Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, for us to get a review of the time that each of us has at this point?

Mr. MARKEY. And the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn)?

Mr. MARKEY. I think it would be appropriate, if the gentleman would not mind, for me to recognize a few of our Members right now so that the time would come down.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just tell the gentleman that that was a beautiful statement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I do so in order to compliment the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his excellent work on this legislation, along with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member. This legislation has very broad based support across party lines, across ideological lines. It is a critical piece of legislation to pass. Madam Speaker, the reason that we are here today is to take action to correct a mess that Congress created in 1997, when Congress and the Clinton administration used illusory spectrum revenues to cook the books when it enacted the flawed 1997 Balanced Budget Act. Simply put, the Clinton OMB and Congressional budget scorekeepers put the cart before the horse. The 1997 proposal required the FCC to auction off the airwave frequencies occupied by television channels 52 to 69 many years before those airwave channels were due to be clear of those incumbent broadcasters, and the 1997 law contained no provisions to assure would- be bidders or taxpaying consumers that the digital TV transition would be timely and successful. Instead, the budgeteers simply assumed that everything would work out and pushed for auctions on a calendar date convenient for scoring purposes of all the revenue that would come in from holding the auction. Forget about telecommunications policy, though. Today we know that the digital TV transition is woefully off schedule. The current FCC policy for clearing out the broadcast television spectrum in the area of 52 to 69 channels on our dial seems to be to simply sell off the frequencies and then authorize unseemly windfall profits to the lucky incumbents who, having gotten digital television spectrum for free, only elect to vacate their old analog channels for a price paid to them by auction winners. Under this policy, the term ``auction winner'' may well be an oxymoron. What one wins by being the highest bidder in this auction is the right to be subjected to a high tech hold-up by the incumbent broadcaster who will not move unless paid. To make this FCC policy even worse is that when that broadcaster agrees to vacate the area for a handsome fee, the broadcaster may not even broadcast in digital format on its so-called digital pair, the digital spectrum which they have. It may obtain FCC permission to continue analog broadcasting, the same broadcasting we have had since 1948. We will just continue to see the highlights of the first 75 years of NBC broadcasting for the next 75 years and the same television channels with no new digital technology. I think this whole notion offends most people's sensibility, and I think it underscores the fact that the Commission needs additional time to rethink its mission in this area. Moreover, we also do not have anything remotely resembling an overarching spectrum plan to address key policy goals, such as fostering a more competitive wireless policy or enhancing public safety needs. We do not yet have a policy to promote new wireless services such as third generation, or 3G, mobile services or other innovative new wireless technologies and services for broadband connections of video applications. The reality today is that our lack of progress in accelerating the digital television transition is holding two revolutions in check, both the interactive digital television market, which all Americans are waiting for, that inexpensive digital television set costing $300, $400 that they have been promised for 20 years, still not affordable to the average American family, still being denied to them by these terrible policies, and advancing the wireless market; that is, the two-way wrist TV that Dick Tracy and his cartoonist Chester Gould promised us in 1960. That still is not possible because we do not have a spectrum policy, and it really is turning into a telecommunications disaster. Disaster. The utter failure to follow through effectively on the industrial policy we started when we gave the broadcast industry an extra 6 megahertz each, each, for the transition to digital technology means that we are literally holding back the future. No digital television and no third generation wireless. Unbelievable for a country which is supposed to be the leader in new technology. We are now paralyzed as a Nation. We are stifling innovation. We are stunting growth and we are needlessly depressing the entire high tech sector of the American economy. We must free up this spectrum but in a way in which we know it is going to be used, both for digital TV and in the wireless area. It is time to put the telecom policy horse in front of the auction cart. Today, we will pass legislation that wisely deletes the budget- mandated auction dates in the law and requires a report to Congress describing the progress made by the Commission in speeding the digital television transition, as well as identifying slices of spectrum for advanced wireless services, including mobile services such as 3G. Again, I want to compliment the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), along with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and all the members of our committee who are working together now on a policy that hopefully will now free up this spectrum. Unless the Federal Communications Commission begins to listen to us, unless the Bush administration starts to listen to us, then unfortunately all we are going to do is continue to repeat the mistakes that were made during the Clinton administration, and I am just afraid that we are not going to see this high tech sector, this telecommunications sector, this NASDAQ sector get off its back unless the Bush administration puts in place a set of policies that gives incentives to hundreds of companies and entrepreneurs across the country to once again invest in this high tech sector. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Up to this point there is no evidence that can convict the Bush administration of not repeating the same mistakes as the Clinton administration. The only problem is that this high tech boom ended in 2000 and that millions of Americans are now waiting for the next generation of technologies, and unless the policy is forthcoming from the Bush administration, I am afraid we could go through this entire decade and not see a revival. I think that is a very dangerous prospect, and I am hoping today, on a bipartisan basis, we can send a message to the Bush administration that they can put together a comprehensive policy. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Wireless Technology Investment and Digital Dividends Act.'' I am proposing this measure in order to advance three key goals: (1) to create a permanent public interest telecommunications trust fund; (2) to establish a ``Spectrum Commons''; and (3) to recapture wireless policymaking from unrelated budgetary initiatives. Mr. Speaker, the public deserves to reap the benefits of the sale of licenses to its air-waves, not only in the offering of new commercial services or the temporary infusion of cash into the Federal treasury. The public should also enjoy the ``dividends'' that can be reaped by reinvesting money raised through use of a public asset in a manner designed to promote educational technology projects, educational software R&D, as well as initiatives addressing the digital divide. The bill I am introducing today creates a permanent trust fund (the ``Digital Dividends Trust Fund'') from wireless auction revenue to fund such public interest telecommunications initiatives. Splitting the grants into two general categories--``human capital telecommunications investments'' and ``broadband infrastructure investments for public access and rural development'' the Digital Dividends Trust Fund authorizes grants for the following initiatives: Training of teachers & other personnel at schools and libraries eligible for E-rate funding; R&D for cutting-edge educational software designed to enhance learning in schools; Digitizing educational materials held in our nation's libraries, archives, and museums; Technology projects supported by volunteers enrolled in AmeriCorps; Projects enhancing the access of individuals with disabilities to advanced telecommunications services; Retraining workers and unemployed individuals with skills applicable to the new economy; After-school programs for youth focused on computer literacy and interaction; Local and regional programs to expand access to advanced telecommunications in areas available to the general public; Broadband deployment to low-income housing and community centers and to unserved rural areas; and, Conversion of public radio and television broadcasting stations to digital broadcasting technology. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the legislation I introduce today establishes a ``Spectrum Commons.'' High tech manufacturers, entrepreneurs and the proverbial `kid in the garage' could make more robust use of wireless communications if sufficient spectrum were available in unlicensed form for the general public. The bill requires the FCC to establish a 20 MHz band of contiguous frequencies below 2 GHz as well as between 3 to 500 MHz between 2 GHz and 6 GHz--a swath of the airwaves that would remain open to the public and unlicensed. Such a public set-aside could foster the formation of an open platform for innovation, entrepreneurial activity, and public communications. It would also militate against unhealthy consolidation of spectrum in the hands of too few providers. An unlicensed area of the airwaves will permit the public, through the use of `smart' radio technology and better receiver equipment, to harness the airwaves for countless applications if the government is willing to give back to the public a portion of its own airwaves in such an unlicensed format. From ``wi-fi'' technology and low power ``Bluetooth'' wireless connections, to so-called ``802.11b'' protocols, wireless local area networks and Net connections, utilization of publicly available airwaves can help connect people and businesses in cost-effective and spectrum efficient ways. The ``Spectrum Commons'' will also help to propel economic growth and innovation by opening up the airwaves to new marketplace entry by individuals and entities unaffiliated with established network providers. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is important that telecommunications policymaking reassert itself in wireless policy, where for too long budget priorities have warped sound policy. Since Congress first enacted legislation in 1993 to permit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to distribute certain airwave licenses to the public through the use of auctions, the FCC has used this licensing mechanism numerous times and the U.S. Government has reaped billions of dollars for general revenue purposes. The initial principle behind auctions was to enhance telecommunications policy goals through the efficient licensing of frequency spectrum, where the revenue an auction raised represented an additional beneficial dividend to the taxpayer. Over time, however, the use of auctions has become perverted. They are increasingly advocated primarily for purposes of raising general revenue irrespective of whether such auctions advance sound telecommunications policy. Moreover, the money raised from auctions has been sent directly to the U.S. Treasury. The