Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this bill that we are debating right now was supposed to be a part of a comprehensive Republican Energy Week that we were going to have here at the end of July, showing how committed the Republican Party was to dealing with the energy crisis in our country.

And this is energy week for the Republicans, although I would spell ``weak,'' w-e-a-k, because that is really what this bill is. This is a conservation, efficiency, education bill.

Now, it turns out that if you go to the Department of Energy Web site, you find out that they are already doing almost everything that is in this bill. It is already on their Web site. What I think the American people understand is that they should not expect the Republican Party to actually stand up to do something about energy efficiency.

Because, after all, we put 70 percent of all of the oil which we consume into gasoline tanks. So you would think that they would be out here on the floor, we would be having a huge debate about how to increase the fuel economy for the automotive fleet in our country, which has gone backwards over the last 20 years, to a standard that we met in 1981.

Now, the problem is that America now imports 61 percent of all of the oil which we consume. We put 70 percent of that oil into gasoline tanks. Now, if we just improve the fuel economy standards for our country to 33 miles per gallon over the next 10 years, that would be all of the oil that we actually import from the Persian Gulf. Thirty- three miles per gallon is all of the oil from the Persian Gulf.

Instead, we are back down at 25 miles per gallon in the United States, with this huge challenge knowing that the United States only has 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world.

So this bill out here educating the public as to how to drive their vehicle better or inflate their tires, that is all fine. But it is already out there. The Department of Energy is already doing it. Consumers are already trying to save the price of gasoline at the pump, because they know that OPEC and the oil industry is tipping them upside down and shaking money out of their pockets every time they go in to refill their tank.

By the way, when it comes to appliances, when it comes to electric consumption in our country, the Bush administration, over the first 6 years, has yet to promulgate a regulation on making the devices which we use in our country more efficient. They keep putting it back and back and back. And what they do is they tell us that the first one might be issued in September of 2007, and the last of the backlogged standards will not come out until 2011 and will not go into effect until 2016.

That will be the energy efficiency legacy of the Bush administration, of the Republicans, because, ladies and gentlemen, all of the coal- fired, oil-fired, nuclear-fired power plants that are built in America are nothing more than that electrical generation which is built so that we can plug in toasters, refrigerators, stoves, computers, have light bulbs go on.

But the Bush administration does not want to ensure that the industries that make these devices have to make them more efficient. So as a result we have more pollution, more health problems, and when it comes to automobiles and the importation of 70 percent of the oil, which we consume, by the way it was only 30 percent of the oil that we consumed in 1975 at the first oil crisis.

We are now up to 61 percent getting deeper and deeper. Since the Republicans took over the Congress in 1995, we have gone from 45 percent dependence on imported oil to 61 percent dependence upon imported oil, a 16 percent increase. Goes up about 1\1/2\ percent every year that the Republicans control the House and the Senate, and it really accelerates when they take over the Presidency, which they have had for the last 6 years.

They are saying today that they are not going to do anything about the fuel economy standards for SUVs and for automobiles. They are not going to improve the efficiency over the next 10 years, next 20 years, no plan in place. Same thing is true for the appliances which we use, the devices which consume electricity, no plan. But you can go to the Web site. That is what their bill will do. You can find out how to make more efficient the inefficient devices which you now have. That is the plan.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you it is about as dangerous an abdication of responsibility on any issue that our country has ever seen. We just had the new President of Iraq address the Congress today. Is there a connection between the volatility in the price of oil for Americans at the gas pump and his presence here today?

The pictures that we see every night in Lebanon? All of it is related to the unfortunately crazy, speculative marketplace that is now opening up on the price of oil, because people believe that chaos is breaking out. Who is the victim? Each and every American who has to pay these exorbitantly high prices for energy because there is no Republican energy plan.

This is energy week for the Republicans, w-e-a-k. That is what we have on the floor debated this afternoon. I urge a ``no'' vote on this ineffectual, redundant, unnecessary piece of legislation

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and I rise in support of this legislation. I do so simply to move this process along and to indicate to families across the country that protecting children from online exploitation and from child predators is a serious issue that warrants attention.

This is an issue upon which Democrats and Republicans agree, because these issues affect families regardless of party affiliation. I do not, however, believe that this legislation will actually adequately address these issues, nor do I support the way in which this bill was brought to the floor today.

The hearing that we had on this bill highlighted several serious deficiencies and won't be effective in combating online predators. The Attorney General from Texas, for example, testified that just going after schools and libraries wouldn't achieve a whole lot. The initial bill would have had the Federal Government create a blacklist of forbidden Web sites. A law enforcement official and an Internet security expert testified that the bill would do little to protect children.

So how did the majority react to problems highlighted in the hearing? They decided to skip a subcommittee and a full committee markup. They opted to rewrite this bill without public input or consultation with the Democratic side, and they decided to rush it to the floor today.

Not surprisingly, the bill continues to have several flaws. It remains overbroad and ambiguous. I continue to have reservations about utilizing the e-rate funding mechanism as the legislative hook for Federal involvement in this area. That is because the e-rate program was not designed to be a cop on the beat in the front lines battling child predators. Rather, it was designed to enhance Internet access and bridge the digital divide.

As a result, it is a program which may not help us assist all K-12 schools at any time or individual schools in every funding cycle. In other words, if the goal is protecting children and combating child exploitation, why should these requirements only apply in schools receiving e-rate funding?

And this bill does nothing for families when the kids online are at home. If the goal is to address the issue of online predators, this bill proposes an ineffectual remedy.

Moreover, the whole process by which this bill was brought to the floor today puts in jeopardy the prospects of legislating successfully on a serious issue.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that parents need and deserve better education and tools to protect their children, and the Democrats stand ready to work with our colleagues when they feel they are ready to truly address this issue with proposals that are meaningful and enforceable.

In that spirit, I intend to vote for this bill in order to move the process forward, but ultimately, I think that

we will need to explore other additional solutions and further revisions.

Mr. Dingell, the ranking member of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, will be here in a few moments in order to speak to these issues of concern as well. I thank you for your attention.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Chairman, this agreement pours nuclear fuel on the fire of an India-Pakistan nuclear arms race. This agreement will free up 40 to 50 bombs worth of nuclear fuel for Indian nuclear bombs, and the consequence of that will be that Pakistan will respond, and Pakistan will respond with A.Q. Khan under house arrest in Islamabad, the Johnny Appleseed of nuclear weapons spread from Iran to Libya to North Korea.

And how do we know that? We know that because in Monday's Washington Post we learned from an outside source that Pakistan is building a facility that can create 50 plutonium nuclear bombs a year. We should be debating that out here on the House floor tonight.

