Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me begin this debate by clarifying for anyone who may be listening what we are fighting about. In the United States, we have two types of television stations. We have commercial television stations. On commercial television stations people see the evening news, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Survivor, a whole host of programs which are basically commercial. Now, it is possible, and frequently it occurs, that individual religions purchase commercial TV stations because they want to use them as the vehicle by which they are able to communicate their message into a community. Those are commercial television stations. Then we have the other kind of television stations, public TV stations. Most often we consider them to be PBS. We turn to them, we actually consider them just to have a number, in Boston it is channel 2, WGBH; and we have another smaller public television station as well. Those television stations are meant to serve the noncommercial, educational needs for the entire community. Commercial: Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, or any religion that wants to purchase a commercial station in order to advance the goals of that religion; noncommercial educational, a separate category, stations meant to serve the educational needs of the entire community. This is a debate over one of those noncommercial, educational television stations. And the story is one which really does not deal with whether or not religions can purchase commercial stations in order to advance their goals within a particular community; they may continue to do so. This debate is over whether or not if a religion gains control over a noncommercial educational station, whether or not that religion can use it in order to advance full time, all day long the goals of its own religion, and not serve the noncommercial educational needs of the entire community. That is the debate in a nutshell, should we, in other words, continue to maintain the special purpose for which these noncommercial educational stations have always been reserved while allowing religions to run them if they want but under the guidelines that historically they have always had to maintain in order to ensure that the entire community is served. If we allow this wall to be broken down, then we are going to wind up in a situation where individual religions are able to move into community after community with populations that have very diverse religious backgrounds and to use one of these very small number of public TV stations in a community exclusively for the religious purpose of that one religion. I believe that that is very dangerous, very dangerous, especially since each one of these religions has the ability to buy a commercial TV station. Now, as we move forward in this debate, this very important debate, it is going to be critical for everyone to understand the historic nature of what we are talking about here today. If in any way there is a misunderstanding with regard to whether or not any of us believes there should be any restrictions placed upon the ability of religious broadcasters on commercial stations to, in fact, proselytize if they want, then they misunderstand the nature of what it is we are proposing. The essence of this debate is whether or not we want to continue to keep a distinction in place which separates public TV stations from commercial TV stations, commercial stations from noncommercial stations intended to educate the entire community. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a debate which, unfortunately, has developed connotations which do not accurately reflect the core of the debate, the issues that are at the essence of this controversy. Our hope is that, in the course of this couple of hours, that we are going to be able to explain the very real differences of opinion that exist here with the hope that we can maintain this wall that historically we have created between the State and the establishment of religion, which I am afraid is being broken down by the legislation which is on the floor here today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, just so it is very clear, if the bill being proposed today is adopted, there will no longer ever again be a requirement that a public television station must serve the educational needs of a community. They will not have that requirement any longer. It is gone. They can serve that community under this new bill as long as they are broadcasting religion all day long. They have fulfilled a requirement now under the new law. No education at all is required. So here is a public television station. It has been in a community for 50 years, it has served the educational needs of the entire community, everyone who lives within that 1 million, 2 million, 3 million, 4 million person area, and all of a sudden it is now being run by a religion that has absolutely no responsibility to serve the educational needs of that community, none, zero, gone, do not have to ever again put on a single educational program. That is their new law. Now, how does that serve a community? Some religion comes in, it could be a cult by the way, some cult comes in and buys a noncommercial educational station and says we are not going to serve the local educational needs of the community any longer. We are just going to have our own little cult on this TV station. Under this law, that is legal. That is legal. One cannot say anything about it. The language in the bill says that, as long as one serves the religious purpose in a nonarbitrary or reasonable way, which the FCC would have to move in and challenge, then one is serving the entire community. Now, how can that be a good thing? How can it be a good thing for one religion to move in, a cult potentially, buy one or two public television stations in town, and just broadcast their religion all day long. Now, the only way in which that can be challenged is if the FCC, under their bill, the FCC comes in and determines that there is something wrong with