Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Markey

Amendment No. 9: Add at the end the following new title:

Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to all of the victims in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi; and we in Congress stand committed to ensuring that we rebuild each of those families' hopes and dreams. But, unfortunately, during this time of crisis, I am very, very concerned that the American driving public is being gouged at the pump by Big Oil and by OPEC, which has been taking advantage of this crisis in our country. I am very concerned that Big Oil is exploiting this tragedy by tipping consumers upside down at the pump and shaking money out of their pockets. This is no time to take advantage of the American consumer. This is a time for the oil companies, as well as OPEC, to rally to the protection of the American consumer and the American economy.

We have all been disturbed by the television footage of looters ransacking stores and homes in New Orleans, but it also appears that Big Oil is engaging in widespread looting as it runs up the price of gasoline paid by the driving public.

We need action by this administration. They have to make it clear that they are going to put in effect immediately investigations, put investigators in the field, in the board rooms, to make sure that people understand that this kind of exploitation of the American consumer will not be tolerated. Unfortunately, right after 9/11, the very same oil companies took advantage of the American consumer, resulting ultimately in large fines having to be paid by oil companies for their exploitation of the American consumer in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Also the President should demand that OPEC help us at this time. OPEC has announced that they will take up the issue of producing more oil at their September 19 meeting. September 19? When Saddam Hussein was threatening the Middle East, we did not say to our friends, Call us next month. We said we would respond immediately.

OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, should announce that they are going to produce 1.5 million to 2 million barrels of oil a day beginning today, not waiting until some September 19 meeting. And the President, who held the hand of the Saudi prince in April at his ranch in Crawford, should now hold OPEC's feet to the fire and ensure that, as they are now saying they may have a surplus of 1.5 million to 2 million barrels of oil a day to produce, and they may consider releasing it all.

They should have done that back in April, when the price of gasoline was already skyrocketing. We should not be at a point where a barrel of oil is at $65 a barrel, now approaching $70 and going higher. All of that has happened subsequent to Katrina, this additional spike.

So we need a response from OPEC. We can no longer allow them to sit on the sidelines with this additional 1.5 million to 2 million barrels of oil that they are going to consider releasing on September 19.

In addition, the President should immediately suspend all royalty relief for the oil and gas companies for drilling on public lands, the Secretary of Interior should require the oil companies to pay the full royalty for drilling and extracting oil and gas from public lands, and those revenues should be earmarked for the victims of this enormous disaster. That is where those revenues should go. And the President and this Congress should enact a windfall profits tax on the oil industry, and the proceeds should go to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program for this coming winter, the neediest people in our society, who are going to be most adversely affected by these skyrocketing energy prices.

But we just have to look in the rearview mirror 5 weeks ago when this Congress and President Bush passed and then signed a historic energy bill that was a failure in dealing with increase in fuel economy standards for SUVs, encouraging renewable energy resources that would be used by the utilities in this country. Instead, we gave tax breaks to the oil and gas industries of our country. It is time we got something back from those industries. It is time for this Congress and this President to stand up.

Mr. Speaker, on August 19, 2005, Sam Gordon will celebrate his 90th birthday, surrounded by his loving wife of 66 years, Carolyn, his family and his friends. I rise today to honor Sam, who continues to be an inspiration and a blessing to all who know him.

Sam Gordon is the son of a milkman, and his friendly, welcoming manner was forged during the trips he made as a young man to the homes of his customers in Worcester, Massachusetts. The oldest of four children born to Russian immigrant parents Pearl and Reuben Gordon, Sam has the curiosity and creativity that belies his senior citizen status. After working his way through the University of Michigan with a series of part-time jobs, Sam graduated as an English Major in 1937. He then joined his father's milk business and quickly developed a new concept-- selling frozen food items, which were just becoming available with the invention of refrigeration. Sam's idea to offer frozen food along with milk, cream and cottage cheese led to the formation of a successful new business, R. Gordon and Sons, a wholesale frozen food company which sold frozen strawberries, juice, ice cream and other products to supermarkets, schools and hospitals.

Despite his demanding work schedule, Sam was a leader in his synagogue, Congregation Beth Israel in Worcester. He served as president of the Congregation, president of the Congregation's brotherhood, and president of the New England Region Men's Club. Prayer and community service continue to be central parts of Sam's everyday life. For the past five years, he has developed and run a senior learning initiative where he teaches Yiddish classes to many adult learners throughout Worcester, including classes at his synagogue, independent and assisted living buildings, and at the local Jewish Community Center, where some of his students are still in middle school. At the synagogue, he continues to be responsible for many creative ideas and fundraising projects. As always, his wife Carolyn plays the indispensable supporting role for Sam's many projects.

