Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. All the public should know on this bill is that no Democrats were allowed to make any amendments to this bill. They were not allowed to debate this bill. Even the great gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) of the Committee on the Judiciary, no amendments allowed. None. No thought required by half of the Congress. And do the Members want to know why? Because this bill is really the pluperfect payback of the Republican Party to the insurance industry. This bill will victimize patients in the courtroom after they have already been victimized in the operating room. That is what it is all about. The premise of the bill is this, and it is not a bad premise: If they are willing to lower the amount of money that somebody can receive for the pain and suffering that they have had inflicted upon them by some medical operation, then, in turn, there will be a lowering of the premiums that doctors have to pay. That is kind of the trade-off that the Republicans have. Lower return for the patients for their pain and suffering, but we also get, as a result, lower premiums for the doctors. But 2 years ago when I made the amendment in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that would have said that all of the savings from the pain and suffering of patients would then go to lowering of premiums for doctors, every Republican voted against that because the insurance industry does not want the money to go to lower premiums for doctors. And then this year when I wanted to make an amendment in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that would have said the same thing, lower premiums, I was not allowed to make the amendment. Out here on the House floor, I was not allowed to make the amendment. So it is not about lowering the premiums for physicians with the money that is ``saved'' from the money that would have gone to someone whose family had been harmed because they might have lost their sight, their limbs, their ability to bear children, their ability to fully function in society. All of those savings for the insurance industry, they are very real. But the lowering of medical malpractice fees is only illusory. And, secondly, the bill will protect the pharmaceutical industry from liability as long as the drugs that harm patients are FDA-approved. The FDA approval is designed to protect patients from harmful drugs, but it should not waive a company's responsibility for drugs they put on the market. With all of the recent reports about how FDA approved drugs that harmed people, from Vioxx to Bextra to Accutane to Paxil, now is not the time to limit patients' access to the courts, but that is what the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry is going to get on the House floor today. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill is packed with royalty relief for big oil and gas companies, tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, loan guarantees for the wealthiest energy companies in America, even as they are reporting the largest quarterly profits of any corporations in the history of the United States. It is politically and morally wrong for the United States Congress to come to this floor to pass legislation which will take money from the American taxpayers to hand over to the corporations who are now charging $2.30, $2.40, $2.60 at the pump to American consumers and reporting the largest profits in history. If they need to do new research, they have the money in their own pockets. That is capitalism. If they want to do new drilling out in ultradeep areas of the oceans, they have the profits to do that. The American taxpayer should not be funding that drilling because, as American consumers, they are already paying for that drilling. The oil companies are saying publicly that they are making so much money they do not know what to do with all of the profits. But even as they say that publicly, they are coming here to the House floor, they are saying to the Members, we want to erect huge oil drills on top of the Social Security trust fund and drill $80 billion of subsidies out of American taxpayers' pockets and hand it over to the oil, the gas, the coal, the nuclear industries that are reporting the largest profits in history. It is a moral and political failure because it is what is not in this bill that is the important energy agenda for our country. Our country puts 70 percent of all of the oil that we consume in gasoline tanks. We only have 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world. OPEC has 70 percent. That is our weakness. Our strength is that we are the technological giant of the world. There is nothing in this bill about improving the fuel economy standards for SUVs and automobiles. There is nothing in this bill that will mandate that electric utilities increase their use of renewable energy so we can break our dependence upon these sources of energy that weaken our foreign policy by getting us deeper into the Middle East, emitting more pollutants which cause more asthma, more breast cancer, more prostate cancer as the environment alters genes to increase disease in our society. None of that is addressed in this bill in 2005. If we could roll back the clock to 1905, this would be a very good bill. It would be about oil, gas and coal. It is 2005, however. We should be talking about the new agenda, the new technology agenda for our country. This bill is a political and a moral and a technological failure. In addition to draining revenues out of the taxpayers' pockets to subsidize the wealthiest industries, we ignore the technologies which could break our dependence on imported oil and could send a signal to OPEC which would drive down the price of oil which would help our country's national security. I urge a ``no'' vote on this historic failure.