Hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee:The State of US Industry

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: THE STATE OF U.S. INDUSTRY

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE JOE BARTON (R-TX)

WITNESSES: DONALD EVANS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

LOCATION: 2123 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
REP. EDWARD J. MARKEY (D-MA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could actually sing you my song that I sang on St. Patrick's Day in Boston, but at this point I'll spare you.

The point, for my friend from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, just so you understand how we view it on this side, this will be the only appearance of the secretary of Commerce in his four years as secretary of Commerce before the Commerce Committee. And so since he's only going to be testifying from 20 past 10:00 in the morning until 12:30, you can imagine out of --

REP. BARTON: Hopefully he'll get to testify.

REP. MARKEY: Well, I appreciate that. But out of four years to give us two hours and 10 minutes on the committee of jurisdiction over the Commerce Committee is something that, you know, it does kind of test the patience of our side because there are so many questions that we feel he could be answering to us. So-and through us for the American people. So that's our perspective on it: that two hours and 10 minutes out of four years just isn't enough time. So we're very going to be respectful of the secretary here today, because he says he has more important things to do. But over the course of four years we do wish that we'll have then more time given to us.

Mr. Secretary, my home state of Massachusetts lost 9,500 jobs last month. Since 2001 we've lost a total of 200,000 and unemployed workers in Massachusetts now can expect to be out of work an average of five months, the longest average period of unemployment in 20 years.

Nationwide there are 8.2 million jobless Americans and three million fewer private sector jobs than there were just three years ago.

As many Americans try to make ends meet, the outsourcing of jobs overseas has received considerable attention. Less notable but also troubling is the growing practice of off-shoring American private medical and financial information to less developed countries such as India and Pakistan, where the information is process for U.S. based firms. These countries lack the privacy safeguards that are in place when records are processed in the United States, and U.S. privacy standards are not enforceable overseas. And off-shoring of information, as it increases, Americans are losing their jobs and their privacy in one fell swoop. When American companies send private information overseas they're telling consumers, check your privacy at the shore.

Last year a worker in Pakistan who was transcribing medical files for a California hospital threatened to post the confidential records on the Internet unless she received money that she claimed was owed her. She backed up the threat by attaching two patient files to an e- mail warning that she sent to hospital officials. The San Francisco Chronicle has reported that two of the three major credit reporting agencies, each holding detailed files on about 220 million U.S. consumers, are in the process of outsourcing sensitive operations abroad, and a third may follow suit. So while your credit card stays safely in your wallet, your credit reports travel the world racking up frequent flyer miles as you sleep.

I've requested from the Bush administration their policy on how we're going to protect privacy overseas. I have yet to receive an answer from the Bush administration on this issue. I don't think there's a more sensitive issue to all Americans, regardless of party, than what happens to their financial and medical records as they're shipped overseas into the hands of people that are not under U.S. law. And I think the American people deserve an answer to that question. I thank the chairman very much.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. MARKEY: May I --

REP. BARTON: The gentleman from Massachusetts reserves the right to object.

REP. MARKEY: I reserve the right to object, Mr. Chairman. And just to make this point: that if you had made that motion at the beginning of the hearing, that is that members who spoke for three minutes in opening statement would then give up their right in order to ask questions for eight minutes if they had given up their right, because that's the way in effect it's going to wind up, then I think most members would have waived their rights for the opening statement, if that was the way in which --

REP. BARTON: I'm learning.

REP. MARKEY: So the way this is now transpiring-and I will not object. The way this is going to transpire is that members who gave three minute opening statements will not be asking questions, and the members who did not will be given eight minutes to ask questions. And I just think that as a matter of procedure that if every member had known that before the hearing had started, then it would have been --

REP. BARTON: I understand that. I'm learning and I'm asking unanimous consent. I'm going to try to work everybody in, and it's just-we're trying to get this done. But there are going to be some people on the majority side that didn't given an opening statement and are not going to get to ask questions, no matter how I do it, because the secretary has to leave to go see the president at around 1:00.

REP. MARKEY: I appreciate that.

REP. BARTON: But I'm also going to keep the hearing going while we're voting.

REP. MARKEY: I'm not going to object and I'm going to yield back, but only to say that since the secretary is only going to be here for 24 more minutes and if you recognize three people at eight minutes apiece, that will be the remainder of the hearing. So everyone also sitting here --

REP. BARTON: I'm going to revise my unanimous consent request to recognize the gentlelady from Missouri for at least three minutes to ask --

REP. MARKEY: Well, again, I am not making-I'm at this point just going to yield back my time with no objection to the procedure which you've now put in place.