John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 90. This legislation withdraws congressional approval for the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). Its adoption would mean that for the first time in 50 years, the U.S., the world's largest economy, would not be a member of the world trading system. I will be the first to admit that the WTO is far from perfect. Despite our efforts, it remains a closed, non-transparent decision- making body in which anti-U.S. biases are strong and due process is weak. Whether it's the dispute with the European Union (EU) over the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC), market access for bananas and hormone treated beef, Airbus subsidies, or EU restrictions on U.S. biotechnology products, the WTO has either rejected or failed to enforce U.S. rights. Nevertheless, turning our backs on the rest of the world, as H.J. Res. 90 would have us to, is a wholly unacceptable solution to the WTO's problems. If we want to trade with the world, we must remain a part of the world trading system. And, as a member of the world trading system, we must show the rest of the world that, truly, this system can only serve the interests of all when it transcends the biases and prejudices that now infest it, and it starts rendering honest judgments based solidly on the actual language of agreements reached. Fair, impartial and open decisionmaking must become the WTO's standard, if it is to promote economic efficiency and world prosperity. The WTO is far from meeting that standard today. Until real progress is made, we should expect that sentiments for the resolution we are considering today will become more, not less, prevalent. Let me describe some of the major problems facing the WTO. Our major trading partners, including Japan, Korea, and the EU, have turned the WTO dispute settlement process into a de facto appeals court that reviews U.S. trade agency determinations and strikes down our trade laws. Japan and Korea have gone so far as to say they will launch WTO appeals of every U.S. trade determination that is adverse to their interests. Already, WTO decisions are gutting the effectiveness of U.S. trade remedies in ways that the Administration and Congress expressly rejected during the negotiations on the agreement establishing the WTO. In the UK Bar case, the WTO tribunal actually usurped the role assigned to the U.S. Commerce Department by refusing to accept the agency's reasonable interpretations of WTO agreements. The WTO Antidumping Agreement contains a special standard of review which recognizes that national authorities (e.g., the U.S. Commerce Department) should have the primary role in interpreting the complicated and technical WTO rules. A 1994 WTO Ministerial Declaration provides that subsidies cases (like UK Bar) should also be subject to this deferential standard of review. Despite this fact, the WTO tribunals disregarded the WTO Members' intent and said the standard of review was ``non-binding''. The simple fact is that the WTO dispute settlement process is structurally biased against the U.S. Panels are staffed by the WTO Secretariat that over the years has demonstrated a bias against U.S. fair trade laws. WTO documents, including the WTO Annual Report, reveal a hostility to anti-dumping laws. In addition, the actual members of the panels are selected from a cadre of foreign diplomats, economists, and academics, many of whom have no judicial training and have very negative opinions of U.S. trade laws. The U.S. must take steps to increase its participation in the WTO dispute settlement process. Without even changing WTO rules, the U.S. could ``deputize'' counsel for domestic industries so they can hear the presentations to the panelists. We should also increase federal support by assigning Commerce Department personnel to our country's WTO mission in Geneva. The WTO process must also become more transparent by permitting panels to consider written submissions from interested private parties and by giving private counsels, under appropriate protective order, access to all materials in cases considered by panels. Mr. Speaker, the WTO dispute settlement process needs thorough reform. It is to these reforms that we must now direct our efforts and not to the abandonment of the world trading system. I urge my colleagues to vote ``No'' on H.J. Res. 90.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have never met a group of people who so were irked by the possibility of straw men being set up, who have demonstrated such massive talent to create a straw man, and I want to salute my good friend from Ohio for his ability to create a straw man. His straw man is the FCC. Now, the FCC has totally withdrawn the order. I opposed it; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) opposed the order. The order is no longer a reality; it is gone. The FCC is still the skunk at the picnic. Now, I have been more critical of the FCC than anybody in the body. I am quite delighted to castigate them when they are wrong. The simple fact of the matter is, they are not a factor in the debate before us. Now, let us look at what the amendment does. It inserts the word educational in two places in the legislation, one at page 4 and one at page 3; and the purpose of that is to see to it that the organizations which seek this are, in fact, setting it up for educational purposes and that they are, in fact, educational organizations. That is what existing law is. Mr. Speaker, the practical effect of this is to assure that the FCC will not be compelled to hold comparative hearings, as they must do when there is a contest, to choose between two different religious organizations, or between a religious organization and a secular organization. I think if this country wants to proceed down the path of triggering the religious wars, which have plagued this race of men, and I am not talking about in the United States, but in England, to set up a situation where government is going to have to choose between religions, between religious teachings or between applicants who might have a religious purpose, is probably the finest way to return to the unfortunate days of the religious wars. Mr. Speaker, what happens if several religious organizations apply to the FCC to get a license to broadcast under the bill as it is drawn? Then the FCC must commence a process of comparative hearings which will then choose. Now the only thing these applicants must do under the legislation which is before us is to set out that their purpose is to teach certain kinds of religion. Mr. Speaker, I do not know which one it would be, but that would be then the problem before the FCC, which religion? Which religious groups? Which religious tenets must they choose? I would note that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) generally restores existing law. It does not make possible the FCC to return to its follies which have triggered this sorry mess, but I would note for the benefit of my colleagues on the other side that it prevents the FCC from making a decision on religious grounds. It also prevents the courts from having before them a question which is bottomed on a religion-based application by an applicant for a particular license and for a particular wave length. Now, I think we ought to understand that this is not the kind of choice that we want to have made in this country. Government must stay out of religious matters and leave these as private judgments to the people who wish to believe and to allow them to choose that which they believe without any kind of government preference. Now, it would