Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today with the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and others to introduce the Clinton-Gore financial privacy proposal. The American public wants stronger privacy protections. The public wants, at minimum, the right to block a financial institution from transferring information it has gathered about them to both affiliates and third parties--an across-the-board ``opt out.'' And they want a stronger level of protection for medical information and information about personal spending habits--an ``opt-in.'' The legislation we are introducing today would provide these protections. As Chairman of the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Privacy Caucus, I can also say that there are many Republican members in both the House and Senate who are willing to work with Democrats to enact the type of strong financial privacy protections that are contained in the President's bill. I look forward to working with them towards that end. But the real question is: will the House and Senate Republican leadership continue to stand with the big banks, brokerage houses, and insurance companies in opposing meaningful privacy protections, or will they allow a debate out on the floor of the House and the Senate on the President's proposal to give the people some measure of control over who gets access to the most sensitive details of their personal lives? I hope that we can have early hearings and action on this bill, so that we can close down the gaps left in last year's banking bill--as the President pledged last year. Here's what our bill would do: First, with respect to affiliate sharing under last year's banking bill, consumers have no right to block a financial institution from transferring nonpublic personal information about them to an affiliate. The bill we are introducing today would change that by giving consumers an ``opt out'' right for both affiliates and nonaffiliated third parties. Second, under last year's banking bill, consumers were given the right to ``opt out'' of having a financial institution transfer their personal information to nonaffiliated third parties. However, there was a giant loophole in this provision that allowed financial institutions to transfer such information with no consumer ``opt out'' if they were transferring it to another financial institution with whom they had a joint marketing agreement. This provision was put in at the behest of small banks who argued that since the large banks were allowed to do affiliate sharing with no opt out, that they should be able to contract with insurance companies or securities firms to cross-market to the Third, under last year's bill, there were no protections for health care information or for especially sensitive detailed information about a consumer's spending habits. Under the President's proposal, a financial institution would have to obtain the consumers' prior consent (``opt-in'') before it could obtain, receive, evaluate or consider medical information from an affiliate or third party. An opt-in would also have to be obtained before a financial institution could transfer information about a consumer's personal spending habits (i.e., every check you've ever written and to whom, every charge on your credit or debit card and for what) or any individualized description of a consumer's interests, preferences, or other characteristics. Fourth, last year's banking bill failed to give consumers any right whatsoever to obtain access to or to correct the nonpublic personal information that a financial institution had collected about them and was disclosing to its affiliates or to nonaffiliated parties. The President's proposal would assure that consumers would have the right to obtain such access and that a financial institution would have to correct any material inaccuracies. Institutions would be permitted to charge a reasonable fee for providing a copy of such information to the consumer. Fifth, last year's banking bill failed to give the State Attorneys General any power to enforce compliance with the Act, in contrast to many other consumer protection statutes (i.e., the Telephone Consumer Protection Act) that provide for such concurrent enforcement. The President's proposal would make financial institutions that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (i.e., anyone who is not a bank, an insurance company, or a securities firm; someone like a check cashing service), also subject to enforcement by the state attorneys general. In addition, last year's banking bill failed to specify whether a violation of a financial institution's privacy policies would be considered to be a violation of the Act. The President's proposal would make an action a violation of the Act, and would clarify that a violation of any requirement of the Act would be considered to be an unfair or deceptive trade practice. Sixth, last year's bill required financial institutions to give a consumer a copy of their privacy policy at the time of the establishment of a customer relationship with the consumer. The President's proposal would require that financial institutions provide a copy of their privacy policies to any consumer upon request and as part of an application for a financial product or service from the institution. This will help consumers compare the privacy policies offered by various institutions. While this bill does not go quite as far as the legislation I introduced last year, H.R. 3320 in adopting an across-the-board opt-in requirement, it is otherwise largely patterned after that proposal, including the provisions to close the affiliate sharing and joint marketing loopholes, provide access and correction rights, and strengthen enforcement. Moreover, I believe that the Administration's proposal to adopt and across-the-board opt-out, but then establish a higher level of protection for medical information and information about personal spending habits is an equitable compromise that gets to the most sensitive information. This is a good proposal. It deserves to become law, and I urge all of my colleagues to give it their support.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that has some good parts and some not so good parts. It does seek to advance the goal of ensuring that there is access to satellite-delivered local TV stations in every community in the United States. Without question, as it came out of committee, there were provisions that would have really hurt other competing companies, such as North Point, that have, thank goodness been removed. As well, the loans cannot be utilized to go bid at FCC auctions, and there are other provisions which ensure that the loans cannot be used for operating, advertising, or for promotional expenses. So there are some safeguards which have been built in here. I think that the bill can be further protected. My hope is that between now and the conclusion of the conference committee, that we will be able to achieve the goal of ensuring that this bill advances solely competitive purposes, and is not used for any other purpose.