Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, today we are brought to the floor of this House as America's young men and women are at war in Iraq. The American people expect their elected representatives to address how much this war will cost and how much securing our hometowns will cost in our continuing war against terrorism as well. Instead, the Bush administration is asking this Congress to treat as its highest budget priority the lifting of that very onerous burden felt by the wealthiest of Americans--the double taxation of dividends. We all know what a huge burden double taxation of dividends imposes on the wealthiest Americans. Apparently Republican Party leaders in Washington feel that failing to lift this burden from the shoulders of the rich would be too great a sacrifice, even in wartime. For them, lifting the burden of double taxation of dividends is: More important than paying for a war in Iraq and the subsequent rebuilding of Iraq. More important than paying for security at our ports, airports, and nuclear power plants; and More important than providing affordable health care and medicine to our grandparents. Last night, President Bush officially created a whole new group of 250,000 war veterans--yet he does not even have enough money in his budget to take care of this country's obligations to veterans of the first Persian Gulf War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, or World War II. Never before has a President cut taxes in the face of war. According to the New York Times, the Civil War gave birth to an estate tax and World War II expanded the income tax. But during the war in Iraq the Bush administration plans to cut taxes by a total of nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years. This tax cut for the rich is a fiscal MOAB [Mother of All Bombs], pointed right at the heart of the Federal budget.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join Reps. Cunningham, Crane and Matsui in introducing the Efficient Energy through Certified Technologies (EFFECT) Act of 2003. This bill provides tax incentives to make both new and existing buildings more energy efficient. These incentives are workable, verifiable and will promote market transformation, stimulating the market for energy efficient technology and services. Building construction and operation represents 15 percent of Gross National Product and buildings consume 35 percent of the Nation's primary energy budget--almost twice as much as cars. This bill would stimulate the economy while decreasing energy consumption. It would improve our national energy security by reducing vulnerability to transmission disruptions and cutting our oil and gas import dependence. The tax incentives are based totally on energy performance, achieving two critical goals: It assures that projected energy savings will be achieved; and it encourages vigorous competition and innovation in the marketplace, reducing the cost of energy efficiency. Within 10 years, the EFFECT Act could produce power savings of 110 gigawatts--the equivalent of 275 400 megawatt power plants. The cost savings could be over $30 billion annually. Right now the effect would stimulate the use of existing, off-the-shelf technology that can cost- effectively reduce energy use by 50 percent for existing buildings. This would result in nearly a 6 percent reduction in air pollution emissions over the next 10 years--equivalent to taking 40 percent of our automobiles off the road--and save American homeowners billions of dollars each year in energy costs. This bill is supported by a coalition of environmentalists and industries, and as shown by the latest Gallup Poll, the American people. In that poll, 60 percent agreed that the United States should emphasize greater conservation by consumers of existing energy supplies, while 29 percent supported production of more oil, gas and coal supplies as the solution. This bill demonstrates the extraordinary power of energy conservation to reduce the need for wasteful, inefficient, and capital intensive energy projects. There is no other Federal policy proposal that has the potential to save this much energy and peak power or to help the economy so much for so little cost. I urge my colleagues to join the original co-sponsors in passing this bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill has one huge flaw that even its proponents concede: that the benefits, if any, flow directly to the insurance companies, not to the doctors. Therefore, I tried to perfect this bill. During the Committee on Energy and Commerce markup, I offered an amendment to ensure that the savings from the bill's caps on damages for patients' pain and suffering would be passed along to the doctors in the form of reductions in their liability insurance premiums. Every Republican voted no. They each voted with the insurance industry. This bill deserves to be defeated, as long as there is no effective guarantee that savings from the bill's caps on damage will go not to doctors, but to the insurance industry. This bill claims to be a cure for the high cost of insurance premiums paid by doctors, but it is really just insurance for insurance companies. It is a public policy placebo that only offers the illusion of relief from sky-high insurance premiums, while pumping cash into the bottom line of insurance companies. Capping damages may save insurance companies money when their policyholders are sued, but the bill does not require insurers to pass along one cent of savings to the doctors so that they can stay practicing in local communities across this country. We can all agree that health care liability insurance is a critical issue that has significant impact on patients, on doctors, on insurance; but this bill leaves out one critical link: the doctors who will not receive the benefits of the lower premiums that have been promised. Vote ``no'' on this gag bill that does not allow for a full debate on the House floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for all of the gentleman's excellent work on this legislation. This is the kind of thing that kind of mystifies the American public sometimes, they do not understand that 80 percent of everything that we do, we agree. Most of the time they only focus on the 20 percent where we disagree. For the vast majority of issues, there is a consensus in terms of what our country should be doing and where we agree. Today I am proud, with these other great Members, to offer this resolution to establish an annual National Visiting Nurse Association Week in honor of the army of health care heroes, who every day comfort, care for and assist our loved ones. I appreciate the support and the dedication of the Visiting Nurse Associations. Every Member of Congress does, as does every American. Visiting Nurse Associations of today are founded on the principle that the sick, the disabled and the elderly benefit most from health care when it is offered in their own homes. They are nonprofit home health agencies that provide cost-effective and compassionate home and community-based health care to individuals, regardless of their condition or ability to pay for services. Through these exceptional organizations, 90,000 clinicians dedicate their lives to bringing health care into the homes of over 4 million Americans every year. In the face of rising costs and drastic changes in our health care system, visiting nurse associations have continued to deliver high quality health services for over 120 years. When Henry Wadsworth Longfellow read of the work of Florence Nightingale, he penned a poem, Santa Filomena, that spoke of the keep appreciation owed by all of us to those dedicated to service in the ultimate caring profession, the visiting nurse. He wrote of her as he could have written of every other visiting nurse. ``Whene'er a noble deed is wrought, whe'ever is spoken a noble thought, our hearts, in glad surprise, to higher levels rise. ``The tidal wave of deeper souls into our inmost being rolls, and lifts us unawares out of all meaner cares.'' Mr. Speaker, today I would like to say my own thank you to our Visiting Nurse Associations. Through their work and their philosophy of nursing, they teach us every day about human kindness, the strength of human character, and the true definition of what it means to care. I thank them for their sharp minds, their watchful eyes, their nerves of steel; and, of course, their hearts of gold. In recognition of their hard work and dedication that visiting nurses bring to the nursing profession, and the comfort and quality care that they provide to patients, I ask Congress to please support this resolution to set aside one week each year to recognize and honor visiting nurses across the country. Democratic, Republican, liberal, conservative, each of us owes them an enduring debt.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today Representative John Peterson and I are introducing a bill to establish an annual National Visiting Nurse Association Week during the second week of May in honor of the army of health care heroes who, every day, comfort, care for, and assist our loved ones. Modern society takes for granted the need for nursing as an indispensable component of our public health system, but this was not always the case. The very concept of a visiting nurse can be traced to the pioneering work of Florence Nightingale. She reformed British military hospitals in the Crimean War through an expose in the British press, she professionalized nursing and made it an acceptable profession for educated women, devoted the rest of her life to building on her experiences, setting standards and writing books, until the mission of nursing had gained the respect of the world. When Henry Wadsworth Longfellow read of the work of Florence Nightingale, he penned a poem, Santa Filomena, that spoke of the deep appreciation owed by all of us to those dedicated to service in the ultimate caring profession. He wrote: Whene'er a noble deed is wrought, Whene'er is spoken a noble thought, Our hearts, in glad surprise, To higher levels rise. The tidal wave of deeper souls Into our inmost being rolls, And lifts us unawares Out of all meaner cares. The Visiting Nurse Associations of today are founded on the principle that the sick, the disabled, and the elderly benefit most from healthcare when it is offered in their own homes. They are non-profit home health agencies that provide cost-effective and compassionate home and community-based health care to individuals, regardless of their condition or ability to pay for services. Through these exceptional organizations, 90,000 clinicians dedicate their lives to bringing healthcare into the homes of over 4 million Americans every year. In the face of rising costs and drastic changes in our health care system, visiting nurse associations have continue to deliver high quality health services for over 120 years. It is time for Congress to recognize the vital services that visiting nurses provide their patients. Moreover, visiting nurses also are an indispensable lifeline for families. The comfort and quality care that visiting nurses provide can help family members cope with the difficulties of a loved one's illness. I am proud to be introducing this important legislation with my colleague Representative Peterson and urge my colleagues to join us in supporting National Visiting Nurse Association Week.