John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Madam Speaker, I want to commend and thank my colleagues on the committee for the work that they have done. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) the chairman of the committee; the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the subcommittee, and their staffs. I also want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for having worked closely with me. We have put together a good piece of legislation, and I commend my colleagues whom I have mentioned by name and many others that I have not for their valuable participation in this matter. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3888, the Telecommunications Competition and Consumer Protection Act of 1988. This legislation is finally going to put an end to the outrageous illegal and insidious practice of slamming innocent consumers. No longer can Americans innocent of any wrongdoing be swindled by companies who intentionally switch a customer's long distance service without the permission of that customer. For years customers have been at the mercy of slammers. They have been victimized repeatedly, with little or no recourse. Often they have been billed by carriers at exorbitant rates, and then they must face the further frustration of having a dozen phone calls made to get their services switched back in the face of recalcitrant behaviors by people guilty of serious wrongdoing. Rarely, if ever, have consumers seen a dime of the money that was swindled from them under this iniquitous practice. This bill will now put consumers in the driver's seat. If a consumer believes he or she has been the victim of slamming, then the burden will shift to the carrier to prove that a switch in service was authorized. Otherwise, the consumer will be entitled to a credit for charges incurred. This is a fair approach, and it makes the playing field level and even. It is my belief it will have a strong and effective effect on the iniquitous practice of slamming. The bill before us is bipartisan. It uses a novel two-pronged approach to the problem. It provides telecommunications companies with an alternative to traditional regulation. The industry, in conjunction with consumer groups and State regulators, will have the opportunity to develop its own ``Code of Subscriber Protection Practices.'' This code is designed to reward good actors with less regulation. However, if companies choose not to adopt the code, or to act in bad faith, they will be subject to a higher and more appropriate regulatory burden. Thus, members of the industry are free to choose their own destiny. Consumers will be the winners, in any event. I want to make a note that there were some provisions which were dropped which I deeply regret. The ``carrier freeze'' provision would have protected consumers' ability to instruct their local telephone company that no changes could be made in their selection of long- distance provider without their express permission. This seems to me eminently sensible, and is regrettably missing from this bill. The provision would have been the most effective way to prevent slamming by simply empowering consumers to protect themselves without undue government regulation. I am hopeful that next year this will be addressed. Finally, I note that I regret that the amendment does not include the text of Title III of H.R. 3888, which concerned the C-block PCS licensees. I would note that our chairman has made a comment which I fully endorse. He has identified the budget problem that is confronted by the committee, and has wisely determined, with his regret and mine, to strip that provision from the bill. Regrettably, I concur in that decision. I would like to say, however, that CBO's cost estimate of $600 million is the purest of fiction. It is like Peter and the wolf, or perhaps like Peter Pan. The fact is that licensees representing 70 percent of the U.S. population are in bankruptcy. Most of the remaining people in this particular category are teetering on the edge of the bankruptcy that is sure to follow. It is unlikely that the Federal Government will see most of the revenues that CBO and OMB are projecting. The result is going to be a significant loss to the taxpayers, and something that the Congress will have to address with great vigor during the forthcoming Congress. I would point out that one particular bankruptcy judge has estimated that in certain bankruptcies of this kind, the Federal Government is going to see less than 16 cents on the dollar. I would hope the Commission is going to reevaluate its policies regarding the C-block, and recognize that its primary goal should be expediting the delivery of service to the public. If the Commissioners do not do so, I am satisfied that we will be back here again next year cleaning up the mess that the Commission is consistently making, and ending the needless litigation and delays that plague the public. Madam Speaker, this is an excellent bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for it affirmatively and get it passed, so we may proceed to protect the American public and the American consumers. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we all have a strong interest in seeing that there is a level playing field on which U.S. business and U.S. workers can compete in world markets. The bill are considering today, H.R. 4353, points out just how unlevel that playing field can be. In May of 1976, Congress received from the Securities and Exchange Commission an extensive ``Report on Questionable and Illegal Corporate Payments and Practices'' that revealed corrupt foreign payments by over 300 U.S. companies involving hundreds of millions of dollars and the falsification of accounting records and the deceit of auditors. Since 1977, U.S. law has made it a crime from American businessmen to bribe foreign government officials to obtain business contracts. Yet, Germany and other countries do not just fail to prohibit bribery on the part of their business representatives, they make it a tax deductible expense. Last December, 33 of our major trading partners signed the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Under this agreement, our major trading partners commit, for the first time, to make business-related bribes to foreign officials a crime under their respective legal systems. H.R. 4353 expands and strengthens the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) to implement U.S. obligations under the OECD convention. It expands the FCPA to include bribes to foreign public officials that are made to secure ``any improper advantage.'' The bill also expands the FCPA to cover not only U.S. businesses and issuers of securities, but also any foreign natural or legal person that engages in a prohibited act within the territory of the United States. In addition, this legislation expands the definition of public official in the FCPA to include officials of public international organizations. It makes foreign employees and agents of issuers and domestic concerns subject to criminal penalties in the same way that U.S. citizens are. This legislation also amends the FCPA to provide for jurisdiction even when U.S. businesses and nationals engage in the offering of bribes wholly outside the United States. Mr. Speaker, this legislation contains strict monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure that our OECD partners fully implement the anti-bribery convention under their laws. It requires that the Administration report to Congress concerning its efforts to strengthen the Convention by extending the prohibitions contained in the Convention to cover bribes to political parties, party officials, and candidates for political office. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has already passed legislation ratifying and implementing the anti-bribery convention. Although we are rapidly approaching the end of this Congress, it is my hope that Congress can complete action on this important legislation this year. However, the legislation before us also contains matters having to do with international satellites, which are unrelated to the implementation of the anti-bribery convention. These satellite provisions are not in the implementing legislation passed by the Senate. It is my sincere hope that these extraneous satellite provisions will not prevent the House and Senate from sending the President legislation implementing the anti-bribery convention, before this Congress adjourns. The Commerce Department reports that there have been significant charges of bribery associated with international commercial contracts valued at more than $100 billion since 1994. Mr. Speaker, bribery hurts American business and American workers who must compete in the world market place. American business and American workers need the protections the OECD Convention provides, and they need them now. If we fail to implement the anti-bribery convention because of an ability to reach agreement on extraneous matters, American business and American workers will pay the price. Delay on our part will only give our OECD partners an excuse to delay their implementation of these important anti-bribery commitments. Mr. Speaker, swift action by this House, and this Congress, is needed, so the United States can set an example for our OECD partners to ratify and fully implement this important convention, as well. I hope my colleagues will give this important legislation their strong support.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at some point, I hope that my Republican friends will explain to me their views on federalism. With this bill, the Majority is embracing the notion that the Federal Government possesses wisdom superior to the states on the subject of issuing motor vehicle titles. The legislation stops short of a federal takeover of the state function of titling motor vehicles or creating a new Federal Department of Motor Vehicles. However, it tells every state in the country that it must comply with new federal regulations governing how states title motor vehicles. These new regulations will establish, and I quote, ``uniform standards, procedures, and methods for the issuance and control of titles for motor vehicles and for information to be contained on such titles.'' In Committee, Democratic Members raised a number of concerns about this legislation. Those problems still remain in the bill we have before us today. First, this legislation gives no money to the states to perform inspections, if required, nor does it provide funds to carry out other new, federally imposed duties. I must admit I'm a bit perplexed. I thought my Republican colleagues had committed not to impose costly new burdens on state and local governments without compensating them for their expense. Second, the bill could still preempt state laws that give the consumer greater protection. Although, under certain circumstances, the amendment before us lets the states set the percentage of value loss that will define what a salvage vehicle is, this bill could still preempt state laws that provide greater consumer protections in other areas of salvage vehicle title branding. Third, the bill gives the Department of Transportation authority to issue regulations covering all aspects of vehicle titling by the states. That may be more than needed to accomplish the bill's stated purpose, which is to require title branding for salvage vehicles nationwide. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, the National Association of Attorneys General has opposed this legislation, as has a broad-based coalition of consumer groups. Among the consumer groups opposing the bill are: the Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen, Consumers Union, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Clearly, there are legitimate theft prevention and consumer protection issues involved in the way the states title motor vehicles. I am not opposed to addressing these in a prudent and careful manner which respects the rights of the states. I, therefore, suggest strongly that this bill simply needs more work and that it should not be enacted into law in its present form. This legislation seeks to address important public policy goals. However, we should be careful that our solution to these public policy concerns does not create new problems that we are not prepared to deal with.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representative Hansen for bringing this legislation before the House for consideration. I am deeply grateful for his support and the work he has done on H.R. 3910. The industrial, cultural, and natural heritage legacies of Michigan's automobile industry are nationally significant; they have made this a greater country. In cities across Michigan, such as Detroit, Dearborn, Flint, Kalamazoo, Lansing, and Saginaw, the automobile was designed and manufactured and in turn helped establish and expand the United States as an industrial power. The industrial strength of automobile manufacturing was vital to defending freedom and democracy in two world wars and fueled our economic growth in the modern era. Automobile heritage is more than the assembly lines and engineering rooms where cars were created and built. Turning a vision into a reality, the story of the automobile is a tale of hard work and growth. It is the shared history of millions of Americans who fought, during the labor movement, for good wages and benefits. This industry shaped 20th Century America like no other; it is the quintessential American story. It is a story worth celebrating and sharing. The end product of all this hard work and cooperation, the Automobile National Heritage Area, creates something special and lasting both for Michigan and America. Again, I think my colleague from Utah, Representative Hansen, along with Chairman Don Young. The gentleman from Utah has done a superb job, and I salute him. I say to my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, and from all regions of America, that the Automobile National Heritage Area will enormously benefit the people of the 16th District in the State of Michigan and those who work in and are dependent upon the auto industry. This area is very, very important to us in Michigan in terms of remembering our history, who we are, and what we have done to build America. But all these efforts in Washington would not have come about if not for the years of planning by educators, local officials, and business leaders to bring together--in one package--a way to preserve this story. These local, grassroots efforts have been supported by many organizations in Michigan, including our major automobile manufacturers, labor organizations, businesses, towns and cities, chambers of commerce, and elected official from both parties. There are too many individuals to thank today. But I would like to extend my gratitude to Ed Bagale of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Steve Hamp of the Henry Ford Museum, Sandra Clark of the State of Michigan, Maud Lyon of the Detroit Historical Museum, Bill Chapin, and Barbara Nelson-Jameson of the National Parks Service. I urge my colleagues to support the rich history and tradition of the automobile. Support this unique American story. Support H.R. 3910.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend and colleague who has served his constituents and the United States well during his tenure in Congress. He has served this great institution for the last 20 years as a Member of the United States House of Representatives, and a total of 31 years as a public servant. Congressman Solomon and I have worked together on many issues sometimes on opposite sides, but we have remained friends and always strived for bi-partisanship on issues of importance to our constituents and to the people of the United States. My friend, ``Closed-rule'' Solomon's service on the Rules Committee is exemplary and he will be missed. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring an extraordinary man who has spent his career as a public servant helping others. I will miss him and his wisdom, but I know that he will not be far away. I salute him and his accomplishments. I have enjoyed working with him in the House of Representatives.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DINGELL. Then I will make this a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Why is it we are not being afforded more time to debate this? This is one of the most important questions----