Whenever he had the opportunity, Sam set out with his wife to travel to interesting places around the world. They visited Europe, Israel, China, Thailand, and Singapore. Before he embarked on his journeys, Sam always thoroughly researched points of interest, including cooking and stained glass classes and local wineries. In his retirement, Sam continues his love of music by playing the organ and more recently taking lessons on his new keyboard. An Internet aficionado since the mid-1990's, Sam is online everyday, keeping current with news and trends. He continues to amaze his grandchildren with his up-to-the- minute knowledge of the latest developments in art, literature, and popular culture. Sam attends synagogue services daily and prayer is a powerful force in his life.

Sam is a loving and devoted husband to his wife, Carolyn, and he shares his zest for life through his honesty, integrity, knowledge, and sensitivity to his family and community. Sam's beloved mother, Pearl, taught him these values, instilling in him the importance of establishing ``a good name'' and reputation that stood for righteousness and respect for others. As his ninetieth birthday approaches, the name ``Sam Gordon'' is synonymous with these enduring American values.

Sam and Carolyn have two children, Nancy and Joel; four grandchildren, Ellen, Mark, Jennifer and Jessica; and two great- grandchildren, Ari and Abigail.

I am pleased to join with Sam's family and friends to honor this great American on his ninetieth birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a historic failure. It will not lower gasoline prices. This bill does not do anything about fuel economy standards for automobiles and for SUVs. We put 70 percent of all the oil that we consume in the United States into gasoline tanks. This bill is silent on that. It is 2005. We now import 60 percent of all of the oil which we consume in America; most of it comes from the Middle East. One would think that we could do something about the place we put the oil. This bill is silent.

With regard to renewables, all utilities in the United States could have been given a mandate that they have to designate a substantial percentage of their electrical generating capacity over the next 20 years as renewable energy. This bill rejects that. It says, we are not going to move the utilities towards a renewable energy future.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a failure on two of the central technology issues that the 21st century should be known for. I call for a ``no'' vote on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains about $80 billion worth of giveaways to the oil and gas and other industries in our country. Those giveaways are coming from somewhere.

The United States has a huge deficit. We do not have any money. There is only one part of our government that is running a surplus, and that is the Social Security Trust Fund, and what the Republicans are doing is erecting a huge oil rig on top of the Social Security Trust Fund to drill for the revenues that will be given to the wealthiest industries in America--the oil and gas industries--that are reporting the largest profits in the history of any industry in the history of the United States.

The Republicans are tipping the United States consumer and taxpayer upside down and shaking money out of their pockets.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is socialism at its worst. The headline makers of capitalism: Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco are reporting the biggest profits in the history of any industry in the history of the United States and bragging about it on the front pages of the newspapers of our country. They are bragging about it.

Right now, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so fast that he would qualify for a subsidy in this bill as an energy source. That is how bad this bill is.

This bill so fundamentally violates all principles of capitalism that Exxon-Mobil, that Chevron-Texaco would come to the American people's Social Security System, put up an oil rig, and start drilling into the savings of American taxpayers, because that is who will subsidize all of these giveaways.

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

Well, I have three more speakers. Could the Chair tell me how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, the proponents of the bill still have more time left than the opponents of the bill, and the time was divided 40 minutes to 20 minutes. So what we have been trying to do, honestly, is just to harness our smaller number of minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, in this bill there are so many preposterous provisions, it is impossible to list them all. But amongst them is a provision which after 35 years strips Governors and mayors of an ability to block an LNG, a liquefied natural gas facility, from being built in the middle of a densely populated area. This photograph shows Boston. This is my district. This is where one of the facilities has already been built, but it was built with permission.

Now post-9/11 with terrorists targeting sites with the highest potential harm to Americans, this bill blocks Governors, police, and fire departments from blocking facilities from going into densely populated areas. But the bill also allows the Pentagon, Secretary Rumsfeld, to protect against one of these being built next to a military facility. Imagine that, the Republicans will protect the Pentagon but not civilians in densely populated areas from an LNG catastrophe which could maim or kill tens of thousands of people.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is packed with royalty relief for big oil and gas companies, tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, loan guarantees for the wealthiest energy companies in America, even as they are reporting the largest quarterly profits of any corporations in the history of the United States.

It is politically and morally wrong for the United States Congress to come to this floor to pass legislation which will take money from the American taxpayers to hand over to the corporations who are now charging $2.30, $2.40, $2.60 at the pump to American consumers and reporting the largest profits in history. If they need to do new research, they have the money in their own pockets. That is capitalism. If they want to do new drilling out in ultradeep areas of the oceans, they have the profits to do that.

The American taxpayer should not be funding that drilling because, as American consumers, they are already paying for that drilling. The oil companies are saying publicly that they are making so much money they do not know what to do with all of the profits. But even as they say that publicly, they are coming here to the House floor, they are saying to the Members, we want to erect huge oil drills on top of the Social Security trust fund and drill $80 billion of subsidies out of American taxpayers' pockets and hand it over to the oil, the gas, the coal, the nuclear industries that are reporting the largest profits in history.