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Representative Waxman in co-sponsoring the ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003''. The smallpox vaccine helps the body develop immunity to smallpox. The vaccine is made from a virus called vaccinia which is a ``pox''-type virus related to smallpox. The smallpox vaccine contains the ``live'' vaceinia virus--not dead virus like many other vaccines. For that reason, the vaccination site must be cared for carefully to prevent the virus from spreading. Also, the vaccine can have side effects such as fever and body aches to much more serious and life-threatening side effects. People most likely to have serious side effects are: people who have or had skin conditions (especially eczema or atopic dermatitis) and people with weakened immune systems, such as those who have received a transplant, are HIV positive, are receiving treatment for cancer, or are currently taking medications, such as steroids, that suppress the immune system. In addition, pregnant women should not get the vaccine because of the risk it poses to the fetus. Women who are breastfeeding should not get the vaccine. In the past, between 14 and 52 people out of every 1 million people vaccinated for the first time experienced potentially life-threatening reactions to the vaccine. It is estimated that 1 or 2 people in 1 million who receive the vaccine may die as a result. Careful screening of potential vaccine recipients is essential to ensure that those at increased risk do not receive the vaccine. The Administration's smallpox vaccination program began on January 24, 2003 with a much lower participation than expected and lower than is needed to adequately protect our nation against a bioterrorist threat. The low participation rate is due to the Bush Administration's failure to create a compensation program for the health care workers who will be injured by the smallpox vaccine. The Institute of Medicine reported that the lack of a compensation program could seriously impact the program's goal of increasing terrorism preparedness in the United States. The Administration has included protection for the vaccine manufactures and hospitals but seems to have forgotten the people who could suffer the most--the volunteers who are performing their patriotic duty by volunteering to participate in the vaccination program. We need legislation which includes funding to states to provide for education, screening, medical surveillance, and treatment; protection against discrimination in the workplace, and compensation for those harmed by adverse reactions. The ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003'' creates a no-fault compensation program modeled on the existing childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This program has been extremely beneficial in providing compensation to the families and children who have been injured or suffered by routine vaccination. Smallpox vaccine compensation will cover the people vaccinated or who are injured by coming into contact with someone who has recently been vaccinated for their unreimbursed medical expenses and lost wages. In addition the ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003'' will establish state grants to help with the costs of a safe vaccination program which includes pre-screening, education, follow-up care, and health care for people experiencing side-effects. This legislation would provide medical leave for health care workers and first responders who get sick from the smallpox vaccine and will make it unlawful to discriminate against workers who opt not to participate in the vaccination program. The ``Smallpox Vaccine Compensation and Safety Act of 2003'' will help to establish a safer vaccination program and provide a safety-net for the inevitable injuries due to vaccination. Ultimately, this should enhance participation in the Smallpox Vaccination Program and help reach the goal of preparedness against a bioterrorist smallpox threat.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we are here to introduce legislation that would permanently protect the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge from development. The Morris K. Udall Wilderness Act of 2003 honors an extraordinary environmentalist by protecting, in his name, this extraordinary piece of America's wilderness. And we are proud of the fact that begin this battle in the 108th Congress with more original cosponsors than in any other previous Congress--133 upon introduction-- a testament to the growing national demand to keep the developers out of this precious wilderness and to preserve it in its current pristine, roadless condition for future generations of Americans. We have a bipartisan legacy to protect, and we take it very seriously. It is a legacy of Republican President Eisenhower, who set aside the core of the Refuge in 1960. It is a legacy of Democratic President Carter, who expanded it in 1980. It is the legacy of Republican Senator Bill Roth and Democratic Representative Bruce Vento and especially Morris Udall, who fought so hard to achieve what we propose today, and twice succeeded in shepherding this wilderness proposal through the House. Now is the time to finish the job they began now is the time to say ``Yes'' to setting aside the Coastal Plain as a fully protected unit of the Wilderness Preservation System. The coastal plain of the Refuge is the biological heart of the Refuge ecosystem and critical to the survival of caribou, polar bears and over 160 species of birds. When you drill in the heart, every other part of the biological system suffers. This Valentine's Day, the oil industry is in a state of lobbying frenzy to give Cupid a bad name. It wants to pierce the heart of the Arctic Refuge with oil wells and drill bits, all the while calling this an act of environmental friendliness. The industry loves the Refuge so much that it wants to brand it with scars for a lifetime. Turning the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge into an industrial footprint would not only be bad environmental policy, it is totally unnecessary. According to EPA scientists, if cars, mini-vans, and SUV's improved their average fuel economy just 3 miles per gallon, we would save more oil within ten years than would ever be produced from the Refuge. Can we do that? We already did it once! In 1987, the fleetwide average fuel economy topped 26 miles per gallon, but in the last 13 years, we have slipped back to 24 mpg on average, a level we first reached in 1981! Simply using existing technology will allow us to dramatically increase fuel economy, not just by 3 mpg, but by 15 mpg or more--five times the amount the industry wants to drill out of the Refuge. Our dependence on foreign oil is real, but we cannot escape it by drilling for oil in the United States. We consume 25 percent of the world's oil but control only 3 percent of the world's reserves. 76 percent of those reserves are in OPEC, so we will continue to look to foreign suppliers as long as we continue to ignore the fuel economy of our cars and as long as we continue to fuel them with gasoline. The public senses that a drill-in-the-Refuge energy strategy is a loser. Why sacrifice something that can never be re-created this one- of-a-kind wilderness simply to avoid something relatively painless-- sensible fuel economy? Is it any wonder its credibility with the American public has sunk to new lows? According to poll after poll after poll, preserving this public environmental treasure far outweighs the value of developing it. The latest poll, done by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and Republican pollster Christine Matthews, shows a margin of 62-30 percent opposed to drilling for oil in the refuge. The public is making clear to Congress that other options should be pursued, not just because the Refuge is so special, but because the other options will succeed where continuing to put a polluting fuel in gas-guzzling automobiles is a recipe for failure. That's the kind of thinking that leads not just to this refuge, but to every other pristine wilderness area, in a desperate search for yet another drop of oil. And it perpetuates a head-in-the-haze attitude towards polluting our atmosphere with greenhouse gases and continuing our reliance on OPEC oil for the foreseeable future. If we allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge, we will have failed twice--we will remain just as dependent on oil for our energy future, and we will have hastened the demise of an irreplaceable wildlife habitat. We have many choices to make regarding our energy future, but we have very few choices when it comes to industrial pressures on incomparable natural wonders. Let us be clear with the American people that there are places that are so special for their environmental, wilderness or recreational value that we simply will not drill there as long as alternatives exist. The Arctic Refuge is federal land that was set aside for all the people of the United States. It does not belong to the oil companies, it does not belong to one state. It is a public wilderness treasure, we are the trustees. We do not dam Yosemite Valley for hydropower. We do not strip mine Yellowstone for coal. And we should not drill for oil and gas in the Arctic Refuge. We should preserve it, instead, as the magnificent wilderness it has always been, and must always be.