Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I read the gentleman's amendment, it says that amounts that are received by the United States as bonuses for leases under this title and deposited with the Treasury ``may be appropriated to HHS'' to help fund the low-income assistance program. If the gentleman would be willing to engage in a colloquy with me, it seems that it would be entirely discretionary as to whether or not the Committee on Appropriations actually uses the funds that would be raised in order to help the LIHEAP program; is that so?

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. MARKEY. So as Members are voting, they are not voting for an actual appropriation for additional money for LIHEAP. As the gentleman knows, in past years the Congress has authorized fairly substantially high levels of funding for LIHEAP, and yet the Committee on Appropriations has never quite felt that they had to honor the authorization level. As a result, we have had some difficulty ensuring that the full funding for heating assistance is on the books.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, my point is there is going to be a tremendous amount of budgetary pressure on Congress for the remainder of the year. The war in Iraq has yet to be completely paid for, the deficit continues to explode, and the Committee on Appropriations will know that language like this did pass; but my experience in the past has been that they regard it with about as much weight as the piece of paper upon which it is printed. That is a sad experience for Members on authorizing committees. Has the gentleman had the same experience in the past with the Committee on Appropriations?

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, in our committee, we had a huge, successful string of hearings dealing with the Enron crisis and the aftermath of that set of scandals which rippled through the entire electricity and natural gas marketplace. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, responding to our inquiries with regard to what they needed in order to deal with that crisis, said that there are seven deadly sins in this marketplace. Enron called them things like, Ricochet, Fat Boy, Death Star, Wheel Out, Get Shorty. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission called them the seven deadly sins of Enron. And the seventh one, Round Tripping. This legislation only bans one of the seven deadly sins of Enron, Round Tripping. That would be like saying, well, we are outlawing sloth, but we are not going to do anything about pride, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, we will let them all stay on the books. So what the Dingell language does is say that we give antifraud authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission so they can go against each and every one of the seven deadly sins of Enron and all of those other companies that were engaging in systematic defrauding of American consumers and competitors of those companies across our country. And, in addition, the Dingell language dramatically increases the penalties that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can impose upon these companies so that when they get caught, the punishment fits the crime. The Dingell language mandates that electronic trails of all these documentations have to be kept. They cannot just put it on a piece of paper, written in pencil. That makes it almost impossible to reconstruct the trail of what they were doing in their efforts to defraud the American consumer and the other companies across the country, an electronic trail like we have at the Securities and Exchange Commission, or at the CFTC, at other trading entities for equity and futures and options all around the world, everywhere but in the electricity and natural gas on-line trading marketplace. There we are still using pencil and paper like it was the 1980s, ancient history in trading in the world, and we want to bring it forward. The Dingell amendment does that, so that when they commit the crime, we will be able to identify it, the FERC will be able to trail it, stop it, and then the punishment under the Dingell amendment will fit what they did to the American consumer and public. I urge an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dingell substitute and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. If you are concerned at all about the threat of fraud and manipulation in electricity markets, you should vote for the Dingell Democratic substitute. The Dingell substitute would add a basic antifraud provision to the Federal Power Act, giving the FERC the tools needed to bring enforcement actions using this antifraud authority, and impose tough civil and criminal penalties on those who violate the antifraud or other pvosions of the Federal Power Act. The first part of the amendment is a basic antifraud provision that uses language identical to that of the antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, which have been in place for the last 65 years. It creates a general antifraud prohibition intended to be broad in application, making it unlawful for any entity, directly or indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, to use or employ any fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with the purchase or sale of electricity or natural gas in contravention of such rules and regulations as the FERC shall prescribe. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we've heard testimony from the FERC about what Chairman Pat Wood referred to as the ``Seven Deadly Sins'' of Enron's market manipulations--trading practices known as ``Price Manipulation-Load Shift,'' ``Export of California Power Richochet'' or ``Megawatt Laundering,'' ``Fat Boy or Incing Load'', ``Non-Firm Exports, ``Death Star,'' Wheel Out,'' ``Get Shorty,'' and ``Selling Non-Firm Energy as Firm Energy.'' But the bill before us today prohibits only one of the Seven Deadly sins--Roundtripping. That's like saying that we're outlawing sloth, but we're not going to do anything about pride, envy, gluttony, anger, greed, or lust! The Dingell substitute would fix that. We shouldn't just be outlawing one of Enron's Seven Deadly Sins, we should be addressing them all. FERC should not always have to fall back on its ``Just and Reasonable'' rate authority when it is confronted with fraudulent activities, and there should be a higher penalty available to FERC when a fraud or manipulation has occurred than merely ordering a refund of excessive charges. That is why this amendment is needed. In addition, the substitute amendment gives the FERC the power to direct the establishment of electronic audit trails which are a fundamental feature of securities and commodities markets. By requiring market participants to make and keep time-stamped trading records in electronic form and to periodically provide them to the regulator, audit trails give FERC the ability to conduct market surveillance and to investigate suspicious and possibly fraudulent or manipulative trading activities. Such audit trails have been in place for many years in our stock and bond markets, and in our nation's futures markets. The amendment also strengthens the civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Federal Power Act. The current penalties are absurdly low--$5,000--which is chump change for one of these huge companies. The bill increases these penalties to up to $1 million. That's an improvement, but it is not good enough. What we've done in the substitute is to increase the criminal penalties up to the levels the House Republicans pressed for when they added the Sensenbrenner amendment to the recently enacted Sarbanes-Oxley bill--up to $5 million for individuals and $25 million for companies. In addition, the penalties section also enhances the ability of the court to censure or place limitations on the activities of individuals found to have engaged in serious violations enumerated in the provision. This is drawn directly from section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act, and has been an important enforcement tool for the SEC for many, many years. If we have learned anything over the course of the 3 years following the Enron scandal, and the subsequent revelations of widespread fraud and market manipulation in the Western electricity markets, it is that the perfect markets assumed by free market ideologues differ from the real markets observed by consumers. In fact, the FERC staff has now issued two huge reports on their investigations into the Western electricity markets. What they found was a market that was rigged, transparency systems that could be gamed, and electricity and gas prices that were unjust and unreasonable. But, the FERC staff report also shows the problem that FERC has from a regulatory and enforcement perspective is that the limitations of current law force it to go after fraudulent companies or rigged electricity markets by prosecuting for filing violations, or commencing rate-making proceedings, when the real heart of the issue is fraud. The House Majority proposal responds to these findings only half-heartedly with a proposal so narrowly circumscribed as to miss most of the Enron- style shenanigans. Chairman Wood expressed support for the antifraud provisions of the Dingell substitute when I offered them as an amendment and he and his staff have suggested changes to these sections that have been incorporated into the amendment the gentleman from Michigan is offering today. So if you are against fraud in our nation's market, if you want FERC to be able to take action against those who would manipulate these markets at the expense of consumers, you need to vote for the Dingell amendment today. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the coauthor of the amendment with me.