This House has 2 days to reject a sale of 36 F-16 bombers that can take the 50 nuclear bombs which Pakistan can make each year in a radius of 1,500 kilometers, but we are not going to debate that. We are not going to debate Pakistan's nuclear program, which Congress was not told about, the American public was not told about.

Who is in Pakistan? A.Q. Khan is in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan. Al Qaeda is in Pakistan.

This agreement is going to fuel an arms race, a nuclear arms race in southeast Asia, and it is going to spread across the world, and instead of debating an F-16 bill, 36 of them to Pakistan, with this abomination of a nuclear program which they have, we are instead fueling it with this India program which Pakistan knows is cynical because it will free up 50 bombs worth of civilian domestic Indian nuclear fuel for their bomb program.

We must halt, we must stop this nuclear arms race in southeast Asia. We must vote ``no'' on this proposal. It is absurd. We should be debating Pakistan's nuclear program, Pakistan's F-16 program tonight, or else we will look back on this as an historic failure.

Mr. Chairman, we are being told that we shouldn't worry, that this won't lead to a nuclear arms race.

Now, India is not a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. This agreement is in violation of the Nonproliferation Act of 1978 here in Congress. All of their facilities are not being put under full-scope safeguards.

Experts say that when we supply the nuclear fuel for their civilian program, it is going to free up nuclear fuel for their nuclear weapons program. It makes sense. But we are told, don't worry.

Now, right now, India makes about seven nuclear bombs a year, on average. That is the magnitude. That is the scope of their program. But experts say it will free up 40 to 50 bombs' worth of nuclear material if they wanted to build more nuclear bombs. We are told, don't worry.

But here is what else is going on. This week in the world, A.Q. Khan, under house arrest in Islamabad, this nuclear merchant that should be on trial in the world court for what he has done in spreading nuclear weapons materials around the world but yet the Bush administration has turned a blind eye to him and allowed Musharraf just to keep him under house arrest in a palace. Well, A.Q. Khan and his people now have a new program, it turns out, on the front page of the Washington Post this week, that will make it possible for them to build 40 to 50 plutonium nuclear bombs per year. Now they are going to do it. They are going to do it because they only have two to three nuclear bombs capacity per day right now, and they can scale up to 40 to 50.

Now what is interesting about these two charts about India and Pakistan, they are each now going to be capable of going from between two and seven up to 40 to 50.

We are told, don't worry. Well, I am worrying; and I think we should all worry. The Bush administration has not made public at all the fact that they have known for at least 2 years that Pakistan has this clandestine plutonium nuclear bomb program. It is the place where we should all be concerned that that al Qaeda operative buys a nuclear bomb and moves it into the Middle East, moves it to New York City, moves it to Washington, D.C. And instead we are told, don't worry.

Well, what kind of signal are we sending to the world when Iran, which is a signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, is on trial at the Security Council to comply with the nonproliferation treaty because they are violating it, and we are turning a blind eye to what India and Pakistan, nonsignatories to the nonproliferation

treaty, are doing or will do if this deal goes through? We will make a mockery of the nonproliferation regime in the world.

And we know that President Bush doesn't care about it. Otherwise, we would know more about this Pakistani program which they have had satellite evidence of its existence for the last 2 years. We know that he doesn't care about it. Otherwise, he would be forcing India to put the full nuclear program in India under safeguards. He would be extracting a ban on the production of fissile material in India, in the same way that the United States and Russia and China and England and France now don't produce any more fissile material.

But, no, the President is allowing an exemption. This deal is like throwing a tinder onto an already raging fire in the most dangerous part of the world and pretending that there is no relationship between what we do here today and the response of Pakistan and Iran and other nations around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my objection.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

If all that the manager's amendment included was the naming of this legislation after Henry Hyde, then I would be at the front of the line to ensure that I would be praising him to the heavens. And I want the gentleman from Illinois to understand that because he does deserve all the accolades which he is receiving.

But there is just a little bit more in this manager's amendment than naming it after the distinguished gentleman from Illinois.

The reason that I am opposed to this amendment is that it would strike part of one of the seven conditions being placed on the India nuclear deal.

Here is the full language of the condition. It is No. 7: ``The Nuclear Suppliers Group has decided by consensus to permit supply to India of nuclear items covered by the guidelines of the NSG and such decision does not permit civil nuclear commerce with any other non- nuclear weapon state that does not have IAEA,'' International Atomic Energy Agency, ``safeguards on all nuclear materials within its territory, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.''

The manager's amendment would strike the words ``and such decision does not permit civil nuclear commerce with any other non-nuclear weapon state that does not have International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all nuclear materials within its territory, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.'' The impact of that change in the language is that it would free the

Nuclear Suppliers Group to also allow nuclear commerce with other nations that have not agreed to full-scope IAEA safeguards on their nuclear facilities, such as Pakistan.

I see absolutely no justification for opening the door to China to come into the Nuclear Suppliers Group with a proposal to give Pakistan the same deal that the administration is proposing to give India. That is a bad idea. It invites a further weakening of the international nuclear nonproliferation regime and an expansion of commerce with countries that do not allow full-scope international safeguards. We should be very careful here. We should be very cautious.

The ostensible justification for the initiation of the war in Iraq is that we did not want the next terrorist attack to come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As we make these changes, they seem slight. They are not. They are historic in terms of the safeguards that we have in place to ensure that we are securing these nuclear materials, that proper procedures are in place to make sure that countries and subnational groups that should not have them in their possession are denied them.

This is a weakening amendment, and I urge the Members to oppose it.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a great amendment. Because right now this is how much nuclear material is needed by India to produce nuclear electricity in their country. It is used for electricity. However, once we provide them all of this nuclear material for their nuclear electricity, it is going to free up the same amount to make nuclear bombs.

So they can go from 7 a year to 40 to 50 nuclear bombs a year. Well, they are saying they do not want to do that. And the proponents of this treaty are saying, they are not going to do that. What the Sherman amendment says is, the President must certify each year that they do not do that. That is why the Sherman amendment is the deal maker, because it proves what is being said is actually the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form, I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this recommittal motion requires that nuclear cooperation with India can only commence after the President has determined that India is fully and actively participating in United States' efforts to dissuade, isolate and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability, including the capability to enrich or process nuclear materials and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

The motion does not kill or delay this bill in any way. If the House approves this motion, the Committee on International Relations will report the amended bill back to the House forthwith, meaning immediately. We will go to final passage of the legislation.

As the Members know, the U.S. Government has made a determination that Iran's nuclear program is a cover for a military program; and the International Atomic Energy Agency has found Iran to be in violation of their international safeguards commitments. The U.N. Security Council is about to consider what action to take in response.

Even Russia and China have now said that they would support action at the Security Council, potentially even sanctions, a position that could not have been imagined previously. India is now the only global power that has yet to get on board with the United States policy on Iran.