this cult or that it is acting in an arbitrary or unreasonable way; that is this cult, this religion, that is now operating the public television station in town. Well, let us take it a step further. Let us say two religions come along, and each one of them wants to run this public television station in the town. Now, who determines who gets this public television station? Well, under the bill, the FCC has to determine which of the two religions is more religious. Which of the two religions has the better likelihood of serving one community on the public television station, on potentially the only public television station available in town. How can that be a good thing? How can we have the FCC in determining which religion is better, not based upon whether or not, by the way, they are going to serve the educational needs of the community, because there is no requirement, once this bill passes, that the educational needs of the community is served. They do not have to do it at all. They can, 100 percent of the time, just broadcast their religion, their cult potentially. The FCC determines which of the two religions or cults is the better religion or cult to be the only religion on the public television station in a community that had historically been served as a noncommercial educational station, serving the entire community for the last 30 or 40 or 50 years. This is not a good idea. This is not what we intended noncommercial educational, that is, public television stations, to play as a role in communities across this country. The deeper we get into this debate, the more troubling it becomes, because it is very evident that, at the end of the day, there will be a small number of religions who will try their best to get ahold of these TV stations, these public TV stations, all across the country just to proselytize, just to run their religion into people's homes in these individual communities. Again, we have nothing against any religion purchasing a commercial television station. They can do so, and they do in every single community across this entire country. We have no problem with any individual sect running a noncommercial public television station as long as they fulfill the requirements that they serve the educational needs of every child, every child who lives within that area. Every child within a 2 million or 3 million person area is not going to be served by one religion broadcasting its religion into the minds of every child in that broadcasting area. That is not an educational purpose, as far as most parents are going to be concerned. Most parents are not going to want the public television station in their community broadcasting one religion into the minds of their children all day long. If a religion wants to do that, they should purchase a commercial television station. If they want to purchase the public television station in town, they should be required to serve every single child. Now, some religions say by broadcasting their religion, even if 90 percent of the community is not of that religion, that they are furthering the educational needs of that community. Well, I would contend and maintain that almost every parent is of the belief that their child is not going to be served by listening to one religion all day long on the public television station in their community. They are going to be of just the opposite opinion; that their child is being misserved; that their child should not be watching that TV station; that it is no longer an educational TV station but it is a religious broadcasting station which should be a commercial station. So in every one of our hometowns we have a public television station, and it has Sesame Street on it and it has all the rest of that programming that children across our country watch on an ongoing basis. Now, if this new law passes, and a particular religion gets access to one of these public TV stations, they do not have to put on anything except their own religion all day long. That cannot be a good idea. That is a complete perversion of the notion that was established 50 years ago about having these public television stations, that are public parks, in essence. They are public parks that every child, every adult can go to. It is common ground. It is not offensive to anyone. It is programming that everyone feels that they are benefiting from, not just one sect, one sub part of a community. So, my colleagues, this bill takes the public parks that are the public television stations in our country and they turn them into private preserves of one religion, one sub part of the community. And if we want to play in that park, if we want to watch that public television station, we have to assume that our children or our families are going to be exposed continuously, 100 percent of the time, to the religious tenets of that one religion. Again, no one has any objection to any religion purchasing a commercial television station. They do so by the hundreds across the country. No one has any objection to a particular religion running a noncommercial television station, a public television station, as long as they abide by the rules that they are serving the entire community's educational needs, not religious needs. One religion should not be able to say, here is the religious programming that this one community needs and we are going to put it on 100 percent of the time on the educational television station in town. That is wrong, and that is why this legislation should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bottom line on this bill is that under current law the FCC decides whether the programming is educational. That is their job: Does, in fact, the public TV station fulfill the educational requirement to serve the entire community. If we adopt this bill, the FCC will have to decide whether the programming is religious. That is its responsibility. Now, no one believes that it is the job of the FCC to make religious determinations, yet that is exactly what this legislation asks it to do. We will have turned the Federal Communication