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is an amalgamation of several provisions from the introduced bill, the bill reported by the Agriculture Committee and that of the Commerce Committee. The bill includes a number of provisions that make eminent sense, such as prohibiting use of loans for operating, advertising or promotional expenses. Loans cannot be utilized to go bid at FCC auctions. Incumbent cable operators cannot obtain loans within their existing franchise areas. The bill also stipulates that the government guarantee may not exceed 80 percent of the loan amount. The bill on the floor today also does not contain language that would have disrupted plans for a promising new wireless technology pioneered by Northpoint technology. I think this deletion is a wise decision, reflects the desire of Congress that the FCC proceed consistent with provisions of last Fall's Satellite Home Viewer Act, and reflects as well the desire of Congress to promote ever more competition in our telecommunications marketplace provided that no harmful interference is caused to existing licenses. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill despite some lingering concerns about this loan guarantee program. I support competition and increased consumer choice in telecommunications everywhere in America. The bill before us proposes to establish a loan guarantee program, based upon the historic initiatives to provide rural America with electricity and telephone service, in order to provide subscription local-to-local television service. I continue to have reservations that providing local-to-local service is something that warrants a loan guarantee program of the magnitude proposed in the bill. I also believe the bill ought to have provisions that require large, financially healthy, profitable companies to go to the commercial capital markets first to try to obtain a loan without a government guarantee before coming hat-in-hand to the government seeking a taxpayer-backed subsidy. Promoting competition to cable is a laudable goal for telecommunications policy. Subsidizing competition to cable is something else altogether, especially when you consider that we have spent years trying to get subsidies out of our telecommunications markets. My hope would be that in conference with the Senate that we can further fine tune this bill and make it more market-oriented and competition-based.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this satellite revolution is something that is changing the very face of the video marketplace in the United States. Back in 1992 when we passed the programming access provision, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and I and others were out here on the floor arguing that if we passed that that we would create a revolution, create an 18-inch dish that one could buy and put out between the petunias and bring down hundreds of television stations; and through the years now we have seen this revolution change how suburban and urban America relate to their cable companies. This legislation is directed towards the last remaining pocket of resistance, that is, rural America. It is meant to remedy a problem that we think that we dealt with last year when we made it possible for urban and suburban television stations to beam up their local TV stations and then beam them right back down into the same marketplace. That is more difficult in rural America. It is wise for us to look at this digital divide to make sure that rural America is taken care of. At the same time, it is also important for us to make sure that we do not subsidize that which would ultimately happen anyway in the private marketplace, and that is a very delicate, very thin line for us to be walking. I support this legislation at this time, but I hope as we move it further through the process that we have the willingness to be open-minded in terms of ensuring that we build in the protections, that we do not subsidize those that do not need subsidization, that we do not help those to compete in the private market that could compete in the private market on their own. That said, it is important for rural America not to be left out. An aye vote on this legislation at this time is, in fact, something that I recommend.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I do believe that this bill, in its present form, has yet to reach its pluperfect form of acceptability. However, I think that for the time being, as it moves through this floor consideration, that it perhaps does merit the support of the Members. However, just so that the Members can understand, this bill does not require some of the largest corporations in America to actually first have gone into the financial marketplace and established that they cannot obtain these loans from a commercial financial institution. Instead, what it does is it assumes that they cannot receive them. One of the things that we I think should think about before we finally return from a conference with the Senate is whether or not we just might want to ensure that some of these huge corporations, if they can find the financing on their own, should not be able to avail themselves of publicly guaranteed funding, even if it would be at better interest rates than they could get in the free market. I think that is something that we are going to have to consider, because these are some of the most well known corporations in America that we are putting this bill through to guarantee that they are going to be subsidized. In other words, we are not taking care of small farmers here, we are talking here about large multinationals. That is something that I think at the end of the day we can find a resolution for; that we do not, in other words, reenact mistakes in the past where we wind up subsidizing those that do not need it and, unfortunately, in other bills that pass through this body, we wind up not giving any kind of help to those that are most in need in our country. Hopefully, as the process evolves and as we seek to perfect this legislation through the conference committee, we will be able to achieve those ends. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Barrett amendment. If we were going to take all of the red herrings that have been spread before this body in this debate, we would have to put an aquarium in the middle of the well. This is absolutely one of the most misrepresented Federal Communications Commission efforts of all time. Now, how do we know this? We know this because we have to test the hypocrisy coefficient. Now, how would we apply that in this particular instance? Well, what we would do is we would look at the 300 high- powered FM radio stations that the National Association of Broadcasters asked to be grandfathered by the Federal Communications Commission in 1997. Now, we are not talking about 100-watt radio stations, these small nonprofit community-based radio stations. Hundred watts. No, we are talking about 50,000 watt radio stations, 10,000 watt radio stations, 5,000 watt radio stations that all operate within the second and third adjacent channels, just with these 100-watt stations. So the NAB did a big study of these 300, 50,000, 10,000 and 5,000 watt stations. And after a completely detailed eye-watering analysis of the science of these radio stations, here is what they found: that every one of those 300 stations was a dues-paying member of the National Association of Broadcasters and they shall be grandfathered, regardless of their interference that they were going to be causing in the second and