Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. I would like to engage in a colloquy, if I may, with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) on the consumer consent provision in the conference report on electronic signatures. Is it the understanding of the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Speaker, that pursuant to subsection 101(c)(1)(C)(ii) of the conference report, a consumer's affirmative consent to the receipt of electronics records needs to ``reasonably demonstrate'' that the consumer will be able to access the various forms of electronic records to which the consent applies?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on the e-sign bill. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for his excellent leadership on this bill, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). This is an historic day on the floor of the House. The legislation will create a legal framework for electronic commerce in the new economy, but the new economy must have old values. That is the formula that we are constructing here on the floor today. It will grow, electronic commerce, as an increasingly important part of our economy, and increasingly it will be important for us to be able to authenticate and to validate electronic transaction. This is important for both ends of the transaction. For both the buyer and the seller there has to be a way in which there is authentication. There has to be a way in which there is validation. As we come here today, we begin the new era of a digital John Hancock which can ensure that an electronic signature is valid and that records are established that guarantee that both ends of the transaction are in fact valid. Today many secure electronic technologies such as cryptographic digital signatures allow consumers and businesses to send a file across the Internet embodying a contract, a signed contract, that can be authenticated on the other end of the transmission. The increased comfort people will have with the technology and their legal rights will serve to enhance electronic commerce and continue to drive electronic growth. Think of this: In 1999, there was $3.4 trillion worth of electronic commerce in the United States, $3.4 trillion. How much of that was online? Pick a number in your own minds of the $3.4 trillion; $20 billion, that is all, about 7/10ths of 1 percent. As each year goes by there is going to be a dramatic increase. In order to make people feel comfortable to move their transactions from the real world to the virtual world, we must give them the same kinds of guarantees. This legislation strikes the right balance by clarifying that electronic contracts or agreements that are otherwise required to be in writing must accurately reflect the information set forth in the contract after it was first generated, and must remain accessible for later reference, transmission, and printing. So Mr. Speaker, this is a great day. I think a new era is dawning. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) once again for his great leadership, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on the ESIGN bill and I want to congratulate Chairman Bliley for his fine work in the conference and commend Mr. Dingell, Mr. Tauzin, and Mr. Oxley for their excellent work as well. We return to the House today with a conference report that advances the needs of the Digital Age without compromising fundamental consumer protections. This legislation provides a legal framework for electronic commerce in the new economy. It's clear that as electronic commerce grows it will become increasingly important to authenticate and validate electronic transactions. This is important for both ends of any transaction, for both the buyer and the seller. Effective authentication of electronic signatures will help to reduce fraud and financial losses. Technology exists today that permits an electronic signature--a `digital John Hancock'--to be affixed to computer files in a manner that is difficult to reproduce. Today, many secure electronic technologies such as cryptographic digital signatures, allow consumers and businesses to send a file across the Internet embodying a contract, a signed contract, that can be authenticated on the other end of the transmission. The increased comfort that people will have with the technology and their legal rights will serve to enhance electronic commerce and continue to drive economic growth. Many current laws, however, do not legally recognize the validity of electronic signatures, contracts, or records. Many laws, regulations and procedures require ``written,'' real world signatures on documents, or the provision of ``paper'' records, both for commercial transactions. Without question many existing requirements for written records are antiquated whose provision or availability in an electronic version of the same information can suffice to meet any legal requirements or policy goals. However, there are many other existing requirements for written records which are not antiquated and whose provision or availability in written form serves clear consumer protection goals. As we progress into the digital future, this conference report is careful not to jettison prematurely many important consumer protection provisions simply to demonstrate our enthusiasm for all things digital. The legislation strikes the right balance by clarifying that electronic contracts or agreements that are otherwise required to be in writing must accurately reflect the information set forth in the contract after it was first generated and must remain accessible for later reference, transmission, and printing. The conference report also preserves a consumers right to receive records in writing. If a consumer wants a record that is required to be in writing to be provided in writing, a consumer still has that right while allowing other consumers, who may prefer to receive records in electronic form, to elect to do so. This conference report also fixes and vastly improves the process by which consumers may ``opt-in'' to receiving electronic records. A consumer wishing to receive specific records in electronic form must separately and affirmatively consent to the provision of such records in electronic form in order for a vendor to provide electronic records. In addition this legislation also safeguards the consumer protection policies that have historically served to adequately inform consumers of potentially life-changing events or safety issues. The conference report wisely requires written notices for any notice dealing with court orders and official court documents--including legal briefs and court pleadings, any notice concerning the cancellation of utility services such as water, heat or power service, for foreclosure or eviction notices. It also would require the continuation of written notices for the cancellation or termination of health insurance or benefits or life insurance benefits. We are still a long way from the day when computers will be as ubiquitous as the telephone, but this conference report helps set the legal framework for that day. The ``ESIGN'' bill takes that important step into the Digital Age. I again, want to commend Chairman Bliley on this landmark bill and commend Mr. Dingell, Chairman Tauzin, and Mr. Oxley for their fine bipartisan work. Mr. Speaker, I also want to mention of few items related to the financial implications of the conference report. As many members may recall, H.R. 1714, the House version of the Conference Report, initially contained a separate securities law title. Although the Conference Report does not include separate securities title, it contains language intended to resolve satisfactorily the various issues that were addressed by the House securities title and which were the subject of SEC Chairman Levitt's April 21, 2000 letter to the conferees. For example, Section 104(a) of the Conference Report protects standards and formats developed by the SEC