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, in the beginning I want to make two things clear. First I do not defend the President's actions in the Lewinsky matter. He says they are wrong, I agree. Second, the matter of the impeachment process must be conducted in a manner which is fair, expeditious, and completely open. Do these proceedings offered us in the Republican proposal meet these tests? Clearly, No. In less than one hour Democrats are supposed to be able to discuss questions which rank in Constitutional importance with the declaration of war--the impeachment of a President and setting aside a presidential election, in which the people chose their President is before us. We function under a gag rule. We are denied opportunity for the people to have this matter properly discussed in their Congress. In one hour Minority members are to discuss a great Constitutional question, impeachment of a President--unlimited time to be spent on an investigation, unlimited personnel to be deployed, no limits as to money to be spent, no limits on the breadth and sweep of the investigation. All to be done under a gag rule! At issue here is not whether the House will convene an impeachment proceeding. Before us is whether it will be fair, open and expeditious. We have the referral of Mr. Starr. In that document he says he has put forward all information then available to justify impeachment. I note Mr. Starr has spent over four years, forty million dollars, the time of scores and possibly hundreds of Federal law enforcement officers and other government employees and the full authority of the Federal Government. I also note that another prior Special Prosecutor, Starr's predecessor, spent two years and $20 million, and found no wrong doing. Mr. Starr, then, finds, after prodigious effort and expenditure of funds, the substance reported in his referral. There he finds nothing now, except improper sexual activity, on which he reports in extensive, and in nauseating detail. I insisted that all this be published in full, since it is regrettably the people's business. If you listen to the people, they are telling you they want the matter brought to a speedy end. It can be ended speedily, and it should be. It will not take more than until year's end to go thoroughly into the full of Mr. Starr's referral, in whatever detail the Judiciary Committee wishes. If they find more, or wish to inquire further, the Judiciary Committee can return and with proper request procure such additional authority as they require to carry out their function. No one will gainsay them. I have supported this inquiry until now. I believe such inquiry should go forward, properly. I do not however believe we should have an unlimited inquiry, without constraints, and with an unlimited budget. The Republican resolution authorizes a partisan witch hunt, not a responsible inquiry. Vote against the partisan Republican resolution, vote for the Minority's resolution for a proper inquiry. It is fair, expeditious and open. The people are watching.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we are attempting to accomplish a laudable goal in this legislation. Parents are clamoring for ways to protect their kids from the onslaught of pornographic material on the Internet, and Congress has a responsibility to assist them in whatever ways it can. However, we have been down this road before, and our most recent attempt was met with a resounding rebuke from the Supreme Court. The Communications Decency Act was declared unconstitutional by a unanimous vote, and I harbor serious concerns that this bill will meet the same fate. While the notion of regulating materials which are deemed ``harmful to minors'' sounds appealing, it raises many practical concerns. Who decides what materials are ``harmful to minors?'' Should the standard be community-based, or national? If local judgments about the suitability of materials differ around the country, how can a global medium such as the Internet respond to these different views? For example, will the Internet sale of mainstream movies and sound recordings be subject to the most conservative community's view of what is harmful to minors, exposing itself to civil and criminal penalties in the process? If a chill is placed on the sale of these materials, what will be the practical effect on the growth of electronic commerce? These questions and many more should be addressed before we rush to adopt an easy fix to a complex problem. The Supreme Court is likely to force Congress's hand on these matters, and reiterate its demand for a more thorough evaluation if and when this legislation is enacted.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, without any recriminations towards any of my colleagues, I recognize there are strong feelings on this, but today the House has an opportunity to make significant progress in moving forward to address a number of important issues and opportunities with regard to the national parks and the public lands. This is a good bill. I want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), chairman of the subcommittee, for the outstanding job that he has done in going forward on this matter. I also want to commend my old friend, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) with whom I worked for many years as members of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation on the old Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. There we passed enormous progress in the area of wildlife conservation and the environment. Those were good bills then, and the gentleman from Utah and the distinguished chairman of the committee have carried forward that tradition. The gentleman from Utah has been very busy the last few days trying to address the concerns, many of which are legitimate, of Members on this side, and members of the environmental community. The way legislation is achieved is not simply by saying, no, we are not going to pass this. It is by passing this legislation, working together, continuing the dialogue, and moving forward to achieve the necessary compromises that can put together a bill that will ultimately pass the Senate and go to the White House. Today we have the simple opportunity of moving forward on a piece of legislation, or of saying, no, we are not going to. The gentleman from Utah has done a superb job, and I want to salute him. I will tell him and tell my colleagues that there is a provision in here which will benefit enormously the people of the 16th District in the State of Michigan and those who work in and are dependent upon the auto industry by creating an auto heritage area, which is very, very important to us in Michigan in terms of remembering our history and in terms of celebrating what we in Michigan, and we who are part of the auto industry, have done to make this a greater country. I would urge my colleagues to approach it in that light; to recognize that while there may be imperfections in this bill, it is a good bill. It is a bill which is good for the country. It is a bill which makes progress. It is a bill which saves and preserves and protects important areas and values, and it is a bill which keeps in mind the great traditions of this country in terms of protecting its heritage, its traditions, its important areas, and its environment. I urge my colleagues to support the hand of the distinguished gentleman from Utah, the distinguished gentleman from Alaska, and the others who have worked on this. There may be problems, but they are problems which are resolvable in the spirit of goodwill, and I urge my colleagues to approach it in that way.