorism, and expanding the police force and providing our local and state governments with resources to combat crime and terrorism should remain a priority. But for years, with the backing of the Republican-led Congress, the President has sought to cut or eliminate funding for the program.

In Fiscal Year 2008, the Bush administration is proposing to cut the C.O.P.S. program by over 94 percent compared to 2007. Congress appropriated $542 million for the program in FY07, and the President is proposing only $32 million for FY08. The yearly program funding once peaked at $1.4 billion dollars per year under the Clinton administration. It has resulted in the hiring of nearly 120,000 police officers and has prevented over 200,000 crimes since its inception. In contrast, the Bush administration's proposal offers zero funding for community based prosecutors, zero funding for crime fighting technologies, and only $4 million for policing and public safety grants.

Instead of providing funding for more cops on the beat, the President is handing the C.O.P.S. program a bill for funds unspent in previous years. The $32 million budget request, minus the $87 million the Administration is hoping to get back from the C.O.P.S. program, results in negative funding for community policing. Proponents of weakening the program will attempt to explain that the C.O.P.S. program is duplicative, but a review of the Bush administration's FY08 budget request reveals that the administration also is reducing funding for those other programs as well. It makes no sense to eviscerate the successful C.O.P.S. program or roll it into a block grant, particularly when Department of Justice estimates are showing a rise in crime.

As it seeks to eliminate the C.O.P.S. program, the Bush administration is pursuing a misguided goal. I commend Congressman Weiner (D-NY) for bringing this bill forward today, I strongly support the C.O.P.S. program, and I urge adoption of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, Memorial Day is the beginning of the season when American families take their children to our amusement parks for a day of fun and sun. Unfortunately, it is also the case that over 75 percent of the serious injuries suffered on these rides occur between the months of May and September. Most of America thinks that the rides at these parks are subject to oversight by the Nation's top consumer safety watchdog--the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). But this is not true. The industry was subject to federal safety regulation, but in 1981 it succeeded in carving out a special- interest political exemption in the law--the so-called Roller Coaster Loophole.

It is time to put the safety of our children first--it is time to close the Roller Coaster Loophole. Today I am introducing the National Amusement Park Ride Act to restore safety oversight to a largely unregulated industry. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Representatives Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA).

``Fixed'' or ``fixed-site'' rides are found predominantly in destination theme parks. When an accident occurs on such rides, the law actually prevents the CPSC from even setting foot in the park to find out what happened. In some States, an investigation may occur, but in many, there is literally no regulatory oversight at all. And no matter how diligent a particular state might be, there is no substitute for Federal oversight of an industry where park visitors often come from out-of-state; a single manufacturer will sell versions of the same ride to park operators in many different States; and no state has the jurisdiction, resources or mission to ensure that the safety lessons learned within its borders are shared systematically with every other State.

Although the overall risk of death on an amusement park ride is very small, it is not zero. Sixty-four deaths have occurred on amusement park rides since 1987, and over two-thirds occur on ``fixed-site'' rides in our theme parks. In August 1999, 4 deaths occurred on roller coasters in just one week, ``one of the most calamitous weeks in the history of America's amusement parks,'' according to U.S. News and World Report:

Every one of these is an unspeakable horror for the

families, and every one of them deserves to be investigated

by a Federal safety expert with the knowledge and the power

to ensure that what happened at the accident site does not

get repeated in other states.

It is simply inexcusable that when a loved one dies or is seriously injured on these rides, there is no system in place to ensure that the ride is investigated, the causes determined, and the flaws fixed, not just on that ride, but on every similar ride in every other State. The reason this system does not exist is the Roller Coaster Loophole.

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

Fatalities are just the tip of problem, however. Broken

bones, gashes, and other serious injuries have been rising

much faster than attendance. The CPSC is prohibited from

requiring the submission of injury data directly from ride

operators, so it is forced to fall back on an indirect

method, the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System

(NEISS), which gathers information from a statistical sample

of hospital emergency rooms and then estimates national

numbers. Nevertheless, NEISS has been gathering these

statistics systematically over many years, so that trends

become clear over time.