for electronic filing systems such as EDGAR and the IARD, as well as for systems are developed by securities industry self-regulatory organization filing systems such as the CRD, which the NASD and the states use for registering securities firms and their personnel. Section 101(d) recognizes the importance of accuracy and accessibility in electronic records, which is of utmost importance for investor protection and prevention of fraud. Section 104(b)(3) recognizes the need for agencies, such as the SEC, to provide performance standards relating to accuracy, document integrity, and accessibility in their electronic recordkeeping and retention rules. This is intended to preserve requirements such as the SEC's existing electronic recordkeeping rule, Rule 17a-4(f), which specifies that electronic recordkeeping systems must preserve records in a non- rewriteable and non-erasable manner. The Conferees also expect the SEC to work with the securities SROs to the extent necessary to ensure that accuracy, accessibility, and integrity standards also cover SRO recordkeeping requirements in an electronic environment. Section 104 of the Conference Report specifically permits federal regulatory agencies, such as the SEC, to interpret the law to require retention of written records in paper form if there is a compelling governmental interest in law enforcement for imposing such requirement, and if, imposing such requirement is essential to attaining such interest. For example, we specifically expect the SEC would be able to use this provision to require brokers to keep written records of all disclosures and agreements required to be obtained by the SEC's penny stock rules. Finally, the Conference Report's consent provisions similar to much of the SECs guidance in the electronic delivery area. Section 104(d)(1) permits agencies such as the SEC to continue to provide flexibility in interpreting consent provisions anticipated by the Conference Report. In addition, a specific provision contained in Section 104(d)(2) anticipates that the SEC will act to clarify that documents, such as sales literature, that appear on the same website as, or which are hyperlinked to, the final prospectus required to be delivered under the federal securities laws, can continue to be accessed on a website as they are today under SEC guidance for electronic delivery.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on another matter, with respect to penny stocks, would the gentleman from Virginia agree that conference reports preserve the ability of the SEC to require written customer statements with respect to a purchase of penny stocks, as was required in the House-passed version of this bill?

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I agree. The conferees did not intend that the ``reasonable demonstration'' requirement would substantially burden either consumers or the person providing the electronic record. In fact, the conferees expect that a ``reasonable demonstration'' could be satisfied in many ways. Does the gentleman from Virginia agree with me that conferees intend that the reasonable demonstration requirement is satisfied if the provider of the electronic records sent the consumer an e-mail with attachments in the formats to be used in providing the records, asked the consumer to open the attachments in order to confirm that he could access the documents, and requested the consumer to indicate in an e- mail response to the provider of the electronic records that he or she can access information in the attachments?

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Nelson DeOliveira. Nelson was a positive, outgoing young man who lost his life too soon to an epidemic sweeping our nation--the epidemic of gun violence. Nelson was born and raised in Medford, Massachusetts. He was known for his boundless energy and for enjoying life to the fullest. Whether hard at work, participating in one of his many favorite sports, or having fun with family and friends, Nelson was always giving his all. With his ever-present smile and positive personality, Nelson endeared himself to all. Like most young men at 23, Nelson had dreams. He wanted something better out of life. He decided to return to school, and to prepare himself for a solid future. He looked forward to spending time as a loving uncle to his sister's child, and to one day enjoying a family of his own. Nelson always regarded family and friends as the most important aspect of his life. On the night of February 12, 1995, Nelson was visiting the home of a new girlfriend when suddenly the girl's ex-boyfriend arrived angry, jealous and ready to assault the couple. The police were called, and upon their arrival the man was taken to jail. Believing the situation was safe, Nelson continued his visit unaware the ex-boyfriend would be freed that very night. Once out of jail, the man armed himself with a 38 caliber handgun. He then proceeded to smash his way into the girl's basement apartment with the intent to murder everyone inside. And murder he did--killing the girl's brother, Nelson, and firing two shots into the girl, who has since survived. Since that moment, the family and friends of Nelson have focused their love, emotions, and sense of loss through the creation of the Nelson Foundation. The mission of the Foundation is to provide public awareness on the true costs of gun violence. The Nelson Foundation raises funds for organizations that fight gun and domestic violence through positive community programs. In addition, it has developed a scholarship program for students who are dedicated to the message of peace and non-violent conflict resolution. I commend the family and friends of Nelson DeOliveira in their efforts to honor the spirit of this exceptional young man by working to put an end to the epidemic of gun violence. And I urge Congress to do its part by passing meaningful gun safety legislation. We can not afford to lose one more life to one more bullet. We can not afford to lose the promise and the hope of young people like Nelson DeOliveira.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce a legislative proposal by Vice President Gore that would outlaw the practice of purchasing or selling Social Security numbers. Last year, a man named Liam Youens was stalking a 21-year old New Hampshire woman named Amy Boyer. Youens reportedly purchased Amy Boyer's Social Security number from an Internet Web site for $45. Using this information, he was able to track her down, a process that he chillingly detailed on an Internet Web site that he named after his target. Finally, last October; this demented stalker fatally shot Amy Boyer in front of the dental office where she worked. Afterwards, he turned the gun on himself. This terrible tragedy underscores the fact that while the Social Security number was originally intended to be used only for the purposes of collecting Social Security taxes and administering the program's benefits, it has over the years evolved into a ubiquitous national personal identification number which is subject to misuse and abuse. The unregulated sale and purchase of these numbers is a significant factor in a growing range of illegal activities, including fraud, identity theft, and tragically, stalkings and now, even murders. Today, if you open up a bank account, apply for a loan, buy insurance, get a credit card, sign up for telephone service or electric or gas utility service, you are almost invariably asked to provide a merchant with your Social Security number. Over the years, this number has become a key to verifying a person's identity. As a result, it has become increasingly clear that there are growing and serious privacy risks are being created by unrestricted commerce in Social Security numbers, and resulting abuses of this number, that require immediate legislative action. The risks and abuses associated with misuse of the Social Security number are only being magnified by the rapid growth of