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong concerns about the lack of adequate patient privacy protections in H.R. 1132--the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting, NASPER, Act of 2005. H.R. 1132 is being considered on the House Floor under suspension of the rules; therefore it cannot be amended. Because of the absence of urgently needed patient privacy safeguards, I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation. H.R. 1132 is intended to support States' efforts to prevent the abuse of certain controlled substances through the provision of Federal grants to the States for the purpose of establishing and implementing controlled substance monitoring programs. States would use the grants to develop and maintain an electronic database containing information about the type of medication prescribed, quantity dispensed, number of refills, and similar product information. The database also would collect personal information about each patient receiving prescriptions of the covered controlled substances, such as the patient's name, address and telephone number. The abuse of controlled substances such as oxycontin and amphetamines is a serious problem that plagues many Americans. In response to the seriousness of the problem of prescription drug abuse, more than 20 States, including Massachusetts, have taken steps to prevent such abuse through the establishment of reporting requirements on pharmacists and the creation of drug monitoring databases similar to those contemplated by H.R. 1132. In Massachusetts, for example, pharmacies are required to report the prescriptions they fill for substances in Schedules I and II to the State's department of Public Health. The problem is that H.R. 1132 does not provide the safeguards that are required to shield patients--the vast majority of whom will be law- abiding citizens receiving medications as part of a legitimate plan of care--from unauthorized disclosure of their personal medical information. Instead, the legislation provides the States broad leeway to establish databases of patients' private medical records with little guidance on the privacy protections that must be in place in order to quality for the grants. For example, H.R. 1132 permits disclosure of individually- identifiable patient information in the database to a wide range of professionals in addition to practitioners and law enforcement personnel, including any local, State or Federal ``narcotics control, licensure, disciplinary or program authority'' who can make specific certifications as to the need for access to the information. Any ``agent of another state'' with a monitoring program approved by the bill also could gain access to patient records in the database, provided that the purpose of the access is for ``implementing the state's controlled substance monitoring program.'' Such easy access puts the privacy of potentially hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens at risk of unauthorized disclosure. Additional privacy protections that are missing from H.R. 1132 include: a requirement that States receiving grants under the terms of the bill periodically notify patients whose information in the database has been lost, stolen or used for an unauthorized purpose; a mandate that States inform patients before dispensing medications covered by the bill's reporting requirement that their name, address, and phone number will be stored in a State-run database, potentially in perpetuity, as a result of the dispensing of the medication; and a requirement at the States purge the database of information about any particular prescription after a limited amount of time. While I strongly support efforts to prevent the abuse of controlled substances, H.R. 1132 does not contain sufficient guidance to the states on the level of privacy protections that they must provide in the creation and maintenance of the databases authorized under the legislation. Since that breach of 145,000 personal records form the databases of data profiler ChoicePoint in February 2005, 50 million records with private information have been leaked from public companies, hospitals, universities and other organizations. During consideration of this legislation in the Energy and Commerce Committee, I offered a reasonable amendment to incorporate a fundamental privacy protection in the bill. My amendment was supported by the American Conservative Union, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Association of Practicing Psychiatrists and the Massachusetts Medical Society. While my amendment would have simply required patient notification if their information in these databases were lost, stolen or used for an unauthorized purpose, it was defeated. Without such fundamental protections for patients, this bill is not worthy of support. This bill--which is opposed by a broad, bipartisan coalition--does not belong on the suspension calendar, where it is not subject to amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1132. Send it back to committee, where the needed privacy protections can be added. The important goals of this bill can be accomplished without sacrificing the privacy of law-abiding patients.