Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for this time. I made a request to the Rules Committee that we be able, on this House floor, to debate a very important issue, but permission was denied, even though this subject goes to the core of who we are as Americans.

The issue is a concept called ``extraordinary rendition.'' That is a situation where the United States has a prisoner in its possession. We have him. We control that prisoner. And, yet, because we receive diplomatic assurances from another country, a country that does not abide by the convention against torture, we send the prisoner to that country. Now, these are just not ordinary countries that we send these prisoners too. These are countries like Syria; these are countries like Uzbekistan.

The United States, in other words, has captured someone. We believe that they are a terrorist. We believe that they are a threat to our country. We have them in our own possession. By receiving these diplomatic assurances, we send these prisoners to other countries, knowing that there is a high likelihood that these people will be tortured. If Syria, for example, a country that Secretary Rice says we cannot trust, says that they will not torture someone who we have sent to them, can we really trust them?

Just this week, Syria broke off all relations with the United States military and the CIA. What does this mean for the diplomatic assurances that we received from Syria? Did we really need these additional lessons to know that they do not abide by the convention against torture?

Just this week in the New York Times there was a story about a case in which hooded operatives, in the middle of the night, took two Swedish prisoners to Egypt in a CIA-operated Gulfstream. Here is what the story said: one agent quickly slit their clothes with a pair of scissors. Another agent checked the suspects' hair, mouth and lips, while a third agent took photographs from behind. As prisoners stood there, naked and motionless, they were zipped into gray track suits and their heads were covered with hoods. The suspects were then marched in chains to the plane where they were strapped to mattresses on the floor of the cabin.

The two Egyptians later told lawyers, relatives, and Swedish diplomats that they were subjected to electric shocks and other forms of torture.

This is wrong. We should have had a vote here on the floor of Congress on this practice to prohibit it. And I regret that we will not. And I think it is a great deficiency in the debate we are having over the conduct of the war.

Mr. Speaker, twelve million baby boomers will have Alzheimer's. Three million baby boomers will suffer from Parkinson's disease. Juvenile diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, spinal cord injuries will wreak havoc on the daily lives of millions of American families. These diseases are going to bankrupt the health care system of our country unless we take action. Today, we can take dramatic action, a step, to deal with this looming crisis.

President Bush has threatened to use his first veto to prevent scientists from using Federal funds to search for these cures. This is wrong. Stem cell research is the light of life, the way out of the darkness, the life-giving, life-enhancing, life-extending path to hope.

Hope is the most important four-letter word in the language. We must vote for hope, vote for life, vote for a brighter future for all of our loved ones. Vote for hope for a small girl forced to stick a needle three times a day into her young arm. Vote for hope for a beloved mother whose loss of balance leads to falls in the night. Vote for hope for a spouse who realizes that his memory of life and family are dissolving into a forgetful haze.

Vote ``yes'' so that the next generation of children will have to turn to the history books to know that there ever was such a thing as juvenile diabetes or Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or any of these plagues that affect our Nation today and are going to turn into a crisis in the next generation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment which the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I are offering would take $15.5 million from the Committee on Appropriations, which was added on to the President's request for reprocessing and nuclear waste management, and reallocate these funds to programs that would improve energy efficiency.

We are offering this amendment today because we believe that now is the time to undo a policy first adopted back in the 1970s which discourages reprocessing of commercial spent fuel. We believe that nonproliferation risks associated with reprocessing are too great, that reprocessing is not economical and the additional funds recommended for reprocessing would be better spent on improving our Nation's energy efficiency.

First, reprocessing presents grave proliferation risks. President Ford first put this ban on reprocessing in place. It gives us the high moral ground as we look at the North Koreans and Iranians to tell them not to do it. It only makes sense.

Secondly, reprocessing is not economical. It would only be economical if, in fact, there was not a glut of uranium, which is what it is that we have in the world today.

Third, reprocessing is not safe. Twenty tons of highly radioactive material leaked from a broken pipe at a nuclear reprocessing plant in the United Kingdom in April of this year. This area is going to remain closed for a long, long time.

Fifth, the $15.5 million appropriated for reprocessing and interim storage would be better spent on energy efficiency priorities. It would be better to just use it to work smarter and not harder. The more efficient that we make our society is the absolute fastest way in order to guarantee that we would make ourselves less dependent upon imported oil, not moving along the route that this $15.5 million appropriation would move it.

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

Mr. Chairman, could you tell us how much time is remaining on either side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, again, this is a huge moment. This is a decision to reverse a policy which is 30 years old. It has gone through Presidents, Democrat and Republican, going back to Gerald Ford, which essentially says to the North Koreans, to the Iranians, to every other country in the world, we are not going to reprocess our civilian-spent fuel; you should not do it either. You should stay away from it. This is too dangerous.

We otherwise will wind up preaching temperance from a bar stool. We will be in a situation where we will be reprocessing civilian-spent fuel into plutonium, and we will be trying to tell the rest of the world that they should not do it. It would be like your father telling you that you should not smoke with a pack of Camels in his hand. It just does not work. You have to have some standard as a Nation on a policy as important as the reprocessing of plutonium in order to take that position and be a leader worldwide.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to a central, fundamental question which this Congress is going to decide this evening. The Senate yesterday resolved something they called the nuclear option. This is the real nuclear option. This is the nuclear option which the rest of the world is going to look at: are we going back to nuclear reprocessing? Are we going to become the leader in a technology which we are telling the rest of the world we do not believe they should have, especially since we do not even need it?

So this question of nuclear weapons in the world, nuclear proliferation, this issue is a central issue in determining whether or not we are going to be the leader or we are going to be spreading these technologies across the planet. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment.

The amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I are offering would take the $15.5 million that the Appropriations Committee added onto the President's request for the reprocessing and nuclear waste management and reallocate these funds to programs that would improve energy efficiency.

We are offering this amendment today because we believe that now is not the time to undo a policy first adopted back in 1970s which discourages reprocessing of commercial spent fuel. We believe that nonproliferation risks associated with reprocessing are too great, that reprocessing is not economical, and that the additional funds recommended for reprocessing would be better spent on improving our nation's energy efficiency.

Reprocessing represents grave proliferation risks. Just look at North Korea. It has been reprocessing spent fuel from its reactors to use in nuclear bombs. In response, President Bush has asked the Nuclear Suppliers Group to limit access to reprocessing technology, arguing that:

This step will prevent new states from developing the means

to produce fissile material for nuclear bombs.

How are we going to credibly ask the rest of the world to support us when we tell North Korea, Iran or any other nation that they cannot have the full fuel cycle and they can't engage in reprocessing, when we are preparing to do the same thing right here in America? It just won't fly.

You cannot preach nuclear temperance from a barstool. That is why President Gerald Ford called for an end to commercial reprocessing back in 1976, and why no President since then has successfully revived reprocessing.

Reprocessing also is not economical. A MIT study puts the cost of reprocessing at four times that of a once-through nuclear power. The current price of concentrated uranium ``yellowcake'' in the spot market is about $53.00 per kilogram. For reprocessing to be economical, there must be a sustained 8-fold increase in the long-term price of uranium. But the world is faced with a uranium glut. In addition, building a reprocessing plant would be enormously expensive. Consider Japan's nearly completed Rokkasho reprocessing plant--20 years in the making. Just building it cost on the order of $20 billion. But the total cost of Rokkasho when you factor in the full life-cycle costs--including construction, operation and decommissioning costs--is estimated to be $166 billion. Uranium costs would have to soar to 20 times what they are today for this to be economically viable.

In France, Cadarache's ATPu MOX plant has ceased commercial activity because it is not economical, but it plans to fabricate test MOX assemblies to send here. In Russia, they too have closed their reprocessing plant, RT-1, and still have not opened its successor, RT- 2. The record is becoming clearer, reprocessing is not economical. Why would we think that the U.S. is immune from the fundamental laws of economics?

Reprocessing will not alleviate the nuclear waste problem. Talk to the folks at Savannah River where over 30 million gallons of high-level were left behind from reprocessing.

Under this bill, Savannah River may be targeted again for interim storage for spent fuel, awaiting reprocessing. So might Hanford and Idaho. In fact the bill report targets all DOE sites, federally owned sites, non-federal fuel storage facilities, and even closed military sites.

The Appropriations Committee Report (page 124) calls for DOE to provide ``an implementation plan for such early acceptance of commercial spent fuel, transportation to a DOE site, and centralized interim storage at one or more DOE sites.'' If appropriate DOE sites can't be found, the Report recommends that the nuclear waste be stored at ``other federally-owned sites, closed military bases, and non- federal fuel storage facilities.'' The Report calls for DOE to prepare a plan for centralized interim storage within 120 days of enactment of the bill, and states its belief that DOE ``already has authority for these actions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.''

So, if you just had a military base in your district closed by the BRAC, you might be a candidate to get a nuclear waste dump. Talk about adding insult to injury. Reprocessing sites will become defacto nuclear waste dumps. The spent nuclear fuel cannot even be handled to be reprocessed for 5 to 15 years--it is so radioactive. And what will happen to all this waste when the hard reality of the disastrous economics combined with the fact that our government deep in deficit cannot afford to subsidize this anymore?