Beginning in 1996, a sharp upward trend can be seen in hospital emergency room visits by passengers on unregulated ``fixed'' rides--the category of rides exempt from CPSC regulation under the Roller Coaster Loophole. These injuries soared 96 percent over the next 5 years. Meanwhile, such emergency room visits were falling for passengers on rides that the CPSC still regulates.

The theme park industry likes to tell the public that its rides are safer than the mobile rides because they are overseen by a permanent park staff, but according to this independent government safety agency report, the mobile parks have less of an injury problem than the theme parks.

For the most part, these rides are designed, operated and ridden safely. But clearly, the margin for error is much narrower for a child on a ride traveling at 100 mph than on a ride traveling 50 mph. Children often do foolish things, and the operators themselves are often teenagers. People make mistakes. The design of these rides must anticipate that their patrons will act like children, because they often are children.

The bill we are introducing today will close the loophole that prevents effective Federal safety oversight of amusement park rides. It would, therefore, restore to the CPSC the standard safety jurisdiction over ``fixed-site'' amusement park rides that it used to have before the Roller Coaster Loophole was adopted. There would no longer be an artificial and unjustifiable split between unregulated ``fixed-site'' rides and regulated ``mobile'' rides. When a family traveled to a park anywhere in the United States, a mother or father would know that their children were being placed on a ride that was subject to basic safety regulation by the CPSC.

It would restore CPSC's authority to investigate accidents; develop and enforce action plans to correct defects, and act as a national clearinghouse for accident and defect data.

The bill would also authorize appropriations of $500,000 annually to enable the CPSC to carry out the purposes of the Act.

The bill I am introducing today is supported by the Nation's leading consumer-protection advocates, including Saferparks.org, the Consumer Federation of America, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, and Kids in Danger.

I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to make this the safest summer ever in our theme parks. Let's pass the National Amusement Park Ride Safety Act.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

This is a very important bill. Amongst other things it is because for the first time the Department of Defense is required to consider the effects of global warming on Defense Department facilities, capabilities, and missions. It requires that the Department of Defense in three central defense planning documents, the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the Quadrennial Defense Review, look at the impacts of global warming on the facilities and capabilities of the United States military.

This is a central issue. I am the chairman of the Select Committee on Global Warming. We had testifying before us General Gordon Sullivan, representing 11 three-and four-star admirals and generals who are all very concerned that this issue of global warming has major national security implications for the United States.

By including this requirement in this bill, we are beginning to focus upon the long-term needs that we have to focus on in order to protect our country and give the resources to the Department of Defense.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, and in strong support of a provision within the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 which requires, for the first time, the Department of Defense to consider the effect of global warming on Department facilities, capabilities, and missions.

I commend Chairman Skelton for including this important language, which will allow our armed forces to begin preparing, in a strategic, Department-wide manner, for the impact that global warming could have on our national security.

This provision requires the threat of global warming to be assessed, and guidance for military planners to be issued, in the next versions of three central defense planning documents: The National Security Strategy, The National Defense Strategy, and the Quadrennial Defense Review.

The very first hearing of the new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming focused on the geopolitical and security consequences of our dependence on foreign energy and the looming threat of global warming. We heard from former Chief of Staff of the Army General Gordon Sullivan, who presented a report by eleven retired three- and four-star generals and admirals arguing that global warming is a grave national security threat, and must be treated as such by our defense establishment and by this Congress.

Last month, Congressman Bartlett and I introduced the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act, with the intention of jump-starting our government's analysis of and preparation for the national security consequences of global warming. Our bill would require a National Intelligence Estimate on the impact of global warming, and last week exactly such an NIE was mandated by the Intelligence Authorization bill. Our bill also encourages the Department of Defense to integrate into our defense planning the threats posed by global warming, and I am very pleased that this priority is being mandated in this year's Defense Authorization Act.