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

Mr. MARKEY. So the two opponents of the amendment are each able to speak before the proponent of the amendment at the conclusion of debate?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. This is an issue about going to a pristine area in the Arctic and drilling in order to build a pipeline, in order to bring the oil down to California to put it in SUVs that get 12, 13 miles per gallon. The people who propounded this amendment just voted against an amendment that would have increased the fuel economy standards up to 30 miles per gallon for SUVs. Rather than do that, they say to future generations that they would prefer to desecrate this sacred refuge. Now, I saw a Roll Call about a week ago and the Congressman from Montana's picture was in there. He was a staffer at the time. He had a beard. He had some glasses. He looked a lot younger. I did, too. People change, but there are certain things that should not change. The Arctic Refuge is one of those things. And I think, unless we have a compelling reason not to increase the fuel economy standards of SUVs that we have no right to first go to a pristine wilderness that should be preserved for the next generation.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. The United States has 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world. The Middle East has 75 percent. Technological genius is what we are all about. We see that in the Middle East right now. That is our strength. We doubled the fuel economy in our country from 13 to 26 miles per gallon back in the middle of 1980s. With it, we had a plummeting of oil imports. Since 1987 we have slipped backwards in technology, and there has been a dramatic rise in the import of imported oil, up to 65 percent of our total oil. We can see the direct correlation between the power OPEC has over us and the increase in the number of SUVs and light trucks, with no controls, which are sold in our country. When we reach 70 percent and 75 percent dependence upon imported oil, Iran and Syria and other countries that have large oil reserves over there, including Saudi Arabia, looking at us 10 years from now, will wonder why on the floor of the Congress with 250,000 troops over in the Middle East securing the oil fields of Iraq, we did not also increase the fuel economy standards of the Hummer 1s that are roaming the streets of the United States consuming gasoline at a rate of 11 miles per gallon. It is one thing to have young men and women in these vehicles in the Middle East securing oil. It is another thing in our country not to have a plan to increase the fuel efficiency that reduces our oil consumption, to avoid the necessity of sending them back there again. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, who opposes this bill? The nurses, the police, the fire, the Public Health Association of the United States. They all oppose it. These are the health care heroes in our country. The reason that legislation is so important is that these people are going to be asked to put their lives on the line. They are the first responders. How busy are we that we can give them 20 minutes of debate, each side having 20 minutes to debate their fate? How hard would it be for us to have worked all day Friday to allow amendments to have been made that represents what the teachers, what the nurses, what the doctors, what the police and what the fire want for protections? How hard would it have been for us to have worked all day today if there is an emergency? Do we not as Members of Congress owe to these heroes working on a Friday and a Monday so we can debate what their needs are? Then why is it important? It is important because the adverse reactions from the smallpox vaccine are a real concern. This bill coerces volunteers to be vaccinated within 180 days after the regulations are issued or they lose their rights to lost wages and to disability payments and even to death payments. They lose them. A pregnant nurse has only 180 days to be vaccinated after her baby is born. This is wrong. Vote ``no'' on this bill. Let us have a full debate on the House floor with amendments.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Spectrum Commons and Digital Dividends Act.'' I am proposing this measure in order to advance three key goals: (1) establishment of a ``Spectrum Commons;'' (2) creation of a permanent public interest telecommunications trust fund for education technology grants; and (3) ensuring that sound wireless telecommunications policymaking is not unduly skewed by unrelated budgetary initiatives. Spectrum Commons Mr. Speaker, the legislation I introduce today promotes the goal of creating a ``Spectrum Commons.'' High tech manufacturers, entrepreneurs and the proverbial ``kid in the garage'' could make more robust use of wireless communications if sufficient spectrum were available in unlicensed form for the general public. The bill requires the FCC to establish a 20 MHz band of contiguous frequencies below the 2 GHz band, as well as between 3 to 500 MHz located between the 2 GHz and 6 GHz bands. These swaths of airwaves would constitute the ``Spectrum Commons'' and therefore would remain open to the public and unlicensed. Such a public set-aside could foster the formation of an open platform for innovation, entrepreneurial activity, and public communications. An unlicensed area of the airwaves will permit the public, through the use of `smart' radio technology and better receiver equipment, to harness the airwaves for countless applications but only if the government is willing to give back to the public a portion of its own airwaves in such an unlicensed format. From ``wi-fi'' technology and low power ``Bluetooth'' wireless connections, to so-called ``802.11'' and successor protocols, wireless local area networks and Net connections, utilization of publicly available airwaves can help connect people and businesses in cost-effective and spectrum-efficient ways. Moreover, the designation of cleared bands at such different locations in the frequency spectrum sets the stage for varied applications to emerge reflecting the respective