Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing two bills aimed at protecting the privacy of personally identifiable individual information and making it more difficult for unauthorized persons to obtain access to such data.

In Bonfire of the Vanities, the novelist Tom Wolfe wrote about ``The Bororo Indians, a primitive jungle tribe who live along the Vermelho River in the Amazon Jungles of Brazil.'' According to Wolfe, the Bororos believed that ``there is no such thing as a private self.'' Instead, they ``regard the mind as an open cavity, like a cave or a tunnel or an arcade, if you will, in which the entire village dwells and the jungle grows.'' Wolfe compared this to the situation faced by his protagonist, Sherman McCoy, who was caught in the middle of a public scandal in the last quarter of the 20th century.

In the 21st century, we now face the prospect of a world in which all of us--not just someone in the midst of scandal--will be forced to live without a private self: with the entire ``village'' able to obtain access to some of the most personal aspects of our lives.

In the emerging surveillance society of the 21st century, the data mining and information brokerage firms, much like Wolf's Bororo Indians, believe that there is no such thing as a private self. These companies are collecting and selling a vast array of personal information about the American public. For a fee, these companies will tell you someone's Social Security number, their address, phone number, driver's license number, driving record, any criminal record information, court records, insurance claims, divorce records, and even credit and financial information.

Recent press reports indicate that ChoicePoint, an information broker and data mining firm, had allowed a group of Nigerian con artists to get access to names, Social Security numbers, and other personal information about 140,000 Americans, including roughly 1,100 Massachusetts residents. Apparently this is not the first time that ChoicePoint has allowed criminal identity thieves to get access to such information. Two years ago, a similar problem reportedly occurred at the same company.

Unchecked, these companies take advantage of the most valuable possessions that Americans have: their personal identities. Companies like ChoicePoint are playing Russian roulette with the personal information and identities of millions of Americans. If we don't take steps to protect America's consumers soon, it is not a question of whether or not more Americans will lose their privacy--it is question of when will the next ID theft scandal hit. We must take immediate action to protect consumers from more information breaches.

The ``Information Protection and Security Act,'' which I am introducing today in the House, and which Senator Nelson of Florida is introducing in the Senate, would do three basic things:

1. Subject information brokers like ChoicePoint to federal regulation by the Federal Trade Commission, and specifically, require such brokers to comply with a set of new fair information practice rules that the FTC would be required to issue within 6 months of enactment.

2. The FTC rules that the bill mandates will require information brokers to better secure the information in their possession, grant consumers the right to obtain access to and correct information held by the broker, require information brokers to protect information from unauthorized users, and prohibit users of an information broker to obtain the information for impermissible or unlawful purposes.

3. The bill's requirements will be enforceable through the FTC, which would be empowered to bring civil actions to punish and fine violators; the State Attorney's General, who could bring similar actions; and consumers, who would be empowered to bring a private right of action.

My second bill, the ``Social Security Number Protection Act,'' would bring a halt to unregulated commerce in Social Security numbers. This bill would make it a crime for a person to sell or purchase Social Security numbers. Under the bill, the FTC would be given rulemaking authority to restrict the sale of Social Security numbers, determine appropriate exemptions, and to enforce civil compliance with the bill's restrictions. The bill would also authorize the States to enforce compliance, and provide for appropriate penalties.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and the Senate to see to it that these two bills are enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, on February 16, 2005, the House approved H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. It passed the House by a vote of 389 to 38 and had 67 cosponsors when it was considered by the House. Due to a failure to convey in timely fashion a co-sponsorship request from my staff to the bill's sponsor, Chairman Fred Upton, our colleague Representative Gene Taylor (D-MS) was not listed as one of the cosponsors prior to the bill's passage through the House. Representative Taylor has been a strong supporter of the bill, and was a cosponsor of the identical legislative effort in the last Congress. I am pleased to have his ardent support for H.R. 310. And I want the Record to reflect his intention to be a cosponsor, as well as his early and longstanding support for the public interest in broadcasting and adequate enforcement tools for the Federal Communications Commission.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce legislation that would prohibit the outsourcing of torture by the United States Government.

The practice of extraordinary rendition, the extra-judicial transfer of people in U.S. custody either in this country or abroad to nations known to practice torture, has until recently received little attention due to the secrecy surrounding such transfers. Attention was first drawn to the practice after the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, first came to light. Mr. Arar was seized in 2002 while in transit to Canada through JFK airport in New York, and was sent to Jordan and later Syria by the U.S. Government. While in Syria, Arar reportedly was tortured and held in a dark, 3-by-6-foot cell for nearly a year. He was ultimately released and detailed his story to the media upon his return to Canada. Since that time, other press reports have identified renditions elsewhere around the world, such as the transfer of an Australian citizen, Mamdouh Habib, from Pakistan to Egypt, where he was reportedly tortured.

Extraordinary rendition is wrong because it: Violates international treaties that the United States has signed and ratified, including most notably Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits sending a person to another state ``where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'' Undermines the moral integrity of America in the eyes of the world. Ensures that American captives are likely to be tortured by others out of reciprocity, regardless of the urgency of the pleas of our government or the victim's family.

Although the total numbers of those ``rendered'' by the Bush Administration are unknown, then-CIA director George Tenet testified to the 9/11 Commission in October 2002 that over 70 people had been subjected to renditions prior September 11. Human rights organizations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU have detailed numerous other cases that may also involve rendition to countries that practice torture. Last year, the Canadian government launched an investigation into Arar's case, but the U.S. State Department has refused to cooperate with the Canadian investigation.

The bill I am introducing today directs the State Department to compile a list of countries that commonly practice torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during detention and interrogation, and prohibit rendition to any nation on this list. The bill explicitly permits legal, treaty-based extradition, in which suspects have the right to appeal in a U.S. court to block the proposed transfer based on the likelihood that they would be subjected to torture or other inhumane treatment.

Torture is morally repugnant whether we do it or whether we ask another country to do it for us. It is morally wrong whether it is captured on film or whether it goes on behind closed doors unannounced to the American people. President Bush has asserted that ``the

values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being.'' I agree.

