Floor Statements

Madam Speaker I rise in strong support of House Resolution 61, a resolution which honors the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for his outstanding contributions to our country in the past and the continuing impact of his life and legacy.

Born on January 15, 1929, Martin Luther King, Jr., was destined to follow in his grandfather's and father's footsteps as a Baptist minister, but no one could have known he would play such an important role in this history of our Nation. After graduating from high school at the age of 15, Martin Luther King, Jr., attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA., just as his grandfather and father had done before. He became a pastor in Ebenezer Baptist Church, and quickly rose to become the leader of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, inspiring first the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955, and subsequently a nationwide battle to bring an end to racial discrimination in our Nation's laws and public accommodations, and to ensure full voting rights for African Americans. Though bus boycotts had been attempted before, none lasted as long, drew as much attention or were as successful. The Montgomery Bus boycott lasted for almost an entire year and had a profound effect on the businesses in Montgomery.

In recognition of his great leadership, Reverend King was the youngest person ever to win a Nobel Peace Prize at the age of 35. He donated all of the prize money to the Civil Rights Movement.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a spiritual giant who possessed a keen intellect and remarkable insights on the human condition. In Massachusetts, we feel a sense of privilege knowing that this extraordinary historic figure lived and learned among us during his lifetime. In 1955, he received a Doctorate of Philosophy in Systematic Theology from Boston University. He also studied at Harvard University. But most important, it was in Boston that he met Coretta Scott, who became his wife, the mother of his four children, and his indispensable partner in a destiny of struggle, transformation and remarkable achievement.

Many of the words of Dr. King speak greatly to the adversities that we still face today. As we work to change the direction of our country, those of us in government must repeatedly seek out those with whom we may sometimes disagree to accomplish those great things that are most worth doing. ``Like an unchecked cancer,'' said Dr. King, ``hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.''

As Dr. King so eloquently put it, ``In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.''

I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4, The Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act.

We've heard about how Wal-Mart reduces costs through the purchasing power of their ``Sam's Clubs.''

Well today we are establishing ``Uncle Sam's Club'', a smart way of pooling the enormous purchasing power of the Medicare program and enabling the Secretary to drive down the cost of prescription drugs through negotiation.

Fortune 500 companies and large pharmacy chains all across the country negotiate for better drug prices on behalf of their patients.

It is now time for the Secretary of HHS to do the same on behalf of millions of seniors in the Medicare program.

When the Republicans passed their prescription drug bill, they explicitly prohibited the Secretary of HHS from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to get better drug prices for seniors.

They seem to have forgotten that the government is supposed to work for the public interest, not the special interests. Unfortunately, it has become necessary to remove that giveaway to the special interests and remind the Secretary of his public interest obligations. In this bill we require the Secretary to work on behalf of seniors and people with disabilities to make sure they get the best possible deal on prescription drugs.

The Republican's prescription drug bill has failed to get the cost of prescription drugs under control. Last year drug prices rose at twice the rate of inflation.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Act was supposed to help seniors pay for their prescription drugs, but instead it became a means to keep drug prices and company profits at record high levels.

It is long past time for the Secretary to use his negotiating power to help seniors avoid choosing between buying the drugs they need and paying for their rent or food.

Vote for your constituents for a change. It is good medicine. Vote for H.R. 4.

Last year, the President vetoed the hope and crushed the dreams of millions of patients and their families. With the stroke of a pen, the President used his very first veto to block this bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and to continue to impose severe restrictions on stem cell research. We are now giving the President a second chance to move beyond his Luddite moment in American scientific history to a new moment of scientific enlightenment

and hope. We must let hope triumph over fear and science, triumph over ideology.

Diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, and cancer wreak havoc on the lives of millions of Americans. We can free our loved ones from this pain, but only if we free science to find the keys.

Embryonic stem cell research is the flickering candle of medical promise that gives hope for the treatment and cure of these devastating diseases, researchers' medicines' field of dreams from which we can harvest the findings that can give hope to millions of families.

Please do not condemn the afflicted to another generation of darkness. It is past time to take this critical step towards fulfilling our moral obligation to do all we can to reduce pain and suffering around the world and to support ethical, comprehensive stem cell research.

I thank the gentlelady from Colorado, and I thank all Members for their work on this critically important historic litigation.

Mr. Speaker, today Democrats ae fulfilling a pledge to millions of working famllies who have struggled for too long to make ends meet with a minimum wage that has failed to keep pace with skyrocketing housing, health care, energy and other costs.

President Franklin Roosevelt told us, ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.''

The federal minimum wage has remained unchanged for nearly 10 years, and its purchasing power has plummeted to the lowest level in more than half a century. It is unacceptable and immoral that millions of Americans have been working full-time and year-round while still being unable to afford the basic necessities of life.

By increasing the federal minimum wage by $2.10--from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over 2 years--we are giving a long overdue pay raise to about 13 million Americans, which amounts to an additional $4,400 per year for a family of three. I am proud that my home state of Massachusetts already has taken similar action, increasing the Commonwealth's minimum wage to $7.50 effective January 1, 2007. A total of twenty-eight states along with the District of Columbia have a state minimum wage above the current federal level. It is time for the federal government to catch up.

Raising the minimum wage will make an important difference in the lives of hardworking Americans across the country. The Senate should quickly pass similar legislation and President Bush should sign into law this much-needed increase as soon as it reaches his desk.

Madam Speaker, the Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act honors two great American visionaries by designating the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness in their names and giving permanent protection to this great unspoiled wild place. Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower began the bipartisan legacy of fighting to protect this majestic area for future generations of Americans when he set aside the core of the Refuge in 1960. Twenty years later, in 1980, Democratic Representative Morris Udall succeeded in doubling the size of the Refuge, protecting even more of this untrammeled wilderness from oil drilling.