money from telecommunications auctions was not reinvested in order to enhance our democracy, bridge the digital divide, or promote public interest telecommunications projects. Instead, the auction of licenses for use of the public's airwaves has been subjected to the alchemy of budget scorers intent on transforming thin air into gold. Legitimate telecommunications policy objectives are often undermined by proposals to auction certain slices of the airwaves on a date dictated by budgetary scoring needs. Instead, auctions should only be scheduled once the appropriate telecommunications policy goals have been agreed upon and the conditions necessary for successful licensing through auctions have been secured. This legislation requires the FCC, prior to scheduling upcoming auctions, to take action to achieve the timely transition to digital television by establishing rules governing must-carry issues, minimum programming and broadcasting requirements, and digital television receiver benchmarks. It also directs the NTIA and the FCC to take action to secure additional spectrum for advanced wireless services-- including mobile services such as so-called ``3G'' services. Sound telecommunications policy, consistent with the public interest, would be greatly furthered by putting the ``policy horse'' back in front of the ``auction cart.'' The bill re-establishes this principle in wireless policy.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 392. As Israel and its citizens undergo a daily bombardment from terrorists and sucicide bombers, we have an opportunity to stand in support of the only democracy in a desert of despotism. It is our responsibility to be the brokers for peace in the Middle East and ensure that two homelands exist--one for Israel and one for the Palestinians. But we cannot allow our pursuit of peace to ignore this rampage of Palestinian terror. One of the most important moments in our modern history with the Middle East occurred in 1981. Israel knew that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was developing the Osirak nuclear reactor--the future of their nuclear weapons program. Israel had the prescience to deny Saddam Hussein the capacity to set up a nuclear bomb factory in Iraq when it sent a dozen F-16 fighters over the Saudi Desert to destroy the Osirak nuclear reactor. Israel was flogged with criticism from the world community, including the United States in a United Nations resolution. Israel should have been commended, not reprimanded for taking out Osirak. This move set Saddam's Iraq's nuclear program back decades--the same Saddam who today will pay $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber who kills innocent Israelis. Should we stand with Israel, when the rest of the world condemns it? Yes. Israel is our only Middle East, democratic ally against terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Vote yes on this resolution and stand in solidarity with Israel.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Joseph Moakley Memorial Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 2002, a culmination of over 20 years of effort to make cigarettes fire-safe by the true champion of this cause my good friend and colleague the late, great Representative Joseph Moakely. I introduce this bill today with my Republican colleague in the House Representative Jim Hansen (R-UT), the entire Massachusetts Delegation. Joe first became involved with this issue when a family of seven perished in a fire in his Congressional District ignited by a cigarette. Five children--all under the age of ten--were burned to death along with their parents. This terrible event took place on Memorial Day Weekend in 1979. For over twenty years Joe fought to give the CPSC authority to promulgate a fire safety standard for cigarettes. Because of Joe's relentless efforts, two technical bills passed into law laying the foundation for fire-safe cigarette legislation. The first bill, the Federal Cigarette Safety Act of 1984, mandated the formation of a Technical Study Group, which ultimately established that it was technically and economically feasible to make a fire- resistant cigarette. This was an extremely important step providing Congress with proof that it was possible to create a cigarette that could be altered in such a way as to significantly reduce its tendency to catch fire. Prior to this report, the tobacco industry argued that the technology to make cigarettes fire-safe was not feasible and that the standard would render their products commercially unviable. During this era, Joe recognized that the industry had successfully shifted the fire-resistance burden from cigarettes to mattresses, furniture and pajamas. As Joe liked to put it, the industry's solution was ``to fire- proof the world against our torches.'' The other important bill the Joe saw to passage was the The Federal Safe Cigarette Act of 1990, which established the methodology for testing the ignition propensity of cigarettes. This methodology literally paved the way for New York to pass a fire- safe cigarette bill in 2000. And it set the stage for the establishment of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology fire-safe cigarette standard which is included in the bill introduced today. What's more, there is already a fire-safe cigarette manufactured by Phillip Morris on the market. Tobacco companies once suspicious of a fire-safe cigarette standard are now demonstrating coming around. In fact, Phillip Morris endorses the language in this bill, along with The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and The Congressional Fire Services Institute, which includes the Foundation for American Fire Fighters, National Volunteer Fire Council and the Fire Department Safety Officers Association. It has also been endorsed by SAFE--Safer America For Everyone. Each year thousands of innocent people are killed, maimed or permanently disfigured by carelessly discarded cigarettes. Under a typical cigarette fire scenario, the smoker falls asleep in bed or on a sofa with a burning cigarette, the ash smolders, then bursts into flames often in the middle of the night--a time when everyone is least prepared. It is common knowledge that smoking is considered one of the nation's leading causes of preventable death, but it's less widely known that cigarettes are the leading cause of fatal fires. This translates to close to 1,000 deaths annually and nearly 2,400 injuries due to cigarette-caused fires. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) these fires account for $4.6 Billion annually in societal costs and direct property damage. The victims of these fires aren't just smokers--all too often they are the innocent and unsuspecting. A child asleep in an upstairs bedroom, an elderly neighbor who lives next door, or a brave firefighter called to the scene. But the real tragedy in these lost lives is that these fires can be prevented. The Joseph Moakley Fire Safe Memorial Cigarette Bill establishes a strong federal firesafe cigarette standard by: Requiring the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to establish the standard specified in the legislation, by which cigarettes could be regulated with respect to their propensity to start fires. Giving the Consumer Product Safety Commission authority over cigarettes only for purposes of implementing and enforcing compliance with the standard promulgated under the Act. Allowing for the future establishment of an enhanced fire-safety standard. And allowing states to pass more stringent fire-safety standards for cigarettes if they choose. Today Joe's tenacity is paying dividends. This country is closer than ever to making Joe's ``torches'' self-extinguishable, and the horror of cigarette-caused fires a tragedy of the past. On April 27th Joe Moakley would have celebrated his 75th birthday. Joe spent his entire career improving the lives of his constituents and fighting for important causes like this fire-safe cigarette standard-- his spirit lives on in this legislation. I can think of no better birthday gift and no better way to honor his memory than to pass this fire-safe cigarette standard this year so that another 1,000 lives won't be lost next year.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the LaFalce substitute and in opposition to the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, accounting is a boring profession. It is easier to watch grass grow than be an accountant, unless people want to engage in financial fraud. Then it is a fascinating subject, because it affects thousands or millions of people, and that is what happened in this country: Auditors decided they were going to be financiers at the same time. They were going to play both roles. They cannot do that, and this bill does not correct the fundamental, underlying problem that caused the Enron-Arthur Andersen scandal. It does not go nearly far enough to deal with the causes of the financial chicanery that have turned, overnight, people who thought they had their life's savings protected into those who are wondering about the future. Specifically, the public regulatory organization created by the bill is a joke. It is set up in such a way that it will be dominated and controlled by the accounting profession. It lacks the investigative and enforcement powers needed to be an effective regulatory agency. The SEC is not given the powers needed to properly oversee its operation. There is not a proper separation between the auditing and the consulting functions that led to the very core of the problems that were created that have defrauded millions of Americans out of their hard-won savings.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on March 19, scientists reported the collapse of a 12,000 year old ice sheet in Antarctica. A piece of ice the size of Rhode Island breaking off of Antarctica is amazing enough but the realization that it took only 35 days--a nanosecond in glacial time--for the disintegration of something of this magnitude should give us pause. Whether or not the collapse is related to global warming, this event should be a cautionary lesson to us all. We tend to look back on geologic history and see gradual trends but this reflects more the averaging of time than the reality of past conditions. Rapid climatic changes have occurred in the past; we should expect them in the future. We may have just witnessed an event that scientists of the future will look back on as the first sign of a rapid warming period of the 21st Century. As we contemplate the demise of the Larsen B ice sheet, we should also consider our assumptions about our ability to adapt to climate change. Gradual warming might allow us to adjust but we have no guarantee that Mother Nature will allow us the luxury of time. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 20, 2002] Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses Into Sea (By Eric Pianin) An Antarctic ice shelf the size of Rhode Island recently shattered and collapsed into the sea after an unusual warming period, stunning some scientists who said they had never seen such a large loss of ice mass in the remote Antarctic Peninsula. The disintegration of the ice shelf--1,260 square miles in area and 650 feet thick--was most alarming to some because of the extraordinary rapidity of the collapse. The shelf is believed to have existed for as long as 12,000 years before regional temperatures began to rise, yet it disintegrated literally before scientists' eyes over a 35-day period that began Jan. 31. ``We knew that it would collapse eventually, but the speed of it is staggering,'' said David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey, which announced the event yesterday in London and released vivid video images of the breakup. Researchers and scientists who study the Antarctic