Floor Statements

Ladies and gentlemen, America now has the highest gasoline prices in history. OPEC is meeting once again to cut the amount of oil it is providing to the United States even as we have 130,000 young men and women over in the Middle East. That is a disgrace.

President Bush must insist that OPEC increase its production of oil. We should not suffer. The Christians had a better chance against the lions than the American consumer has against the OPEC cartel. We need a President who is not going to allow OPEC to tip us upside down and shake money out of the pockets of the American consumer. President Bush must insist that OPEC give to the United States what it deserves, an economy which is not harmed by OPEC with these rising oil prices which make it impossible for consumers to pay their bills or businesses to invest in any other service or product with the exception of their oil bill.

Tomorrow is the day, Mr. President. Let us have some relief for the American consumer and for the American businessman so our economy can grow.

Mr. Chairman, there is a moral dimension to these huge tax cuts the Republicans give to the upper two percentiles. In this budget, they cut research that would cover Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, heart disease, diabetes, by $553 million, the research dollars that will help every American family to avoid the tragedy of these diseases which would ravage their families.

Tax cuts should not come before an increase in the budget for the NIH, but worse than that, they also cut $23.6 billion out of Medicaid, which is the budget which is used for Grandma and Grandpa in nursing homes across our country with Alzheimer's, with Parkinson's, with heart disease and every other illness that afflicts our country.

They cannot have it both ways. They cannot not fund increases in NIH research to cure diseases and not have the funding then when they do not cure it in order to take care of Grandma and Grandpa in nursing homes.

Watch out, Grandma. Watch out, Grandpa. GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now it stands for Get Old People, for Got Our Pensions, and that is exactly what is happening in this Republican budget.

The tax cuts for the wealthiest are sacrosanct, and as a result, programs that will help every American family deal with the ravages of disease has to be cut, whether it be in research or in nursing homes. GOP, get-old-people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, if all we were doing here on the floor today on the House was commending our troops for their valor, there would be no debate. There would be no disagreement and there would be no opposition. This resolution, however, says something more than that we honor our troops.

What this resolution says is that we, the House of Representatives, affirm that ``the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq.'' There is not a Member of this body that mourns the fact that Saddam Hussein and his regime have been removed from power. We all agree that Saddam was a brutal thug. The problem is that America was told before the war that we would be made safer by fighting to find and destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. We now know that those weapons either did not exist, in which case we fought a war based on flawed intelligence, or that there really were weapons of mass destruction, in which case they are now in the hands of Saddam's

Baathist henchmen or al Qaeda terrorists or some other party, and that would put us in greater peril than we were before the war started.

Moreover, if we switch our TV from C-SPAN to CNN, we will see that another bomb has gone off in Baghdad today, killing more than 25 and wounding nearly 50 innocent people. We will see that two American missionaries have been assassinated in Iraq. We will see reports of more and more targeted assassinations of civilian employees of the Coalition Authority, as well as continued attacks on our military forces in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the real terrorist threat to America, al Qaeda, continues to organize and plan future terrorist attacks against our country. Osama bin Laden and some of his top lieutenants remain at large. Mullah Omar, the head of the Taliban, remains at large.

What is happening on the House floor today is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with the Bush administration and Republican leaders in Washington. Instead of working together in a bipartisan fashion to congratulate the troops for the wonderful job which they did, they seek to divide this House by forcing us to vote on something which, in fact, is not an accurate representation of what has happened across this world.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time.

I rise to commemorate this great anniversary. I was elected to Congress in 1976 just as the great Tip O'Neill was

rising to become the Speaker of this great House. And there was a debate that raged in Congress over whether or not television should be allowed into this Chamber, and it was a debate that went on and on behind closed doors catalyzed by Brian Lamb, who had this idea that he could bring the United States House of Representatives to the American people. And of course the younger Members felt that that was a great idea because we had all grown up watching television. But the older Members, they were not quite so sure that that was a great idea, that the cameras would roam around and look for a Member who is nodding off, look for a Member reading a newspaper on the floor. And so this debate continued until a compromise was reached that the cameras would just focus upon the locations where the Members were speaking. And it was an incredible discussion.

But going back that 25 years, it is now clear that C-SPAN has long served the American people by opening the House of Representatives, the Senate, and thousands of congressional hearings and public safety discussions around the U.S. and the globe for the American public to see and to hear. And it is all because of this decision made by Tip O'Neill, Massachusetts' great man of the House, that all of this was made possible.

As we honor Brian Lamb and C-SPAN for 25 years of televised coverage of the House floor proceedings, we must also honor the memory of Tip O'Neill, whose singular decision it was to begin televising House proceedings, bringing the House of Representatives into the television age. Tip took an enormous risk in opening the House floor to the cameras. Television coverage had been debated for years; and many of, as I said, the more senior Members of the House were vehemently against it. The discussions raged in the well of the House for months on end over whether or not it was a good decision. There were those who preferred the status quo and resisted opening the House floor proceedings to television. But one of Tip's first decisions after he assumed the House Chair was to turn on the cameras. Tip intuitively knew it was an idea whose time had come. And when Brian Lamb went to Tip with his idea to take the television feed and send it across the Nation, gavel to gavel, and Tip agreed, neither of them quite knew what they had wrought.

Jack Farrell and his great biography, ``Tip O'Neill and the Democratic Century,'' has Brian Lamb tell his story of his visit with the Speaker: ``I was a nervous wreck. I was shaking.'' He said, ``I don't think to this day that'' Tip ``understood what was going to happen, and I'll never understand why he did what he did. He had nothing to win in the process except a little openness.''

I would say that Tip achieved a world of openness and brought great credit to this institution by allowing the American public to see for the first time what had previously been restricted to those who travel to Washington and come to visit us in the visitors' gallery. Tip let the people all across our country get a chance to see the people's House at work. Why did he do it? I would say it was his instinct kicking in about what was the right thing to do. And we could always trust Tip's instinct. He was right to let C-SPAN in 25 years ago, and today we join in expressing our appreciation for Tip's decision and our appreciation to Brian Lamb and C-SPAN for asking Tip to create this huge revelation which has brought democracy into the homes of every single American as well as people around the world. And I think that much of the revolution that has happened over the last 25 years in the world relates to their ability to see how we create our laws and our country. And Tip O'Neill and Brian Lamb deserve the credit.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. This is a bipartisan bill that the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, led by the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Upton) and the Chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), have put together, working in conjunction with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and myself and the other members of the minority on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, working in a bipartisan fashion, in order to craft a bill related to the broadcast radio and television obscenity and decency and profanity issues.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I would like to note that this legislation was introduced before the Super Bowl this year, not after. It was an issue that had already percolated up to the attention of the American public and to our subcommittee, and we had already decided that extra attention needed to be paid to the Federal Communications Commission and its lack of enforcement of these very important provisions.