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Capps motion. The House Energy Bill contains a so-called ``Fuels Safe Harbor'' that hands over get-out-of-court-free cars to the big oil companies responsible for polluting our communities' drinking water supplies with MTBE. The MTBE safe harbor is really a pirates cove for corporate polluters. If enacted, it will let corporate polluters off the hook for water contamination and other damages to the environment and public health resulting from MTBE contamination. A few months ago, President Bush said, ``I will tell you, with $55 oil, we do not need to give incentives to oil and gas companies to explore, there are plenty of incentives.'' Well, the President is right. Oil prices are now up to $60 a barrel, but the Republican energy bill would nonetheless hand billions of dollars worth of tax and regulatory subsidies over to wealthy oil companies. The MTBE liability waiver is only the tip of the vast iceberg of subsidies in this bill. $8 billion in tax subsidies and incentives for energy companies in the energy bill; $3 billion for the oil and gas industry; billions more in the Senate bill for the oil and gas industry. There is something called royalty relief for the oil industry, which basically suspends requirements for oil companies to pay the Government for drilling on public land. There is a $2 billion subsidy for ultradeep water drilling R&D, and they also get a special exemption from the Clean Water Act. With oil prices hovering at $60 a barrel, they do not need these breaks. Exxon reported $25 billion worth of profits last year; Conoco, $8 billion; royal Dutch Shell, $18 billion; BP, $16 billion; Chevron- Texaco, $13 billion. They do not need any incentives from the taxpayer, they are already in the pockets of the very same people as consumers, tipping them upside down. And just think about it. The oil companies are making more money than they can ever spend, and Congress, in this bill, is going to pass a bill totally immunizing MTBE producers from any legal liability for producing an inherently defective product. If there is an industry that can pay for this problem, it is the industry that has made more profits in the last year than any industry in the history of the world. We are going to do this despite scientific studies which have shown that MTBE causes cancer in laboratory animals. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a huge mistake, the House ``safe harbor'' from legal liability will shift the burden of cleaning up MTBE contamination from the companies back to the local community. So again, the consumer will be paying high gasoline prices, high home heating oil prices, they will be paying out of their tax dollars to give subsidies to the oil companies, and then they will have to go into their pockets again to clean up the mess which is left over. Vote yes for the Capps motion to instruct the conferees.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just briefly explain the intent of this amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. If I may explain what the amendment is before the gentleman accepts it?

Mr. MARKEY. Reclaiming my time, I will take just a moment. There has been a recent wave of massive privacy breaches that has highlighted the need to reaffirm the principles of the Privacy Act. This week the IRS announced that they are going to have a $20 million contract with ChoicePoint, the same company involved in a massive privacy breach in its operations in February of 2005. This reminder of the potential compromise of information is, of course, very necessary if the IRS is going to contract with ChoicePoint, with the very sensitive information of Americans. So this amendment restates the importance of the Privacy Act being implemented. I ask the House to adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, because this is an incantation which I have never actually been able to make legally under the rules of the House in my 29 years in this body, so I would like for the first time to utter the phrase: I would like to thank the Senate for its work on this legislation. It is much appreciated.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in full support of this legislation. I begin with my congratulations and thanks to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the subcommittee. He and I worked in the last session, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and other members of our committee, in order to draft legislation, which is very similar to the legislation which we are passing here today. I would like, if it is permissible within the rules, to also thank the Democrat and Republican Members of the other body for their work on this legislation as well. We truly passed this legislation in a bicameral, bipartisan fashion. First, let me state that back in ancient, prehistoric political times, back in 1991, that I was the principal House sponsor of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which contained the original junk fax prohibition. In 1991, that legislation passed this body and this general prohibition against junk faxes became law because of this intrusive form of advertising. Every time someone junk faxes you, it is your paper that is coming out of the machine. You are paying for that paper. Your machine is tied up. It is just absolutely one of the most irritating things to people, to have to pay for someone else coming into your home or your business when you do not want them there. It is essentially a tax which is paid by the recipient of something that they never asked for in the first place. This is something that ultimately takes up precious time as well. The machine is tied up, there is too much clutter that is associated with it, and important faxes are lost in the midst