Reprocessing is not safe. Twenty tons of highly radioactive material leaked from a broken pipe at a Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in the United Kingdom in April of this year. The affected area of the Sellafield plant will remain closed for months as officials devise a way of cleaning up the mess. Special robots may have to be built to clean up the waste as the area is too radioactive for people to enter.

Senior officials at the UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns the Sellafield reprocessing are pushing to close the plant altogether, arguing that it is more cost-effective to close the plant now rather than repair the problems only to decommission the plant as planned in 2012.

The MIT Study said this about safety:

We are concerned about the safety of reprocessing plants,

because of the large radioactive material inventories, and

because the record of accidents, such as waste tank explosion

at Chelyabinsk in the FSU [Russia], the Hanford waste tank

leakages in the United States and the discharges to the

environment at the Sellafield plant in the United Kingdom.

The $15.5 million appropriated for reprocessing and interim storage would be better spent on energy efficiency priorities. Under the Markey-Holt amendment, the $15.5 million added to the bill by the Committee for reprocessing and interim storage of nuclear waste would be transferred over to three under-funded domestic energy supply priority programs, as follows:

$8.5 million would be added for Industrial Technologies (which was cut by $16.5 million from current levels). Despite the fact that manufacturing makes up 35 percent of the nation's energy use, this bill would cut the industrial energy efficiency program to help manufacturers deal with high energy costs and develop

innovative technologies from $93 million in FY 2004 to $76 million in FY 2005, and now the House proposes $58 million in FY 2006. We are heading in the wrong direction. We are trying to maintain manufacturing jobs. We need to cut energy use and improve technology, since we can't cut wages to equate to China and India. This is a national security issue. Do we want to vacate the field in the key areas of steel, plastics, aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass and metal casting? We need domestic production and this program helps make our domestic industries more energy efficient.

$3.5 million would be added for State Energy Program Grants (which was cut $3.8 million from current levels). A recent study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories concluded that for every federal dollar in the State Energy Program: (1) $7.22 in annual energy cost savings are produced; (2) $11.29 in leveraged funds are provided from the states and private sector in 18 different project areas; (3) over $333 million is saved through annual cost savings (the appropriation is only $44 million in FY 2005); (4) 48 million source BTUs are saved--or 8 million barrels of oil; (5) 826,049 metric tons of carbon are saved; (6) 135.8 metric tons of volatile organic compounds are reduced; (7) 6,211 metric tons of NOX are reduced; and (8) 8,491 metric tons of SOX are reduced.

$3.5 million would be added for the Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability Program (which was cut by $4.8 million from current levels). This program is aimed at developing the ``next generation'' of clean, efficient, reliable, and affordable distributed energy technologies that make use of combined heat and power systems. The Department of Energy has established a goal of increasing installed combined heat and power systems from 66 Gigawatts in 2000 to 92 Gigawatts by 2010. As of 2004, this program is well on track, with 81 Gigawatts of installed power. However, much of the remaining potential for CHP systems is in small scale systems that are below 20 megawatts and employ micro-turbines, fuel cells and other technologies. This program needs full funding to continue delivering the benefits of increased reliability, security, efficiency and lower emissions to the U.S. economy.

Let me reiterate that my transfer amendment would still leave both reprocessing and nuclear waste disposal fully-funded at the levels requested in the President's budget, but would only reallocate money added by the Appropriations Committee. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office informs me that ``This amendment has no effect on budget authority and would reduce outlays by $1 million for FY 2006.''

Under the Markey-Holt amendment, we transfer these funds to energy efficiency programs that will provide our nation with a much better value for the dollar than the incremental investment in a nuclear reprocessing technology that is expensive, that poses serious nuclear nonproliferation risks, and which threatens to create new nuclear waste dumps at sites around the country.

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the Markey-Holt-Inslee amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the gentleman's acceptance.

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

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

This loophole is a dangerous gap in child safety and prevention, and it is having serious consequences. Since 1987, 64 people have died on an amusement park ride, and the vast majority of those deaths have occurred on rides that are totally unregulated at the federal level.

It is time to put the safety of our children first--it is time to close the Roller Coaster Loophole.

Today I am introducing the National Amusement Park Ride Safety Act, to restore safety oversight to a largely unregulated industry. I am joined in this effort by Representatives Schakowsky (IL), Rangel (NY), Neal (MA), Payne (NJ), McGovern (MA), Norton (DC), Maloney (NY), Kucinich (OR), Frank (MA), Brown, S. (OR) and Eshoo (CA).

support for the bill

We are supported in this endeavor by the Nation's leading consumer- protection advocates, including Saferparks.org, the Consumer Federation of America, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, and Kids in Danger.

Excerpts from their letters of endorsement include:

``Children are uniquely vulnerable to hazards associated

with amusement ride machinery. . . It is simply indefensible

for Congress to allow a special interest loophole of this

magnitude in an industry that serves up high-speed thrills to

300 million paying customers every year, especially when most

of the resulting injuries accrue to children.''--Kathy

Fackler, Saferparks.org.

``Federal oversight is crucial to the prevention of any

future deaths and injuries with fixed site amusement parks

due to the vast variation in state laws and the absence of

any regulation in some states.''--Rachel Weintraub, Consumer

Federation of America and Lindsey Johnson, U.S. Public

Interest Research Group.

``The CPSC must be granted jurisdiction of fixed-site

amusement park rides in order for all states to benefit from

federal investigation of safety hazards.''--Alan Korn,

National SAFE KIDS Campaign.

``Unregulated amusement rides are not what consumers expect

when they visit some of the best-known tourist attractions in

the U.S. Consumers expect that someone has made sure the ride

is as safe as possible and that the government oversees such

safety.''--Nancy Cowles, Kids In Danger.

Last year, the Nation's pediatricians--the doctors who treat the injuries suffered by children on amusement park rides--endorsed our bill. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, ``a first step to prevention of these injuries is adopting stronger safety regulations that allow for better inspection and oversight of the fixed-rides.''

the problem with state-only regulation

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

rides can kill, not just thrill

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

August 22--a 12-year-old boy fell to his death after

slipping through a harness on the Drop Zone ride at

Paramount's Great America Theme Park in Santa Clara,

California;

August 23--a 20-year-old man died on the Shockwave roller

coaster at Paramount King's Dominion theme park near

Richmond, Virginia;

August 28--a 39-year-old woman and her 8-year-old daughter

were killed when their car slid backward down a 30-foot

ascent and crashed into another car, injuring two others on

the Wild Wonder roller coaster at Gillian's Wonderland Pier

in Ocean City, New Jersey.

In 2003:

An 11-year-old girl died at Six Flags Great America in

Gurnee, Illinois.

A 32-year-old woman was killed when she fell from the Raven

roller coaster at Holiday World & Splashin' Safari theme park

in Santa Claus, Indiana.

A 53-year-old woman was killed after being struck by the

Joker's Jukebox ride at Six Flags New Orleans. She was

checking to make sure her grandson's seat belt was properly

fastened.

A 34-year-old woman died a day after suffering a heart

attack during her ride on the Top Gun roller coaster at

Paramount's Kings Island theme park in Cincinnati, Ohio.

An 8-year-old boy has died from injuries he suffered on a

bumper car ride last month at the Lake County Fair in Ohio.

The boy was severely shocked when he touched a pole on a

bumper car ride called the Scooter.

In 2004:

A 51-year-old woman was killed after she fell 60 feet from

an amusement ride called the Hawk at the Rockin Raceway in

Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. The owner was later convicted of

reckless homicide for bypassing the ride safety system.

A 55-year-old man suffered fatal injuries when he fell from

the Superman Ride of Steel roller coaster at Six Flags New

England theme park in Agawam, Massachusetts.

At Playland amusement park in Rye, New York, a 7-year-old

girl suffered massive head injuries when she fell from the

park's Mind Scrambler ride. She was rushed to a hospital

where she was pronounced dead.

A 4-year-old boy died from injuries he suffered last

Thursday at Water Works, a water park in Cuyahoga Falls,

Ohio. Lifeguards found the boy floating in five feet of water

after he nearly drowned.

A 13-year-old boy died from internal injuries he suffered

in an accident at Wacky Waters Adventure Park in Davenport,

Iowa. Witnesses say that the boy fell from a rappelling rope

into a pool of water.

A 39-year-old man died from a fall while boarding the

Revenge of the Mummy roller coaster at Universal Studios

theme park in Orlando, Florida.

Every one of these is an unspeakable horror for the families, and every one of them deserves to be investigated by a federal safety expert with the knowledge and the power to ensure that what happened at the accident site does not get repeated in other States.

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

Every other consumer product affecting interstate commerce--a bicycle or a baby carriage, for example--endures CPSC oversight. But the theme park industry acts as if its commercial success depends on remaining exempt from CPSC oversight. When a child is injured on a defective bicycle, the CPSC can prevent similar accidents by ensuring that the defect is repaired. If that same child has an accident on a faulty roller coaster, no CPSC investigation is allowed. But the industry has its loophole, and it is placing its priority on protecting its special- interest privileges, rather than its special duty to ensure the safety of its patrons.

That's just plain wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my good friend and colleague Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH) in introducing the ``Digital Opportunity Investment Trust Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I have long believed that when the Federal Communications Commission decides to proceed with auctions as a means of granting licenses to the public's airwaves, that the public deserves to reap the benefits. These benefits should manifest themselves not only in the more rapid offering of new, competitive commercial wireless services or the deployment of technological innovations, but also in the ``dividends'' that can be reaped by re-investing the auction money wisely. The legislation we are introducing today, proposes taking auction revenue and creating a permanent trust fund in order to fund grants for public interest telecommunications initiatives. I believe harnessing this resource and re-investing it for such initiatives will be vital to our national economic security and for leaving to the next generation the cultural and educational assets of our great country in an accessible digital form.

Mr. Speaker, ensuring that the research and development into the software and telecommunications tools that will animate the technologies for use in classrooms and workplaces around the country is a sound investment. Making available additional resources for public televisions and radio stations for their needs in the digital era is also vital. Finally, our nation's libraries, museums, universities are great repositories of information and possess the tremendous wealth of our cultural heritage. These treasurers can and ought to be digitized in a way that makes them accessible to all our citizens, both online and over-the-air using our national public broadcasting system. This will help to ensure we have an informed and skilled citizenry for our civic institutions. Putting these great educational resources at the heart of the technological transformation our society is undergoing will strengthen our democracy in fundamental ways.

For all of these reasons, I believe we must rise to the challenge of funding advanced research and development for education and technology training in a way that reflects the urgent need to do so and the current, inadequate resources being put to these efforts. Telecommunications technology has an awesome potential to affect change positively by driving economic growth, preparing our citizens for the tough challenges ahead, and enriching our democracy. Yet without a plan, it will remain just that--merely the ``potential'' and ``promise'' but not the reality. That's why I believe we ought to reinvest the auction resources we obtain from winning bidders to the public's airways. A permanent trust fund built from these funds will go a long way in meeting the need and that is what our legislation is designed and intended to do.

Mr. Speaker, under cover of darkness and hidden from public view, the Republican-controlled Committee on Rules cooked up an unwise, unfair and ill-considered rule that shuts out dozens of Democratic amendments designed to close dangerous homeland security loopholes that put the American public at risk. For example, one of the amendments would have been one made by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and myself which would have ensured that all cargo which is placed upon passenger planes in the United States was screened, so when the people in this gallery and people around the country step on planes they have to take off their shoes, their bags go through, they are screened, their bags are put in the belly of the plane, they are screened, but the cargo, the cargo, which is placed on the very same plane, is not screened.

The people on the plane are accompanying their bags. The people who are sending cargo are not on the plane. Al Qaeda is like water. It looks for the least resistance. That on a plane is where the least resistance is, in the cargo bay. We should not put Americans on planes where the cargo has not been screened knowing that al Qaeda continues to place civilian aircraft at the top of their terrorist target list.

It is wrong for the Republicans not to have a debate about this incredible, glaring vulnerability in passenger aircraft as hundreds of millions of Americans put their families on planes, especially as we are nearing the fourth anniversary of 9/11.

Another amendment, one dealing with the hundreds of thousands of shipments of extremely hazardous materials which go through the cities and towns of the United States every single year. This is a photograph of one of those hazardous material shipments within a couple of blocks of the Capitol. The Republicans would not put in order an amendment that would ensure that a rule-making by the Federal Government would be put in place in order to make sure that we would increase the security for the shipment of these hazardous materials through the cities and towns of the United States of America.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and I made a request to the Committee on Rules, let us debate it out here on the House floor, let us debate if we want to put any additional security protections on something, which, for all intents and purposes, has no security around it as it goes through the cities and towns of the United States. What a target for al Qaeda this would be.

But the Republicans say no debate on that. No debate on putting cargo into the bay of passenger planes that people fly every single day across America after they have taken off their shoes.

Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. The Republican Party is putting a gag on debate on the most important issues that face the security of America and attacks by al Qaeda on our country. And this issue, especially the issue of cargo on planes, is an absolute reprehensible neglect of the responsibility that Congress has for the flying American public.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

The Republican leadership has denied a debate on the House floor on the very important issue that passengers who

fly on commercial flights across America, tens of millions of Americans a year who put their families on commercial flights, are put in the situation where they take off their shoes, they have their computers checked, they have their bags which are inspected on those passenger flights, because we know that al Qaeda is trying to infiltrate commercial flights in America.

But the cargo, the cargo which goes on that very same plane, of somebody who did not buy a ticket on that flight but placed the cargo on that plane, is going to fly without being screened at all. Almost none of the cargo on American planes that carry passengers across our country is screened, although that cargo is almost the same size as your bags, which are on the same plane. So you have your bags screened, you have your family screened, but the cargo on that plane is not screened.

How much sense does that make, that your shoes are screened but that the cargo on the very same plane is not screened?

And do my colleagues want to hear something else even more absurd? If it is a package 16 ounces or less, they do not even look at the paperwork for it. It goes on that passenger plane automatically.

Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. In the past week, we have had two planes diverted that were coming from overseas because the no-fly terrorist list had not been completely checked before the plane was in midair, and it caused diversions both times. How can we allow the back door of planes to have cargo placed upon it that is not screened? It is absolutely wrong.

And the fact that the technology exists, that the Israelis screen the cargo, that other countries screen the cargo, how can we place tens of millions of Americans who place their families on planes, going to vacation, going back to school, on planes where the cargo is not inspected, and then have the Republicans say, we are not going to have a debate on that on the House floor.

My amendment with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) would have guaranteed that over the next 3 years technology would have been put in place that would have guaranteed that every single bit of cargo that goes on passenger planes is screened. And all we asked from the Republicans was that if you are not going to allow us to even make that amendment on the House floor, at least let us have a warning, a warning to all American families at the airports that you are placing your children on planes to go back to school or go to vacation when the cargo on that plane has not been screened.

Every American parent has the right to know that their children are being placed on planes to go to vacation or go to school without it being screened. Every American family has the right to know that when they put their children on passenger planes in America that almost none of the cargo has been screened, and then they can make the decision for themselves. I think that parents would not put their children on planes if the cargo has not been screened. They themselves, they might get on the plane.

But for the Republicans to not allow us to have a debate on the House floor on this issue, as we know that al Qaeda continues to target commercial aircraft as their number one terrorist target, is absolutely wrong.

So I ask opposition to this bill. It just is not dealing with the real issues that threaten the American public.

Rapiscan Systems,

Hawthorne, CA, May 9, 2005.

Hon. Edward J. Markey,

House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Markey: We applaud your efforts to

focus more attention on the glaring hole in the United

States' aviation security--lack of air cargo inspection.

Rapiscan Systems develops, manufactures, installs and

services the world's widest array of non-intrusive inspection

systems for airports, seaports, border crossings, military

installation. Currently Rapiscan Systems provides nearly half

of the checkpoint security systems at U.S. airports.

Included in our portfolio of systems is an air cargo

inspection system that can inspect fully-loaded cargo

containers. This system is being installed at George H.W.

Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas and Ted

Stevens Anchorage International Airport in Alaska.

containerized air cargo inspection technology exists and is being

installed at U.S. airports

In the late 1980's in response to the Pan Am 103 bombing,

the United States Department of Defense began development of

a material-specific bomb detection technology for aviation.

As a result of this effort, the Ancore Corporation (now

Rapiscan Systems Neutronics and Advanced Technologies

Division) developed Pulsed-Fast Neutron Analysis (PFNA)

technology. PFNA can automatically detect all explosives,

chemical weapons, radioactive materials, narcotics and even

hazardous aviation cargo. This technology was most recently

deployed to the Ysleta border crossing in El Paso, TX.

Rapiscan Systems is currently deploying two PFNA air cargo

inspection systems at U.S. airports: George H.W. Bush

Intercontinental Airport in Houston and Ted Stevens Anchorage

International Airport. Both of these installations are part

of Transportation Security Administration programs. Similar

neutron-based systems have been installed internationally,

including an air cargo inspection facility at Taipei airport

in Taiwan.

containerized cargo inspection maintains current air cargo flow of

commerce

While TSA and other government agencies have evaluated

break-bulk cargo x-ray inspection systems (Rapiscan also

manufacturers these systems), only PFNA can inspect

containerized cargo. The difficulty with break-bulk systems

is that they require containerized or palletized cargo to be

unpacked to inspect. This adds hours to inspection time and

makes some technologies unfeasible for fast delivery air

cargo.

PFNA systems inspect fully loaded cargo containers and

pallets for aviation-quantity threats (established by TSA).

This allows for fast inspection without unpacking. PFNA

systems meet the time constraints of the air cargo

environment.

air cargo inspection can be provided with current screener corps

Another common argument against air cargo inspection is

that they technologies will require hundreds of new TSA

screeners to operate and inspect. Because PFNA provides

automatic, material specific inspection each system only

requires a single operator. And since, PFNA systems can

inspect 6-10 containers per hour, most airports will only

require one to two systems.

As congress debates the policy surrounding air cargo

inspection, Rapiscan Systems offers to help Members and staff

investigate the current availability and state of cargo

inspection technologies. While cost and level of risk shou1d

factor into this debate, the question of the availability of

technology to inspect air cargo has already been answered.