appear that this is some question of religion against secularism. Nothing is further from the truth. I would remind my colleagues that there are many religious broadcasters who oppose the legislation and who support the principles of the Markey amendment, not the least of whom are the National Council of Churches of Christ in America, the Interfaith Alliance, and the Unitarian Universalist Associations of Congregations. I would note something else. We are not without a prospering group of religious broadcasters; there are over a thousand of them. They have a regular program of mailing and discussing issues with Members of Congress. I have met with my religious broadcasters; and I receive large amounts of mail, which I respond to as courteously and carefully as I know how. They are a valuable force in our community, and they are not threatened by either the status quo or the Markey amendment. The responsible ones amongst them will agree, there is no peril to them. If you want to put government in the midst of picking religions, picking religious broadcasters, supporting religious tenets and teaching, and opposing to others, to vote for the bill as it is submitted is a fine way to accomplish that purpose. If you want to see that government stays out and that we take care of not only religious broadcasters, as they should in a fair and proper way, but that we take care of education, because I would remind my colleagues, this is a raid on the educational broadcasting system, the educational broadcasting networks and upon public broadcasting, I would point out if this legislation is passed, you are going to find any imaginable form of religious crank or crackpot to come forward to claim priority in terms of religious broadcasting licenses. Reverend Koresh, Jim Jones, any one of many, can come in and then force your government, your agency, the FCC and this Congress, to address who is entitled to a broadcasting license.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I do thank my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for yielding me the time, and I hope the House has been listening to him. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues want to start the religious wars, if they want to create all manner of trouble, if they want to put together a piece of legislation that is going to bring the Government into real conflict over religion, if they want to have a massive amount of trouble at some future time when the broadcasters and the people and the religious institutions in this country find out what we have done, then, by all means, vote for this legislation. First of all, this legislation is opposed by religious groups who are smart enough to know the evil that we are sowing amongst ourselves today. That includes the National Council of Churches of Christ in America and a large number of other religious institutions which know that they do not want Government in their business. Second of all, it is fully possible for a religious broadcaster to purchase a station which they can use for religious purposes in any fashion they want. It is also possible for them to bid on an educational station and to simply establish that they will provide good educational services in addition to religious services. They are doing that all over this country and are exercising that right. No one has been kicked off. The FCC, in its great folly, and I want to point out I was as critical of the FCC on that matter as was anybody else in this Chamber, has withdrawn the rather silly set of rules which they were proposing. So there is no threat to religion, no threat to religious broadcasters under practices as they exist today. Now, I would point out that what this does is to give essentially a situation to the American people in which, first of all, anybody who calls himself religious or a religious institution can proceed to go about getting one of these. And let us talk about who would receive special preference and special treatment under this. The World Church of the Creator, a White Supremist Institution; the Aum Supreme Truth, that is the institution which gassed the Japanese subways; the Branch Davidians and Mr. David Koresh; Heaven's Gate, where there were suicides in March of 1997 outside of San Diego; the People's Temple, run by Mr. Jim Jones, who poisoned people with Kool- Aid. These are all subject to very special and preferential treatment under the legislation which is presented to us today. The Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God in Uganda, where, on March 17 of this year, some 1,000 people were killed. Charles Manson and family, who had a religious mission we are so told. Satanism would qualify because it is a religion. And witchcraft or the local coven could seek to get special preference under this. The result of this kind of situation is the FCC is shortly going to be compelled to come forward and to hold comparative proceedings between religious institutions. This is something which the FCC since its creation has prudently, carefully, wisely, and successfully avoided. The practical result of comparative proceedings between two religious groups or between a religious group and an educational group, without having clear definition of what the purposes of the legislation are or what must be the defined behavior of the applicant, is to create a massive opportunity for real religious difficulties and troubles which will come back to plague not only this Chamber but the people of the United States. I think that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), which will shortly be before us, is perhaps a way out of this thicket because it again restores the responsibility of the FCC to see to it that the judgment on channels which are now educational, and they are required under law to be educational but may also be religious, is the way to resolve the problem to keep the FCC and this Congress and this Government out of the business of making selections with regard to whose religion will receive a preference in terms of receiving a license to broadcast on airwaves which are a public trust. If we want to get away from that, then vote for the bill and vote against the Markey amendment; and we are going to have all kinds of trouble, and there are going to be lots of red faces around this place; and lots of people who are going to be trying to lie out of what it was they did at some prior time. Now, I repeat, I am no defender of the FCC. I have gone after them harder than anybody else in this institution and with excellent good reason. And I think their original judgment in this matter was wrong. But they have withdrawn that and that issue is no longer. I would observe that to do what we are doing here is no correction of anything which is wrong in broadcasting. Religion broadcasters can now broadcast under full license of the FCC. There are no end of religious broadcasters who are running religious and educational stations who have gotten the right to do that under the regular practices now in force. There is no reason to change that. And they broadcast both educational, they broadcast cultural things, like music. And they also broadcast religion, something which I applaud. There is no threat to religious broadcasting in this country at this time. The FCC has withdrawn anything which offered any peril to religion broadcasters and to the use of our airwaves for religious purposes. But to take this legislation and to put the FCC in a position of having comparative hearings over the question of who is going to broadcast should gray the hair of anybody in this Chamber. I urge colleagues to vote against