electronic commerce. Right now, only $5 billion of the $860 billion in annual retail sales currently occur over the Internet. But that figure will continue to grow exponentially in the future. So, the question we must ask is how are we going to adjust our laws to deal with this new medium? How will we animate the New Economy with our old values--such as our cherished right to privacy? Today, the real privacy challenge we are facing isn't Big Brother; it's Big Browser. When it comes to your financial records, there are very few protections against a financial services firm from disclosing every check you've ever written, every credit card charge you've ever made, the medical exam you got before you received insurance. And as you surf the Web, there are no rules in place to prevent various web sites from collecting information about what sites you are viewing and how long you are viewing them. If you buy anything over the Internet, that information can be linked up to other personal identifiers to create disturbingly detailed digital dossiers that can profile your lifestyle, your interests, your hobbies, or your habits. I have sponsored or cosponsored separate legislation, H.R. 1057, H.R. 3320, H.R. 3321, and H.R. 4380, which are aimed at addressing these broader privacy problems. But we also know that the Social Security number is an critically important personal identifier that many online and offline businesses wish to obtain about consumers. Consumers who value their family's privacy, however, have a compelling interest in not allowing this number to be used to tie together bits and pieces of information in various databases into an integrated electronic profile of their interests and behavior that can be zapped around the world in a nanosecond to anyone who is willing to pay the price. If you do a simple Internet search in which you enter the words ``Social Security Numbers,'' you will turn up links to dozens of web sites that offer to provide you, for a fee, with social security numbers for other citizens, or to link a social security number that you might have with a name, address and telephone number. Where are the data-mining firms and private detective agencies that offer these services obtaining these numbers? In all likelihood, they are accessing information from the databases of credit bureaus, financial services companies or other commercial firms. If someone actually obtains a Social Security number from one of these sites, they have a critically important piece of information that can be used to locate the individual, get access to information about the individual's personal finances, or engage in a variety of illegal activities. By bringing a halt to unregulated commerce in Social Security numbers, the bill I am introducing today will help reduce the incidence of pretexting crimes, identity thefts and other frauds or crimes involving misuse of a person's Social Security number. We need to take this action now if we are going to fully protect the public's right to privacy by preventing sales of Social Security numbers. That is why I am pleased today to be joining with the Senator from California (Ms. Feinstein) in introducing Vice President Gore's legislative proposal to outlaw this practice. Our bill would make it a civil and criminal offense for a person to sell or purchase Social Security numbers. Under the bill, the FTC would be given rulemaking authority to restrict the sale of Social Security numbers, determine appropriate exemptions, and to enforce civil compliance with the bill's restrictions. The bill would also authorize the states to enforce compliance, and provide for appropriate criminal penalties. I look forward to working with the Vice President, who has been a leader in pressing for tougher privacy protections, as well as Senator Feinstein, and my House colleagues to enact this important privacy protection proposal into law.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my appreciation for the language contained in the Committee Report accompanying this bill which addresses Alzheimer's Disease. Furthermore, I would like to commend Chairman Porter and Ranking Member Obey for considering my April 12th testimony before the Subcommittee where I spoke on behalf of the 126 members of the Bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease along with my co-chair Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ). Together we encouraged the Subcommittee to urge the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to increase its research for Alzheimer's by $100 million and to implement and fully fund a new program, originally adopted into the House Budget Resolution, the Alzheimer's Clinical Research and Training Awards Program. This worthy program will train physician-scientists to focus on clinical research and to translate the excellent basic research in Alzheimer's Disease to the clinic. Ultimately this program provides an opportunity for the National Institute on Aging (NIA) to ``enhance efforts to train, and educate health care professionals to improve diagnosis, treatment and prevention of Alzheimer's Disease'' as the House Report language accompanying this bill urges. I would note that the Senate Committee report accompanying the Labor- HHS Education Appropriations bill provides additional clarification of the intent of Congress with respect to how the NIA should improve the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of Alzheimer's Disease. The Senate Committee Report states the following with respect to the specific steps we expect to be taken to educate and train physician/scientists: ``The Committee believes that an important step in fighting Alzheimer's Disease is the encouragement of clinical research and training, which will complement the many excellent research efforts currently funded through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Institute on Aging (NIA), and in the private sector. The creation of Alzheimer's Clinical Research and training Awards program to train physicians to recognize and treat Alzheimer's Disease, and to dedicate their careers to improving care for Alzheimer's patients by bridging the gap that exists between basic and clinical research is critical. The awards program will foster physician dedication to a career in research, diagnosis, and treatment of Alzheimer's Disease by awarding junior and midlevel physicians who have demonstrated the potential for a lifelong commitment to researching and treating Alzheimer's, with a I year stipend to train as an Alzheimer's physician/scientist. The awards program will be administered through the NIA, and should provide support for institutions focused primarily on Alzheimer's research but linked to a clinical treatment facility. The awards program will complement the Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (currently funded through NIA) or similar institutions that are State or privately funded. The awards program will encourage institutions implementing the program to specialize in training physician/scientists, ultimately becoming physician training centers.'' Alzheimer's disease is on track to become the epidemic of the 21st Century, currently 4 million Americans are afflicted and by 2050 it is estimated that this number will increase to 14 million. With these astonishing statistics we must act today to head off the health care crisis of tomorrow. The Alzheimer's Clinical Research and Training Awards envisioned by both the House and Senate bills represent an important step in meeting the challenge.