of the pile of junk faxes. How many people have just taken a pile of junk faxes, thrown it away, and in the middle of it was a fax you really wanted from someone, but you were just so ticked off by this generally unwanted clutter which has come into your home or your business. So I think it is important to emphasize that the bill we bring to the House floor today retains the general prohibition against sending junk faxes. In other words, sending an unsolicited facsimile advertisement is against the law. We are not changing the law or the policy with respect to this. Sending a junk fax was illegal, and it remains illegal under this bill. Neither are we changing any of the statutory enforcement mechanisms available to the Federal Communications Commission or to the individual consumers themselves in this bill. The legislation we are proposing will address certain provisions affecting an exception to the general prohibition against sending junk faxes and will improve the bill in these areas. I think that it cannot be emphasized enough how this bill is the product, again, of the bipartisan work that both parties have engaged in over the last 2 or 3 years to reach today's final product, and I urge the House to adopt unanimously this legislation today. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This legislation builds upon legislation that was passed by the House in the last Congress and which this year was negotiated out between both Democratic and Republican members in the other body over a number of months. I encourage members to support this legislation today. First, let me state that I was the principal House sponsor of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991, which contained the original junk fax prohibition. Congress endorsed my call in 1991 for a general prohibition against junk faxes because of the intrusive nature of that form of advertising. Junk faxes represent a form of advertising in which the ad is essentially paid for by the recipient. The recipient of a junk fax pays for the fax paper and printer costs, pays in the form of precious lost time as the machine is tied up, and also in the form of the clutter in which important faxes are lost in the midst of a pile of junk faxes. I think it is important to emphasize that the bill we bring to the House floor today retains the general prohibition against sending junk faxes. In other words, sending an unsolicited facsimile advertisement is against the law. We are not changing the law or the policy with respect to this--sending a junk fax was illegal and remains illegal under this bill. Neither are we changing any of the statutory enforcement mechanisms available to the FCC or consumers in this bill. The legislation we are proposing will address certain provisions affecting an exception to the general prohibition against sending junk faxes and will improve the bill in these areas. Since the FCC originally implemented the 1991 junk fax provisions of the TCPA, Commission regulations contained an exception for faxes that were sent because an ``established business relationship'' existed between the sender and the recipient. These regulations were in place and the ability to send junk faxes based upon this exception was permitted by the Commission for over a decade. This concept of an ``established business relationship'' permitted a commercial entity to invoke its ability to demonstrate such a relationship with a consumer in order to contact that consumer in spite of the general prohibitions of the law. The FCC has more recently determined that the term ``established business relationship'' was not specifically included in the provisions addressing junk faxes in the TCPA and therefore changed its regulations. The new rules proposed by the Commission require ``written'' permission from consumers and these new rules have been stayed from going into effect until June 30th of this year, just a few short days away. The legislation before us is designed to put specific language into the statute permitting an ``established business relationship'' exception to the general prohibition against junk faxes. Many businesses have complained that written permission is too onerous a regulatory requirement for many of the faxes that they stipulate are routinely sent in the ordinary course of business to established customers or customers requesting such faxes. This has been done by reputable business entities presumably without complaints from the recipients of such faxes. We must recognize, however, that many small businesses and residential consumers find many of these unsolicited faxes, including those faxes sent because a valid claim of an ``established business relationship'' was being asserted, to be a considerable irritant and strongly object to receiving them. The legislation, therefore, addresses additional issues, including putting into the statute an ``opt-out'' ability for consumers to object to receiving junk faxes, even when such faxes are sent to them based upon an established business relationship. For the decade that the original FCC regulations were in place, many consumers simply were not aware of the FCC's established business relationship exception, nor did very many know they had an ability to stop these faxes or any clear way in which to effectuate such a request. The bill the House is considering includes new provisions requiring an ``opt-out'' notice and policy that we will add to the statute. The bill requires junk faxes to include, on the first page, a clear and conspicuous notice to consumers that they have the right not to receive future junk faxes from the