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2921. It is important to note that the bill we are considering today is a short-term fix to a greater problem. The greater problem is how do we encourage more competition to cable television so consumers can get more choices and not be held capitive to ever-increasing rates? The answer to that question is not simple, and it is one the Commerce Committee continues to grapple with. What is clear, however, is that emerging alternatives to cable, like satellite television, should not be put at a competitive disadvantage to incumbent monopolies. That problem is one that we are attempting to fix, in part, today. Both cable and satellite television operators are required to pay copyrights royalties fees for the right to carry distant broadcast signals at ``superstations.'' Last year, a ruling by the Librarian of Congress required satellite television operators to pay almost three times the amount of money that cable operators pay--for the same programming. Obviously this is unfair, and flies in the face of Congressional policy to make sure that similar telecommunciations services are subject to similar rules and regulations. This bill would freeze the copyright rates at preexisting levels to that parity continues between these competitors. Of course, the hard question remains: at what level should the rates be set for both cable and satellite television operators when the freeze mandated by this bill expries next December? The answer to that question must be evaluated in the context of several other important issues, such as whether satellite operators should be allowed to transmit local broadcast stations and, if so, whether traditional ``must carry'' rules should apply. If we are to achieve the goal of the Telecommunications Act to open up all markets to competition, and free consumers from the tether of cable television monopolies in the process, we must address these issues comprehensively and quickly. I thank Chairman Bliley and Subcommittee Chairman Tauzin for their leadership on the rate freeze issue before us today, and look forward to working with them to resolve these larger competitive concerns next year.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend, Thomas M. Barry, on his promotion to President of the SBC International's Telkom South Africa. When Tom arrived in this town just a few short years ago to take the helm of SBC Communication's Inc. Washington office his assignment was a modest one: to work to modernize the rules by which the United States telecommunications industry was governed. Now, Tom Barry was not your ordinary Washington lobbyist. Having spent some 30 years with the telephone company and most recently having come to the world of strategic planning, he knew a whole lot more about the true impact of our telecommunications rules governing universal service and competition in local and long distance than many who had worked on them. His knowledge and experience were important to those of us who had been working ardently to modernize the telecommunications industry so that American companies could compete in a global arena. The result of our work, The Telecommunications Act of 1996, was landmark legislation in which we can all take pride. Tom Barry was vital to our efforts. It is in this light that I would like to join my dear friend and former colleague, Jack Brooks, and submit his remarks for the Record. Former Congressman Jack Brooks Sends Congratulations to Thomas M. Barry Upon His Appointment as President, SBC International's Telkom South Africa Operation Sometimes, due to circumstances surrounding the nature of one's position, an individual shows up briefly in your life but his contributions, even if for no longer than a year or so, make him unforgettable. Such an individual is Thomas M. Barry of SBCI. As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I had been involved for several years in an effort to rationalize existing laws and to develop new legislation to provide for more open competition in the telecommunications industry. It was not surprising that with all the competing and diverse interests involved, we were having considerable difficulty and receiving widely conflicting advise. One significant difficulty was that there was no one in a leadership role for the regional Bell companies to present all of their various concerns to me and to John Dingell, who as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee was key to the passage of any telecommunications legislation. In 1992, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company selected a seasoned telecommunications veteran, Tom Barry, as its Senior Vice President for Federal Relations. When Tom arrived on the Washington scene, it became readily apparent that we had met a knowledgeable, experienced expert in all aspects of the industry. Not only did he have an encyclopedic knowledge of the industry and its issues, but also he brought a reasonable, enlightened approach to the legislative dialogue. While he was an extremely effective advocate for his company, he recognized the need to be reasonable and with his long experience was able to place into perspective the varying participating and often conflicting interests. He was strongly committed to his company and to his industry but he never lost sight of the need to resolve matters equitably if any consensus was to be reached. When we finally put together a bill with the leadership of my esteemed former colleague, John Dingell, although it was not perfect, it was workable and fair. That we were able to do so was aided greatly by the hard work and solid efforts of many individuals, but particularly Tom Barry. Although our association in retrospect was fleeting, I believe I came to know him quite well during our strenuous meetings. He is a man of integrity. He is an affable, highly intelligent individual. We were able to conduct our work with good humor and respect for one another's sincere beliefs. Tom's superior intellect and ability to manage situations and people should serve him well as he travels to South Africa to begin his tenure as President of SBC International's Telkom South Africa operations. Tom Barry has my warmest congratulations upon his latest appointment within SBC International. It will be most likely not be an easy assignment, however, there is no question in my mind but that he will do an outstanding job there, as he has with everything else he has undertaken. I wish him and his family all my best as they begin a new journey in life. Although South Africa is quite a long way from the United States, at least now--through state of the art improvements in telecommunications--it won't seem to be that far. I hope that Tom will take some time to thoroughly enjoy this new challenging opportunity. Certainly SBC made a wise decision in the selection of this fine man to head up their operation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, Members should know that even as we consider funds in this bill for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Government of Korea is backing away from commitments it made to the IMF and to the world community to finally put an end to government directed lending, corporate subsidies, and interference with corporate governance. A new round of bidding was recently announced for Korea's huge bankrupt motor vehicle company, Kia Motors and its affiliate Asia Motors, after Kia's creditors announced that 30 percent of Kia and Asia Motors' $8.7 billion in bad debt would be ``forgiven'' so that these companies, which some estimate have been bankrupt since 1991, can be sold as viable entities. I might add, the only two non-Korean firms that have expressed an interest in buying Kia are U.S. companies, General Motors and Ford. General Motors and Ford have now withdrawn from the bidding, because they cannot justify the burdensome terms set by the creditors for the sale. As a result, Kia's creditors have now successfully forced all foreign firms out of the bidding, leaving only Korean companies, Samsung, Hyundai and Daewoo, as contenders for Kia. Who is setting these impossible conditions? Principally, it is none other than the Government of Korea once again attempting to financially prop up Kia and to control its fate, even though it told the IMF it would no longer engage in this kind of activity. Kia's creditors are represented by the Korea Development Bank, which is 100 percent owned and controlled by the Government of Korea. The Korean Government also directly holds a 30 percent equity interest in Kia. By blocking the sale of Kia's assets as a bankrupt, non-viable entity, the Government of Korea may be protecting its own equity stake in the company, but it is perpetuating the very nonmarket-based government subsidization and interference that has produced the calamitous decline of Korea's economy. Is this the kind of ``reform'' that we thought the Government of Korea had committed to implement in return for the $60 billion loan package it received from the IMF? If not, we must demand that our government exercise strict and aggressive monitoring of how every penny of the IMF funding is used and what Korea is doing to implement its commitments to the IMF and to fulfill its trade obligations to the world community. We cannot allow U.S. tax dollars to be used to continue the operation of non-viable, bankrupt Korean auto, steel, and other firms that dump cheap imports in our market and undermine otherwise competitive products made by U.S. firms and U.S. workers. Without strict monitoring and reporting to Congress, we will never know what Korea is doing. It is simply not good enough for Administration officials to make vague statements about being ``encouraged'' by the progress of Korea's economic reform. Korea has institutions and policies that enable the government to intervene in commercial lending and corporate governance. This Congress needs to know what Korea is doing to restructure those institutions and to change those policies, so that government intervention in the private economy is minimized and Korean markets are open to U.S. and other foreign competitors. Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are considering contains significant requirements applicable to Korea and other IMF recipients. It provides that IMF-recipient governments shall not give government support or tax privileges to individual firms. The government-owned Korea Development Bank's decision to ``forgive'' a large share of Kia's debt, so that it can be sold as a viable entity, is government support of the most fundamental kind and violates the prohibition in this legislation. But without strict monitoring and reporting to Congress, the Government of Korea is free to ignore these and other warnings. We must not let that happen. Together with my Colleagues, Mr. Murtha and Mr. Regula, I have written Secretary of the Treasury Rubin, Secretary of Commerce Daley, and U.S. Trade Representatives Barshefsky, asking a number of detailed questions about reforms in Korea, and in particular, about the sale of Korea's bankrupt auto, steel, and other firms. When I receive their response, I will make it available in an effort to keep Members informed on this important matter.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce H.R. 4577, the Friendly Skies Restoration Act, in order to protect the American public from unfair practices in the airline industry and to ensure that the traveling public has access to reasonable airfare. Monopolistic attitudes and unprecedented levels of market concentration have caused consumer's pocketbook balances to nosedive while airline profits have soared. Congress should act to bring the benefits of full competition to the Nation or else other relief must be brought to bear. This legislation will do that. Consumers deserve policies that will achieve affordable airfare and accessible service. There is growing public interest and concern over the issue of predatory conduct by major air carriers. Such practices eliminate competition in the air travel industry and create formidable barriers for entrepreneurs to break into the market. As an example of some suspect conduct, one has only to look back to when Northwest Airlines cut its fare from Detroit to Boston to as low as $69 from an average of $259 when Spirit Airlines entered the market in 1996. Coincidentally, once Spirit was pushed out of the market, the average fare went up to $267, exceeding even the original level. More recently, Northwest ran an upstart, Pro Air, out of the Detroit-Milwaukee market and is engaged in some curious behavior in the Detroit to Baltimore market. To provide a level playing field, vigorous competition must be permitted to take root. Unfair exclusionary practices that eliminate that competition must be rooted out. When carriers respond to new competitors with severe drops and capacity expansion in order to run the new carrier out of the market, it is not good for consumers in the long run because it diminishes the number of options consumers will have by further consolidating the strength that the major dominant air carriers have over the markets today. After a new entrant is grounded, the major carrier simply retrenches and raises fares higher still in its resumed control. This leads to a markedly worse situation for consumers. Congress expressly gave the Department of Transportation authority to stop any ``unfair or deceptive practice or unfair method of competition.'' Further, Congress has directed the Secretary of Transportation by statute to consider ``preventing unfair, deceptive, predatory, or anticompetitive practices in air transportation'' as being in the ``public interest and consistent with public convenience and necessity.'' The Department of Transportation's action under this authority has been woefully lacking. The federal government should do its job to help the public. The Secretary of the Department of Transportation should take real action to advance the pro-competition policy objectives of the Congress. That action includes ensuring that the Department of Transportation's guidelines, which it is currently developing to deal with predatory activity, are effective. As proposed, the guidelines would permit the Secretary to impose sanctions if a major carrier should respond to a new entrant into a market in an unfair or exclusionary manner. More tools are needed and this bill provides them. The bill would permit the Secretary to require that any air carrier deemed to be engaged in an unfair method of competition or unfair exclusionary practice, as a condition of continued service on the route involving the violation, to maintain the same levels of capacity and fare pricing that was deemed exclusionary for a period not to exceed two years. Such a tool should give a carrier pause for thought before implementing any activity that would unfairly respond to legitimate competition. Additionally, the bill would increase the monetary penalty for such unfair methods of competition under the U.S. Code from the current $1,000 to $10,000 for each day the violation continues or, if applicable, for each flight involving the violation. There are presently proposals before the Department of Transportation that would combine the Nation's six largest carriers into three alliances with strengthened control over the United States market. The bill would give the Secretary of Transportation the authority to review joint venture agreements or cooperative working arrangements between major air carriers to ensure that such cooperation and integration among air carriers does not result in unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition that would harm the public. At the four slot-controlled or high-density airports, the vast majority of the schedules take off and landing slots are controlled by the major carriers at these key hub airports. The airports are: New York's Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports, Chicago's O'Hare, and Washington's National Airport. For meaningful competition to take root, new entrant carriers must have a real opportunity to provide service in those markets. Of the more than 3,100 domestic air carrier slots at these four airports, fewer than forty-five slots are held by all the new entrant air carriers combined. Moreover, foreign air carriers have more than twice as many slots as domestic new entrant air carriers combines. Most of these slots were grandfathered to the major carriers more than a decade ago. The slots are government property, and it is time that the federal government use them to benefit the public rather than just a handful of airlines. In order to remedy this barrier to competition, the bill would give the Secretary the authority to create, withdraw, and, as a last resort, auction slots at each slot-controlled airport for assignment to new entrant air carriers and other carriers with very limited access. If there is a withdrawal of slots for an auction, the Secretary may not auction more than ten percent for the first auction and five percent for each succeeding auction. Auctions may not take place earlier than two years from each preceding auction. Income from any auctions would finance taxpayer relief and improved airport infrastructure for the American public. Further, as recent evidence makes quite clear, strikes at hub airports can ground thousands of flights and hundreds of thousands of passengers, even on a daily basis. The bill would permit the President to authorize other air carriers to use the slots and related gates and other such facilities of another carrier which are not in use because of a work stoppage. Slot possession at the four key airports where such controls are in place is a major issue, but questions