the bill, vote for the Markey amendment, and to support the views that are held and brought forward by responsible religious groups and religious broadcasters. H.R. 4201 purports to correct a particularly unwise decision made by the Federal Communications Commission last year. As many Members are aware, I am not generally known to be a great fan of the FCC. It is an agency that often blunders badly, and this mistake was certainly no exception. However, what makes this FCC foul-up unusual is that the Commission admitted its error and quickly corrected it. So why is this bill before us? The sponsors say that legislation is needed to make sure the FCC does not make the same mistake again down the road. Ordinarily, I would agree. A prophylactic measure often is called for when dealing with an agency--like the FCC--that seems to take great sport in pushing the limits of its authority on a regular basis. Unfortunately, the bill before us is not a simple prophylactic measure. It goes well beyond its stated purpose. In fact, it could not be clearer from the text that its drafters intend to fundamentally change the character of public broadcasting in this country. For nearly 50 years the government has set aside specially reserved radio and television channels for public, noncommercial use. These channels are available to qualified organizations free of charge, with a catch. The catch is that these groups must have an educational mission, and must broadcast some educational programming. This bill would change all that. It would actually abolish the educational requirement for public television programs. The bill's sponsors seem to think that promoting education is too much to ask of groups that receive this special license. The fact is that the majority of Americans support public broadcasting as we know it today. An even greater number believe that education should be among the nation's top priorities. This bill manages to eviscerate not one, but both of these important American values in one fell swoop. The bill suffers additional infirmities. It contains no definition of ``nonprofit organization'' or ``religious broadcasting'' to help determine who is eligible to receive this special license. As a result, any religious extremist or cult group would be eligible for a noncommercial license--at the expense of the American taxpayer--and program anything it sees fit, whether educational or not. Hate speech, religious bigotry, and doomsday prophesies are all fair game, so long as the group asserts a ``religious purpose.'' Parents who today rely on public television as a safe haven for their children may have nowhere to turn if this bill is enacted. Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood could be displaced by programming produced by cult leaders like Jim Jones and David Koresh--each of whom would have been eligible to receive a specially reserved television channel under this bill. The Markey amendment, which will be offered later, is an extremely simple, but significant, improvement to this legislation that I support. I would note a particular oddity in the underlying bill. While it eliminates the educational requirement for public broadcasting, the drafters still use the term ``noncommercial educational license'' throughout the text. The Markey amendment would simply restore proper meaning to this term by requiring an educational commitment of all public broadcasters--religious or secular--who hold this special license. I urge my colleagues to support the Markey amendment and oppose H.R. 4201 as reported.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody has really given on this side much thought to what this legislation does. Let us take a situation where a religious broadcaster or person who would be a religious broadcaster puts in an application and a group of educational broadcasters or would-be educational broadcasters put in an application. Then we have this occurring, we have a comparative proceeding before the FCC at which the FCC has to choose between the educational purpose for that station and essentially a religious purpose, with literally no real review, with no criteria whatsoever. I challenge my friends on this side to come up with any criteria that a religious or would-be religious broadcaster has to present to the FCC. So we have two situations, probably a priority given to the religious broadcasters, but certainly, in any event, a choice has to be made then between the FCC having to decide whether they are going to have a bona fide religious broadcaster broadcasting on that particular wavelength or some religious group broadcasting nothing, nothing, there is no requirement for anything but religion on that particular wavelength. We are setting up a most dangerous situation here. I would simply point out to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, he is going to bear the guilt of having done this to broadcasting, for having stripped the American children of opportunities to have real educational broadcasting.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is raising an issue which is important. I would like to observe that the House and, I think, the people of the country owe the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) a substantial vote of thanks for his leadership on this matter. He offered the amendment which very significantly improved the legislation by affording very significant protections to consumers and to the public who would use this legislation. That amendment remains in the legislation, and it is going to be very helpful. I hope the gentleman is proud of what he has done, because the country owes him a debt for his significant accomplishment in this matter.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report and urge its adoption by the House. I want to begin by paying tribute to my good friend, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), for his leadership in this matter. Pieces of legislation which would not have met the test of the public interest have been reformed in the conference, and his leadership has played a significant part in those events, for which I salute him and thank him. The conference report confers legal validity on electronic signatures and contracts involving transactions in interstate commerce and allows required consumer disclosures and other records to be transmitted and retained by businesses electronically rather than on paper. This is the most far-reaching e-commerce legislation to be considered by this Congress. No one could be more pleased nor indeed more surprised than I am at the successful outcome of this conference. As I mentioned, we started with a version that was anti-consumer and opposed by the Democratic conferees, by the administration, by all the States and by consumer groups. The Department of Justice and the State attorneys general submitted letters to the conference committee, pointing out how the draft would have undermined the government's ability to enforce civil and criminal laws against waste, fraud and abuse and would have destroyed many popular laws protecting consumers. What then happened? Under the leadership of our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman of the Committee on Commerce and the chairman of the conference, and Senator John McCain, chairman of the Committee on Commerce in the other body, a majority of the Republican conferees agreed to address these concerns. They recognized that this legislation must have adequate consumer protections or consumers would never have the necessary confidence to make e-commerce work. I also want to commend Senators