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held three hearings on this issue, and from our hearings we confirmed a number of things. We have learned that although the Federal Communications Commission is charged with ensuring that licensees serve the public interest and that the stations do not air obscene, indecent or profane content in violation of the law and Commission rules, that until very recently, the Commission has not been an aggressive enforcer of the rules. Testimony from Federal Communications Commission

Chairman Michael Powell indicates that cases are still languishing from 2 to 3 years ago.

We also learned that although the Federal Communications Commission has numerous enforcement tools, including the ability to revoke a station license, it appears as though the industry has largely concluded that the Federal Communications Commission is a paper tiger. The rare and paltry fines the Commission assesses have become nothing more than a joke within the broadcast industry, and the Commission never raises license revocation as a consequence for repeated indecency violations, even in the most egregious cases of these repeat violators. This legislation will help us to address the serious enforcement shortcomings at the Federal Communications Commission that we have identified.

Finally, we have also learned that the industry needs to do a better job in educating parents about the tools that already may be in their hands that parents can utilize to address the myriad concerns they raise with us about what is on television. Parents can use the television rating system and the V-Chip, which stems from legislation which I authored as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

However, we have a huge educational challenge with the TV ratings system and how parents can use it in conjunction with the V-Chip. Studies indicate that if a parent of a child 12 and under has a V-Chip- ready TV and knows this, that some 47 percent of such parents use the V-Chip, and they like it, because it allows them to program their TV set for their children 12 and under. Almost all of these parents who know about it are enthused about it. The problem is with the qualifiers. Almost half of those who have bought the approximately 100 million V-Chip capable televisions since 2000 are not aware that they possess a television set with a V-Chip in it.

In addition, many of these parents express confusion over the TV rating system itself, and one major network, NBC, still does not use the comprehensive rating system utilized by everyone else in the television industry. The industry did a good job with much fanfare after the TV rating system was initially finalized, in doing public service announcements and other educational messages regarding the ratings. Yet those efforts have waned in recent years.

In my view, we need a comprehensive, industry-wide campaign to address this issue. The TV set manufacturers and the electronic retailers need to do a better job in alerting television buyers to the V-Chip, in part because many retail employees at these stores who sell TV sets are apparently unaware that the TV sets have a V-Chip in it. In addition, print media ought to include the television ratings of programs in the television guide so that parents see them when they look up what is on television that day or that evening.

Finally, I believe the broadcast industry should renew its educational efforts on the television ratings system and also consider a number of other ideas to better assist parents, which I will address to our television networks on an ongoing basis, in order to ensure that they know that this is an issue that Americans care about.

At our recent hearings, I challenged the industry to do several things to better help parents understand the TV rating system:

First, use the V-Chip and utilize available per-channel blocking technologies on cable television.

I requested that the television industry increase its public service advertisements about the television rating system and the V-Chip. I am happy to report that many, many industry participants on the networks and cable operators have agreed to do so, with some, such as Fox Television, including print advertising in their campaign as well.

I will come back in a while and outline what is happening in the rest of the television and cable industry, but I think it is important for the Congress to pass this legislation, and then to keep up the pressure so that parents are given the tools that they need in order to protect the sights and the sounds which their children are exposed to.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), who added two very important amendments to this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Los Angeles, California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I just wanted to point out that I have requested that the television industry increase its public service advertisements about the television rating system, and I am happy to report that many in the industry have agreed to provide much more public education about this technology in TV sets so it is easier for parents to be able to figure out how to program it and to provide just the level of protection which they want for the children in their home, at whatever particular age they may be.

I also challenged the television networks to consider a couple of suggestions with respect to the broadcast of the ratings icon on the screen. I requested that the TV ratings icon appear not only at the top of a show but also after commercial breaks when the show resumes. That is because a lot of times people turn on the show after it has already started and they have no idea what the rating is. So I have asked them to actually put on the rating at each commercial break as well so that parents can see what the level of the rating is and make an adjustment for their own particular families.

I also requested that the networks add a voice-over when the ratings appear to also better alert parents. The ABC television network readily agreed to both suggestions, as did Bud Paxon on behalf of his PAX network. The other three major networks, Fox, NBC and CBS, have indicated that they are considering it but have not yet committed to doing so. I hope that they join ABC in doing it because I think it is helpful, quite frankly, to give parents this kind of additional information.

It does not detract from any network's ability to be able to put any programming on that they want. It just gives parents the information they need in order to shield their children from material which they believe may be inappropriate.

I also challenged the cable industry, in addition to increasing their public service advertisements, to increase consumer awareness of the provisions of the 1992 Cable Act that permits any cable subscriber in America to request that the cable company block any one of the cable programs that they believe is inappropriate for their family. It is a right that every American has in terms of their relationship with their cable company, but no more than 1 percent of all Americans even know they have the right to have any one of these individual cable channels blocked from coming into their home, even if they have bought the whole other part of the cable package.

I believe that if the cable industry made it clear in their bills, the information they give to consumers, that millions of American families would be much happier if they could take the whole cable package and then delete a couple of channels that they believe were too offensive for their young children and their family. I think it can be a real step forward, and I have received some very encouraging information from some of these cable networks that they will provide that option.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is the ranking member of the full committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, could the Chair tell me how much time is remaining on either side?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, if there is no one seeking recognition in opposition, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition, even though I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would like to say that this is a good amendment. It has been crafted on a bipartisan basis. We have worked very closely together, Democrat and Republican, on this issue right from the beginning; and this amendment reflects that continuing level of cooperation. I just want any of the Members who are listening to this debate to understand that that consensus has been reached.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other Members seeking recognition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, more than two and one-half years after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, dangerous gaps still persist in the Nation's aviation security system. Today, I am introducing the Secure Existing Aviation Loopholes (SEAL) Act to address the pressing security problems that continue to threaten the safety of airline passengers and crew members.

Inspection of Cargo Carried Aboard Passenger Aircraft

Twenty-two percent of all the cargo that is shipped by air in the United States is transported aboard passenger aircraft, amounting to about 2.8 million tons of cargo loaded aboard passenger airplanes each year. The Department of Homeland Security does not routinely inspect cargo transported on passenger planes. Instead, the Department relies on paperwork checks of manifests as part of the Department's flawed Known Shipper Program and random physical inspections that are randomly verified by the Department. This cargo loophole in aviation security has been repeatedly exploited. For example, in September 2003, a shipping clerk packed himself inside a wooden crate and shipped himself undetected from New York to Texas aboard a cargo plane, and Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb contained in unscreened baggage.