President Eisenhower and Morris Udall had the vision to protect a remote but very special piece of pristine wilderness. I am proud to introduce legislation today along with Representative Jim Ramstad of Minnesota that would complete the job they began by giving permanent protection to the coastal plain of the Refuge.

I am also proud to introduce this legislation under the bill number H.R. 39, a bill number with important historical significance in the effort to preserve the land within the Arctic Refuge. H.R. 39 was the bill number given to Mo Udall's Alaska Natural Interest Lands Conservation Act that became law in 1980, expanding the area President Eisenhower had set aside and renaming it as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Representative Udall later began introducing his legislation to designate the coastal plain of the Refuge as wilderness under that same bill number. This bill number offers an important reminder of the history of this special place.

The coastal plain is the biological heart of the Refuge and is central to the survival of many unique species of animals including caribou, polar bears, musk oxen, wolves, and over 160 species of birds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calls the coastal plain the ``center for wildlife activity'' in the Refuge. If we were to allow drilling in the Refuge it would irreparably disrupt this important ecosystem and one of our last great wild places will be forever scared and destroyed.

In this last year, we have seen so-called ``environmentally-gentle'' oil drilling exposed once and for all as the myth that it is. On March 2, 2006, BP workers discovered a quarter-inch hole in a pipeline on Alaska's North Slope that had leaked 267,000 gallons of oil onto the arctic tundra. That recent spill was the largest in the history of the North Slope. Subsequent spills led to the discovery that BP had grossly mismanaged and severely neglected its pipelines and North Slope oil drilling operations, which had previously been touted by drilling proponents as the best and most technologically advanced in the world. The reality is that drilling for oil is a dirty business and opening the Arctic Refuge to drilling would forever ruin this untouched special place.

Moreover, if we were to allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge, the crown jewel of the Wildlife Refuge System, it would represent a colossal shift in the policy and precedent governing our wildlife refuges. Prying open the Arctic Refuge for drilling would set a dangerous precedent that would allow the oil companies to select any of the other 544 as the next target for oil drilling.

The Bush administration has argued that we have no choice--that we are so dependent on oil that we must start defiling our wildlife refuge system to keep feeding our oil addiction. That is wrong. We have a choice, a better choice, and it is about time that we enact real changes in our energy policy by focusing on conservation rather than seeking to drill for a few short months worth of oil in this pristine refuge.

The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's oil but controls only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We cannot drill our way out of our dependence on foreign oil but we can choose to harness our technologic genius to do something real about our dependence on oil.

Two-thirds of the oil we consume everyday in the U.S. goes into the gas tanks of our cars, trucks and SUVs. From an energy standpoint, drilling in the Refuge is completely unnecessary. If our cars, trucks and SUVs traveled just 3 miles more per gallon today, we would save more oil than drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would produce at its peak levels of production. But more than that, if we increased fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon over 10 years, we would save more oil within 15 years than we would be able to get out of the Arctic Refuge over its entire 40-50 year production life.

The oil fields on the North Slope already annually produce more air pollution and greenhouse gases than the municipality of Washington, D.C. and the Arctic is showing the strains of global warming.

Just this last month, the Bush Interior Department proposed listing the Polar Bear as an ``endangered species'' because global warming appears to be so drastically affecting its habitat--particularly the summer ice floes needed to hunt--that the bears are drowning far from shore when the floating ice melts. Last week scientists confirmed that a giant ice shelf--the Ayles Ice Shelf--snapped off of its land anchor just 500 miles south of the North Pole in the Canadian Arctic. This is a feature of the Arctic landscape that is thousands of years old. The remaining ice shelves are 90 percent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906.

Our addiction to oil is real and enduring and still largely untreated. Drilling in the refuge would amount to a declaration that we remain in denial about this addiction, its impact on our planet and our obligation to future generations.

If Congress were to ever turn the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge into an industrial footprint by allowing oil drilling, the impact on

the land and the wildlife would be permanent but the hoped-for energy benefits only temporary. There are some places in our world that are so rare and so special, that we have a responsibility to protect them. The Arctic Refuge is one of those places. As Mo Udall said, ``In our lifetime, we have few opportunities to shape the very Earth on which our descendants will live their lives. In each generation, we have carved up more and more of our once-great natural heritage. There ought to be a few places left in the world the way the Almighty made them.'' The Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act would ensure that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is never carved up by the big oil companies but is instead forever protected for future Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that this weekend Massachusetts crowned three state football champions all from the Seventh Congressional District.

The Crimson Tide of Everett, led by Coach John DiBiaso finished the season a perfect 12-0 after a 35-6 win in the Division 1 title game to capture its second Super Bowl victory since 2003.

Later that afternoon, the Wayland Warriors, led by their coach Scott Parseghian took to the same field and knocked off their opponent with a convincing 28-0 victory to take home the Division lA crown, finishing the season with an unblemished 13-0 record.

Finally, the mighty Vikings of Winthrop, led by their coach Tony Fucillo, rallied to a 25-8 victory in the Division 2A championship game also finishing the season a perfect 13-0. This was a huge boost to a program and a school which only a few short years ago was facing possible elimination of high school athletics all together

Each of these teams finished the season ranked among the top three in Massachusetts polls.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to the communities of Everett, Wayland and Winthrop and their student athletes and coaches for their commitment to excellence in their sports and for their hard- earned, well-deserved championship seasons.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me time.