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and all of the members of the majority and minority for coming together to work out a very important piece of legislation. This is a bill which I think is long overdue and is going to be very well received in every single home across our country, because the legislation authorizes the Federal Trade Commission, after its recent decision, to create a national telemarketing do-not-call database. This do-not-call database proposal is a winner for millions of consumers who are plagued by unsolicited commercial telemarketing calls at home or on their mobile phones, and it is important that we give the Federal Trade Commission the support it needs to implement this new policy as soon as possible, and that is what we are doing today here on the House floor. The bill the House considers today permits the Federal Trade Commission to proceed on a timely basis and begin implementation of the database process this year while also ensuring that the Federal Communications Commission finally gets its regulatory task done so that no major corporate telemarketing loopholes remain. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. Every Member who has worked on this legislation deserves a lot of credit. After having first proposed a national do-not-call database registry in legislation that the Congress successfully enacted in 1991, I believe its implementation is action that is long overdue. Consumers across the country will finally be able to put an effective ``no soliciting'' sign on their home phone or cell phone and bring to a halt the seemingly nightly ritual of phone calls interrupting dinner or precious family time. Those telephone rings invade the tranquility of the home and the do-not-call database will help consumers restore peace. Rather than having consumers act as veritable slaves of those rings, forced to get up and to answer insistent and incessant telemarketing calls time after time, the do-not-call database will effectively make consumers the ``Lord of the Rings.'' They can put an end to those calls. They can protect their own domain. Consumers have waited a long time for the benefits of the same digital and telecommunications technology that has so advanced the ability of telemarketers to efficiently and cost-effectively reach consumers to also be harnessed on behalf of consumers to help them address legitimate privacy concerns. I see the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) over there. There are Members on the left and right, Democrat and Republican, that want privacy in their own homes. This has no ideology. Every American believes they have that inherent right. Finally, I want to commend Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy Muris for his pro-consumer action in promulgating the FTC's recent do- not-call rules, as they will give the consumers who are often plagued by unwanted, intrusive, unsolicited telemarketing a powerful new tool in which to battle such intrusions. Again my congratulations to everyone who worked on this important legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. How many of us when we were young dreamed of being an astronaut, to be one of those brave humans who left the Earth to explore the mysteries of space? The seven heroic men and women we remember today, Rick Husband, David Brown, Michael Anderson, Laurel Blair Salton Clark, Kalpana Chawla, Ilan Ramon and Willie McCool, lived the dream. They came from around the world and from every background to work together for the furtherance of mankind's quest of knowledge. These astronauts were on a mission of science, one designed to expand our knowledge of fire, reproduction, construction techniques, prostate cancer, improved crop yields, better drugs, and astronaut health as well as studying the Sun, the Earth, and space by conducting nearly 60 different experiments during their 16-day mission. While we mourn their sudden loss, we must also prepare to use the knowledge gained both during their mission and from their tragic deaths to help those here on Earth and to prevent such accidents in the future. Hopefully, last weekend's tragic events will mark not the end of the Space Program, but a new beginning. We will go through a process of investigation, self-examination, and reflection about what happened. But out of that process hopefully will emerge a strengthened U.S. and international space program. We will rededicate our selves and our nation to achieving NASA's mission of advancing the state of human knowledge about outer space, our solar system, and our universe. As the same time, as we continue to explore space, we must determine as best we can the cause of last week's disaster, so that we can make the changes and reforms needed to ensure astronaut and mission safety in the future. Finally, I would like to extend my sympathies to the families and friends of the seven astronauts. The thoughts and prayers of a grateful nation are with you at this very difficult time. Your loved ones did not die in vain. They died doing something that they loved, but they also died doing something aimed at advancing the frontiers of human knowledge.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I am an original cosponsor of the bill along with Mr. Shimkus, Chairman Upton, as well as many other members. I want to commend Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Dingell and everyone involved for the excellent process on this bill that has led to a consensus, bipartisan proposal. This bill was approved unanimously by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and was approved by the House back in May by a vote of 406 to 2. The Senate has slightly altered the House-passed version and I support approving this amended version and sending it to President Bush for his signature. This is a consensus bill and a model of how legislative proposals can achieve success in a closely divided Congress. There is a reason that this is the sole telecommunications bill of any significance for ordinary people that we will enact in the 107th Congress. And that's because it was a bill that we worked together on--Republicans and Democrats--from the start. When we encountered issues, we resolved them by working together, and we sought out bipartisan support on the other side of the Capitol as well. Senator Dorgan and Senator Ensign also deserve tremendous credit for this achievement. As many parents today know, the Internet often appears to be a veritable jungle of web sites. When a child logs on to search for games, stories, or educational material, search engines often turn up pages for the kids laden with pornography, violence or other content that is simply not appropriate for young children. To give children their own playground on the Internet, and to facilitate the easier browsing and filtering of content that many parents desire, we are poised now to enact H.R. 3833, the ``Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act.'' This bill directs the Department of Commerce, through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to accelerate the creation of a ``dot kids'' domain by making it a secondary domain under our nation's country code top level domain, which is ``dot us.'' The Department of Commerce awarded a free contract last October to authorize private sector management and commercialization of ``dot U.S.'' I opposed the awarding of a free contract to a company to essentially manage and profit from a public asset. We only have one country code and the Department of Commerce should have ensured that the broader public interest was incorporated in any contract to manage the dot U.S. domain, or, as I indicated in a letter to the Department of Commerce in the summer of 2001, the contract should have been auctioned to the highest qualified bidder. We should be long past the time in this country of giving away public assets to private companies to profit from for free. Nevertheless, the DoC awarded the dot U.S. contract to NeuStar in October of 2001, and Congress must now subsequently ensure that future contract awards or extensions incorporate public interest conditions in such contract awards and ``dot.kids'' is clearly in the public interest. What is essentially being proposed in the creation of a place on the Internet for websites that end in ``dot kids-dot U.S.'' (e.g., www.example.kids.us) The proposed ``dot kids'' domain will be a cyberspace sanctuary for content that is suitable for kids and will be an area devoted of content that is harmful to such minors. I want to address at this point, very briefly, some of the free speech concerns that any endeavor that any endeavor of this type will inevitably raise. First let me emphasize how this approach departs from previous Congressional activity in this policy area. First, the proposed legislation will not subject all of the Internet communications to ``harmful to minors'' standard. If you're in Tennessee, Taiwan, or Timbuktu you can publish or speak any content you want on the Internet. This proposal doesn't affect you're ability to do so on a ``dot com,'' ``dot net,'' ``dot org,'' or anywhere else. This proposal now only addresses a subset of Internet commerce--the ``dot us'' space. Moreover, it doesn't even curtail speech throughout the entirety of the ``dot U.S.'' country code domain. If you're in Providence, Rhode Island or Provo, Utah under this bill you are free to exercise your constitutional rights and this legislation contains no proposal that would subject anyone utilizing the ``dot us'' space to a standard suitable only for kids. Speech more appropriate for adults or teenagers will not be affected by this bill and can appear