The SEAL Act requires 100 percent physical inspection of cargo that is transported on passenger planes. The costs of physical screening, estimated to be comparable to the $1.8 billion funding level for screening checked baggage, would be offset by a cargo security fee, similar to the fee that passenger pay for security measures when they purchase airline tickets.

Federal Air Marshals

Ten transatlantic flights were canceled over the weekend of January 31-February 1, 2004 due to heightened fears of a possible Al Qaeda attack, and 16 international flights were canceled or delayed over the Christmas and New Year's holidays as a result of specific intelligence that the flights might be terrorist targets. The cancellations resulted when some European carriers such as Air France and British Airways refused to place armed marshals onboard and instead opted to cancel the flights. There are no international standards to define what constitutes proper training for air marshals. Consequently, air marshals on flights that originate overseas and are bound for the U.S. may have different training that could be inconsistent with best practices.

The SEAL Act prohibits foreign air carriers from taking off or landing in the United States unless a Federal air marshal or an equivalent officer of the government of the foreign country is onboard, in cases when the Secretary of Homeland Security requests that an air marshal or officer of a foreign country travel on the flight.

Given intelligence indicating that terrorist may try to commandeer all-cargo planes and crash them into nuclear power plants and other critical infrastructure in the U.S., the SEAL Act provides authority for Federal Air Marshals to travel aboard cargo aircraft, as needed. The Federal Air Marshal Service does not currently have this authority.

Improved Aviation Security

Flight Attendants

Flight attendants do not have a discreet, secure and wireless method of communicating with pilots in the cockpit, with air marshals who may be onboard the aircraft or with authorities on the ground. Flight attendants must rely on telephones affixed to the interior of the passenger cabin if they need to communicate with pilots via phone or with authorities on the ground. These phones can be easily disabled. Flight attendants do not have a method of communicating via phone with air marshals onboard. On American Airlines Flight 11, which was crashed into the Pentagon on September 11th, flight attendants were unable to communicate by phone with the cockpit. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 included the directive that carriers' provide flight attendants with a secure, wireless method of communicating with pilots, but this provision was inserted in a voluntary section of the Aviation Transportation Security Act.

The SEAL Act makes mandatory the provision of wireless communication systems for flight crew and air marshals.

Crew Training

Prior to the September 11th terrorist attacks, air carrier responsibilities for security and anti-hijacking training for flight crews were set forth in the Air Carrier Standard Security Program, also known as the Common Strategy. The Common Strategy was originally developed in the 1980s, and it emphasized accommodation of hijackers' demands, delaying tactics, and safely landing the airplane. It advised air crews to refrain from trying to overpower or negotiate with the hijackers. On September 11th, the Common Strategy offered no defense against the tactics employed by the hijackers of Flights 11, 77, 93, and 175.

Enacted on December 12, 2003, Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (PL 108-176) made voluntary many of the important elements of self-defense training for crew members that had been mandatory in Section 1403 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (PL 107- 296). Training in the following tactics is voluntary under Section 603 of the 2003 aviation reauthorization, but had been mandatory in Section 1403 of the Homeland Security Act:

The SEAL Act will reinstate the requirement established in the Homeland Security Act to make counter-terror training for aircraft crew mandatory.

International Cooperation on Aviation Security

The cancellation of more than two dozen international flights since December 2003 suggests significant disagreement between the U.S. and some foreign nations over the best way to respond to terrorist threats to aviation security. In January 2003, Asa Hutchinson, Undersecretary of Border and Transportation Security in the Department of Homeland Security, met with European officials to discuss aviation security measures, including the use of air marshals on international flights to the U.S. No agreement was reached with European governments on the placement of air marshals on U.S.-bound flights in cases when intelligence about terrorist threats against flights is received.

The SEAL Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to develop a well-constructed plan to improve coordination between the Department and its foreign counterparts in the area of aviation security. This plan includes development of air marshal programs for foreign governments and the provision of technical assistance in the formulation of strategies to tighten security measures at foreign airports.

Comprehensive Pre-Flight Screening

Pre-flight security inspections of the passenger cabins and lavatories of commercial aircraft often are performed by low-wage, poorly trained contract employees. In September 2003, a college student named Nathaniel Heatwole placed box cutters, matches, bleach and simulated explosives on Southwest Airlines flights. These items were not discovered by airline officials until approximately one month later. Heatwole also placed dangerous items on two other Southwest flights in February 2003, and they remained undetected until April 2003. In October 2003, potentially dangerous items were also found on US Airways flights.

The Transportation Security Administration has issued a requirement effective in January 2004 for detailed documentation of security inspections performed by air carriers prior to each aircraft's first departure of the day. The directive affects the documentation of the inspections, but does not change the manner in which the security inspections are performed by the airline's contract cleaning crew or the level of verification that TSA provides to ensure the inspections are thoroughly conducted.

The SEAL Act sets a firm deadline for the improvement of pre-flight security inspections of the interior of passenger planes to increase the likelihood that any dangerous items hidden in the plane will be promptly discovered. The SEAL Act also includes new requirements that subject individuals who are performing the pre-flight inspections to additional security checks, including passage through a checkpoint to detect any metallic objects prior to accessing the plane; screening of any items to be carried aboard the plane to detect hazardous substances such as chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear materials; a criminal history background check, social security check and check against all terrorist watch lists maintained by the government.

Control Over Access to Secured Areas of Airports

Airport workers with access to sensitive areas of airports, including the airplanes, are not required to pass through metal detectors or have their personal items x-rayed before reporting to work at each of the nation's commercial airports. Airport workers have taken advantage of lax security controls to commit crimes. For example, in November 2003, a massive narcotics smuggling operation that exploited airport security weaknesses was broken up at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York.

While criminal background checks are required under current law for employees with unescorted access to an airport's sensitive identification display area (SIDA), there are no uniform requirements applicable to all airport workers that mandate checks of Social Security numbers and checks against terrorist watch lists maintained by the government.

The SEAL Act directs the Department of Homeland Security to issue regulations within 180 days after the bill's enactment that improve control over access to secure areas in airports nationwide. The SEAL Act requires all airport workers with access to secure areas of airports, including aircraft, to pass through devices to detect for metallic objects and have any personal items screened to detect any hazardous chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear materials before entering these areas. In addition to criminal background checks, the SEAL Act requires that airport employees are checked against terrorist watch lists, that workers' Social Security numbers are checked against government databases to ensure the documents' legitimacy and verify that the Social Security number is assigned to the individual presenting it.