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) study the issue of alleged potential health risks associated with wireless phones. This legislation builds upon a provision that I offered to legislation then- pending in the House Commerce Committee during the previous Congress. That underlying legislation ultimately was not enacted in the previous Congress and today I offer the wireless health study amendment as a standalone piece of legislation, entitled the ``Wireless Phone Health Risk Assessment Act of 2000.'' Mr. Speaker, when I first raised the issue of cellular phone safety at a House Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee briefing I chaired in 1993, there were roughly 15 million people using such phones--today there are over 70 million users of wireless phones. In addition, the FDA, which coordinates Federal oversight of the wireless phone health issue, has previously indicated that a significant research effort over a sustained period of time is needed to provide the greater body of scientific information that scientists and regulators will need to more adequately assess any potential health risks. It is my belief that because wireless phone companies receive their licenses to operate from the Federal Government, that the government has a responsibility to step up its efforts to address this issue. Indeed, having helped create the wireless revolution over the years by freeing up federally administered airwaves for these new services, I have simultaneously advocated that the government must also have a serious commitment to additional research in order to reassure consumers that any lingering concerns about whether these wireless devices pose a health risk are addressed. This legislation authorizes $25 million over a 5-year period for the FDA to analyze health risks associated from radiofrequency emissions from wireless phones. I believe it is a modest but important allocation of a portion of total Federal research funds, an authorization that is specifically dedicated to scientifically assess wireless phone health risks.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by Representative Tierney and myself is quite simple. It would strike $74.5 million from the ``Defense-Wide Procurement'' funds in this defense appropriations act and return $29 million to the Defense Health Program. The only program that it would reduce is the National Missile Defense System. Sixteen years ago we started this debate on a national missile defense system. Back then we had fanciful names for the components of the proposed missile defense system. We had ``brilliant pebbles'' to blind our senses with the wonders of our technological imagination. Of course, you had to have rocks in your head to believe it. This system was so imaginative we even named it ``Star Wars''. This umbrella of hydrogen-bomb-pumped lasers and kinetic kill vehicles was supposed to protect us against a full-scale Soviet nuclear missile attack. Well, Mr. Chairman, there was a reason the name was based on Hollywood--the system was--and is--pure fiction. With time--and lots of money spent--only the names have changed. Today we are talking about procuring hardware for upgrades to early warning radars and X-band radars. Hardly the exotic names of the past. But the system is no less fanciful, just less effective. No longer are we trying to protect against thousands of warheads. Now we hope to shoot down just ten or twenty. It seems the more money we spend, the less we plan to hit. With $60 billion in past research and development and another $60 billion in planned investment, we may be able to protect our country against 30 missiles. Even after all this investment the technology still has a long way to go. In the simple tests we conducted, the system has not performed well. In one test the interceptor failed to hit the dummy target. In the other test, there was a hit, but only because the interceptor found the decoy, not the warhead. So today we're talking about procuring equipment for a system that still doesn't work, that has cost $60 billion and will cost at least another $30 billion. Most importantly, the Administration hasn't even made the decision to go forward with this latest summer rerun of ``Star Wars''. Now there is one thing this system will definitely do. You see we are being asked to procure parts for a national missile defense system that might defend our country against a ballistic missile attack from a nation such as North Korea or Iran but will promote nuclear proliferation in Russia, China and other non-nuclear states eyeing the advisability of jumping the nuclear fence. In this case, it will be the vertical proliferation that characterized the arms build-up of the 80s. Russia, we know, opposes any unilateral deployment of a National Missile Defense system that would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. If we go ahead and deploy unilaterally, the Russians have promised to withdraw from the arms control agreements that finally put a ceiling on the rising nuclear arms skyscrapers and started to take them down floor by floor. Eliminating this system of treaties would have severe consequences for the safety and security of the United States. It could re-ignite the arms build-up that we have worked so hard to stop. The opposition of China to a missile defense system could be an even bigger problem. Only two weeks ago this body voted to grant permanent normal trade relations with China, to increase and improve their economy. Are we going to spark a new arms spiral to make sure that their new economy is consumed by new weapons? China has indicated that they will likely respond to a National Missile Defense system with an increase in missiles. On May 12, in the Washington Times, Sha Zukang, director of arms control and disarmament at the Chinese Foreign Ministry indicated, ``The proposed U.S. National Missile Defense could neutralize China's . . . arsenal and already has prompted Russia and China to begin discussions on ways to overcome it.'' How does this supposed ``defense'' system increase our security, if it leads to an offensive response from nations with proven nuclear ballistic missile systems? Remember, the greatest threat to U.S. security is still the mammoth nuclear arsenals in Russia and China. These are real rockets capable of real destruction not the maybe missiles of North Korea. The American people understand this. In a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center For the People and The Press and the Pew Charitable Trust, when asked how they felt about missile defense if it jeopardizes arms reduction talks with Russia, 55% of respondents opposed missile defense and only 35% support it. The people have spoken, now it is time for this Congress to listen. I urge members to support this amendment and halt the initial procurement for the national missile defense system.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Consumer Product Safety Commission Enhanced Enforcement Act of 2000'', a bill intended to improve consumer safety by increasing compliance with existing requirements to report hazards when they are known. The legislation would increase the civil and criminal penalties that the CPSC can impose upon firms that do not inform the Commission when they have sold a product that could pose a substantial hazard to consumers. The legislation would also help make some product recalls more effective. The CPSC is the government agency that makes sure cribs, toys, and other products in your home are safe, and recalls them when they're not. The CPSC oversees the safety of 15,000 different kinds of consumer products. Each year there are more than 29 million injuries and about 22,000 deaths related to consumer products. Current law provides that if companies have information that one of their products could have a serious safety defect, they are required to report that to the government. Unfortunately, some compames are not obeying the law. The CPSC estimates that in half of the most serious cases they deal with, the company has failed to report injuries. Instead, the information comes to the attention of the agency from its own investigators, from consumers, or tragically, from hospital emergency room reports or death certificates. When companies don't report, dangerous products that could have been recalled or modified remain on store shelves. They