Commission into the faith-based content commission, all the time saying that they did not mean to. They did not mean to do that; they did not mean to have the FCC determining whether or not this public television station had served the religious needs of the community. But it will have to do that. If we support public television, we should vote against this bill. If we support keeping Federal bureaucrats out of religion, we should vote against this bill. But if we want the Federal Communications Commission deciding whether a broadcast applicant is sufficiently religious to qualify for a brand new licensing category, entitled ``primarily religious,'' then this bill is the right bill. This takes the public television stations across America and has the Federal Communication Commission determining whether or not they are primarily religious; that is, are they religious enough. Again, there is nothing wrong with some religion running a public television station. There is nothing wrong with them having a religious component. Much of what can be done with a public television station can include a lot of religious educational broadcasting. Educational. Not proselytizing, but educational. And that occurs today. It occurs today on a thousand radio stations across the country. It occurs on public television stations today that are being operated by individual religions, but it does not allow that religion to turn it into nothing more than a sanctuary for their own religion broadcasting 24 hours a day into the homes of every person that lives in that community. Now, just so it is clear, there are a lot of people that oppose this particular bill. The Interfaith Alliance opposes it, the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States opposes it, the National Education Association opposes this bill, the National PTA, the prime supporters of public television in America, especially because of its children's television component, opposes it. The National PTA opposes this bill. The Unitarian Universalists Association of Congregations opposes this bill. This should send chills up the spine of any person that really does respect their own religion. Because rather than having a public television station in a community any longer serving the entire community, we are going to wind up with individual religions thinking that they can take one of the small number of public television stations in each community and just turning it into their own private preserve. Again, nothing wrong with information on a public television station that is educational when it relates to religion, but when it turns into something that is nothing more than a pulpit for one church, I think there are real problems. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in conclusion on this portion of the debate. The gentleman from Louisiana contends that there will be no comparative test that has to be put in place by the Federal Communications Commission in order to determine which one of two religions is better qualified for the maintenance of a particular public television station in a particular community. But the reality is that once his language is adopted, once a television station, a public television station, can be primarily religious, then necessarily that test is incorporated into the historical set of criteria which must be looked at by the Federal Communications Commission to determine which potential applicant is more qualified to operate a public television station in a particular community. In other words, Federal Communications Commission which historically has meant Federal Communications Commission, will be changed from FCC, Federal Communications Commission to FCC, Faith Content Commission. The FCC will have to determine which of the two religions is better qualified to run a public television station. Now, do we really want the FCC to be in the business of determining which religion is better qualified, which one is more primarily religious in its operation of a public television station? I do not think we really want that. I think that the historical standard of which of the applicants will better serve the educational needs of a community is the standard which we should maintain, it has served our country well, and it is one which I believe once the debate moves to the Markey amendment will be better understood by all who are watching it, and ultimately I think, hopefully, supported so that we can maintain that status which has served our country so well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is very straightforward and very simple. It restores the word ``educational'' in two key areas. First, in establishing eligibility to obtain a noncommercial educational license, a public TV station, it stipulates that one must not merely be any nonprofit organization but rather a nonprofit educational organization. Secondly, it restores the educational basis for the programming by adding the word ``educational'' before the word ``religious'' in the underlying legislation. The point here is that noncommercial educational licenses should have an educational basis. If we do not pass the Markey substitute, the underlying bill has the effect of gutting the educational basis for public television because it would permit religious programming to qualify for such licenses 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Now, many of us would be very happy to have religious organizations broadcast in our communities, and many do so today under commercial licenses. A few also do so on noncommercial educational licenses, yet adhering to the educational requirements that such licenses hold. Nothing in this amendment would prevent religious programming. It simply states that in order to have a public TV license, a noncommercial educational license, you must be primarily educational in your programming. I know that we have a difference of interpretation of what the sponsors of the bill believe their bill does. The sponsors believe that their bill does not change the eligibility requirements and operational