The legislation I am introducing today is designed to ensure that we not only outlaw torture conducted directly by U.S. government personnel, but that we also stop any practice which involves outsourcing or contracting out torture to other nations.

I urge Members to join in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Video Description Restoration Act of 2005.'' Mr. Speaker, we have a long history in telecommunications policy of trying to ensure that the benefits of technology reach all segments of American society. Our policies, enacted by Congress and implemented by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has sought to further the three principal goals of telecommunications policy, namely, universal service, diversity, and localism--even as such policy objectives are buffeted by rapid technological change and competition.

For instance, in the late 1980s, the Telecommunications Subcommittee enacted legislation to include a decoder chip in all televisions to ensure that the deaf and hard-of-hearing community had affordable access to closed captioning. While the industry opposed such efforts as being too costly, with exaggerated claims of how much the price of televisions would rise as a result of this mandate, the technology cost was minimal and now turns out to be about a dollar a set. The FCC's video description rules were designed to similarly serve a community, in this case the blind community, in a modest effort to ensure that television was available to that community. Video description is the insertion of narration about the visual setting and background when that information is not already included in the audio portion of the program. Because television is a mainstay for information, news, and family-oriented viewing in the home, it is important that steps are taken, in furtherance of longstanding universal service goals, to reach the blind community.

This bill would restore the video programming rules. Recently the DC Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the rules, alleging that the Commission did not have sufficient authority to promulgate such rules. Passage of this legislation would remove any ambiguity. I believe Congress ought to give the Commission clear guidance that such rules should be reinstated in a way that no court could question the intent of Congress that the Commission should have such authority. Moreover, by approving such legislation, Congress can also establish that such video description rules do not regulate content in violation of any Constitutional protections. Broadcasters are free to air whatever content they wish over the course of a week. The video description rules simply require that a modest portion of such speech be made available to all listeners, including those who cannot see. The regulations would not stipulate which speech is acceptable, favored, or otherwise and broadcasters can choose which speech they wish to make available to the blind community. In fact, rather than infringing upon speech, the rules celebrate it, essentially saying that such speech is so important, so valued, that more Americans deserve to be able to hear it over their public airwaves, as broadcast by public licensees who are required by law to serve the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will move legislation this year to re- instate these important video description rules and look forward to working with all of my colleagues on this issue in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on this most critical of all consumer issues before Congress this year.

So you have all heard now the technical arguments made by the Bush administration proponents here on the House floor. So you have heard the Bush administration argument on why this is good.

Now, you want to hear what the bill is really about? Do you want to hear what the Bush administration is really interested in? Well, here it is, ladies and gentlemen. Citigroup's Smith Barney subdivision: ``Tobacco. Flash--Senate Just Passed Class Action Bill--Positive For Tobacco.'' Let me read it to you:

``The Senate just passed a bill, 72-26.'' This has gone out from Smith Barney to all their investors. ``This bill is designated to funnel class action suits with plaintiffs in different States out of State courts and into the Federal court system, which is typically much less sympathetic to such litigation.

``The practical effect of the change could be that many cases will never be heard given how overburdened Federal judges are, which might help limit the number of cases.''

Smith Barney advised its clients that this bill will be positive in general for the tobacco industry and that tobacco stocks have rallied on this favorable news given that this bill could have a positive impact on tobacco litigation.

That is what it is all about, ladies and gentlemen. You heard the technical defense of it for the last half hour. The impact is they are trying to protect the tobacco industry from being sued. So if you are out there, one of your family members has just found that they have a spot on their lung, they have smoked for the last 20 or 30 years, what this bill will do is it will make it more difficult for you and the other people in your States who also have found that they have spots on their lungs to get together to sue the tobacco companies.

If your children are beginning to smoke, they are 13, 14, 15, this bill is intended to make it more difficult for the people in the State of New Hampshire, or Kansas, or Oklahoma to bring a suit to stop it. That is what it is all about. Smith Barney gives the good news to the tobacco industry investors, not to smokers.

And so what they have done is this. It is brilliant in the Bush administration and that is what this side of the aisle is all about. The FDA, is it going to move in to regulate tobacco? No, they made sure they appoint people who will not do it. The EPA, are they going to move in to make sure that the oil industry does not pollute your groundwater so that the children in your neighborhood do not contract leukemia; that breast cancers do not rise? No. Are they going to have a Department of Labor which protects you against asbestos in the workplace? No.

You are not going to see those suits, ladies and gentlemen. So it comes to you and your families to go to court. And what this bill is intended to do is to not let you go to court. So it is perfect. If you are an asbestos company, your stocks are going up. If you are a tobacco company, your stocks are going up. If you are an oil company, a chemical company, your stocks are going up. Smith Barney gives you the good news, Mr. and Mrs. Investor of America.

But if you are afraid for the health of your family, if you know that the groundwater in New Hampshire has been poisoned by Amerada Hess and 22 other oil companies that are not in New Hampshire, you know what the Republicans say? You know what the Bush administration says? The case should not be held in New Hampshire. If Amerada Hess, the big oil company, is a defendant, the case should be outside of New Hampshire, not protecting the person whose family's health has been injured.

And so that is what it is all about. It is the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able to go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised. And these people are saying, your State is not smart enough, your jurors are not smart enough to understand how the MTBE ruined the groundwater in their State and poisoned thousands of people, that it has to go to a State where Amerada Hess or some large oil company feels comfortable, because they are not headquartered in New Hampshire, they do not have a large plant in New Hampshire. All they did was sell the material which poisoned your neighborhood.

That is what it is all about, ladies and gentlemen. You just watch across the board every single interest that harms the health and well- being of America skyrocket as soon as we take the vote on final passage of this bill today because President Bush is going to sign this bill with great joy because the oil, the chemical and polluting industries are going to be happy.

Industry Note: Tobacco--Senate Just Passed Class Action Bill--Positive

for Tobacco

(By Bonnie Herzog)

Summary

The Senate just passed a bill 72-26 which is designed to

funnel class-action suits with plaintiffs in different states

out of state courts and into the federal court system, which

is typically much less sympathetic to such litigation.