elsewhere in the ``dot U.S.'' domain. The bill solely stipulates that if you want to operate in the ``dot kids-dot U.S.'' area--in other words, a mere subset of the ``dot us'' country code domain--you have entered a kid-friendly zone--a green light district if you will--where the content is suitable for children 12 and under. The ``dot kids'' proposal is not aimed at censoring Internet content per se. Rather, it is crafted to help organize content more appropriate for kids in a safe and secure cyber-zone, where the risk of young children clicking outside of that zone to unsuitable content, or being preyed upon or exploited online by adults posing as kids, is vastly diminished. Organizing kid-friendly content in this manner will enhance the effectiveness of filtering software and may better enable parents to set their children's browsers so that their kids only surf within the ``dot kids'' domain. And I also want to emphasize that use of the ``dot kids'' domain is not compulsory. Signing up for a ``dot kids'' domain--or parents sending their kids to websites in that location--remains completely voluntary and the free choice of both content speakers and parents. Finally, I want to note that this bill is not meant in any way to diminish or thwart the many laudable private sector efforts to create new and alternative ways for kids to have a safe and educational online experience. Our efforts here today are meant to supplement, not supplant, initiatives underway elsewhere by ensuring that our ``dot us'' country code reflects our public interest goals as a society in away that hopefully can harness the best of advance technology for kids across the country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I again want to thank Mr. Shimkus, Chairman Tauzin, Mr. Dingell, and Chairman Upton for their work on the bill. Taken From the Speaker's Table and Amended S. 2237, to amend Title 38, United States Code, to modify and improve authorities relating to compensation and pension benefits, education benefits, housing benefits, and other benefits for veterans, to improve the administration of benefits for veterans, and for other purposes. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, when you visit your physician, do you know where your medical records are kept? Do you know how your private health information is being used? Do you know who is disclosing your sensitive medical files, to whom, and for what purposes? These questions have become increasingly urgent for the majority of Americans. According to a recent Gallup Survey, 78 percent of people in the United States believe it is very important that their medical records be kept confidential. But the time has long passed when patients could feel confident that their medical files were locked safely in the office of the family doctor, protected from prying eyes and unauthorized access. Today, interconnected computer networks link your health provider, health plan and various corporate intermediaries such as ``health care clearinghouses,'' that methodically translate your personal health information into digital bits and bytes to track and store your records in databases over which you have little control. Consumers are particularly concerned about the unauthorized use of their private health information for marketing purposes. That's because companies have exploited patients' sensitive medical records in pursuit of profits. For example: The chain drug store Eckard's used the signatures obtained by customers when they picked up their prescriptions as authorization to release their information for marketing purposes. Eckard's eventually settled with the Florida Attorney General's office and agreed to require patients to opt-in before their information can be used for marketing. Several Florida residents received unsolicited samples of Prozac in the mail from a drugstore. A recipient of the Prozac mailing sued her doctor, pharmacy and the drug company for violating her privacy. Fear of private health information falling into the wrong hands has replaced faith in the confidentiality of personal medical records. A report by Princeton Survey Research Associates indicates that 1 in 6 people in the United States has done something out of the ordinary to keep personal health information confidential, including withholding information from their doctor, providing inaccurate information, or, in some cases, avoiding care entirely. A ``stress test'' should not refer to your ability to withstand anxiety over the vulnerability of your medical records. This summer, the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed consumers' worst fears about threats to the confidentiality of their health information when it stripped away key privacy protections established during the Clinton Administration. By modifying the Privacy Rule finalized in December 2000, HHS eliminated your right to decide whether your medical information can be shared for the purpose of health care treatment, payment, and so-called ``health care operations.'' These modifications took effect on October 15th. In the case of treatment, payment and health care operations, the Bush Administration's modifications permit your medical secrets to be used and disclosed to doctors, pharmacists, health insurers, and others without your prior consent. While treatment and payment are terms that consumers understand and associate with health care, ``health care operations'' is a category tied closely to commerce, not patient care. In fact, the Bush Administration modifications make clear that health care operations is a vast category that has more to do with business mergers than better medicines: According to Section 164.501 of the Bush modifications, health care operations means: ``The sale, transfer, merger, or consolidation of all or part of the covered entity with another covered entity, or an entity that following such activity will become a covered entity and due diligence related to such activity.'' It is understood that this category includes business planning, underwriting, fundraising, and other activities. This means that your private health information can be used without your permission to serve the commercial interests of health care companies, including during transactions such as the sale of an HMO. The Clinton Administration's definition of health care operations not only was narrower, but it also required patient consent before personal health information could be used and disclosed for this purpose. The Stop Taking Our Health Privacy, or ``STOHP'', Act puts patients' privacy first by closing massive ``privacy peepholes'' that HHS opened in these three key areas: 1. Consent: The STOHP Act restores the right of patients to decide whether or not to permit the use and disclosure of their personal health information for purposes of health care treatment, payment and ``health care operations.'' The STOHP Act includes commonsense exceptions to the consent requirement for such purposes as filling a prescription and making referrals. In August, HHS eliminated patient consent in these three important cases, denying patients the fundamental right to decide for themselves whether to share their private health information. 2. Marketing: The STOHP Act ensures that pharmacists do not become secret agents for drug companies. When you receive treatment recommendations from your pharmacist, you should not have to wonder who stands to benefit more: you or the pharmacist or drug company. Our bill would reverse the change that HHS made to the marketing definition, which allows health providers to send unsolicited health recommendations to patients that are paid for by drug companies but do not inform patients of the pharmacist's financial incentives or provide patients the opportunity to opt-out of receiving such communications in the future. 3. Disclosures to FDA-regulated entities like drug companies: The STOHP Act narrows the purposes for which personal medical information can be used or disclosed to these entities without patient consent. Our bill limits nonconsensual disclosure to these entities for the purpose of strict public health priorities such as drug recalls. The August modifications created a broader exemption that allows nonconsensual disclosure of patient information to drug companies for a wide range of activities, which may include marketing campaigns. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Representatives Dingell, Waxman, Berman and Capuano as we introduce the Stop Taking Our Health Privacy Act of 2002. Today we take steps to apply age-old principles of medical privacy to the realities of the information age. Today we seek to restore longstanding patient protections, ensure the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship, and rebuild patient trust in the health care system, all of which are essential for the delivery of quality, thorough health care.