Clearly, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a paramount U.S. national security goal. A nuclear-armed Iran is a threat to our national security; and it is a threat to the security, indeed, the very survival of our closest ally in the Middle East, the State of Israel.

Let me at this time, Mr. Speaker, yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

I thank the gentleman.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

I thank the gentleman.

Could I ask the Chair how much time is remaining.

I yield myself the remainder of my time.

As the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from California have pointed out, there has been a series of statements made by the Indian government that have left a great deal of ambiguity with regard to how strong they will stand with us in our effort to take Iran to the Security Council to ensure that Iran does not use its uranium and plutonium programs in order to develop a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

The recommittal motion that I am propounding here this evening just follows up on the statements that have been made out of the Indian government so that they can understand what we expect from them, and we will send a signal from this Congress to our negotiators as to what we expect from them in eliciting from the Indian government. So I hope on a bipartisan basis we can all agree that this Iranian nuclear program is the very top foreign policy and defense threat not only to our country but to countries throughout the Middle East.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on the recommittal motion.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much and for all of his work on these issues.

Make no mistake about it, this vote is not just a vote as to whether or not you support free trade. This is also an up-or-down vote on whether or not you support our national security and our homeland security.

Just 5 months ago, the Bush administration tried to ram through an approval of the sale of U.S. port operations to Dubai Ports World, a company owned and operated by the Government of the United Arab Emirates.

The President said he would veto any attempt to strike down the deal. But in the face of tremendous opposition on the grounds of homeland security by the Democrats and even some Republicans, the deal was scuttled.

The whole episode shined a bright light on the little-known committee at the Treasury Department and the secretiveness of a process it uses to make decisions that can have important consequences for the security of our Nation, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. It is called CFIUS.

In this post 9/11 world, we simply cannot trust, as this free trade agreement requires us to do, that the businesses and Government of Oman are pure and will not sabotage, abuse, or misuse critical infrastructure they decide to buy in a business deal fast-tracked by this agreement. We must trust, but verify, when it comes to any foreign government-owned entity buying critical infrastructure in the United States.

Now the President and his administration did not give the Dubai Ports deal the scrutiny it deserved, even though the 9/11 Commission identified the Government of the UAE as a ``persistent counterterrorism problem.'' And so that should shine a light on this deal as well.

We know our seaports, airports and other critical infrastructure are at the very top of the al Qaeda terrorist target list. Let us not give them this additional hand that the treaty will require in penetrating the operations of those critical targets as fast-tracking business deals in the name of free trade will have on the security of our country. Let us not let commerce trump common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Make no mistake, this vote is not a vote on whether or not you support free trade. This is an up and down vote on whether or not you support our national and homeland security.

Just 5 short months ago, the Bush Administration tried to ram through an approval of the sale of U.S. port operations to Dubai Ports World, a company owned and operated by the government of the United Arab Emirates, UAE.

The whole episode shined a bright light on a little-known committee at the Treasury Department and the secretive process it uses to make decisions that can have important consequences for the security of our Nation.

But in this post 9-11 world, we cannot simply trust, as this free trade agreement requires us to do, that the businesses and government of Oman are pure and will not sabatoge, abuse, or misuse critical infrastructure they decide to buy in a business deal fast-tracked by this agreement. We must trust, but verify, when it comes to ANY foreign government-owned entity buying critical infrastructure in the United States.

The President and his administration did not give the Dubai Ports deal the scrutiny it deserved, even though the 9-11 Commission identified the government of the UAE as a ``persistent counterterrorism problem.'' The UAE was a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya. The UAE was one of only three nations to recognize the legitimacy of the Taliban government and still does not recognize the State of Israel.

We know that our seaports, airports, and other critical infrastructure are at the very top of Al Qaeda's terrorist target list. Let's not give them a hand in penetrating the operations of those critical targets by fast-tracking business deals in the name of a free trade deal that has no protections for our national and homeland security. Commerce must not be permitted to trump common-sense.

Mr. Speaker, the world around us is engulfed in a state of peril. Our soldiers in Iraq are facing increased violence, Israel is fighting a multi-state sponsored terrorist organization, India was ravaged by a series of rail bombings last week, development in Afghanistan is being stifled by warlords, North Korea is testing the limits of its neighbors with missile tests, Iran is testing the international community's patience and defying its commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Mexico is heavily divided over its ``Florida- like'' uncertain presidential election, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan rages on.

Here in the homeland, we struggle to pick up the pieces after Katrina, millions of Americans are living in poverty, the minimum wage hasn't risen in nearly 10 years, we're shortchanging our veterans coming home from Iraq, families are struggling to send their kids to college, school districts face confusion over the implementation of No Child Left Behind, seniors face difficulties paying for their prescription drugs, major cities are receiving less homeland security funds, and consumers are paying over $3 a gallon at the pump.

How do we respond to these challenges? The Republican leadership says we should spend our time making sure that two adults who love each other cannot form a marriage. Is this why our founding fathers created the greatest democracy in the world--to keep people apart? Our country and our world deserve better than this. To say that the threat of same sex marriage is so great that it requires the alteration of our Constitution to include discriminatory language is a slap in the face to those that have fought for equality and civil rights.

We already debated gay marriage nearly two years ago with the Defense of Marriage Act. States that don't want to honor other states civil unions don't have to.

I believe that states should have the right to grant same-sex marriages or offer couples the same legal rights as those of other couples. I share this position with Vice President Dick Cheney. This flagrant attempt to include discrimination into our Constitution is nothing but

election year politics and the American people deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush made history today by adding a major black mark to a Presidency that began on the comforting note of compassionate conservatism, but is ending with a jarring jab to the sick and the ill.

There have been 1,484 previous formal vetoes of legislation enacted by Congress in the history of this country, but this one may be the most damaging veto ever issued by any President. If the Congress does not override this veto of this bipartisan stem cell research act, this will be remembered as a Luddite moment in American history, when scientific progress was brought to a halt by those who put fear ahead of hope, and ideology ahead of science.

Research is medicine's field of dreams from which we harvest cures, cures which offer hope to millions of American families struggling with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, juvenile diabetes and cancer. Hope is the most powerful four-letter word in the English language. But if we allow this Bush veto to stand, we will snuff out this flickering candle of hope just as the candle was lit.

Vote for the override of this historic veto of scientific progress. Vote to give the American people a reason to believe.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her great work on this issue.

The real debate here today in Congress is about whether or not the President is going to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

What the Republicans have done is to bring out so many red herrings that we might as well put an aquarium out here in the well of the House. It is to distract. It is to divert.