The practical effect of the change could be that many cases

will never be heard given how overburdened federal judges

are, which might help limit the number of cases.

Although this news is positive in general for the tobacco

industry, we do not necessarily believe that class actions

pose a big threat to the industry. Furthermore, this type of

legislation would have been a bigger help to the industry if

it was passed 10 years ago.

The bill now moves to the House floor and the chances are

high that it passes since the House Republican leadership

said last week that it would pass the Senate's version of

this legislation as long as there were no amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his excellent work on this very important piece of legislation. I rise in opposition to this rule and I rise in opposition to the underlying legislation.

In the 1960s, President Kennedy used to say, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' Today, Republican leaders in Washington have issued a new challenge: ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for the country club.''

That is what this bill is all about. It is protecting the country club members from the responsibility for the harm which they potentially inflict from their corporate perspectives on ordinary citizens within our society.

The class-action bill is part of an overall strategy which the Republican Party has put in place in order to harm consumers all across our country, to repeal the protections that have been placed upon the books for two generations that ensure that the individual in our society is given the protection which they need. Here is their strategy. It is a simple, four-part strategy.

Number one, first is the ``borrow and spend'' strategy. That is all part of this idea that Paul O'Neill mentioned, the former Secretary of Treasury for George Bush, when he said that Dick Cheney said to him, ``Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.''

Of course, the reason they do not matter is that, as Grover Norquist has pointed out quite clearly, the architect of this Republican strategy, the key goal has to be to starve the beast; the beast, of course, being the Federal Government's ability to help ordinary people, to help ordinary citizens, to help

ordinary consumers in our country when they are being harmed.

So this idea that there is less and less money then starves the Federal agencies given the responsibility for protecting the public, the Federal Drug Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission; agency after agency left with not enough resources to protect the consumer, which they were intended to do.

Secondly, there is the grim reaper of regulatory relief, where the Office of Management and Budget inside of the Bush administration ensures that any regulation that is meant to protect the consumer is tied up in endless rounds of peer review and cost-benefit analysis, weighing the lives of ordinary consumers against the money that corporations might have to spend in order to make sure that their products are not defective, that they do not harm ordinary citizens across our country.

Then there is stage three, the fox in the hen house. This is where the Bush administration then appoints somebody from the industry that is meant to be regulated as the head of the agency, knowing that that individual has no likelihood of actually putting on the books the kinds of protections which are needed.

Then, finally, after the Federal Government is not capable of really protecting ordinary citizens, their safety, their health, then what they say to the citizen is, by the way, now we are going to make it almost impossible for you to go to court to protect yourself, to bring a case.

That is what this bill is all about, that final step. You cannot even as an individual partner with other people to go to court. And here is what it says. It says that all of these cases are going to Federal Court, unless a significant defendant is in fact a citizen of the State.

Well, think about this. Let us go to New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a perfect example. New Hampshire has a suit which it has brought against 22 oil and chemical companies because of the pollution in the State's waterways with MTBE, a deadly, dangerous material which has harmed people all across our country, but New Hampshire is the best example.

Under this new law, because the principal defendant in the case is Amerada Hess and because it is headquartered in New York and it is the principal defendant, not only Amerada Hess but the other 22 companies, not only is Amerada Hess, this big company, and the other 22 companies who have arrived in New Hampshire, polluting the State, given the relief of not having the case be held in the State of New Hampshire, with New Hampshire judges and New Hampshire citizens, instead it is removed to the Federal Court, so the Republicans can name judges who they know are going to be sympathetic to the companies, not the State of New Hampshire, not their judges, not their people.

That is what this is all about. It is making sure that ordinary citizens in New Hampshire, whose families have been harmed, whose health is permanently ruined, cannot bring a case against large corporations.

Who gets the benefit of this? The defendant. The defendant. They come in from out-of-state, they pollute, they harm, they ruin the lives of people, and then the defendant says, ``I don't want to be tried in New Hampshire. I don't want to be tried in Texas. I don't want to be tried in that State. I want to go some other place.''

What about the plaintiffs? What about the people who have been harmed? What about the mothers? What about the children? What about the people who have lost their health?

This is the final nail that the Republicans are putting in the coffin of the rights of ordinary citizens to be able to protect themselves. All of these cases should be brought in the State courts where the large corporation caused the harm, not in a Federal Court away from the closest people who know what is right and wrong inside of that State.

Mr. Speaker, vote no on this critical bill. Vote no on the rule. Vote to protect the consumers, the families, the children, the seniors in our country who the Republicans are going to allow to be jeopardized by moving the cases from where they live to places where the defendants, the largest corporations, will be able to protect their own selfish self-interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for this legislation and commend as well the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and members of the committee on both the Democrat and Republican side who have crafted this bill. It has been handled in a bipartisan fashion. This bill is brought to the floor today in that spirit.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is essentially identical to the bill which overwhelmingly passed the House in the last Congress. Simply put, this bill raises the cap on possible fines that the FCC can levy for violations of its broadcast indecency rules from $32,500 for licensees and $11,000 for nonlicensees to up to $500,000 in both categories.

I would like to emphasize that this legislation does not make indecent broadcasts illegal, nor does the bill define what is or is not indecent material.

Indecent content aired over broadcast TV and radio is already illegal between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., 7 days a week. What speech constitutes indecent material will be left to the Federal Communications Commission and to the courts of the United States of America.

Again, this legislation simply updates the statute with regard to the amount of money that the FCC can levy as a fine for violations of its rules and establishes procedures for considering broadcast license awards, renewal or revocation when repeated violations are found.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, although not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I fully support this amendment, which incorporates a number of changes to the bill. We have worked together in a bipartisan fashion to develop this package of refinements to the legislation. These are noncontroversial changes, and I urge Members to support the amendment.

The first change further clarifies that we intend for the FCC when levying a fine on a non-licensee to take into account the financial impact of a particular fine on an individual when considering an individual's ability to pay.

The second change merely adjusts the standard for an utterance of an indecency so that it reads ``willfully and intentionally uttered,'' so that there is no confusion.

