Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, November is Alzheimer's Awareness Month-- This month we recognize the 4 million Americans victimized by this devastating disease and the family members who are most often their primary caregivers. Alzheimer's Disease is debilitating, indiscriminate and cruel--it creeps into the brain, captures the mind and renders its victims with impaired judgment, personality change and loss of language and communication skills. Today, Alzheimer's is on track to wreak havoc as the epidemic of the next century burdening our nation's health care system and leaving millions of American families in emotional and financial ruin. It is predicted that by 2050, 14 million Americans will be afflicted. We need a strategy today. As part of this strategy, we must recognize that there are thousands of spouses and other family members struggling to provide care for their loved ones in their homes each year. Seven in ten people with Alzheimer's disease live at home. Almost 75% of home care is provided by family and friends placing a tremendous emotional burden on these caregivers and a financial burden averaging $12,500 per at home patient. Each year, Alzheimer's costs our nation at least $100 billion and American business $33 billion, most of that in the lost work of employees who are caregivers. It is imperative that we increase the federal commitment to this disease. We must create new programs to relieve caregivers and we must continue our work toward treatment and a cure. Last year the federal government dedicated $400 million to Alzheimer's research, but that's still not enough--the federal commitment to heart, cancer and AIDS research--diseases of comparable cost to our country--is 3 to 5 times higher. Next fiscal year we must increase research dollars for Alzheimer's by $100 million. Last June--in an effort to encourage legislative solutions to deal with Alzheimer's--I along with my colleague from across the aisle Chris Smith--kicked off the first bipartisan Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease. To date we have 82 members with a goal of reaching 100 by 2000. The time has come to wage a serious war against Alzheimer's disease. The time has come to fight for solutions to improve the lives of those affected today and to fight for a cure to save the lives of those who will be affected tomorrow.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to, in conclusion, thank everyone who has worked on this legislation. We have reached a point where it is time to introduce COMSAT fully to the private marketplace. We have worked long and hard to reach this point, much of the original investment being made by the Federal Government. In fact, the Star Wars program itself was a program of putting 100 to 200 satellites in the sky and contracting with aerospace companies, AT&T, to communicate so that we could shoot down 2,000 or 3,000 Soviet missiles within 2 to 3 minutes, and it required tremendous telecommunications capacity, point to multi-point communications. Ultimately, that system will probably never be deployed, but the peace dividend that has flown from it is that companies like Hughes that were defense contractors moved over and took the same concepts over and created Direct TV, the satellite dish company. The same thing is true in company after company. The government investment that was initially made in order to thwart the ambitions of the Soviet Union were ultimately turned into things which benefited the American people in its peaceful application. This is another benefit which the American people should get and all of the other companies that have been created subsequent to the construction of INTELSAT and COMSAT. Mr. Speaker, my hope is that the bill passes this evening, goes to a conference quickly with the Senate, and that we can resolve the differences and produce another great marketplace victory for the American people as a post-Cold War dividend. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I begin by praising the chairman of the full committee the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for his excellent work on this bill and for the excellent work of the subcommittee chairman for bringing this new version of the legislation out to the floor at this time. As the gentleman from Louisiana pointed out, I worked over the last several years with the gentleman from Virginia to fashion legislation in this area. While we were able to pass it through the House of Representatives last year with more than 400 votes, we were unsuccessful in reaching final resolution with the Senate. This is an effort, working with the gentleman from Louisiana now, with his refinements, to move the bill ultimately to the President's desk. I think that what we are doing here tonight is going to make it much more likely that we are going to see that end result. Working in tandem with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and with all the other members of the Committee on Commerce, I think we have got that goal line now in our sight. Back in 1962 when COMSAT was created, the telecommunications sector around the globe was dominated by monopolies. In the United States, we only had one company, AT&T. It had 1.2 million employees. As a result, the construct of COMSAT and INTELSAT reflected the nature of the telecommunications industry at that point in time back in 1962. It is not surprising that the act reflected that period in time. It was immediately post-Sputnik. There was a paranoia that gripped the free world. There was a sense that we were slipping behind. There was a real understanding that the only way in which we could catch up is if the government, not only the government of our country but the governments of all of the free nations of the world banded together to launch these satellites that would make it possible for us to catch up and surpass the Soviet Union and their allies in the space race. Back then, it took national efforts to build, to launch and to maintain satellites in orbit. But much has changed in the last 35 years, since President Kennedy signed the original COMSAT bill into law, since