sender. Second, the notice must include a domestic contact telephone number and fax number for consumers to transmit a request not to receive future faxes. Third, the substitute requires the notice to conform with the Commission's technical and procedural standards for sending faxes under Section 227(d) of the law, which include the requirement to identify the entity sending the facsimile advertisement. This is an important provision because one of the biggest complaints from the FCC at the hearing, and with other law enforcement entities and aggrieved consumers, is that they have had difficulty legally identifying the source of many of the unsolicited faxes. In addition, there were some senders of junk faxes who evidently and falsely believed that simply because they were sending an unsolicited fax based upon their ability to prove they had an ``established business relationship'' with a consumer, and thus did not have to abide by the general prohibition against such faxes, that this also meant they did not have to abide by the other FCC and statutory technical rules. These statutory and regulatory rules include requirements that junk fax senders identify themselves in such faxes. Law enforcement entities and consumers need to be able to find the legal business name or widely recognized trade name of the entity sending a junk fax in violation of the rules in order to pursue enforcement actions. Fourth, this bill makes it clear that a consumer can ``opt-out'' of receiving faxes to multiple machines, if they have more than one, rather than opting out solely for the particular machine that received the junk fax. Fifth, in this legislation the Commission is tasked with exploring additional mechanisms by which a consumer might opt-out, such as in person or by email or regular mail, and also requests that the Commission establish cost-free ways by which consumers can opt-out. These notice and opt-out requirements all represent new provisions to the law for which existing enforcement remedies will apply. This legislation also includes the ability for the FCC to limit the duration of an established business relationship notwithstanding the fact that the law would include an opt-out notice and ability which avails consumers of the right to opt-out of receiving faxes at any point in time. I believe this is an important concept and one which deals with the legitimate expectations of consumers. If a consumer buys something from a store, consumers might expect to hear from that store within a reasonable period of time. Over time however, a consumer's expectation changes and there is a time after which the established business relationship can be said to have lapsed. Finally, I think it is important to take a comprehensive look at overall enforcement of the junk fax law. I am concerned that some of the most egregious junk fax operations, the entities that broadcast such faxes to millions, often escape enforcement. They may be found guilty, cited by the FCC and sometimes fined--but often it appears as if they either ignore the fines, skip town, or live overseas. For these reasons the bill includes provisions that will give us an annual accounting of the FCC's enforcement activities as well as a GAO analysis of what additional enforcement tools may be necessary to provide sufficient deterrent, especially to the most egregious and abusive junk fax senders. Again, I want to commend Chairman Upton and Chairman Barton for their work on this bill, and in particular for their willingness and openness in working with me and Mr. Dingell in crafting the compromises needed to achieve consensus. I encourage all the members to support it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MARKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, the President had a historic opportunity in 2003. He had the support of the Congress. He had the support of the United Nations. We had inspectors in Iraq. It was determined that they had no weapons of mass destruction, and yet the President decided to invade. Just think what would have happened if instead of on that day an invasion began, the President said, Let's keep this international coalition together. Let's move to Iran with the coalition. Let's ensure that they do not have a nuclear weapon. Now the new President of Iran is stating that the United States and the world will not get in the way of Iran and nuclear weapons. The United States is more in danger, Israel is more in danger, the world is more in danger, because of the bad decision President Bush made on that day in 2003 when he invaded Iraq. Instead, we are on the brink of a nuclear Iran and North Korea, and we are in a quagmire in Iraq as we referee an insurgency that will breakout into civil war as soon as the United States leaves. This is a historic mess. The President had a chance for a Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, he is going to go down in history as someone who completely mismanaged nuclear nonproliferation and the politics of Iraq.