Aircraft Maneuvers

In December 2003, a C-17 U.S. transport plane was hit by a missile shortly after take off from Baghdad. An engine exploded, but the plane returned safely with only one of its 16 people aboard slightly injured. In November 2003, an Airbus A300 cargo plane operated by the courier company DHL departing from Baghdad to Bahrain was struck by a SAM-7 ground-to-air missile. The plane's engine caught fire, and it was forced to make an emergency landing at Baghdad International Airport. None of the plane's crew was injured in the incident.

Pilots currently receive training on how to fly the aircraft and land it safely if engines fail. Pilots are required to receive training on how to maneuver and land a two-engine plane with only one functioning engine; a three engine plane with only two engines functioning; and a four engine plane with only two engines functioning. However, pilots do not receive recurrent training in how to maneuver and safely land the aircraft in the event of a complete failure of the hydraulic system in which normal flight controls are not available. If an aircraft is struck by a surface-to-air missile, it may experience such failures, as was the case when the DHL cargo plane was hit by a SAM-7 missile in Iraq last year.

The SEAL Act requires air carriers to provide pilots with training in flight deck procedures, aircraft maneuvers and best practices that enable pilots to respond if the aircraft is struck by a surface-to-air missile. The training is designed to increase the likelihood that pilots will be capable of safely landing the aircraft and will include components that simulate the complete failure of the aircraft's hydraulic system and loss of normal flight controls.

Aggressive Flying Maneuvers

According to the FAA, aggressive flying techniques were not part of training provided pilots prior to passage of the 2003 FAA reauthorization. As of February 2004, a TSA working group is finalizing its training recommendations on fleck deck procedures or aircraft maneuvers to defend the aircraft. TSA does not expect to recommend any maneuvers that could be considered ``aggressive.''

The SEAL Act recognizes the need to balance the security benefits of maneuvers and procedures with the potential risks, in terms of passenger safety and the structural limitations of the aircraft. The SEAL Act requires the Secretary to issue regulations that require the carriers to provide, in conjunction with appropriate law enforcement authorities, crew members with training in procedures for communicating and coordinating effectively with Federal Air Marshals and law enforcement officers during unauthorized attempts to disrupt the normal operation of the aircraft.

Securing Cockpit Doors

According to the Coalition of Airline Pilots, approximately 60 percent of cargo planes are not equipped with cockpit doors that separate the flight deck from the aircraft's cargo bay. In September 2003, a shipping clerk packed himself inside a wooden crate and shipped himself undetected from New York to Texas aboard a cargo plane. Fortunately, he was an industrious tourist, rather than an industrious terrorist.

Some cargo carriers have installed cockpit doors, but the majority of cargo planes still lack any door between cockpit and cargo bay.

The SEAL Act requires all cargo planes to have reinforced cockpit doors, including sturdy partitions surrounding the doors. Within 180 days after enactment of the legislation, the Secretary is directed to issue an order that all cargo aircraft must have, no later than 1 year from the date of issuance of the order, a reinforced, lockable door, including the surrounding partition, between the pilot and cargo compartments.

Security Requirements for General Aviation

According to a November 5, 2003 GAO report, Aviation Security: Efforts to Measure Effectiveness and Address Challenges (GAO-04-232T), ``Since September 2001, TSA has taken limited action to improve general aviation, leaving general aviation far more open and potentially vulnerable than commercial aviation. General aviation is vulnerable because general aviation pilots and passengers are not screened before takeoff and the contents of general aviation planes are not screened at any point.'' There are more than 200,000 general aviation aircraft, which are located in every state at more than 19,000 airports. According to TSA's working group on general aviation, general aviation aircraft are responsible for 77 percent of all air traffic in the U.S.

TSA is taking some steps, such as developing a risk-based self- assessment tool for general aviation airports to use to identify security concerns, but these steps fall short of what is required.

The SEAL Act directs the Secretary to establish a no-fly zone around the following facilities whenever the threat level reaches Orange or at any other level the Secretary deems appropriate: sensitive nuclear facilities such as nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons materials production facilities, and chemical facilities identified by the Environmental Protection Agency at which a release of the facility's hazardous materials could threaten the health of over 1 million people, and any other facilities the Secretary shall so designate.

The SEAL Act requires the operators of general aviation airports and landing facilities to complete vulnerability assessments developed by TSA, which evaluate the facilities' physical security, procedures, infrastructure and resources. The SEAL Act also requires TSA to develop a plan for addressing vulnerabilities identified by these assessments no later than 1 year from the date of enactment.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better, and we must do more to improve our aviation security. I urge my colleagues to support the SEAL Act, which will close dangerous loopholes in our airline security system.

Mr. Speaker, last week the 4th Nobel Peace Laureates Summit was held in Rome. At the conclusion of the Summit, the Laureates issued a statement on behalf of this extraordinary gathering that is printed at the end of these remarks. There are too few places in our public dialogue where a universal perspective is encouraged and lauded. The Nobel Peace Prize is one of them. Such civil society institutions are to be encouraged because they are needed to work on global challenges.

The Laureates reinforced in the most eloquent terms the message sent at a recent panel convened by the Bipartisan Task Force on Non- proliferation of which I am Co-chair with my colleague Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). This panel on ``The Limits of Unilateralism'' included the world-renowned

anthropologist Dr. Jane Goodall, former Ambassador Thomas Graham, and Mr. Michael Douglas, actor and U.N. Messenger of Peace. In his remarks, Mr. Douglas stressed that not only Americans, but all people on the planet, are faced with enormous challenges to our security and survival which can only be effectively met through international cooperation. He reminded us that we are tasked with ``ensuring bio-diversity and ending the destruction of thousands of species; reversing the depletion of fishing stocks; controlling ocean dumping; preventing ozone depletion; halting global warming; controlling and eliminating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; fighting pandemic diseases; ending the tragedy of crushing poverty and lack of clean drinking water; and addressing crises arising from failed states. No nation or even a small group of nations can succeed in addressing these issues alone.''

Jonathan Granoff, who helped organize our Task Force event here in Washington as President of the Global Security Institute (GSI), also attended the Summit of the Nobel Peace Laureates in Rome as a representative of the International Peace Bureau, a Nobel Peace Laureate organization.