This bill that we are considering is an historic mistake, a mistake which will come back to haunt the United States and the world. India has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

We are asking the U.N. to isolate Iran, to force it to comply with its signature on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, not to use civilian nuclear materials in order to create a military nuclear weapon.

What are we doing here today? We are saying to India, you do not have to abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at all. You never signed it, we put it on the books because of India, we know that it created an arms race with Pakistan, and instead of enforcing our own law, our own law, we are now out here going to carve out an exception.

Now, what do the experts say? Well, the experts say that India produces approximately seven nuclear bombs per year, but they have a limited amount of nuclear material. What are we doing? We are going to provide the nuclear materials for their civilian nuclear program so that it will free up their domestic nuclear materials for their weapons program.

What do the experts say? The experts say that is going to increase India's capacity to make nuclear weapons to 40 to 50 nuclear bombs per year. Now, people here say, well, that is fine. Why worry about it? India is a country that we trust. Well, you know who does not trust India? I will tell you who does not trust India: Pakistan does not trust India. Pakistan, the home of al-Qaeda. Pakistan, the home of A.Q. Khan, the nuclear Pied Piper, the nuclear Johnny Appleseed, who spread nuclear weapons material across the world.

Here is what we have learned now: We have learned that Pakistan is constructing its own nuclear weapons manufacturing facility that will increase their capacity from 2 to 3 nuclear bombs per year to 40 to 50 nuclear bombs per year.

Now, the Bush administration, as we all know, has already made a mess of our nuclear nonproliferation policy in North Korea, a mess of our nuclear nonproliferation policy in Iraq, a mess of our nuclear nonproliferation policy in Iran. And the world is now looking at us. Pakistan is looking at us. Iran is looking at us. North Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. How will we handle this challenge on the Asian subcontinent? The answer: We are just going to do away with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, because that is what this vote will be on the House floor today.

We are just basically saying: It is all over. The rest of the world will not listen to us again. The consequences, the domino effect, the nuclear weapons domino effect begins here, ladies and gentlemen. It begins today. It begins with a policy that says that it is not enough for the United States to have high-tech commerce with India, to have outsourcing of our jobs to India, to have massive increases in diplomatic relations and dozens of other areas with India. No, as a gesture of our friendship with India, we are going to gut our own nuclear nonproliferation policy.

Now, back in the debates of 2004, there was really only one thing that George Bush and John Kerry agreed upon, and that was that the most important issue in the world was nuclear nonproliferation. And here we are on the last day of the Republican era in the United States Congress gutting the most important policy, the policy which has kept the reins imperfectly but significantly on the spread of nuclear weapons over the last generation.

And this is in a way almost the exclamation point on the end of this Republican era, on the Bush administration's efforts to control nuclear weapons. This era will be looked back at as the era where the Bush administration and the Republicans in this Congress said: Anything goes. Anything for trade with India. When asked, we will surrender our nuclear nonproliferation policy.

Pakistan is now in a massive escalation of its nuclear weapons program. Al-Qaeda is headquartered in Pakistan. A.Q. Khan lives in Pakistan in a palace, still not under arrest, still not in prison, his people who helped to spread these nuclear weapons still walking the streets of Pakistan. What kind of administration do we have that instead of saying, we are going to put together a conference that deals with that issue which will threaten us here in the United States, because these materials will escalate massively in the Asian subcontinent.

This is in many ways comical. I mean, it really is comical. We are going to debate the end of the nuclear nonproliferation regime in the United States for an hour on the last day of Congress. It is comical. I am scraping here to get an extra minute out of this paltry amount of time to debate what the consequences are of what we are doing. And so, yeah, this is a going-away present to the Bush administration. There has been such a mismanagement of the nuclear nonproliferation policy over these last 6 years that this probably does represent, in a crazy kind of a way, you know, the final statement.

But I will tell you, we are going to come back and we will rue this day, because the Pakistanis and the Iranians, they are not going to sit on their hands and allow this to happen. They are going to look at us and they are going to say: These Americans, they preach temperance from a bar stool. They are going to say that this is an era of historic hypocrisy, where the United States expects the rest of the world to listen to us when we tell them that they should not pursue nuclear weapons, while we selectively grant exceptions to countries that never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in the first place.

It is a nonsustainable policy. It will come back to haunt us, not today, not tomorrow, but there will be a day in 5 years or 10 years when everyone here today will be able to point back to this moment and say that is the day the historic mistake was made

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report.

For over three decades it has been the policy of the United States to restrict nuclear trade with India. Why? Because in 1974 India violated its pledges to the United States and Canada to use American and Canadian nuclear technologies only for peaceful purposes.

Instead, India used our technology to develop and explode a nuclear bomb.

Despite that history, despite the refusal of India to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or to honor its contractual obligations to the United States, this Administration has now undertaken to ignore the past and to ask Congress to approve legislation that will, according to nonproliferation experts from across the political spectrum, enhance India's nuclear bomb-making capacity from 7 bombs a year to over 40 bombs a year.

This is exactly the reverse of what we should be doing if we are serious about reducing the spread of nuclear weapons in the world. In fact, it was India's blatant misuse of peaceful American nuclear technologies for a weapons program that prompted the Congress to radically strengthen our nonproliferation laws. And when we were done with that, we went to our allies and established new international guidelines to prevent any other country from doing what India had done: misusing imported nuclear technologies for a secret weapons program. And now, in an act fraught with hypocrisy, irony, and hubris, the Congress will approve a sweeping exception from our nonproliferation laws for the very country that prompted us to strengthen those laws.