Hollings, Sarbanes, Wyden, and Leahy for their outstanding work on these issues. Without their assistance, certainly this matter would have been concluded differently and probably unsuccessfully. These joint efforts led to the adoption of strong consumer consent provisions. These provisions require that consumers affirmatively consent to receive information in electronic form. Furthermore, these provisions require that the consumer actually demonstrate its ability to be open and to gain access to the information in the format that it will be transmitted. Other consumer protections contained in the conference report include requirements relating to integrity of records and security to guard against tampering. Federal regulatory agencies may grant exemptions from the consent requirements under certain limited circumstances. Businesses may be required to maintain paper copies of contracts or records, if there is a compelling law enforcement or national security interest. Moreover, many critical documents continue to be provided and retained on papers, such as wills, adoption, divorce matters, court orders, utility termination notices, foreclosure and eviction notices, insurance cancellation, product recalls, and warnings required to accompany transportation of hazardous materials. I am happy to report that all Democratic conferees and a majority of our Republican conferees have agreed to the conference report which we are considering today. The conference report is also supported by the administration, the States, and consumer groups. This bipartisan conference agreement is balanced, and it is fair to businesses, fair to consumers. It should become law. Let me discuss a few of the details of the agreement. I want to draw my colleagues attention to some important provisions to which the Conferees agreed during the conference. Scope of Requirement.--Section 101(a). In recommending that the House vote to pass this conference report, I would like to clarify for members the kind of transactions that are covered by the bill. You will note that the definition of ``transaction'' includes business, commercial, or consumer affairs. The Conferees specifically rejected including ``governmental'' transactions. Members should understand that this bill will not in any way affect most governmental transactions, such as law enforcement actions, court actions, issuance of Government grants, applications for or disbursement of Government benefits, or other activities that the Government conducts that private actors would not conduct. Even though some aspects of such governmental transactions (for example, the Government's issuance of a check reflecting a Government benefit) are commercial in nature, they are not covered by this bill because they are part of a uniquely governmental operation. Likewise, activities conducted by private parties principally for governmental purposes are not covered by this bill. Thus, for example, the act of collecting signatures to place a nomination on a ballot would not be covered, even though it might have some nexus with commerce (such as the signature collectors' contract of employment). General Rule of Validity.--Section 101(a)(1) and (2). The Conferees added the word ``solely'' in both sections 101(a)(1) and (2) to ensure that electronic contracts and signatures are not inadvertently immunized by this Act from challenge on grounds other than the absence of a physical writing or signature. Preservation of Rights and Obligations.--Section 101(b)(1). The Conferees added a new Section 101(b)(1) which provides that this Title I does not ``limit, alter, or otherwise affect any requirement imposed by a statute, regulation, or rule of law relating to the rights and obligations of persons under such statute, regulation, or rule of law other than a requirement that contracts or other records be written, signed, or in nonelectronic form.'' This savings clause makes clear that existing legal requirements that do not involve the writing, signature, or paper form of a contract or other record are not affected by Title I. Thus, for example, a transaction into which a consumer enters electronically is still subject to scrutiny under applicable State and Federal laws that prohibit unfair and deceptive acts and practices. So, if a consumer were deceived or unfairly convinced in some way to enter into the electronic transaction, State and Federal unfair and deceptive practices laws might still apply even though the consumer was properly notified of their rights under Section 101(c) and consent to the electronic notices and contracts was properly obtained. In other words, compliance with the Act's consumer consent requirements does not make it unnecessary for the transaction and parties to the transaction to comply with other applicable statutes, regulations or rules of law. Preservation of Rights and Obligations.--Section 101(b)(2). The Act specifically avoids forcing any contracting party--whether the Government or a private party--to use or accept electronic records and electronic signatures in their contracts. Thus, for example, where the Government makes a direct loan, the bill would not require the use or acceptance of electronic records or signatures in the loan transaction, because the Government would be a party to the loan contract. The Conferees recognized that, in some instances, parties to a contract might have valid reasons for choosing not to use electronic signatures and records, and it is best to allow contracting parties the freedom to make that decision for themselves. Protections Against Waste, Fraud and Abuse.--Sections 101(b)(2), 102(b) and 104(b)(4). Members should note that several provisions of the conference report are designed to address concern about protecting taxpayers from waste, fraud and abuse in connection with government contracting or other instances in which the Government is a market participant. For example, Sections 101(b)(2) 102(b) and 104(b)(4) and others give agencies significant latitude to accept, reject, or place conditions on the use of electronic signatures and records when the Government is acting like a market participant. Consent to Electronic Record.--Section 101(c)(1). The House bill included an amendment that required that consumers affirmatively consent before they can receive records (including required notices and disclosures and statements) electronically that are legally required to be provided or made available in writing. Among other changes to this section made in conference, the Conferees added an important new element: Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the conference report requires that the consumer ``consents electronically, or confirms his or her consent electronically, in a manner that reasonably demonstrates that the consumer can access information in the electronic form that will be used to provide the information that is the subject of the consent.'' The purpose of this provision is to ensure that, when consumers agree to receive notices electronically, they are able to make an informed decision and that they can actually open, read, and retain the records that they will be sent electronically. Today, many different technologies can be used to deliver information--each with its own hardware and software requirements. An individual may not know whether the hardware and software on his or her computer will allow a particular technology to operate. (All of us have had the experience of being unable to open an e-mail attachment.) Most individuals lack the technological sophistication to know the exact technical specifications of their computer equipment and software, especially if they are not at home when consent is sought. For these reasons, it is appropriate to require companies to establish an ``electronic connection'' with their customers in order to provide assurance that the consumer will be able to access the information in the electronic form in which it will be sent. This one-time ``electronic check'' can be as simple as an e-mail to the customer asking the customer to confirm that he was able to open the attachment (if the company plans to send notices to the customer via e-mail attachments) and a reply from the customer confirming that he or she was able to open the attachment. This responsibility is not unduly burdensome to e-commerce. As a matter of good customer relations, any legitimate company would want to confirm that it has a working communications link with its customers. Preservation of Consumer Protections.