Thinking about global warming as a national security issue is new for many Members, but with the speed that the major provisions of the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act have been adopted by this House, I feel confident that the Congress is making progress in broadening how we think about global warming. It is crucial for the national security of this country that the Congress continue along this path. We must push our defense and intelligence communities to address this threat, and we must offer, debate, and implement solutions to the underlying problem.

I am also pleased to support and cosponsor an amendment that will be offered during debate on this bill by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, which would require the use of high efficiency light bulb in Department of Defense buildings when new bulbs are installed or old bulbs are replaced. This amendment will help lower energy consumption in Defense Department facilities, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, help promote energy independence, and result in millions of dollars of savings for the American taxpayer--all without impeding the operations of the U.S. military.

I urge adoption of the Rule.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a dear friend and former member of my staff, William F. ``Babe'' Marcellino. The Babe passed away on May 9, 2007, after 90 glorious years. While I am saddened by his passing, I can't help smiling when I think about his life.

Babe Marcellino was an American original in every sense. He was a well respected political sage on Beacon Hill and in Boston City Hall. He served as a close advisor to Governor Foster Furcolo, Senate President Maurice Donahue and Mayor Kevin White. He came to work for me later in life and stayed with me into his 80s. He was the essence of wisdom and quiet elegance. When constituents walked through the door to my office, the Babe would greet them with a wink and a smile. When they broke down in tears under the weight of their problems, Babe would tell them he was on their side. And he always was. He helped hundreds of constituents solve their problems with the federal government. I especially relied on Babe to help with particularly difficult constituent matters, because of his incredible ability to put people at ease.

I will never forget his mastery of policy and his generosity of spirit following a terrible fire that ravaged an entire block of businesses right across from my Medford, MA, district office in February of 1994. Together, Babe Marcellino and I worked with the Small Business Administration and others in the federal government to bring relief to devastated business owners in Medford Square and to rebuild the downtown. Babe Marcellino was an exemplary public servant.

Babe also was a wonderful teacher. He eagerly took younger staff members under his wing to impart his wisdom. Many of those former staffers have told me over the years that their experience in public service was richer for having known and learned from the Babe.

He dearly loved his alma mater Holy Cross, and devoted a large portion of his time ensuring that Holy Cross became a national educational treasure that could be enjoyed by all students, regardless of their socio-economic condition.

Babe was blessed with an extraordinary family for which his love was strong and enduring. He was remarkable for having two wonderful marriages. With his beloved first wife Maidie, he produced six incredible children--William Marcellino Jr., James Marcellino, Mary Zouberis, Richard Marcellino, John ``Jocko'' Marcellino, and Sister Noella Marcellino. After Maidie passed away, the Babe married the fabulous Marie, herself a widow. He ``inherited'' five terrific step- children--Cathy Doran, Jane Driscoll, Stephen Doran, Mark Doran and the late Daniel Doran. Babe leaves 21 grandchildren, each with their unique and special memories of their grandfather.

Watching Babe and Marie was like watching Fred and Ginger--they made a marvelous couple full of grace, style and class.

When you were in Babe's presence, you could not help but to feed off of his optimism and his incredible inner strength. He was the quintessential gentleman. He often remarked after an enjoyable time or conversation together that the experience had been ``like a chunk of heaven. ``

Babe, it was an honor to have known you and worked with you--and I am proud to honor your exemplary public service, your extraordinary love of family, and your unwavering faith in God and the United States of America. Your whole life was a chunk of heaven and all of us who love you will miss you dearly.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for her leadership on this issue.

As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Global Warming, I conducted

a hearing 3 weeks ago in which Retired General Gordon Sullivan, speaking for eleven senior retired three- and four-star admirals and generals, released and testified on a report entitled ``National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,'' which called for global warming to be fully integrated into the military and defense planning.