I fully support strengthening American ties with India on trade, high-tech, military cooperation, and so many other issues, but why do we need to gut our nonproliferation laws at the same time? The simple fact is that we DON'T have to gut our nonproliferation laws in order to improve our relationship with India, but the President took us into the nuclear Twilight Zone, instead.

During the Conference, the Bush Administration, reportedly at New Delhi's urging, tried to strip out the few good nonproliferation provisions that the Congress inserted into what is a deeply flawed piece of legislation.

Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote a letter asking Congress to remove a requirement that India help us prevent Iran from going nuclear. I don't know what the administration was thinking, telling the Congress that we can't ask for India's help on Iran's nuclear program.

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for fighting to ensure that at least an ongoing assessment of India's cooperation with U.S. and international efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions be performed, both at the time that the formal nuclear cooperation agreement is submitted to Congress and every year thereafter. While the Gentleman and I may disagree on the underlying legislation, I appreciate his efforts, and those of Chairman Hyde, to try to address this issue and to try to mitigate some of the damage that this agreement may do to our nation's nuclear nonproliferation policies.

But the bottom line is that under the President's plan to fuel India's nuclear power reactors, we're going to free up their nuclear material for weapons. And just this summer, we learned that India's arch-rival Pakistan is building a huge new reactor to make nuclear bomb material.

There's a nuclear arms race on in South Asia, and the United States is about to become an accomplice to this arms race.

If we want the rest of the world to stop fueling the proliferation of new nuclear weapons, we had better stop throwing gasoline on the fire ourselves. The India Nuclear Deal is bad for U.S. security. It undermines U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts around the world, and it risks fueling an accelerated nuclear arms race in South Asia.

Madam Speaker, this is a watershed moment for the world. If the United States goes soft on nuclear weapons proliferation, the entire world will go soft. Countries which in good faith abstained from nuclear weapons development will have a green light to go ahead following the India-U.S. model. In my view, this is a prelude to catastrophe. I cannot imagine that the House will ever again confront a vote that is so central to our leadership, our standing, our moral authority on the issue of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. I urge my colleagues to vote against this Conference Report.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has already pointed out to the gentleman from Georgia that we in Massachusetts and all the rest of the States that aren't involved in this raid on the Federal treasury, are interested in putting together a real comprehensive energy policy for our country. But we have been excluded from this debate, over the 6 years of the Bush/Cheney secret energy task force, of any considerations for environmental consumer conservation-related issues. And this final bill, which comes out here on the floor, is the exclamation point on the Bush Republican energy policy.

In this bill, believe it or not, and it is staggering, we are going to allow, as the gentleman from Florida just pointed out, massive new drilling for oil and gas on Federal lands. Now, the States of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi will derive $170 billion. That is right; $170 billion worth of revenues from this drilling.

Now, the risk runs to Florida. We have a huge Federal deficit, which we are constantly lectured about from the White House and from the Republican side. But this will drain another $170 billion. The other 46 States in the Union, if they vote for this bill, they deserve to be lectured to on deficit reduction. But if you come from one of these four States, this is the proudest moment you will ever have in your tenure here in the House of Representatives. If you can convince 46 States to give you $170 billion as part of this Outer Continental Shelf drilling, you will never have an achievement bigger than this. If you are one of the other 46 States, you should hang your head in shame.

And, by the way, this Congress has already appropriated $80 billion to help the States which have been affected by Hurricane Katrina.

We will vote for more, if necessary, to help the States affected by Hurricane Katrina, $80 billion already. But don't come to us and tell us that we should shift the whole formula for who receives benefits from drilling on Federal lands and give it over to four States.

Now, to the credit of the Rules Committee, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and the other Democratic Members of the Rules Committee, and I also thank the leadership from the Republican side, they have actually put in order, as part of this bill, an amendment which will be voted upon here out on the House floor.

That amendment is one that has already passed the House back in May. It passed overwhelmingly: 252 of us voted for it. That amendment calls for the renegotiation of the leases that were let back in the 1990s that actually, believe it or not, do not require royalties to be paid for by ExxonMobil or other oil and gas companies. When the price of a barrel of oil goes to $50, $60, $70 a barrel, they don't even have to pay royalties to the American people for drilling on public lands. It is all windfall profits.

The amendment which we will have out here to vote upon later today will require a renegotiation of all of those contracts so that the Federal taxpayer gets the benefit of the royalties and drilling on public lands when they go above $30 and $40 and $50 and $60 and $70 a barrel, and they at least will reclaim $10 or $20 billion worth of revenues that are strictly going into the pockets of the oil and gas companies right now.

Right now, those oil and gas companies are tipping the American taxpayer upside down, shaking money out of their pockets, and putting it into the pockets of their own shareholders. That money should be used to reduce the Federal deficit, to pay for Medicare, for Medicaid, for educational programs.

I thank the Rules Committee for putting that amendment in order. I urge the Members of Congress to support that amendment.

By the way, one other bonus benefit to the Members out here, that amendment also gives a 1-year extension on relief from the alternate minimum tax. It is a good amendment. I thank the gentleman for making that possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a provision which really is unrelated completely to the tax extenders. There are indeed tax credits and other things, very good; but what they have decided to do is attach a rider to this bill, and that rider is a special sweetheart deal that changes the entire formula for the collection of royalties, that is, taxes, for the American people for oil and gas which is drilled for on public lands.

Because of this change in formula, $170 billion is going to be transferred from the pockets of the American taxpayer of 46 States and sent to four States. In the course of the debate this afternoon within the hour, we will be considering an amendment, an amendment which will say that if any oil companies want to drill for the oil in the gulf that is going to be permitted under this new bill, that these companies must renegotiate the old leases which they received back in the 1990s, which, believe it or not, makes it possible for them to escape paying royalties on oil and gas drilled for on public lands in the United States. Even if the price of oil goes to $40, $50, $60, $70, $80 a barrel, oil companies do not pay any more royalties.