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today Representative John Peterson and I are introducing a bill to establish an annual National Visiting Nurse Associations Week in honor of the army of health care heroes who, every day, comfort, care for, and assist our loved ones. Modern society takes for granted the need for nursing as an indispensable component of our public health system, but this was not always the case. The very concept of a visiting nurse can be traced to the pioneering work of Florence Nightingale. She reformed British military hospitals in the Crimean War through an expose in the British press. She professionalized nursing and made it an acceptable profession for educated women, devoted the rest of her life to building on her experiences, setting standards and writing books, until the mission of nursing had gained the respect of the world. When Henry Wadsworth Longfellow read of the work of Florence Nightingale, he penned a poem, Santa Filomena, that spoke of the deep appreciation owed by all of us to those dedicated to service in the ultimate caring profession. He wrote: Whene'er a noble deed is wrought, Whene'er is spoken a noble thought, Our hearts, in clad surprise, To higher levels rise. The tidal wave of deeper souls Into our inmost being rolls, And lifts us unawares Out of all meaner cares. The Visiting Nurse Associations of today are founded on the principle that the sick, the disabled, and the elderly benefit most from healthcare when it is offered in their own homes. They are non-profit home health agencies that provide cost-effective and compassionate home and community-based health care to individuals, regardless of their condition or ability to pay for services. Through these exceptional organizations, 90,000 clinicians dedicate their lives to bringing healthcare into the homes of over 4 million Americans every year. In the face of rising costs and drastic changes in our health care system, Visiting Nurse Associations have continued to deliver high quality health services for over 120 years. It is time for Congress to recognize the vital services that visiting nurses provide their patients. Moreover, visiting nurses also are an indispensable lifeline for families. The comfort and quality care that visiting, nurses provide can help family members cope with the difficulties of a loved one's illness. I am proud to be introducing this important legislation with my colleague Representative Peterson and urge my colleagues to join us in supporting National Visiting Nurse Associations Week.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Stop Enablers of Fraud Act, which eliminates the exemption that shields accounting firms, investment banks, and other professional services firms from liability in private suits when they assist their clients commit securities fraud. This exemption was created as a result of the Supreme Court's 1994 decision in Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, which precluded private parties from recovering damages from those who assist in the perpetration of fraudulent activities. Congressional action reaffirmed the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to bring cases against aiders and abettors of securities fraud, but the SEC's limited resources and heavy workload have prevented it from pursuing every meritorious case against firms that help their clients engage in fraud. Recent results of the Commission's pursuit of aiders and abettors have been disappointing for investors defrauded with the assistance of professional services firms that possess the specialized expertise required to construct elaborate securities schemes. According to the SEC, between August 2001 and May 2002, the Commission filed or instituted 40 initial actions for aiding and abetting violations of the federal securities laws. For the 22 matters that had been concluded as of May 2002, 4 included orders of disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. The total amount ordered disgorged by the SEC in the four actions was a mere $321,368.87. With an estimated $3 billion in losses suffered by state pension systems as a result of the Enron debacle alone and investors nationwide facing unlikely prospects of recovery due to the insolvency of the alleged primary violator, the bar against private parties seeking damages from the aiders and abettors of fraud should be lifted. Disgorgement of individual profits can never amount to more than a trifle compared to investors' losses on the open market. Disgorgement applies only to forfeiture of the ill-gotten profits reaped from the fraud, which typically represents only a fraction of what investors actually lost from the securities scheme. The ability to recover damages from aiders and abettors in private securities suits would compensate investors for their actual losses, not merely force defendants to surrender profits from their securities violations. As a result of Central Bank, defrauded investors are short-changed, forced to settle for a fraction of their actual losses, if they are able to recover any funds at all. The Stop Enablers of Fraud Act responds to the series of corporate scandals that have illuminated the integral, albeit supporting, role that professional services firms sometimes play in the design, implementation and validation of fraudulent activities conducted by their clients. In their responses to the consolidated complaint in the pending Enron litigation, professional services firms frequently have cited the Central Bank precedent as they seek to have the charges against them dismissed, arguing that aiders and abettors are immune from liability for fraud alleged in private suits. For example, Merrill Lynch's motion to dismiss states, in relevant part: [I]n recent years two developments have effected tectonic shifts in the law governing federal securities fraud actions, especially those pled not against the issuer of the securities in question but rather against the peripheral professional organizations who provided services to the issuer. Those two developments were (a) the enactment of the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act (sic) . . . and (b) the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bank of Denver N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver . . . The Section 10(b) claims alleged against Merrill Lynch must be dismissed . . . [because] plaintiffs' principal theory of liability against Merrill Lynch . . . is precluded by the Supreme Court's holding in Central Bank. While it remains to be seen whether such arguments will prove decisive in the Enron case, Central Bank nevertheless poses a significant risk to investors who, defrauded by a firm that subsequently became insolvent, may be deprived of recovering losses from the remaining entities that helped to enable the fraud to occur in the first place. It is clear from last week's Justice Department criminal complaint against Enron's former Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow that Mr. Fastow did not act alone. The Justice Department's complaint states ``Enron at least once enlisted a major financial institution to assist in its financial statement manipulation.'' During Senate hearings held in July, the financial institution was identified as Merrill Lynch. The Stop Enablers of Fraud Act overturns the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bank and restores the ability of individuals to bring private suits against those who aid and abet a securities fraud. For decades prior to the Court's decision, firms that assisted their clients to perpetrate fraud had been held accountable for their role in fraudulent activities. Individuals who have been defrauded as a result of the machinations of Mr. Fastow and those who aided and abetting Enron's frauds should not be blocked from pursuing private suits to recover their losses. Empowering individuals to hold accountable the enablers of securities fraud will compel accountants, securities firms, and attorneys to consider the potential litigation risks before they help their clients commit fraud. The exposure of aiders and abettors to liability in private suits is in the best interest of investors and the marketplace. The Stop Enablers of Fraud Act also serves as an important deterrent effect for those who, tempted by the pursuit of profit, may reconsider becoming an accomplice to the type of securities frauds that have so damaged the financial health of Americans across the country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the President has asked this Congress to support action that foresees the possibility of sending our loved ones--our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors--into combat in a foreign land. No more serious a decision ever faces Congress. The threat that we confront is Saddam Hussein. Saddam is in a category of his own. No other head-of-state has been the subject of an 11-year international campaign to disarm and sanction him. He has invaded two of his neighbors, assassinated 16 of his own family members, tried to assassinate former President Bush, lied about his weapons buildup, fired missiles at Israel, and gassed his own people. The prospect that such a despot has biological and chemical weapons--anthrax, sarin gas, smallpox--and is nearing nuclear capability is a looming threat to millions. We as a nation have the responsibility to stop him. I would have preferred that we proceed in the manner outlined in the Spratt substitute, which would have given the President all the authority needed at this time to disarm Saddam. The Spratt substitute would have allowed the UN to proceed with tough ``anytime-anywhere'' inspections, given the UN the military backing to make those inspections work, and ensured that Saddam Hussein lost his capacity to threaten the world. Unfortunately, the Spratt substitute failed, and we are now faced with a vote, up or down, on the broader resolution negotiated between the White House, Minority Leader Gephardt, and others. This too would accomplish the goal of giving the President sufficient authority to enforce UN resolutions regarding Iraq, particularly those that address the continuing threat posed by Iraq's possession and development of chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. Although this is a broader resolution than the Spratt resolution, I will vote for it because it represents the best remaining hope of disarming Saddam. While the resolution does not require it, the President has said that it is his intention to continue to work towards a new UN resolution that can make the inspections program effective. The President initially resisted going to the UN, but he changed course. He initially resisted coming to Congress to explain his purpose and to seek our support, but he changed course. We should respect the distance he has traveled towards a multilateral, measured process that includes the UN. We should support him as long as he remains on that course. I do so today knowing full well this administration's record on the issue of nonproliferation, arms control and multilateral treaties has often been incomprehensible. At times he has spoken and acted as if he would prefer to act without allies and without the UN. Several weeks ago, the President announced a strategic doctrine that embraces the ``preemptive use of force'' as its touchstone. This new Bush Doctrine is dangerous and destabilizing in its own