Here's what General Sullivan testified to. He said that he was the Army chief of staff when we lost 19 men in Mogadishu. He testified before the Select Committee on Global Warming that with more drought we will see more disasters such as Black Hawk Down. Drought caused famine, famine caused food relief, food relief caused warlords to fight over it, the warlords fighting caused the U.S. to intervene, and 19 U.S. fighting men were killed. He added, and I quote, that the same thing is what is driving Darfur and there has to be some recognition that these issues are at the heart environmentally related.

These are men who have dedicated their lives to protecting our country. They are asking us to do a National Intelligence Estimate about what the impact is of climate leading to drought, leading to famine, leading to conflicts, leading to the American military or other of our allies having been dedicated to preserving the peace. That is no small request from 11 retired three-star generals and admirals.

Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

It is not inappropriate for the CIA to tell us how the increasing scarcity of water could exacerbate the very failed state conditions which breed terrorism. It is not politically correct to want the military services to know how polar ice melt could alter the patrols of our submarines or how rising sea levels could threaten not only our naval facilities but also our crucial shipbuilding infrastructure.

It is not pre-9/11 mindset that wants to study how our ability to project power from the Pacific would be damaged if our crucial air base at Diego Garcia, average elevation 4 feet above sea level, changes from a land-based stationary aircraft carrier to a sub-sea ruin.

That is in the interest of the national security of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this authorization bill, and I commend Chairman Thompson for his hard work in shepherding this important bill to the Floor

today. Today is a monumental moment for the Homeland Security Committee and for this House, as we bring forward an authorization bill to the floor--which our Committee was unable to do during the last Congress.

I am proud that the bill we are considering today to authorize the operations of the Department of Homeland Security for Fiscal Year 2008 includes a vital first responder provision on the Metropolitan Medical Response System--or MMRS. I'd like to thank Chairman Thompson for his leadership and also recognize the work of Subcommittee Chair Sanchez and Ranking Member King on this important program.

Despite the Bush administration's repeated efforts to eliminate this unique and effective program, Congress has wisely and consistently appropriated funds for MMRS over the years, providing $33 million for the program this year. While preservation of the MMRS program is paramount, new duties and responsibilities assigned to MMRS--such as response to an avian flu pandemic--require additional funding. That is why I am pleased that the authorization bill contains funding at the $63 million level per year for fiscal year 2008 through 2011.

The authorization bill also resolves programmatic problems that MMRS responders have faced as they work to perform their difficult jobs.

Specifically, the bill clarifies that the cap on personnel expenses, which had been set at 15 percent of the grant funding a jurisdiction receives, is lifted. This change will ensure that jurisdictions have the resources--if needed--to hire and retain experienced and talented personnel. The bill we are considering today also makes clear that MMRS jurisdictions should have the authority they need to come to the aid of neighboring jurisdictions in emergencies--even if they are located across State lines--without being impeded by unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions. And the bill directs the Assistant Secretary of Health Affairs to conduct a review of the MMRS program and report to Congress on the several issues that could further strengthen the program, such as whether MMRS would be more effective if it were once again managed through a contractual agreement with the Federal Government rather than through the current process, which requires Federal funding to be passed through State administrative offices before the funds can be released to the MMRS jurisdictions.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the MMRS program is the only Federal program that helps first responders, medical personnel, emergency management workers, and businesses develop effective, integrated capabilities to minimize casualties in the event of a terrorist attack using a weapon of mass destruction, a natural disaster such as a hurricane, or a public health emergency including an avian flu outbreak.

As demonstrated by the Bush administration's failed response to Hurricane Katrina, our country has a dangerous ``Preparedness Gap''. Established after the Oklahoma City bombing, the MMRS program is designed to increase our Nation's preparedness capabilities through grants that currently provide funding to 125 jurisdictions in 43 States.

The MMRS program helps local first responder and ``first receivers'' such as doctors, emergency medical technicians and public health officials buy the specialized equipment and get the training needed to act in a coordinated fashion that will save lives in the event of a mass casualty event--whether it's a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.