Well, what our amendment will say is that they must renegotiate. The oil and gas industry must renegotiate with the Federal Government to return those windfall profits on the old leases before they are going to be allowed to drill for these new leases in the Gulf of Mexico. In that way, the taxpayers will reclaim $20 to $30 billion of revenues that can be used for health care, for education, to pay for the war in Iraq, to balance the Federal budget.

So I just want all the Members to know that that is the nature of the amendment which is going to come up within the hour. It is fair. If the oil companies are going to receive such a boon out of this bill, if the gulf States are going to receive such a boon out of this bill, as much as I object to it, the least that we should be able to say is that we reclaim those revenues, and as a bonus, Mr. Rangel has inserted into the amendment, which I will be making, a provision which extends the AMT protection for 20 million Americans so their taxes do not go up next year, 2007.

So with two things, you reclaim 20 to $30 billion from oil companies and you protect all taxpayers from an increase in the AMT.

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

I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I only have one speaker remaining.

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

The amendment which we are about to consider does not prohibit drilling in any of this new land. The amendment we are about to debate does not prohibit drilling in any of the new land which is authorized to be drilled in. What the amendment says is this: is that the oil and gas companies that received leases over the last 10 years where they pay no royalties whatsoever, and that has been determined, as a result, deprived the American taxpayer of between 20 and $60 billion worth of royalties, which they are entitled to as taxpayers, will be renegotiated by the oil companies that want to drill in this new land in the Gulf of Mexico. That is all it does. So anyone who is listening to this, this amendment will not prohibit drilling here. All it says is that where these massive, tens of billions of dollars of windfall profits are falling into the pockets of oil and gas companies under these oil leases, that these oil and gas companies do not have the privilege of coming into these new leases. However, any other oil company, any other gas company, they can go right into this Gulf of Mexico area and drill.

So for Mr. Peterson, or anyone else, it has nothing to do with it. The question for you, Mr. Peterson, the question for the other Members is: Do you want to recollect these other royalties? Or if the price of oil goes to 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, $80 a barrel, do you want the oil and gas industry to pay any royalties at all? Because right now, they don't. So if you want all the revenues to go to them, nothing to go to the taxpayer, then, fine. Vote against the Markey amendment. But if you want to open up the lands in the gulf, let the oil industry come in, but to make sure that they pay on their old leases a fair share of the dues to live in this country, because it is a massive part of the revenues that we use to fund our defense, then you vote ``yes'' on the Markey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, again, the Markey amendment does nothing about drilling in the new areas that are opened up in this bill. What the amendment says is that on all of those leases in the 1990s that had no royalty payments required at all, that finally if these oil and gas companies want to move into this new oil and gas gold rush in the Gulf of Mexico, they have to renegotiate those old contracts, those windfall profits, that 20 to $60 billion that could be used for the defense of our country, to reduce the deficit or for any other purposes.

This is a very simple amendment, and what it does is it mirrors what we voted on in May of this year when 252 Members of the House voted to force these oil and gas companies to finally play their role in contributing to the balancing of the budget. Otherwise, the oil companies are going to continue to just tip the American taxpayer upside down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I apologize to the gentleman. I only have 1 minute to give to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) at this time.

I am now advised that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) wants to yield his minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time and that is again to make the point that this amendment is central to the reclaiming of the $60 billion which the oil and gas industry has escaped in paying for drilling on the public lands of the United States. This is like Teapot Dome in the 1920s. They don't pay royalties. They have escaped payment for the use of the oil and gas for the American people.

This isn't their oil and gas; it is ours. This amendment just says that if they want to drill in the Gulf of Mexico in this new land, they have got to renegotiate these old contracts where they don't pay any royalties at all. At $40, $50, $60, $70, $80 a barrel the American taxpayer is paying at the pump, they don't get any tax relief when they use American oil and gas from the American public lands.

Vote ``aye'' for the Markey-Hinchey amendment. It is the key to ensuring that this bill has a fiscally sound core at its heart.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to claim the time in opposition to the bill.

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

First, let me begin by complimenting the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde. Like Mr. Hyde, I was born a Democrat and baptized a Catholic just 7 days later. So I know how big a decision it must have been to have abandoned that Democratic birthright. But he has been a historic figure in this institution. I want to associate myself with everything that the gentleman from California said about you.

But I do believe that this bill is a historic mistake. The world is looking at this institution this evening. It is wondering what in the world the United States is thinking in giving an exemption to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act to a country which is a nonsignatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

What is the signal that that will send to Pakistan? What is the signal that that will send to Iran, to Syria, to Egypt, to Venezuela, to North Korea? What is the signal that we are sending with regard to the entire nuclear nonproliferation regime which has served this world well since the 1960s?

I think that the message they are receiving is that there is going to be a double standard, and a double standard which, unfortunately, from my perspective, is going to lead to a rapid escalation of the development of nuclear weapons programs in country after country around the world.

Right now, India has a nuclear weapons program that experts estimate produces approximately 7 per year. Because the nuclear fuel, which this bill will make possible, frees up the domestic uranium supply in India, experts estimate that it will increase to 40 to 50 the number of nuclear weapons which India can produce per year, because we, the United States, in passing this legislation, will ensure the supply of their civilian nuclear energy needs.