right. It makes it harder to hold together the fragile international coalition on which we rely for success in the ongoing war on terror. The contradictions and double-standards that define his non- proliferation policy are particularly troubling. His ``Axis of Evil'' speech, for example, lumped together Iraq, Iran and North Korea in a turn of the phrase that is hard to untie. They have all been accused of attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Yet our response in Iran is not to use force, but to complain to the Russians about their sale of reactors to Iran that could facilitate the acquisition of nuclear weapons. And in North Korea, our response is to make our own sale of nuclear reactors to that country. The President has also failed to seek Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban, pursued new nuclear weapons like the earth penetrating warheads, and turned his back on the biological weapons convention. This makes no sense and belies a lack of any coherent policy at all. It is certainly true that George W. Bush is not the first president to be self-contradictory regarding weapons of mass destruction. I have spent considerable effort during the last 26 years working to prevent the constant undermining of nonproliferation policy by both Democratic and Republican administrations. The Carter Administration shipped nuclear fuel to India notwithstanding that countries' ongoing undeclared nuclear weapons program. The Reagan Administration condemned Israel in the UN for destroying Saddam's Osirak nuclear reactor. The same administration promoted nuclear trade with the apartheid regime in South Africa. Both President Reagan and President Clinton allowed trade with Communist China to trump efforts to stop China from retransferring nuclear materials and technology to Pakistan. Now it is the Bush administration that fails to connect the dots of weapons proliferation. When he promotes nuclear reprocessing, or tritium production for bombs in commercial reactors, he undermines nonproliferation. When he allows the export of sensitive nuclear technology, discards the comprehensive test ban treaty, or fails to negotiate progressive measures leading to global disarmament--as mandated by Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--he strengthens the proliferators. These decisions come back to haunt us when, as now, we find that diplomatic options are exhausted and the use of force appears necessary. But even as our overall nonproliferation policy keeps lurching from side to side, the United States and the international community have, in the particular case of Iraq, remained focused for more than a decade on the very real menace of Saddam's drive to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction against his perceived enemies. Now, after 11 years of insufficient inspections and sanctions, we cannot stand idle. Something has to change. We have nearly exhausted the non-violent alternatives. The sanctions are contributing to a significant loss of innocent life daily. Saddam has built up his chemical and biological weapons capacities during this period and he has missiles to deliver a nuclear payload and the money to buy it. It is apparent that but for our demonstration of resolve to follow through the UN-sponsored goal of disarming him, Saddam Hussein intends to make good on his pledge to acquire nuclear weapons. I wish the resort to force were unnecessary and, if the inspections can be made effective, armed conflict can still be avoided. But while force is a last resort, is an option that cannot be ruled out if we intend to deal effectively with Saddam Hussein.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the Spratt approach is the correct approach. It says that the President, should go to the United Nations, go to Kofi Annan and tell him that we authorize President Bush to use all of the Armed Forces necessary to eliminate the chemical, the biological and the nuclear weapons of Saddam Hussein; and if Kofi Annan and the U.N. say, ``no, we will not authorize that,'' then it says that the President can come back to the United States Congress immediately, and then we would authorize the President to go in to Iraq with any other Nation in the world that would want to join us, and we will ensure that the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of Saddam Hussein are taken from his possession. This is the way to go. If the U.N. says no, then we can say ``yes'' but the President has an obligation to go to the United Nations first and to find out if Kofi Annan and the U.N. we will not forcibly ensure that these weapons of mass destruction are confiscated. Vote yes on Spratt.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We are going to see many crocodile tears shed this afternoon on behalf of physicians and their high premiums. But the Republicans refuse to allow the Democrats to make an amendment that ensures that all of the savings that come from the limits on how much a patient can recover goes to lower insurance premiums. They refuse to allow us to even make the amendment because they are going to allow the insurance industry to pocket this money. That is what this time is all about. It is about the insurance companies, not about the physicians. We support the physicians.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. So the Republicans say that they have identified a big problem: Insurance premiums for physicians are skyrocketing, and we have to do something about it. What is their solution? Just what the insurance companies ordered for a solution: A cap on noneconomic damages at $250,000; pain and suffering, all that, $250,000. The juries are not even told that the limit is $250,000, so they could come back with a $1 million verdict, but only $250,000 to the victim. But their bill does not say that the savings goes to physicians. No. They have all the money go to the insurance company executives. Now, last night I made a request to the Republicans that I be allowed to make an amendment that says that any amount of money that a jury renders above $250,000, let us say $1 million, that the court would then give that money over to a court-appointed trustee and the court- appointed trustee would then ensure that the insurance premiums for the physicians inside that area would be lowered. The Republicans prohibited that from coming out here because that would guarantee that the physicians would be the beneficiaries, not the insurance industry. And what is the problem? Well, the insurance company executives have a fiduciary relationship to their shareholders, to their wives, to their children, to maximize profits for themselves. That is a legal responsibility. If we are going to pass this bill and limit the ability for victims to recover, then the only justification should be that physicians' premiums go down, and that is the one big missing link in the Republican bill. There is no requirement that the insurance companies lower the premiums for doctors, and that is what the Democrats are trying to do, to help the patients, to help the doctors. And what is the Republican Party doing once again? They are bringing out the agenda of the insurance industry. If we have learned anything from the accounting practices across this country, it is that it is impossible to know where those savings would have gone. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today Representative John Peterson (R-PA) and I are introducing a bill to establish a National Visiting Nurse Associations Week in honor of the army of health care heroes who, every day, comfort, care for, and assist our loved ones. Modern society takes for granted the need for nursing as an indispensable component of our public health system, but this was not always the case. The very concept of a visiting nurse can be traced to the pioneering work of Florence Nightingale. She reformed British military hospitals in the Crimean War through an expose in the British press, she professionalized nursing and made it an acceptable profession for educated women, devoted the rest of her life to building on her experiences, setting standards and writing books, until the mission of nursing had gained the respect of the world. When Henry Wadsworth Longfellow read of the work of Florence Nightingale, he penned a poem, Santa Filomena, that spoke of the deep appreciation owed by all of us to those dedicated to service in the ultimate caring profession. He wrote: Whene'er a noble deed is wrought, Whene'er is spoken a noble thought, Our hearts, in glad surprise, To higher levels rise. The tidal wave of deeper souls Into our inmost being rolls, And lifts us unawares Out of all meaner cares. The Visiting Nurse Associations of today are founded on the principle that the sick, the disabled, and the elderly benefit most from healthcare when it is offered in their own homes. They are non-profit home health agencies that provide cost-effective and compassionate home and community-based health care to individuals, regardless of their condition or ability to pay for services. Through these exceptional organizations, 90,000 clinicians dedicate their lives to bringing healthcare into the homes of over 4 million Americans every year. In the face of rising costs and drastic changes in our health care system, visiting nurse associations have continued to deliver high quality health services for over 120 years. It is time for Congress to recognize the vital services that visiting nurses provide their patients. Moreover, visiting nurses also are an indispensable lifeline for families. The comfort and quality care that visiting nurses provide can help family members cope with the difficulties of a loved one's illness. I am proud to be introducing this important legislation with my colleague Representative Peterson and urge my colleagues to join us in supporting National Visiting Nurse Associations Week.