like long-term exclusive gate leases at other airports represent just as nearly insurmountable obstacles to real competition in the airline industry. For that reason, it seems to make good sense that such arrangements be reviewed. The bill would direct the Secretary to issue a study on the ability of and proposals for new entrant air carriers and those with limited access at major hub airports to obtain gates and other facilities at airports on terms substantially equivalent to the terms provided to the major carriers already using airport facilities. The airfield must become a level playing field for competition. It is important that the American public have access to useful information about the market and who in the industry is providing the best consumer value. Various studies by the General Accounting Office and private organizations have shown that concentration in the domestic airline industry continues to grow and is at extraordinarily high levels. Where such concentration exists, fairs have increased with a significant impact on residents and businesses in those communities. In order to evaluate consumer value and review potential implications of market concentration at hub airports, the bill would require the Secretary to prepare two quarterly reports for the public. One would rank the top and bottom ten domestic routes with regard to their average cost to the passenger, and the second would rank the large hub airports by market concentration and identify the market share of each airline operating at each of those airports. As has been said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let's let it shine on the airline industry. At best, the promises of deregulation have not been fulfilled. The traveling public is still captive to monopolized routes and airports. Since 1978, the Nation has had unregulated monopoly, instead of regulated monopoly in this industry. While I fully support the goals of competition, two decades of experience only reveal consolidation, diminished choice, and higher prices in many markets. As a last resort, wherever there is insufficient competition the Secretary of Transportation must be empowered to change unreasonable airfares. Such conditions exist where there are less than two carriers in full competition or one carrier controls more than sixty percent of the market share on any route that the public flies. Where deregulation has failed, the Congress should respond and give consumers the relief they deserve. The American public has been held hostage by the poor service and inordinate fares at the hands of the cartels in the air for too long. That is why I am pleased to introduce this bill to generate legitimate competition and secure reasonable prices for air travel for the country's consumers.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, one can tell this is an election year, because with this wonderful piece of legislation we have authorized a lot of programs which are now in effect and which are now working. A remarkable exercise. Having said that, this is the most curious process. The bill was introduced Friday last, and essentially, according to the reports that we have been able to get from the departments, authorizes a series of programs that are now in place and that are now working just fine. The bill was apparently referred to the Committee on Commerce as well as the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Committee on Small Business, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on Education and the Workforce. None of them ever had hearings, never did anything on it, because they did not have time. It just came up here Friday. There are a lot of questions my Republican colleagues need to address. Did any of the committees report on this bill? Did any of the committees have hearings? Did any of the committees take testimony from any citizen or from any governmental agency? The answer is no, they did not. Did any of these committees have hearings on the bill? No. How was this bill drafted? Well, I gather that it was drafted by a Republican task force. Clearly, that is hardly adherence to the regular procedures and orders of the House, or indeed, a proper following of the rules of this body. Were any outside groups involved in the drafting of this bill? Were there consultations with any government agency or any private anti-drug agency? How did the task force function? Did they comply with the requirements of the sunshine rules? Did they comply with the Rules of the House? How did they decide what outside groups would appear and would testify, or which would not? The bill has a very interesting proposal and provision in it. It strengthens and lengthens the exclusivity period for antiaddiction drugs by 6 months. Was there any consultation on this matter with the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the Patent Office? The answer is none. But interestingly enough, what does this do? It says, if one has an antiaddiction drug that one will get an extension on any period of exclusivity on any drug which one happens to have in one's drug inventory. Not necessarily the one on which one has the antiaddiction drug, but on any others. And according to the Food and Drug Administration, this could even extend to drugs on which the period of exclusivity has expired, a most remarkable provision. So that a drug owner, or rather a patent holder may then extend his period of exclusivity on any drug in his inventory if he so chooses, even if the period of exclusivity has expired. Was there any consultation with the Justice Department, the Patent Office, the Food and Drug Administration on this? Absolutely not. But, after all, this is an election year, and this matter should be rushed to the floor so that it may be voted upon, even though almost all the provisions of this bill are now being funded and being implemented and on which programs are now in fact in place. Now, let us look at some of the requirements of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who is the principal author of this bill and who is the author of provisions of the rules which relate to requiring the government to take certain actions. For example, did the Congressional Budget Office calculate the cost of the provisions with regard to patients who use antiaddiction? The answer is no, the Congressional Budget Office did not. Was there any estimate of the windfall to the drug companies involved? Absolutely not, none. Now, let us talk about secrecy. When this Congress adopted the government sunshine amendments to the House rules, something which my Republican colleagues made great hay about, it was promised that television cameras would be allowed in the markups of all bills so that the public would be allowed to watch how our bills are written, and to hear what is said by citizens, by government, by business, by special interests. Was anything of that kind happening here? Absolutely not. It was done by a task force. Now, I find, after careful reading of the rules and after some 40 years and more service in this place, no mention in the Rules of the House of Representatives with regard to task forces or behavior of task forces or requirements for openness or other good behavior. Why was this bill written in a task force? Why was it written in secrecy? Why was it written outside the scrutiny of the public? Has the bill ever been reviewed by the administration? The answer to all of the above is no. Has the bill ever been reviewed by health experts, by Food and Drug, by the Attorneys General of the States or of the United States? Has the bill ever been reviewed by any of the drug-opposing agencies like DEA or FDA, or the National Institutes of Health, or the parts of NIH which address the questions of drug abuse and drug addiction? The answer again is no. Were any members of the public permitted to comment on this legislation to say whether it was good or bad or whether it should be changed, have more or less money? The answer is no. Are any government analysts in on the drafting of the bill? The answer to this question is no. Does this bill require waivers of the House rules? If so, what rules does it require? Does the bill require waivers of the Budget Act? We do not know. It is not said in here, and the Rules of the House do not apply to this because it was never reported by a committee, it was reported by task force, whatever