As the gentleman from Michigan has pointed out, it is not the intention of either the majority or the minority to have an act which is not intentional to be penalized by this legislation. The gentleman from Michigan did outline a good example of how such an occurrence could be wrongly interpreted unless the language ``intentionally'' was added to the legislation.

We thank the majority for accommodating the concern which the minority had on that issue. We think that it definitely strengthens the legislation, and it ensures that it will be used only for the purpose for which the legislation is intended and not to reach unintentional behavior which may have incidentally been uttered.

Thirdly, the GAO study in the bill will be limited to looking back and analyzing indecency issues at the FCC only to the year 2000.

Finally, the amendment includes a provision offered by our colleague, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), which tasks the FCC with updating its guidance for broadcast licensees with regard to these issues.

Again, these are noncontroversial changes, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Upton) for his assistance on these clarifications, and I urge Members to support the amendment. Again, I thank all of the Members for their cooperation in this legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time, with thanks to the chairman of the committee for his great work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the time.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for asking for this time for a resolution to honor our great New England Patriots who now go down into history as one of the greatest football teams of all time, and in honor of that, I have a very brief poem that I thought I would read to honor this great family and great team.

To the New England Patriots:

The New England Patriots we proudly honor today, they've won three Super Bowls in 4 years with their remarkable play.

From top to bottom, the Patriots have clearly shown why in football's history books they will be known.

For their great example both on and off the field the principles of hard work and team play they never yield.

It starts with Bob Kraft, Myra and kin, whose motto is simple, with class we shall win.

Belichick and Pioli then constructed their teams about which others could only have dreams.

Because the coaching is so great on both defense and offense the outcomes of Pats games are almost never in suspense.

But on the field, it's the players who win each big game and every one of them belongs in a winner's Hall of Fame.

Quarterback Tom Brady is a football legend in the making. He's never lost a playoff game, leaving opponents with heads shaking.

Corey Dillon in the backfield, Deion Branch the Super Bowl MVP; and how about Troy Brown playing not just one way but three?

Rodney Harrison at safety, Teddy Brewski linebacker inside and veterans McGinest and Vinatieri playing with great pride.

So after a season with 14 victories, the playoffs were ready to begin. Peyton's Colts came calling first, but Romeo's ``D'' made their heads spin.

The next stop was Pittsburgh for an appointment with Big Ben, but the rookie was no match for the Pats. They won by two scores and then.

They faced off against the Eagles in Super Bowl XXXIX and victory, sweet victory, was theirs for a third time.

Discipline and focus, a new standard for teamwork has been set with Kraft and Belichick at the helm, more trophies they are sure to get.

Now one thing is for certain, fans and experts all agree, the New England Patriots are football's newest world-class dynasty.

We honor Bob Kraft and his wife Myra, his son Jonathan, his entire family, the coaches, the players and the greatest fans in the world, the New England fans, for the incredible season that just culminated with great anticipation for the one that will begin again this fall.

I thank again the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for this resolution, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois for recognizing me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Frank's resolution and join with the entire New England delegation in honoring the remarkable achievements of the Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots. In the interest of good sportsmanship, I also want to commend the Philadelphia Eagles and their owner Jeffrey Lurie for a terrific season.

Mr. Speaker, the New England Patriots have redefined teamwork. Even as individual accomplishments are recognized and rewarded at every turn in professional sports, the New England Patriots have demonstrated that winning championships is all about teamwork. Without question the Patriots are a team filled with extremely talented football players, but each puts the team ahead of his own statistics and accolades.

This philosophy, and this incredible record of winning with class, is a tribute to Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, and the organization he has built. His son Jonathan has been there every step of the way as this team has traversed the path to greatness.

The team is fortunate to have Bill Belichick, who brings an outstanding work ethic and knack for teaching football to this enterprise. And Scott Pioli continues to be a player personnel phenom. As every fan in New England knows, Bill is a coaching genius, and a man who now finds himself in the elite company of the legendary Vince Lombardi. What's more, he assembled an outstanding staff of assistants, notably Defensive Coordinator Romeo Crennel and Offensive Coordinator Charlie Weis. The coaches' game day schemes kept opponents guessing all through this past season as the Patriots won 14 games, through the playoffs in blowout victories over Indianapolis and Pittsburgh, and right on into the Super Bowl match-up and win against the Philadelphia Eagles.

So the Patriots have a great owner and great coaches--and they have certainly demonstrated that they also have great players--guys who put the team first--and guys who can win championships. Led by the amazing Tom Brady who has never lost a playoff game--he can beat you with his heart or his head. The team has an outstanding offensive line and receiver corps--Deion Branch tied a Super Bowl record for receptions and was named the game's Most Valuable Player. In the backfield, the combination of Corey Dillon and Kevin Faulk wore down defenses and racked up yards. On defense, everyone contributed--Tedy Bruschi, Mike Vrabel, Ted Johnson, Richard Seymour, Roosevelt Colvin--the secondary led by Rodney Harrison, and the omnipotent Willie McGinest, the wily veteran who hasn't lost a step. And then you have the extraordinary Troy Brown. He exemplifies how Patriot players put the team first. Troy is a receiver and returns punts ordinarily, but when injuries began piling up in the Patriots secondary--Troy learned to play in the defensive backfield.

Mr. Speaker, the New England Patriots have left an indelible mark in the football history books, clearly establishing themselves as the first sports dynasty of the 21st Century. They represent the very best of New England and have earned the adoration of their fans--Patriot Nation. I congratulate Bob, Myra and Jonathan Kraft, Coach Belichick and all of the coaching staff and each and every player for an exciting season, and a fantastic post-season, and for winning their third world championship in four years.

I thank Mr. Frank for introducing this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today I am inserting in the Congressional Record, excerpts from an excellent series on fire safety by Bill Dedman that ran in the Boston Globe on January 30 and 31, 2005. The series investigates the overwhelming problem of shrinking resources in local fire departments and the resulting threats to public and fire fighter safety. I urge my colleagues to read the entire series on line at: http://www.boston.com/news/specials/fires/.