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise as one of the hundreds of cosponsors of this resolution today to commemorate the victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and to honor the families who grieve and the heroes who served on that terrible day in American history. American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 took off for the West Coast early in the morning from Logan Airport in Boston. The Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked and redirected these planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, a crossroads of international trade and commerce. In Newark, New Jersey, and in Washington, DC, similar teams of terrorists aimed Flight 77 towards the symbol of American strength, the Pentagon, and took Flight 93 toward the symbol of American democracy, the Capitol dome. We remember and honor the brave men and women aboard Flight 93, who overwhelmed the Al Qaeda operatives of Flight 93 to prevent a devastating fourth blow to America--an attack on this very Capitol Building. Instead, they crashed that plane into a field in Pennsylvania and saved thousands of others from the tragedy that was visited upon the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. The resolution we will pass today commemorates this day in American history and the more than 3,000 lives lost--some 93 from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts alone. But the resolution also honors all those who became America's new heroes--the policemen, firemen, rescue workers, medics, and volunteers who toiled that day and days afterward to pull victims out of the wreckage. President John F. Kennedy said at his inauguration, ``In the long history of the world, generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it! I do not believe that any of us would change places with any other people of any other generation. The energy, the faith; the devotion which we being to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.'' Our new American mission is clear--we must never forget those who died a year ago today on September 11. We must not rest until those who committed these terrorist acts are brought to justice. And we must protect our country, all its citizens, from all that threatens democracy and freedom--for these are the fires that have lit the world.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is unopposed, and I support House passage of this bill today, as does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and all of the members of the Committee on Commerce who sit on the Democratic side. This legislation simply extends the date by which INTELSAT may have an IPO and offer advanced satellite services to U.S. customers. The IPO was put into the law to induce INTELSAT to diversify its ownership and vastly diminish the international governmental ownership and control of the organization, with all of the advantages and disadvantages such international governmental ownership brings. The new date for an IPO will now be December 31, 2003, rather than the end of this year. I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his work on this bill and urge Members to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the corporate accountability bill. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker: This conference report is the result of investors' refusal to be fooled by empty speeches, photo-ops and weak proposals that failed to go far enough to fix the crisis of confidence in the marketplace. Mark Twain used to say, ``A cat, once burned, won't get on a hot stove again. But it won't get on a cold stove either.'' Despite intense lobbying efforts to weaken the Sarbanes bill passed unanimously by the Senate, investors recognized that only tough new reforms would fix the problems plaguing corporate America. The average investor thinks the financial market is rigged, so trust is hard to come by. Trust is to the economy is what oil is to a machine--without it, it will break down. This conference report contains tough provisions that were omitted from the timid bill that the House passed earlier this year. The conference report contains: A strong structural separation, a bona fide Chinese Wall, between stock analysts and investment bankers, so that investors can have confidence in the recommendations they receive. A strong independent oversight board for the accounting industry. Corporate auditors will no longer be policing themselves, but instead will be subject to an independent accounting oversight board. Bans on accounting firms offering a menu of non-audit services to their audit clients. The big accounting firms will not have an incentive to look the other way at shady accounting just to preserve their consulting contracts. The accountants, for too long, have been able to be the referees and the players in their game of finance. This leads to conflicts of interest that prevent a level playing field for market participants. Mr. Speaker, while this conference report is an important step forward, it is shameful that a strong accounting reform bill was fought tooth and nail by the industry and its friends in Congress. During this struggle for financial reform, markets plunged and millions of investors saw their 401(k)s cut in half to 201(k)s as hard- earned savings evaporated. Today we have the opportunity to pass an important reform bill. This bill is a key first step to restoring confidence in the markets--which has been badly damaged as weak half-measures proposed since the Enron collapse fell far short of what the market needed. I support this conference report and will continue to monitor the regulatory implementation of the provisions contained in the report.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3609. I am pleased that the bill we are considering today contains a provision I authored (Section 12 of the bill) which deals with a special situation that we are facing in Everett, Massachusetts, in my Congressional District. The Distrigas LNG facility in Everett is owned by Tractebel, a Belgian-based energy affiliate of the French conglomerate, Suez. This facility is unlike any other waterfront LNG plant in the nation that receives LNG tankers. It is located in the middle of the City of Everett, a city of 38,000 people that has a population density of 11,241 people per square mile. The facility is a mile and a half from my hometown of Malden (a city of 56,000 people), it is two and a half miles from the City of Medford (also population 56,000) where my District Office is located. The facility also is right across the Mystic River from downtown Boston--population 590,000. LNG tankers that dock at the Distrigas facility must enter the Boston Harbor and sail through a narrow ship channel that passes by Logan airport, under the Tobin Bridge, and right by the central financial and commercial district of the City of Boston. For this reason, when LNG tankers approach Boston, the Coast Guard has established special procedures to help protect the public health and safety, including the possibility of terrorist attacks. The Coast Guard works with the City of Boston, and police and fire departments of Everett, Malden and Medford to establish procedures for protecting the tanker ships and preparing for any emergency response. However, after the LNG tankers have docked at the facility, the Coast Guard's job is done. Security then, is left to the private security guards hired by Distrigas and the Everett Police Department. Of course, the Everett Police Department has all of the responsibilities of an urban police force, and cannot devote the resources to maintaining a large police presence at this facility at all times. For this reason, we have to rely primarily on the LNG plant operator, Distrigas, to put in place adequate security systems. Unfortunately, I have found that security at this facility is sorely inadequate. Both from whistleblower reports and from direct first hand observation, I have seen a facility where security is either nonexistent or woefully lacking. I have written to Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge on two occasions last fall and last winter to ask him to look into this matter and work with the Department of Transportation, the Coast Guard, and with the State and Local governments to help rectify this situation, and he responded several weeks ago to tell me that he had misplaced my letters and would have to get back to me later. So I guess you could say that I have had direct firsthand experience that demonstrates that Governor Ridge needs the additional resources and authorities that President Bush called upon the Congress to give him. I also raised this issue with the Transportation Department during the Subcommittee's hearing on the pending legislation. The responses I received were not satisfactory. The Department noted, for example, that it had found in November that the Everett plant's contract security guards ``needed additional training regarding existing Distrigas security procedures''. And these were the security procedures established before September 11th. The Department subsequently announced that it was imposing a $220,000 civil fine on Distrigas for violations of DOT security requirements and safety rules. In so doing the Department announced that the Department's ``Inspectors found Distrigas had failed to train their contract security personnel in security procedures established prior to Sept. 11, 2001. Morever, a follow-up inspection found that even as late as April 2002, not all contract security employees had been trained in security procedures.'' In other words, the Transportation Department essentially said that Distrigas has flunked what is basically an elementary school-level security test. However, what they may really need to be prepared for is a college level exam. We need to upgrade the security standards affecting this type of facility, so that we can get access to the LNG needed to provide energy for our region, while also protecting our communities from a terrorist action that could threaten public safety. While Distrigas says it is improving its security procedures, it has also said that the company would fight the Department's proposed fine. While I have had some positive recent communications with U.S.