The Summit took place from the 27 to 30 November 2003. It was convened upon invitation by Mikhail Gorbachev and Walter Veltroni, Mayor of the City of Rome. The following Nobel Peace Laureates-- individuals and organizations--participated in the Summit: The XIV Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, Mikhail Gorbachev, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Shimon Peres, Joseph Rotblat (represented by Professor Robert Hinde), Oscar Arias Sanchez, Lech Walesa, Betty Williams, Jody Williams, American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, International Labour Organization, International Peace Bureau, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, International Law Institute, Pugwash Conferences, Quakers Peace and Social Witness, United Nations, United Nations Children's Fund, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and United Nations Peace Keeping Forces.

The theme of the gathering was ``Ethics and Policy.'' It is a subject we discuss often in this chamber as we apply policies to our domestic affairs. It is also needed, perhaps even more so, in international affairs. For this reason, I would like to submit the Final Statement of the Summit into our record for your review and consideration:

Ethics and Policy--4th Global Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates Rome,

Campidoglio, November 30, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 877, spam legislation that we bring to the House Floor today in a final version that incorporates technical and other changes since the House sent to the Senate a compromise bill on November 21.

Mr. Speaker, as I noted in remarks back in November, this legislation reflects a series of agreements between advocates for the two alternative House spam bills--one offered by Chairman Tauzin, and the other offered by Ms. Wilson and Mr. Green of which I am an original cosponsor, as well as a series of compromises with our Senate counterparts. While not a perfect bill, I believe it merits support.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation now contains the Markey amendment on wireless spam, which originated in the House amendments to the Senate- passed bill. The reason I offered this amendment for inclusion in the House-passed bill is that I wanted wireless consumers to have greater protection than that which was accorded in the version of S. 877 which the Senate passed previously.

Indeed, during the summer the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on spam at which I raised the prospect of wireless spam and the likelihood that it was a problem wireless consumers were beginning to see. At that time, neither the Tauzin-Burr spam bill, nor the Wilson- Green spam bill, continued wireless specific provisions to address this issue head-on.

Unsolicited wireless text messages have plagued wireless users in Europe, South Korea, and Japan over the last few years as wireless companies in such countries have offered wireless messaging services. According to published reports that came to our attention as we were deliberating upon the spam issue, NTT DoCoMo estimated that its wireless network processes some 800 million wireless spam messages a day.

As cumbersome and annoying as spam to a desktop computer is, at least a consumer can turn off their computer and walk away. Wireless spam is even more intrusive because spam to wireless phones is the kind of spam that follows you wherever you go and according to U.S. wireless carriers, is already on the rise.

For this reason, in order to safeguard consumer privacy in a way that reflects the more intrusive nature of wireless spam to the user than spam is to a desktop computer, which is immobile and for which the user may pay some type of ``per message'' fee, the bill tasks the FCC with tackling this issue now, before it overwhelms users and network operators alike. The same type of rules that are applicable to commercial e-mail messages sent to personal computers will clearly also apply to those sent to wireless devices, including mobile phones, and the general provisions of the bill would apply to wireless messages as they would to similar messages sent to a desktop computer. Section 14 of the bill builds upon this legislative foundation and puts in place additional protections and modifications. It requires an FCC rulemaking to assess and put in place additional consumer protections. The bill doesn't needlessly or unduly burden wireline network operators--and wireless carriers should not see such burdens implemented as part of Section 14 to the extent to which they are acting as carriers. Of course, these same wireless carriers may also be senders of spam themselves, and the bill spells out how such messages should be dealt with and includes the FCC proceeding in Section 14 to address issues particular to wireless services.

Again, Mr. Speaker, Federal spam legislation ought to reflect the particular characteristics of wireless technology and use, and this bill will allow the FCC to promulgate rules requiring a consumer ``opt- in'' for certain wireless e-mail messages. In addition, this proceeding permits the FCC to examine the nature of a consumer's relationship with their wireless phone and service to take into account the potentially unique technical characteristics which may warrant wireless-specific rules.

In addition, the wireless spam provision requests that the FCC consider the ability of an initiator of spam to reasonably determine whether an electronic mail message is a mobile service commercial message. Obviously, as wireless service evolves, more and more consumers will receive Internet e-mails via their commercial mobile service provider's network and directly to their wireless device. If a person has an e-mail address from their commercial mobile service provider and it can be readily identified as a wireless address, such as [email protected] or [email protected], then the reasonable ability of a potential spammer to recognize that as such is relatively easy. Hopefully, commercial mobile service providers--and consumers-- will see the benefit of having an e-mail address that can be reasonably determined to be a wireless address, so that the prospect of massive amounts of spam to consumers over wireless networks can be thwarted and consumers can enjoy the benefits of entities needing their express prior authorization before sending them wireless spam.

Spam sent to a desktop computer e-mail address, and which is then forwarded over a wireless network to a wireless device, i.e., delivered ``indirectly'' from the initiator to the wireless device, would be treated by the rest of this bill and not by the additional Section 14 wireless-specific provisions we subject to an FCC rulemaking.

This legislation also represents an improvement in other areas over the Senate-passed bill. For example, the compromise doubles the damage caps in the Senate bill. It also eliminates the knowledge standards for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state Attorney General injunctive relief. The bill provides for rulemaking authority to clarify and tighten the definition of what constitutes a ``commercial e-mail.'' Requires that identifiers and a postal address must be on all commercial e-mails to desktop computers. Finally, the bill also shortens the time frame from which an ``opt-out'' request would become enforceable.

All of these represent important improvements over the Senate bill.

I want to commend Chairman Tauzin and Ranking Member Dingell for their excellent work in this area. I want to salute Representatives Heather Wilson and Gene Green for spearheading House spam efforts in this session as well as in the previous Congress as the lead sponsors of the House bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, while the Boston Red Sox failed to finally capture a World Series victory that has eluded them since 1918, another group of Hardball Heroes from Red Sox Nation did achieve their ultimate goal. The Malden Catholic Lancers defied all expectations, overcame every obstacle, and defeated every opponent to finish the year as Massachusetts Division One State Champions.

While Red Sox fans will have to wait until next year yet again, the Lancers fans can rejoice and celebrate the success of this young team of schoolyard superstars.

Mr. Speaker, today I join with faculty, students, my fellow alumni, and all members of the Malden Catholic community who are saying congratulations!

It was Coach Stephen Freker's guidance and leadership that fueled these young men as they drove to the championship. The National High School Baseball Coach's Association affirmed what we knew all along by naming Coach Freker New England's Coach of the Year.

These Lancers worked hard, practiced long, and gave their hearts and souls for the blue and gold all year long. While they are great individual players, their true greatness lies in their ability to play as team.

Mr. Speaker, this was our year.

Let's Go Lancers!