Why should we care about that? Well, the reason that we should care about that is that Pakistan is now developing and building their own nuclear material production facility, which experts indicate will increase from two to three nuclear bombs per year to 40 to 50 nuclear bombs per year. That is what a nuclear arms race looks like. That is what the nuclear arms race between the United States and Soviet Union looked like in the 1950s, in the 1960s and in the 1970s, and what we are doing out here is pouring fuel onto this fire, rather than calling an international conference to bring together these parties and others in order to put in place a real nuclear weapons control regime. Instead we are turning a blind eye to the reality of what is going on in the South Asian continent.

So, ladies and gentlemen, this is a historic moment, a moment that we will look back on, not perhaps tomorrow, or next week, but 5 years from now, 10 years from now. People will point back to this night, this last night of the Republican control of Congress, this last night when the Republican-controlled House and Senate can produce for President Bush this anti-nuclear weapons control policy that he has been engaging in for the last 6 years and say this was the moment that crossed the line where ever country said to themselves, why should we, as signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, abide by those rules when the United States selectively gives exemptions to countries that are not signatories to the nuclear nonproliferation policy.

You cannot preach temperance from a bar stool. The hypocrisy coefficient is at historic heights when the United States believes that the rest of the world will listen to us as we preach that they should not be interested in nuclear weapons, even as they are helping to facilitate the Indians in developing an ever greater capacity to produce nuclear weapons inspect that country.

Why should we care? We should care because A. Q. Khan, the nuclear Johnny Appleseed, the nuclear Pied Piper, who spread nuclear weapons from North Korea through the Middle East, is still living in Pakistan, living in a palace, still not in prison. His associates, his men, still walking the streets of Pakistan. Al Qaeda is headquartered in Pakistan, still unapprehended.

What is the message that we are sending? We are sending a message that the nuclear arms sellers are back on the road, selling to anyone who will purchase. That is the message that we are sending.

So tonight is a historic vote. It is a vote that will be looked back at as one of the most important that we have ever cast here in Congress. Sadly, it is

not going to receive even a fraction of the attention which it deserves.

But I tell you this, ladies and gentlemen, when and if this nuclear war breaks out, we will look back. At least we should be able to say we tried, we really tried to put an end to the nuclear arms race on the South Asian continent. This is what this debate tonight is all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/6\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Speaker, could you advise us how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Could we get a final review here of where we are, Mr. Speaker?

I am the last speaker, so I reserve my time.

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

This is an historically bad deal. President Bush has done a far better job in negotiating with the Congress to gain acceptance for this deal than he did with the Indians and getting them to accept the essentials of a real nuclear nonproliferation agreement.

In this agreement, as we send nuclear materials to India and free up so that the Russians and others can do so as well, here is what is not inspected: Six of India's plutonium-producing reactors will not be inspected. Their heavy-water production facets, not inspected. Plutonium separation facilities, not inspected. Uranium mines, not inspected. Uranium enrichment facilities, not inspected. In other words, their nuclear weapons program, not inspected.

This is the deal which we are cutting. This is the deal which the Congress is being asked tonight to bless. Do you know who would accept a deal like that? A.Q. Kahn would accept a deal like that for Pakistan. In fact, President Musharraf of Pakistan said to President Bush on his visit to Pakistan right after his visit to India, he said to President Bush, ``I too would like that deal that you are offering to India.'' President Bush said, ``We cannot give you that deal.''

What are we going to say when China offers that deal to Pakistan? Because they will, ladies and gentlemen. What will we say when all of those plutonium-producing reactors are not inspected? What will we say in 2 years when the Russians offer that same deal to the Iranians? What will we say to the Russians, to the Iranians?

If we don't set the standard for nuclear nonproliferation here in the United States in our negotiations with our allies, do not expect there to be higher standards in the negotiations between the Chinese and their allies or the Russians and their allies. Wherever we set the standard, that is going to be the global standard. And when we turn to these other countries and we tell them, no, your standards are not high enough, they are going to call us hypocrites.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is an historic night, it is an historic vote. People will look back at this as the moment when the nuclear nonproliferation regime of the world was destroyed. Vote ``no''. Vote ``no'' for history. Vote ``no'' for your conscience. When you look back, this will be one of those moments when you are glad that you voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I thank the Members of the House for allowing us to have these few minutes on the floor of the House of Representatives to honor, to recognize one of the greatest Americans of the 20th century, one of the greatest basketball coaches of all time, but also a man who was a pioneer in race relations.

In 1950, he was the first person to draft in the NBA an African American. In 1966, he named Bill Russell as the coach of the Boston Celtics, the first African American coach of any major sport in the United States. In 1965, he won the NBA title playing five African American starters on an NBA team. No one had ever done that before, because he was blind to race.

I know this, because in 1959 when I was 13 years old, Red Auerbach decided that he was going to have four teams that would alternate playing a game at Boston Garden right before the Boston Celtic game at 1 o'clock. He had a YMHA team, Young Men's Hebrew Association; a Chinese American team; an African American team from Roxbury; and he had a CYO team, a Catholic Youth Organization team, and I was on that team. I was one of the 10 boys on that Catholic team. And we played alternating Sundays right before the Celtics game, in uniform with all the fans coming in; Chinese, African American, Jewish, white, in Boston, in 1959.

Red Auerbach was a very special man, because he was dedicated to being color-blind. He was dedicated to excellence, regardless of where the talent came from. It was a message that all of us in Boston saw and heard, and to a very large extent this new African American Governor, this great new Governor that we have in Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, he is a political godchild not only of Bobby Kennedy and John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, but also in Boston, in Massachusetts, of Red Auerbach and the message he was sending through Bill Russell, through these other players a generation ago, to all of us in our State. So we are so, so proud of him.