It is a moral and political failure because it is what is not in this bill that is the important energy agenda for our country. Our country puts 70 percent of all of the oil that we consume in gasoline tanks. We only have 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world. OPEC has 70 percent. That is our weakness. Our strength is that we are the technological giant of the world.

There is nothing in this bill about improving the fuel economy standards for SUVs and automobiles. There is nothing in this bill that will mandate that electric utilities increase their use of renewable energy so we can break our dependence upon these sources of energy that weaken our foreign policy by getting us deeper into the Middle East, emitting more pollutants which cause more asthma, more breast cancer, more prostate cancer as the environment alters genes to increase disease in our society. None of that is addressed in this bill in 2005.

If we could roll back the clock to 1905, this would be a very good bill. It would be about oil, gas and coal. It is 2005, however. We should be talking about the new agenda, the new technology agenda for our country. This bill is a political and a moral and a technological failure.

In addition to draining revenues out of the taxpayers' pockets to subsidize the wealthiest industries, we ignore the technologies which could break our dependence on imported oil and could send a signal to OPEC which would drive down the price of oil which would help our country's national security. I urge a ``no'' vote on this historic failure.

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

All the public should know on this bill is that no Democrats were allowed to make any amendments to this bill. They were not allowed to debate this bill. Even the great gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) of the Committee on the Judiciary, no amendments allowed. None. No thought required by half of the Congress. And do the Members want to know why? Because this bill is really the pluperfect payback of the Republican Party to the insurance industry. This bill will victimize patients in the courtroom after they have already been victimized in the operating room. That is what it is all about.

The premise of the bill is this, and it is not a bad premise: If they are willing to lower the amount of money that somebody can receive for the pain and suffering that they have had inflicted upon them by some medical operation, then, in turn, there will be a lowering of the premiums that doctors have to pay. That is kind of the trade-off that the Republicans have. Lower return for the patients for their pain and suffering, but we also get, as a result, lower premiums for the doctors.

But 2 years ago when I made the amendment in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that would have said that all of the savings from the pain and suffering of patients would

then go to lowering of premiums for doctors, every Republican voted against that because the insurance industry does not want the money to go to lower premiums for doctors. And then this year when I wanted to make an amendment in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that would have said the same thing, lower premiums, I was not allowed to make the amendment. Out here on the House floor, I was not allowed to make the amendment.

So it is not about lowering the premiums for physicians with the money that is ``saved'' from the money that would have gone to someone whose family had been harmed because they might have lost their sight, their limbs, their ability to bear children, their ability to fully function in society. All of those savings for the insurance industry, they are very real. But the lowering of medical malpractice fees is only illusory.

And, secondly, the bill will protect the pharmaceutical industry from liability as long as the drugs that harm patients are FDA-approved. The FDA approval is designed to protect patients from harmful drugs, but it should not waive a company's responsibility for drugs they put on the market. With all of the recent reports about how FDA approved drugs that harmed people, from Vioxx to Bextra to Accutane to Paxil, now is not the time to limit patients' access to the courts, but that is what the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry is going to get on the House floor today.

Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong concerns about the lack of adequate patient privacy protections in H.R. 1132--the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting, NASPER, Act of 2005. H.R. 1132 is being considered on the House Floor under suspension of the rules; therefore it cannot be amended. Because of the absence of urgently needed patient privacy safeguards, I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation.

H.R. 1132 is intended to support States' efforts to prevent the abuse of certain controlled substances through the provision of Federal grants to the States for the purpose of establishing and implementing controlled substance monitoring programs. States would use the grants to develop and maintain an electronic database containing information about the type of medication prescribed, quantity dispensed, number of refills, and similar product information. The database also would collect personal information about each patient receiving prescriptions of the covered controlled substances, such as the patient's name, address and telephone number.

The abuse of controlled substances such as oxycontin and amphetamines is a serious problem that plagues many Americans. In response to the seriousness of the problem of prescription drug abuse, more than 20 States, including Massachusetts, have taken steps to prevent such abuse through the establishment of reporting requirements on pharmacists and the creation of drug monitoring databases similar to those contemplated by H.R. 1132. In Massachusetts, for example, pharmacies are required to report the prescriptions they fill for substances in Schedules I and II to the State's department of Public Health.

The problem is that H.R. 1132 does not provide the safeguards that are required to shield patients--the vast majority of whom will be law- abiding citizens receiving medications as part of a legitimate plan of care--from unauthorized disclosure of their personal medical information. Instead, the legislation provides the States broad leeway to establish databases of patients' private medical records with little guidance on the privacy protections that must be in place in order to quality for the grants.