Mr. Dedman conducted what may be the most thorough analysis of the many threats to public safety resulting from understaffed fire houses, tight municipal budgets and ever growing responsibilities. Just this month my staff met with mayors of towns and communities in my congressional district in Massachusetts who are concerned that the fire fighter staffing problems are reaching crisis levels. Since September 2001, Massachusetts has lost 800 paid fire fighters by layoffs and attrition. We have too few fire fighters who are too thinly spread. And the work has essentially doubled.

According to the National Fire Protection Administration, it is critical for fire fighters to arrive at a fire within 6 minutes. But that is not happening. The Globe series revealed that nationwide only 35 percent of fire departments were able to reach 90 percent of building fires in that time. Why? As the chiefs say, ``more work, fewer people.''

I would like to share the following excerpts from the Globe with my colleagues:

. . . Lisa Collum was breast-feeding her baby, and her 3-

year-old was getting ready for a playdate, when the fire

started in the apartment downstairs . . . The firehouse a few

blocks away was empty. Only three firefighters were on duty

to cover all 33 square miles of this seaside town, and they

were busy with two ambulance calls on this January evening in

2001. One firefighter drove back for the fire engine, then

hurried into the chaos at the Collums' home . . . It was

standing room only at the funeral . . .

. . . Once a day on average in this country, someone dies

when firefighters arrive too late, an investigation of fire

response times by the Globe has found. America's fire

departments are giving fires a longer headstart, arriving

later each year, especially in the suburbs around Boston,

Atlanta and other cities, where growth is brisk but fire

staffing has been cut . . .

. . . In Massachusetts, people waited 10 minutes or more

for firefighters to arrive at 214 building fires in 2002, the

last year for which data is available. Since 1990, there have

been 2,786 such fires, including blazes at jails, mental

hospitals, apartment buildings, shopping malls and private

homes.

. . . The fire department budgets are not growing to keep

up, but shrinking. As a share of all municipal budgets across

the country, fire spending has slipped, from 6.1 percent in

fiscal 1987 to 5.7 percent in fiscal 2003, the Globe

calculated from the US Census Bureau's survey of governments

. . .

Small-town departments are increasingly undertaking

aggressive interior assaults on fires. Some of these smaller

fire departments do not have the training, equipment, and

backup personnel to safely accomplish these dangerous

tactics,'' warned a 1998 report by the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health . . . After the Worcester fire

that killed six firefighters in 1999, federal investigators

warned of the need to have a rested crew standing by with

safety equipment. But fire chiefs in the Boston suburbs say

such a team is usually assembled only after the fire is

nearly out.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to visit the web and read this series more closely. We owe it to the public and to our brave fire fighters whose lives are on the line every day.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, with Representative Nancy Johnson and over 100 of my colleagues, legislation that would permanently protect the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from development by granting it full wilderness status, consistent with the rest of the Refuge. The Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act of 2005 honors two great visionaries by protecting, in their name, this extraordinary piece of America's wilderness. Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower began the bipartisan legacy to protect this majestic land when he set aside the core of the Refuge in 1960. Twenty years later, in 1980, Democratic Representative Morris Udall succeeded in doubling the size of the Refuge, thereby protecting even more of this pristine wilderness from oil drilling. As Mo Udall said at the time, ``In our lifetime, we have few opportunities to shape the very Earth on which our descendants will live their lives. In each generation, we have carved up more and more of our once-great natural heritage. There ought to be a few places left in the world the way the Almighty made them.''

President Eisenhower and Mo Udall had the vision to protect a remote but very special piece of wilderness for America's future generations. It is now our responsibility to stop those who would tear down this legacy. This legislation would, at long last, complete the job they began.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure. It is a Federal land given legal protection so that the pressures of development today do not over-run the need to preserve for tomorrow a unique place for the undisturbed enjoyment of future generations. The Arctic Refuge does not belong to the oil companies; it does not belong to one party; it does not belong to one State. It is a public wilderness trust, and we are the trustees.

The coastal plain of the Refuge is the biological heart of the ecosystem and is critical to the survival of caribou, polar bears, and over 160 species of birds. A Department of the Interior study suggests that oil development would contribute to a 20-40 percent decline in the Refuge's caribou population, and similar declines in wolverine and musk oxen populations. When you drill in the heart, every other part of the biological system suffers.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calls the coastal plain the ``center for wildlife activity'' in the Refuge. lf the drillers get their way, a refuge for wildlife will become something else--a place for caribou, grizzlies, polar bears and wolves to practice their social skills with oil riggers, pipelines, roads, pumping stations, bulldozers, helicopters, airstrips, and everything else necessary for a state-of-the-art ``environmentally-conscious'' oil field. Like their counterparts in the zoo, the wildlife will be required to adapt to living in an oil field, and they will be ``wildlife'' no more. A place that has been ``forever wild'' will be gone--gone forever--never to be retrieved.

If Congress authorizes drilling in the Refuge, it will scar an untouched landscape, evict wildlife from its traditional habitats, turn tundra potholes for ducks into catch basins for drilling wastes, and provide a precedent to invade every other wildlife refuge in the United States of America.

Let's be clear--if we want to be able to protect the wildlife refuge system later, we must protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge now.

You have surely heard the argument that we have no choice, that we have soldiers in the oil fields of the Middle East that need to come home, that we must reduce our dependence on oil from unstable foreign suppliers.

Let's be clear again--we have a choice, a better choice, and the sooner we steer the debate away from drilling for 6 months' worth of oil in the Arctic Refuge, the sooner we can actually do something real about oil imports.

The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's oil but controls only 3 percent of the world's reserves. 76 percent of those reserves are controlled by the OPEC cartel; that is our weakness. Our strength lies not in sacrificing our wildlands; our strength lies in harnessing our technological genius. We are a technological superpower. It is time to start acting like one.

From an energy standpoint, drilling in the wildlife refuge is completely unnecessary. Transportation--cars, SUVs, and trucks--account for approximately three-quarters of all U.S. oil consumption. If we improve the average fuel economy of cars, mini-vans, and SUVs by just 3 miles per gallon, we save more oil within ten years than would ever be produced from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Technology already exists that will allow us to dramatically increase fuel economy, not just by 3 mpg, but by 15 mpg or more--five times the amount the industry could possibly drill out of the Refuge.