Peninsula cautioned that there was little evidence to directly link the ice shelf collapse to the effects of global warming, which is induced by carbon dioxide and other man- made ``greenhouse'' gases. Rather, they are blaming a localized warming period that allowed melt water to seep into cracks and trigger massive fracturing of the ice when temperatures dropped. ``What we see is climate warming regionally,'' said Ted Scambos, a researcher with the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder. ``Ice shelves that have been there for centuries, maybe thousands of years, are responding to climate they haven't seen in the past. Very quickly they shatter.'' But some scientists, including Princeton University geoscience professor Michael Oppenheimer, believe that more sophisticated and localized global warming models eventually will show a direct relationship between Earth's rising temperatures and the vanishing ice shelves. ``Ascribing a temperature trend in a small region like that to the broader global trend is difficult,'' said Oppenheimer, one of the hundreds of scientists who helped research a seminal United Nations-sponsored report on global warming. ``Nevertheless, the collapse of the ice shelf in my opinion can be partially ascribed to human-induced climate change.'' Experts said the loss of the ice shelf will not result in a rise in sea level because the ice was already floating. One of the most significant predicted results of global warming is a rise in sea level as ice on land melts. Ice shelves are thick plates, fed by glaciers, that float in the ocean around much of Antarctica. In recent months, with the polar summer just beginning, temperatures were already creeping above freezing in the peninsula region. Scientists said there has also been a 50-year warming trend in the peninsula, averaging approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius per decade, which is considered a sensitive, early indicator of global climate change. But the overall climate picture in the peninsula, nearest to southern Argentina and Chile, is complicated and hard to generalize. Glaciers elsewhere on the continent are both thickening and thinning as temperatures show conflicting climate trends. In January, for example, researcher Peter Doran said scientists working in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of eastern Antarctica have found temperatures dropping since 1986. The Larsen B ice shelf, as it was called, located on the eastern side of the peninsula, collapsed into a plume of small icebergs and fragments. The amount of ice released in a month's time was enough to fill 29 trillion five-pound bags. The collapse was first detected on satellite images this month by the National Snow and Ice Data Center. A British research vessel, the RRS James Clark Ross, was in the area just as the event was occurring and provided vivid images of the vanishing ice from the ocean's surface. It was the largest single event in a series of retreats by ice shelves in the peninsula over the past three decades. ``We're all simply astounded by the uniqueness of the event,'' said Christina Hulbe, a geology professor at Portland State University in Oregon who collaborated on research into Antarctica's breaking ice. Some environmental groups seized on the breakup to renew their plea to President Bush to take more aggressive action to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming. Bush has disavowed the Kyoto global warming treaty concluded last November by Japan, European countries and Russia, which would force deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. Instead he recently announced proposals to encourage industry to reduce emissions voluntarily. ``This stunning development warns of the dangers of governments doing too little to halt global warming,'' said Lara Hansen, a climate scientist for the World Wildlife Fund. ``The visibility and sheer scale of what is happening in Antarctica should provide a wake-up call to policymakers worldwide.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, it was nonsense last June when President Bush and the Republicans argued that we could have a $1.5 trillion tax cuts and not raid Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. It is nonsense on stilts after September 11, after the deficits, after all that has happened, that they now want to permanently extend those tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent because they are now going to permanently raid Medicare, permanently raid Social Security, permanently raid Medicaid, which provides nursing home care for every person in America with Alzheimer's. This is a shameful day in the history of this country when such a vote can be taken.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that would outlaw the practice of purchasing or selling Social Security numbers. A few years ago, a man named Liam Youens was stalking a 21-year-old New Hampshire woman named Amy Boyer. Youens reportedly purchased Amy Boyer's Social Security number from an Internet Web site for $45. Using this information, he was able to track her down, a process that he chillingly detailed on an Internet Web site that he named after his target. Finally, this demented stalker fatally shot Amy Boyer in front of the dental office where she worked. Afterwards, he turned the gun on himself. This terrible tragedy underscores the fact that while the Social Security number was originally intended to be used only for the purposes of collecting Social Security taxes and administering the program's benefits, it has over the years evolved into a ubiquitous national personal identification number which is subject to misuse and abuse. The unregulated sale and purchase of these numbers is a significant factor in a growing range of illegal activities, including fraud, identity theft, and tragically, stalkings and now, even murders. Today, if you open up a bank