For example, H.R. 1132 permits disclosure of individually- identifiable patient information in the database to a wide range of professionals in addition to practitioners and law enforcement personnel, including any local, State or Federal ``narcotics control, licensure, disciplinary or program authority'' who can make specific certifications as to the need for access to the information. Any ``agent of another state'' with a monitoring program approved by the bill also could gain access to patient records in the database, provided that the purpose of the access is for ``implementing the state's controlled substance monitoring program.'' Such easy access puts the privacy of potentially hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens at risk of unauthorized disclosure.

Additional privacy protections that are missing from H.R. 1132 include: a requirement that States receiving grants under the terms of the bill periodically notify patients whose information in the database has been lost, stolen or used for an unauthorized purpose; a mandate that States inform patients before dispensing medications covered by the bill's reporting requirement that their name, address, and phone number will be stored in a State-run database, potentially in perpetuity, as a result of the dispensing of the medication; and a requirement at the States purge the database of information about any particular prescription after a limited amount of time.

While I strongly support efforts to prevent the abuse of controlled substances, H.R. 1132 does not contain sufficient guidance to the states on the level of privacy protections that they must provide in the creation and maintenance of the databases authorized under the legislation. Since that breach of 145,000 personal records form the databases of data profiler ChoicePoint in February 2005, 50 million records with private information have been leaked from public companies, hospitals, universities and other organizations. During consideration of this legislation in the Energy and Commerce Committee, I offered a reasonable amendment to incorporate a fundamental privacy protection in the bill. My amendment was

supported by the American Conservative Union, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Association of Practicing Psychiatrists and the Massachusetts Medical Society. While my amendment would have simply required patient notification if their information in these databases were lost, stolen or used for an unauthorized purpose, it was defeated.

Without such fundamental protections for patients, this bill is not worthy of support. This bill--which is opposed by a broad, bipartisan coalition--does not belong on the suspension calendar, where it is not subject to amendment.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1132. Send it back to committee, where the needed privacy protections can be added. The important goals of this bill can be accomplished without sacrificing the privacy of law-abiding patients.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Capps motion. The House Energy Bill contains a so-called ``Fuels Safe Harbor'' that hands over get-out-of-court-free cars to the big oil companies responsible for polluting our communities' drinking water supplies with MTBE. The MTBE safe harbor is really a pirates cove for corporate polluters.

If enacted, it will let corporate polluters off the hook for water contamination and other damages to the environment and public health resulting from MTBE contamination.

A few months ago, President Bush said, ``I will tell you, with $55 oil, we do not need to give incentives to oil and gas companies to explore, there are plenty of incentives.''

Well, the President is right. Oil prices are now up to $60 a barrel, but the Republican energy bill would nonetheless hand billions of dollars worth of tax and regulatory subsidies over to wealthy oil companies. The MTBE liability waiver is only the tip of the vast iceberg of subsidies in this bill. $8 billion in tax subsidies and incentives for energy companies in the energy bill; $3 billion for the oil and gas industry; billions more in the Senate bill for the oil and gas industry.

There is something called royalty relief for the oil industry, which basically suspends requirements for oil companies to pay the Government for drilling on public land. There is a $2 billion subsidy for ultradeep water drilling R&D, and they also get a special exemption from the Clean Water Act.

With oil prices hovering at $60 a barrel, they do not need these breaks. Exxon reported $25 billion worth of profits last year; Conoco, $8 billion; royal Dutch Shell, $18 billion; BP, $16 billion; Chevron- Texaco, $13 billion. They do not need any incentives from the taxpayer, they are already in the pockets of the very same people as consumers, tipping them upside down.

And just think about it. The oil companies are making more money than they can ever spend, and Congress, in this bill, is going to pass a bill totally immunizing MTBE producers from any legal liability for producing an inherently defective product.

If there is an industry that can pay for this problem, it is the industry that has made more profits in the last year than any industry in the history of the world. We are going to do this despite scientific studies which have shown that MTBE causes cancer in laboratory animals.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a huge mistake, the House ``safe harbor'' from legal liability will shift the burden of cleaning up MTBE contamination from the companies back to the local community. So again, the consumer will be paying high gasoline prices, high home heating oil prices, they will be paying out of their tax dollars to give subsidies to the oil companies, and then they will have to go into their pockets again to clean up the mess which is left over.

Vote yes for the Capps motion to instruct the conferees.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would just briefly explain the intent of this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Reclaiming my time, I will take just a moment.

There has been a recent wave of massive privacy breaches that has highlighted the need to reaffirm the principles of the Privacy Act. This week the IRS announced that they are going to have a $20 million contract with ChoicePoint, the same company involved in a massive privacy breach in its operations in February of 2005. This reminder of the potential compromise of information is, of course, very necessary if the IRS is going to contract with ChoicePoint, with the very sensitive information of Americans.

So this amendment restates the importance of the Privacy Act being implemented. I ask the House to adopt this amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, the President had a historic opportunity in 2003. He had the support of the Congress. He had the support of the United Nations. We had inspectors in Iraq. It was determined that they had no weapons of mass destruction, and yet the President decided to invade.