third adjacent channels. Now, who are these channels? Well, my colleagues might have heard of some of them: KCBS, KLAX, KBCD, KYCY. Fifty, 50, count them, 50 high- powered radio stations in California, 24 in Illinois, 25 in North Carolina, 28 in Ohio, 24 in New York, 17 in New Jersey. Go right down the list. So KCBS, operating within the second and third adjacent channel, that is no problem. But a 100-watt station operated by a community church in South Central L.A., oh my God, stop the presses. Let us get the FCC out of this business and have an independent study, says the NAB. The NAB. Now, why is this? Well, it is very simple. Here is their philosophy. They already got theirs. They are in. They are the incumbents. Pull up the gang plank. There is no room for these poor community groups, churches, minority groups. Oh, my God, how can we figure this out? Let us study it for a year, and then even if they find there is no interference, and, by the way, if they use the same standard that the NAB used with these 300, and that is all we are really talking about here in low power, by the way, only about 300 low power, if they use the same standard they will not find any interference. But what does the Oxley bill say? Even if they do not find any interference, they still have to come back to Congress. They still have to come back and get permission. And when will that be? When do my colleagues think the NAB will let that happen out here? So what the Barrett amendment says is, study it. But if they do not find any interference, if they find the same thing that the NAB found in 1997, when they analyzed whether or not their 300 radio stations, the huge 50,000, 10,000, 5,000-watt radion stations caused interference, then license the little 100-watt community-based radio station. Why not do that? But, no, even the Barrett amendment is unacceptable to the NAB. My colleagues, unless we want to completely ignore the facts, unless we want to completely ignore the history of FM radio in our country, and by the way these 300 stations that got their licenses back in the 1960s, they were only grandfathered. So they have been causing this interference or, more accurately, not causing this interference for 30 years now. So what is the likelihood that the FCC is going to be unable themselves, in order to determine whether or not 100-watt radio stations are causing this problem? So, my colleagues, I think if right now these 50,000-watt stations are not provoking any complaints in L.A.; if we are not hearing it on KCBS, if we are not hearing it on KLAX, we are not going to hear it on the 100-watt stations. The consumer complaints are not out there. So I urge a very strong ``aye'' on the Barrett-Rush amendment. It is wise, it is timely, it is important for us to get these small voices out into the communities of our country with the ever-consolidating huge radio industry making it harder and harder for minorities, women, and for smaller voices in our society to have their independent voices heard.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, we need to keep this bill in context. The worst part, the most unhealthy part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act was the provision which allowed for the consolidation of the radio industry. Up until 1996, no one could own more than two AM and two FM radio stations in the same city, and no one could own more than 40 radio stations across the whole country. Because of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, this worst provision in it, we now have one group owns 512 stations, another 443 stations, another 248 stations, and another 163 stations. It is harder and harder for minorities to gain access to the airwaves, to own them. It is harder and harder for women. It is harder and harder for smaller voices to independently speak on the airwaves of our country. What the chairman of the FCC, what the commission was trying to do was to make it possible for 100-watt stations to be licensed, not the 50,000-watt stations that we are all familiar with in our hometowns. 100-watt stations. This is the kid across the street with an antenna. This is not rocket science. This is just radio. It has been around for 80 years and the Federal Communications Commission has been doing a good job in sorting out these issues, these interference issues. The FCC's job is to supplement, not supplant competition. That is what they are trying to do here, supplement it. What are we talking about? Is your car radio going to be affected by this? No. Is your stereo going to be affected by this? No. Maybe the radio in the shower will have a little bit more interference, but we have the FCC to work it out. They have been doing it for 80 years. By the way, since the 1960s, 300 radio stations around the country have operated within the third adjacent channel proposed for low-power FM. By the way, those were full-power radio stations inside the third adjacent channel. Since the late 1960s, the FCC has worked it out. This is not a good bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Texas for constructing kind of a classic Austin-Boston piece of legislation here. The gentleman from Texas represents a concern that the stripper well industry has, that they have not had the proper set of incentives in order to continue to keep their wells open. What the legislation says is that when the price of stripper well oil goes below $15 a barrel, that there would be an authorization for that oil to be purchased in order, one, to fill up the Strategic Petroleum Resereve but, secondly, in order to keep the price of stripper well oil high enough so that there is an incentive for that industry to continue to make the proper investment in maintaining them as viable sources of energy for our country. As well, the legislation makes it possible for there to be constructed a regional home heating oil reserve in the northeastern part of the United States. That is very important to those of us that live within a region that does have, on an ongoing basis, the threat that we are going to be cut off from that home heating oil supply. Now, maybe over the next 20 years, as Sable Island, this rich resource of natural gas off of the Newfoundland coast comes on line, we will not need this kind of protection. But that is not really going to be possible for another 5, 10, 15 years before it fully penetrates all of the Northeast. And by the Northeast, I also mean eastern Pennsylvania, all of New Jersey, and the State of New York. Those are the parts of our country that are very much dependent upon imported home heating oil. Now, we have, without question, the need to give the President the flexibility that he needs to release the heating oil from the reserve in the event we have a repetition of the type of severe price spikes or severe weather situations that we saw last winter which drove home heating oil prices over the $2 a gallon level. This provision helps assure that as we are reauthorizing EPCA, that we are addressing both the needs of the producing States, who are worried about what happens when prices go too low, and the consuming States, who worry about what happens when prices get too high. So this is kind of our Goldilocks solution here. Not too hot. Not too cold. Just right. Try to get the right balance that makes it possible for us, to be honest, to pass legislation. We have to do this. This is the classic deal we have been cutting since Sam Rayburn and John McCormick sat on this floor in the 1930s. It is a good bill. I want to thank again the gentleman from Texas for bringing it out. I want to compliment the gentleman from Maine and the gentleman from Rhode Island and the gentleman from Vermont for pushing on this legislation. And by that I mean respectively the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand), and the estimable independent from the State of Vermont, their constant pressure. I see the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) up there as well. This is legislation that, without question, is a perfect compromise.