continue to be sold and they stay in consumers' homes where they can cause serious injury. Some consumers pay a very high price for a company's failure to report. For example, a 3-year-old girl died while playing on her swing. Her grandfather was cutting weeds in the yard using a weed trimmer with a replacement head that was made with a metal chain. The end link broke off the chain and it flew through the air as if it were a piece of deadly shrapnel--travelling 240 miles an hour. It hit his granddaughter in the temple, penetrated her skull and killed her. The company didn't tell the CPSC about this death, nor did they tell the CPSC about the 40 other serious injuries from chains breaking. The CPSC was forced to do its own investigation and recalled the product nationwide in May. Such failures to report result in tragic losses of life and limb that are avoidable and preventable if compliance with reporting were higher. Under current law, the CPSC can fine companies for violating the law, but the amount of the fine is limited by statute to a level that does not sufficiently deter violations. Under current law, companies can face criminal penalties for violating consumer product safety laws, but they are only misdemeanors. Under current law, in any recall, companies provide a repair, replacement or refund for defective products. In most cases, the CPSC can find a good solution to the problem for consumers. But in rare cases where the product is older and has been on the market for many years, the company sometimes elects a refund that is much too small to even catch consumers' attention, so the dangerous product stays on the market. To remedy these deficiencies, the legislation would: Eliminate the cap on civil penalties for violations of product safety laws. Under current law, the CPSC cannot assess more than $1,650,000 for a related series of violations against a company that knowingly violates consumer product safety laws. The legislation would eliminate this maximum civil penalty. Many of the cases in which the Commission seeks civil penalties involve very large corporations that can easily absorb a $1.65 million fine. More substantial civil penalties would provide a needed incentive for those companies to notify CPSC of defective products so that the agency can take timely action to protect consumers. Other agencies have civil penalty authority with no ``cap'' on the amount of the penalty for a related series of violations, including the Federal Trade Commission. Increase the penalty for a ``knowing and willful'' criminal violation of product safety laws from a misdemeanor to a felony and eliminate the requirement that the agency give notice to the company that is criminally violating the law. The legislation would increase the potential criminal penalties for a ``knowing and willful'' violation of consumer product safety laws from a misdemeanor (up to one year in prison) to a felony (up to three years in prison). It would also increase the maximum monetary criminal penalty in accordance with existing criminal laws. These heightened penalties are commensurate with the seriousness of product safety violations, which can result in death or serious injury to children and families. Other agencies have authority to seek substantial (felony) criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations of safety requirements, including the Food and Drug Administration for prescription drug marketing violations and the Department of Transportation for the transportation of hazardous materials. The legislation would also eliminate the requirement that the Commission give notice of noncompliance before seeking a criminal penalty for a violation of the Consumer Product Safety Act. The notice requirement makes it all but impossible to pursue a criminal penalty for violations of the Act, even in the most serious cases. The threat of a criminal felony prosecution would create an additional strong incentive for companies to report product defects to the Commission. Give CPSC the authorily to overrule the remedy chosen by a manufacturer for fixing a defective product in a product recall when the Commission determines that an alternative would be in the public interest. Under current law, a company with a defective product that is being recalled has the right to select the remedy to be offered to the public. The company can choose repair, replacement, or refund ``less a reasonable allowance for use.'' The legislation would continue to permit the company to select the remedy in a product recall. However, the legislation would allow the Commission to determine (after an opportunity for a hearing) that the remedy selected by the company is not in the public interest. The Commission may then order the company to carry out an alternative program that is in the public interest. Sometimes companies choose a remedy in a recall that does not further public safety. For example, if a manufacturer chooses to refund ``less a reasonable allowance for use'' the purchase price of a product that has been on the market for a long time, the amount due consumers may be so small that there is no incentive for the consumer to take advantage of the recall. This is especially true where the hazardous product is still useful to the consumer and the cost of replacement is substantial. Companies may choose an insubstantial refund even though people have been at risk for a number of years, thousands of products are still in use, and injuries are continuing to occur. In this example, a refund would do little, if anything, to stop consumers from using the dangerous product and the public interest would not be served.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I believe in the New Economy, but I believe in a New Economy with Old Values. I believe in full commerce with China, but I believe in commerce with a conscience. I rise in opposition to permanent normal trade relations with China. We should vote ``yes'' on full trade with China. But Congress should keep its ability to check on our relations with a police state. And as long as China remains a police state, we must never have relations with China which are permanent, which are normal, or which are insulated from moral concerns. Until China has proven itself a full member of the moral citizenship of the world, we should play the moral role of keeping a check upon them while having full trade relations. Under the 1979 bilateral agreement with China, which they cannot get out of, we get most of the benefits of WTO, almost all of them. That is really not in dispute. But if we break the link with human rights, with forced labor, with religious repression, with nuclear proliferation, we will break faith with 200 years of American leadership in the world; we will dim the beacon of freedom and diminish America in the eyes of those who yearn for the simple right to live without fear of a police raid in the night. This vote may be about stock values; yes, but it is also about human values. That is the role of the United States in this debate. We believe in the Internet. I have worked on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection for 24 years. I believe in its power. But in the United States, we hold sacrosanct the ability of an American to put full encryption, full privacy protection, on their information as they are talking to other citizens in our country. The police must get a court order to gain access to that information. In China, they are prohibiting encryption; they are prohibiting privacy. The Internet is the best of wires and it is the worst of wires simultaneously. Yes, it will give people the power to communicate; but it is also going to give the PLA, the police in China, the ability to gain access to any information they want about any individual in their country. We should condition any deal with China on their keeping out their one million semiautomatic assault weapons that they were selling in the United States for under a hundred bucks apiece until 1994. This agreement makes those weapons legal again. We should condition this agreement on the prohibition of them reselling nuclear materials into Pakistan or any other country in the world. They have been historically the K-Mart of international nuclear commerce. We should condition this deal yearly--full trade relations with us and access to our American market--upon their maintenance of human rights, religious dignity, the abolishment of slave labor in their country. Vote for Commerce with a conscience. Vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on PNTR.