requirements of noncommercial educational licenses, that is, public TV stations across the country. I continue to believe that the deletion of the word ``educational'' from the eligibility requirements so that noncommercial educational licenses are able to be licensed to any nonprofit organization as well as the inclusion of the word ``religious'' as a category of broadcast material for which these licensees must primarily serve their communities is a fundamental change. The FCC has indicated that some religious programming will certainly qualify as educational. It always has. But we must remember that we have set these broadcast licenses aside to serve the community with educational programming. We have exempted these licenses from the auction process. Again, that is not to say religious organizations cannot be noncommercial educational licensees. Many already hold such licenses under the current licensing regime. The only question is whether we are going to change the nature of the trusteeship of the public's spectrum. Again, these are our public airwaves. We ought to ensure that these licenses that have been specifically set aside to serve the community, the entire community, with educational, noncommercial programming serves to the maximum extent possible the educational needs of the whole community. Religious organizations can certainly fulfill that role. We welcome them in that role. But we do not have to change the eligibility and operational requirements for them to effectively participate. Again, I believe that we tread on very dangerous ground where sectarian messages intended for the followers of a particular religion are licensed to displace nonsectarian educational messages intended for the entire community. Again, I believe we go too far where the government favors religious messages by specifically blessing them by exempting them from spectrum auctions. My amendment simply restores the educational focus for these licenses, and I hope that the House supports it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, again, let me come back to clarify once again. Under existing law, religious broadcasters are able to operate public television stations in the United States. However, they do so accepting the responsibility that they must serve primarily the educational needs of the entire community, although they are free to also broadcast their own religious beliefs. But, primarily under existing law, they must serve the educational needs of the entire community. Under the bill being proposed here today, that very same religion will now be freed up to broadcast exclusively their own religious beliefs, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Now, that is a big change, a big change, in the history of public broadcasting in our country. No one has any objection to the existing religious broadcasters on non-commercial educational broadcasting stations. No one has any objection to the existing standards continuing to be used in order to define whether or not they are serving the community well. But we do object to the standard which the majority is seeking to propound here today, which, in my opinion, will be a violation, an encroachment, on the establishment clause of the United States Constitution, of the first amendment, which creates a very strong line of demarcation between the state and religion. Here a public broadcasting station will be used by an individual religion to propound primarily religious messages all day long on a public broadcasting station, and I think at the end of the day that is wrong and it is something which should be rejected, as the Markey amendment seeks to correct it on the House floor here today.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, just so we can once again clarify, under existing law, the way we have operated for the last 50 years in this country, Christmas mass can be on a public television station. Handel's Messiah can be on a public television station, as long as the operators of that public television station are serving primarily the educational needs of the community. However, under this amendment, Christmas mass can be on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, if that religion decides that that is the only thing that they want to put on. They do not have to any longer serve any of the educational needs of the community at all. Under existing law, Christmas mass is on; Handel's Messiah is on. The educational needs are served. Under their amendment, their bill, all day long, religion 24 hours a day, one particular religion operating the public broadcasting station in town with no requirement to serve the educational needs of the community in any other way, shape or form. The children in the community, the local institutions in the community, and no one else.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill allows, allows the Federal Communications Commission to determine that a broadcaster's programming, which is primarily religious, is arbitrary or unreasonable. In other words, the FCC, under the bill as written, can step in and make judgments on religion. We are not getting away from the FCC making content decisions. We are simply letting the FCC into judging religious programming and whether it is sufficiently religious. We should not allow the FCC to become the Faith Content Commission. The gentleman from California referenced the bill's findings, and I am sure Judge Scalia will appreciate the findings. However, the actual legislative charge to the FCC goes much further in the legislation. Let me read. It says under Service Conditions on Noncommercial Educational and Public Broadcast Stations: ``A nonprofit organization shall be eligible to hold a noncommercial educational radio or television license if the station is used primarily to broadcast material that the organization determines serves a religious purpose in the station's community of license, unless that determination is arbitrary or unreasonable.'' There is no requirement that the broadcaster has to have an educational content; there is