Just think what would have happened if instead of on that day an invasion began, the President said, Let's keep this international coalition together. Let's move to Iran with the coalition. Let's ensure that they do not have a nuclear weapon.

Now the new President of Iran is stating that the United States and the world will not get in the way of Iran and nuclear weapons. The United States is more in danger, Israel is more in danger, the world is more in danger, because of the bad decision President Bush made on that day in 2003 when he invaded Iraq.

Instead, we are on the brink of a nuclear Iran and North Korea, and we are in a quagmire in Iraq as we referee an insurgency that will breakout into civil war as soon as the United States leaves.

This is a historic mess. The President had a chance for a Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, he is going to go down in history as someone who completely mismanaged nuclear nonproliferation and the politics of Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. MARKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Madam Speaker, I rise in full support of this legislation. I begin with my congratulations and thanks to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the subcommittee. He and I worked in the last session, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and other members of our committee, in order to draft legislation, which is very similar to the legislation which we are passing here today.

I would like, if it is permissible within the rules, to also thank the Democrat and Republican Members of the other body for their work on this legislation as well. We truly passed this legislation in a bicameral, bipartisan fashion.

First, let me state that back in ancient, prehistoric political times, back in 1991, that I was the principal House sponsor of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which contained the original junk fax prohibition. In 1991, that legislation passed this body and this general prohibition against junk faxes became law because of this intrusive form of advertising.

Every time someone junk faxes you, it is your paper that is coming out of the machine. You are paying for that paper. Your machine is tied up. It is just absolutely one of the most irritating things to people, to have to pay for someone else coming into your home or your business when you do not want them there. It is essentially a tax which is paid by the recipient of something that they never asked for in the first place.

This is something that ultimately takes up precious time as well. The machine is tied up, there is too much clutter that is associated with it, and important faxes are lost in the midst of the pile of junk faxes. How many people have just taken a pile of junk faxes, thrown it away, and in the middle of it was a fax you really wanted from someone, but you were just so ticked off by this generally unwanted clutter which has come into your home or your business.

So I think it is important to emphasize that the bill we bring to the House floor today retains the general prohibition against sending junk faxes. In other words, sending an unsolicited facsimile advertisement is against the law. We are not changing the law or the policy with respect to this. Sending a junk fax was illegal, and it remains illegal under this bill.

Neither are we changing any of the statutory enforcement mechanisms available to the Federal Communications Commission or to the individual consumers themselves in this bill. The legislation we are proposing will address certain provisions affecting an exception to the general prohibition against sending junk faxes and will improve the bill in these areas.

I think that it cannot be emphasized enough how this bill is the product, again, of the bipartisan work that both parties have engaged in over the last 2 or 3 years to reach today's final product, and I urge the House to adopt unanimously this legislation today.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This legislation builds upon legislation that was passed by the House in the last Congress and which this year was negotiated out between both Democratic and Republican members in the other body over a number of months. I encourage members to support this legislation today.

First, let me state that I was the principal House sponsor of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991, which contained the original junk fax prohibition. Congress endorsed my call in 1991 for a general prohibition against junk faxes because of the intrusive nature of that form of advertising. Junk faxes represent a form of advertising in which the ad is essentially paid for by the recipient. The recipient of a junk fax pays for the fax paper and printer costs, pays in the form of precious lost time as the machine is tied up, and also in the form of the clutter in which important faxes are lost in the midst of a pile of junk faxes.

I think it is important to emphasize that the bill we bring to the House floor today retains the general prohibition against sending junk faxes. In other words, sending an unsolicited facsimile advertisement is against the law. We are not changing the law or the policy with respect to this--sending a junk fax was illegal and remains illegal under this bill. Neither are we changing any of the statutory enforcement mechanisms available to the FCC or consumers in this bill.

The legislation we are proposing will address certain provisions affecting an exception to the general prohibition against sending junk faxes and will improve the bill in these areas. Since the FCC originally implemented the 1991 junk fax provisions of the TCPA, Commission regulations contained an exception for faxes that were sent because an ``established business relationship'' existed between the sender and the recipient. These regulations were in place and the ability to send junk faxes based upon this exception was permitted by the Commission for over a decade.

This concept of an ``established business relationship'' permitted a commercial entity to invoke its ability to demonstrate such a relationship with a consumer in order to contact that consumer in spite of the general prohibitions of the law. The FCC has more recently determined that the term ``established business relationship'' was not specifically included in the provisions addressing junk faxes in the

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Hinchey) amendment just restates existing law. What Ken Tomlinson wants to do is turn NPR into the NRC, the National Republican Committee, rather than National Public Radio. That is what it is all about.

CPB used to stand for Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Now it will stand for Corporation for Political Boondoggles, as this Republican administration seeks to politicize something that in all national polling is the most respected news outlet in the United States of America.