The central issue is whether or not this body this week is going to vote for a victory for science, a victory for progress, a victory for millions of Americans who are struggling to survive in the face of a devastating disease. This bill, as it passes the House and has already passed the Senate and we vote on it later on this week, is a magnificent milestone in our journey to realizing the life-giving potential of stem cells. Twenty-one million Americans have diabetes; 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's; 1.5 million Americans suffer from Parkinson's disease; and more than 1 million people in our country have muscular dystrophy. You can go down the list: spinal cord, heart disease. You can go through all of those diseases. Just take one, Alzheimer's. By the time all of the baby boomers have retired, 15 million Americans will have had Alzheimer's, 15 million baby boomers.

Embryonic stem cell research is one of the most promising paths to the treatment and cure of all of these devastating diseases.

Nevertheless, President Bush is now threatening to use his very first veto to prevent scientists from using Federal funds to search for these cures. He is threatening to use his very first veto to dash the hopes of patients and their families.

Research is medicine's field of dreams from which we harvest the findings that give new knowledge to the causes, the treatment and prevention of disease and the development of cures. Hope is what this debate is all about. Hope is the most powerful four-letter word in the English language, and I have no doubt that, in the end, hope is going to win.

But if we don't, if President Bush is successful, we will be snuffing out that flickering candle for medical cures that has just been lit. We will be condemning the afflicted to another generation of darkness. We will be ending the hope for a child with muscular dystrophy, who can't understand why his body is getting weaker while his friends are getting stronger, a veteran with spinal cord injury, a spouse who watches her husband lose his memory.

Let us not let President Bush veto hope. Let us not let President Bush veto hope. We must not let President Bush veto hope.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the Republicans saying, it is time for us to drill in the Outer Continental Shelf; it is time for us to look for the oil and the gas.

Well, it turns out that under existing law, you can already drill on 80 percent of the land on the Outer Continental Shelf, where the Minerals Management Service has found oil and gas. The leases have already been given away, or they are available for bidding.

So what's the issue really all about if 80 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf where the oil and gas is is already available? And that is what they are not telling you.

This is an issue about Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas changing the formula. The Minerals Management Service tells us that under this formula change, $600 billion, which was going to go to the Federal Treasury for Medicaid, for education, to help people who need it in their own homes, is now going to go to four States. So if you come from these four States, you vote for this bill, you get $600 billion. But if you come from the other 46 States, you are losing money on this deal, ladies and gentlemen. The money is coming out of your pocket, and it is going to Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi.

By the way, I recommend to each of the Members from those delegations, vote ``yes.'' You are going to hear them down here, vote ``yes'' because this doesn't change any of the rules for those States. The Federal Government already allows for drilling in that part of the country. And that is where 80 percent of the oil and gas is, by the way, and where 80 percent of the revenues are going to come from.

But if you come from these other States, you go home and you explain to your constituents the loss of $600 billion in Federal money that you are sending to four States on Federal lands. This is not State land. This is not Louisiana's land or Texas' land. This is our land. This is the Federal Government's land. And you are going to give up $600 billion here today, your last vote before we break?

This is just going to bust the Treasury again. This is just going to create bigger deficits.

But why would you do it to help four States? Why would you allow your taxpayers to have their revenues sent to four States, when all of this area can already be drilled and it is Federal land? There is no restriction. There are 8,000 leases that the oil companies already have. They are only drilling on 2,000 of them. But at $70 a barrel, they are going to go to this area, and they don't need any more permission.

So here is the trick: yes, they cannot drill off of these coastlines right now. We are going to debate that. And many Members from these States don't want drilling off these coastlines.

But that is not what the bill is about, ladies and gentlemen. This is about a raid on the Federal Treasury by four States in the area where we already permit drilling on Federal lands by oil companies. But these four States are in here dipping their straws into the Federal revenues which would go to 46 States, and they want it all to go to theirs.

Vote ``no'' on this terrible bill.

Mr. Chairman, right now in America, 80 percent of all of the Outer Continental Shelf area where the oil and gas is already open to the oil and gas industry. The only thing that has stopped the oil and gas industry from going to much of the area in the Outer Continental Shelf where 80 percent of the oil and gas is, which we all agree they should be able to go to, today, under the law, with no changes, is that the price of oil was $30 a barrel. But at $70 a barrel, Shell and Exxon-Mobil are going there. So what is the debate about? Well, yeah, I don't want them drilling off of Massachusetts, in Georgia's bank, and the Floridians don't want them off their shore. But that is really not what it is all about.

Right now, according to the Minerals Management Service, we can expect $600 billion to go to the Federal Government for drilling right down here in Federal land on land which is already open to the oil companies. And that $600 billion is used and will be used to pay for our troops in Iraq, to pay for the education of poor children, to ensure that we can pay for Medicare benefits for senior citizens.

But what the majority is doing, what the Republican administration is doing is they are going to take that $600 billion that would have gone to the Federal Government, and they are moving it down here where only four States are going to get the benefit of it. Only those four States are going to be the beneficiaries.

Now, if you come from one of those four States, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi or Alabama, you vote for this bill and put out a press release tonight. You tell everyone back in your districts in those four States, we were able to convince the United States Congress to give us $600 billion today.

And by the way, Huey Long used to say, ``every man a king.'' Well, every man and woman will be a king in Louisiana after this. And God bless them if they can pull it off today.

This is the king of all earmarks. It will take 200 amendments a day from Mr. Flake for the next 50 years to get back this $600 billion. And the Republicans, of course, will oppose the cuts that he will propose out here on the House floor as well. So that is what it is all about.

It is about this shifting of money from all of the red States, 46 States, down to four States. And that is the game that is going on, because the oil industry is already drilling in the Gulf on Federal lands that we all agree they should go to today. And that is why the Minerals Management Service, the Bush administration says that $600 billion will be lost to the Federal Treasury because over 80 percent of all of the revenues that are going to be generated from this proposal will go there.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, if you are out there listening, this is, without question, also, nothing that can happen in your State that will make up for the loss of this $600 billion. If this was any other bill, we would be having a huge fight over what the formula should be for who gets this money. But instead, in one fell swoop, the Republicans are moving $600 billion from 46 States into four States.

Do not vote for this bill. This is a fiscal disaster. This money should remain in the budget for the troops in Iraq. It should remain in the budget for Medicare recipients. It should remain in the budget for the poor children of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

So the Bush administration has now checked in, and the Bush administration is saying they are very unhappy about $600 billion being taken from the Federal Government and given to four States. They are unhappy with this rip-off of the Federal taxpayers of 46 States. This transfer of $600 billion, down here. Yes, drill down here. Yes, drill tomorrow. Yes, at $70 a barrel, drill, drill, drill. That is 80 percent. But do not ship $600 billion from the red States, the 46 States, down to only four States.