no requirement that it has to have served the needs of the entire community. The FCC is put in a position where, if two particular religions want one station, that they have to determine, the Federal Communications Commission, the Faith Content Commission, has to determine which of the two religions can better serve a particular community without even judging whether or not either religion is going to serve the educational needs of the community. Only which one is sufficiently more religious. So in fact, while the legislation's ostensible purpose is to remove the Federal Communications Commission from content-based decisions, in fact, what the legislation is about to do is to open wide the gates for religions all across America to begin to lay claim to individual educational public broadcasting stations all across America, and to argue before the Federal Communications Commission that their religion is more religious than another religion in taking over those public broadcasting stations. And, as part of the test, the Federal Communications Commission will not be able to look at whether or not the religion serves any educational need whatsoever in the community. Now, that may be the goal, because I know that there is a latent hostility on the part of many Members on the other side towards the public broadcasting system. I understand that. They have never liked the public broadcasting system; they have never enjoyed at all their particular mission; they do not like the fact that they, in fact, do educate the entire community. I understand how many Members on the other side do not like the public broadcasting system. But we are going to have to set up an aquarium down here in the well of the House to deal with all of the red herrings that have been spread out here on the floor. What, in fact, the majority is trying to do here today is to take public broadcasting stations and turn them into religious stations, plain and simple. That is the goal. So if you have a public television station back in your hometown and it has historically served the educational needs of the community, under this new language, they will no longer have to do so, and the FCC will have to intervene in order to determine which religion best serves the religious needs of that religion, of that community, but will be able to go no further. So I say to my colleagues, if ever there was an unconstitutional piece of legislation out here on the floor, this is it. If ever there was a piece of legislation that is going to be struck down for violation of the establishment clause or the separation between church and State, this is it. But for those who hate the Public Broadcasting System, this is just a natural further extension of their attempts to undermine its historic and thus far successful mission in every community in the United States. It will result ultimately, without question, in a transfer of stations over to individual religions with no educational goals whatsoever except for the proselytizing of their own individual sect. That should be allowed. They should be able to purchase commercial TV stations. In fact, let us be blunt, under the existing clause, as long as the religion does serve primarily the educational needs of a community they can talk about their own religion on that public broadcasting station, but they cannot do so to the exclusion of all other educational content, of all other service to the community, of all other service to children within that community. Mr. Speaker, this amendment which I am propounding is one which very simply ensures that the word ``educational'' is inserted before the word ``religious,'' that there is an educational component to any of this religious broadcasting which is going to be primarily broadcast on these public television stations. If we do not do that, there is going to be a fundamental change in public broadcasting in our country. I know it is the goal of the majority, but it should not be the goal either of the Members of this House or of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this issue is historic in its nature. Many on the other side contend that they support the historic mission of the public broadcasting stations across the United States. Yet, in their amendment, their bill, they are going to remove the educational requirement for public broadcasting stations across the country, remove it. No longer will there be a mandate that as part of the stewardship, part of the responsibility of controlling a public broadcasting station, that those individuals must serve the educational needs of the entire community. They are removing that. It is without question the core principle, the constitution that underlies the foundation of the public broadcasting stations in our country. That is why the national PTA opposes their bill and supports the Markey amendment, the national PTA, the teachers, and the parents; and the National Education Association as well, and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, the Interfaith Alliance, the National Council of Churches of Christ. All of them support the Markey amendment and oppose the underlying bill. The reason is that they have removed the educational requirement from educational TV. They are going to allow for religion to be the only thing which is on a public broadcasting station all day long, regardless of whether or not it has any educational content whatsoever. Even though we concede that under existing law, existing law, that religious organizations are able to run and do run very well public broadcasting stations across this country, and they include a religious component to the maintenance of those TV stations, and that is fine. That should continue. Whether it be Christmas mass or Handel's Messiah, it should stay on public broadcasting TV stations. We agree with that. Where we disagree and where the Markey amendment is so important is that we must ensure that the religious component does not replace the educational role as the primary responsibility of public broadcasting stations in this country.