In the post 9/11 era, there can be no doubt that Al Qaeda is willing and capable of launching attacks on the United States. Moreover, the ongoing potential for severe hurricanes and flooding remind us of the urgent need to be prepared to respond in an organized, effective way to all hazards. The MMRS program is an essential part of our preparedness capability.

Our MMRS personnel across the Nation are hometown heroes. But even heroes need help. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, for your help and support of this program, and I urge my colleagues to support the authorization bill.

I would also like to note the strong need for this bill's cyber- security improvements. The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Internet, which I chair, and full Energy and Commerce Committee under the leadership of Chairman Dingell, have worked on a bipartisan basis, with Ranking Members Upton and Barton, to address cyber threats within the Department of Homeland Security in order to ensure that our country is adequately prepared for massive disruptions from cyber attacks.

This measure provides needed guidance to DHS on these Congressional expectations. Moreover, this legislation will require the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications at DHS to collaborate with the Department of Commerce and the Federal Communications Commission--agencies that have established roles in protecting vital telecommunications and cyber assets. Such collaboration will ensure that ongoing efforts will not be interrupted or wastefully duplicated at the Department of Homeland Security. For example, NTIA's organizing statute establishes the head of NTIA as the President's principal adviser on telecommunications issues. In addition, the agency is compelled by the same law to pursue policies to foster national safety and security, to promote efficient use of Federal spectrum, to coordinate Federal telecommunications assistance to State and local governments, and to coordinate the Executive Branch's telecommunications activities, including the formulation of policies and standards for interoperability, security, and emergency readiness and ongoing review of management of the Internet domain name system.

The FCC also protects telecommunications and cybersecurity, and under the Communications Act is responsible for assuring rapid and efficient communication services with adequate facilities for the purpose of the national defense and promotion of the safety of life and property.

I also support amending this important legislation in order to address the pressing need to improve interoperable communications among first responders. This is something that we have been working on for several years. Representatives Cardoza's expected amendment does not limit interoperability efforts to a single technology or solution. This is vitally important, especially given the history at DHS with grant programs for these efforts. Last year, Congress established a $1 billion interoperability grant program at the Department of Commerce, distinct from DHS's efforts, so that the Commerce Department could draw upon its spectrum and telecommunications expertise. In their respective programs, both DHS and the Department of Commerce should include methodologies to better ensure that funds for interoperability are being used effectively. DHS would do well to implement all of the recommendations of the GAO suggested in its recent report. There is a significant amount of work that DHS must perform in order to improve its interoperability efforts and we will be watching such efforts closely.

Mr. Speaker, today is a day of remembrance and commemoration of the Armenian Genocide, one of the darkest chapters of World War I, and the first of the series of genocides we saw in the 20th Century. We set today aside to remember, as we do every year, because it is essential to reflect upon these terrible events, but we also do so because we know that the Armenian people must continually confront and surmount the legacies and the consequences of those dark days.

The writer Milan Kundera once wrote that ``The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.'' There are those that would deny the Armenian Genocide, just as there are those that deny the reality of the Nazi Holocaust. In commemorating the Armenian Genocide we collectively engage in that struggle of memory against forgetting. We do this not only to remember the past, but to reaffirm our commitment to prevent such things from ever happening again, and to strive towards making a better future for the Armenian people.

It has taken Armenia decades to reach a point where its people could enjoy their rights as a free people. Today, we have an opportunity and a responsibility to help ensure that the Armenian people can build a better future. And so, I look forward to continuing to work with the Armenian-American community and Members of the Congressional Caucus on Armenia to address the issues facing this longtime friend and important ally of the United States, so that together we build something positive, something hopeful, something good for the futute--a peaceful, prosperous and secure Armenia.

The Armenian Genocide is sometimes called the ``Forgotten Genocide.'' In fact, as most of you know, back in 1939, prior to the invasion of Poland, Adolph Hitler argued that his plans for a Jewish holocaust would in the end be tolerated by the West, stating: ``After all, who remembers the Armenians.'' But we do remember, and we shall never forget. And our memory and commemoration is stronger than the hate of those who would perpetrate the greatest crime known to humanity, the attempt to exterminate an entire people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate and celebrate the life and work of Paul Leventhal.