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I would agree with the gentleman on that. I do not agree with the gentleman that it is going to fall apart over whether or not an insurance company is picking up the risk or the American taxpayer. All we are arguing right here is if General Electric cannot get a private insurance company to assume the risk for this nuclear power plant, then we are going to encourage them to engage in reckless, wanton behavior in the construction of the materials, and as a result, have the American taxpayer pick up the cost of the accident which will invariably occur.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, we have so many red herrings floating around in the well down here today, we are going to have to build an aquarium. This has nothing to do with American nonproliferation policy. It has nothing to do with the agreed framework which everyone is talking about here. It has nothing to do with Star Wars, which I oppose, I think it is the stupidest idea of all time, but this is not what this debate is all about. It has nothing to do with Korean reunification, as much as we all sincerely hope that they will reunify. It has nothing to do with any of that. It has to do with a single company, General Electric, coming to this Congress and saying, we would like to be indemnified against wanton, reckless misconduct in the construction of our product if an accident occurs in North Korea. And if an accident occurs, we want the American taxpayer to shoulder the burden. All we are saying is that General Electric should go into the private marketplace and get some insurance. Now, they are boasting in their puffing of this plant that they are going to make $30 million. Now, if with their $30 million worth of profit they cannot afford an insurance policy on this plant, then this is a pretty dangerous product. Now, my feeling is that out of the $30 million, they could probably spend a half a million or a million and get a good insurance policy, and then that insurance company should bear the risk. But it should not be the American taxpayer. Generally speaking, what is going on here is that Adam Smith is spinning in his grave. General Electric wants us to socialize the risk but privatize the profit for them. But all of the American taxpayers are going to shoulder the burden. No other company, by the way, that is part of this project, it is not just General Electric, there are many other companies who are part of this project, none of them are asking for indemnification, only one company who does not want to go into the private insurance marketplace. It has nothing to do with Star Wars, nothing to do with the agreed framework, nothing to do with nonproliferation, nothing to do with anything. Now, I believe that the American government, our negotiators, should have pushed them toward LNG, should have pushed them toward natural gas, should have pushed them toward clean coal. China would have been glad to sell it to them. By the way, Frank von Hippel at Princeton is quite convinced that a light-water reactor is not proliferation immune, that is, you can still build nuclear weapons out of a light-water reactor. We should have pushed them totally away from the nuclear technology. All of that is a separate issue. We do not have to debate that right now, only whether or not we should be giving one company American-taxpayer insurance protection when they should go out into the private marketplace, and everything else that we are debating here right now has no business being insinuated into this debate.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we are here on the House floor today debating a bill that flew through the Committee on Commerce, skipping a subcommittee markup in order to address some Internet access charge issues. Now many Members have received letters about a bill that would impose a modem tax, a per-minute-fee on e-mail or consumers' general Internet use. This fictitious bill sponsored by the equally fictitious Representative Schnell purports to impose new fees on Internet use. The proposal here on the floor, which is styled as a remedy to any chance that the FCC might some day permit access charges to be imposed on Internet service providers, is also a work of fiction. This is not a bill that we should send on to President Clinton. This is a bill that should be sent over to the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising. This bill does not prohibit per minute access charges on Internet service providers. Let me repeat that thought. This bill does not prohibit per minute access charges on Internet service providers. This bill only prohibits access charges that are for universal service to help poor people, to help rural Americans. That is the only thing that it prohibits. The only thing that this bill prohibits is for charges to be assessed that ensures that inner-city residents who cannot afford phone service are given access to it; that ensures that rural Americans who have always been given subsidies through the universal service charge are prohibited from looking at this as a source of revenues in order to help those rural Americans, in order to help those inner-city Americans be given access to phone service. This bill only prohibits access charges that help those people. Representative Schnell, this fictitious Congressman to whom we are responding right now, his idea, his vision of not helping those poor people is alive and well in this bill on the floor here today. Under this bill, access charges would be permitted as long as they do not go to universal service. In other words, access charges levied by local phone companies to recoup their costs or for profit for themselves are fully permitted under this bill. So this is a great moment here for the Congress? We are going to prohibit anything from being done for poor people or rural Americans for their phone service, but we are going to make sure and protect the phone companies so that they can make more profits. I think this is an emergency bill of the highest and most important, paramount interest if that is why we are out here, just to help phone companies and to make sure that poor people cannot be helped. Since today there is a roaring debate about whether and, if so, how much of today's access charges actually support universal service, the prohibition contained in the bill actually prohibits very little. Any Internet companies that think that today's bill codifies the Internet access charge exemption are quite mistaken. We are not. Phone companies can still tip them upside down under this bill. In addition, the second part of the bill that gives the FCC a big legislative wink to look at access charges on Internet telephone providers is also something that is very questionable. I offered an amendment in the committee to prohibit the FCC from authorizing per minute charges on Internet telephone calls. It would have allowed a flat rate fee for universal service so that all competitors contributed to universal service but would have banned per minute charges for Internet telephone service. I believe we need to safeguard the flat rate nature of the Internet for consumers. At the full committee markup, I was told that prohibiting per minute charges on Internet telephone calls was premature, premature. Why on earth would we ever want to permit the FCC