account, apply for a loan, buy insurance, get a credit card, sign up for telephone service or electric or gas utility service, you are almost invariably asked to provide a merchant with your Social Security number. Over the years, this number has become a key to verifying a person's identity. As a result, it has become increasingly clear that there are growing and serious privacy risks being created by unrestricted commerce in Social Security numbers, and resulting abuses of this number, that require immediate legislative action. The risks and abuses associated with misuse of the Social Security number are only being magnified by the rapid growth of electronic commerce. Right now, only $5 billion of the $860 billion in annual retail sales currently occur over the Internet. But that figure will continue to grow exponentially in the future. So, the question we must ask is how are we going to adjust our laws to deal with this new medium? How will we animate the New Economy with our old values--such as our cherished right to privacy? Today, the real privacy challenge we are facing isn't Big Brother; it's Big Browser. If you buy anything over the Internet, that information can be linked up to other personal identifiers to create disturbingly detailed digital dossiers that can profile your lifestyle, your interests, your hobbies, or your habits. We also know that the Social Security number is a critically important personal identifier that many online and offline businesses wish to obtain about consumers. Consumers who value their family's privacy, however, have a compelling interest in not allowing this number to be used to tie together bits and pieces of information in various databases into an integrated electronic profile of their interests and behavior that can be zapped around the world in a nanosecond to anyone who is willing to pay the price. If you do a simple Internet search in which you enter the words ``Social Security Numbers,'' you will turn up links to dozens of web sites that offer to provide you, for a fee, with social security numbers for other citizens, or to link a social security number that you might have with a name, address and telephone number. Where are the data mining firms and private detective agencies that offer these services obtaining these numbers? In all likelihood, they are accessing information from the databases of credit bureaus, financial services companies or other commercial firms. If someone actually obtains a Social Security number from one of these sites, they have a critically important piece of information that can be used to locate the individual, get access to information about the individual's personal finances, or engage in a variety of illegal activities. By bringing a halt to unregulated commerce in Social Security numbers, the bill I am introducing today will help reduce the incidence of pretexting crimes, identity thefts and other frauds or crimes involving misuse of a person's Social Security number. We need to take this action now if we are going to fully protect the public's right to privacy by preventing sales of Social Security numbers. That is why I am pleased today to be introducing legislation which would outlaw this practice. My bill would make it criminal 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 House colleagues to enact this important privacy protection proposal into law.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, it is March madness like I have never seen it before. But I am not talking about college basketball. I am talking about the budget free-fall off the deficit deep end that the Republicans are creating for our country. This creates a $46 billion 1- year deficit. President Bush still has an $800 billion tax break, mostly for the wealthy, still pending in his budget. What is sacrificed? Well, the Social Security trust fund is sacrificed. It is not put in a lock box. It is allowed to be looted. Prescription drugs, it underfunds the promise the Republicans made to seniors on prescription drugs. Education, it undercuts by 60 percent the money that was supposed to have been spent on the poor children in our country. And where did the March madness begin? It began a year ago when the Republicans said we can have a $1.7 trillion tax cut and it will not effect the Social Security trust fund; it will not effect the Medicare trust fund. But what is happening now? They are both hemorrhaging. This is Enron-onomics. It takes from the poor, from their pension funds, from their health care funds while the wealthy walk off with the vast bulk of the wealth that was being created by everyone. The greatest generation in nursing homes, the greatest generation with health care bills. And what are we telling them? We are going to loot their social security trust funds, their Medicare trust fund. March madness. I will tell you who will be mad. The seniors will be mad, they will be angry, they will be outraged when they find out that the Republicans rather than shoring up Medicare, Medicaid. Medicare, half of all the seniors in nursing homes are on Medicaid because they have Alzheimer's. Where is the money 10 years from now for those seniors with Alzheimer's, for those seniors with Parkinsons? Where is the money? Where is the budgeting?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. We are operating under an economic plan, the Republican plan of last June. It is only 8 months ago. They said we have plenty of money for a $1.7 trillion tax break. It would not affect our ability to deal with Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid or education. Eight months later with the wealthy taking the bulk of the $1.7 trillion, the greatest generation are now looking out 5 and 10 years from now with our nursing homes flooded with 91 percent of all nursing homes with inadequate care, and no additional funding in order to deal with that long term. That is not right.