He always knew that a team could be bigger than the sum of its parts if they all worked together. That was his message. That was something that made him the most successful basketball coach in the history of basketball. It was that notion of teamwork.

After each victory, he pulled out a cigar, and I know that it is in violation of House rules to smoke, although in the State of Massachusetts, in all public places, it is illegal to smoke, except written into the law Red Auerbach, because he had a special exception, and out here on the House floor today, to Red I say that you were the ultimate winner, that you were someone who not only won on the court but you won

in life and you sent that message to all of us. We thank you for your example.

I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for recognizing me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution to honor ``Red'' Auerbach, the legendary basketball coach and executive of the Boston Celtics, who passed away in October at the age of 89.

Mr. Speaker, Red Auerbach was a winner. As a coach, he won more than a thousand games, including 9 world championships and an unbelievable 8 in a row--a record that still stands today. Overall, he won almost two- thirds of the games he coached over a 20-year NBA career. The 16 world championship banners that hang from the rafters in Boston Garden today are an everlasting testament to Red's incredible talent.

As an executive leading the Celtics, he was the architect of one of the greatest dynasties in the history of professional sports. The players he brought onto the Celtics--often by outwitting and outmaneuvering the general managers of the other teams in the league-- remain among the greatest to ever play the game: Bill Russell; Bob Cousy; John Havlicek; Kevin McHale; and of course, Larry Bird.

Red understood that it took much more than individual stars to win consistently. That's why he constructed teams with players who knew and excelled at their specific roles, building a whole that always was greater than the sum of its parts. It wasn't unusual for players from other teams to suddenly start playing better when they joined the Celtics than they ever had with their previous team.

Red infused the entire Celtics organization with the values of teamwork, respect, tenacity and loyalty, creating a culture known as ``Celtic Pride'' that forever will be associated with the Boston Celtics franchise.

It's impossible to overstate Red's impact on the City of Boston and the entire New England region. With his leadership, the Celtics became hometown heroes, and Red was a living legend.

Growing up as a boy in Massachusetts, I always got a thrill when Red would let the CYO teams from across the state play on that incredible parquet floor in Boston Garden. It was a highlight for us, and it also was an example of Red's work to break down racial and class barriers. To have white kids and black kids, Hispanic and Jewish kids from communities across the state mixing together was unusual in Boston in the 50s and early 60s, and Red was the one making it happen.

Red's lasting impact on our country transcends basketball. His unrivalled ability to identify gifted players was fueled by his laser focus on talent and attitude, which left no room for considerations of race, creed or color.

In 1950, Red drafted the NBA's first African-American player, Chuck Cooper. He hired the first African-American head coach in professional sports in 1966 in Bill Russell and was the first coach to put together a starting lineup consisting entirely of African-American players in 1964.

While Red made his indelible mark in Boston, his home remained in Washington, DC throughout his career with the Celtics. I was fortunate to be invited to Red's famous lunches at the China Pearl restaurant, where Red would hold court in the middle of a diverse group of journalists, athletes, doctors, coaches, and other friends he had made over the years. Watching Red, it was clear that he was a natural leader--he would have made a great Speaker of the House in his day.

Red's place among the greatest coaches and executives of all time is assured, his contributions to the betterment of society will always endure, and his life exemplifies the very best ideals of our country.

There will never be another Red Auerbach--he was an American original. Our hearts go out to Red's family and friends. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution in Red's honor.

Mr. Speaker, Sherry Boehlert was my good friend. He was a wonderful chairman and a great environmental champion. Sherry was a consistent bulwark in the Republican Party against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and his outstanding leadership is one of the main reasons why the Refuge remains a pristine wilderness today. In defending this magnificent wilderness, he more than filled the shoes of a Republican General--President Dwight David Eisenhower--who had the foresight to protect the refuge for its unique environmental values and the backbone to resist a storm of pressure to let the drillers destroy this untrammeled corner of America forever. Sherry was also the leading Republican voice for higher fuel economy standards for our nation's cars, trucks and SUVs. In doing so, he stood tall for our soldiers who fight on the oil fields of the Middle East and for the children of our children who are facing a climate change catastrophe that we are only beginning to fathom. I was fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to work with him often in these fights and his leadership and passion were an inspiration to me and to everyone who knew him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to Instruct Conferees. The recommital motion I offered when this bill came to the floor in July would have required the President to certify that India is fully supporting U.S. efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The gentleman from California Mr. Lantos supported my amendment, and I thank him for that, but my amendment unfortunately failed.

In the Senate, a similar but less expansive amendment offered by Sen. Harkin was successful, and that is the amendment supported by this Motion to Instruct.

The Harkin Amendment would require the President to certify that India was abiding by United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iran. Since those resolutions are already binding under international law, that is a low enough bar that the President could make such a certification for almost any country in the world. India would certainly pass.

The Harkin Amendment doesn't do everything that I would like it to, but I believe that it is nonetheless an important provision to keep in the final bill.

But now the Bush Administration is objecting to even this modest requirement. Last week, Secretary Rice wrote to Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos asking that all of the significant nonproliferation provisions added by the Congress be removed. She also argued that the Harkin Amendment would be viewed by India as an ``additional condition,'' and therefore the requirement must be removed.

So it seems that the Bush administration is refusing to ask a close ally, India, to abide by established international law and assist in preventing Iran from going nuclear.

Apparently, the Bush Administration has entered the nuclear twilight zone. It can go to war in Iraq to disarm imaginary WMD, but not a word to India in this nuclear agreement about helping us stand up to Iran's WMD programs? I ask my colleagues: Whose foreign policy is the Administration promoting?