physical properties that such bands currently possess. The ``Spectrum Commons'' will also help to propel economic growth and innovation by opening up the airwaves to new marketplace entry by individuals and entities unaffiliated with established network providers, such as incumbent cable, telephone, or wireless carriers. In addition, ensuring sufficient unlicensed spectrum would also militate against unhealthy consolidation of spectrum in the hands of too few providers. Digital Dividends Trust Fund Mr. Speaker, when the FCC does decide to proceed with auctions as a means of granting licenses for use of the public's airways, I believe that the public deserves to reap the benefits of the sale of licenses to its airwaves. Yet these benefits should not only manifest themselves in the offering of new commercial services or the temporary infusion of cash into the Federal treasury as under current law. I propose in this legislation that the public should also enjoy the ``dividends'' that can be reaped by reinvesting money raised through use of a public asset in a manner designed to promote educational technology projects, educational software R&D, as well as initiatives addressing the digital divide. The bill I am introducing today creates a trust fund, capped at $5 Billion, to cover any reasonable relocation costs incurred by Federal government users of the spectrum when they are moved to other frequency locations. This $5 Billion figure does not represent the full extent of financial assistance available to Federal agencies, it merely reflects the amount that will be available to them through auction revenue. Any additional relocation costs above that amount can be paid for through the traditional appropriations process by which Congress operates and funds such necessary government costs and services. The bill proposes taking any surplus auction revenue and creating a permanent trust fund (the ``Digital Dividends Trust Fund'') from wireless auction revenue in order to fund such public interest telecommunications initiatives. Splitting the grants into two general categories--``human capital telecommunications investments'' and ``broadband infrastructure investments for public access and rural development''--the Digital Dividends Trust Fund authorizes grants for the following initiatives: Training of teachers & other personnel at schools and libraries eligible for E-rate funding; R&D for cutting-edge educational software designed to enhance learning in schools; Digitizing educational materials held in our nation's libraries, archives, and museums; Technology projects supported by volunteers enrolled in AmeriCorps, Projects enhancing the access of individuals with disabilities to advanced telecommunications services; Retraining workers and unemployed individuals with skills applicable to the new economy; After-school programs for youth focused on computer literacy and interaction; Local and regional programs to expand access to advanced telecommunications in areas available to the general public; Broadband deployment to low-income housing and community centers and to unserved rural areas; and, Conversion of public radio and television broadcasting stations to digital broadcasting technology. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is important that telecommunications policymaking reassert itself in wireless policy, where for too long budget priorities have warped sound policy. Since Congress first enacted legislation in 1993 to permit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to distribute certain airwave licenses to the public through the use of auctions, the FCC has used this licensing mechanism numerous times and the U.S. Government has reaped billions of dollars for general revenue purposes. The initial principle behind auctions was to enhance telecommunications policy goals through the efficient licensing of frequency spectrum, where the revenue an auction raised represented an additional benefit to the taxpayer. Over time, however, the use of auctions has become perverted. They are increasingly advocated primarily for purposes of raising general revenue irrespective of whether such auctions advance sound telecommunications policy. Moreover, the money raised from auctions has been sent directly to the U.S. Treasury. The money from telecommunications auctions was not reinvested in order to enhance our democracy, bridge the digital divide, or promote public interest telecommunications projects. Instead, the auction of licenses for use of the public's airwaves has been subjected to the alchemy of budget scorers intent on transforming thin air into gold. Legitimate telecommunications policy objectives are often undermined by proposals to auction certain slices of the airwaves on a date dictated by budgetary scoring needs. Instead, auctions should only be scheduled once the appropriate telecommunications policy goals have been agreed upon and the conditions necessary for successful licensing through auctions have been secured. This legislation requires the FCC, prior to scheduling upcoming auctions, to take action to achieve the timely transition to digital television by establishing rules governing must-carry issues, minimum programming and broadcasting requirements, and digital television receiver benchmarks. It also directs the NTIA and the FCC to take action to secure additional spectrum for advanced wireless services-- including mobile services such as so-called ``3G'' services. Sound telecommunications policy, consistent with the public interest, would be greatly furthered by putting the ``policy horse'' back in front of the ``auction cart.'' The bill seeks to re-establish this principle in wireless policy. Mr. Speaker, my Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee colleague and chairman, Mr. Upton, has companion legislation addressing similar subject matter. I look forward to working with him, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Mr. Dingell, and other interested members on these telecommunications initiatives and hopefully, by working together constructively, we can achieve consensus legislation for the House to consider later this year.