That is what the Bush administration just said to you all. It will force him to cut the budget in Iraq. It will force him to cut Medicare. Even this administration does not want this additional $600 billion loss.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much, and I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia. He is amongst the most astute Members of Congress, and it is clear that there is a big gravy train moving through Congress this afternoon and he is one of the very smartest Members to figure out that he should attach his constituents' agenda to it. And rapid transit is a very important issue. Unfortunately, the majority decided that Mr. Boehlert's amendment on fuel economy standards for automobiles

was not important today. But I understand what the gentleman from Virginia is doing, and I congratulate him on his acute understanding of what this bill really is.

By the way, when I was a boy, my father was a milkman, and you looked at television to see what you can aspire to be and my favorite show was always ``Perry Mason,'' and I could never really figure out how Perry was going to get his client out of the mess. And then with about 5 minutes left to go in the show, every single week Della Street, his great assistant, would come into the back of the courtroom and say, I have new evidence.

Now, the case would always get solved and Perry would always win. So I have been charged all afternoon with making up numbers, that there will not be, as I say there is, a $600 billion transfer from 46 States down to 4 States. But now we have a Della Street-like letter from the President of the United States to the Republican leadership of the committee. Here is what the President says, ``The administration strongly opposes the revenue-sharing provisions that do not incentivize production and that would reduce Federal receipts relative to current law and have a long-term impact on the Federal deficit. The administration's preliminary estimate is that the revenue sharing provisions would reduce Federal receipts by several hundred billion dollars.''

So it turns out that the numbers I was quoting from the Bush administration, from its own Department of Interior, that this would lead to a $600 billion loss of revenues from 46 States going down to four States is now confirmed by President Bush's letter to us this afternoon.

So if you want to vote this way, Members of Congress, you can do it. And by the way, again I say this to Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, delegations: if you win this vote this afternoon, put out a press release. It is the greatest achievement of your career. It will be the greatest achievement you ever, ever have here in the House floor, moving $600 billion in one vote from 46 States to your States, a great victory.

And President Bush today is asking the Members of Congress not to do it. Now, Mr. Pombo will say to you, do not fix it now, we will fix it later. But the President is saying this is a big mess. We oppose it. Clean it up. And still we have a chance to clean it up.

Thank God we got the letter before we voted to create the mess. Now Mr. Pombo is saying, let's create the mess and we will clean it up when it gets to the Senate, which is, I think, an unnaturally great deference to a body that ordinarily does not receive that kind of respect from us.

Why should we wait for them to have the responsibility to deal with what we all now understand to be a complete mess? Again, I congratulate Mr. Davis, because if this is going to happen, I give you credit for understanding that getting $150 million for his district makes a lot of sense.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, what my amendment will do is to correct the problem that the President has identified, amongst other things that also need correcting in the bill, while leaving intact a wonderful provision that will ensure that we correct the problem that occurred in the 1990s during the Clinton administration, which allows for oil companies to escape paying the royalties which the American people should be receiving on leases which were given out during that period of time, 1998 and 1999.

I agree with the intent of the language which is in the bill that the majority has crafted. They did a good job on that section, although with the rest of the bill I have a problem. And my amendment will help to correct that problem.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining minute.

What the Markey amendment will do is to remove the provision which takes $600 billion from 46 States and gives it to four States, where oil and gas companies can already drill. If my amendment is adopted, according to CBO, my amendment will then generate $13 billion in new revenues over the next 10 years.

So your choice on the Markey amendment is lose $600 billion or gain $13 billion. Ladies and gentlemen, that is what this thing is all about. It is all about the money. Because 80 percent of the oil and gas that can be drilled for off our coast is already available. They might have a lot of additional coastline in America, but the geological service and the oil companies have said 80 percent of it is right here. By the way, it is already legal to go there.

And we, Ed Markey, liberal from Massachusetts, we want you to go there. I want you to drill there. Get the oil that is down there in the gulf. But the revenues should go to the Federal Government or else, as George Bush has just said to us in a letter this afternoon, we will lose hundreds of billions of dollars to the Federal Government and give it to only four States without any real understanding or debate here on the House floor.

Vote for the Markey amendment. Let's generate $13 billion worth of revenue for our country rather than lose $600 billion.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Again, I want to congratulate the gentleman from West Virginia for his leadership on this issue and on the bill this afternoon, and I want to congratulate the Florida delegation for their success in improving a bad bill but not changing the fundamental nature of the bill. It is a bad bill, but it is an improvement, and I give them credit for that, but it should not be in any way interpreted as a reason to vote for the bill.

Again, jobs come from energy. The energy comes from leases that have already been given over to oil companies, 80 percent of which have never been drilled on, but it has already happened. The Bush administration says that the area already open is where 80 percent of the oil and gas off our shores is.

The big issue that we are all going to have to vote on final passage is whether or not we are going to allow a transfer of $600 billion from 46 States that now receive that $600 billion as a promise over the next several decades, or we are going to allow the oil companies to give that money to four States, even though the drilling is on Federal land, even though those leases have already been obtained by the oil companies but they have been waiting for the price of oil to go to $70 a barrel, which is where it is now. We do not have to give them any additional incentives.

This bill makes no sense whatsoever. It runs totally contrary to the economics of energy, and President Bush has now sent us a letter and asked us to not allow this $600 billion to go down here but to keep it up here in the Federal budget that can be used to keep our budget balanced.

Mr. Speaker, there is no American, Democrat or Republican, who does not want to pursue, capture and, if necessary, kill any al Qaeda who threatens our country. And what is happening here tonight is an attempt to shoot the messenger, which is the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the L.A. Times, that there may be a program that is being conducted by this administration which may not be constitutional. It may not be proper oversight.

Now, we are told that Booz-Allen, an accounting firm, is checking for us. But we did not subcontract constitutional protections to an accounting firm. Enron hired Arthur Andersen; we know what happened to their investors. We are supposed to be the checks along with the Federal courts.

Now, they say that you don't have to worry, we already know what's going on. Well, the resolution says that the program only reviews information as

part of specific terrorism investigations and based on intelligence that leads to targeted searches. How do we know that?

The resolution says that the program is rooted in sound legal authority based on executive orders and statutory mandates. How do we know that?

The resolution says that the program consists of the appropriate and limited use of transaction information while maintaining respect for individual privacy. How do we know that?

This resolution says that the program has rigorous safeguards and protocols to protect privacy. How do we know that?

There have been no hearings. There has been no oversight. There have been no congressional investigations into this bank record surveillance program. Booz-Allen knows more about this program than the Members of the United States Congress and Federal judiciary. How do we know?

Instead, they shoot the messenger, the press of our country, for revealing that they trust an auditing firm more than the Federal judiciary.