This is wrong. Support the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Manager's amendment.

The Manager's amendment includes an amendment that I filed to offer to the bill yesterday, which would address an important privacy protection issue.

Mr. Chairman, the recent wave of massive data thefts has swept up the precious, private information of millions and millions of Americans.

Everyday seems to bring new examples of gaping holes in databases being exploited by criminals: ChoicePoint, Lexis-Nexis, and CardSystems Solutions.

These are just 3 recent examples of huge heists of personal information.

And when Americans' financial records are drained from databases, does Federal law require the victims to be notified? No!

When Americans' Social Security numbers are siphoned from databases by criminals, does Federal law require that the victims are at least notified? No!

And, most importantly, when Americans' most private health information is plundered from databases, does Federal law require the victims to be notified? Shockingly, Unbelievably--No!

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today provides $75 million to support the creation of a new network of databases containing the health records of millions of Americans across the country. This new health information network will be, in effect, the ``Mother of All Databases.'' This network, when it is completed, will provide unprecedented access to the most private, personal health records of tens of millions of Americans.

The nationwide network holds tremendous promise. But it also holds enormous peril for the privacy of Americans' medical records. That's because we know that databases currently maintained by the Federal government are vulnerable to infiltration by the data thieves.

How do we know this?

In February 2005, President Bush's Information Technology Advisory Committee reported that:

The information technology infrastructure of the United

States . . . is highly vulnerable to terrorist and criminal

attacks and [T]he Federal Government needs to fundamentally

improve its approach to cyber security.

In May 2005, GAO reported that:

[T]he Federal Government is limited in its ability to

identify and respond to emerging cybersecurity threats,

including sophisticated and coordinated attacks that target

multiple federal entities.

Even with the most sophisticated and modern cybersecurity, we have learned that reels of data can be lost off the back of a truck.

While there is much we must and should do to minimize that loss of data, it is simply unforgivable to hide a known breach from the individuals whose personal data has fallen into unauthorized hands.

An individual can sometimes take action to protect herself while authorities try to puzzle out what happened to cause a breach. At least they should know when they are at risk.

A national health information network could provide significant benefits for patients, physicians, hospitals, and other health providers. But to realize these benefits, this new network must have strong privacy safeguards.

My amendment, which is now part of the Manager's amendment, would simply require that patients whose health information is maintained by the Department of Health and Human Services as part of this new health records database must be notified if their records are lost, stolen or used for an unauthorized purpose.

Our amendment would apply to the tens of millions of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries whose personally identifiable health information is maintained by the Federal Government.

As the Department begins to develop the standards for this enormous database, privacy of patients must be a priority.

As many of us know, people can be more concerned about their medical information being public than their financial information.

There are things in medical records that people don't even tell members of their own families.

We are at the dawn of the development of this new database. Now is the time to ensure that privacy is paramount.

Our amendment will ensure that patients victimized when their health information in the database is stolen or misused are simply notified so they can take the necessary steps to protect themselves.

In fact, the following 13 states already have enacted similar notification requirements for patients whose personal information has been stolen from electronic databases: Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Texas and Washington.

This is a vital, common-sense amendment, and I am pleased that it has been incorporated into the Manager's amendment. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the massive cuts to the Title VII health professions training programs which play a critical role in addressing the shortage of doctors, nurses, dentists and other health professionals in underserved areas and have proven to increase the diversity of the health care workforce.

The Republicans' fiscal year 2006 budget gives away $106 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society. Now, in order to pay for those cuts, they are making huge cuts to critical programs for the poor and the most vulnerable in our country. The Title VII health professions training programs are some of the many casualties of these tax giveaways.

In order to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy, this bill slashes funding for the Title VII programs by 84 percent, cutting the programs from $300 million to $47 million. These Title VII programs promote access to quality health care to for our nation's neediest citizens and they are only federal programs designed help prepare health professionals to respond to the needs of these special and underserved populations.

These programs are a vital component of the health education system in our country and are necessary to maintain the high quality health care that we expect. These cuts will have a dramatic impact on the system at a time when essential health care services are already facing funding cuts and program eliminations.

I urge you to oppose these cuts and I am hopeful that the Committee will work to increase funding for these programs in Conference.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey-Lowey- Leach amendment.

To the Republicans: Keep your hands off of Big Bird. Sesame Street is balanced. Big Bird is there, but so is Oscar the Grouch to represent the Republican point of view. So every program has a balance to it.

But Ken Tomlinson, this new Republican head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, has decided that there is a problem with public television and he has gone out to find the problem. And when he looks in the mirror the problem is he.

We are out here today because Ken Tomlinson has now opened the floodgates of criticism for a network which in polling is recognized as the most respected network in America. And after national security, in polling decided by the American people, it is the Federal program they like most after the Defense Department. But the Republicans and Ken Tomlinson today have named the former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee to be the new head, the new President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

So Tomlinson's answer to the absence of political balance is to name the Republican co-chair of their national committee. That is all you have to know about what the Republican Party is doing here on the House floor today.