Paul was a giant in the debate on how to protect the United States and the world from the proliferation of nuclear technology. He encouraged us, he challenged us, and he empowered us to not back down in our continual struggle to free ourselves from the threat of nuclear weapons. And now, as that struggle continues, Paul will be sorely missed.

Paul was a constant and tireless advocate for smart arms control and non-proliferation policies. He helped bring into being two of the most significant pieces of nuclear legislation of the atomic age, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978.

To give you a sense of the significance of these laws, I want to tell a very short story about the concept of ``full-scope safeguards,'' of which Paul was an early advocate, and which became U.S. law under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act in 1978. ``Full-scope safeguards'' means that a country would need to have IAEA safeguards over all its nuclear facilities as a requirement for receiving any civilian U.S. nuclear commerce. It is a crucial requirement, and it was adopted in 1992 by the Nuclear Suppliers Group as not only a U.S. requirement but an international one.

In July 2005, when President Bush announced that he wanted to blow a hole in US. non-proliferation laws to allow nuclear trade with India, what was stopping him? Paul Leventhal and the ``full-scope safeguards'' requirement. Not many people make such an impact on U.S. policy that it reverberates through three decades. But Paul did just that.

I relied on Paul's encyclopedic knowledge for many years, as did my staff. He was an irreplaceable resource to me back in the mid-eighties, when we were fighting the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, and the Reagan Administration's plans to open the door to nuclear cooperation with the Peoples' Republic of China. He was also a driving force behind the effort Howard Wolpe and I undertook in the early nineties to strengthen U.S. nonproliferation law and close export control loopholes. He was tireless in his efforts to move the world away from the use of highly enriched uranium in research reactors and to promote the alternative of low-enriched uranium. On issue after issue, Paul was on the cutting edge of nuclear non-proliferation policy, pointing out flaws in proposed nuclear cooperation agreements with Japan and Euratom, pressing Congress to tighten loopholes in U.S. law, and searching for every conceivable procedural or legislative strategy that could be employed in the cause.

While the void left by Paul's passing is large, and we will often wish that we had his wise counsel to guide us as we continue the fight, I'd like to think that as we do so Paul will be looking down on us and encouraging us in our efforts to fight for a world free from nuclear fear.

I honor Paul Leventhal today, and I pray that we will succeed in the struggle that he dedicated his life to--the fight to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. My prayers are with his wife, Sharon, and his two sons, Ted and Josh; and I would like to thank them for sharing Paul with us over the years.

Madam Speaker, I submit Paul Leventhal's obituaries from New York Times and the Washington Post for the Record.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 12, 2007]

Paul Leventhal, Who Opposed Commercial Use of Nuclear Power, Dies at 69

(By Dennis Hevesi)

Paul Leventhal, who as president of the small but

influential Nuclear Control Institute was one of the most

vocal opponents of expanding the commercial use of nuclear

power, died Tuesday at his home in Chevy Chase, Md. He was

69.

The cause was cancer, his son Ted said.

Mr. Leventhal founded the Nuclear Control Institute in

1981, two years after becoming co-director of the United

States Senate's bipartisan investigation of the Three Mile

Island accident, the nation's most serious commercial reactor

failure.

Mr. Leventhal opposed commercial nuclear power not only

because of the threat of a Chernobyl-like disaster but also

because of its potential to ease the making of nuclear

weapons. The construction of nuclear reactors in this country

ceased for decades, though experts attribute this to cost

more than to fears of proliferation. But Mr. Leventhal kept

those fears on the front burner for 22 years as his

institute's president and since 2002, when his title became

founding president.

He lobbied lawmakers, organized conferences and wrote op-ed

articles about proliferation, nuclear terrorism and the use

of commercial reactors to make tritium, an ingredient of

nuclear bombs, a program that the federal Energy Department

is now pursuing.

