Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, last week the 4th Nobel Peace Laureates Summit was held in Rome. At the conclusion of the Summit, the Laureates issued a statement on behalf of this extraordinary gathering that is printed at the end of these remarks. There are too few places in our public dialogue where a universal perspective is encouraged and lauded. The Nobel Peace Prize is one of them. Such civil society institutions are to be encouraged because they are needed to work on global challenges. The Laureates reinforced in the most eloquent terms the message sent at a recent panel convened by the Bipartisan Task Force on Non- proliferation of which I am Co-chair with my colleague Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). This panel on ``The Limits of Unilateralism'' included the world-renowned anthropologist Dr. Jane Goodall, former Ambassador Thomas Graham, and Mr. Michael Douglas, actor and U.N. Messenger of Peace. In his remarks, Mr. Douglas stressed that not only Americans, but all people on the planet, are faced with enormous challenges to our security and survival which can only be effectively met through international cooperation. He reminded us that we are tasked with ``ensuring bio-diversity and ending the destruction of thousands of species; reversing the depletion of fishing stocks; controlling ocean dumping; preventing ozone depletion; halting global warming; controlling and eliminating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; fighting pandemic diseases; ending the tragedy of crushing poverty and lack of clean drinking water; and addressing crises arising from failed states. No nation or even a small group of nations can succeed in addressing these issues alone.'' Jonathan Granoff, who helped organize our Task Force event here in Washington as President of the Global Security Institute (GSI), also attended the Summit of the Nobel Peace Laureates in Rome as a representative of the International Peace Bureau, a Nobel Peace Laureate organization. The Summit took place from the 27 to 30 November 2003. It was convened upon invitation by Mikhail Gorbachev and Walter Veltroni, Mayor of the City of Rome. The following Nobel Peace Laureates-- individuals and organizations--participated in the Summit: The XIV Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, Mikhail Gorbachev, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Shimon Peres, Joseph Rotblat (represented by Professor Robert Hinde), Oscar Arias Sanchez, Lech Walesa, Betty Williams, Jody Williams, American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, International Labour Organization, International Peace Bureau, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, International Law Institute, Pugwash Conferences, Quakers Peace and Social Witness, United Nations, United Nations Children's Fund, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and United Nations Peace Keeping Forces. The theme of the gathering was ``Ethics and Policy.'' It is a subject we discuss often in this chamber as we apply policies to our domestic affairs. It is also needed, perhaps even more so, in international affairs. For this reason, I would like to submit the Final Statement of the Summit into our record for your review and consideration: Ethics and Policy--4th Global Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates Rome, Campidoglio, November 30, 2003

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 877, spam legislation that we bring to the House Floor today in a final version that incorporates technical and other changes since the House sent to the Senate a compromise bill on November 21. Mr. Speaker, as I noted in remarks back in November, this legislation reflects a series of agreements between advocates for the two alternative House spam bills--one offered by Chairman Tauzin, and the other offered by Ms. Wilson and Mr. Green of which I am an original cosponsor, as well as a series of compromises with our Senate counterparts. While not a perfect bill, I believe it merits support. Mr. Speaker, this legislation now contains the Markey amendment on wireless spam, which originated in the House amendments to the Senate- passed bill. The reason I offered this amendment for inclusion in the House-passed bill is that I wanted wireless consumers to have greater protection than that which was accorded in the version of S. 877 which the Senate passed previously. Indeed, during the summer the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on spam at which I raised the prospect of wireless spam and the likelihood that it was a problem wireless consumers were beginning to see. At that time, neither the Tauzin-Burr spam bill, nor the Wilson- Green spam bill, continued wireless specific provisions to address this issue head-on. Unsolicited wireless text messages have plagued wireless users in Europe, South Korea, and Japan over the last few years as wireless companies in such countries have offered wireless messaging services. According to published reports that came to our attention as we were deliberating upon the spam issue, NTT DoCoMo estimated that its wireless network processes some 800 million wireless spam messages a day. As cumbersome and annoying as spam to a desktop computer is, at least a consumer can turn off their computer and walk away. Wireless spam is even more intrusive because spam to wireless phones is the kind of spam that follows you wherever you go and according to U.S. wireless carriers, is already on the rise. For this reason, in order to safeguard consumer privacy in a way that reflects the more intrusive nature of wireless spam to the user than spam is to a desktop computer, which is immobile and for which the user may pay some type of ``per message'' fee, the bill tasks the FCC with tackling this issue now, before it overwhelms users and network operators alike. The same type of rules that are