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, America is completely entranced by the television show, ``Who Wants to be a Millionaire?'' I think that is the game that is being played out here on the floor today. The Republicans, they are starting the game kind of with the faster finger contest. So what they do is they put a chart together, and they list six things that they want to accomplish. They want to protect 100 percent of Social Security. They want to strengthen Medicare. They want to retire the public debt. They want to promote tax fairness. They want to restore America's defense, and they want to promote education. Now, the trick in the fastest finger contest is which order does one think the Republicans are going to put the answers in. Because we think and the American people think that the Republicans are really playing a different game. They think, as we do, that the real game on the Republican side is who wants to help a millionaire? So number four down here, yes, they want tax fairness for families, but the families they are talking about are the families in the country club. They want big tax breaks. So answer number one for them is helping the wealthiest families in the country with a big tax cut. But the Democrats, we are saying our answer is, who wants to help the elderly? Who wants to help the sick? Who wants to help kids get an education. So we are moving up those issues up to number one, two and three. That is what the Democratic resolution says out here on the floor. Let us make sure that we get this answer correctly, because there should be no taxation breaks before medication benefits for senior citizens in our country. We should ensure that the list, which is up here as a wonderful set of objectives that the Republican Party is listing, but they do not tell us what their priorities are. It tells us nothing about what they want to do first. If we look back to past history, their first and primary objective is cutting social programs, especially for senior citizens in our country so they can have the biggest tax breaks for those that have been most benefited by the enormous prosperity of the 1990s. So do not kid ourselves. This is all about who wants to make more money for more millionaires in our country. That is the game which the Republicans are playing. The Democrats are just making sure that we get the order first, prescription drugs to senior citizens before more tax breaks for millionaires.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by complimenting the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor). He has been a real national leader, looking at this whole area of how much information a mutual fund investor should receive just as a matter of course with regard to their investment and how much of what was managed by a mutual fund company over the preceding year had led to tax consequences for investors across the country. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) has been pressing on this issue for several years. Without question, today is a historic day because we are moving very close now with passage here today to this becoming a national law. I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) on the Democratic side, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), ranking Democratic Member of the subcommittee, for their work on this issue, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for the majority and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), who is the subcommittee chair. This has been put together in a bipartisan manner towards the goal of ensuring that all Americans, whether they be Democrat or Republican or liberal or conservative, have access to their tax obligations as a result of their mutual fund investment. The bill that we are taking up today is one that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and I introduced about 1\1/2\ years ago. It is something that occurred to us as an area that really did need some redressing. Now, the good news is that, since the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and I have introduced this legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission has now taken an interest; and they in fact are now in the process of promulgating regulations in this area that are consistent with the objectives that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and I had in introducing the legislation. That is the good news. The legislation itself has prompted that kind of a discussion at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The essence of the bill is that it requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue rules aimed at ensuring that mutual fund investors receive disclosure regarding the after-tax performance of their fund. This type of information, in combination with the other disclosures already required under Federal laws, can be very useful to investors in making fully informed investment decisions. Capital gains taxes have a material effect upon the overall performance of a mutual fund. Information regarding the impact of such taxes is clearly material information which every investor in the United States should be entitled to receive. In 1998, these are big numbers, Mr. Speaker. Mutual funds distributed approximately $166 billion in capital gains and $134 billion in taxable dividends. So as we approach April 15th, as we approach tax day, mutual investors all around the country become acutely aware of the importance which capital gains taxes have on their personal investments and on whether they will owe Uncle Sam any additional taxes based on the gains their investments have made in the preceding year. Indeed, we know today that the average domestic equity mutual fund has lost nearly 2\1/2\ percentage points per year to taxes on distribution of dividend and capital gains made to the fund shareholders. In the last 5 years, it is estimated that investors in diversified U.S. stock funds surrendered an average of 15 percent of their annual gains to taxes. Fifteen percent of the annual gains for mutual fund investors just went to taxes in the way in which the funds were managed. Clearly, taxes are one of the most significant costs of mutual fund investment, and investors need to have clear, comprehensive understandings of how, in fact, each one of the mutual fund companies are managing similar portfolios. Because then the consumer can select the fund which is more judiciously managing in order to avoid that tax incident for investors. In pressing for better disclosure in this area, we recognize that disclosure regarding past tax