--Section 101(c)(2)(A). The Conferees preserved an important provision from the House bill which provides that: ``nothing in this title affects the content or timing of any disclosure or other record required to be provided or made available to any consumer under any statute, regulation, or other rule of law.'' So, for example, if a statute requires that a disclosure be provided within 24 hours of a certain event and that the disclosure include specific language set forth clearly and conspicuously, that requirement could be met by an electronic disclosure provided within 24 hours of that event, which disclosure included the specific language, set forth clearly and conspicuously. However, simply providing a notice electronically does not obviate the need to satisfy the underlying statute's requirements for timing and content. Retention of Contracts and Records.--Section 101(d)(1) and Section 104(b)(3). The Conferees added provisions that state: ``if a statute, regulation, and other rule requires that a contract or other record relating to a transaction . . . be retained,'' the requirement is met by retaining an electronic record of the information that ``accurately reflects the information'' and ``remains accessible'' to all who are entitled to it ``in a form that is capable of being accurately reproduced for later reference. . . .'' Moreover, Federal or State regulatory agencies may interpret this requirement to specify performance standards to ``assure accuracy, record integrity, and accessibility of records that are required to be retained.'' Moreover, these performance standards can be specified in a manner that does not conform to the technology neutrality provisions, provided that the requirement serves, and is substantially related to the achievement of, an important governmental objective. These record retention provisions are essential to the capacity of federal and State regulatory and law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with laws. For example, the only way in which a Government agency can determine if participants in large Government programs are complying with financial and other requirements of those programs may be to require that records be retained in a form that can be readily accessible to government auditors. Similarly, agencies must be able to require that companies implement anti-tampering protections to ensure that electronic records cannot be altered easily by money launderers or embezzlers or others seeking to hide their illegal activity. Without the ability of these agencies to ascertain program compliance through electronic record retention, taxpayers could be exposed to far greater risk of fraud and abuse. Similarly, bank and other financial regulators need to require that records be retained in order that their examiners can insure the safety and soundness of the institutions and their compliance with all relevant regulatory requirements. The standards set forth in the SEC's existing electronic recordkeeping rule, Rule 17a-4(f), such as the requirement that an electronic recordkeeping system preserve records in a non-rewritable and non-erasable manner, are essential to the SEC's investor protection mission and are consistent with the provisions of the conference report. The Conferees also expect the SEC to work with the securities self-regulatory organizations (SROs) to the extent necessary to ensure that accuracy, accessibility, and integrity standards also cover SRO recordkeeping requirements in an electronic environment. Section 104(b)(3)(B) of the conference report permits Federal regulatory agencies to interpret the law to require retention of written records in paper form, if there is a compelling governmental interest in law enforcement for imposing such requirement, and if imposing such requirement is essential to attaining such interest. The Conferees expect the SEC would be able to use this provision to require brokers to keep written records of agreements required to be obtained by the SEC's penny stock rules. Exemptions to Preemption.--Section 102(a). This subsection expressly gives the States the authority to modify, limit or supersede provisions of Section 101 in certain ways if the State enacts the provisions of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act as approved and recommended for enactment by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1999 (UETA). Prevention of Circumvention.--Section 102(c). Under Section 102(a), States may supersede this Act if they adopt UETA, subject to certain limitations section forth in Section 102(a). Section 8(b)(2) of UETA allows States to impose delivery requirements. Section 102(c) makes clear that States retain the authority provided under Section 8(b)(2), provided that the State does not circumvent Titles I or II of this Act by imposing nonelectronic delivery methods. Thus, provided that the delivery methods required are electronic and do not require that notices and records be delivered in paper form, States retain their authority under Section 8(b)(2) of UETA to establish delivery requirements. Filing and Access Requirements.--Section 104(a) of the conference report protects standards and formats developed by a Federal regulatory agency, self-regulatory organization, or State regulatory agency for records required to be filed with it. Thus standards and formats developed by the SEC for electronic filings for systems such as EDGAR and IARD, and similarly, the CRD system, a joint federal-state system for registering securities firms and their personnel, all would be covered by Section 104(a). The standards and formats for EDGAR, the IARD, and the CRD have been developed over many years, and both the SEC and securities industry have expended significant resources to make these complex systems work for regulators and investors alike. The importance of this provision has been intensified by the very real threat of security breaches by computer hackers. Preservation of Existing Rulemaking Authority.