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2003 and in celebration of the Nation's family caregivers during National Family Caregivers Month and Alzheimer's Awareness month. This week before Thanksgiving, as we anticipate gathering with family, friends and loved ones, I am privileged to recognize and honor the millions of family caregivers who care for family members with disabling or chronic conditions such as those afflicted by Alzheimer's disease. There is no doubt in my mind that caregivers--those who devote themselves selflessly to caring for loved ones with disease such as Alzheimer's--are the true heroes. I know because my dear mother was a victim of Alzheimer's and my father was a hero caring for her to the day she died.

Today over 4.5 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease. Almost half of all Americans over age 85 suffer from this devastating debilitation. With the graying of the baby boomer population a sharp increase in Alzheimer's disease is expected. Over 70 percent of people afflicted with Alzheimer's disease live at home, with 75 percent of home bound care provided by family and friends. There are over 25 million family caregivers in America and by 2020, the number of adults requiring assistance with daily living will increase to almost 40 million, placing a tremendous load on the family caregivers.

We cannot afford to lose any family caregivers to stress or illness. We as a nation cannot afford it because family caregivers provide $250 billion per year in unpaid care. Yet, the lack of support is taking its toll on caregivers. While a large proportion of caregivers report finding an inner strength, significant numbers report serious physical or mental health problems, including headaches, stomach disorders, back pain, sleepless nights and depression. Mortality risks for caregivers are 63 percent higher than for noncaregivers.

In addition to serious health consequences, many families suffer emotionally and economically. Families of children with disabilities face a significantly higher divorce rate than families of children without disabilities. Lack of respite care has even been found to interfere with the ability of parents of children with disabilities to accept job opportunities.

Without adequate family support, children with disabilities face a nearly 4 times higher risk of abuse and neglect than children without disabilities and the abuse rate of the elderly is unacceptably high.

Respite works. It allows families to remain together and avoid more costly out-of-home placements. Hospitalizations, institutionalization, nursing home and foster care placements have been shown to actually decline when respite or crisis care is the intervention.

This bill will help create a family caregiving respite policy in our country, not just a band-aid solution. Families are under greater stress today than ever before and the numbers who will assume caregiving roles is rising at an alarming rate. Respite works, respite saves money, respite save families. We cannot afford to ignore the family caregivers any longer. We must give them respite.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill, and it would not have been possible without the good work of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and his staff, David Cavicke, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and his staff, David Schooler and Gregg Rothschild, working with the majority. I think we have come to an excellent result. It builds upon the work that the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) have been making for years in this area. I think that the public is really going to be a beneficiary from this product this evening. I would be remiss, of course, not to single out the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as well and his staff for their excellent work on this bill.

In addition to the other provisions mentioned by other Members, this legislation now contains a modified version of the wireless spam amendment that I had offered for inclusion. The legislation preserves important authority of the Federal Communications Commission and FTC where it serves consumer interests. It also requires the FCC to initiate a rule-making for wireless spam so that no loopholes are created, but in a way to ensure that wireless consumers have greater protection than that accorded in the underlying bill.

As we attempt to tackle the issue of spam that is sent to our desktop computers, we must also recognize that millions of wireless consumers in the United States run the risk of being inundated by wireless spam. Unsolicited wireless text messages have plagued wireless users in Europe, South Korea and Japan over the last few years as wireless companies in such countries have offered wireless messaging services.

In Japan alone, NTT DoCoMo estimates that its wireless network processes some 800 million wireless spam messages a day. That is a day. As cumbersome and annoying as spam to a desktop computer is, at least a consumer can turn off their computer and walk away. Wireless spam is even more intrusive because spam to wireless phones is the kind of spam that follows you wherever you go, and according to the U.S. wireless carriers, is already on the rise.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The reality is that this whole movement began as people several years ago saw what the impact would be of unwanted spam on their home or work computers. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) pointed out, he had in one day 150 unwanted spam messages on his home computer. What this legislation does is to help every American to deal with that problem. What I ask the Members to do as well is to deal with another issue that quite likely is going to rise to a level of being a problem that eclipses even computer spam and that would be cell phone spam.

Imagine if you reach a point where there are 150 unwanted rings on your phone, your cell phone, this zone of privacy which we all have as these marketers are calling into your cell phone all day long. What this legislation does is it ensures that the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission take the actions which give protections against this being the new battleground. It is already a full scale epidemic in Europe, in Japan, in South Korea.

It is heading our way. Probably by the time the FCC has a chance to put the regulations on the books, maybe a year from now, we will have already seen its growth so those protections against these cell phones just ringing all day long becomes the epidemic that really just drives people crazy. So the bill will require the FCC to consider certain provisions with an eye towards assessing the problems and perhaps the unique capabilities or limitations of wireless devices. We have to be sure that wireless consumers and carriers can functionally implement the new legal requirements. But the Federal spam legislation ought to reflect the particular characteristics of the wireless technology and use this bill as a way to ensure that we have promulgated rules requiring a consumer opt-in for wireless e-mail messages so that the consumer has affirmatively said that they want these messages to come into their life. Otherwise, this device that is so valuable now to 170 million Americans would just be the single greatest nuisance ever invested.

Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the compromise spam legislation that we bring to the House Floor today.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation reflects a series of agreements between advocates for the two alternative House spam bills--one offered by Chairman Tauzin, and the other offered by Ms. Wilson and Mr. Green of which I am an original cosponsor, as well as a series of compromises with our Senate counterparts. While not a perfect bill, I believe it merits support.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this legislation now contains a modified version of the wireless spam amendment that I had offered for inclusion. The legislation preserves important authority of the FCC and FTC where it serves consumer interests. It also requires the FCC to initiate a rulemaking for wireless spam so that no loopholes are created but in a way to ensure that wireless consumers have greater protection than that accorded in the underlying bill.

As we attempt to tackle the issue of spam that is sent to our desktop computers, we must also recognize the millions of wireless consumers in the United States run the risk of being inundated with wireless spam. Unsolicited wireless text messages have plagued wireless users in Europe, South Korea, and Japan over the last few years as wireless companies in such countries have offered wireless messaging services. In Japan alone, NTT DoCoMo estimates that its wireless network processes some 800 million wireless spam messages a day. As cumbersome and annoying as spam to a desktop computer is, at least a consumer can turn off their computer and walk away. Wireless spam is even more intrusive because spam to wireless phones is the kind of spam that follows you wherever you go and according to U.S. wireless carriers, is already on the rise.