The debate over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is surreal when you consider that the country which is sending our young men and women abroad to shed their blood in the Middle East oilfields is the same country which subsidizes the consumption of oil at home as if it were an infinite resource.

Let me cite just one obscene example. The Administration's current energy policy provides $35,000 in tax deductions for the purchase of a Hummer, but a mere $2,000 for the purchase of a hybrid vehicle. A hybrid gets 50 miles per gallon, a Hummer gets 10 miles per

gallon. Do the math. Oil is not infinite, but our capacity to subsidize the waste of oil seems boundless. The Administration's energy policy is like a hamster spinning in his wheel--lots of activity, no progress. According to the Administration's own Energy Information Administration, passage of the Energy Act will result in our dependence on foreign oil soaring from less than 65 percent today to 80 percent in 2025.

The public understands that. In a recent Zogby poll, Americans soundly rejected the link between drilling in the wildlife refuge and energy independence. Only one in six respondents agreed that more domestic oil drilling is the way to reduce our foreign oil dependence. More than two-thirds believe the United States should promote increased fuel economy and alternative energies instead of drilling. Americans have also made it clear to Congress that they disagree with attempts to make an end run around the legislative process by cramming the fate of the Arctic Refuge into the 2005 Budget resolution. The people of America recently expressed their disapproval of this ``backdoor maneuver'' by a margin of 59 to 25 percent.

Even the oil companies have publicly announced that they are shifting their focus away from the Arctic Refuge and toward fields in other parts of the North Slope of Alaska; so should Congress. BP, ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco have all quietly walked away from this political drilling frenzy, suggesting that there are higher priorities for the oil industry than drilling in this refuge. Is it possible that oil companies know something that the politicians do not?

If we allow this Congress to turn the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge into an industrial footprint, the impact on the land and the wildlife would be permanent and the hoped-for energy benefit only temporary. Let us join the American people in saying, unequivocally, that there are places that are so rare, so special, so unique that we simply will not drill there as long as alternatives exist.

We have an opportunity to preserve the Arctic Refuge as the magnificent wilderness the way God made it. It is arrogant and immoral to sacrifice this ecological gem when we have better ways to meet our energy needs, and no other place with such environmental significance on Earth. We do not dam Yosemite Valley for hydropower. We do not strip-mine Yellowstone for coal. And we should not drill for oil and gas in the Arctic Refuge.

Mr. Speaker, it has only been a couple months since we commemorated the third anniversary of the most devastating attack against our country since Pearl Harbor. It was a solemn day and an occasion to remember the men and women who perished on that clear Tuesday morning. For the families of the victims, September 11 will always be a difficult date on the calendar. Like the World Trade Center families, the Pentagon families, and the families of first responders, the families of the greater Boston area experienced this tragedy personally as two of the four planes involved took off from Logan Airport carrying their loved ones.

Unfortunately, for many of these brave families, their difficult days are not over. Many of the families who continue to struggle are now faced with the loss of their eligibility through the low-cost COBRA health insurance program.

The COBRA program is intended to provide stability to families as they go through a major life transition, and for 120 days following the trauma of September 11th, it provided critical health insurance for families in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, and elsewhere who lost a loved one. This temporary assistance has already expired for many of these families and without this legislation, more families will lose their eligibility. Without the security of this program they must struggle to find affordable coverage in the private market, pay enormous health care premiums or go without health insurance.

The families who had their loved ones taken away on September 11th have suffered and lost enough. The least we can do for these brave Americans is provide them with continued access to stable and affordable health insurance.

That is why Senator Kennedy and I are introducing the ``Continuing Care for Recovering Families Act.'' This legislation will allow families of victims of September 11th to buy health care coverage under the federal COBRA program--the temporary low-cost continuation of coverage available for those who change their job, lose their job or for families that lose their chief income earner through death.

The families who lost their loved ones on September 11th continue to face the hardship and trauma of that devastating day with courage and determination. We should do whatever we can to ease the pain of these brave Americans, and I am proud to be introducing legislation today with Senator Kennedy to provide these families with continued access to low-cost, quality health care.

I urge the Congress to act quickly to ensure that these brave families not have to go without the security and piece of mind that medical insurance provides.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Tubbs Jones and Senator Boxer and Representative John Conyers for forcing this institution, and thus our Nation, to debate the quality of our democratic voting process and to consider whether it meets the expectations of its people.

If we are to form a more perfect union, we must dedicate ourselves to forming a more perfect voting process.

Four years ago, this Nation shuddered at the weakness of our ballot process, and vowed to improve it.

But in some respects, it was weakened further.

The ballot was weakened when votes were allowed to be cast without a printed record.

The ballot was weakened when the vote took so long that voters had to choose between voting and missing a day's work.

The ballot was weakened when provisional ballots were not honored.

We must confront the fact that electronic voting machines that do not provide a ``print our'' are a black hole.

We can do better. Our ATM machines give receipts in return for cash. It is clearly not a technological barrier to provide a receipt in return for a vote.

This is America. We are the incubator for democratic evolution. We are a beacon to the free world. Ohio had special problems this time, but they are problems we can fix, and when we fix them in Ohio, we will have made the progress in 2005 that we failed to make over the last 4 years.

I am voting to support this challenge to the certification of Ohio's vote as a legitimate and constructive beginning to a more perfect democracy and a more perfect union.

Mr. Speaker, in celebration of the victory of the Red Sox in the World Series, I have an offering for the House, with apologies to Ernest L. Thayer entitled, ``The Curse Has Struck Out.''

The outlook wasn't guaranteed for the Red Sox nine this year

Since 1918 our boys had left us crying in our beer.

And when they lost twice in New York, and then at home again

A pall-like silence fell over the loyal Red Sox fans.

A straggling few got up to go in deep despair.

``Wait 'til next year,'' they said. Resignation filled the

air.

The rest clung to that hope that springs eternal in the human

breast.

``It ain't over 'til it's over'' they muttered half in jest.