performance, like all historical data regarding a fund's past performance, does not have precise predictive value. The past does not give us any indication of what is going to happen in the future. However, we do believe that such information is, nevertheless, important and useful to each investor so that they can have an idea of how a fund has been managed, and we believe that each prospectus should have that information. Since there are so many mutual funds out there with similar investment objectives, investors could evaluate key factors like overall performance, fees, and tax efficiency in choosing a particular fund. So H.R. 1089 directs the SEC to issue rules within 1 year to provide mutual fund investors with disclosures regarding the tax-adjusted value of their mutual funds. It does not mandate the specific form or the content of such disclosures. Instead, the Gillmor-Markey bill gives the commission the flexibility to develop rules which are consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors following public notice and comment. The SEC has submitted testimony on the bill in which it has stated that the Commission supports the goals of H.R. 1089. In fact, they have already issued draft disclosure rules which, again, seem to be consistent with the bill's objective. In adopting a final rule, the Commission should take into account the views of investors, the mutual fund industry, and other commentators regarding the precise form and content of the new disclosure requirements, but it should move forward quickly so that by next year mutual fund investors have this type of disclosure at hand. In conclusion, my colleagues, this is a good bill. It is noncontroversial. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and I, along with all the members of the committee, have worked out this Gillmor- Markey legislation in a way that ensures that there is no controversy. And the reason there is no controversy is that it is good for investors, and it is good for our financial markets. The more information which investors in our country are given access to, the more likely that we will have efficient and intelligent markets that are moving America's investment dollars towards those funds, towards those companies which are going to result in the highest degree of productivity for our society. So, again, I want to bow in recognition of the great leadership of the gentleman from Ohio and to the chairman of the committee in moving this bill forward through the legislative process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to once again urge support of all Members for the Gillmor-Markey tax disclosure legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I think the point that the gentleman from Michigan is making is a very valid one. The Senate finished consideration of EPCA, the Energy Policy Conservation Act, last September. The Committee on Commerce in the House finished it last September. So it has been sitting somewhere between the House and the Senate languishing for 6 months right through this entire energy crisis. So the issue is why can we not, especially those of us in the Northeast who are very much dependent upon imported oil, know that the President as of midnight tomorrow night still has the authority to deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is our weapon against OPEC if he deems it to be necessary? Why would we have allowed that authority to expire tomorrow? We could have passed it out of here this week, to give the President that authority. We deal with nations. These are the heads of governments that make these decisions. There is no free market in oil in the world. It is all done by governments acting as a cartel. If it happened in any industry in the United States, the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department would break it up. It is illegal. So our President has his own oil field, it is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to deploy, to use as a weapon, a bargaining tool with these other countries. That has helped. That has helped a lot in terms of Secretary Richardson's ability to be able to use that as part of the leverage and getting the highest possible number of barrels as a concession from OPEC over the last couple of weeks. The President is saying, ``I won't deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if you give us a million, a million and a half, two million barrels of oil a day.'' As of tomorrow night, the President's authority to use this expires and all we are asking is when on the schedule will that bill be brought up so that we can give back to the President this leverage he needs in any negotiations with OPEC?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman for yielding. I think people have to understand that part of the Contract with America is the pledge to abolish the Department of Energy. So the Department of Energy, in 1995, 1996, 1997, they were just fighting to exist, not to put together an energy policy that would make us independent of OPEC. Here we sit on the day before the President's authority expires, and we still have not produced a bill out here that we can vote on that can give him that authority to continue to keep that leverage strong against OPEC.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this issue of what this Congress has to do in order to deal with the long-term energy security of our country. Mr. Chairman, we are very fortunate that between 1980 and the year 2000, the percentage of our gross domestic product that oil represents has dropped from 7 percent to 3 percent. That is good. But much of that is as a result of decisions that were made by this Congress. We forced the automobile industry to improve its energy efficiency from 13.5 miles a gallon to 27 miles a gallon. If we had not done that, we would have to import 4 million barrels of oil a day additionally. The same thing is true with all of our appliances, those with Federal regulation. Money for weatherization, which the gentleman from Maine has wisely used as the vehicle to have this discussion, that money helped, to make sure that homes were more energy efficient, less oil had to be imported. Now, short term, we do have to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And this time, maybe we will buy when oil is cheap, $12 a barrel. We will sell when it is expensive. We do it just the opposite in this Congress. We buy when it is expensive, and we sell when it is cheap. If we had 1 billion barrels, we could do 2 million barrels a day for nearly 3 years. Let us give some future President that weapon going up against the heads of the states across this world that seek to hold us hostage. Mr. Chairman, 2 million barrels a day. We do not have that capacity right now. We are down to 560 million. We should still use it. And a regional petroleum reserve, which the gentleman from Maine is leading on, to make sure that New England, New York, New Jersey are not held hostage every single winter. Moreover, let us talk about better fuel economy standards for our automobiles. If we just increased it up to 35 miles a gallon, we could push out another 2 million or 3 million barrels ourselves. All of Alaska, all of Alaska only gives us 1 million barrels a day. If we have the biggest strike of all time up in Alaska, we might only add another 500,000 million barrels. It does not even touch what we could to make sure homes are weatherized, automobiles are more efficient, refrigerators and stoves and light bulbs do not consume as much energy. The power is within ourselves, I say to my colleagues. But the Congress acted in the 1970s and 1980s. They have not acted in the 1990s. That is what is central. Short term, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, let us fill it, make sure we can deploy it, a regional petroleum reserve, let us fill it. We are going to have to use that, no question about it. But long term, let us work smarter, not harder. Let us use our advantage in technology. Let us ensure that we make the investment, pass the regulations, and then we can just thumb our noses at OPEC. We have the power within ourselves to do it. We do not have to drill off of the coast of California, off Florida. We can do it in our own vehicles, our own technologies and make ourselves energy independent.