from allowing per minute charges or per minute fees on the Internet for anything? When would this be a good idea? The only people who want per minute charges on Internet telephone calls are those who do not want to compete in the marketplace against flat rate telephone calls, and that is why this bill is out here on the floor. Moreover, creating a glaring savings clause in the bill for per minute charges on Internet telephone calls ignores the fact that assessing per minute charges would pose a huge privacy issue. Who is going to monitor someone's Internet usage to see whether their bits are e-mail bits, which are Web surfing bits and which are telephone calls? Is the FCC going to be checking out every one of our phone bills to see which one of us is using it for which? I think we can codify the existing Internet access exemption, but this bill only does part of it. Moreover, I think that we can codify the existing Internet charge access exemption, but this bill only does part of it. Moreover, I think we need to move quickly to prohibit per minute charges for Internet telephone calls, which this bill specifically fails to do. That failure is very, very troubling for the future of the Internet's flat rate pricing structure, and one that every high-tech company and Internet consumer should take notice of. This is not a good bill. This heads in just the opposite direction of where we should be heading with the Internet, the flat rate system we have had for the last 13 years. A no vote is justified.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for generously yielding me this time, and I stand here proudly as the lead Democratic cosponsor with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). I, of course, would also like to thank the ranking Democrat on the committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for his sustained interest in and support for this legislation. The reason that we are here today is that North Korea's record on nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation is nothing short of abysmal. This secretive, Stalinist, rogue regime has, over the last decade, refused to carry out its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other accords it has signed. In fact, in 1993, North Korea threatened to withdraw from the NPT and stopped international inspections of its nuclear weapons programs. It has constructed nuclear reactors and a plutonium reprocessing plant at a site called Yongbyon. As a result of these activities, U.S. and foreign intelligence assessments have reportedly concluded that North Korea probably has acquired enough weapons-grade plutonium to manufacture from one to three nuclear bombs. At the same time, North Korea has been testing and developing ballistic missiles that may soon be capable of reaching as far away as the western United States. In addition, North Korea is believed to be a major exporter of ballistic missile technology and components to countries like Iran and Pakistan, increasing the security risk in those regions of the world. In an effort to halt North Korea's progress towards a full-blown nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capacity, the Clinton administration negotiated an agreed framework with North Korea in 1994, which provided a package of benefits in return for a freeze on North Korea's nuclear program and acceptance of nonproliferation requirement. One key component of this benefits package was a United States promise to facilitate the delivery of two light-water nuclear reactors to North Korea, which were intended to replace two nuclear weapons production reactors then under construction in North Korea. H.R. 4251 would require an affirmative vote of approval before any nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and North Korea that allows the sale of these reactors to go forward. This amendment builds on an effort begun last year by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and myself. Last July 21, the House voted 305 to 120 to pass the Gilman-Markey amendment to the State Department authorization bill, which required the President to make certain nonproliferation certifications regarding North Korea's compliance with various international agreements regarding nuclear nonproliferation; that is, the NPT and the 1994 Agreed Framework; and the Congress to pass a joint resolution approving an agreement for cooperation with North Korea before U.S. nuclear facilities technologies or materials can be exported to North Korea. The specific certifications required under the Gilman-Markey amendment were drawn from the terms of the 1994 Agreed Framework. All our amendment required is for the President to certify that the North Koreans have actually complied with the specific nuclear nonproliferation commitments they made under the Agreed Framework and other international agreements they have signed to terminate their efforts to enrich uranium, reprocess spent fuel, or otherwise acquire, test or deploy nuclear weapons. Now, there was one part of the Gilman-Markey amendment as it passed the House that the Senate was not willing to accept. That was the requirement for an affirmative vote of approval by the Congress before a nuclear cooperation agreement could become effective for North Korea. Under current law, nuclear cooperation agreements take effect within 90 days of their formal submission by the President unless Congress has, within that time period, passed a joint resolution of disapproval. While this process theoretically provides an opportunity to review and block a nuclear cooperation agreement, in practice the Congress has never, in its history, passed a joint resolution disapproving a nuclear cooperation agreement. That is never, my colleagues. Never. Indeed, most of the time, Congress never even votes on these agreements, as the State Department, the U.S. nuclear industry and their supporters can usually run out the clock and thereby allow an agreement to take effect without any congressional vote, even though there are nonproliferation considerations that should have been debated on the floor of Congress. H.R. 4251 assures that Congress will have a strong voice in ensuring that any future U.S.-North Korea nuclear cooperation agreement is fully consistent with our national security and nuclear nonproliferation interests. It does so by requiring a joint resolution of approval to be adopted by the Congress before any such agreement goes into effect. I am pleased that the bill also included expedited procedures to assure timely Congressional action on any approval resolution brought forth in the future with respect to North Korea. The gentlewoman from Connecticut had raised the issue of possible delaying tactics, particularly in the Senate, during last year's debate over this provision. By providing expedited procedures for consideration of an approval resolution, we should help assure that a vote actually occurs on any North Korea nuclear cooperation agreement. I think this is a good bill. I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has provided enormously important national leadership on this question. Without question it has now arisen to the top of our national security concerns of our Nation, and I hope this resolution receives unanimous support here today.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, in section 101(b) the bill provides for the allocation of Title I funds on the basis of a formula that includes consideration of the proximity of OCS leases. In order to eliminate any argument that the application of the formula could provide an incentive to increase OCS activities which we are trying to mitigate through this bill, we are amending the formula to, one, consider only leased tracts which meet the criteria in the bill as of the date of enactment; and, two, prevent a recalculation of the formula at a later date, thereby excluding from the formula tracts leased after the date of enactment; is that correct?