They thought, ``If only our boys could put some bat on that

ball,

We'd put Bambino's curse to rest once and for all.''

But then Ortiz let fly a homer, to the wonderment of all.

And Johnny Damon, bases loaded, tore the cover off the ball.

And when the dust had lifted on that memorable night

We had come back from three games down, the Curse was in our

sights.

Then from all of Red Sox Nation's throats there rose a wild

call,

It echoed on the Common, it shook Faneuil Hall.

It pounded on the River Charles, and splashed upon the Bay,

The Yankees were all through, kaput, a World Series we would

play.

And they rolled out to St. Louis, jewel of the Midwest.

The Cards had won their league with ease, but now they faced

a test.

Were they ready for the Boston boys? The town was dressed in

red.

The fans could not be nicer, the team was so well led.

But the Red Sox took the first three games, competing nobly

one and all.

They overcame their errors, they answered every call.

And as Game Four proceeded, and a Series win now loomed,

All New England shivered with the thought we might still be

doomed.

Henry shifted in his seat, Hope in Werner burned,

Epstein checked his numbers, Lucchino's stomach churned.

What deus ex machina would fall down from the sky?

What Bucky Dent-Bill Buckner ghost might steer things all

awry?

Keith Foulke climbed up upon the mound, ball burning in his

hand.

The Curse stepped up to face him, to make a final stand.

There was ease in the Curse's manner as he stepped into his

place.

There was pride in Bambino's bearing, a smile on the Curse's

face.

And when, responding to his fans, he lightly doffed his hat,

No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas the Curse at the

bat.

A nation's eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt.

60,000 tongues applauded when he wiped them on his shirt.

Then, while Foulke rubbed the ball into his shifty hip,

Defiance flashed in the Curse's eye, a sneer curled on his

lip.

And now the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the

air,

And the Curse stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.

Close by the portly batsman the ball unheeded sped--

``I just can't hit that,'' said the Curse. ``Strike one!''

the umpire said.

From the canyons of Manhattan, there rose a muffled roar.

New York fans were screaming, ``Would the Curse really be no

more?''

``Kill him, kill the umpire,'' they shouted in Yankee land.

The Curse looked smug. In 86 years the Curse had never

fanned.

With a smile of overconfidence, the Curse's visage shone.

He stilled the rising tumult, he bade the game go on.

He signaled the Red Sox closer, and once more the dun sphere

flew,

But the Curse couldn't hit it, and the umpire said, ``Strike

two.''

``It's over,'' thought the Cardinals fans, who are brought up

so well.

But the Curse gave a scornful look and an eerie silence fell.

They saw his face frown stern and cold, they saw his muscles

strain.

And they really thought the Curse wouldn't let that ball go

by again.

The sneer has fled from the Curse's lip, the teeth are

clenched in hate.

He pounds, with cruel violence, his bat upon the plate.

And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,

And now the air is shattered by the force of the Curse's

blow.

Oh, all across this favored land the sun is shining bright.

The band is playing happily and our hearts are oh so light.

And Red Sox Nation smiles and laughs, and little children

shout.

And there is pure joy in Beantown--

The Curse has struck out.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this bill to implement some of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

After 9/11, those who lost family members and friends wanted to know ``why.'' But the Bush administration was scared that an honest answer to that question might highlight flaws in its own policies and decisions, so it opposed the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission.

The families won that hard-fought fight, and the Commission made numerous recommendations to reorganize the intelligence community and strengthen both the implementation and congressional oversight of homeland security.

Although the Senate put together a bipartisan bill that was true to the spirit of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the House version catered to anti-immigration groups' agendas and to Donald Rumsfeld's struggle to keep all of his Department's intelligence turf intact.

I am extremely pleased that the unwavering determination of the 9/11 family members finally convinced the President and the Speaker to stop allowing the voices of the few dissenters to stymie the will of the majority of Members and Senators who've wanted to see this legislation enacted into law. In particular, I recognize and honor the extraordinary efforts to enact this bill by Ms. Carie Lemack, whose mother, Framingham MA resident Judy Larocque, was killed aboard American Airlines Flight 11. Ms. Lemack is a member of the 9/11 family Steering Committee, and she and others on the Steering Committee have worked tirelessly to ensure both the creation of the 9/ 11 Commission and the enactment of this bill.

The legislation before us today takes some important steps to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission:

It establishes a Director of National Intelligence with appropriate budgetary and personnel authority;

It establishes a National Counterterrorism Center to ensure that all elements of counterintelligence operations planning are coordinated;

It establishes an independent privacy and civil liberties board to ensure that concerns are addressed; and

It takes specific steps to increase border security.

However, some of the other measures contained in the bill, while useful, in my opinion do not go far enough:

While the Hostettler amendment to facilitate the rendition of certain foreign persons to countries that practice torture was stripped from the bill in conference, along with other anti-immigrant provisions, there is no restriction in the bill that prohibits the secret transfer of detainees to other countries where they will likely be tortured in the name of the U.S. This practice is in direct violation of the Convention Against Torture, a treaty the U.S. has signed, and the 9/11 Commission specifically called for reforms in this area to ensure the humane treatment of captives in the war against terror. I will continue to work until my bill to outlaw outsourcing torture, H.R. 4674, is passed and I will continue to oppose efforts to move legislation that would in any way legitimize the practice of rendition to countries that practice torture.

While the Secretary of Homeland Security is directed in this bill to develop a national strategy for transportation security, it should be abundantly clear that numerous loopholes in this area should be closed immediately: Since almost no cargo placed on passenger airlines is subject to screening for explosives, screening passenger baggage and patting down travelers provides a false sense of security to those flying; The Department has failed to install radiation detectors at all ports of entry to ensure that nuclear weapons cannot be smuggled into the country; And finally, the Department has continued to allow shipments of extremely hazardous materials that could kill thousands of people to travel through densely populated areas even when safe alternate routes are available. I will continue to work to close all of these transportation security loopholes.