Thank you again for your efforts to call attention to and

rectify this important homeland security issue. Please let me

know if Rapiscan Systems can be helpful in your continued

efforts.

Sincerely,

Peter Kant,

Vice President, Government Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, right now in the Republican bill there is no protection added for the single greatest problem that we know still exists, which is the protection of chemical facilities in the United States of America. Whether it be on land or in rail cars, both of these chemical-type storage areas are still wide open.

Secondly, whistleblowers, if they turn in a shareholder scandal at Enron, get more protection than a nuclear power plant guard or a TSA guard who, as a latter day homeland security Paul Revere comes forward to warn the public that there is danger, the Republicans do not protect these whistleblowers. The Democratic bill does.

Finally, the cargo which goes onto planes in America, passenger planes, is not screened. Something this size, not screened. Something this size, which is cargo, which goes on to passenger planes next to our bags, is not screened. The Republican bill says this to those people: Warning, cargo on this plane has not been screened for explosives for your children.

Vote for the substitute if my colleagues want to protect the children and families of this country.

Mr. Speaker, in this recommitment motion, you will get a chance, on the majority side, to vote on whether or not you want to screen cargo that is on passenger planes.

We take off our shoes. Americans take off their shoes, families putting their children on flights to head on vacation or go to school. They all take off their shoes.

But underneath, in the cargo bay of those passenger planes, almost none of the cargo which sits right next to those bags is screened. If something is this size, 16 ounces, no paperwork. Nothing.

If it is the same size as the bag your children and you have, it does not get screened. It is going on right next to your bags. And so what our amendment says is, you got a warning. The cargo on this plane has not been screened for explosives. That is the Republican bill.

The Democratic substitute says that 100 percent of all baggage, all cargo as well, on passenger planes is screened. If you care about your families, if you care about implementing one of the key recommendations in the 9/11 report, then vote for the Democratic recommittal motion. This is the only chance you are going to have to vote on this issue. Vote ``yes'' on the recommittal motion.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, and to reiterate the importance of the Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI.

Since the establishment of the UASI program, communities that the Department of Homeland Security has designated as being subject to a high threat of terrorist attack have received the funding to develop coordinated, integrated plans that leverage the capabilities of the cities and towns within the UASI region that are needed to respond effectively in the event of a terrorist attack.

During committee consideration of this legislation, I prepared an amendment to amend the bill to include within the ``region'' definition any geographic area that has been designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a high-threat urban area as part of the Department's UASI program. My amendment was intended to permit these UASI regions to continue their important plans and strategies to prevent, prepare for, and respond to terrorist attacks. I noted that the UASI program is consistent with the purpose of H.R. 1544--namely that resources should be set aside for communities faced with unique threats and vulnerabilities, such as extensive critical infrastructure and large populations, which make them tempting targets for terrorists.

After receiving assurances from the chairman that he shares my interest in refining the legislation's definition of region, I withdrew my amendment. I understand that the chairman has discussed this important issue with the States and the UASI jurisdictions, and I appreciate the chairman's pledge to work with me, the UASI jurisdictions, and the States to address the UASI designation issue as this legislation moves forward.

It is my hope that the UASI program will be preserved in the final version of the legislation we are considering today. The Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act appropriately directs resources towards those areas that face the highest threat of a terrorist attack, rather than disbursing homeland security funds without regard to risk. The 9/11 Commission has endorsed this risk- based approach to homeland security funding, the UASI program is consistent with this methodology and should be preserved.

Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this legislation in March, it voted 420-2 to approve an amendment, which I authored, which reaffirms the U.S. commitment under the Convention Against Torture to not engage in torture, and to not render or transfer people to countries where they are likely to face torture. The U.S. signed this treaty under President Reagan, and the Senate ratified it in 1994.

Despite our commitments under this treaty and the recent statements made by the Bush Administration emphasizing that the U.S. is emphatically and unambiguously against the use of torture, there have been repeated reports in the press indicating that the U.S. has been sending detainees to countries where they are likely to face torture, including to countries who have become notorious for their human rights violations.

The practice of extraordinary rendition is shrouded in secrecy. An unmarked plane arrives in the middle of the night carrying men wearing plain clothes and black hoods, to take custody of the prisoners, cut off their clothes, drug them on the spot, shackle them, and fly off into the night. President Bush signed a secret directive reported to speed up the process by eliminating the case by case evaluation. And while unofficial estimates put the number of renditions since 9/11 to be between 100 and 150, the actual number of renditions remains a secret.

The Administration maintains that it is in full compliance with the Convention Against Torture. Compliance, they say, is guaranteed by the dubious practice of asking countries known to torture prisoners for ``promises'' that they will not torture our prisoners. These so-called ``diplomatic assurances'' then provide the cover for sending a suspect to that country to undergo interrogation.

The list of countries where the detainees have been rendered includes Syria, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

So here is the sand on which the Administration stands--at the same time that we exhort the international community to isolate Syria for thumbing its nose at U.N. resolutions to get out of Lebanon, the United States has apparently been willing to accept Syrian promises that it will comply with the Convention Against Torture.

Here is what the State Department's annual human rights report says about Syria's methods of interrogation: ``administering electrical shocks, pulling out fingernails, forcing objects into the rectum, . . .'' And the list goes on.

How about Uzbekistan?--``suffocation, electric shock, rape, beatings, and boiling prisoners to death . . .'' And the list goes on.

The so-called ``diplomatic assurances'' that we have received from the torturers that they will not torture those we send them are not credible, and the Administration knows it. CIA Director Porter Goss basically acknowledged as much when he stated: ``But of course once they're out of our control, there's only so much we can do.'' Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed this, when he said ``Once someone is rendered, we can't fully control what that country might do.''

Section 1031 of the conference report would prohibit the use of any funds included in this Supplemental appropriations bill to subject any person in custody or under the control of the United States to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. While the Conferees approved Senate language that is slightly different from that of the House-passed amendment, I am nevertheless supportive of this language. I support it because I read Section 1031 to clearly prohibit any appropriated funds from being spent to subject any person in U.S. custody or control to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by transferring, extraditing, or rendering such persons to countries where they are likely to face torture.

This is because such actions clearly would be prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, a treaty signed and ratified by the United States. Article 3 of the Convention clearly states that:

``No State Party shall expel, return (``refouler'') or

extradite a person to another State where there are

substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger

of being subjected to torture.''

Article 3 of the Convention further states that:

``For the purpose of determining whether there are such

grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account

all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the

existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of

gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights.''

It would be my expectation that the funding limitation contained in Section 1031 would therefore prohibit funds from being used to transfer persons to any Nation where the person was likely to face torture, and that under Section 1031, funds could not be used for transfers or renditions in situations where the U.S. government had found there to be a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights. I would also note that in a September 2004 report to the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture expressed concern that reliance on diplomatic assurances is a ``practice that is increasingly undermining the principle of non- refoulement'' and observed that where torture is systematic, ``the principal of non-refoulement must be strictly observed and diplomatic assurances should not be resorted to.''

We take pride that even as our Nation fought for its survival against the Nazis and the Japanese Empire during World War II, that we did not ask our ``Greatest Generation'' to engage in torture or other war crimes. The legacy of the U.S. then, and now as we prosecute the War on Terror, is that we uphold our commitment to justice--even in the face of shadows of terror and war. The test of a Nation is found as much in how it wages war as in how it promotes the values of peace and democracy. That is what we must do today.

Mr. Speaker, more than three and a half years after the September 11th attacks, gaping loopholes in our country's homeland security continue to put Americans at risk of another devastating attack. The Department of Homeland Security's former Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin testified recently before the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight. Mr. Ervin told the Subcommittee that: ``Even in the area where the most time, attention, and resources have been invested--aviation security--serious vulnerabilities remain.''

One of our most dangerous vulnerabilities is the failure to screen 100 percent of the cargo that is carried on passenger planes and all- cargo aircraft. Every time we fly, we wait in security lines, empty our pockets, remove our shoes, walk through metal detectors, and have our baggage inspected. We do not complain much--after all, we are told that this is required to keep our planes secure--and we accept that. But what many people do not realize is that every time commercial cargo is loaded onto the very same passenger planes or placed on aircraft that transport only cargo, almost none of it is ever inspected at all.

The security risk created by unscreened cargo is not just theoretical: Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb contained in unscreened baggage, and Air India flight 182 was downed in 1985 off the coast of Ireland by a bomb placed in unscreened luggage.

Uninspected freight on all-cargo carriers also poses a serious danger. Last summer, the 9/11 Commission reported that Al Qaeda operative Zacharias Moussaoui's terrorist plans included ``buying four tons of ammonium nitrate for bombs to be planted on cargo planes.'' Ammonium nitrate is the same chemical compound that Timothy McVeigh used to kill 168 innocent men, women and children at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City 10 years ago. Less than two years ago, a young man shipped himself undetected aboard a cargo plane from New York to Texas. We were lucky he was just a lonely twenty- something, not a terrorist.

It is long past the time when we should have adopted a policy that subjects cargo on passenger and all-cargo aircraft to the same level of screening that is performed daily on passengers' checked and carry-on luggage.