--Section 104(b). This Act will affect requirements that are imposed by Federal and state statutes, regulations, and rules of law. No one agency is charged with interpreting its provisions; instead, under Section 104(b), regulatory agencies that have authority to interpret other statutes may interpret Section 101 with respect to those statutes to the extent of their existing interpretative authority. This provision provides important protection to both affected industry and consumers. It is impossible to envision all of the ways in which this Act will affect existing statutory requirements. This interpretative authority will allow regulatory agencies to provide legal certainty about interpretations to affected parties. Moreover, this authority will allow regulatory agencies to take steps to address abusive electronic practices that might arise that are inconsistent with the goals of their underlying statutes. For example, if a broker were to deceive a person into pledging equity in their home for a loan based on false representations about the loan's terms and conditions, the broker's action could be challenged under any applicable statute that prohibited such deception and false representations, even if the consumer executed the loan documents electronically and consented to the use of the electronic contract and records in compliance with the terms of this Act. Without this authority, predators might argue that this Act somehow immunizes the abusive practice, notwithstanding the underlying statutory requirement, and consumers and competitors would have to wait for resolution of the issue through litigation. I would also like to clarify the nature of the responsibility of Government agencies in interpreting this bill. As the bill makes clear, each agency will be proceeding under its preexisting rulemaking authority, so that regulations or guidance interpreting section 101 will be entitled to the same deference that the agency's interpretations would usually receive. This is underlined by the bill's requirements that regulations be consistent with section 101, and not add to the requirements of that section, which restate the usual Chevron test that applies to and limits an agency's interpretation of a law it administers. Giving each agency authority to apply section 101 to the laws it administers will ensure that this bill will be read flexibly, in accordance with the needs of each separate statute to which it applies. Any reading under which courts would apply an unusual test in reviewing an agency's regulations would generate a great deal of litigation, creating instability and needlessly burdening the courts with technical determinations. Likewise, because these regulations will be issued under preexisting legal authority, any challenges to those regulations will proceed through the methods prescribed under that preexisting authority, whether pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act or some other statute. Again, this will ensure that any challenges to such regulations are resolved promptly and minimize any resulting instability and burden. Of course, such regulations must satisfy the requirements of the Act. Authority To Exempt From Consent Provision.--Section 104(d)(1) and (2). It is my understanding that the conference report's consent provisions are similar to much of the SEC's guidance in the electronic delivery area. Section 104(d)(1) permits agencies such as the SEC to continue to provide flexibility in interpreting the consent provisions anticipated by the conference report. In addition, a specific provision contained in Section 104(d)(2) anticipates that the SEC will act to clarify that documents, such as sales literature, that appear on the same Web site as, or which are hyperlinked to, the final prospectus required to be delivered under the federal securities laws, can continue to be accessed on a Web site as they are today under SEC guidance for electronic delivery. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by expressing great affection and respect to the authors of this amendment. They are fine Members of this body. They are good friends of mine. They deserve respect. But in this instance, my two good friends who offer this amendment are entirely in error. First of all, this is not a program that was sought by the auto industry. Second of all, it is not a program which benefits the auto industry directly. This benefits all Americans. Now, I applaud the fact that somebody should want to put more money into programs which would pay the kind of benefits that this amendment would pay in rural areas, but this is not a place where that money should be sought. Let me point out some facts that are important. First of all, this proposal was not sought by the auto industry. This is a proposal which was put together by this administration. It was supported, believe it or not, in this Congress enthusiastically. It was also supported by the organizations outside that were just cited as now being opposed to the expenditure of this money, because they recognized that this program, which has been in place now for about 10 years, was going to make a Federal contribution to more fuel-efficient, safer, better and more desirable automobiles for the American public, which would clean the environment, which would reduce the wastage of fuel and gasoline, and which would produce safer and better vehicles for the American people. Now, the comment has been made how this is benefiting the auto industry. The auto industry does its own research on automobiles and products that are going to be sold to the American people in the immediate future. That is not done under this legislation. In point of fact, let me read some facts that I think need to be known about what this legislation is doing. First of all, over 99 percent, in fact 99.8 percent, of Federal PNGV funds went to the national labs and to the universities; over 1,200 projects at over 600 sites, including 21 Federal labs. So everyone has a Federal lab or university in their district. This is a piece of legislation which probably benefits my colleagues, their people, their universities and their Federal labs in their districts. Some 51 universities in 47 States have participated in this program and are deriving significant benefits to themselves and contributing significant benefits in terms of the research which they are doing. It should be noted in 1999, the most recent year, less than .2 percent, that is .002, of Federal funds actually went to the manufacturers. Does that say who is getting the benefits out of this program? The answer is, the colleges, universities, the Federal research institutions are getting the money, but the ultimate benefit is derived by the American public, which is going to drive safer, better, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and vehicles that produce less pollution. This is a program that works. It was sought by this administration. It has been supported by this Congress time after time as conferring a significant benefit on the country, upon the environment, and upon the American people. I see no reason why this should change at this particular time or any information that would indicate that this program is less in the national interest. PNGV has helped to align the research direction of the national labs and has contributed to keeping them open, and as the industry moves towards high opportunities to stretch research goals for the benefit of everybody, including people not in the areas where automobiles are produced. The $980 million which has been spent by the industry is indicative to its commitment towards the goals that are set out in this program, and that money is spent in addition to and to match Federal industry cooperative research programs to better this country, to better the environment, and to save fuel and energy for this. It is indeed something which moves towards long-range research which goes far beyond that which would normally be committed by American industry in this ordinary course of events. This is research which moves far into the future and which significantly benefits everyone and does not confer a significant benefit on the auto industry. I would remind my colleagues, the industry did not seek this. It was sought by the administration. It is money which benefits the private research sector, the universities and the research institutions, but it also benefits the Federal lab. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. It is well intentioned, but it is mischievous and poorly thought out.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an absolutely elegant woman. Mary Kay Kosa has been an educator and school administrator in the Monroe Public Schools for the past 50 years. She is also a dedicated volunteer, community activist and public servant who is the epitome of an involved and caring citizen. Mary Kay is admired by all and commands my highest respect and admiration as well. Mary Kay has decided to retire from her career in education where she currently serves as the principal of two Monroe elementary schools. She will undoubtedly be missed by the Monroe Public School System, but I take some measure of comfort in knowing that Mary Kay's kind and giving nature will make it impossible for her to also retire from her community activism. Always independent and feisty, Mary Kay does not take no for an answer and will always fight for what is right. In the 1950's, Mary Kay stood up to the paranoia and censorship created by McCarthyism, she continued to teach her students the truth about the world and withstood fervent attempts to stop her. A champion of the poor, underprivileged and challenged, Mary Kay used her tremendous compassion and energy to serve as an effective advocate for those who are in need and less fortunate. While always dedicated to first educating Monroe's children, Mary Kay has also managed to serve as a member and chair of several boards and commissions. The Huron Valley Girl Scout Council, Monroe Historic Districts Committee, Child and Family Services Board, Monroe County Mental Health Board, Monroe Housing Commission, Monroe County United Way Board of Directors, Monroe City Planning Commission, Salvation Army Advisory Council, The Art Lebow Community Center, Monroe County Opportunity Program, and the American Association of University Women have all benefited from Mary Kay's leadership and involvement. A proud and active member of the Michigan Education Association, Mary Kay has used her activism, involvement and leadership to make public education better for our children. She has also utilized her talents to create a better situation for generations of public school teachers. Mary Kay has been married to Edward Kosa for 41 years. Their loving relationship speaks volumes about the outstanding character of this wonderful woman and her terrific family. Mary Kay remains a valuable advisor, confidant and friend. She has touched the lives of everyone in Monroe County in a meaningful and substantial way and the community will be ever grateful for her dedication and good deeds. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to rise with me in tribute to a fine educator and public servant, Mary Kay Kosa.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the repeal of the telephone excise tax, to thank the dear gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), but to oppose the rule. I do not quite understand why my Republican colleagues, who profess to wish to give the consumers a tax cut, have denied us an opportunity to offer an amendment which would give consumers an even bigger tax cut than the bill reported by the Committee on Ways and Means in the amendment which would have been offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and myself. The interesting thing is the leadership on the majority side seriously miscalculated if they believed that this is a tax reform that most Americans want. I know constituents care about tax cuts, but they want them to put money in the pockets of the citizenry, rather than making Republican Congressmen look good. The Towns-Waters-Dingell amendment, which is widely supported on this side, would save consumers about $1.5 billion more than the committee bill over the next 2\1/2\ years. During the phase-out period, our amendment also puts revenues from the excise tax into a trust fund to pay for programs that create digital opportunity for Americans who live in underserved rural and urban areas. Why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle afraid? Why do they not desire our approach? We give the tax cut earlier on in larger amounts, but we also put the money to work in spending for creating a tax fund which would enable us to begin to provide for access to the Internet and advanced telecommunications services for people of low income in rural and in underserved urban areas. That is what we should be really doing here. Unfortunately, the need which has to be met cannot be met without active assistance of the Government in terms of opening up these kinds of services by putting revenues collected from this excise tax into funds which will expand opportunity to receive services and to eliminate the digital divide. Without government help, Mr. Speaker, there are major areas of the country, major urban areas, as well as rural communities, where broad band services will simply not be provided. For our children to know how to use on-line services, resources and devices, we have to have this kind of intercession; not to establish any Federal preference, but, rather, to expand opportunities for service and to expand opportunities for all people involved in delivering this kind of service and an opportunity to compete fairly. I hope that when the previous question is raised, my colleagues will vote no. I hope that when the question is raised, Members will vote no on the rule, so that we can get down to a proposal which in fact will benefit the country.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this debate I have expressed my belief that any trade deal with China involves two questions. The first, which we are debating today, is whether the Chinese have negotiated an agreement that is fair for American workers and businesses. However, before we can address this question we must be able to answer the second question, whether the agreement that has been negotiated includes the necessary enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance by China and fair treatment for American companies and workers. We have not yet answered this question, and consequently I cannot support this or any deal with China lacking the enforcement mechanisms necessary to guarantee fair trade. Today's robust debate has highlighted the concerns of many of my colleagues, thousands of interest groups and millions of citizens. All the subjects being debated today--national security, human rights, religious freedom, democracy, labor at home and abroad, the environment and the development of our and the world's economy--are of considerable importance. China is the most populous nation in the world. As such, its potential as a market for American goods and services is second to none. The concept of increased trade with China based on a good, enforceable agreement is sound and deserving of support. Trade is and will be extremely important to both American companies and workers. As a blueprint, the agreement negotiated by the Clinton Administration with China is good for America in many respects. When it comes down to it, any agreement, like any contract, is only as good as its enforcement provisions. What we have from China, so far, is its promise, if you will, to allow U.S. and foreign firms to compete fairly and openly in the Chinese market. But negotiations must still be held to reach agreement on how those promises China has made are going to be enforced. It has been more than two years since the World Trade Organization (WTO) working party and Chinese negotiators