He was particularly concerned about Iran, which he believed

had a secret weapons program that would justify a harsh

reaction, perhaps even military strikes.

``If you look at every nation that's recently gone nuclear,

they've done it through the civilian nuclear cycle,'' Mr.

Leventhal told The New York Times in 2004. Atoms for peace

can be a ``shortcut to atoms for war,'' he added. ``It may

take the unthinkable happening before the political process

can screw up the courage to put an end to this ridiculously

dangerous industry.''

Paul Lincoln Leventhal was born in Manhattan on Feb. 12 in

1938, a son of Jack and Helen Shapiro Leventhal. In addition

to his son Ted, of Washington, he is survived by his wife of

39 years, the former Sharon Tanzer; another son, Josh, of

Raleigh, N.C.; a brother, Warren, of Roslyn, N.Y.; and two

grandchildren.

Mr. Leventhal graduated from Franklin & Marshall College in

1959 and received a master's from the Columbia School of

Journalism in 1960. He was a reporter for The Plain Dealer in

Cleveland and later The New York Post and Newsday.

In 1969, Senator Jacob K. Javits, Republican of New York,

hired him as his press secretary. Mr. Leventhal began

concentrating on energy issues for Mr. Javits and, in 1979,

was named staff director of the Senate's subcommittee on

nuclear regulation and a director of the Three Mile Island

investigation.

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 14, 2007]

Paul Leventhal; Led Nuclear Control Institute

(By Yvonne Shinhoster Lamb)

Paul Leventhal, 69, founder of the Nuclear Control

Institute in Washington and an expert in nuclear

proliferation issues, died April 10 at his home in Chevy

Chase. He had melanoma, a form of skin cancer.

Mr. Leventhal, a former newspaperman and congressional

aide, launched his advocacy institute with a full-page ad in

the New York Times on June 21, 1981, posing the question:

``Will Tomorrow's Terrorist Have an Atom Bomb?''

Since serving in the early 1970s as an aide on a Senate

subcommittee chaired by Sen. Abraham Ribicoff (D-Conn.), Mr.

Leventhal remained adamant about the dangers of nuclear

terrorism and global commerce in plutonium--a key element

used in nuclear weapons--and worked to prevent the spread of

nuclear weapons to nations or groups.

On the subcommittee, Mr. Leventhal worked on a Nixon

administration bill to reorganize the Atomic Energy

Commission. He described work on the legislation as a

``baptism in fire'' that changed his life.

Mr. Leventhal, who worked in the Senate from 1972 to 1981,

was responsible for the investigations and legislation that

resulted in

passage of two landmark nuclear laws--the Energy

Reorganization Act of 1974, which split the Atomic Energy

Commission into separate regulatory and promotional nuclear

agencies, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978,

which established stricter controls on U.S. nuclear trade.

The non-proliferation act's requirement that countries

accept international inspections on all their nuclear

activities--``full-scope safeguards''--as a condition for

receiving U.S. nuclear assistance eventually was adopted as

an international norm by the multinational Nuclear Suppliers

Group.

Mr. Leventhal recognized the growth and threat of nuclear

and bomb-grade materials, said lawyer Richard Wegman, who

served as chief counsel for Ribicoffs committee with Mr.

Leventhal and later as counsel for the Nuclear Control

Institute.

``Paul was a truly remarkable individual, exceptionally

dedicated to an exceptionally difficult cause,'' Wegman said.

``He was one of the first to work for full-scope safeguards.

. . . He insisted on incorporating that concept in

legislation.''

In 1979, Mr. Leventhal served as co-director of the

bipartisan Senate investigation of the Three Mile Island

nuclear accident, and he prepared the ``lessons-learned''

legislation enacted in 1980 to require preventive measures

and emergency planning.

He said that work left him ``acutely aware of that

ineffable combination of human fallibility and mechanical

failure that makes nuclear plants vulnerable to accidents,

and also sabotage.''