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

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waxman amendment. The legislation that we are considering right now that the gentleman in California (Mr. Waxman) and others seek to amend should have, in fact, some help from the Government Printing Office so that the package around this legislation has a warning label that states, ``Warning: this legislation may be hazardous to your health and the health of every American who has a family member who smokes.'' Part of me, Mr. Chairman, cannot believe that we are actually on the floor engaged in a debate about whether or not the tobacco companies should be granted immunity against Federal lawsuits. And then part of me realizes that I should not be surprised at all. Two years ago, the tobacco companies came before the Committee on Commerce and swore that the proposed settlement worked out with the State did not contain immunity for their industry. The CEOs claimed that they wanted to work with us, that it was the dawn of a new era. And yet, at the same time, they hired a public relations firm to develop a cynical $20 million ad campaign to, quote, create the basis for an exit strategy, ideally, that the industry made a legitimate offer and that the politicians played politics and made a mess out of it. Well, their cynical ploy worked. Congress killed comprehensive tobacco legislation after the industry poured millions of dollars into the Republican campaign coffers. Well, Mr. Chairman, they get what they pay for. No comprehensive tobacco legislation. And now let us stop the Justice Department from suing to get back some money for the American taxpayers. Under the underlying bill that we are debating today, a rider stuck to it will de-fund the tobacco litigation that the Department of Justice has initiated on behalf of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense and Health and Human Services. In fact, the language in this bill states, in the most direct terms, that no money budgeted for litigation support may be used for the purposes of supporting litigation against tobacco companies. This is outrageous, Mr. Chairman. The Federal Government spends $20 billion annually on Medicare related to tobacco-induced illness costs. The same thing is true for the VA. The same thing is true for Indian services. All the way down the line. Now, what a message that this bill sends. It says, no day in court for our seniors who rely on Medicare, no day in court for our veterans, no day in court for our men and women in uniform, no day in court for Native Americans, no day in court for the millions upon millions of Americans ravaged by tobacco-related illnesses. It is bad enough that the 1997 balanced budget amendment cut so much money out of Medicare, but it compounds the crime immeasurably to then say that the Federal Government cannot sue to collect money from the tobacco industry that can be used for the health care of these ordinary Americans. Four hundred, thirty thousand Americans die each year from tobacco- related deaths. Four hundred, thirty thousand Americans die each year. One in five deaths in the United States are related to tobacco-related illnesses. Three thousand kids every single day in the United States take up smoking. Three thousand a day. One thousand of them are going to die from a tobacco-related illness. The veterans who 30 and 40 and 50 years ago were given packs of cigarettes, they were given, basically, a one-in-three chance of dying from the addiction that would be caused by that free pack of cigarettes which was handed to them. We owe these veterans and we owe all who have suffered from tobacco-related illnesses the right to be able to go to court, the right to be able to say to those who were the primary cause of illness in our society that they must pay those families and the Federal Government for what they have done. We are at the dawn of a new century. One in three babies born in the United States today has a chance of living to the age of 100. We, we who hold out so much promise for this country, have it within our power to do something to ensure that there is, without question, the strongest possible disincentive created for the tobacco industry doing in the 21st century what it did in the 20th century to the health of our veterans. Preferential Motion Offered By Mr. Waxman