Here is what public television is from 6 a.m. in the morning on, for 12 hours in a row: It is Zoom; it is Maya and Miguel; it is Arthur; it is the Berenstein Bears; Clifford the Big Red Dog; Dragon Tales; George Shrinks; Barney and Friends; Sesame Street. Until you hit 6 o'clock, when it is the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. It is NOVA. It is The American Experience.

They are attacking the Children's Television Network. They are turning CPB from Corporation for Public Broadcasting into Corporation for Political Boondoggle. That is the whole agenda that they have here today.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this issue has a special relevance to each of us because, we actually name the young men and women who go to these academies. And each of us take this responsibility with a great deal of responsibility.

And to the parents who entrust these children, these young men and woman, to us and through us to the academies, there is an expectation that regardless of the religion of any of these families, that they will, on the one hand, be able to fully practice their religion, but at the same time they will also be free from coercion of other religions as they leave home for the first time.

So we have, I think, the greatest responsibility because we play a role in selecting these young men and women to ensure that they are protected and that their parents, their families, back home are protected from the beliefs which they are sent with being attacked or undermined by those that do not respect the beliefs that those

young people brought with them. So I agree that this amendment is absolutely essential and that the statement must come from this body of all bodies on this most important of issues.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I thank the gentleman for his acceptance. I will try to conclude briefly on my time so that the House can understand what it is that they are accepting.

The convention against torture is a treaty signed by the United States under President Ronald Reagan, and it was ratified by the Senate in 1994. It prohibits any use of torture or other cruel or degrading treatment. It also prohibits the outsourcing of torture by sending people to any country where there is a reasonable likelihood that they will face torture.

My amendment simply ratifies America's commitment to the convention. It does not change current law. It is a simple funding restriction aimed at underscoring to all of the defense and intelligence agencies funded under this bill that they need to ensure that all of their activities are fully compliant with America's treaty obligations and with the requirements of United States law and regulation.

It is wrong for the United States to capture prisoners, put them on Gulfstreams and fly them to Syria or Uzbekistan with the assurance given by those countries which we know are human rights abusers that they will not torture prisoners. If the United States captures a prisoner, we should keep that prisoner in our possession, or send him to a country which has the same values which we have. But it would be wrong to continue to engage in a process where we send these prisoners to Syria, for example, which administers electrical shocks, pulling out of fingernails, forcing prisoners to engage in inhumane acts.

I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his acceptance of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. And in that 1 minute, I will say that I appreciate very much the statement by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). Even when he is not physically present, he is a huge spiritual presence in this Chamber when it comes to the issue of human rights and torture, and I appreciate his willingness to support this amendment.

The amendment, quite simply, says that the United States, because of our support for the convention against torture, because of our support for the Geneva Convention, cannot condone the United States, after we have prisoners in our possession, sending those prisoners to other countries in the world that do not abide by the convention on torture, that do not abide by the Geneva Convention.

So this amendment will make it unambiguously clear that that is a responsibility that the United States takes very seriously, and notwithstanding what goes on at Guantanamo, that when the United States has possession of a prisoner that we will not outsource torture, that we will not actually put these prisoners on planes and send them to countries which we know do engage in torture.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquent statement, and I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

I urge the House to embrace this amendment unanimously. It is wrong for the political, military and moral leader of the world to be taking prisoners which we have captured, putting them on planes, blindfolding them, drugging them and sending them to Syria, sending them to Uzbekistan, with the sure and certain knowledge that those prisoners are going to be tortured by countries that have already been condemned by the United States for those practices. That is wrong. It undermines our position in the world. It gives al Qaeda more ammunition to put up on al Jazeera that undermines our moral leadership.

Vote ``aye'' on this very important amendment.

The amendment I am offering today simply reaffirms the U.S. commitment to the Convention Against Torture by prohibiting the use of funds in contravention of laws and regulations promulgated to implement the Convention Against Torture. The U.S. signed this treaty under President Reagan, and the Senate ratified it in 1994.

The House voted overwhelmingly to approve an identical amendment that I offered to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill on March 16, 2005 by a vote of 420 to 2. That amendment, however, only applied to funds appropriated in the Emergency Supplemental. The amendment I am offering today would apply to all funds appropriated for fiscal year 2006 to the Departments of State and Justice.

I am offering this amendment today because despite our commitments under this treaty and the statements made by the Administration emphasizing that the U.S. is emphatically and unambiguously against the use of torture, reports keep growing of the U.S. sending detainees to countries where they are likely to face torture, including to countries notorious for human rights violations. This practice, known as ``Extraordinary Rendition,'' amounts to nothing more than Outsourcing Torture.

In order to meet its obligations under the Convention Against Torture, the Administration has been engaging in a piece of legalistic fiction. It obtains ``diplomatic assurances'' that the transferred detainee will not be tortured, and then based on these assurances it argues that our obligation under the Convention Against Torture has been satisfied because there is no longer a substantial likelihood that the person we are sending to one of these known torturing countries will, in fact, be tortured.

This is a sham. If Uzbekistan, a country that has actually boiled prisoners to death says they will not torture a prisoner, can we believe them? If Syria, a country that Secretary Rice says we cannot trust, says they won't torture--can we believe them?

Syria has broken off all relations with U.S. military and CIA. What does this mean for the ``diplomatic assurances'' we received from Syria?

Here is what the State Department's annual human rights report says about Syria's methods of interrogation:

administering electrical shocks, pulling out fingernails,

forcing objects into the rectum, . . .

In Uzbekistan, hundreds of protesters were recently killed under the corrupt regime of President Karimov in what human rights groups are calling a massacre.

Last year former Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to certify that Uzbekistan had met its human rights obligations. Why?

Because the State Department found that Uzbekistan used the following interrogation techniques:--``suffocation, electric shock, rape, beatings, and boiling prisoners to death . . .''

The amendment I am offering today prohibits the use of any funds included in this bill to the contravention of our legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture, U.S. Law, and regulation. While I would have liked to include language barring the use of diplomatic assurances as the basis for renditions, I have not done so today, out of recognition that such an amendment would go beyond the scope of this bill and constitute new legislation. But what we can do today is take another step by having the U.S. Congress reaffirm that it does not support or condone torture, or rendition to countries likely to torture an individual.

Throughout United States history we have encountered and defeated brutal enemies, inhumane and monstrous dictators and met with hideous violence. We take pride that even as our Nation fought for its survival against the Nazis and the Japanese Empire during World War II, that we did not ask our ``Greatest Generation'' to engage in torture or other war crimes. The legacy of the U.S. then, and now, is that we uphold our commitment to justice in the face of shadows of terror and war. The test of a nation is found as much in how it wages war as how it promotes the values of peace and democracy. That is what we must to today.

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and say ``no'' to torture.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, in the 35 years since the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has been in force, much has changed around the world, but what has not changed is the danger inherent in the spread of nuclear weapons.

My amendment says that the President of the United States shall direct the United States permanent representative to the IAEA to use their influence and their vote to secure an agreement within the IAEA requiring that any member state of the NPT that is in breach of the treaty or withdraws from the treaty must return any nuclear materials or technology acquired for peaceful purposes.

Now, why is this amendment needed? Well, for the first time in the treaty's history, one country has withdrawn from the treaty. In 2002, international inspectors were asked to leave North Korea, and, in 2003, North Korea withdrew from the nonproliferation treaty. And just this year North Korea announced to the world that it has nuclear weapons; all the while, North Korea is allowed to keep any and all nuclear materials, nuclear technology, and assistance they receive as a member of the NPT.

So while considerable diplomatic activity has taken place to try to convince North Korea to reverse its action, there is actually no rule in place now at the IAEA that would require North Korea to return all of the nuclear materials it received.

My amendment would mandate that the President direct the United States permanent representative at the IAEA to secure such an agreement amongst the IAEA member states.

This type of requirement is not just important because of North Korea. Currently we have Iran declaring its rights to pursue all nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, it says. The United States and Europe are worried that Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapons program, but all the while Iran is insisting on its right to receive all nuclear materials, nuclear technology, and assistance for its peaceful program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will conclude by saying this: There are no Democrats, there are no Republicans when it comes to the issue of nuclear nonproliferation. The one thing that President Bush and John Kerry agreed upon in their Presidential debates is that this is the most important issue in the world. It may have been the only thing that they agreed upon, but they did agree upon this one issue.

Now, interestingly, in the Atomic Energy Act of the United States, in 1954, it is, in fact, a requirement under our law that if another nation is in violation of the agreement, that the nuclear materials which we give to that country is not used for peaceful purposes, that all of the materials that we have sent to that country must be returned to our country.

What this amendment says is that as a member of the United Nations and the IAEA, that we now will extend this not just to the United States, but to all countries in the world; that the IAEA must enforce a requirement that if a country is in violation of its agreement to use materials only for peaceful purposes, then the IAEA must act immediately to begin the process of reclaiming all of the material that all of the countries of the world have sent to that country which is in violation of the law.

We must put teeth in this law. We must not allow the short-term diplomatic or political agenda of any President or any Secretary of State, Democrat or Republican, to interfere with the overarching goal of ensuring that nuclear weapons are not used anywhere on this planet at any time.

And so I urge all Members to support this amendment. It goes a long way in sending a message to the rest of the world that the United States intends on being the leader on the issue of nuclear nonproliferation, regardless of which other country in the world is involved and regardless of which other country in the world was the supplier of those materials. We will be the moral leader.

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