This is a modest suggestion. I think we actually should be doing more, and I and other House Members have sent a letter to Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos outlining some of the other critical nuclear nonproliferation provisions that are the minimum requirements that we should be including in this bill. I hope that they are included in the final conference report.

But we really do need to ensure that India is not able to simultaneously reap the benefits of nuclear cooperation with the U.S. and others, while continuing to support Iran's efforts to maintain a renegade nuclear program. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this Motion to Instruct Conferees, because we absolutely must halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Johanna's law and I thank Representatives Levin, Issa, DeLauro and Burton and their strong bipartisan coalition for all of their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor today.

This bill honors the memory of Johanna Silver Gordon and the thousands of women who have lost their lives to gynecologic cancer because they were not diagnosed until the late stages of the disease.

This year, more than 80,000 women will be diagnosed with gynecologic cancer, and more than 28,000 women will die from these diseases. However, there is very little awareness about these deadly diseases. According the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition, NOCC, only 15 percent of women are familiar with the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and 82 percent have never talked to their doctors about the symptoms and risk factors.

If caught in the early stages of the disease, the five-year survival rate for ovarian cancer is 90 percent. However 75 percent of women are diagnosed in the advanced stages of the disease, when the prognosis is very poor. It is clear that we must do something to increase awareness about this disease and promote early diagnosis. Johanna's law will authorize a national campaign directed at women and their providers to promote early detection of gynecologic cancer and raise awareness about these devastating diseases.

I would like to thank one of my constituents, Barbara O'Brien, a 9 year survivor herself, for her passionate advocacy and her dedication to raising awareness about this incredibly important issue.

Education is a critical first step and this bill will significantly increase awareness. However, we must also continue to pursue the research necessary to find a diagnostic test, better treatments and ultimately a cure for this horrible disease so that succeeding generations will have to turn to the history books to learn that there was ever a disease called ovarian cancer.

I urge support of this important legislation

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much, and this rule is just another appalling case of Republican leadership siding with special interests over the security interests of our country.

In July, the Homeland Security Committee reported a bipartisan chemical security bill. We know that al Qaeda wants to hit huge chemical facilities in our country that could cause between 10,000 and hundreds of thousands of injuries. That was a good bill. It was bipartisan.

It required that there be mandatory enforceable security provisions that apply to all chemical facilities in America. It required the company shift to safer chemicals and methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack. The bill ensured that the States could set higher security standards. The bill contained red teaming exercises to test whether or not security around these chemical facilities was, in fact, adequate. It contained worker training provisions to upgrade workers' ability to protect against an al Qaeda attack. It contained civil and criminal provisions, and it contained whistle-blower protections for chemical industry workers if any Paul Revere-like figure would rise up to warn that there was a danger at a chemical facility.

Democrats and Republicans alike praised the committee's work, and Republicans promised to protect the language as it came out on to the House floor.

But instead, the House Republican leaders refused to allow it to be considered for a vote on the House floor. Instead, the Republicans on the Homeland Security Committee and on the Energy and Commerce Committee acquiesced to the wishes of the chemical industry behind closed doors to negotiate the weak, inadequate language contained in the conference report.

In public, the Republicans profess their support for strong chemical security legislation, but in private, they provided their chemical industry allies with an early Christmas present, the weak legislation the industry had been pursuing all along, and that is what we are now going to debate on this House floor; not the bipartisan secure chemical bill, but the chemical industry-written bill that the Republicans are now bringing out here in a closed rule that will not have any debate at all.

And by the way, if back home you have a Governor, you have a mayor that is very concerned about the ability of their hometown or their State to put stronger security measures around a chemical facility, well, after today you can just tell your Governor, your mayor, it is up to the Department of Homeland Security. They are not going to be able to increase it back at home. This bill is going to make it possible for the chemical industry to keep the local governments and the State governments wrapped up in red tape forever as those local communities, those local heroes, and by the way, if there is an al Qaeda attack, people are not going to call the Department of Homeland Security. They are going to call the local police, the local fire, the local emergency medical personnel. They are going to be the ones that have to respond, and when this bill is passed their hands are going to be tied behind

their back in terms of their ability to put stronger, tougher protections around these chemical facilities, especially in urban areas.

It also reduces the number of facilities that have to be covered. Instead of all of the facilities that could cause upwards of 10,000 fatalities or injuries, they eliminate 90 percent of the facilities from having to be covered by the provisions of the legislation that we are talking about here today. And by the way, the Department of Homeland Security is prohibited from disapproving of a facility's security plan because of the absence of any specific security measure.

So the Department of Homeland Security looks at a chemical facility, sees that there is a problem, they still cannot disapprove that plan. How in the world can the Department of Homeland Security be effective if their hands are tied behind their back? This is an area that we know is at the top of the al Qaeda terrorist target list, chemical facilities; and on the last day, professing to care about homeland security, and by the way, if al Qaeda is going to attack today, all the wiretapping, everything else that you want to do, if there is a secret group already in America poised to hit a chemical facility, then you better have the protection that is built around it.

What you are doing today in this bill is you are making it infinitely more likely that al Qaeda can make a successful attack against a chemical facility. You are gagging the Democrats. You are handing it over to the chemical industry for them to decide on their bottom line cost-basis analysis of the type of security they want to put in place.

Right now, it is harder to get into some nightclubs in New York City than it is for al Qaeda to get into a chemical facility in the United States of America. That is the bottom line on the bill the Republicans are bringing out here today.

Vote ``no'' on this Republican rule.