applicable to commercial e-mail messages sent to personal computers will clearly also apply to those sent to wireless devices, including mobile phones, and the general provisions of the bill would apply to wireless messages as they would to similar messages sent to a desktop computer. Section 14 of the bill builds upon this legislative foundation and puts in place additional protections and modifications. It requires an FCC rulemaking to assess and put in place additional consumer protections. The bill doesn't needlessly or unduly burden wireline network operators--and wireless carriers should not see such burdens implemented as part of Section 14 to the extent to which they are acting as carriers. Of course, these same wireless carriers may also be senders of spam themselves, and the bill spells out how such messages should be dealt with and includes the FCC proceeding in Section 14 to address issues particular to wireless services. Again, Mr. Speaker, Federal spam legislation ought to reflect the particular characteristics of wireless technology and use, and this bill will allow the FCC to promulgate rules requiring a consumer ``opt- in'' for certain wireless e-mail messages. In addition, this proceeding permits the FCC to examine the nature of a consumer's relationship with their wireless phone and service to take into account the potentially unique technical characteristics which may warrant wireless-specific rules. In addition, the wireless spam provision requests that the FCC consider the ability of an initiator of spam to reasonably determine whether an electronic mail message is a mobile service commercial message. Obviously, as wireless service evolves, more and more consumers will receive Internet e-mails via their commercial mobile service provider's network and directly to their wireless device. If a person has an e-mail address from their commercial mobile service provider and it can be readily identified as a wireless address, such as name@verizonwireless.net or name@wireless.net, then the reasonable ability of a potential spammer to recognize that as such is relatively easy. Hopefully, commercial mobile service providers--and consumers-- will see the benefit of having an e-mail address that can be reasonably determined to be a wireless address, so that the prospect of massive amounts of spam to consumers over wireless networks can be thwarted and consumers can enjoy the benefits of entities needing their express prior authorization before sending them wireless spam. Spam sent to a desktop computer e-mail address, and which is then forwarded over a wireless network to a wireless device, i.e., delivered ``indirectly'' from the initiator to the wireless device, would be treated by the rest of this bill and not by the additional Section 14 wireless-specific provisions we subject to an FCC rulemaking. This legislation also represents an improvement in other areas over the Senate-passed bill. For example, the compromise doubles the damage caps in the Senate bill. It also eliminates the knowledge standards for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state Attorney General injunctive relief. The bill provides for rulemaking authority to clarify and tighten the definition of what constitutes a ``commercial e-mail.'' Requires that identifiers and a postal address must be on all commercial e-mails to desktop computers. Finally, the bill also shortens the time frame from which an ``opt-out'' request would become enforceable. All of these represent important improvements over the Senate bill. I want to commend Chairman Tauzin and Ranking Member Dingell for their excellent work in this area. I want to salute Representatives Heather Wilson and Gene Green for spearheading House spam efforts in this session as well as in the previous Congress as the lead sponsors of the House bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, while the Boston Red Sox failed to finally capture a World Series victory that has eluded them since 1918, another group of Hardball Heroes from Red Sox Nation did achieve their ultimate goal. The Malden Catholic Lancers defied all expectations, overcame every obstacle, and defeated every opponent to finish the year as Massachusetts Division One State Champions. While Red Sox fans will have to wait until next year yet again, the Lancers fans can rejoice and celebrate the success of this young team of schoolyard superstars. Mr. Speaker, today I join with faculty, students, my fellow alumni, and all members of the Malden Catholic community who are saying congratulations! It was Coach Stephen Freker's guidance and leadership that fueled these young men as they drove to the championship. The National High School Baseball Coach's Association affirmed what we knew all along by naming Coach Freker New England's Coach of the Year. These Lancers worked hard, practiced long, and gave their hearts and souls for the blue and gold all year long. While they are great individual players, their true greatness lies in their ability to play as team. Mr. Speaker, this was our year. Let's Go Lancers!