He lamented a few years ago that the flow of nuclear

technology and materials from industrial countries to

developing regions was continuing.

``As a result, there is now more plutonium in civilian

hands than in all of the nuclear weapons in the world. And

some of it has already been turned into bombs, as in India,

Pakistan and North Korea, while others have used or are now

using civilian nuclear programs as a cover for weapons

programs,'' he said in a speech in 2001, adding that Iran and

Iraq raised immediate concerns.

Mr. Leventhal, born in Manhattan, graduated magna cum laude

with a degree in history from Franklin & Marshall College in

Pennsylvania in 1959 and received a master's degree from the

Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in 1960. He

spent 10 years as an investigative and political reporter at

the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the New York Post and Newsday,

until deciding that he wanted to ``get inside of government

and try to make it work.''

In 1969, he came to Washington as a press secretary to Sen.

Jacob K. Javits (R-N.Y.), served in 1970 as campaign press

secretary to Sen. Charles Goodell (R-N.Y.) and two years

later was a congressional correspondent for the National

Journal.

From 1972 to 1976, he concentrated on nuclear weapons

proliferation as a research fellow at Harvard University's

Program for Science and International Affairs and as a

visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. From 1979 to

1981, he was staff director of the Senate Nuclear Regulation

Subcommittee, chaired by Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.).

After starting the Nuclear Control Institute, Mr. Leventhal

served as its president for 22 years, lectured in a number of

countries, organized conferences and wrote op-ed articles and

books on nuclear terrorism, averting a Latin American nuclear

arms race, nuclear power and the spread of nuclear weapons.

For the past several years, he directed the institute as a

Web-based program that maintains a word-searchable electronic

archive at www.nci.org: and a collection of institute and

Senate papers spanning more than 30 years at the National

Security Archive.

Survivors include his wife, Sharon Tanzer Leventhal of

Chevy Chase; two sons, Theodore Leventhal of Washington and

Joshua Leventhal of Raleigh, N.C.; a brother; and two

grandsons.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act.

The nexus between global warming and the national security of the United States is a crucial, yet long-ignored, issue. The adverse consequences of rising global temperatures present not only a potential environmental catastrophe but a national security emergency.

The security-related consequences of global warming will range from hampering U.S. military operations to worsening the scarcity of essential resources in already unstable regions--which can lead to the failed states that are a central breeding ground for terrorism, But because the U.S. intelligence community has never analyzed the potential for global warming to harm our national security, we lack a thorough understanding of what these threats are. This means that the Department of Defense and other security agencies cannot comprehensively plan for the security consequences of global warming the way that they plan for countless other serious contingencies.

Today, I am introducing the ``Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act.'' This bill is cosponsored by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Larson, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Solis, the gentlelady from New York, Mr. Hall, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. McDermott, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Olver. This legislation will jump-start U.S. defense planning for the security consequences of global warming by authorizing a National Intelligence Estimate (NIB) to assess the implications of global warming to United States security and military operations. Our bill, the House companion to legislation already introduced by Senator Durbin and Senator Hagel, will provide a crucial planning and risk-assessment tool as the Congress seeks innovative solutions to global warming. Developed to assess the most serious threats to the United States, NIBs are the most authoritative intelligence judgments on national security issues. This legislation will also fund research by the Defense Department into the consequences for U.S. military operations posed by global warming.

It seems clear that our geopolitical and national security posture will only grow worse if we do not act forcefully to curb our dangerous dependence on imported oil and reduce our emissions of global warming pollution. At the beginning of February, the world's top scientists, as part of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), provided a scientific smoking gun that human activities were unequivocally responsible for global warming. Two weeks ago, their second report told us what happens when the climatic bullet hits. The developing world will bear the brunt of the collateral damage from our historic global warming emissions, but the United States will experience its own self-inflicted wounds, including threats to our national security and military readiness.

The United States must act now to understand the security implications of global warming. The Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act will allow us to do so.