Vote ``no.''

There is no question that our country must work acitvely and aggressively to put Al Qaeda out of business.

There is no debate abut this point--terrorists are planning to strike our country again, and we must not waiver in our efforts to prevent another attack.

But while we work to destroy Al Qaeda, we must not debase our Constitution.

While we track terrorists around the globe, we must not trample on the very principles that are the foundation of our democracy.

The Bill of Rights did not come with an expiration date.

Taking the fight to the terrorists and abiding by our constitutional requirements are not mutually exclusive responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the provisions in this resolution:

We must choke off funds used by terrorists to fund their activities; We must use our intelligence capabilities to detect and disrupt terrorist plots before they occur; We must work with our allies in the global war on terror.

But I cannot support a resolution that falsely claims that the Congress was appropriately consulted on this program, and appropriate oversight of the program was conducted. That is simply not true.

This Resolution is a perfect example of why the American people are getting fed up with the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress.

Just last Friday, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times reported on the existence of a secret Bush administration program to monitor banking transactions. These reports come just six months after earlier revelations about the existence of a program to monitor telephone call records. The reports themselves indicate that some of the Government officials familiar with the program had concerns with the scope and breadth of the bank record surveillance program. Congress was not fully notified about the program. No federal court approved the subpoenas that were sent to the international consortium called ``SWIFT'' that had these bank records.

So, what is the reaction of this Congress to these revelations?

Are we going to conduct hearings to evaluate this program?

Is there going to be any oversight to determine whether or not it fully complies with all Constitutional and legal requirements?

No, what we're going to do is take up this resolution and retroactively bless a program that we weren't told about.

What we're going to do is shoot the messenger--the news media--for informing this House and the American people that such a surveillance program existed.

The Bush administration has claimed that tapping bank records without a court order is legal. Perhaps it is--but shouldn't we conduct some oversight to find out?

But, the Bush administration also argued that waterboarding and other cruel interrogation techniques were fully legal. Once Congress found out about those techniques, it passed the McCain amendment to make it clear that such techniques were not legal.

The administration argued that trying prisoners at Guantamo Bay before military tribunals and denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention was also legal, but the Supreme Court just ruled earlier today that it was not.

Now the Bush administration argues that the secret bank records program is entirely legal. Perhaps it is. But, perhaps it is not based on the Bush administration record of expansive legal interpretations of executive authority, I don't think that this Congress should just take the administration's word for it. At minimum, we should be asking questions. We should be conducting some real oversight into this program to find out. We should be holding hearings to examine this program and to determine whether it fully complies with the laws--if necessary, in closed executive session.

The resolution before us today makes findings and reaches conclusions for which there is not yet evidence.

This resolution finds that the program ``only reviews information as part of specific terrorism investigations and based on intelligence that leads to targeted searches.'' How do we know that?

This resolution finds that the program ``is rooted in sound legal authority based on executive orders and statutory mandates.'' How do we know that?

This resolution says that the program ``consists of the appropriate and limited use of transaction information while maintaining respect for individual privacy.'' How do we know that?

This resolution says the program ``has rigorous safeguards and protocols to protect privacy.'' How do we know that?

This resolution says that this secret bank record program ``has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders, that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individual civil liberties.'' How do we know that?

There have been no hearings. There has been no oversight. There has been no Congressional investigation into this bank record surveillance program.

Instead of Congressional oversight, or approval by a Federal Judge, this program has relied on a consulting firm hired by the administration--Booz-Allen--as the only oversight mechanism to evaluate the legality of the financial surveillance program. The Bush administration should have subjected it to proper oversight by Congress and the courts. But it chose not to do so.

There is no factual or evidentiary basis for the findings and conclusions reached in this resolution, other than the claims issued by the Bush administration. Before this body goes on record in support of those claims, we have an obligation and a duty to actually hold the hearings and conduct the oversight needed to assure ourselves that the Constitutional rights and the privacy rights of the American people have been appropriately respected.

We should not be passing this resolution today, before we have those answers. That is the gentleman of Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) sought to offer a substitute amendment that would have represented a more appropriate response. The Frank substitute would have deleted the findings and conclusions in the resolution for which there is as yet not sufficient evidence. It would have supported efforts to identify, track and pursue suspected terrorist and to track their money flows in accordance with existing law, and it would have refrained from inappropriately charging the news media with harming our national security. But the rubber stamp Republican majority that controls this Congress refused to make this amendment in order. They're afraid of a real debate on real alternatives.

I urge rejection of this resolution. This body should be able to vote and debate on real alternatives to rubber-stamping whatever position the Bush administration takes.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I am offering today is a simple one. It serves to reaffirm the United States' commitment to the Convention Against Torture. It does this by prohibiting the use of funds in contravention of laws and regulations promulgated to implement the Convention Against Torture.

Now, this may all seem very familiar, because I offered essentially the same amendment to three appropriation bills on this House floor last year, and each time the amendment was adopted with near unanimity. And since those votes, we also passed the amendment of Senator McCain, which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees under the law.

But President Bush, in his signing statement of that bill, announced that he did not feel bound by the restrictions on this administration's ability to be able to torture individuals who come within the protection of the United States Government. The Bush administration says that it can choose to ignore what the United States Congress says and actually what the President signs, a bill which binds him to implement.

This House cannot and should not allow the administration to get away with simply ignoring laws enacted by Congress. This is particularly the case when we are talking about torture, where the international reputation of our Nation is at stake.

In addition to refraining from the practice of torture under international law, we also have a responsibility as a Nation that we not outsource torture to other countries, that is, that we render, that we extraordinarily render prisoners who we have captured to other countries which we know engage in torture, and accept as a promise from that country they will not torture these individuals, even though these countries are on the list of the State Department as countries that we know engage in torture.

This policy must be rejected by this House. We should not and cannot undermine our standing as the international leader in human rights by allowing for the outsourcing of torture in the name of the United States to fight terrorism, because we send a signal to the rest of the world that we are not willing to abide by the rules that we say we intend for the rest of the world to adopt.

And make no mistake, that is what this country is doing when it carries out renditions of prisoners that we have captured to notorious human rights' violators; it is outsourcing torture. It must be rejected. I urge an ``aye'' vote on my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Resolution.

The Resolution before this House today engages in a rhetorical fiction. The Republican Leadership has grafted into this Resolution language which confuses the War in Iraq with the War Against Terror. Iraq did not have anything to do with the September 11th attacks. We did not invade Iraq because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq because the Bush Administration convinced Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein had acquired nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and might use them.

The terrorism now taking place in Iraq is the direct result of the war, not its cause. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the facts.