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, and I congratulate him for all the good things that are in this bill, all the credit report and the negative statement issues that are dealt with. But there is one concern which I have which is consumers are, by this bill, going to see the California privacy law preempted, as they are going to see as well other States who want to make stronger privacy protection for their constituents something that is part of the law. My concern is that increasingly what we see with companies like TransUnion and Equifax is that they are sending the records off shore. For example, TransUnion, one of the three major credit reporting agencies' spokesman said last month, 100 percent of our mail regarding customer disputes is going to India at some point. We expect to sign that contract by the end of the year. My hope is that as the years go by we will be able to return to this issue because the globalization of the information marketplace is going to make clear that Americans are going to want more protection as their information is going to be put in the hands of foreigners with no laws on the books or the ability to police them. I rise to opposition to this legislation. I understand that some good things have been done in this bill, such as the provisions granting consumers free access to copies of their credit report, notice of negative statements being added to their credit reports, or adverse credit decisions being made based on their credit report. I support these provisions, and I also support stronger protections against identify theft. The problem is that consumers are being asked to pay a price for these provisions--their privacy. As I read this bill, we are permanently pre-empting any stronger state privacy laws, such as the California law, in favor of a federal standard that provides consumers with only a very narrow ``opt-out'' right to block affiliate sharing of the consumer's information for marketing purposes. I do not believe that an ``Opt Out'' is appropriate. Companies should have to obtain the affirmative consent of the consumer--an ``Opt In'' before they share information about their transactions or experiences with the consumer with other affiliates or with unaffiliated third parties. Moreover, I am concerned that by limiting the ability of a consumer to exercise their Opt-Out solely to marketing, this bill allows affiliates to share information about the consumers for other purposes without any consumer right to say ``No.'' I am also concerned that even after a consumer has ``opted out,'' their decision to do so gets sunsetted after 5 years and they have to ``opt out'' again. If the consumer has said no, that should mean no illness and until the consumer says yes. I also want to raise a concern about some statements I have seen in the press from the credit reporting agencies suggesting that if these companies are forced to provide consumers with free credit reports, they will accelerate their current efforts to transfer their databases and back office operations off-shore. TransUnion and Equifax, two out of the three major credit reporting agencies already are in the process of offshoring the processing of detailed credit files on 220 million U.S. consumers. Earlier this month, a TransUnion spokesman said that ``A hundred percent of our mail regarding customer disputes is going to go to India at some point. We expect to sign that contract by the end of the year.'' Equifax has had a vendor in Jamaica for four years, where Jamacian workers handle data entry at the beginning of the reinvestigation process for disputed credit reports. Experian, the third of the three major credit reporting agencies, is considering whether to offshore some of its operations: ``We definitely are evaluating every option on the table, and offshoring is one of them. I don't want to be quoted as saying we'll never do it.'' Privacy experts are concerned about offshoring of the Social Security numbers, addresses and other personal information contained in credit reports: ``Consumers should be worried. The infrastructure to protect information just isn't there in a lot of these places.'' (Beth Givens, director, Privacy Rights Clearing House) ``The problem is not that they're in India, the problem is that American laws are not going to be enforced in India.'' (Chris Hoofnagle, Electronic Privacy Information Center) ``If you're an international crime ring, and you want Social Security numbers for identity theft, you're going to look at the weakest link, and that's quite possibly these overseas companies.'' (Beth Givens) In October, a Pakistani woman threatened to post UCSF patient files on the Internet, unless she was paid for the medical transcription services she had performed. In the email she sent to UCSF, the woman wrote: ``Your patient records are out in the open to be exposed, so you better track that person and make him pay my dues or otherwise I will expose all the voice files and patient records on the Internet.'' That is the future that we are looking at with the credit reporting agencies. Consumers may be able to call up to get a free copy of their credit report, but the person on the other end of the line may be in Karachi or New Delhi, where U.S. privacy standards do not apply. Indeed, this bill may provide Americans with the most expensive ``free'' credit report they'll ever get. They'll pay with their privacy. That is why I think that we need to put the consumer back in control of their own information. We need an ``opt-in'' not a limited ``opt- out'', and we need to ensure that American's privacy does not get offshored at the same time that their jobs are getting offshored. I urge the defeat of this legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I yield myself that time in order to conclude the debate for the Democratic side, and I would like to point out how important this bill is. Congress many times acts in areas where most Americans say ``How does that affect me?'' This legislation will now affect every computer in the United States in the way in which it affects the user of that computer, and it will affect every user of a cell phone in the way that that cell phone is used or, to be more explicit, the way in which marketers abuse those phones and computers. So this is a great day, and the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) did a great job in bringing it to our attention, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), in putting together an environment in which we can negotiate this bill out in a bipartisan fashion. The litany of saints is long, and I mentioned many of them earlier. I would like to add the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. He and his staff contributed significantly to this legislation. To the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), I want to congratulate him and his excellent work on this legislation. The consumers will be the beneficiary. I want to mention the gentlewoman from Silicon Valley, California (Ms. Eshoo) for all of her wonderful work on this legislation. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who had a deep interest in the wireless aspects of this legislation, I think he deserves credit for what is happening here today. The gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), David Cavicke did a great job, and I think I should mention Howard Waltzman as well on the chairman's staff for his excellent work; on the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Upton) staff, Will Nordwind, who has been working on this for several months, as well with the chairman. And I would conclude by thanking my own staff, Colin Crowell, who throughout this year had a plan to include a wireless cell phone antispam provision in the legislation, and today we see the fruition of all of his excellent work, and I think that consumers will be the beneficiary for the generation ahead. So I conclude by complimenting the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill, and it would not have been possible without the good work of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and his staff, David Cavicke, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and his staff, David Schooler and Gregg Rothschild, working with the majority. I think we have come to an excellent result. It builds upon the work that the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) have been making for years in this area. I think that the public is really going to be a beneficiary from this product this evening. I would be remiss, of course, not to single out the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as well and his staff for their excellent work on this bill. In addition to the other provisions mentioned by other Members, this legislation now contains a modified version of the wireless spam amendment that I had offered for inclusion. The legislation preserves important authority of the Federal Communications Commission and FTC where it serves consumer interests. It also requires the FCC to initiate a rule-making for wireless spam so that no loopholes are created, but in a way to ensure that wireless consumers have greater protection than that accorded in the underlying bill. As we attempt to tackle the issue of spam that is sent to our desktop computers, we must also recognize that millions of wireless consumers in the United States run the risk of being inundated by wireless spam. Unsolicited wireless text messages have plagued wireless users in Europe, South Korea and Japan over the last few years as wireless companies in such countries have offered wireless messaging services. In Japan alone, NTT DoCoMo estimates that its wireless network processes some 800 million wireless spam messages a day. That is a day. As cumbersome and annoying as spam to a desktop computer is, at least a consumer can turn off their computer and walk away. Wireless spam is even more intrusive because spam to wireless phones is the kind of spam that follows you wherever you go, and according to the U.S. wireless carriers, is already on the rise. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. The reality is that this whole movement began as people several years ago saw what the impact would be of unwanted spam on their home or work computers. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) pointed out, he had in one day 150 unwanted spam messages on his home computer. What this legislation does is to help every American to deal with that problem. What I ask the Members to do as well is to deal with another issue that quite likely is going to rise to a level of being a problem that eclipses even computer spam and that would be cell phone spam. Imagine if you reach a point where there are 150 unwanted rings on your phone, your cell phone, this zone of privacy which we all have as these marketers are calling into your cell phone all day long. What this legislation does is it ensures that the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission take the actions which give protections against this being the new battleground. It is already a full scale epidemic in Europe, in Japan, in South Korea. It is heading our way. Probably by the time the FCC has a chance to put the regulations on the books, maybe a year from now, we will have already seen its growth so those protections against these cell phones just ringing all day long becomes the epidemic that really just drives people crazy. So the bill will require the FCC to consider certain provisions with an eye towards assessing the problems and perhaps the unique capabilities or limitations of wireless devices. We have to be sure that wireless consumers and carriers can functionally implement the new legal requirements. But the Federal spam legislation ought to reflect the particular characteristics of the wireless technology and use this bill as a way to ensure that we have promulgated rules requiring a consumer opt-in for wireless e-mail messages so that the consumer has affirmatively said that they want these messages to come into their life. Otherwise, this device that is so valuable now to 170 million Americans would just be the single greatest nuisance ever invested. Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the compromise spam legislation that we bring to the House Floor today. Mr. Speaker, this legislation reflects a series of agreements between advocates for the two alternative House spam bills--one offered by Chairman Tauzin, and the other offered by Ms. Wilson and Mr. Green of which I am an original cosponsor, as well as a series of compromises with our Senate counterparts. While not a perfect bill, I believe it merits support. In addition, Mr. Speaker, this legislation now contains a modified version of the wireless spam amendment that I had offered for inclusion. The legislation preserves important authority of the FCC and FTC where it serves consumer interests. It also requires the FCC to initiate a rulemaking for wireless spam so that no loopholes are created but in a way to ensure that wireless consumers have greater protection than that accorded in the underlying bill. As we attempt to tackle the issue of spam that is sent to our desktop computers, we must also recognize the millions of wireless consumers in the United States run the risk of being inundated with wireless spam. Unsolicited wireless text messages have plagued wireless users in Europe, South Korea, and Japan over the last few years as wireless companies in such countries have offered wireless messaging services. In Japan alone, NTT DoCoMo estimates that its wireless network processes some 800 million wireless spam messages a day. As cumbersome and annoying as spam to a desktop computer is, at least a consumer can turn off their computer and walk away. Wireless spam is even more intrusive because spam to wireless phones is the kind of spam that follows you wherever you go and according to U.S. wireless carriers, is already on the rise. To prevent wireless spam from overwhelming the American wireless marketplace as it has networks in other countries, this legislation tasks the FCC to promulgate rules in order to put strong consumer protections on the books. In addition, the bill requires the FCC to consider certain provisions with an eye toward assessing them given the perhaps unique capabilities or limitations of wireless devices. We must be sure that wireless consumers and carriers can functionally implement the legal requirements. Federal spam legislation ought to reflect the particular characteristics of wireless technology and use and this bill will allow the FCC to promulgate rules requiring a consumer ``opt-in'' for wireless email messages while examining the nature of a consumer's relationship with their wireless phone and service to take into account the unique service and technical characteristics that may warrant wireless-specific rules affecting consumer and carrier rights and obligations. The wireless spam provision of the bill offers wireless consumers relief by requiring an ``opt-in'' for spam to wireless consumers. This reflects the fact that spam to a mobile phone is more intrusive to consumers and the fact that some wireless payment plans currently charge users for the amount of text messages they receive. The provision would require ``express prior authorization'' from the consumer before an entity could send spam to their wireless device. My intent is that this ``express prior authorization'' be implemented in a way that a request for ``express prior authorization'' is conspicuous and easily understood by consumers and that each entity seeking to send mobile service commercial messages pursuant to Section 14(b)(1) obtain such consumer authorization. In addition, the wireless spam provision requests that the FCC consider the ability of an initiator of spam to reasonably determine whether an electronic mail message is a mobile service commercial message. Obviously, as wireless service evolves, more and more consumers will receive Internet emails via their commercial mobile service provider's network and directly to their wireless device. If a person ha an email address from their commercial mobile service provide and it can be readily identified as a wireless address, such as name@verizonwireless.net or name@wireless.net then the reasonable ability of a potential spammer to recognize that as such is relatively easy. Hopefully, commercial mobile service providers--and consumers--will see the benefit of having an email address that can be reasonably determined to be a wireless address, so that the prospect of massive amounts of spam to consumers over wireless networks can be thwarted and consumers can enjoy the benefits of entities needing their express prior authorization before sending them wireless spam. Spam sent to desktop computer email address, and which is then forwarded over a wireless network to a wireless devices, i.e., delivered ``indirectly'' from the initiator to the wireless device, would be treated by the rest of this bill and not by the wireless specific provisions we subject to an FCC rulemaking. This legislation also represents an improvement in other areas over the Senate-passed bill. For example, the compromise doubles the damage caps in the Senate bill. It also eliminates the knowledge standards for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state Attorney General injunctive relief. The bill provides for rulemaking authority to clarify and tighten the definition of what constitutes a ``commercial email.'' Requires that identifiers and a postal address musts be on all commercial emails to desktop computers. Finally, the bill also shortens the time frame from which an ``opt-out'' request would become enforceable. All of these represent important improvements over the Senate bill. I want to commend Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Mr. Dingell for their excellent work in this area. I want to salute Representatives Heather Wilson and Gene Green for spearheading House spam efforts in this session as well as in the previous Congress as the lead sponsors of the House bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. Dingell asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago today, President Kennedy's assassination released an energy in our country that led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Medicare. By contrast, the bill before us today was conceived in secret, crafted by special interests, and cloaked in a prescription drug benefit to disguise its real purpose: the