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This bill does not, in fact, reflect what the Committee on Budget did. Until the Committee on Rules stops rewriting budgets, we are going to be in a situation where neither the Committee on the Budget on the Democratic or Republican side or any House Members have had any real role in its construction. That is just plain wrong. This is the most important document which we produce. Moreover, let me tell my colleagues that in the Committee on Budget they blocked our ability to put the Bush tax cut up as an amendment. They do not want to vote on it. It was not a pretty sight in the Committee on Budget; it was not a pretty sight in the Committee on Rules. Neither one of them put the Bush tax cut in order for us to be able to take a vote upon it. And there is a good reason why, because two-thirds of the Bush tax cut goes to the richest 10 percent of taxpayers. The richest 1 percent of taxpayers get an average of $50,000 tax cut. It does not leave enough money to shore up Social Security, Medicare, education, all the way down the line. So I urge a vote against the rule so that we can debate this issue fairly, openly and freely; let us have an open vote on the Bush tax cut. It is the centerpiece of the economic claim which is being proposed by the other party. All of us should be allowed to vote upon it.

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, we have been at this for about 18 years. That is when we passed the first nuclear waste bill. And we kind of set it up like a legit process. We were going to send out all these scientists, and they were going to try to find the best sites in America to characterize in order to take all of this nuclear waste for the rest of eternity or 20,000 years, whichever came first, which is quite a scientific task. Then we reached 1987 and all of the scientists figured out that maybe we could put it in Washington State. But at that point the majority whip was from Washington State, so he said, I do not want it in Washington. And then the next one on the list was Texas. But the Speaker at the time came from Texas, so he said he did not want it. And then Louisiana. But the Senate energy committee chairman came from Louisiana, so that one was off. Then we had Mississippi. And we know who represents Mississippi. That one was off. So it came down to handing over the nuclear queen of spades to Nevada, picked by this incredibly distinguished group of scientists here on the House floor, notwithstanding the fact that there is an earthquake fault about 100 miles away from the site. Now we come back 13 years later, and we are about to say that we are going to authorize 100,000 truckloads of nuclear waste to start heading toward Nevada, kind of mobile Chernobyls out on the street heading towards Nevada. Have my colleagues ever noticed that, in any of these prison movies, they never break out of prison; it is usually when they put them on trains or trucks that they figure out how to break out of the train or the truck, the fugitive. Well, we have to think of these like loose nukes out on the streets of America. Maybe a driver that went out last night and had a little toot, unfortunately now careening through our neighborhoods, 50 million people's homes are going to be driven by with this nuclear waste. And this bill says that, believe it or not, if the driver engages in gross negligence, willful negligence, that the trucking company is not liable. Just think of the disincentive that that would create for a truck driver to get a good night's sleep the night before and not to have that little extra beer before they close up the joint at 2 in the morning and then they careen these trucks right through our neighborhoods. Well, this bill does not allow us to build in any safeguards, any liability for the trucking or for the railroad firms. In addition, we used to have Elliott Ness and Al Capone. Well, we call these contractors now the untouchables. Cannot get them. It is bad precedent. We would not do it for any other part of American commerce if they were trucking or a railroad. But, in this bill, they do so. This bill must be defeated. I urge a very strong ``no.''

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is now and has been for the last 15 years nothing more, no less than sticking the nuclear queen of spades with the State of Nevada. We are deciding it here on the floor of Congress. It is not done scientifically. It is not done through some blue ribbon panel. It is done because they have two Senators and two Congressmen. That is it. The smaller the State's representation is the more likely that they would get stuck with all of the nuclear waste from every nuclear power plant in the United States. Now, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) does a fabulous job, and I agree with every single word that she laid out in her brilliant, eye-wateringly detailed statement. She did an excellent job. But that is not what this is about. If it was about safety, then we would not have a bill out here on the floor right now which indemnifies, in other words, it says to the companies which are going to be trucking and railroading this nuclear waste all over America that they have no liability, that is, as these atomic trains and trans-uranic trucks start riding across America, and we are talking about 100,000 shipments of nuclear waste criss-crossing America, now riding the streets of our country after they have been put into the form of spent fuel, the most dangerous form of this fuel at the 120 or so nuclear power plants across our country. What does this bill say? This bill says that even if the truck company, even if the railroad engaged in negligence, gross negligence, willful misconduct as the truck driver careens, for whatever reason from the night before, whatever activity he might have been engaged in the night before, careens through a neighborhood tipping over the truck, dumping nuclear waste in a neighborhood, no liability for the truck company. None. Zero. Zero for the railroad if they have an accident. Now, what kind of an incentive is that? If they are driving through our neighborhoods with bread in the back of the truck and it tips over, they are liable. If they are driving through our neighborhoods and it is the milkman, they are liable. But because of their spill, if they are