Today, Representative Christopher Shays (R-CT) and I are introducing the Air Cargo Security Act to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish and begin implementing a system to inspect all the cargo transported on passenger planes and all-cargo carriers, so that this cargo is subject to the same level of scrutiny as passengers' luggage. Our legislation also. includes additional measures to close the cargo loophole, such as: a mandate that the Secretary of Homeland Secretary establish systems to inspect cargo using equipment, technology and personnel that meet, at a minimum, the same standards established to inspect passenger baggage; a requirement that the Secretary of Homeland Security monitor and evaluate the research and development of effective cargo screening technologies; establishment of a system of regular inspection of shipping facilities for shipments of cargo to ensure that appropriate security controls and systems are observed, both at facilities inside the U.S. and abroad; a directive that the Secretary of Homeland Security report to Congress on the number of cargo shipping facilities that have been inspected, the number of facilities that have failed to comply with security controls, and the number of agreements concluded with foreign aviation authorities to ensure that regular inspections are conducted for cargo transported to the United States; and creation of a training and evaluation program for cargo handlers to improve the security ensure that cargo is safeguarded from security breaches.

The House has voted overwhelmingly--by votes of 278 to 146 and 347 to 47--to require 100 percent screening of cargo carried on passenger planes. The airline industry and the Bush Administration strenuously objected to the 100 percent screening mandate, and the Senate ultimately dropped it from the final version of the Department's FY04 appropriations bill. Last year, the House narrowly defeated our 100 percent screening amendment after strong opposition from the airline industry.

The experts who are our aviation system's ``eyes and ears''--namely, the pilots and flight attendants who work aboard aircraft everyday-- have endorsed the Air Cargo Security Act. The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA), which represents 22,000 pilots at American Airlines, Southwest, AirTran and other airlines, and the Association of Flight Attendants, with its 46,000 members, have endorsed this important legislation. Since introducing similar legislation last year, I have addressed the concerns of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) by including all-cargo carriers under the 100 percent cargo screening mandate and providing for federal appropriations to implement this mandate. When I offered the Air Cargo Security Act as an amendment during the committee mark-up of the Homeland

Security Department's FY06 authorization bill, ALPA supported my amendment.

While last year's appropriations bill for the Department and the 9/11 reform implementation act included funding for cargo screening R&D, additional cargo inspectors, and related provisions, these measures do not go far enough.

TSA currently handles the screening of cargo carried on passenger planes by using a process it calls the ``Known Shipper Program.'' The Known Shipper Program requires only paperwork to be filed, but no screening to be done. Mail and packages weighing less than 16 ounces are not even subject to the paperwork check--they are loaded straight onto the plane without even a perfunctory paper check! When it comes to freight on all-cargo carriers, inspection is the exception, not the rule--only a tiny portion is physically inspected before loading onboard. TSA now requires air carriers to conduct random inspections of cargo that are randomly verified by TSA--but this still results in almost none of the cargo on passenger planes being physically inspected for explosives or other dangerous materials. TSA is unable to inform us of how many cargo inspections are performed by the air carriers because the air carriers do not have to report to TSA the number of cargo inspections they conduct.

Some have argued that the technology to screen 100 percent of cargo is not available. But there are numerous companies that are currently selling technology that is being used to screen cargo, including American Science and Engineering; L3 Security and Detection Systems; and Raytheon CargoScreen. Some have argued that 100 percent screening is not technically feasible. But countries including Israel, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands routinely screen cargo. Moreover, Logan Airport in Massachusetts, which has been conducting a cargo screening pilot program, reported in February that ``100 percent of all air cargo on all types of aircraft is technically possible.'' According to Massport, which is responsible for the operation of Logan Airport, a federal mandate to screen 100 percent of cargo and a funding mechanism to distribute cost among the major players involved are required. The Air Cargo Security Act provides this mandate and authorizes the appropriations needed to accomplish it.

Some have argued that the Known Shipper Program is enough to assure the security of cargo. The Known Shipper Program is dangerously flawed and easily exploited. TSA has admitted that it has not audited most of the so-called known shippers in its database, and packages weighing less than 16 ounces are not even subject to the Known Shipper Program, even though the bomb that brought down Pan-Am Flight 103 contained less than 16 ounces of explosive!

I urge my colleagues to support the Air Cargo Security Act and close a dangerous loophole that puts our Nation at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican Budget Conference Report.

The Republican budget makes huge cuts to critical programs for the poor and the most vulnerable in our country in order to give away $106 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society.

The Republican budget instructs the Energy and Commerce committee to cut $14.7 billion, of which at least $10 billion is supposed to be cut from the Medicaid program that serves nearly 50 million Americans. Medicaid provides health care not only to poor moms and kids, but also to the elderly and the disabled.

The Republicans will tell you that they have to cut Medicaid because we are in state of fiscal crisis. And it's true we are in the midst of crisis. But it is a manufactured crisis.

If you add up all the spending that Congress has approved since 2001, you will see that: 48 percent of all the spending has gone to tax cuts, 37 percent has gone to Defense and Homeland Security, and only 15% has gone to Domestic programs.

It is clear when you look at these numbers that the deficit did not balloon upward due to social programs, or even the war in Iraq. The deficit came from the Republican's irresponsible tax giveaways to help their fat cat friends get fatter and fatter and fatter.

This Republican budget asks the mothers and grandmothers in the nursing home, the disabled children, the poor, those with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, to sacrifice their health and dignity in order to finance the tax cuts of the wealthiest 1 percent in this country.

It asks those who have nothing to sacrifice everything, and those who have everything to sacrifice nothing.

This budget is about giving $106 billion away in tax cuts, cutting up to $14.7 billion from the Medicaid program.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this shortsighted, fiscally irresponsible, and immoral budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican Budget Conference Report.

One of the most egregious offenses committed in the Republican Budget is the proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.

Although a budget should have nothing to do with controversial environmental policy decisions, this budget would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge through backdoor budget chicanery. In poll after poll, the American people have expressed their disapproval of using the budget to decide such a contentious issue. The Republican Majority knows that it cannot pass this measure as standalone legislation. By shoehorning the Arctic Refuge into the budget, they are making an end-run around the legislative process, knowing that it cannot pass in the Senate any other way.

While the budget claims that oil leases from the Arctic Refuge will generate $2.4 billion in revenue, this appears to be a case of gross deception and misinformation.

When the President's Office of Management and Budget was asked why it is assuming that the oil leases in the Refuge will sell for amounts that are hundreds of times greater than the average North Slope lease over the last 15 years, OMB passed the buck--they said, ``Go ask Interior; we don't know.''

Ladies and gentleman, we deserve more than such dodges and lame excuses. This Republican budget will destroy forever the wilderness quality of one of God's most magnificent ecological systems on the basis of illusory economic projections.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this shortsighted, fiscally irresponsible, and immoral budget.

Mr. Speaker, today we gather to remember and commemorate the Armenian Genocide, one of the darkest chapters of World War I, and the first of the series of genocides we saw in the 20th Century.

The Armenian Genocide is sometimes called the ``Forgotten Genocide.'' In fact, as most of you know, back in 1939, prior to the invasion of Poland, Adolph Hitler argued that his plans for a Jewish holocaust would, in the end, be tolerated by the West, stating: ``After all, who remembers the Armenians.'' Who remembers the Armenians? Today, we provide an answer: We Do! We Remember!

We do so because it is important, indeed it is essential to remember and reflect upon these events, but we also do so because we know that the Armenian people today struggle on an ongoing basis to confront and surmount the legacies and the consequences of those dark days.

Consider, for a moment, what might have been.

At the end of the first World War, the American public was acutely aware of the atrocities that had been committed against the Armenian people from 1915 on--atrocities that we knew had resulted in the death of more than 1 million Armenians and left the remaining Armenian population starving and destitute.

At the time, U.S. Ambassador Henry Morganthau reported that ``When the Turkish

authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were simply giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.''

A military mission headed by Major General James Harbord in 1919 had been sent to report on conditions in the region and make recommendations to U.S. policy makers. General Harbord sent a clear message about the defenselessness of the Armenians and the dangers they still faced.

By the time of the Paris Peace negotiations at the end of the War, President Wilson was committed to the notion of using the proposed League of Nations to help the Armenians. In a September 6, 1919 speech on the Treaty creating the League, he spoke of the Armenian Genocide, ``When I think of words piled upon words, of debate following debate, when these unspeakable things that cannot be handled until the debate is over are happening, in these pitiful parts of the world, I wonder that men do not wake up to the moral responsibility of what they are doing. Great peoples are driven out upon a desert, where there is no food and can be none, and they are driven to die, and then men, women, and children thrown into a common grave, so imperfectly covered up that here and there is a pitiful arm stretched out to heaven, and there is no pity in the world. When shall we wake up to the moral responsibility of this great occasion?''

On May 24, 1920, Wilson proposed to create a U.S. mandate in Armenia, in which we would have sent in troops to maintain the peace and provide assistance to help the Armenian people establish a functioning government and economy.