To prevent wireless spam from overwhelming the American wireless marketplace as it has networks in other countries, this legislation tasks the FCC to promulgate rules in order to put strong consumer protections on the books. In addition, the bill requires the FCC to consider certain provisions with an eye toward assessing them given the perhaps unique capabilities or limitations of wireless devices. We must be sure that wireless consumers and carriers can functionally implement the legal requirements. Federal spam legislation ought to reflect the particular characteristics of wireless technology and use and this bill will allow the FCC to promulgate rules requiring a consumer ``opt-in'' for wireless email messages while examining the nature of a consumer's relationship with their wireless phone and service to take into account the unique service and technical characteristics that may warrant wireless-specific rules affecting consumer and carrier rights and obligations.

The wireless spam provision of the bill offers wireless consumers relief by requiring an ``opt-in'' for spam to wireless consumers. This reflects the fact that spam to a mobile phone is more intrusive to consumers and the fact that some wireless payment plans currently charge users for the amount of text messages they receive.

The provision would require ``express prior authorization'' from the consumer before an entity could send spam to their wireless device. My intent is that this ``express prior authorization'' be implemented in a way that a

request for ``express prior authorization'' is conspicuous and easily understood by consumers and that each entity seeking to send mobile service commercial messages pursuant to Section 14(b)(1) obtain such consumer authorization. In addition, the wireless spam provision requests that the FCC consider the ability of an initiator of spam to reasonably determine whether an electronic mail message is a mobile service commercial message. Obviously, as wireless service evolves, more and more consumers will receive Internet emails via their commercial mobile service provider's network and directly to their wireless device. If a person ha an email address from their commercial mobile service provide and it can be readily identified as a wireless address, such as [email protected] or [email protected] then the reasonable ability of a potential spammer to recognize that as such is relatively easy. Hopefully, commercial mobile service providers--and consumers--will see the benefit of having an email address that can be reasonably determined to be a wireless address, so that the prospect of massive amounts of spam to consumers over wireless networks can be thwarted and consumers can enjoy the benefits of entities needing their express prior authorization before sending them wireless spam.

Spam sent to desktop computer email address, and which is then forwarded over a wireless network to a wireless devices, i.e., delivered ``indirectly'' from the initiator to the wireless device, would be treated by the rest of this bill and not by the wireless specific provisions we subject to an FCC rulemaking.

This legislation also represents an improvement in other areas over the Senate-passed bill. For example, the compromise doubles the damage caps in the Senate bill. It also eliminates the knowledge standards for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state Attorney General injunctive relief. The bill provides for rulemaking authority to clarify and tighten the definition of what constitutes a ``commercial email.'' Requires that identifiers and a postal address musts be on all commercial emails to desktop computers. Finally, the bill also shortens the time frame from which an ``opt-out'' request would become enforceable.

All of these represent important improvements over the Senate bill.

I want to commend Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Mr. Dingell for their excellent work in this area. I want to salute Representatives Heather Wilson and Gene Green for spearheading House spam efforts in this session as well as in the previous Congress as the lead sponsors of the House bill.

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

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

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

And I yield myself that time in order to conclude the debate for the Democratic side, and I would like to point out how important this bill is.

Congress many times acts in areas where most Americans say ``How does that affect me?'' This legislation will now affect every computer in the United States in the way in which it affects the user of that computer, and it will affect every user of a cell phone in the way that that cell phone is used or, to be more explicit, the way in which marketers abuse those phones and computers. So this is a great day, and the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) did a great job in bringing it to our attention, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), in putting together an environment in which we can negotiate this bill out in a bipartisan fashion.

The litany of saints is long, and I mentioned many of them earlier. I would like to add the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. He and his staff contributed significantly to this legislation. To the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), I want to congratulate him and his excellent work on this legislation. The consumers will be the beneficiary. I want to mention the gentlewoman from Silicon Valley, California (Ms. Eshoo) for all of her wonderful work on this legislation. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who had a deep interest in the wireless aspects of this legislation, I think he deserves credit for what is happening here today. The gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), David Cavicke did a great job, and I think I should mention Howard Waltzman as well on the chairman's staff for his excellent work; on the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Upton) staff, Will Nordwind, who has been working on this for several months, as well with the chairman. And I would conclude by thanking my own staff, Colin Crowell, who throughout this year had a plan to include a wireless cell phone antispam provision in the legislation, and today we see the fruition of all of his excellent work, and I think that consumers will be the beneficiary for the generation ahead. So I conclude by complimenting the chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, and I congratulate him for all the good things that are in this bill, all the credit report and the negative statement issues that are dealt with.

But there is one concern which I have which is consumers are, by this bill, going to see the California privacy law preempted, as they are going to see as well other States who want to make stronger privacy protection for their constituents something that is part of the law.

My concern is that increasingly what we see with companies like TransUnion and Equifax is that they are sending the records off shore. For example, TransUnion, one of the three major credit reporting agencies' spokesman said last month, 100 percent of our mail regarding customer disputes is going to India at some point. We expect to sign that contract by the end of the year.

My hope is that as the years go by we will be able to return to this issue because the globalization of the information marketplace is going to make clear that Americans are going to want more protection as their information is going to be put in the hands of foreigners with no laws on the books or the ability to police them.

I rise to opposition to this legislation.

I understand that some good things have been done in this bill, such as the provisions granting consumers free access to copies of their credit report, notice of negative statements being added to their credit reports, or adverse credit decisions being made based on their credit report. I support these provisions, and I also support stronger protections against identify theft.

The problem is that consumers are being asked to pay a price for these provisions--their privacy. As I read this bill, we are permanently pre-empting any stronger state privacy laws, such as the California law, in favor of a federal standard that provides consumers with only a very narrow ``opt-out'' right to block affiliate sharing of the consumer's information for marketing purposes. I do not believe that an ``Opt Out'' is appropriate. Companies should have to obtain the affirmative consent of the consumer--an ``Opt In'' before they share information about their transactions or experiences with the consumer with other affiliates or with unaffiliated third parties.

Moreover, I am concerned that by limiting the ability of a consumer to exercise their Opt-Out solely to marketing, this bill allows affiliates to share information about the consumers for other purposes without any consumer right to say ``No.'' I am also concerned that even after a consumer has ``opted out,'' their decision to do so gets sunsetted after 5 years and they have to ``opt out'' again. If the consumer has said no, that should mean no illness and until the consumer says yes.

I also want to raise a concern about some statements I have seen in the press from the credit reporting agencies suggesting that if these companies are forced to provide consumers with free credit reports, they will accelerate their current efforts to transfer their databases and back office operations off-shore.

TransUnion and Equifax, two out of the three major credit reporting agencies already are in the process of offshoring the processing of detailed credit files on 220 million U.S. consumers.