driving through with nuclear waste, no liability. Now, do my colleagues really want to give that incentive to every truck driver and every railroad engineer carrying these 100,000 shipments of the most dangerous material ever known to mankind through their neighborhoods? And by the way, 50 million people are on the routes that will have to be used in order to move all of this waste to the State of Nevada, without any assurance, by the way, that ultimately Yucca Mountain is going to be suitable for the waste. It just might have to get put back on the trucks and the trains and taken to some other place. Because ``congressional experts'' is an oxymoron. We are only experts compared to other Congressmen. We are not experts compared to real experts, the scientists. And there has been no scientist who has yet been able to confirm that Yucca Mountain in Nevada is the place where we can bury every bit of nuclear waste for the next 20,000 years. We are just trying to get it off the hands of all the utilities. That is what this is all about. And that is why no liability for the truck drivers. The Environmental Protection Agency can no longer look at the safety standards. But do my colleagues want to know what they say? Do not worry, an accident cannot happen. Do not worry, this is going to be very safely transported. And so the public kind of scratches their head and says, well, if this can be safely transported, how come they are going to pass a law saying the truck drivers are not liable if an accident takes place? So this rule, basically, prohibits any amendments from being put in order which can ensure that the health and the safety of all Americans are protected, that there is an opportunity for real debate on this most important of all environmental issues, which is going to be debated on the floor of Congress this year; and, as a result, I have to recommend, reluctantly, that the Members of this body vote ``no'' because this is not the way that we should be dealing with an issue that deals with the most fundamental health and environmental and safety issues that face our country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this was not a half bad resolution as it was produced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) out of the committee. In fact, what it said was that the President would be able to use his existing legal authorities to reduce, to suspend, or to terminate assistance to these OPEC nations, including military aid or arms sales. So in other words, if the heads of all these counties are going to go into a room and say, they are not getting any more oil from us or we are going to reduce it dramatically, then leaders from our country are going to go into a room and say, well, they are not going to get what we have got in our country that they want. But by the time that it had been transformed by the miracle of the Committee on Rules, every meaningful part of this resolution has been removed; and all we have left is, basically, a resolution which says this oil crisis is really a very bad thing. Now, we are all going to agree with that. It is a bad thing. But the Committee on Rules had a chance to put into order for us to debate out here on the floor the reauthorization of the strategic petroleum reserve, which is what our President can use to talk to the leaders of their country in deploying our oil reserves, 560 million barrels of oil. The Committee on Rules did not put into order my amendment, which said that we should build a regional home heating oil reserve up in the northeastern part of the United States for Maryland, for New Jersey, for New York, for all of New England. That is not in order here. Let us just go through another winter without giving those people up in the Northeast the chance not to have themselves tipped upside down and have money shaken out of their pockets by OPEC when their governments, not private companies, my colleagues, when their governments decide that they are going to take our consumers hostage and just stick them up. So as this resolution is out here on the floor, it is really worse than meaningless because it gives the false message to the rest of America that we are doing something here today when, in fact, we are not doing anything at all.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very historic evening. Tonight, as we pass this legislation, we break down the final governmentally- sanctioned monopoly that had been granted over the last decades to private telecommunications companies. We did the bulk of the work in the 1992 Cable Act and in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, but this was the last refuge of the last monopoly; and, as of tonight, it too has ended. I want to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), for his excellent work on this bill. I have worked very closely with him over the last counsel of terms on this legislation. Although, I have to admit that I did introduce the first bill back in 1983. Although, most of my last couple of decades was notable for its lack of success in legislating in this area. But I think the inexorable momentum of the move toward the privatization of telecommunications companies has in fact finally swept down this final barrier, as well. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). Working together with them, we have been able to craft I believe a compromise that works for everyone. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) has been there all the way. This is, without question, compromise at its best. Over in the Senate, Senator Burns, without question, was leading the way. Back in 1962 when COMSAT was formed, it would have been inconceivable that a private company would be able to launch satellites. So, as a result, the Government had to grant monopolies. But since the beginning of the 1990s, and really back in the 1980s, when Rene Anselmo of PanAmSat came on the scene, it was clear now we had reached the point where private sector companies could compete. And, in fact, the United States is far in the lead in these areas. And, so, this legislation really does help to make it possible to open up that competition even further. I want to congratulate the staffers, Ed Hearst and Mike O'Rielly, Cliff Riccio, Monica Azare, Andy Levin, and David Schuler, along with Collin Proel on my staff who has been working on this bill for 4 years. This has been a long, long effort; and I know, just through Collin's work, how much time and how much negotiation has gone into it. This is a good bill. And as we finish tonight, hopefully enacting it unanimously, we will open up a brand new era of competition in the skies of this world and that will be a good thing. I congratulate again the chairman, along with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). This is a good bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining with the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) in introducing the Derivatives Market Reform Act. In recent years, over-the-counter (OTC) derivative financial products have become an important component of modern financial markets. They provide useful risk management tools for corporations, financial institutions, and governments around the world seeking to respond to fluctuations in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices, and