that happens to be. Mr. Chairman, I think the question we really ought to ask is, why do we not use the regular order? Why do we not follow the Rules of the House? Is there any information or evidence in the hands of the authors and the sponsors of this legislation that this body would not have considered this bill fairly, speedily and expeditiously? The answer to that question is, there is none. Why is this bill being brought to the floor in such an extraordinary fashion without hearings, without markup? Is there any frustration with the leadership of the committees? Is there any CBO estimate as to the cost or budget impact? Are there any inflationary impact statements required by the Rules of the House? The answer is, there is none. Is there any regulatory impact statement? The answer is, there is none. Are there any requirements which are imposed on reported bills complied with here, as in the case of reports on unfunded mandates, as required so capably by my good friend who is the author of this bill who seems in some curious fashion to be anxious to evade the requirements of an imposition which he has put into the rules. There is no evidence whatsoever that there has been any evasion of the responsibilities of the committee's right by good Republican Members like the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), my friend; it is just that this, my dear friends, is an election year. This is a wonderful opportunity to rise and say, we are doing something about drugs, and what are we doing? We are doing something which first of all evades the rules, second of all evades the ordinary practices of the House, and third, which evades any requirement that we have proper consideration of this legislation, and which puts on the floor proposals which are already being implemented by the Government of the United States and for which Members of this body have already voted money for the implementation thereof. Mr. Chairman, I think this is the most curious process. It is perhaps excusable by the fact that my Republican colleagues do not want to point out the fact that these things are already being done. And I can understand why they would not, because if they are going to pass a piece of legislation which is essentially a bill to celebrate an oncoming election by passing a piece of legislation that does not mean anything, one does not want to have any committee scrutiny which shows that the bill does not do anything. That is the problem that we have here. The rules of this House have served this body well. The Rules of the House work. They say that they will consider legislation well. They say we will know when there are windfalls for special interests, like as in this legislation which provide for a windfall for God knows who for the Lord only knows how much and for any product which they put on the market which is protected by exclusivity. This is a most remarkable exercise. It is one which I would assume my Republican colleagues would practice only in an election year, because that is the only time that this kind of slovenly chicanery, sloppy legislation and irresponsibility needs to be practiced, unless my colleagues on the other side also choose to do so in odd-numbered years. Having said this, reject the rule. Let the committees look at the bill. Give the committees opportunities to consider the things in this legislation in the light of the expertise of the committees. The committees are run by Republicans. There is no mention of task forces in the rules of the House. Bring the people into the process. Let us let sunshine work. Let us find out what the legislation does. Let us not go home and kid the people and say we passed a great piece of legislation without admitting that almost all of it is now being implemented by law and this whole exercise is related to the fact that the election is 7 weeks off. Follow the rules of the House of Representatives. They have been crafted by wiser men than any who sit here, and they work and they see to it that the public is well served in the light of day by careful consideration of the views of all the people and an understanding of what the legislation would do. Reject the rule, send it back to committee, let us have a proper look at it, and we will bring you a piece of legislation of which my colleagues could be proud instead of having to sneak home and lie to our people about how something was done which in fact was not done.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4382, the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 1998. I am proud to have been one of the authors of the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA). Breast cancer remains one of the leading causes of death in women, and its victims are our mothers, sisters, spouses, daughters, or friends. I hope that we will quickly reauthorize the MQSA so that it will continue to provide the incalculable benefit of early detection, with the hope of successful treatment. Those who administer the MQSA, the Food and Drug Administration's Center of Devices and Radiological Health, and those who benefit from it, patients represented by organizations such as the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations, and the American Cancer Society, have judged the MQSA a success and support its reauthorization. GAO recently reported that the MQSA ``has had a positive impact on the quality of mammography services and no effect on access to them.'' There has been a dramatic decline in facilities that failed to meet the interim regulations. FDA has estimated that the MQSA's benefits have greatly exceeded its costs. Of course, the benefits of early diagnosis and treatment are priceless to patients and their family and friends. The bill before us contains two important new provisions: First, there is direct patient notification for all mammography patients. Second, it authorizes a demonstration program for less than annual inspections for facilities with excellent compliance records. Direct patient notification is already provided for self-referred patients, as well as voluntarily by a growing number of facilities in response to widespread patient support. Direct patient notification is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the notification a mammography facility provides to the referring physician. This is an important safeguard. It ensures that patients have the information they need in a timely fashion so that they can take any additional steps warranted by the test. Guidelines promulgated by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research contain sample communications to patients and other safeguards to assure that direct patient notification is done in a timely, accurate, and sensitive manner. As I noted, direct patient notification is provided today for self-referred patients and for many, many others. The provision in the bill simply extends this to all patients of mammography services facilities. The bill's authorization of a carefully limited demonstration program for less than annual inspections of facilities with excellent compliance records is intended to be carried out at the discretion of the Secretary of HHS under criteria that assure no compromise in patient safety. The demonstration must occur after facilities have compiled a compliance record under the final regulations which have yet to go into effect, not the interim standards in force today. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has already passed a MQSA reauthorization bill that is somewhat different than the bill before us today. I would like to think that we took that body's product and improved upon it. The bill before us today is endorsed by the major breast cancer patient groups. I fervently hope that we will reauthorize this law this year so that the excellent progress of the MQSA can continue. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleagues whose work made this day possible. I especially want to note the efforts of the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, Mr. Bilirakis, as well as the Ranking Member of that Subcommittee, Mr. Brown. Many other members with passionate and longstanding interests in the MQSA and related issues have also worked hard and I note particularly the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues Representatives Norton and Nancy Johnson.