Earlier this month, a TransUnion spokesman said that ``A hundred percent of our mail regarding customer disputes is going to go to India at some point. We expect to sign that contract by the end of the year.''

Equifax has had a vendor in Jamaica for four years, where Jamacian workers handle data entry at the beginning of the reinvestigation process for disputed credit reports.

Experian, the third of the three major credit reporting agencies, is considering whether to offshore some of its operations: ``We definitely are evaluating every option on the table, and offshoring is one of them. I don't want to be quoted as saying we'll never do it.''

Privacy experts are concerned about offshoring of the Social Security numbers, addresses and other personal information contained in credit reports:

``Consumers should be worried. The infrastructure to protect information just isn't there in a lot of these places.'' (Beth Givens, director, Privacy Rights Clearing House)

``The problem is not that they're in India, the problem is that American laws are not going to be enforced in India.'' (Chris Hoofnagle, Electronic Privacy Information Center)

``If you're an international crime ring, and you want Social Security numbers for identity theft, you're going to look at the weakest link, and that's quite possibly these overseas companies.'' (Beth Givens)

In October, a Pakistani woman threatened to post UCSF patient files on the Internet, unless she was paid for the medical transcription services she had performed. In the email she sent to UCSF, the woman wrote: ``Your patient records are out in the open to be exposed, so you better track that person and make him pay my dues or otherwise I will expose all the voice files and patient records on the Internet.''

That is the future that we are looking at with the credit reporting agencies. Consumers may be able to call up to get a free copy of their credit report, but the person on the other end of the line may be in Karachi or New Delhi, where U.S. privacy standards do not apply.

Indeed, this bill may provide Americans with the most expensive ``free'' credit report they'll ever get. They'll pay with their privacy.

That is why I think that we need to put the consumer back in control of their own information. We need an ``opt-in'' not a limited ``opt- out'', and we need to ensure that American's privacy does not get offshored at the same time that their jobs are getting offshored.

I urge the defeat of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago today, President Kennedy's assassination released an energy in our country that led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Medicare. By contrast, the bill before us today was conceived in secret, crafted by special interests, and cloaked in a prescription drug benefit to disguise its real purpose: the destruction of the Medicare program as we have known it in the United States over the past 40 years.

This bill is a Thanksgiving turkey, and this turkey will not fly. It forces senior citizens into HMOs. It gives HMOs billion-dollar subsidies. It raises drug costs for the poorest Americans, and it drops millions of seniors from their retirement plans.

Some claim this bill will provide America's senior citizens with new prescription drug coverage, but it will force millions of our frail elders to pay more for prescription drugs than they do now. Some claim it will lower Medicare premiums, but it will require Medicare beneficiaries to forfeit the power to choose their own doctors or their own drugs. Some claim it will make the Medicare program more efficient, but it will stick taxpayers with the bill for billions of dollars in subsidies to HMOs and new tax shelters for the rich.

This bill is not the elixir for Medicare; it is, rather, a poison pill that leads to the destruction of the Medicare program as John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson envisioned it.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of House rule XXII, I hereby notify the House of my intention tomorrow to offer the following motion to instruct on House conferees on H.R. 2660, the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS-Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

The form of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Markey moves that the managers on the part of the House

at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses

on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2660 be instructed

to recede to the Senate funding level for the Low Income Home

Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Video Programming Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2003. Mr. Speaker, as our Nation's communications networks continue to grow and become ever more sophisticated, more individuals and industries will be using broadband networks at home and work. As America upgrades its communications infrastructure for the 21st century, we must make sure that the information superhighway is safe for all its travelers and this is particularly true with respect to personal privacy.

As the co-chair of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, along with Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), I have been concerned about protecting privacy and closing anachronistic or technology-specific loopholes in consumer privacy protections for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly apparent that, in addition to the protections accorded consumers with respect to information gathered by cable operators, video rental stores, and telecommunications carriers, which are contained in current law, further protections are needed to ensure that consumer privacy rights are retained and respected on the information superhighway by other entities. This includes entities with access to consumer video information, or who are using other technologies to essentially deliver similar services to those covered by current law.

This is especially the case in the video marketplace. Current law contains privacy protections for consumers when they rent video cassettes--as contained in the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, codified at 18 U.S.C. 2710--or subscribe to cable or other services from a cable operator, as contained in the Communications Act of 1934 47 U.S.C. 551.

Since the privacy provisions protecting cable subscribers were put in place in 1984, the Direct Broadcast Satellite industry has developed. Today, Echostar and DirecTV, for example, have approximately 20 million subscribers. Although they offer multichannel video programming across the country in a manner comparable to many cable operators, current legal privacy protections protect cable subscribers but not satellite subscribers. This makes absolutely no sense when one considers that millions of such satellite subscribers are watching the same programming as the cable subscriber next door. Consumers who switch from cable to satellite service often do not know that the privacy protections the law accords them in one market do not follow them when they switch technologies even

though the video services they obtain are similar.

In addition, the provisions of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, which was enacted in the wake of a scandal involving the disclosure of the video rental records of Judge Robert Bork in a newspaper, covers video cassette rentals but not such ``rentals'' if they are not in cassette form. In other words, if a consumer physically rents a movie from Blockbuster and walks out of the store with a video cassette, there are legal privacy protections governing the unauthorized disclosure of the consumer's rental choice. Yet if the very same movie is delivered online or over-the-air, and not as a video cassette, it is not covered by that statute.

Moreover, the digital video recorder is quickly becoming a popular device in homes around the country. The personal records of video subscriber choices and viewing habits are available to companies such as Tivo and Replay TV. Consumers should certainly be accorded the same privacy protections for subscribing to these services in my view as they receive under the law from cable operators today. Indeed, the information available to such companies may be more detailed and specific about a consumer's viewing habits than that which may be obtained by many cable operators. The total lack of any legal protections in this area is especially troubling given reports that such companies are willing to sell certain, aggregate data about consumer viewing habits to marketers and others. Currently there is no prohibition on the sale or disclosure of more personal television viewing data.

Mr. Speaker, the bill I'm introducing today is very simple and straightforward. It merely takes the provisions of law governing consumer privacy which today apply to cable operators and makes them applicable to satellite providers as well as vendors of other multichannel video services, including Tivo and Replay TV. This bill provides essential, similar privacy protections for consumers regardless of whether they subscribe to Comcast or Cox cable, Echostar or DirecTV, or whether they also subscribe to Tivo or ReplayTV. This will keep our critical consumer privacy laws current with changes in the marketplace and advances in technology.

I look forward to working with my House colleagues, including my colleagues on the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee and fellow members of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, in addressing these issues perhaps in the next session of Congress.