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for yielding me the time. There is kind of a breathtaking level of temerity that the Republicans are engaging in today. As the Enron case and many others hang over our country's financial marketplace, as Arthur Andersen basically struggles for survival of all of the fraudulent activity that was perpetrated on investors, on workers, on consumers across this country, the Republican response to it is to bring out yet another bill that will make it difficult for those ordinary investors and workers to bring suits against the big guys, the people who play games with the books. It is almost like there is no shame whatsoever, and I would almost understand it if they kind of snuck this through in July or August when the coast was clear on the Enron and Arthur Andersen case, that had kind of died down a little bit. What they are doing today is putting in place a dangerous anticonsumer, anti-investor and antiworker piece of legislation. They are standing with the Enrons of the world, the Arthur Andersens of the world against the consumer, against the investors in our country, and it is just incredible to me. However, remember, the first article of the Republican Contract with America back in 1995 was passing out on this floor the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Amongst other things, that is making it very difficult for people to sue Arthur Andersen right now because they no longer have joint and several liability. They only have proportionate liability. Even as their auditors and consultants are together playing the game and keeping score, because of that 1995 Act it is hard to make them liable, and everyone knows that they were part of this game. Today, we see the results of their fine handiwork. Just a few weeks ago, Members may have read press reports about Arthur Andersen reaching a $217 million settlement in a class action lawsuit brought under State law in the State of Arizona against Arthur Andersen in connection with a fraud involving a charity organization. According to the testimony delivered to the Committee on the Judiciary at around the same time the State class action was filed, a Federal class action was also filed, same case, same facts, State court, Federal court. Guess what happened to the Federal class action. It was thrown out of court because the Republicans in 1995 changed the pleading standards in the Federal securities laws to favor wrongdoers. So these poor people who have been defrauded could not even get into Federal court. What happens? We have a controlled experiment seeing what happens in Federal and State court. The same people now go to the State court with the same case, same facts. In the State court, the plaintiffs win. They can win. They do win. Same case, same events, same facts. In Federal court, under the 1995 Republican Act, wrongdoers are protected. They cannot recover, they are out $217 million. In the State courts, the plaintiffs won. The wrongdoers lost. What is the Republican vision of the future? They now want to do that for all classes of all plaintiffs. They want to take the public's legal rights away, and that is what this bill would do. So we have to defeat this bill. It is terrible. It says we cannot trust the States, we cannot trust local courts, we cannot give local people a chance to decide whether or not local, fraudulent, big companies have hurt the investors and the workers in their community. That is a vision of the past, not of the future. Defeat this bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House of Representatives take this opportunity to honor Roy Colannino, Police Chief of the great city of Revere, Massachusetts, and a highly distinguished member of our Nation's law enforcement community. Chief Colannino recently retired from the Revere Police Department after dedicating 37 years of his life to the cause of protecting the safety of his fellow citizens and the community at large. Chief Colannino joined the Revere Police Department in 1965 as a member of the Police Reserves, and was immediately recognized as a bright and energetic addition to the force. During his 37-year career, he served as Patrolman, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain and Chief. While working full time and raising a family, Chief Colannino continued his education at Northeastern University in Boston where he earned a Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice in 1981. As he ascended the ranks of the Revere Police Department, he earned high accolades from his superior officers and the deep respect of his fellow colleagues at each stage of his career with the force. As the executive law enforcement officer in Revere, Chief Colannino developed a highly successful community-policing program that joined the Revere Police Department with the city's community leaders in an innovative and effective new partnership. His commitment to incorporate his officer corps into the fabric of every neighborhood has been particularly beneficial for this diverse community. Mr. Speaker, since September 11, 2001, our nation has rightfully reflected on the incredible service our police and fire professionals provide to our communities. Roy Colannino exemplifies that service and the sacrifices these men and women, and their families, endure for us on a daily basis. He has served the City of Revere, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and our nation at an incomparable level of professionalism, and dedication and human caring for nearly four decades. I ask that my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives join me in wishing him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield my final minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. This is not a debate between Democrats and Republicans. It is between competition and monopoly. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).

Mr. MARKEY. I do not.