-based representatives of the company following the Committee's adoption of my amendment, only time will tell whether the situation on the ground in Everett will change and whether the companies' European corporate parents will provide the funding and support to allow a ``security first'' philosophy to truly take hold at Distrigas. My amendment, which appears as Section 12 of the bill, is aimed at assuring that this facility, or any future LNG terminal that is sited in a densely populated urban area, it fully protected against terrorist threats. What it does is very simple: It directs the Secretary of Transportation to undertake a rulemaking to develop new security rules for the Everett facility, and to issue a final rule within one year ``to require effective security measures which the Secretary determines are necessary to be adopted against acts of terrorism or sabotage . . .'' The amendment identifies nine specific factors the Secretary shall take into account in this rulemaking, and it provides that any rules issued by the Secretary shall establish requirements for security procedures and emergency response at the facility, including effective testing of the security forces at the plant. Let me make it clear, the provision would only cover this one facility, located in Everett, Massachusetts, in my District, which faces what may be some unique security challenges and some severe public safety consequences in the event of a successful terrorist attack. Of course, the amendment is drafted to be generic in application, so that if there is some future facility that meets the statutory definition, it would be similarly afforded the protections provided by the security measures mandated under the Section. The principle underlying the Section 12 is the LNG facility that receive LNG tanker ships, and are located in or near densely populated urban areas, must comply with enhanced security rules and security force testing procedures. We are focused on this class of facilities, because the adverse consequences of a security breach at a LNG facility in an urban area could be quite severe in terms of loss of life or destruction of property. I would not that the rulemaking required under Section 12 applies only to a ``waterfront liquefied natural gas plants capable of receiving liquefied natural gas tankers'' that is ``located in or within one mile of a densely populated urban area.'' The term ``waterfront liquefied natural gas plant'' is derived from a term which appears in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and refers to ``an LNG plant with docks, wharves, piers, or other structures in, on, or immediately adjacent to the navigable waters of the United States or Puerto Rico and any shore area immediately adjacent to those waters to which vessels may be secured and at which LNG cargo operations may be conducted.'' The term ``densely populated urban area'' is specifically defined in the amendment as ``an area with a population density of more than 10,000 people per square mile.'' Section 12 therefore currently would exclude the Lake Charles, Louisiana LNG facility, the Elba Island, Georgia LNG facility, and the soon-to-be reactivated Cove Point, Maryland LNG facility from coverage, as none of those facilities are located in areas with a population area of more than 10,000 people per square mile. For example, the population density of Lake Charles (home of the CMS Trunkline Facility) is 1786 people per square mile. There is one other LNG Terminal currently operating, which is located at Elba Island, Georgia, near Savannah, Georgia (which has a population of 1759.5 people per square mile). It was reactivated in December. The Cove Point facility, in Maryland is not yet reopened, but it is located in a rural area that is even less densely populated. Section 12 also excludes an LNG facility that is not used to dock or receive LNG tankers. We are focused narrowly on LNG terminals in this amendment since these are facilities that may receive ocean-going tankers from Middle Eastern countries like Algeria, where there may be active terrorist cells operating, or from other foreign nations, where there may not be adequate screening of ship's crews or adequate systems in place to assure ship security. The section is intended to supplement the other measures undertaken to ensure the security of such LNG terminals, included those taken by the Coast Guard in addressing the security of LNG tankers and screen their crews as they enter U.S. waters and travel through U.S. harbors to their destinations. In the past, I have seen at the Everett facility that while the Coast Guard does a reasonably good job of addressing security at the water side of the plant, there simply has not been enough attention focused on what could happen on the land side, or the potential for a coordinated attack that might involve insiders. Section 12 gives the Department the tools needed to address this. I appreciate the cooperation of the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and his staff, who have offered some helpful suggestions on how to tighten the language of the amendment, as well as the Ranking Member, who have been helpful in assuring that the amendment touched only this facility, and did not inadvertently affect other facilities where the security problems may not be as serious, or the consequences of a successful terrorist attack so potentially devastating. I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, vote for this motion. If the Republican bill were an SEC filing, it almost would be actionable under the antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws. It is a fraud. It masquerades as an investor protection bill when, in actuality, it is an accountant and corporate wrongdoer protection act. What does it not have in it? Well, it does not have an accounting board that is controlled by independent auditors. It is all controlled by the accounting industry, just as the Securities and Exchange Commission is now controlled by the accounting industry. It does not separate auditing from consulting when an auditing firm, an accounting firm, goes inside to audit a firm. It does not separate investment banking from analyst recommendations in terms of the compensation which is received by the analyst, a conflict of interest that is creating all of the problems. What does this motion to recommit say? It says we should extend from 3 years to 5 years the time that people have to go in and do something about fraud, because we are now talking about fraud committed in 1998 and 1999, and the statute of limitations has run. We must extend it out to 5 years. Ordinary investors are only finding out now how valueless their investments were. In addition, the auditors must keep the work paper for 5 years so people can bring action against them, whether it be criminal or civil. Vote for this meaningful motion if Members want to protect American investors against further fraud in the American marketplace.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is too weak, too weak. The President gets to name three people to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Who has he named? Three accounting industry employees. That is it. That is his decision. This Republican majority opposed an independent accounting board oversight; opposed it. And now it is looking for a legislative get well card as though now they are converted to protecting the investor. What does this bill not include? Well, it does not require these companies to preserve all their auditing records for 5 years. It does not extend from 3 years out to 5 years the period upon which people can sue if they have been defrauded. We are only finding out right now about fraud from 2 or 3 years ago. We need to stretch out the statute of limitations so they can sue. We need whistleblower protection. This is a bad bill. Vote no.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for yielding me the time, and I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for helping organize this tribute to Ted Williams. As has already been said, he served 5 years in the military, 3 years in World War II, 2 years in the Korean war, each of those years at the prime of his baseball career. We in Boston and many across the country believed that if he had not been forced because of the need to protect our country to actually play those five seasons that he would hold the record in just about every single offensive category of baseball statistics. That is how great a hitter he was. The amazing thing is that even though he missed 5 years, he is still near the top in so many of the important baseball categories. When I was a boy growing up in Malden, Massachusetts, playing baseball for 3 or 4 or 5 hours a day, the one thing that I did at night was to lie there at night trying to go to sleep, dreaming of myself as Ted Williams, trying to hit Whitey Ford or Bob Turley or Don Larson or some other Yankee pitcher because we knew that of all of the people who we could call upon in order to protect us against the hated Yankees that Ted Williams was at the top of the list. And not only did I go to sleep dreaming that I was Ted Williams with that perfect swing, but I am sure that there were millions of others having the very same dream about their own baseball aspirations. He not only was a great baseball player and a great patriot, but he was also a great fisherman. He is in the Fisherman's Hall of Fame. He, for over 50 years, was the living embodiment of the Jimmy Fund which is a fund which has been created up in Boston at the Farber Institute, which is now global in its reach which helps to treat cancer in children, which was his passion. A lot of people say that Ted Williams reminds them of John Wayne; but in reality, John Wayne only played those parts in movies. John Wayne wishes he was Ted Williams, wishes that he had had the life, the career, the success that he had had in every single endeavor that he touched in his life. If somebody says 406, everyone knows that Ted Williams hit that for batting average in 1941. There are so many things that we could talk about here today; but at bottom, this was a great man, a great American and someone who is deserving of all of the praise which he is receiving across this country, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time.