Finally, I am also troubled that we have only had several hours to review this legislation. As we learned in recent weeks when a Republican staffer inserted an intrusive tax return snooping provision into the omnibus appropriations bill that no one knew existed and which later had to be removed, waiving the normal 72 hour layover rule for conference reports increases the likelihood that provisions that have not been thoroughly reviewed and do not reflect the will of the House can make their way into final legislation. While we all recognize the importance of the 9/11 legislation, it is my hope that in our efforts to enact it before we adjourn for the year, that language has not been included that will later prove to be ill-advised or carry with it unintended consequences.

I commend the 9/11 families for their heroic efforts to make this country more secure. Without them, we would not be standing here voting on this landmark legislation today. Today's vote is enormously important, but our efforts must not end today. I stand ready to continue the fight to ensure that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 cannot and will not be repeated.

Mr. Speaker, to day I am introducing the ``Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act,'' a bill to stop the transfer of nuclear equipment and technology to Iran.

This week Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon, which would provide further evidence Iran is determined to move forward to become a nuclear weapons state. His comments come on the heels of reports that Iran on the one hand has agreed with three European countries to freeze its uranium enrichment program, and, on the other hand, reports by an Iranian opposition group that Iran may still be pursuing a covert uranium enrichment program at an undeclared location.

The credibility of the United States suffered when we missed the mark so badly in Iraq when the Administration concluded that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. In Iraq the IAEA had the advantage of 250 inspectors on the ground with anytime, anywhere inspection authority to go look wherever they suspected there might be evidence of nuclear weapons activity. The IAEA does not have that advantage in Iran. Instead, both the U.S. and the IAEA are trying to divine the plans of a regime through fragmentary pieces of information gleaned from a variety of sources, much of it subject to widely varying interpretation and credibility. We simply cannot afford to be wrong on a subject as serious as the spread of nuclear weapons.

We know that a variety of foreign countries and companies may have provided assistance to Iran's nuclear program. Some of these countries may also be engaged in nuclear commerce with the United States, or may have received U.S.-origin nuclear technology in the past, or seek access to U.S. nuclear materials or technology in the future. Should we engage in nuclear commerce with countries that are supplying Iran with the wherewithal to move forward with a nuclear weapons program? I don't think so.

Let's take just one example. China is known to have provided support to the Iranian nuclear program in the past. In recent months, there have been press reports that Vice President Cheney is championing efforts to export

nuclear reactors to China. It just does not make any sense to say that we are against nuclear proliferation in Iran, and then to turn around sell nuclear reactors to China.

The bill I am introducing today will:

Stop the transfer of nuclear equipment and technology to any country that is supporting Iran's nuclear program;

Require the President to report to Congress a complete list of countries who have provided missile and nuclear materials and technology to Iran;

Require the President to report to Congress an estimate and assessment of Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear explosives and their delivery vehicles.

Require the President to give to Congress an assessment of the European-Iran deal.

Require the President to provide to Congress an evaluation of the basis and credibility of a possible secret nuclear facility in Iran.

Require the President to provide to Congress information on whether the U.S. has provided the United Nations and International Agency, IAEA, weapons inspectors with full access to intelligence on Iran's nuclear program.

Require the President to report to Congress on the steps the U.S. is taking to ensure that United Nations and IAEA inspectors have full access to all suspected Iranian nuclear sites and on what steps the U.S. it taking to work with the international community, including the IAEA, to ensure Iran is complying with the Nonproliferation Treaty.

This bill will not:

Apply to radiation monitoring technologies, surveillance equipment, seals, cameras, tamper-indicating devices, nuclear detectors, monitoring systems, or equipment to safely store, transport or remove hazardous material.

Apply, with a waiver by the President, if it is in the vital interest of national security.

Apply, with a waiver by the President, if the transfer is essential to prevent or respond to a serious radiological hazard.

Limit the full implementation of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs, also known as the Nunn-Lugar program.

While there is legislation in place that provides for sanctions against Iran--the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act or ILSA, this legislation has not proven to be effective. ILSA provides for sanctions against companies that invest $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector in a single year. Here is what the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reports about the implementation of the Act:

The Clinton Administration apparently sought to balance

implementation with the need to defuse a potential trade

dispute with the EU. In April 1997, the United States and the

EU formally agreed to try to avoid a trade confrontation over

ILSA and the ``Helms-Burton'' Cuba sanctions law (P.L. 104-

114). The agreement contributed to a decision by the Clinton

Administration to waive ILSA sanctions on the first project

determined to be in violation: a $2 billion (1) contract

(signed in September 1997) for Total SA of France and its

minority partners, Gazprom of Russia and Petronas of Malaysia

to develop phases 2 and 3 of the 25-phase South Pars gas

field. The Administration announced the waiver on May 18,

1998, citing national interest grounds (Section 9(c) of

ILSA), after the EU pledged to increase cooperation with the

United States on non-proliferation and counter-terrorism. The

announcement indicated that EU firms would likely receive

waivers for future projects that were similar.

The Bush Administration has apparently adopted the same

policy on ILSA as did the Clinton Administration, attempting

to work cooperatively with the EU to curb Iran's nuclear

program and limit its support for terrorism. According to the

Bush Administration's mandated January 2004 assessment, ILSA

has not stopped energy sector investment in Iran. However,

some believe the law has slowed Iran's energy development,

and Iran's sustainable oil production has not increased

significantly since the early 1990s, despite the new

investment, although foreign investment has slowed or halted

deterioration in oil production. On the other hand, Iran's

gas sector, nonexistent prior to the late 1990s, is becoming

an increasingly important factor in Iran's energy future,

largely as a result of foreign investment.

Since the South Pars case, many projects--all involving

Iran, not Libya--have been formally placed under review for

ILSA sanctions by the State Department. Recent State

Department reports on ILSA, required every six months, state

that U.S. diplomats raise with both companies and countries

the United States' ILSA and policy concerns about potential

petroleum-sector investments in Iran. However, no sanctions

determinations have been announced since the South Pars case

discussed above.

Clearly, the ILSA sanctions are not working. We need to come up with a sanctions law that can work, and the Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act is my attempt to forge such a proposal. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, which I intend to reintroduce at the beginning of the next Congress.