But the proposed U.S. mandate never occurred. Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge from Massachusetts, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who earlier had championed the cause of the Armenians, refused to support President Wilson's proposed Mandate. Senator Lodge said at the time, ``To invite this country to take charge of that crossroads of the nations in Armenia, to commit itself to sending its troops there for an indefinite period, and to bear the expenses involved for an indefinite period, is something for which I could never bring myself to vote.'' And on June 1, 1920, he, along with the other Republican isolationists in the Senate voted 34 to 43 and 34 to 41 against two Democratic amendments that would have fully or partially authorized the Mandate.

And so, Armenia was left on its own, open to attack from both Turkey and the Soviet Union. And the Armenians made a fateful decision. Rather than accept Turkish dominance and the prospect of additional killings, they signed an agreement with the Soviet leadership's point man in the Caucuses--a man named Josef Stalin--to join the Soviet Union. That fateful decision led them to more than 60 years of Armenian suffering under the yoke of the Communists.

So, as we all gather together to consider the legacy of the Armenian genocide and the Diaspora it created, it is also appropriate for America as a nation to consider what can be done to give something back to those who, by tragic circumstances, were forced to live through unspeakable atrocities during the Genocide only to then come under the control of a brutal Soviet rule.

Armenia today faces enormous economic and political challenges: It has hostile neighbors. It faces blockades that stifle trade and economic opportunities. It needs economic and military assistance.

There is much that the U.S. government can and should do to assist the Armenian people: We should grant Armenia Permanent Normal Trading Relations status, so as to facilitate the growth of trade and economic relations. We should provide Armenia with the economic and military assistance it needs to develop its economy and ensure its security. We should press for an end to the Turkish and Azerbaijani economic blockades.

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

In September of 1919, President Woodrow Wilson spoke of his vision of a future Armenia. He said, ``Armenia is to be redeemed . . . So that at last this great people, struggling through night after night of terror, knowing not when they may come out into a time when they can enjoy their rights as free people that they never dreamed they would be able to exercise.''

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

Mr. Chairman, this photo behind me is an LNG tanker in Boston Harbor delivering LNG to Everett, Massachusetts. Right behind you can see East Boston High School. If there was a terrorist attack, if there was an accident, you would not call the Federal Government. It would be the local police, the local fire department, the local emergency medical technicians that would respond.

The Republican bill eliminates the State and local participation in determining where a facility like this would be placed. Now, it is not like there is a crisis. In America there were two of these facilities in 2001. There are now five. Six more have already been licensed by the State governments and the Federal Government in the United States. There is no crisis.

So why are the mayors, why are the Governors being walled out? It is because the Republican majority wants to hand it over to the Federal Government and to the natural gas industry. But it would be very dangerous to exclude the communities that are most affected, especially when States know they need the LNG, we admit that, but we want to put it in more remote areas in the State or perhaps offshore and have it be piped in. But the Republican majority says, no, we want to put it in the most densely populated areas and wall out all Governors, all State officials.

Vote ``yes'' for the Castle amendment. Protect States' rights.

Mr. Chairman, this issue is one of whether or not you want the Federal Government to decide if you are on a coastline in the United States that an LNG facility is coming to your district. If you want your governor, your mayors to have a role, some role, in deciding where an LNG facility is located, which would have catastrophic consequences if there was an accident or terrorist attack, you vote ``aye'' on the Castle amendment.

If you just want the Federal Government to decide in the middle of your district where this most attractive of all terrorist targets will be located, then you vote ``no,'' but understand the consequences on the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, this is truly a bad bill. Every day we have pictures on the screen of consumers pulling up to the gas pump, paying an arm and a leg for gasoline. We have 150,000 young men and women over in the Middle East protecting our country in that region, and largely as well the oil supplies coming into our country.

This bill does nothing in order to deal with that problem. In fact, the Department of Energy analysis of an almost identical bill in the last Congress concluded that changes to production, consumption, imports, and prices are negligible. The bill would open the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refugee to oil and natural gas exploration even though there is such a small supply of oil and gas there that most of the oil companies have pulled out of the coalition trying to open it to drilling.

This bill contains a liability waiver for the big oil companies that would force cities and States to spend billions to clean up drinking water supplies that have been contaminated with the gasoline additive MTBE which is known to cause cancer.

This bill tramples on the right of State and local governments to protect their citizens from potentially dangerous energy facilities such as large liquefied natural gas terminals that would be sited right in the middle of densely populated cities in our country, even though we know they would be the number one terrorist target constructed in that city.

This bill allows oil and gas companies to pollute drinking water by granting them special exemptions from the Clean Water Act.

This bill allows refineries and utilities to increase air pollution with special exemptions from the Clean Air Act.

There is a special provision in this bill to protect Halliburton from ever facing any Federal regulation of a practice of drilling for oil using the hydraulic fracturing technique that actually injects diesel fuel into the water supply.

There is a special provision added that authorizes grants and other assistance to something called the Dine Power Authority, an enterprise of the Navaho Nation. Who are the beneficiaries of that provision? Why do they deserve our largess? We never had a hearing on it.

There is a special provision in the bill that provides a $1.3 billion subsidy to the Idaho National Laboratory to build a special advance nuclear reactor to produce hydrogen for the hydrogen car. Bad bill; vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6.

I have the greatest respect and affection for the Chairman of the Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), but I must say in all honesty that this is really a terrible energy bill.

The Chairman comes from Texas, and I'm sure that from a Lone Star State perspective, this looks like a pretty good bill. But most of our constituents don't come from oil producing states. Most of our constituents are energy consumers, and from a consumer perspective this bill is seriously deficient. In fact, I would suggest that this bill is a bit like that old Clint Eastwood spaghetti Western: ``The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.''

There is a tiny bit of good in the bill--like extending daylight saving time by a month in the Spring and a month in the Fall. Now, that was a good idea, it really was--and I'm glad that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and I were able to get it in the bill.

But in all honesty I think I have to say that for the most part, what we have here before us today is one truly Bad and Ugly bill:

First, let's take a look at the Bad:

This bill does virtually nothing to address the current spike in crude oil prices or the price of gasoline at the pump. In fact, a Department of Energy analysis of an almost identical bill in the last Congress concluded that ``changes to production, consumption, imports and prices are negligible.''

This bill would open the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and natural gas exploration, even though there is such a small supply of oil and gas there that most of the oil companies have pulled out of the coalition trying to open it to drilling.

This bill contains a liability waiver for the big oil companies that would force cities and states to spend billions to clean up drinking water supplies that have been contaminated with the gasoline additive MTBE, which is known to cause cancer.

This bill tramples on the right of state and local governments to protect their citizens from potentially dangerous energy facilities, such as large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals sited right in the middle of densely populated urban areas.

This bill allows oil and gas companies to pollute drinking water by granting them special exemptions from the Clean Water Act.

This bill allows refineries and utilities to increase air pollution with special exemptions from the Clean Air Act.

This bill gives utilities who dam the public's waterways special rights to appeal and change conditions federal resource agencies placed on their hydropower license in order to protect fish, the environmental, irrigation, navigation or other public uses of our nation's rivers.

This bill repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, a consumer and investor protection law that restricts utilities from self-dealing and limits their ability to diversify into risky unregulated business ventures at the expense of utility consumers.

Second, let's take a look at the just plain Ugly.

There's a special provision in this bill for Home Depot that preempts several states existing or proposed energy efficiency standards for ceiling fans.

There's a special provision in here to protect Halliburton from ever facing any Federal regulation of the practice of drilling for oil using the hydraulic fracturing technique that actually injects diesel fuel into acquifers.

There's the special provision added that authorizes ``grants and other assistance'' to something called ``the Dine Power Authority, an Enterprise of the Navajo Nation.'' Who are they? Why do they deserve our largess?

There's the special provision added that provides a special exemption from our Nation's nuclear nonproliferation law for a Canadian company named Nordion, so that they won't be required to ever agree to convert their nuclear reactor to using Low-Enriched Uranium fuel and targets, but can instead continue to use bomb-grade Highly Enriched Uranium that is a potential terrorist target.

There's the special provision in the bill that provides a $1.3 billion subsidy to the Idaho National Laboratory to build a special advanced nuclear reactor to produce hydrogen for the hydrogen car.

This is not what a national energy policy should be--a tiny bit of Good in a sea of Bad and Ugly provisions. No. We should try to seek a fair balance between the interests of consumers and producers, between the need for new production and the preservation of our natural environment. We should take advantage of America's strength--our technological superiority--and not play to our weakness (the fact that we control only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, while OPEC controls more than 70 percent).

Americans own more cars than there are licensed drivers, and yet this energy bill does nothing to address the fuel efficiency of cars. Instead this bill offers up the false hope that drilling in the Arctic Refuge will solve our energy problems, ignoring that the United State's 3 percent of world oil reserves will never match our 25 percent of world oil consumption. For some fuzzy math, we would sacrifice the last great wilderness in America, an area biologically unique within the American Arctic.

It didn't have to be this way. I lived through the energy policy battles of the late It didn't have to be this way. It really didn't. But the Republican Majority that controls this Congress today decided to make energy policy partisan with a bill that is extreme and over- reaching. So I would say to my Republican Colleagues, you may have the votes to prevail here on the House floor this week, but this extreme bill will not become law. Democrats in this body, along with our colleagues in the Senate, will fight to ensure that the Bad and Ugly provisions that presently make up the bulk of this bill are deleted or revised. And if they are not, we will fight to prevent this bill from moving to the President's desk.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. We can and must do much better.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Barton manager's amendment. I have a number of concerns about the manager's amendment.