destruction of the Medicare program as we have known it in the United States over the past 40 years. This bill is a Thanksgiving turkey, and this turkey will not fly. It forces senior citizens into HMOs. It gives HMOs billion-dollar subsidies. It raises drug costs for the poorest Americans, and it drops millions of seniors from their retirement plans. Some claim this bill will provide America's senior citizens with new prescription drug coverage, but it will force millions of our frail elders to pay more for prescription drugs than they do now. Some claim it will lower Medicare premiums, but it will require Medicare beneficiaries to forfeit the power to choose their own doctors or their own drugs. Some claim it will make the Medicare program more efficient, but it will stick taxpayers with the bill for billions of dollars in subsidies to HMOs and new tax shelters for the rich. This bill is not the elixir for Medicare; it is, rather, a poison pill that leads to the destruction of the Medicare program as John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson envisioned it.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2003 and in celebration of the Nation's family caregivers during National Family Caregivers Month and Alzheimer's Awareness month. This week before Thanksgiving, as we anticipate gathering with family, friends and loved ones, I am privileged to recognize and honor the millions of family caregivers who care for family members with disabling or chronic conditions such as those afflicted by Alzheimer's disease. There is no doubt in my mind that caregivers--those who devote themselves selflessly to caring for loved ones with disease such as Alzheimer's--are the true heroes. I know because my dear mother was a victim of Alzheimer's and my father was a hero caring for her to the day she died. Today over 4.5 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease. Almost half of all Americans over age 85 suffer from this devastating debilitation. With the graying of the baby boomer population a sharp increase in Alzheimer's disease is expected. Over 70 percent of people afflicted with Alzheimer's disease live at home, with 75 percent of home bound care provided by family and friends. There are over 25 million family caregivers in America and by 2020, the number of adults requiring assistance with daily living will increase to almost 40 million, placing a tremendous load on the family caregivers. We cannot afford to lose any family caregivers to stress or illness. We as a nation cannot afford it because family caregivers provide $250 billion per year in unpaid care. Yet, the lack of support is taking its toll on caregivers. While a large proportion of caregivers report finding an inner strength, significant numbers report serious physical or mental health problems, including headaches, stomach disorders, back pain, sleepless nights and depression. Mortality risks for caregivers are 63 percent higher than for noncaregivers. In addition to serious health consequences, many families suffer emotionally and economically. Families of children with disabilities face a significantly higher divorce rate than families of children without disabilities. Lack of respite care has even been found to interfere with the ability of parents of children with disabilities to accept job opportunities. Without adequate family support, children with disabilities face a nearly 4 times higher risk of abuse and neglect than children without disabilities and the abuse rate of the elderly is unacceptably high. Respite works. It allows families to remain together and avoid more costly out-of-home placements. Hospitalizations, institutionalization, nursing home and foster care placements have been shown to actually decline when respite or crisis care is the intervention. This bill will help create a family caregiving respite policy in our country, not just a band-aid solution. Families are under greater stress today than ever before and the numbers who will assume caregiving roles is rising at an alarming rate. Respite works, respite saves money, respite save families. We cannot afford to ignore the family caregivers any longer. We must give them respite.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of House rule XXII, I hereby notify the House of my intention tomorrow to offer the following motion to instruct on House conferees on H.R. 2660, the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS-Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Markey moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2660 be instructed to recede to the Senate funding level for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Video Programming Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2003. Mr. Speaker, as our Nation's communications networks continue to grow and become ever more sophisticated, more individuals and industries will be using broadband networks at home and work. As America upgrades its communications infrastructure for the 21st century, we must make sure that the information superhighway is safe for all its travelers and this is particularly true with respect to personal privacy. As the co-chair of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, along with Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), I have been concerned about protecting privacy and closing anachronistic or technology-specific loopholes in consumer privacy protections for a long time. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly apparent that, in addition to the protections accorded consumers with respect to information gathered by cable operators, video rental stores, and telecommunications carriers, which are contained in current law, further protections are needed to ensure that consumer privacy rights are retained and respected on the information superhighway by other entities. This includes entities with access to consumer video information, or who are using other technologies to essentially deliver similar services to those covered by current law. This is especially the case in the video marketplace. Current law contains privacy protections for consumers when they rent video cassettes--as contained in the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, codified at 18 U.S.C. 2710--or subscribe to cable or other services from a cable operator, as contained in the Communications Act of 1934 47 U.S.C. 551. Since the privacy provisions protecting cable subscribers were put in place in 1984, the Direct Broadcast Satellite industry has developed. Today, Echostar and DirecTV, for example, have approximately 20 million subscribers. Although they offer multichannel video programming across the country in a manner comparable to many cable operators, current legal privacy protections protect cable subscribers but not satellite subscribers. This makes absolutely no sense when one considers that millions of such satellite subscribers are watching the same programming as the cable subscriber next door. Consumers who switch from cable to satellite service often do not know that the privacy protections the law accords them in one market do not follow them when they switch technologies even though the video services they obtain are similar. In addition, the provisions of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, which was enacted in the wake of a scandal involving the disclosure of the video rental records of Judge Robert Bork in a newspaper, covers video cassette rentals but not such ``rentals'' if they are not in cassette form. In other words, if a consumer physically rents a movie from Blockbuster and walks out of the store with a video cassette, there are legal privacy protections governing the unauthorized disclosure of the consumer's rental choice. Yet if the very same movie is delivered online or over-the-air, and not as a video cassette, it is not covered by that statute. Moreover, the digital video recorder is quickly becoming a popular device in homes around the country. The personal records of video subscriber choices and viewing habits are available to companies such as Tivo and Replay TV. Consumers should certainly be accorded the same privacy protections for subscribing to these services in my view as they receive under the law from cable operators today. Indeed, the information available to such companies may be more detailed and specific about a consumer's viewing habits than that which may be obtained by many cable operators. The total lack of any legal protections in this area is especially troubling given reports that such companies are willing to sell certain, aggregate data about consumer viewing habits to marketers and others. Currently there is no prohibition on the sale or disclosure of more personal television viewing data. Mr. Speaker, the bill I'm introducing today is very simple and straightforward. It merely takes the provisions of law governing consumer privacy which today apply to cable operators and makes them applicable to satellite providers as well as vendors of other multichannel video services, including Tivo and Replay TV. This bill provides essential, similar privacy protections for consumers regardless of whether they subscribe to Comcast or Cox cable, Echostar or DirecTV, or whether they also subscribe to Tivo or ReplayTV. This will keep our critical consumer privacy laws current with changes in the marketplace and advances in technology. I look forward to working with my House colleagues, including my colleagues on the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee and fellow members of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, in addressing these issues perhaps in the next session of Congress.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a historic failure. Our country has 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world; 75 percent of the oil reserves in the world are in the Middle East. We put 70 percent of all the oil we consume in our country into gasoline tanks. This bill does nothing about the ever-increasing percentage of the oil which we consume that goes into gasoline tanks. It is a disservice to those 130,000 young men and women who are in the Middle East right now fighting to protect the flow of oil into the Western industrialized countries. This bill does nothing to protect against that. This bill harms the environment. This bill will weaken the Clean Air Act, weaken the Clean Water Act, increase the number of children with asthma. Eight million have asthma today. It increases as each year goes by. Twenty-four million Americans have asthma. Other respiratory illnesses increase as each year goes by. This bill will increase pollution. It will increase the amount of damage to the environment. It does nothing to help on the global warming issue. It is without question the single worst environmental bill of all time. And in addition to that, it gives enormous subsidies to industries across America. It gives subsidies to the oil industry, the gas industry, the coal industry, the nuclear industry. It at the same time underfunds conservation, renewables. It is a complete distortion of what the agenda for our country should be as the years move along. With regard to fuel economy standards, this bill includes a $100,000 subsidy for Hummers. The Senate took it out last night. But the Republicans in the House insisted that a $100,000 subsidy for the purchase of Hummers remain in the bill. That is all you have to know about this bill, because we put 70 percent of all the oil we consume into gasoline tanks. They could not repeal it last night. They did not think there was time. Maybe we will do it next year, they said. Well, in addition, they did not think it was the right time to do anything about air conditioning standards. We use about 70 percent of all peak electricity in the summer