movements in stock or other financial markets. While OTC derivatives are frequently used to hedge risks or to lower borrowing costs, they can also be used by dealers or end-users to make risky and highly speculative synthetic bets on the direction of global financial markets. The potential for such derivatives to contribute to excessive speculation or leveraging has raised concerns over the potential for OTC derivatives to increase, rather than reduce the risk of catastrophic financial loss or contribute to a future financial panic or meltdown in global financial markets. In addition, the concentration of market-making functions in a small number of large banks and securities firms, the close financial inter- linkages OTC derivatives have created between each of these firms, and the sheer complexity of the products being traded raise serious concerns about the potential for derivatives to contribute to serious disruptions in the fabric of our financial system. The potential for the failure of a key market participant to trigger a meltdown--or the specter of a potential disruption in the financial markets due to highly leveraged and complex investment strategies--was illustrated by last years' near collapse of the hedge fund known as Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM). The LTCM affair has underscored the need for regulators to minimize the potential for OTC derivatives to contribute to a major disruption in the financial markets, either through excessive speculation and over-leveraging, or due to inadequate internal controls and risk management on the part of major derivatives dealers or end-users. Today, Senator Dorgan and I are introducing legislation in both the House and the Senate which would provide for certain targeted derivatives market and hedge fund reforms in the aftermath of the LTCM affair. Here's what our bill would do: First, the bill would define ``derivative'' to include any financial contract or other instrument that derives its value from the value or performance of any security, currency exchange rate, or interest rate (or group of index thereof). With respect to instruments based on currency exchange rates, we would exclude the most common type of derivative instrument--forward rate contracts--but would include foreign currency swaps that have a duration greater than 270 days. Securities traded on an exchange or on the NASDAQ, futures or options on futures, and bank or savings institutions deposits also would be excluded. Second, the definition of ``security'' in section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') would be amended to include derivatives based on the value of any security. While options on securities already are included within this definition, the amendment would bring equity swaps explicitly under the definition of ``security'' and subject transactions in equity swaps to regulation under the Exchange Act. Third, persons defined as ``derivatives dealers'' would become subject to Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') regulation. Derivatives dealers that are not (1) registered broker- dealers or (2) material associated persons of registered broker-dealers that have filed notice with the Commission, would be required to register with the Commission and would be subject to Commission rulemaking and enforcement authority. Commission rulemaking would focus on financial responsibility and related recordkeeping and reporting requirements, as well as on the prevention of fraud. Such dealers also would be required to become members of an existing registered securities association, or any registered securities association that may be established for derivatives dealers. Rules adopted by a registered securities association would focus on the prevention of sales practice abuses and the establishment of internal controls. Derivatives dealers that are material associated persons of registered broker-dealers would be required, as a general matter, to file a form of notice with the Commission. Alternatively, such dealers would be permitted to register as a derivatives dealer. Dealers that file notice would be regulated indirectly through their broker-dealer affiliate. The risk assessment provisions already in place under the Exchange Act, which would be amended by this bill, would be utilized for this purpose. In addition, the broker- dealer's net capital would be based, in part, on the derivatives activities of its affiliated derivatives dealer. The designated examining authority for the broker-dealer would have rulemaking and enforcement authority with respect to the derivatives activities of both the broker-dealer and the affiliate. The Commission also would be authorized to adopt rules designed to prevent fraud. Fourth, the bill would require the filing of quarterly reports by hedge funds, including a statement of the financial condition of the fund, income or losses, cash flows, changes in equity, and a description of the models and methodologies used to calculate, assess, and evaluate market risk, and such other information as the Commission, in consultation with the other financial regulators, may require as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. The Commission is authorized to allow any confidential proprietary information to be segregated in a confidential section of the report that would be available to the regulators, but would not be disclosed to the public. Fifth, the bill would also direct the SEC to use its existing large trader reporting authority to issue a final large trader reporting rule. Congress gave the SEC this authority in the Market Reform Act of 1990 in order to assure that the trading activities of hedge funds and other large traders could be tracked by the SEC for market surveillance and other purposes. Nearly 10 years later, the SEC has failed to issue a final rule, and the draft rules it issued years ago are gathering dust. Our bill would change that. Sixth, the bill would reinstate the intermarket coordination reporting requirements established by Section 8(a) of the Market Reform Act of 1990. This reporting requirement, which expired in 1995, was intended to promote cooperation by the various financial regulators by requiring them to report to Congress on an annual basis on their efforts to coordinate regulatory activities, protect payment systems and markets during emergencies, establish adequate margin requirements and limits on leverage, and other matters affecting the soundness, stability, and integrity of the markets. Adoption of this bill would close the regulatory black hole that has allowed derivatives dealers affiliated with securities or insurance firms to escape virtually any regulatory scrutiny. It will give the SEC the tools needed to monitor the activities of these firms, assess their impact on the financial markets, and assure appropriate protections are provided to their customers against any fraudulent or abusive activities. It would require hedge funds to provide some public reporting regarding their holdings. It is not a radical restructuring of the derivatives market or of the hedge fund industry; it is focused laser-like on the real gaps that exist in the current regulatory framework that need to be closed in the aftermath of the LTCM affair. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation.