Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his excellent work and, too, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

This is a critically important bill. We are debating, we are discussing the security of the American people at home. The President says that the security of the American people at home can be enhanced by spending $5.7 billion to rebuild Iraq's electricity grid; that our security is enhanced by spending $3.7 billion to expand access to safe drinking water for Iraqis; $875 million to restore marshlands in Iraq, that helps our security; $20 million for political consultants to the Afghan Government, that helps our security; $856 million to the Iraqis for their airports, that helps our security.

But when it comes to screening cargo that goes on the passenger planes, that every American flies on, nothing. Under existing law that this administration and the Republican leadership are going to pass, we all, Americans, we have to go through security, take off everything we have got on if necessary, put our carry-on bags through, our computers, our cell phones to prove that we are not threatening that passenger plane, but on the very same plane, that cargo goes on unscreened.

We are told by the Republican leadership that we cannot afford to do it, that the technology does not exist to do it. Let me ask this: If a person's carry-on can be taken on a plane this size and be put through a device that ensures that it does not have a bomb on it, why cannot this package of cargo go through the very same screening device? What do my colleagues mean the screening device does not exist? Put this through the screening device. It is going on the same plane, except a person is going to be on the plane with their baggage. The terrorist will not be on the plane with the cargo.

What about this 16-ounce package? Not only does it not get screened if it is cargo, but there is no paperwork required. Why cannot this go through the same screening device we go through if it is going into the belly of the plane? What do my colleagues mean the screening device does not exist?

I will tell my colleagues what does not exist. The screeners do not exist. The Republican administration has laid off 6,000 screeners who could be putting this cargo through the screening device to make sure that, as it goes on the passenger planes, that the people of America, every person that flew here to Washington, D.C., to visit the Capitol, who are flying back on a plane with cargo on it that has not been screened, that has not been put through the same machine that their bags are put there.

So if you are al Qaeda, are you going to try to get through that screening device, through the two air marshals, through the metal door of the pilot's cabin, past the pilot with a gun, past all the passengers who are going to jump you if you get up in the aisle, or are you just going to go right around this machine and put your bomb on the plane unscreened because they do not want to pay to put it through that device?

We cannot spend $87 billion on top of 65 billion other dollars that we have already spent to provide security for Americans in Iraq and then say we are not going to ensure that the packages which go on passenger planes in America, that our cargo are screened.

It is at the top of the al Qaeda terrorist list. We know that the four planes that they brought down were only a small part of what their plot was, a small part of how many planes they wanted to bring down. They know what it does to the psyche of the American people, to the economy of our country. That is what terrorism is all about. It paralyzes a country. It has paralyzed us, and we have come out of it, to the credit of the American people, but we cannot allow it to happen again because we know what they are targeting.

Laying off 6,000 screeners and saying that technology does not exist is not accurate. We can put these packages through the very same screening devices. How can it consume more time to put all of us through the screening device, human beings, than it does to just put a package through? In fact, it would take less time to ensure that that cargo is screened, but the industry does not want to pay for it, cargo or airline. The Bush administration says

we do not have any money for that domestically, even though we have $87 billion for Iraqi security.

It is wrong. This bill must be defeated. We must ensure that every person flying in our country is not subject to this threat.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota and the gentleman from Wisconsin for their leadership on this issue.

The issue that I am going to address today is one that goes to the heart of how serious we are in this country about protecting innocent Americans from a successful al Qaeda attack. On the second anniversary of September 11, we know that al Qaeda still maintains that planes are at the very top of their list of potentially successful attacks upon the physical and psychological well-being of our Nation.

Twenty-two percent of all air cargo in the United States is actually placed on passenger planes; not on cargo planes, on passenger planes. For each of us, as we get on a plane they screen our shoes, they screen our computers, our cell phones, our carry-on bags. Our luggage, if it is checked, is screened before it is put into the belly of the plane. But the cargo which is placed on that very same plane is not screened.

Now, we saw yesterday what happens, when a young man, Charles McKinley, successfully shipped himself from New York to Dallas without being detected except at the point at which he emerged from his box on the doorstep of his parents.

This is a funny cartoon about a very deadly, serious subject. If you are wearing shoes and pants, you get searched at the airport. If you are wearing a dress and heels, you get searched at the airport. But if you are wearing a box, like Charles McKinley, neither you nor the box gets searched. That is a homeland security hole that will get filled by al Qaeda if we do not fill it ourselves.

What the Transportation Security Administration and the Bush administration likes to call a ``known shipper'' program, I call an ``unknown cargo'' program. The known shipper regulations are a bureaucratic paper exercise, not a serious security program. Charles McKinley's little escapade has exposed the known shipper program as a complete and total fraud. What Mr. McKinley has pointed out to our country is

that if an enemy wants to terrorize this country, they do not need to worry about hiding a box cutter; they just need to sit quietly inside a box.

The Transportation Security Agency has announced yesterday that it is going to develop an individual passenger profile of every airline passenger based on the risk that they pose to committing a future act of terrorism. So in addition to taking off our shoes, having someone rifle through our luggage, having to pass through metal detectors, we will also be given a color code. Well, if you are shipping cargo, your color code is always the same, green. Go, put it on the passenger plane. Al Qaeda is, in fact, targeting these planes as a subject for the further terrorization of our country.

Now, Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland, by a bomb contained in unscreened baggage. Today the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 are still concerned about airline security, and have endorsed the Markey-Shays amendment to require screening or inspection of cargo loaded on to passenger planes. In addition, the Coalition of Airline Pilots of America, which pilots so many of these planes, has also endorsed the Markey-Shays amendment, the idea of screening all cargo placed on passenger planes.

It is crazy for people to be sitting on planes with their screened shoes looking out the window at a cargo truck now loading cargo on the very same plane that has not been screened. We could have al Qaeda in a box just being shipped on these planes. They do not need a boarding pass to get on above, they can put their bombs on without a boarding pass underneath on the very same passenger plane. You could ship a terrorist through this loophole.

So, while up above in the passenger cabin we now have screening for the passengers, we have air marshals, we have a double reinforced steel door to the pilot's cabin, we have armed pilots and passengers who will jump any al Qaeda from now on, meanwhile, down below, nothing which will stop them from putting this cargo on.

Support this motion to instruct. The White House, the Senate, the cargo and airline industry must listen to the American people.

Mr. Chairman, if the line of juris prudence that we are now operating under is allowed to stand, then we are in a situation in which there is no effective regulation of a bank, an insurance company, or a securities firm sharing of a consumer's personal financial information and no State regulation of such transactions.

In other words, we are left with a regulatory black hole in which neither the Federal Government nor the States are regulating what is going on within this affiliate structure where one part of a firm gets it and then shares it with all of its affiliates, stockbrokers, insurance, you name it. All of the family's secrets are then spread throughout the country and to anyone that is affiliated with them as an independent operator as well.

This is unacceptable. And it means we have no Federal standard for consumer consent regarding affiliate sharing and preemption of any State law dealing with the subject.

What the Lee amendment says is that we should close this black hole so that if the Federal Government is unwilling or unable to effectively address affiliate sharing, sharing it with all the companies which this bank or insurance company or stock brokerage has, taking all their secrets and starting to share it with all these other companies, then the States can do so.

This amendment preserves not only California's privacy statute but the laws of any other State that might want to give their people protection so that their family's secrets are not made a product sold to anyone with enough money to buy what it is that you are doing with your financial life, your stock brokerage, your insurance information.

This is an important issue that our country faces: the privacy of every American. It is why we fought the American Revolution.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Alabama missed the point in the discussion of the gentleman from Ohio where he changed the metaphor from the American Revolution to moving the goal post, which makes sense. As a graduate of Ohio State, you would try to switch the form of the debate.

But, nonetheless, we have California moving the goal post further away from the consumer, where in the minds of Californians, and most of us who have dedicated our lives to privacy, the California section moves it closer to the privacy objectives that ordinary families have for their personal financial information. And what we are doing here is essentially giving to the big financial institutions the ability to be able to circumvent this increasing interest at the State level of enhancing the rights of families to be able to protect their privacy.

I hope when we get to the conference committee that my cochairman of the privacy caucus, Senator Shelby, who shares the passion on this issue, will be in disagreement with my colleagues as to whether or not we have reached in this bill the historic high point of where we should be in 2003 in terms of the protection of the privacy of American families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct that is being offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Our constituents want to know what caused the August 14th blackout, and what we are going to do to prevent it from happening again.

Unfortunately, the testimony the Energy and Commerce Committee received from the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission yesterday, indicates that the Bush Administration remains pretty much in the dark about the causes of the blackout.

At the same time, the Bush Administration continues to press for the immediate adoption of an energy bill that contains language that would make sweeping deregulatory changes in electricity law and launch a wide-ranging assault on our environment in the name of increasing oil and gas production. The Administration is essentially saying that these radical proposals are needed to prevent the recurrence of an event whose causes they say remain unknown. But if we don't know what caused the blackout in the first place, how can we know whether the proposed cure is worse than the disease? That's like a doctor telling you he has no idea what caused you to black out, but he'd like to see you in the morning for brain surgery. When you hear that, you know it's time to get a second opinion.

And the gentleman from Michigan has very helpfully offered a second opinion. Instead of a full frontal electricity lobotomy, he proposes a more modest initial course of treatment. His motion essentially says that we should quickly reach agreement on the consensus reliability language, and put the rest of the electricity title on hold for a later day. This solution, if adopted by the conferees would allow this Congress to solve a very real problem that we already know exists--the fact that existing electric utility reliability standards are purely voluntary and unenforceable. We know this is a problem. It very well may have contributed to the August 14th blackout. We should deal with it quickly, and not hold its ultimate resolution hostage to a resolution of the very complex and contentious issues of PUHCA-repeal, Regional Transmission Organizations, Native Load protection, incentive ratemaking, renewable portfolio standards, and a whole host of other entirely unrelated energy issues that are in the House and Senate bills.

We should set aside all of these issues now, at the very least until we've heard back from the U.S.-Canada Task Force on the causes of the blackout. Instead, we should just pass a clean, stand alone reliability bill, and do it now. If we get further recommendations from the Task Force after it completes its work, we can decide if more legislation is needed.

But right now, we should, reject once and for all this ridiculous notion that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is somehow needed to prevent future blackouts. Oil is for cars and trucks, not for air conditioners, refrigerators, ovens or light bulbs. Only about 3 percent of the oil our nation consumes is used for electricity.

What stopped working during the blackout? Our lights, our cooling, our refrigerators, our ovens.

Our cars and SUVs ran just fine.

It is ridiculous to use the blackout as an argument for drilling in the Arctic Refuge and other pristine public lands, and it exposes those who make the argument desperate for an outcome, driven by ideology, not facts.

The only relationship between the electricity blackout and gasoline is that several refineries shut down temporarily, which the oil industry used as an excuse to raise the price of gasoline to record- breaking levels nationwide over the Labor Day weekend.

I don't think that was justified, but at least the relationship is clear--electricity doesn't depend on reliable oil--oil depends on reliable electricity.

That is why we should stop searching in Alaska for solutions to the blackout. The problem is not in Alaska, it is in Ohio. The solutions won't be found above the Arctic Circle, but below Lake Erie.

Yesterday, Energy Secretary Abraham and FERC Chairman Pat Wood essentially told our Committee ``we'll get back to you later'' with some answers about what caused the blackout. So right now, we really don't have all the answers. We do know, however, that this $7-10 billion dollar hit to the economy could happen again tomorrow. Before we enact comprehensive energy legislation, we should know what caused the blackout.

We can, as a first step, pass by consensus reliability language that is in both the House and Senate bills, and defer action on the broader issues of FERC oversight, PUHCA and other issues that are just too contentious to resolve quickly. After we've gotten some answers, we can then come back and consider whether we should do other things. But is we legislate right now, we are just firing a shot in the dark--a shot that could hit our constituents and our economy with very severe consequences.

I urge adoption of the Dingell motion to instruct.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and I are at this point going to attempt to move money from the program which has funded the Prometheus program in NASA's budget over to deal with the shortfall in the Superfund clean-up program which is one that has not met the amount which President Bush requested in this budget. Now, as the bill itself is structured, there is such an increase in the program for Prometheus that it does leave over substantial money that if it was shifted over, that would ensure the full funding of the Superfund program as President Bush requested it, combined with a still substantial increase in the Prometheus program, and that is what we will consider today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the co-sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

The amendment which I am making is a win-win amendment. All we do in our amendment is say to those who are fans of the Prometheus program, and it is a program which has strong support in the Congress in our country, that in my amendment you get a 31 percent increase in the Prometheus budget for next year, a 31 percent increase, and the remainder of the money goes over to Superfund and they get a 9 percent increase in their budget.

How can anyone complain if space science is increased by 31 percent? Here on Earth the residue of the industrial age is still leaving neighborhood nightmares all across our country to the point where the Bush administration has decreased Superfund cleanup by 50 percent over the last 2 years.

All we are saying is, is not it possible for us to give a 31 percent increase between this year and next year to Prometheus, which we will vote for, and have a 9 percent increase for the Superfund program so we can take care of the last Industrial Age that still torments neighborhoods all over our country?

Win-win: Prometheus wins a 31 percent increase; Superfund gets a 9 percent increase. This is not anything other than something which everyone should be able to embrace.

Back in history, during the Clinton administration, in the mid- to late-1990s, there was an average of 86 Superfund sites cleaned up each year. In the Bush EPA, it only cleans up about 40 sites in 2003 and 2004. It is slowing down at half the rate that it was used as a program to help neighborhoods in the 1990s.

In Massachusetts, Fairhaven, Massachusetts, has now been taken off the list. There are 10 sites, including Fairhaven, taken off the list; sorry, we cannot help you with the residue of the last era of research.

All we are saying is, within this budget, without hurting Prometheus, giving it a 31 percent increase, we can also ensure that we take what the President requested, that is the number that I am building in here, President Bush requested the number $1.39 billion for Superfund. That is the number I am using, the number they sent to us. President Bush, his EPA, his OMB, they gave us that number; and you can get to the number President Bush wanted just by taking a relatively small amount of money and leaving a 31 percent increase for Prometheus.

That is only fair to those communities across America that still have these sites, and I ask and I implore Members to listen to President Bush, to give that money, that $1.39 billion, over to Superfund and still leave the 31 percent for space exploration, which all of us believe is so important. But a balance has to be struck between our exploration of the stars and our preservation of the Earth in a way that is respectful of neighborhoods that were ravaged by the Industrial Revolution. This is the balance which works for both projects.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Markey

Amendment No. 3: In title III, in the item relating to

``Environmental Protection Agency; hazardous substance

superfund'' after the first and third dollar amounts insert

``(increased by $114,716,000)''.

In title III, in the item relating to ``National

Aeronautics and Space Administration; science, aeronautics

and exploration'' after the second dollar amount insert

``(reduced by $114,716,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I have served on the telecommunications subcommittee for 27 years, and I can tell you that not only is the decision made by the Federal Communications Commission in this area of media consolidation the worst decision made during my 27 years overseeing them, it is the worst decision ever made by the Federal Communications Commission. Ever. First of all, Chairman Powell decided to have one public hearing, one, on an issue that goes to the fundamental question of what is the relationship between the American public and the media while they were considering the changes in 75 years of laws.

The public furor is totally understandable. And Congress in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the committee with jurisdiction over this issue, we have yet to have a hearing on this issue. What did the FCC decide? Did it decide that they were going to expand the rules so that one newspaper could be owned by one television station? No. Did they decide that one cable company could own four radio stations in one community and expand the rules that way? No. Here is what they decided. Listen to this, ladies and gentlemen. Listen to the worst decision ever made by the Federal Communications Commission. In the largest metropolitan media areas where many, many of us come from, here is what is now possible. One company in your hometown, your metropolitan area, can own three television stations, three, in your hometown; eight radio stations at the same time; the biggest newspaper in town even if it is the only newspaper in town at the same time; and the entire cable system in your hometown even if it includes the all-news channel on cable plus all of the Internet news Web sites that attach to all of those sites.

So listen again, my friends. The FCC has decided in your hometown that one company can own three TV stations, eight radio stations, the only newspaper in town, and the entire cable system including the all- news cable channel. That is absurd. That is crazy. They did not decide that one company can own one TV station and one newspaper. No. That is not what this debate is about. If they had been more tailored, if they had been more restrictive, if they had expanded on some commonsense basis, we would not be out here right now. They did not do that. Every single industry that came in and asked them for something, they said ``yes'' to.

I am the author, in 1995, with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and Sonny Montgomery, of the 35 percent rule. That is my amendment here. And so I am glad that that is included in the appropriations bill. But I think everyone should understand the consequences of what the FCC is doing and it is coming to your hometown soon. It just goes too far. No one should have that kind of power. The kind of power that one company is now going to have in your hometown will make Citizen Kane look like an underachiever. It is too much in one company at one time. It has to be tailored.

I am glad that this 35 percent rule was included. I think it is important that it was included. It is essential in having a better balance between the networks and the individual communities across the country. And I understand the debate which is going on as to what is the best tactical way of proceeding from here, and I have to respect the incredibly great work that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.

Obey) did and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) in getting the language in on the 35 percent rule. It is very important. Very important. But there are many other very important issues as well, and I outlined the worst-case scenario; and it is now the law, with one hearing, one hearing held in Richmond, Virginia, where all the lobbyists from Washington just got on the train and went down there for a day.

Personally, I am going to vote for the Hinchey amendment; but I hope you all understand that while it may not pass today that there are big stakes that America is facing as this change is made in American life.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment, and it is based upon a very complex, controversial, but ultimately ineffective, set of agreements which we reached with the North Korean Government making a promise to that government that we in conjunction with our allies would transfer two nuclear power plants to the Government of North Korea if they agreed in turn to put their full nuclear program under full scope safeguards. It has become clear through the Clinton administration and through the Bush administration that Kim Jong-Il is pathologically incapable of handling nuclear materials in a responsible way, and retrospectively it is now quite clear that the nature of the bargain that we made with Kim Jong-Il was fundamentally flawed.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I thank the gentleman very much for his acceptance of the amendment. And just so it is clear what it was that was just accepted, it is basically saying that the United States writ large should not and will not transfer any nuclear power plants or material or personnel that could help them with nuclear power plants as part of any deal in the future; that if they want electricity, that we will build coal- fired plants for them, we will build natural-gas-fired plants for them, but we are not going to transfer materials that could be used for a nuclear weapons program to Kim Jong-Il in North Korea.

That is the essence of the amendment. It has passed the House floor 435-

0 during the Clinton administration and during the Bush administration, but there are personnel inside of both administrations that continue to believe that there is a way in which we can transfer nuclear materials to the North Korean Government, and the Congress has said over and over again it is not a good idea. I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio accepting the amendment. I do want to work with him, as does the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), towards the goal of removing any obstacles that might be created in the future.

Madam Speaker, welcome to the People's House Tony Blair. We need you. The Niger evidence that supposedly showed Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program turns out to be forged, but you say, wait, there is more.

We are aware of Niger, but Africa is a big continent. You say you have other sources, possibly a third country that thinks Saddam Hussein may have been buying uranium in some other Africa country. Our own CIA does not know what you know. Our National Security Council says it does not know what you know. Indeed, the President of the United States says he does not know what you know.

The American public needs to know the truth. You hold the key. Please, Mr. Prime Minister, redeem our trust. If not Niger, where were the nuclear materials, Mr. Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker, the Cold War is over and the good news, to my friends, is we won and the Soviet Union lost. We do not need a new arms race with ourselves. We do not now need to send a signal to countries around the world who harbor desires to obtain nuclear weapons that we believe that it is still worth our while to invest in a new generation of nuclear weapons which are more usable in battleground situations. We must avoid being viewed as the drunk preaching temperance from a bar stool. If we want to convince others to embrace our view that nuclear weapons are not usable, we must ourselves act in a way that does not leave the misimpression that we are still engaging in the same kind of mindless development of another generation of nuclear weapons that only encourages countries like North Korea, countries like Iran, which each have active nuclear weapons programs, that they are wise in pursuing that course.

So the resolution that we are considering right now is one which is saying to the rest of the world we understand their concern about an initiation of another nuclear arms race, and we understand the consequences for regions around the world where there are bad actors, bad countries trying to develop nuclear weapons programs. We brought the country of Iraq to its knees militarily in 3 weeks. Our problem is not destroying any country's military capacity. Our real problem is in controlling the country after we do so, and nuclear weapons do not add to our capacity to accomplish those goals. So this is, in my opinion, a wise approach to take. The gentleman from South Carolina as usual is trying to draw a very fine line between programs that have already been put in place and do protect our country and new programs which would potentially add to an acceleration of an arms race, a nuclear arms race around the world.

We now must turn our attention to Iran and North Korea. The only way to deal with it is with strong diplomacy, active diplomacy. Additional nuclear weapons will not help us, and that is why this resolution must pass.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion. The Administration and the Republicans in Congress have made clear their intent to explore new, low-yield nuclear weapons. Before we head down that path, we need to remember two things.

(1) The Cold War is over and I have good news for my friends on the other side of the aisle. We won! The Russians are no longer our adversaries. Remember, President Bush has told us he's looked into President Putin's eyes and found him to be a man he could deal with! Let's stop fighting the last war. The Russians are no longer a threat and I see no reason why we should allow the development of mini-nukes because somebody in Russia may have talked about the possibility of developing new weapons. They're probably only talking about doing that because they hear all of this talk about new nuclear weapons being developed by the U.S. What does this mean? It means that the only reason to develop mini-nukes is to start a new arms race. But that begs the question: with whom would we have this arms race? No nation in the world has a conventional military that can compare with ours. The only country that has a nuclear arsenal that compares to ours is Russia, and we're paying them to dismantle their nuclear weapons! Where's the beef behind this threat?

(2) These so called mini-nukes are still nuclear weapons. They may be smaller, but they will still kill tens of thousands of people, will still produce radioactive fallout and contaminate the countryside, and will still carry the stigma of being nuclear weapons. We already have big nuclear weapons, and medium-sized nuclear weapons, and small nuclear weapons. In fact, some of our nuclear weapons are ``dial-a- yield'', meaning we can select the yield of the weapon--and some of them can be ``dialed'' down to less than 1 kiloton, which, by the scale of nuclear weapons, is pretty mini. We used to have a weapon with a yield of less than a kiloton that weighted only 163 pounds--we called that the SADM or Special Atomic Demolition Munition. Is that what we want? To have kicked out the nuclear-seeking Saddam, only to replace him with our own nuclear SADM?

I would urge my colleagues to remember these two things: that to develop mini-nukes would be to start an arms race with ourselves, and that a mini-nuke is still a nuclear weapon, with all the associated consequences. We simply cannot preach nuclear temperance from a barstool. We cannot tell Iran, North Korea and other countries not to develop nuclear weapons while simultaneously developing our own new weapons.

I urge you to support this Motion to Instruct. Let's not turn back the clock and start a new ``mini'' arms race.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for yielding me time.

I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

I want to commend the chairman and his staff along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox); the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for all of their hard work and for working with me and my staff in a bipartisan fashion that ultimately led to a resolution of all of the concerns which I raised with the legislation.

I do have, however, two outstanding issues that I wish to clarify at this time. Mr. Speaker, I have concerns that relate to the emergency use section of Project Bioshield. Specifically, I want to be sure that once a declaration of an emergency is terminated or revoked, that current law applies and it will then be impermissible for anyone to move such drugs, devices or biologics in interstate commerce without going through the proper approval process. Is this the case under the legislation?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

I thank the gentleman.

Secondly, I very much appreciate the gentleman's work on crafting language to ensure that the countermeasures developed under this legislation are, where necessary, subject to the same export control laws and regulations as other chemical and biological agents and their associated countermeasures. One of the new responsibilities the Secretary of HHS is directed to assume is to review new countermeasures both in the R&D phase as well as in the procurement phase of the Bioshield Program. The Secretary is encouraged to consult with other Federal agencies who play a role in setting export control policy and to recommend whether the new countermeasure or countermeasure R&D should be added to the various lists of controlled technologies that cannot be transferred to other countries without prior permission.

Is it your understanding that the Secretary should do this as expeditiously as possible, and that each beneficiary of Bioshield funds be directed as part of the contract or grant to abide by all applicable U.S. export laws governing the transfer of technology and R&D?

I just want to thank the chairman. He has worked very hard and long on this legislation. I want to thank the gentleman's staff and Kendra Bodner from my staff for working out this language.

Good job, Mr. Chairman, and good job to everyone who has worked on this bill on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, today we see the consequences of the massive tax cuts of the Bush administration. Theirs is not a policy of benign neglect, theirs is a policy of designed neglect. It is a policy to defund the government in 2010 and 2015 and 2020 and 2025. That is $3 trillion worth of tax cuts over that time frame which has already been passed.

Well, that means that the money will not be there for nursing home care for the 14 million Americans who are going to end with up Alzheimer's, with the 5 million with Parkinson's, the money will not be there for nursing home care for those seniors. What is the alternative? The alternative is to cure Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and ALS. That would be the NIH budget here today. But they are only going to increase that budget by 2 percent.

Now, the budget for smart bombs is unlimited; unlimited, but the American people want the same budget increases for smart medical research because it is just as important for the protection and defense of the family well-being of those tens of millions of families who are going to be afflicted by these diseases.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has a heart of gold. He really does. He is a wonderful man; but the overall environment of these massive tax cuts that the Bush administration has put in place makes it impossible now for us to fund either end of this spectrum, either the long-term nursing home care for those Americans who are going to be afflicted by these diseases, or the full funding, the doubling of the funding, the tripling of the funding which as a consequence would be necessary in order to cure those diseases. We cannot have it both ways. It is either one or the other. We must increase the NIH budget to protect the long-term interests of all American families.

Watch out, Grandma. Watch out, Grandpa. The GOP is selling snake oil off the back of a wagon, and, boy, do they have a prescription for you.

Mr. Speaker, every senior citizen gets a bottle with three bitter pills. Bitter pill number one is a lethal dose of privatization poison. The Republicans are diverting Medicare funds into private drug plans with no maximum premiums, no guaranteed coverage, and a cynical drive to destroy the Medicare program.

Bitter pill number two is a dose of crushing costs. Incredibly the Republican bill injects $400 billion into Medicare but spends it in such a tangled, convoluted, copay-riddled, incomprehensible, doughnut- hole-hollowed maze of bureaucracy and lacks any effective effort to keep prescription drug prices from continuing to soar, that Grandma is actually going to spend more under this proposal than if we had just left well enough alone.

Bitter pill number three is a privacy piracy pill in the form of income tax forms. The Republicans require senior citizens to hand over to corporations sensitive personal information from income tax returns and the most intimate details of their medical care as a condition of qualifying for any catastrophic coverage. This information will then be turned against seniors in marketing schemes intended to cherry-pick the most desirable recruits into private plans, further weakening the foundation of Medicare for the seniors who need it most.

This is a black day for Medicare. Mr. Speaker, GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now it stands for Forget Old People.

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

I want to begin first by agreeing with the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) that Tony Blair has been historically courageous in Northern Ireland in helping to reconcile two sides that for 500 years have not been able to see eye to eye, and he deserves enormous historic credit for that. And on the issue of Iraq, but for Tony Blair, but for Tony Blair's insistence, President Bush would have never gone to the United Nations. It was he, Tony Blair, who made the precondition to his support that the United States would go to the United Nations in order to secure a vote, and for that he deserves enormous credit.

But at the same time in England, Great Britain, the Parliament right now, there is an ongoing investigation of the information that was used as to justification for the war in Iraq; and it is to the credit of the Parliament, it is to the credit of Tony Blair, that he is accepting the responsibility of the examination of the information which was used with regard to the weapons of mass destruction that was produced by the intelligence community in Great Britain and in the United States as a rationale for the war. It is to the credit of Tony Blair that he is accepting that examination.

In our country, just the opposite is the case. There are essentially three options that the American people, the British people are now presented with. One, that the intelligence was correct, that the weapons of mass destruction existed, and that the weapons of mass destruction are now in the hands of al Qaeda, Baathist separatist activity groups, other terrorist groups, or in Syria. All of those options are horrific and not a consequence that we thought would be a result of this war.

Secondly, that the intelligence was plain wrong right from the beginning. There was never any information and that they botched it right from the beginning. That is horrible.

Or, third, that the intelligence was correct; but they were told, the intelligence community, to change the information, to change the information. They were told deliberately to alter it in order to argue that there were weapons of mass destruction, that Vice President Cheney did visit the CIA, did try to influence the intelligence community to change the information, to leave out key documents. In Britain they are now looking at that very issue. They are being told that the information with regard to the uranium from Africa was not correct, that the academic paper that was used rather than real intelligence was wrong and should not have been relied upon. We need the same kind of examination in our country.

There is now sufficient evidence that is being produced that there has been a compromise of the total intelligence package that the Congress should have had but, more importantly, that the American people should have had as the basis of their judgment.

I voted for the resolution last October. I voted for it, and I believe that the American people and this Congress deserve all of the information. We need a blue ribbon commission to examine all of the intelligence that was used. England is doing it right now. Tony Blair is accepting that examination. We should have the courage in our own country to give all of the information to the American public. The intelligence in this country is right now not complete with regard to what our government knew before we voted on the floor of this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I bring a very important subject to the attention of the Members of the House. Each

one of us, justifiably so, and every American, more than 100 million, who get onto planes in our country every year are now required to take their shoes off as they go through a process in an airport to ensure that no danger will befall the other passengers on that plane. Now, that is completely justifiable, and I think all Americans, well, almost all Americans, accept that now as part of the process of getting on any airplane in America since September 11.

We in Boston, at Logan Airport, know the consequences, because two of the planes that were hijacked came from Boston, came from Logan Airport, and came from within five miles of my home. So my amendment today deals with the reality that after everyone's shoes have been inspected, bags have gone through security, and this is what the Transportation Security Administration now requires, after the booties of babies are taken off and inspected, underneath, on the same plane, on the same day, with the same passengers on board, with their shoes now back on after having been screened underneath the cargo, the cargo has not been screened.

My amendment would require that the cargo that goes on the passenger planes that more than 100 million Americans each year fly is screened as well as the passengers themselves, as well as grandma, as well as the babies with their booties, because it is unfair to every American who gets on a plane to be put in danger that the cargo on that plane has not been screened.

Now, what do we mean by screening? We mean the same level of physical inspection of passenger plane cargo as is applied to passenger plane luggage and to the passengers themselves. What do we not mean? We do not mean the Known Shipper Program, which is the current excuse for allowing commercial cargo to be carried on passenger planes without physical screening. And which technology will we use? We will use the same technology that American air carriers use to screen cargo in international airports every single day of the week all day long. Who will do the screening? The same screeners who are now being laid off, 3,000 of them, 6,000 of them who are trained to do this job. We cannot allow this to go on any longer.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and I urge support of the full House on as important an amendment as we are going to be called on to vote on this year in Congress.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and I know it is a difficult job that he has; but there are two programs in America. One is the known-tripper program. We are all part of the known-tripper program. Every American that gets on a plane is part of a known-tripper program. They want to know who you are. You have to show your ID. They are going to check you if you are suspicious. They are going to go through your bags. They do now care who you are, baby or grandmother.

The known-shipper program for cargo, on the other hand, going onto the very same place, only requires a piece of paper. They do not know what warehouse it really came from.

That al Qaeda operative that just got arrested last week ran a cargo firm. When he was interviewed, he said he was working with other people. He said the name of the firm was Kashmir, Kashmir Service. It was his own trucking company, a cargo firm. That is something we cannot run the risk of happening in this country. They have to go through the same screening for biological, chemical, and nuclear material that would go on a plane as every one of us on a known-tripper program has to go through. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is right, we cannot afford not to pay the price. It might cost us some money, but America cannot afford not to pay it. It cannot be allowed to occur.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.