first met to conduct serious negotiations on the enforcement provisions to be included in the protocol. Mr. Speaker, members should know in detail what the WTO will do to ensure full and fair implementation of China's commitments contained in the accession agreement before, not after, we vote on an issue as important as the issue on the floor today. Why is the protocol and working party report so important, some may ask. The simple answer is that the protocol and working party report identify what the WTO will do to make sure that China fully implements the commitments it has made in the agreements that have been reached with the United States and other WTO partners. Until the Congress sees not only the commitments China has made but also the WTO's enforcement commitments, there is, in reality, no agreement for Congress to consider and determine worthy of granting PNTR to China. Once China enters the WTO, American firms and American workers must turn to the WTO for enforcement of their rights, and enforcement at the WTO is an area of considerable disappointment and concern. The WTO's ``binding dispute resolution'' system has proven to be a system rife with bias, incompetency, as well as totally unfamiliar with basic principles of due process and openness. There are no judges, only ad hoc panelists, most of whom are not experienced or qualified in applying proper standards of review. These panelists are assisted, if not controlled, by WTO bureaucrats who have inherent biases based on their programmatic interests in the subjects under review. Proceedings are kept secret from the public and from the parties in interest.There is no ability to engage in meaningful fact- finding. Panel decisions have also created obligations for WTO members that they did not agree to in the process of negotiations. And even if a panel decides in your favor, as in the case brought by the United States against the European Union (EU) on beef hormones and bananas, there is no assurance at all that anything will change. Years have gone by since the U.S. ``won'' these cases, and U.S. firms still have no greater access to the EU market. Mr. Chairman, PNTR is an extremely valuable trade benefit with China does not have but earnestly wants. It constitutes the only real leverage the U.S. has to bring about the kind of economic and trade reforms within China that will open that market to the products and services American firms and American workers produce. Before we grant PNTR to China, we must make sure that China not only makes sufficient market opening commitments, but also that those commitments are enforceable. I am not pleased to vote no today. It is unquestionably in our national interest to have a cooperative relationship with China, and I am well aware that rejecting this trade package could further strain U.S.-Chinese relations and diminish our influence in China with regard to democracy, human rights, labor, environmental protection and Taiwan. But ultimately, my vote is about fairness and timing. Without enforcement mechanisms there can be no assurance of fairness for American business, American industry, and American jobs. By voting on a trade deal of such great importance before all the deals have been cut, especially on the enforcement mechanisms which will decide if this agreement is worth the paper it is written on, we needlessly jeopardize American jobs and business prospects in China. I guarantee you rules that can't be enforced will be broken. This vote should be postponed until accession agreements are concluded. Only then can we fully and responsibility assess the commitments China makes and determine whether the agreement ensures that China's commitment will be fully implemented and effectively enforced.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2498, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2000, which was reported by voice vote by the Committee on Commerce. I want to take this opportunity to commend the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Bilirakis, the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Bliley, and the author of the bill, Mr. Stearns, for their work in bringing this legislation to the floor. This legislation has 130 cosponsors, including 13 Democratic members of the Committee on Commerce. It is also supported by the American Red Cross, the American Heart Association, and the Administration. Mr. Speaker, testimony before the Committee showed that returning the heart to its normal rhythm quickly is the single most important thing needed to improve the chance of survival from cardiac arrest. In Las Vegas, where automated electronic defibrillators have been placed in casinos and casino employees have been trained in their use, the out- of-hospital survival rate from cardiac arrest has increased dramatically. Prior to the widespread deployment of these devices, the cardiac arrest survival rate in Las Vegas was only 10 percent; it is now 57 percent. Defibrillation clearly saves lives. The purpose of H.R. 2498, therefore, is to encourage Federal agencies to install automated external defibrillators in their buildings and to give so-called ``Good Samaritan'' protections from liability for people who use or acquire these devices. The bill's liability protections do not apply if the harm was caused by a person's conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the victim. Nor does it apply if it is being used by a doctor or nurse or other licensed professional in their scope of employment, or if it is being used by a hospital or other health care entity. Certain other limited exceptions apply. As reported by the Committee on Commerce, H.R. 2498 is consistent with legislation which passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year. I might add that the Department of Justice, in a letter to Chairman Bliley dated May 8, 2000, stated that it, too, supports this legislation with the changes adopted by the Committee on Commerce in the reported bill before us today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I intend to share this time with my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), who has been enormously helpful in this difficult matter. As reported to the House by our Dear Colleague letter of yesterday, our colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and his wife, Laurie, have suffered a terrible loss with the tragic death of their son, and we extend our condolences to them and to their other son, Ken, for this terrible and tragic loss of young Bart, who is also known as BJ. He was a bright and energetic young man, much loved by all who knew him. Obviously his loss is a devastating blow to the Stupak family and to all of their friends, and many of my colleagues in the House have come over to express their sorrow and concern. It is my purpose to announce at this time that the funeral for BJ, as he was known, will be tomorrow evening on Wednesday, May 17. It will take place in Menominee, Michigan at 8 p.m. Our offices, that of myself and my good friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), have worked to arrange travel for Members wishing to attend the visitation and the funeral mass. Members desiring to go will leave the House steps of the Capitol tomorrow at 3:15 p.m. The aircraft which has been chartered will be departing Reagan National Airport at 4 p.m. We should be returning about 1 a.m. on Thursday morning. For Members desiring more details on travel arrangements, they should contact either my office or that of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton). I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).