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the massive cuts to the Title VII health professions training programs which play a critical role in addressing the shortage of doctors, nurses, dentists and other health professionals in underserved areas and have proven to increase the diversity of the health care workforce. The Republicans' fiscal year 2006 budget gives away $106 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society. Now, in order to pay for those cuts, they are making huge cuts to critical programs for the poor and the most vulnerable in our country. The Title VII health professions training programs are some of the many casualties of these tax giveaways. In order to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy, this bill slashes funding for the Title VII programs by 84 percent, cutting the programs from $300 million to $47 million. These Title VII programs promote access to quality health care to for our nation's neediest citizens and they are only federal programs designed help prepare health professionals to respond to the needs of these special and underserved populations. These programs are a vital component of the health education system in our country and are necessary to maintain the high quality health care that we expect. These cuts will have a dramatic impact on the system at a time when essential health care services are already facing funding cuts and program eliminations. I urge you to oppose these cuts and I am hopeful that the Committee will work to increase funding for these programs in Conference.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Manager's amendment. The Manager's amendment includes an amendment that I filed to offer to the bill yesterday, which would address an important privacy protection issue. Mr. Chairman, the recent wave of massive data thefts has swept up the precious, private information of millions and millions of Americans. Everyday seems to bring new examples of gaping holes in databases being exploited by criminals: ChoicePoint, Lexis-Nexis, and CardSystems Solutions. These are just 3 recent examples of huge heists of personal information. And when Americans' financial records are drained from databases, does Federal law require the victims to be notified? No! When Americans' Social Security numbers are siphoned from databases by criminals, does Federal law require that the victims are at least notified? No! And, most importantly, when Americans' most private health information is plundered from databases, does Federal law require the victims to be notified? Shockingly, Unbelievably--No! Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today provides $75 million to support the creation of a new network of databases containing the health records of millions of Americans across the country. This new health information network will be, in effect, the ``Mother of All Databases.'' This network, when it is completed, will provide unprecedented access to the most private, personal health records of tens of millions of Americans. The nationwide network holds tremendous promise. But it also holds enormous peril for the privacy of Americans' medical records. That's because we know that databases currently maintained by the Federal government are vulnerable to infiltration by the data thieves. How do we know this? In February 2005, President Bush's Information Technology Advisory Committee reported that: The information technology infrastructure of the United States . . . is highly vulnerable to terrorist and criminal attacks and [T]he Federal Government needs to fundamentally improve its approach to cyber security. In May 2005, GAO reported that: [T]he Federal Government is limited in its ability to identify and respond to emerging cybersecurity threats, including sophisticated and coordinated attacks that target multiple federal entities. Even with the most sophisticated and modern cybersecurity, we have learned that reels of data can be lost off the back of a truck. While there is much we must and should do to minimize that loss of data, it is simply unforgivable to hide a known breach from the individuals whose personal data has fallen into unauthorized hands. An individual can sometimes take action to protect herself while authorities try to puzzle out what happened to cause a breach. At least they should know when they are at risk. A national health information network could provide significant benefits for patients, physicians, hospitals, and other health providers. But to realize these benefits, this new network must have strong privacy safeguards. My amendment, which is now part of the Manager's amendment, would simply require that patients whose health information is maintained by the Department of Health and Human Services as part of this new health records database must be notified if their records are lost, stolen or used for an unauthorized purpose. Our amendment would apply to the tens of millions of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries whose personally identifiable health information is maintained by the Federal Government. As the Department begins to develop the standards for this enormous database, privacy of patients must be a priority. As many of us know, people can be more concerned about their medical information being public than their financial information. There are things in medical records that people don't even tell members of their own families. We are at the dawn of the development of this new database. Now is the time to ensure that privacy is paramount. Our amendment will ensure that patients victimized when their health information in the database is stolen or misused are simply notified so they can take the necessary steps to protect themselves. In fact, the following 13 states already have enacted similar notification requirements for patients whose personal information has been stolen from electronic databases: Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Texas and Washington. This is a vital, common-sense amendment, and I am pleased that it has been incorporated into the Manager's amendment. I urge its adoption.