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some of the environmental provisions that I think should be included in this bill to make it a completely positive environmental bill. They are changes that I believe will only improve the bill by ensuring that CARA allocates oil and gas lease revenues for programs that are environmentally beneficial. Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Pallone and I crafted an amendment to address these environmental concerns. As part of a compromise negotiated with Mr. Young and Mr. Miller, some of these issues will be included in the Manager's amendment. In particular, I am pleased that Mr. Young and Mr. Miller agreed to remove the potential incentives to increase the number of oil and gas in the compromise. We accomplish this change by simply calculating a State's allocation of coastal funds once. We take a snapshot of the relevant leases on the date of enactment of the bill. Then we frame it and hang it on the wall for the life of the bill. That way it is clear which leases are relevant to the distribution of CARA coastal assistance funds. The remaining improvements focus on three specific aspects of the bill: The consequences of the coastal assistance fund, Unused funds in the Land and Water Conservation program, and Improvements to wildlife conservation programs. According to the allocation formula for coastal assistance funds in the CARA, a single state receives close to \1/3\ of the coastal assistance fund. It's like this coastal fund is a giant birthday cake. You all know that when you cut the first piece of cake, you get two pieces--the small one you cut and the rest of the cake. What has happened here is that the larger piece has been given away first, leaving the small piece to be distributed among the other coastal states. I believe the offshore oil and gas revenues should be distributed more equitably to all coastal states. In the amendment we developed a new formula that would have benefited almost every state. The new formula also would have freed up $100 million for new the competitive grant program for lands of regional or national interest. In addition, we would like to see changes to the allowed uses for the coastal funds to ensure that this money would be used to improve the environment and limit the amount that could be used for harmful infrastructure projects. The Land and Water Conservation Fund faces a different situation. In recent years, the federal portion of the fund has not received the fully authorized amount in the appropriations process. to improve this situation our amendment would have allowed the President to allocate any unused money to previously specified land acquisitions. But no funds could have been expended until 4 months after the President made clear the intent to do this. Finally, our amendment would have ensured that states develop a strategy for the wildlife conservation funds they receive under CARA. This change would have ensured States use sound science and coordinate their activities with other agencies to make the best use of the wildlife funds. This amendment has widespread support among wildlife conservation groups and I am confident it can be adopted as the process moves forward. I want to reiterate that I fully support CARA with the Manager's amendment. In addition, I oppose all other amendments, particularly those amendments that weaken the bill. I believe that the changes I have suggested will improve the bill and I encourage my colleagues to consider these issues as the process moves forward.

Mr. MARKEY. Would the gentleman be able to assure me that this interpretation will be restated in the appropriate place in any subsequent report language accompanying the bill?

Mr. MARKEY. Now, in section 101(c), the bill provides that an analogous formula shall be used where funds are distributed directly to political subdivisions smaller than a State. Consistent with our shared purpose to eliminate any unintended incentive to increase OCS activities, would the gentleman agree that the use of the term analogous in section 101(c) means that the payments under this subsection will include only those leased tracts which meet the criteria in subsection (b) on the date of enactment, and that there will be no recalculation of this formula at a later date?

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from California. Would that also be the understanding of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young)?

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for this very important legislation. This is an important gesture on the part of the United States Congress because I think it is going to go a long way towards closing one of the festering wounds from our national history. I worked very closely with a family, the Fitzgibbon family, over a 2- year period, to deal with an inequity that had affected their family. Sergeant Richard Fitzgibbon died in Vietnam in 1956. But because the United States Government did not in fact admit that we controlled the war in Vietnam after the French pulled out earlier that year, no one who had died in Vietnam from 1956 through 1961 was eligible for inscription on the Vietnam Wall. He was the first casualty of the war in Vietnam, and yet he received no recognition and his family received no recognition. In fact, so strongly did his family believe that he had died in the war in Vietnam that his own son went to Vietnam, and his son was killed in 1965, Richard, Junior, the only father and son in the Vietnam War. But the son was allowed to have his name inscribed on the Wall, but the father not. And it took a long battle to finally change the rules and regulations of the Defense Department 2 years ago to have the father join the son. The son obviously believed he was on the same mission, the mission to bring freedom to the people in Vietnam, a mission that had been engaged in by the United States Government. So that inequity has been dealt with. What the gentleman from California is doing here today is trying to deal with another inequity. It is one that will ensure that those Vietnam veterans who died after service in the Vietnam War, but as a direct result of such service, and whose names are not otherwise eligible for placement on the memorial wall, will continue the healing of their pain as well. I think that this is a very important gesture to every single family in America who has suffered this most horrible of all fates that can befall a family, and I think that this is one of the most fitting things that we can do as a Nation in order to continue to heal the wounds of every family that made the sacrifice. I congratulate the gentleman and I hope it passes unanimously here today.