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry. As I note that the Rules of the House require that any document in the possession of any committee or in the possession of the House is available to any Member of this House upon demand; is that correct?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, again, I have a further parliamentary inquiry. The documents are in the custody of the Speaker, are they not?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I note that the Rules of the House say that any document in any committee is available to any Member of this House upon proper presentation by that Member to this committee. Will that rule prevail with regard to the documents referred to?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), for his kindness in yielding to me at this particular time. I strongly support this legislation which I am the original author. As pointed out, Thomas Edison invented more than 1,300 wondrous devices. It changed the way we not only viewed the world, but how we lived. He truly represents an extraordinary creative spirit of the kind which made this Nation great. It is not only fitting that we honor him, but we do so here with a commemorative coin. The revenue from the sales of this coin will be used to continue his legacy by funding a number of important programs such as the Edison Institute at Greenfield Village. I want to express my thanks to my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento); also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), the minority whip, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for their fine work in this matter. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. For years I have supported the efforts of my colleagues to pass legislation which would make it more difficult for Mr. Castro to continue his dictatorship in Cuba. But I believe also that that effort should be bottomed on effective means of accomplishing the purpose, and that that effort should be bottomed on something which is going to spend the taxpayers' money well. Here is a picture, and I am sorry that we do not have a bigger one, but this is TV Marti. We are going to spend $9 million on this picture being displayed in Havana. It is going to cost the Cubans for the jamming of TV Marti about the equivalent of the cost of about four 100- watt light bulbs a day. That is all it is going to cost. We are going to spend $9 million on this. It will be a fine employment for a number of people who will profess their strong anti-Castro credentials. It will be the continuation of $100 million in wasted public expenditures belonging to the American taxpayer. It is not long back that there was a hurricane that hit down there in Florida. It blew down the balloon that holds up the transmitter. The interesting thing is that nobody in Cuba knew whether that balloon was up or down, and nobody in Cuba knew what was being sent out on TV Marti. But then, they did not know that when TV Marti's balloon was up, and they did not know that when TV Marti was broadcasting. We are the conservators of money belonging to the taxpayers of the United States. The amount in this bill is only about $9 million. We can say that is not much money, but that is $9 million that we could spend for something else that would be more worthwhile. It is something which would enable us to perhaps have some more effective way of dealing with Fidel Castro and his thugs. It is also $9 million we could use better on efforts to better the lives of our people. It is $9 million that we could use better to perhaps reduce the national debt. I understand the enthusiasm of my colleagues who support the cause of Cuba. They figure anything we do which is going to hurt Castro is good. That is fine reasoning, providing it in fact does hurt Mr. Castro, and provided in fact it does see to it that Mr. Castro leaves office at the earliest possible minute and that democracy be restored to Cuba. Certainly that is a laudible goal for the United States. But to spend $9 million a year broadcasting a picture which looks like this to Cuba and culminates in $100 million in expenditures over time, whose sole visible benefit to the United States is that we have provided modest levels of increased employment in Florida for people who profess to be opposed to Castro, no. I am not a representative of anybody except the American people and the folks of the 16th District. I think that almost every one of us would say that that was our function here in the Congress, to serve the people that elect us, and also to serve the interests of the people of the United States. We should look at this picture and ask ourselves whether this is what we want to spend our constituents' money on. We should ask ourselves whether we want to spend the taxpayers' money on something that has proven to reach so few people, to confer so little benefit on the United States, to do so little hurt to communism and Fidel Castro, and to do so at such large costs. TV Marti has been reviewed time after time, including by agencies like the General Accounting Office. They have found that it is totally ineffective, and it is totally ineffective in terms of getting whatever story there is out. The one good thing that can be said about TV Marti is that it has given a rallying point to anti-Castro Cubans. It has provided fine employment for them. It has given them leverage and political posture and position in the United States, but it has done nothing to hurt Fidel Castro or communism, or to further our American policies. Indeed, all it has done has been to dissipate some significant amounts of energy, large amounts of the taxpayers' money, and to provide a fiction that people can come in here and tell us something. Look at this picture. That is what Cubans in Havana are seeing. It is a picture of a well-scrambled, well-obfuscated television channel which is costing the Cubans virtually nothing, but which costs the United States a lot. Support the amendment. Let us get rid of this turkey.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise to, first of all, commend the leadership on both sides, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa and the distinguished gentleman from New York, for this legislation. I rise to offer my unequivocal support for the legislation, and also to praise credit unions, which are dedicated to the communities and the people they serve. These institutions provide low-cost consumer credit to American families and small businesses, and they provide a fine opportunity for the American people to work together for their own common good. I urge support of H.R. 1151. As a freshman Congressman in 1934, my dad worked on the Federal Credit Union Act. The committee in its report on that legislation, which happened in one of the darkest times in American financial history, said this: That the credit unions have, and I now quote, ``come through the depression without failures, when the banks have failed so notably, is a tribute to the worth of cooperative credit.'' That is as clear today as it was then. Credit unions are a vital part of our community and our Nation. They serve the people, and they serve them well. Strong consumer support for credit unions does not surprise me. Over the past year, people have come to me at town hall meetings, pancake breakfasts and other events, and said to me, ``Congressman, you have to help the credit unions, because they work for us.'' While some of the provisions in the House bill are different than I would have had, H.R. 1151 is a good bill. It will help credit unions continue to provide high-quality low-cost services to the members and to the communities which have made them so popular with the families across America. I urge support of the legislation, and I commend my colleagues who have worked on it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding to me. Because of an act of extraordinary lack of comity of the part of the managers of the bill on this side, and because of some extraordinary discourtesy, the Committee on Commerce has not been afforded our share of the time on this bill. I am therefore compelled to request time from the Republicans for this unanimous consent request. I express my thanks. I hope that the next time our two committees deal with each other, there will be more courtesy shown by the Committee on the Judiciary. I intend to remember this event.