Let me just begin by saying that inside of the bill there was a provision that I authored in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that was accepted by the Chair, by the majority. And then, without any consultation with me, this amendment has been taken out of the energy bill by the manager's amendment which is being proposed here today.

Let me tell you a little bit about the change they are going to make without any consultation with me.

Now, when you think of all the pollution that comes out of smokestacks, that is created by the generation of electricity from coal-fired plants or from gas-fired plants to create electricity, well, that electricity is being created in order, for the most part, to keep our lights on, our air-conditioning on, to make sure that we can live in a modern society.

Now, at the Department of Energy, in the first 5 years of the Bush administration, they have yet to have a new rulemaking that would improve the efficiency of any of these appliances. Now, the cumulative impact of that is that we are going to see, unfortunately, several hundred new coal-fired or gas-fired generating plants constructed in America.

Now, what does that mean? Well, in addition to the cost to consumers who are going to have to pay for these new plants, you also have all of the additional pollution. We have 8 million children with asthma. We have a rise in breast cancer and prostate cancer and other diseases. More than 50 percent of all disease is environmentally based, coming from what we breathe, from the water that we drink.

The majority, in its wisdom, has decided they are going to impose no burdens on anyone who makes any appliances in America, so they have to improve their efficiency, which is very typical of the entire Bush administration's approach to these technologies. But the impact of having all of these window air conditioners, furnaces, lighting fixtures, heat pumps, 3 years from now, 6 years from now, 10 years from now being just as inefficient as they were 5 years ago is that all this additional pollution has to go into the air: the carbon, the mercury, the sulfur, the nitrous oxide that is inhaled by children in our country. And I just think it is wrong, without any consultation with me, to take my amendment and put it in this manager's amendment, to have it deleted from the bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Here is the problem with the Bush administration. The Congress, over the years, has passed any number of regulations that deal with the issue of appliance efficiency, but the Bush administration is allergic to energy efficiency. It just wants to put a big new gas station on top of the Arctic wilderness or on top of any other pristine area in our country rather than looking at the technological genius of our country to find some way of improving our efficiency.

So even with regard to new standards in this manager's amendment, they give this administration 6 years, 6 years, to come up with new standards, even as the Bush administration has not done anything for the first 5 years of its term of office at the height of an energy crisis, knowing the consequence of all of this pollution going into the atmosphere in terms of its impact upon the health of our country.

My colleagues, just so you know, women in Japan contract breast cancer at only one-fifth the rate of American women. Women in Japan contract breast cancer at only one-fifth the rate of American women. Women in Japan contract breast cancer at only one-fifth the rate of American women. After the family comes to America from Japan, they contract it at the same rate as Americans. That means it is not in the genes of the girls; it means it is in our air, it is in our water.

What this amendment does is, it says we are just going to build a couple hundred more large electrical generating plants, coal and natural gas, and just spew it into the atmosphere. Well, that is going to be breathed in, all that mercury, all that sulfur and nitrous oxide, and it is going to have a dramatically negative impact upon the health of our country.

My colleagues, this is a bad amendment, and I really regret it is out here and that my friend has proposed it.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

The provisions which are in the bill already are good. It is that they just do not go far enough to deal with this electricity crisis that we saw that went across the country.

What the Dingell amendment does is very simple. It creates an antifraud authority at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with tough, new criminal and civil penalties. It ensures, in other words, that they can get the real job done.

It also provides real transparency on pricing and trading of electricity in this marketplace. It also prohibits self-dealing, interaffiliate dealing. All of the kinds of activities which were identified in the aftermath of the Enron and the related scandals is prohibited; and the authority is given to the FERC in order to make sure that they get the job done. This is the needed final piece to make sure we do not see a repetition of what happened at Enron.

Vote ``aye'' on the Dingell amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure, a place of ancient wilderness that remains much the same as it was at the end of the last Ice Age. It is one of the few places remaining in America where man has not scarred the land. It is a place where roads do not pave the way and where the animals truly do roam free. The refuge is home to the 130,000-strong porcupine caribou herd as well as polar bears, musk oxen and even more than 130 species of migratory birds.

All wildlife refuges have, by bipartisan consensus, been set aside to ensure that a few special places, natural places, will not succumb to the pressures of commercial exploitation. The Arctic refuge is one of the most unique wild and irreplaceable refuges of all. If we allow the oil and gas drillers into this refuge, we might as well say good-bye to protection of all 544 refuges in this country.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the crown jewel of the wildlife refuge system in the United States. Of those 544 refuges, it is estimated that 60 percent of them have the potential for oil and gas development. Overturning the 39-year precedent of never leasing a wildlife refuge to the oil companies where leases did not previously exist will set in motion a series of events that will endanger each of the other 543 refuges spread throughout the States and districts of the Members of this body.

Besides the wildlife refuges, drilling in the Arctic refuge is widely seen as the first step in lifting the moratoria on drilling on the outer continental shelf of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, specifically in Florida and California.

The chairman of ExxonMobil recently said that drilling in the Arctic refuge is representative of the broader issue of whether drilling will be allowed in other environmentally sensitive places such as the coasts of California and Florida. In a 2003 speech to the Republican Caucus, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay proclaimed the issue of the Arctic refuge is about precedent and repeatedly referred to its symbolism.

Matthew Simmons, an oil industry banker and former Bush adviser, recently told the New York Times that if you cannot do ANWR, you will never be able to drill in the promising areas.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a huge test for us. The Republican majority has decided not to do anything about making SUVs and automobiles more fuel efficient, and that is where 70 percent of all gasoline, all oil, goes, into those gasoline tanks. Instead of making those vehicles more efficient, what they have decided to do is to construct a gasoline station on top of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in order to fuel those inefficient vehicles. We must stop them.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a huge moment for this Congress. Inside of the Republican bill that we are voting on is a continuation of the $35,000 tax break to purchase Hummer IIs, a tax break to buy a Hummer II, $35,000. And then they turn with policies like that and they say, We need more gasoline in America. And they turn to an Arctic wildlife refuge as the first example of where they will go, rather than saying, Well, you know, if our country could put a man on the moon in 1969, if we could deploy the Internet around the world in the last 15 years, if we could craft a human genome, then maybe we could find a way to reinvent the automobile and the SUV so that it would average more than 23 miles per gallon, 1983s average; that is the average we have today.

It is wrong, it is immoral for this Congress not to have any fuel efficiency standards for automobiles or SUVs in their bill, to continue tax breaks, giving incentives for Americans to purchase the most inefficient vehicles, and to then turn to the wilderness areas and say, We need the energy.

America is great because its people are great, and what makes us great is we are technological giants. We have only 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world, but with our brains, we can make vehicles that are twice as efficient as the ones that we use today, if

we put our minds to it. But the Bush administration and the Republican majority are completely and totally opposed to it. They reject it in their legislation today. Yet, they say they have a solution for the energy crisis in America.

Well, you cannot put 70 percent of all of the oil in gasoline tanks, have no improvement in fuel economy standards, and then say you are solving the problem by going to wilderness areas and spoiling them.

Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

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

Mr. Chairman, this is the key issue if we are going to get serious about the imports of oil into our country.

We put 70 percent of all oil that we consume in America into gasoline tanks. In 1975, we averaged 13 miles per gallon; we averaged 13 miles per gallon in 1935. But Congress, because of the energy crisis, passed a law mandating a doubling of the standards in 10 years, and the auto industry responded; and by 1986, the average was 27 miles per gallon, and we had OPEC on its back. The price of oil fell to $12 a barrel. We, using our technological genius, had won.

Now, it is almost 20 years later and America is now averaging 23 miles per gallon. We have gone backwards 4 miles per gallon and played into OPEC's hands as the price of oil goes up to $50 to $55 to $58 a barrel, as consumers are tipped upside down every time they go into a gas station in order to pay to fill up their car.

The only answer is to call upon our country's greatness to improve the fuel economy standards to 33 miles per gallon by 2015. In other words, to add only 6 additional miles per gallon over what was accomplished in 1986.

The opponents of this amendment say that is impossible. Well, we put a man on the moon in 9 years. We improved the fuel economy standards in 10 years by 13 miles per gallon in the 1970s and 1980s, but now we are being told that we do not have any longer the ability to do that.

Well, we are 60 percent dependent upon imported oil. We are heading towards 65 percent, towards 70 percent. That is increased national security problems for our country that we will look back at and regret that we missed this opportunity to make our country more secure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this issue, and I am proud to follow his leadership on this amendment.

Last Thursday, President Bush addressed the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Here is what he said: ``I will tell you, with $55 a barrel oil, we do not need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent. It is really important,'' said the President. ``It is an important part of our economic security and it is an important part of our national security.''

Those were the President's words last week. But the President then went on to call upon Congress to pass the Republican energy bill, a bill replete with a rich assortment of tax and deregulatory incentives for the oil and gas companies to explore, even though they are essentially already drowning in windfall profits. The price of oil has doubled essentially from $25 a barrel to more than $50 a barrel. That is all extra cash in the oil companies' pockets.