The fact is, this war was a very bad mistake. The Administration launched an invasion into Iraq in March of 2003 even though the Administration knew from the reports it was getting back from the IAEA and the UN inspectors that there where no nuclear or other WMDs at the sites identified by the CIA, by British Intelligence, and by other sources.

Now we are bogged down in a quagmire with no end in sight.

In February of this year, the President was asked when we could expect all American troops to be out of Iraq, and he replied that this was a decision for a future President and a future Iraqi government to make. In other words, if we continue to pursue the Bush Administration's policies, we will likely have troops deployed in Iraq until at least January of 2009--that's nearly three years from now!

What has been the cost of this war in terms of blood?

2,500 U.S. troops killed.

More than 18,400 American troops wounded.

An estimated 38,000 Iraqi civilians killed.

What has been the cost of this war in terms of treasure?

Nearly $320 billion so far . . .

Just think of all the good we could have done in this world or in this country if we had devoted $320 billion for health care, for education, for fighting poverty or creating jobs.

What has been the cost in terms of America's influence around the world?

It has been severely compromised.

We ``cried wolf' over non-existent Iraqi WMDs, over alleged connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda;

We failed to deploy enough troops to suppress the insurgency;

We put inadequately trained troops in charge of Abu Ghraib prison;

It's time to pursue a new direction.

The Iraqis are standing up, but we are standing still, staying the course. It is time to redeploy an increasing percentage of our forces to an over-the-horizon presence, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has suggested in the legislation he introduced last year.

We should not be planning on maintaining any military bases in Iraq or any long-term troop presence in that country.

It is time for us to bring this war to an end, and to bring our troops home.

Vote NO on this resolution because it is as much a fraud as the reasons the Bush Administration gave for invading Iraq in the first place.

I urge defeat of the Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the passing of Mr. Charles Haughey, former Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland, and to offer my deepest condolences today to the Irish nation and to Mr. Haughey's family and loved ones, including especially his wife Maureen, his daughter Eimear and his sons Conor, Cian and Sean.

Mr. Haughey served both his constituency and the Irish nation with distinction and honor over his 35-year career in Dail Eireann. He will be most remembered for his key roles in laying the foundations for Ireland's economic rebirth, and in promoting and furthering progress towards a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

John Hume, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, praised Haughey, saying ``he worked very closely with me in preparation for the whole movement to get a lasting peace and an end to violence with The Downing Street Declaration. He privately worked with me in the preparation of that Declaration . . . Charles Haughey made a positive contribution to ending violence and achieving peace on our streets.''

Charles Haughey was a major figure in the history of the Irish Republic, and his work for peace and prosperity at home will forever be remembered by friends of this small island so important to the history of our own country.

Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by Reps. Anna Eshoo, Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, Jim Oberstar, Bernie Sanders, Sam Farr, Lois Capps, Jim McGovern, Betty McCollum, Bill Delahunt, Jay Inslee, John Olver and Jim Moran in introducing a bill entitled, ``No Special Tax Subsidies for Gas Guzzlers Act.'' With our budget deficit running at near record levels the federal tax incentives, it seems odd that we would find it fiscally responsible to provide incentives to purchase automobiles which are especially inefficient. In fact, this runs directly contrary to other public policy initiatives, such as the fuel economy standards and the gas guzzler tax, which were adopted to try to keep the fleet of cars on the road from using more gasoline than is necessary. Now that we have troops in the Middle East, these odd, counter-productive incentives can also be viewed as directly undermining our need to break the national addiction to imported oil.

This legislation corrects two incentives which are out-of-step with the times--the SUV Tax Loophole and the Gas Guzzler Tax loophole.

Some estimate suggest that if we reform either of these perverse incentives so that SUVs receive the same tax treatment as they would if they were classified as passenger vehicles, the savings would be at least $1 billion over 10 years.

The federal tax code affects the purchase of heavy-duty SUVs through preferential tax treatment of depreciation for motor vehicles and passenger cars. Recently, the Congressional Research Service reviewed this situation and concluded that for a hypothetical purchase made in 2005, a businessman would realize a much higher after tax return on investment by purchasing an SUV instead of a similarly priced passenger car--$3,000 higher in the example given. ``In this treatment lies the most important tax subsidy for the purchase of these SUVs for business use.'' (``Tax Preferences for Sport Utility Vehicles,'' Guenther, Gary, Congressional Research Service, (RL32173), April 4, 2006, p. 5.) The report notes that ``there is no question that current depreciation rules favor the purchase of heavy-duty SUVs over lighter SUVs or passenger cars of comparable value. Supporting evidence can be found in the greater tax benefit to business taxpayers from buying an SUV exempt from the depreciation caps on luxury passenger cars than from buying a vehicle subject to those caps. This added benefit stems from the accelerated depreciation for heavy-duty SUVs available under IRC section 179.'' Ibid, p. 11.

The Report goes on to note that when Congress moved in 2004 to reduce the expensing allowance for SUVs from $100,000 to $25,000, it may have thought it was significantly reducing the tax tilt to SUVs, but in fact ``it did little to curtail the tax preference for buying these vehicles under current depreciation rules.'' Ibid, p. 13.

The legislation we are introducing today will eliminate the tax tilt so that a businessman is not led to buy the heavier vehicle by virtue of a perverse tax incentive. There may be other reasons to buy the larger vehicle, but a tax preference should not be one of them.

Cars which consume excessive quantities of gas are subject to a `gas guzzler' tax which is intended to encourage automakers to produce and develop more fuel efficient vehicles. This tax has been highly effective. During the model year (MY) 2003, fewer than 100,000 (or 1.3%) of cars purchased were gas guzzlers. However, the tax is only subject to passenger vehicles, which means that SUV's escape the gas guzzler tax entirely!

This bill would incorporate SUV's into the gas guzzler tax schedule that applies to other passenger vehicles.

The gas guzzler tax originated with the Energy Tax Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-618), and the IRS issued the first regulations to implement it in 1980. It applies to domestic sales of automobiles by manufacturers and importers, who are required to pay the tax. IRC section 4064(b) defines an automobile as any ``four-wheeled vehicle propelled by fuel which is manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways.'' Until the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, P.L. 109-59) in August 2005, the definition of automobiles also stipulated that such vehicles have an unloaded gross vehicle weight of 6,000 pounds or less; the act repealed this weight limitation, subjecting all vehicles meeting the remaining criteria for an automobile to the tax, irrespective of their weight. Certain vehicles are exempt from the tax: namely, emergency vehicles such as ambulances and police cars, cars with a gas mileage rating of 22.5 miles per gallon (mpg) and over, and all ``light trucks'' including SUVs of all weights. Whether a gas guzzler tax is owed--and if so, the amount of the tax--depends on an automobile's combined city and highway fuel economy rating, which is defined as the average number of miles traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency. The current tax ranges from $1,000 for cars with a fuel economy rating of at least 21.5 miles per gallon but less than 22.5 miles per gallon to $7,700 for cars with a rating of less than 12.5 miles per gallon. These amounts have been in effect since the

enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101- 508). In FY2004, the tax raised $141 million in revenue, up from $71 million in FY2000.