to put into air conditioners. Nothing in the bill on that. On computers, we have about 200 million of them in America. We could have mandated the improvement of efficiency and electricity consumption in computers. That would have saved about 30 new large coal or natural gas plants from being built. Air conditioning would have saved about 40 new plants. There was a renewable portfolio standard mandating that utilities have to use renewable energy for about 10 percent of their electricity generation. That would have saved 156 new power plants from being built, large power plants. But the Republican majority in the House stripped that out yesterday as well. Air conditioners, Hummers, computers, renewables, all of it out that could have made a huge difference in reducing our dependence on import oil. We import about 60 percent of all the oil we consume today. This bill does nothing about that problem. In another 10 years we will be up to 80 percent of the oil that we consume being imported. There will be irresistible pressure as generation after generation of American young men and women are sent to the Middle East to protect those oil supplies. It is an environmental disaster. It is a public health disaster. It is an energy policy disaster. This bill on all fronts is the worst bill to come before Congress in a generation given the challenge from Iraq in the Middle East that we are confronted with. And on electricity, there are sensible justifications for moving at this time. There is no antifraud protection built into this bill. It actually directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to raise electricity rates. And it repeals PUHCA, the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which is an invitation to Enron-like scandals, making that scandal look like child's play in the years ahead. This bill is a historic failure.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the leader of the Democratic Party.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing with this energy bill is the result of a highly partisan, secretive process in which Republicans have been talking only to other Republicans and the oil and the gas and the nuclear and the coal and the electric utility industry. Well, they have treated the Democratic minority and the environmental and consumer groups with the maximum possible disregard and with political arrogance. It is the final stages of the implementation of the secret energy task force meetings that began in Vice President Cheney's office. This bill is the worst piece of legislation that has been brought before this legislative body in many decades. It is an appalling concoction of tax breaks, subsidies, and pork barrel spending for wealthy oil, natural gas, nuclear, coal, and utilities industries. It turns over control of the American people's lands to energy companies that will be free to ravage and rape the environment with little or no restraint. It pays polluters, pays polluters to clean up the messes that they have created and subsidizes them to pollute some more. It will make our Nation's air dirtier. It will make our water dirtier, and it will make ordinary people pay higher energy bills for the privilege of having dirtier air and dirtier water, more asthmas, more cancers, and more deaths due to pollution. And all of this done with $138 billion in borrowed money from the Social Security and Medicare trust fund because our country is in deficit and it must borrow the money. And worst of all, it dishonors the sacrifice made by 130,000 of our young men and women in Iraq today, guarding oil fields. We know we now import 60 percent of our oil from overseas. If we do not do something that deals with the amount of oil that we consume in our SUVs and our automobiles, if we do not do something about fuel economy for air conditioners, then in another 10 years we will be 80 percent dependent upon imported oil from overseas. That is where we are heading. This bill does nothing to deal with where we put oil in our country. We put it into gasoline tanks. We ignore that fact. It deals not with the fact that 70 percent of peak demand in the summer goes for air conditioning. Are we kidding ourselves out here today? This bill is a disaster. And meanwhile, there is $138 billion worth of subsides in tax breaks, in new authorizations for which industries? Oil, gas, coal, nuclear, the wealthiest industries getting all of these tax breaks. This is a terrible bill. Vote no on the rule and no on final passage.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, what did George Tenet know? What did Colin Powell know? What did Donald Rumsfeld know? We need to know why it was that the intelligence information relating to the presence of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons in Iraq was so flawed. Either our intelligence agencies did not know the truth, or they knew the truth, but deliberately exaggerated or distorted the truth to advance a decision to go to war that had already been predetermined; or the intelligence community allowed itself to be bullied or intimidated or cajoled into providing senior Bush administration officials with the answers they wanted to get so that they could begin a war. Any of these options raise very disturbing issues, but we have an obligation to get to the bottom of the situation. Young men and women are dying in Iraq, and they were supposedly sent to Iraq to prevent Saddam from using weapons of mass destruction that we now know they did not have. We need to learn the lessons of this massive intelligence failure now so that we never have such a situation occur in the future. Our brave young men and women should never be asked to sacrifice their lives for a war whose justification was largely based on faulty or misleading intelligence. What did George Tenet know? What did Colin Powell know? What did Donald Rumsfeld know? The American people have a right to know.