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with the gentleman from Ohio that we need a long-term solution. But it is unlikely that this Congress is going to pass any long-term solutions. Back in 1976 when we were passing new fuel economy standards for automobiles, raising it up to an average of 27\1/2\ miles a gallon per automobile, the average automobile as of 1976 still only got 13 miles a gallon, which was the same as it was in 1930. Now, if we had passed a law 4 or 5 years ago or if we would pass a law this year that says that the average automobile should get 40 miles to the gallon, we are not going to have many problems with oil. That is the crux of our problem. That is where we put most of the oil in our society, right into gasoline tanks. SUVs, trucks, automobiles. They are unbelievably inefficient. But we are not going to pass any fuel economy standards. So as a result, what we are seeing in the Midwest right now is another energy crisis. Prices have spiked up to $1.80, two bucks, $2.20, $2.45. Why? Because there was a pipeline that went out from Texas up to the Midwest. We had a similar kind of unanticipated problem in the Northeast back during the winter. OPEC started raising prices. What was the protection for our American citizens? Nothing. Or the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which if it goes unused is nothing. And it was not used. It should have been. So we cut a deal in the classic Austin-Boston sense that made this institution work so well for so many years. John McCormick and Sam Rayburn; Tip O'Neill and Jim Wright. We cut a deal earlier this year. For the Texans, what we said is we will give you a guarantee of $15 a barrel for your oil, for your stripper wells, and we will have the oil purchased by the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In return, the Texans said to those of us up in the Northeast, all of those from the oil States said to those of us up in the Northeast, ``We'll give you the authorization for the construction of a regional home heating oil reserve.'' Austin-Boston, what makes the whole place click. It is still hung up over in the Senate but the gentleman from Vermont is just asking quite sensibly for $10 million, so that the Department of Energy can have the money to make it work. We have already passed it through the House. So we know that there is plenty of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. There is nothing in a regional petroleum reserve. We have already passed it through this place. So by working together, we make sure that Texas and Oklahoma and Louisiana, the oil patch, we make sure that the Northeast, and we would make sure if the Midwest needed help that we helped them as well. Because this oil is the blood that ensures that our economy is supplied with the energy that it needs in order to function fully. What we have seen over and over again is short-term disruptions without adequate supply of the blood of our economy to supplant that which was temporarily cut off. As a result, we have seen catastrophic economic consequences. All that the gentleman from Vermont is asking for is a very small amount of money coming out of an already large Strategic Petroleum Reserve fund which will work to ensure that when, and I am afraid this is going to happen, Mr. Chairman, when the refineries of America in response to the problems in the Midwest that are going on right now have to use more of their refining capacity to produce more gasoline over the next several months to deal with their problem now, they are not going to have enough capacity as a result that they have dedicated to providing for the home heating oil to the Northeast this coming winter. So their problem today becomes our problem later on this year. We need a regional petroleum reserve. If we do not get one, we will have a mess on our hands in the Northeast. The Congress today has it within its power to give us the money that we need to put in place something that will protect our economy this coming winter because what is happening today to them is happening to us this coming winter. We are all part of one big economic artery system. If we do not take care of each other, then all of us ultimately are going to be harmed.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Yes, it is a tank farm.

Mr. MARKEY. The capacity ultimately is unlimited. We are talking about unused storage facilities all across the Northeast that could be used for these purposes. I would defer to the gentleman from Vermont for the specific figure.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. MARKEY. There is sufficient excess capacity in these facilities in order to accommodate the oil. We would probably wind up with the Federal Government leasing part of the facilities that are now controlled by these oil companies in order to accommodate this purpose. We would have to pay them a fee but the oil that was stored in there would then be for the use of the region, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, New England.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Virginia also agree with me that the reasonable demonstration requirement is satisfied if it is shown that, in response to such an e-mail, the consumer actually accesses records in the relevant electronic format? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, without question, penny stocks are a very special category of extremely dangerous investments that I think will require that the SEC needs to be able to ensure additional disclosure and agreements to continue to be done in writing to help protect consumers against fraud and facilitate the SEC securities law enforcement mission. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) very much for his assistance.