Again, the Congressional Research Service analyzed the SUV exemption from the gas guzzler tax, noting that by exempting SUVs, demand for heavy-duty SUVs is likely to be greater than it would be if they were subject to the tax and buyers were forced to bear its burden. Since most heavy-duty SUVs get relatively low gas mileage, retail prices could be as much as $4,500 to $7,700 higher for many models if current law were changed to subject them to the tax and importers, manufacturers, and dealers were to pass the full amount of the tax on to buyers.

In applying the gas guzzler tax to SUVs, the legislation makes certain exceptions for vehicles clearly intended for carrying heavy loads, pick up trucks with open beds, and so forth.

For years we have stood idly by while watching our energy dependence soar as consumers responded to these perverse loopholes and upside-down tax incentives. The health of our environment and the safety of those purchasing small vehicles is affected adversely by giving preferences to inefficient SUVs. While we complain that China is now affecting demand for world oil, we continue to tolerate a tax code which artificially skews in favor of the purchase of the least efficient vehicles.

We no longer have the luxury of ignoring this ridiculous situation. Please join us in supporting efforts to reform this self-inflicted source of wasted gasoline and oil.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, and its chairman Dr. Hans Blix, on the release of their major report entitled, ``Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms.'' I urge my colleagues to consider and heed the vital recommendations put forward by Dr. Blix and the Commission. At a time when the spread of weapons of mass destruction endangers all of humanity and the international community struggles to find unity in the face of this threat, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission shows us a way forward to a WMD-free future.

As the former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Dr. Blix is uniquely well-qualified to speak on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and we would do well to listen closely.

I would recommend that all of my colleagues read this important and timely report. I ask that a summary of the Report's principal recommendations be inserted into the Record at this point.

Weapons of Terror--Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and

Chemical Arms

Synopsis

Why Action Is Necessary: Nuclear, biological and chemical

arms are the most inhumane of all weapons. Designed to

terrify as well as destroy, they can, in the hands of either

states or non-state actors, cause destruction on a vastly

greater scale than any conventional weapons, and their impact

is far more indiscriminate and long-lasting.

So long as any state has such weapons--especially nuclear

arms--others will want them. So long as any such weapons

remain in any state's arsenal, there is a high risk that they

will one day be used, by design or accident. Any such use

would be catastrophic.

Notwithstanding the end of the Cold War balance of terror,

stocks of such weapons remain extraordinarily and alarmingly

high: some 27,000 in the case of nuclear weapons, of which

around 12,000 are still actively deployed.

Weapons of mass destruction cannot be uninvented. But they

can be outlawed, as biological and chemical weapons already

have been, and their use made unthinkable. Compliance,

verification and enforcement rules can, with the requisite

will, be effectively applied. And with that will, even the

eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is not beyond the

world's reach.

Over the past decade, there has been a serious, and

dangerous, loss of momentum and direction in disarmament and

non-proliferation efforts. Treaty making and implementation

have stalled and, as a new wave of proliferation has

threatened, unilateral enforcement action has been

increasingly advocated.

In 2005 there were two loud wake-up calls in the failure of

the NPT Review Conference and in the inability of the World

Summit to agree on a single line about any WMD issue. It is

critical for those calls to be heeded now.

What Must Be Done: The Weapons of Mass Destruction

Commission makes many specific and detailed recommendations

throughout its report (see Annex 1 for a consolidated list).

The most important of them are summarized below.

1. Agree on general principles of action:

Disarmament and non-proliferation are best pursued through

a cooperative rule-based international order, applied and

enforced through effective multilateral institutions, with

the UN Security Council as the ultimate global authority.

There is an urgent need to revive meaningful negotiations,

through all available intergovernmental mechanisms, on the

three main objectives of reducing the danger of present

arsenals, preventing proliferation, and outlawing all weapons

of mass destruction once and for all.

States, individually and collectively, should consistently

pursue policies designed to ensure that no state feels a need

to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Governments and relevant intergovernmental organizations

and nongovernment actors should commence preparations for a

World Summit on disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorist

use of weapons of mass destruction to generate new momentum

for concerted international action.

2. Reduce the danger of present arsenals: no use by

states--no access by terrorists:

Secure all weapons of mass destruction and all WMD-related

material and equipment from theft or other acquisition by

terrorists.

Take nuclear weapons off high-alert status to reduce the

risk of launching by error; make deep reductions in strategic

nuclear weapons; place all non-strategic nuclear weapons in

centralized storage; and withdraw all such weapons from

foreign soil.

Prohibit the production of fissile material for nuclear

weapons, and phase out the production of highly enriched

uranium.

Diminish the role of nuclear weapons by making no-first-use

pledges, by giving assurances not to use them against non-

nuclear-weapon states, and by not developing nuclear weapons

for new tasks.

3. Prevent proliferation: no new weapon systems--no new

possessors:

Prohibit any nuclear-weapon tests by bringing the

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty into force.

Revive the fundamental commitments of all NPT parties: the

five nuclear-weapon states to negotiate towards nuclear

disarmament and the non-nuclear-weapon states to refrain from

developing nuclear weapons.

Recognize that countries that are not party to the NPT also

have a duty to participate in the disarmament process.

Continue negotiations with Iran and North Korea to achieve

their effective and verified rejection of the nuclear-weapon

option, while assuring their security and acknowledging the

right of all NPT parties to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Explore international arrangements for an assurance of

supply of enriched uranium fuel, and for the disposal of

spent fuel, to reduce incentives for national facilities and

to diminish proliferation risks.

4. Work towards outlawing all weapons of mass destruction

once and for all:

Accept the principle that nuclear weapons should be

outlawed, as are biological and chemical weapons, and explore

the political, legal, technical and procedural options for

achieving this within a reasonable time.

Complete the implementation of existing regional nuclear-

weapon-free zones and work actively to establish zones free

of WMD in other regions, particularly and most urgently in

the Middle East.

Achieve universal compliance with, and effective

implementation of, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and speed

up the destruction of chemical weapon stocks.

Achieve universal compliance with, and effective

implementation of, the Biological and Toxin Weapons

Convention, and improve cooperation between industry,

scientists and governments to reinforce the ban on the

development and production of biological weapons and to keep

abreast of developments in biotechnology.

Prevent an arms race in space by prohibiting any stationing

or use of weapons in outer space.