So the President, I think, has to rely upon his own Energy Department, because his own Energy Department has acknowledged that this bill that we are debating would result in only negligible changes to overall demand, production, and imports, a bill that the Energy Department acknowledges will actually increase gasoline prices at the pump between 3.5 and 8 cents a gallon. The bill will increase the price of gasoline.

So even though the President says the oil companies do not need incentives to drill when prices are so high, in this bill we are providing more than $3 billion in tax incentives to Big Oil. This is just at the point at which all of their profits are doubling. We are giving them tax breaks. It is absolutely unbelievable.

So what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) has done is put out a series of provisions. If Members do not want to support increasing fuel economy standards for SUVs and automobiles so we can take on OPEC, what we have is another series of alternatives that can be engaged in which are much less Draconian, but will at least give us some improvement in the way this country interrelates with gas, oil, and other energy sources.

If Members feel that the Boehlert-Markey amendment is too radical, this is your cup of tea. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) for his help on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Last Thursday, the President addressed the American Society of Newspaper Editors. He said:

I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to

oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of

incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that

will help this country over time become less dependent. It's

really important. It's an important part of our economic

security, and it's an important part of our national

security.

But the President then went on to call upon Congress to pass the Republican energy bill--a bill replete with a rich assortment of tax and deregulatory ``incentives'' for the oil and gas companies to explore, a bill that the President's own Energy Department has acknowledged would result in only ``negligible'' changes to overall demand, production and imports, a bill that the Energy Department acknowledges will actually increase gasoline prices at the pump by between 3.5 and 8 cents a gallon. So, even though the President says the oil companies don't need ``incentives'' to drill when prices are so high, we are providing more than $3 billion in tax incentives to Big Oil. We are giving them ``royalty relief'' so they don't have to pay the public a fair price for drilling on public lands.

That is what H.R. 6 offers up as a solution to high oil and gasoline prices. This bill says let's give more tax breaks to oil and gas companies that even a President who was a former Texas oil man has said are not needed. This bill says let's enact proposals that would actullay increase the price that consumers pay to fill up their gas tanks.

That is no solution.

The amendment being offered by the gentleman from New York and myself takes a different approach.

While I continue to believe that the real solution to the current high gas prices is increased efficiency, the House has already debated that issue. This amendment says, if you aren't willing to take the step of mandating higher fuel efficiency standards, are you at least will to take some more modest steps?

On the issue of gas prices, our amendment says, when oil prices are at record highs, let's stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Let's return to the principle of considering the impact of oil and gas prices and the economy when we are making decisions about whether and when to fill the Reserve. Are you at least willing to do that?

At the same time, our amendment expresses the Sense of Congress that the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department should exercise vigorous oversight of our Nation's oil and gas markets to guard against price gouging or market manipulation. It expresses the Sense of Congress that the President should put pressure on OPEC and non-OPEC oil producers to increase oil production to help bring down prices. It gives the FTC the power to require full disclosure by refiners and distributors of fuel pricing policies, costs, and profits, so consumers will be better able to determine whether the oil companies are profiteering from the current volatility in oil markets. Are you at least willing to do that?

Our amendment also would extend the renewable energy production tax credit for 5 years, so that companies know that there will be incentives out there to make the investment in building new solar, wind, geothermal and biomass technologies, so we can become less dependent on coal and natural gas to generate electricity.

Our amendment strikes the cap on Energy Savings Performance Contracts, an important tool used by the Federal government to reduce the amount of energy consumed in Federal buildings across the country.

Our amendment would put in place three additional appliance efficiency standards--commercial packaged air conditioners and heat pumps, residential dehumidifiers, and commercial spray valves used in restaurants. In addition, under the amendment, efficiency standards for residential and commercial furnaces and boilers, which have been languishing over at the Energy Department for more than 10 years, would be speeded up.

We would strike the Home Depot ceiling fan language that immediately preempts state ceiling fan standards before there's even a Federal standard in place.

We would provide a new 10 percent investment tax credit for high- efficient combined heat and power systems.

We would provide a tax deduction for expenses needed to reduce energy use of new and existing commercial buildings by 50 percent below model commercial codes.

We would provide a tax credit for new homes that reduce energy costs by 20-50 percent, and we'd provide a tax deduction for expenses needed to cut energy use at new and existing commercial buildings.

We would provide for the creation of an Emerging Technology Trust Fund to help develop emerging technologies for more efficient and renewable energy sources, as well as a Small Business Commercialization Program, to provide assistance for small businesses and start-up companies trying to introduce alternative energy and efficiency technologies into the marketplace.

Finally, our amendment includes the Dingell Democratic alternative amendment on electricity, which would preserve the bill's mandatory reliability provisions, but delete its proposed repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act. The Dingell language would also give FERC stronger legal authorities to police electricity and natural gas markets for fraud.

The Bishop-Markey Democratic enbloc amendments make some modest but useful steps toward making this energy bill a more a balanced bill and a more consumer friendly bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As preposterous as it sounds, today members of the armed services who are wounded in battle have their pay cut the moment they are evacuated from a combat zone after they have been wounded and they are fighting for their lives in a hospital bed. A pay cut is not, in my opinion, my idea of support; and it most assuredly is not what the wounded soldier thinks of as support.

The amendment I am proposing is intended to remedy this situation. It places a restriction on the supplemental appropriations funds to end this unjust practice. Essentially, this amendment will no longer allow the special hazardous duty pay to be cut for our wounded troops when they are evacuated from a combat zone. Instead, the special pay rates that they were receiving prior to their injury will be continued while the member recovers in a hospital. These pay rates will continue until the soldier either is reassigned to duty, discharged from service, or succumbs to his or her wounds.

The cut in pay comes at the exact moment when severely wounded members are evacuated for medical treatment and leave the combat zone. I know this because my constituent, James Crosby, was wounded last year in Iraq.

On March 18, 2004, James was wounded by enemy fire while riding on the back of a U.S. military vehicle in Iraq. A rocket fired at the vehicle killed the driver and injured two Marines, including James. A piece of shrapnel pierced James's side and penetrated his intestines and spine, paralyzing him from the waist down. James's pay was immediately cut when he was transported out of the combat zone in Iraq. He was discharged from the hospital in August and from active duty in September. Unfortunately, James's story is the story of many more soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, struck down by hostile fire or mortars or improvised explosive devices.

Soldiers who would never leave a wounded comrade unattended on the battlefield suddenly find themselves in a hospital bed fighting for their lives. They have been separated from their unit, they are distressed about their condition, about what it means for the future, about suddenly being ripped from their unit by a mortar shell, about being helicoptered away from a very special group that had promised to protect each other come hell or high water. Now they are in the hands of people who made no such pledge, and the first thing the soldier learns is that his pay is being cut. I cannot imagine a more unambiguous way of telling that soldier that he or she is not as valuable today as yesterday.

Some have said to me, these are special pays for special purposes. We cannot be extending them indefinitely. There are two answers to this: one, my amendment would not extend them indefinitely, only to the point where the soldier has recovered and been reassigned or discharged; and, two, the Congress has already recognized the principle that combat pay should be extended to the wounded soldier in the hospital. It did so in the case of the combat pay tax exclusion which exempts combat pay from taxation until the soldier is discharged from the hospital.

I would hope that this body would accept my ``do no harm'' amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for their statements. It is my intention to try to work in a way in which we can find a way to guarantee that once someone has been shot and taken out of the combat zone that their benefits are not cut. The irony is of course if they are shot but not seriously wounded and they stay in Iraq, they do not lose any of these benefits. It is only the most serious who lose the benefits. I would like to be able to work with them.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The amendment I am offering today simply reaffirms the United States' commitment to the Convention against Torture. The United States signed this treaty under President Reagan, and the Senate ratified it in 1994. Despite our commitments under this treaty and the recent statements made by the administration emphasizing that the United States is emphatically and unambiguously against the use of torture, reports keep growing of the United States sending detainees to countries where they are likely to face torture, including countries notorious for human rights violations, including Syria, Uzbekistan, and Egypt and other countries. My amendment will just restate existing law so that this body is put on record taking the position which Ronald Reagan did in his negotiation of the Convention against Torture.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the cosponsor of this amendment.

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

Throughout United States history, we have been the world's moral and political leader. One of the things that really strengthened our hand at Nuremberg was that in turn the Germans could not make a case that we had engaged in the kind of human rights violations that the Nazis had engaged in. It made the trials at Nuremberg a moral statement about the United States and our view of the way in which war should be conducted.

This debate that we are having is intended on ensuring that we restate that commitment. We cannot have Uzbekistan, we cannot have Syria dictating what the standards are for our country. We cannot take prisoners within our control, put them on planes, and have them flown to other countries where whatever standards exist in that country dictate whether or not and what kind of torture will be engaged in.

The statement which we are making today on the floor will be to once again reassert this Congress' complete commitment to the Convention against Torture. I think it is important at this time that we once again make this point because the rest of the world looks to us as the moral leader and it is important for us in act as well as in word to uphold that standard.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.