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Hinchey) amendment just restates existing law. What Ken Tomlinson wants to do is turn NPR into the NRC, the National Republican Committee, rather than National Public Radio. That is what it is all about. CPB used to stand for Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Now it will stand for Corporation for Political Boondoggles, as this Republican administration seeks to politicize something that in all national polling is the most respected news outlet in the United States of America. This is wrong. Support the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey-Lowey- Leach amendment. To the Republicans: Keep your hands off of Big Bird. Sesame Street is balanced. Big Bird is there, but so is Oscar the Grouch to represent the Republican point of view. So every program has a balance to it. But Ken Tomlinson, this new Republican head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, has decided that there is a problem with public television and he has gone out to find the problem. And when he looks in the mirror the problem is he. We are out here today because Ken Tomlinson has now opened the floodgates of criticism for a network which in polling is recognized as the most respected network in America. And after national security, in polling decided by the American people, it is the Federal program they like most after the Defense Department. But the Republicans and Ken Tomlinson today have named the former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee to be the new head, the new President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. So Tomlinson's answer to the absence of political balance is to name the Republican co-chair of their national committee. That is all you have to know about what the Republican Party is doing here on the House floor today. Here is what public television is from 6 a.m. in the morning on, for 12 hours in a row: It is Zoom; it is Maya and Miguel; it is Arthur; it is the Berenstein Bears; Clifford the Big Red Dog; Dragon Tales; George Shrinks; Barney and Friends; Sesame Street. Until you hit 6 o'clock, when it is the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. It is NOVA. It is The American Experience. They are attacking the Children's Television Network. They are turning CPB from Corporation for Public Broadcasting into Corporation for Political Boondoggle. That is the whole agenda that they have here today.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering deals with the issue of the outsourcing of torture. It is identical to amendments that this House has previously approved to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill in March and the State-Justice appropriations last week. Very simply, it states that none of the funds appropriated in this bill may be spent in contravention of laws and regulations adopted to implement the convention against torture.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this issue has a special relevance to each of us because, we actually name the young men and women who go to these academies. And each of us take this responsibility with a great deal of responsibility. And to the parents who entrust these children, these young men and woman, to us and through us to the academies, there is an expectation that regardless of the religion of any of these families, that they will, on the one hand, be able to fully practice their religion, but at the same time they will also be free from coercion of other religions as they leave home for the first time. So we have, I think, the greatest responsibility because we play a role in selecting these young men and women to ensure that they are protected and that their parents, their families, back home are protected from the beliefs which they are sent with being attacked or undermined by those that do not respect the beliefs that those young people brought with them. So I agree that this amendment is absolutely essential and that the statement must come from this body of all bodies on this most important of issues.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for his acceptance. I will try to conclude briefly on my time so that the House can understand what it is that they are accepting. The convention against torture is a treaty signed by the United States under President Ronald Reagan, and it was ratified by the Senate in 1994. It prohibits any use of torture or other cruel or degrading treatment. It also prohibits the outsourcing of torture by sending people to any country where there is a reasonable likelihood that they will face torture. My amendment simply ratifies America's commitment to the convention. It does not change current law. It is a simple funding restriction aimed at underscoring to all of the defense and intelligence agencies funded under this bill that they need to ensure that all of their activities are fully compliant with America's treaty obligations and with the requirements of United States law and regulation. It is wrong for the United States to capture prisoners, put them on Gulfstreams and fly them to Syria or Uzbekistan with the assurance given by those countries which we know are human rights abusers that they will not torture prisoners. If the United States captures a prisoner, we should keep that prisoner in our possession, or send him to a country which has the same values which we have. But it would be wrong to continue to engage in a process where we send these prisoners to Syria, for example, which administers electrical shocks, pulling out of fingernails, forcing prisoners to engage in inhumane acts. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his acceptance of this amendment.