INTELSAT and subsequently Inmarsat were made a part of the international telecommunications infrastructure. Today, we have private individuals with their own money willing to build and to launch satellites into space. America leads in these cutting edge technologies, and the satellite market alone is a multibillion-dollar market sector and employs tens of thousands of workers throughout the country. In my opinion in the post-GATT, post-NAFTA world, these are the areas that America must win. These are the areas that we should be the primary beneficiaries of as a people. These are the areas where our citizens, our workers should garner a disproportionate share of the jobs since it was the very same workers as taxpayers that footed the bill to stand down the Soviet Union by making the investment in these satellite technologies, by cobbling together these international alliances which made the inevitable defeat of the Soviet Union, reflecting the internal contradictions of their system all the more obvious as we surrounded them with democratic institutions. Today, largely because of the Federal Government, largely because of the antitrust actions taken by the Reagan administration's breaking up AT&T back in 1982, we now have robust, competitive communications markets all across our country. Ironically, it is now a Federal district judge appointed by Ronald Reagan who is now calling for the dissolution of the monopoly control which Microsoft has over the computer marketplace. So this has been a bipartisan effort over the years, moving from this original period of monopoly to this new era of competition across all lines. It has been done, thank God, on a bipartisan basis, liberal and conservative; right wing, left wing; Louisiana and Massachusetts, working together. Mr. Speaker, that 1962 model is no longer sustainable. In fact, it is counterproductive to American interests today. It is time to update the INTELSAT and Inmarsat law, two international governmental organizations who are not going to compete against U.S. satellite companies on even ground, or even space, to put it more accurately, simply because we ask them to do so politely. They will not give it up politely. No monopoly gives up anything politely. Sometimes it takes an antitrust case brought by the Reagan administration against AT&T or a Reagan judge against Microsoft. Sometimes it takes legislation. That is what we are doing here this evening, the legislative route. And, Mr. Speaker, while the U.S. State Department has failed repeatedly to secure effective pro-competitive commitments in international meetings, all we ever are left with are weak commitments, vague promises or worse. As part of our previous policy discussions over the years, other U.S. companies were repeatedly told that we could not have private sector companies in America have direct access to the INTELSAT system. In other words, no other American company could bypass the exclusive resale role that policymakers bequeathed to COMSAT 37 years ago. We were told to ignore the fact that almost half of the world had already liberalized such access to INTELSAT in their home countries. Finally, earlier this year, the FCC took an initial step in making access to INTELSAT more competitive by permitting a minimum level of direct access, so-called Level 3 direct access. Now we are being told that private sector companies in the United States should be prohibited from going to Level 4 direct access. That is, allowing other U.S. companies in addition to COMSAT to make private investments in INTELSAT. What kind of free market do we have when private companies are prevented from risking their own money in investments? Are we to ignore the United Kingdom, Argentina and about two dozen other countries that have already demonopolized and deregulated their market and fully liberalized investment opportunities in this fashion? It is time for us to fully embrace the free market in international satellite communications, and this bill will help us to do just that. Level three access only partially achieves the objectives of full and fair competition. Level three access would give others the ability to obtain INTELSAT capacity at the wholesale level, but would leave COMSAT free to subsidize its rate with the 18 percent return it receives on its investment in the INTELSAT system as one of the shareholders in the consortium and the exclusive U.S. shareholder. Level four access, on the other hand, would eliminate the incentive for COMSAT to cross- subsidize by enabling COMSAT's competitors the opportunity to secure the same 18 percent return. Now, level four access is already available in the United Kingdom and Argentina and Chile and France and New Zealand and Sweden and Denmark, in Ireland and Singapore and China, Ecuador, Jordan, Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan, and over a dozen other countries now modeling their telecommunications systems increasingly on us, and here we have this last bastion of monopoly. It is essential that the United States, having led the way, now join these other countries. Mr. Speaker, our goal for COMSAT, the U.S. signatory, is that it evolve into a commercial company like any other American commercial company, without any special status or advantages, but also without any special obligations. In a new competitive environment, we have high hopes that COMSAT will succeed and that its corporate future is bright. We believe that the additional changes made by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) to the legislation moves us very close to a final resolution. I think his suggestions were wise and they are now incorporated in this legislation. I look forward to meeting with the Senate so that we can have additional discussions on this historic legislation and so that we can move forward along with our local satellite bill, our E-signature legislation in making the kinds of historic changes that make it possible for the private sector to be innovative, for the private sector to create the jobs, to be able to create the wealth which will be, ultimately, the real peace dividend for Americans and ultimately exporting these concepts across the globe. I thank the gentleman for all of his great work. I stand, as usual, in admiration for his usual leadership. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to conclude by congratulating my good friend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for his excellent work on this bill. We have worked many years on these issues. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who wanted to be here, he is in another conference working on a health care-related issue right now; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), each one a saint, but I especially want to identify myself with the comments again of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). It would have been far better if we had built in language which would have ensured that nondiscriminatory conduct against certain satellite companies could not have been engaged in. It would have been preferable if we had dealt with that issue today. Instead, our responsibility will be to monitor very closely marketplace activities and to identify wherever it occurs actions that are meant to harm those who seek to compete in this new marketplace. Let us hope that this bill will be a success. I think each of us hopes that the revolution begins tonight. I want to start off by commending Chairman Bliley, Mr. Dingell, and Chairman Tauzin, as well as Chairman Hyde, Mr. Conyers, Chairman Coble, and Mr. Berman from the Judiciary Committee, for bringing back to the floor today the conference report on the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA). And I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership and for the excellent work they have done in helping to bring a bipartisan, consensus approach to these complicated issues. The impetus for Congress' activity on the Satellite Home Viewer Act this year is two-fold. First, having deregulated cable programming services effective in April of this year, many members of this body sought ways in which to foster greater competition to incumbent cable systems. Second, lawmakers were responding to a series of court decisions that found that people were illegally selling distant network signals to consumers in violation of the Satellite Home Viewer Act. In proceeding legislatively, we have tried to remain true to two important communications values, namely localism and universal service. We have tried to balance these values even as we factor in the innovative changes that have occurred in satellite technology, as well as the dire need for greater competition to incumbent cable companies in the video marketplace. In the Commerce Committee, I offered an amendment to accelerate the development of so-called ``local-to-local'' service. The local-to-local amendment that I offered was designed to help accelerate competition to incumbent cable systems by authorizing a service that would permit satellite carriers the ability to provide consumers a video service that was more comparable to cable. There's no question that many consumers today who would otherwise have switched to satellite TV do not do so because they cannot effectively receive their local channels. This service avails a consumer of the opportunity to receive his or her local TV stations by way of satellite. This promotes our policy of localism and makes satellite service more attractive to consumers. I believe that local-to-local is the future of satellite broadcasting and that it will make satellite service more comparable to cable and I am very pleased that it is included in the legislation before the House. At a time when cable programming has been deregulated, we must work quickly to provide incentives for greater competition to incumbent cable companies and we must do so in a way that fully recognizes the market power that the cable industry continues to wield in the marketplace. I am very disappointed that the Conference Committee did not accept the stronger House version of this provision that would have been more competitive and more pro-consumer. In general, the House bill was a better bill than what the Senate produced, or what we have wound up with here at the end of the process. Late changes to the bill in the conference are a step in the right direction and have made the bill more acceptable. I believe that it is worthy of support, but we still have much work to do in order to promote greater choice and price competition to cable. I am hopeful that we can return as a Congress and revisit these cable competition issues. Consumers deserve greater choice and they deserve greater efforts on the part of policymakers to make such choice ubiquitous and affordable. Again, I want to commend Chairman Bliley, and Chairman Hyde for bringing this bill to the floor and for their leadership in working with Mr. Dingell, Mr. Conyers, Chairman Tauzin, Chairman Coble, and myself as well as others on the Committee in attempting to fashion a consensus, bipartisan approach to this difficult issue. I continue to believe that newly-granted retransmission consent rights for both local and distant signals must have appropriate safeguards against potential anticompetitive activity stemming from the cable industry's continued market dominance. Broadcasters have a non- marketplace safeguard built into the bill in the form of must-carry. Cable competitors must have similar protection against potential anticompetitive action because of the dominant position that incumbent cable companies are able to exercise. I hope that the FCC can clarify language in the bill as it is intended to serve consumers and our competition policy where it addresses the obligation for ``good faith'' negotiations. Local-to-local service however, will not reach many markets initially. And even the most robust business plans on the drawing board today do not envision extending local-to-local beyond the top 70 markets or so. For that reason, we still need to address issues related to how we can supplement satellite service with the delivery of local TV channels in those smaller, rural markets with other wireless cable, terrestrial wireless, or cable broadcast-only basic tier availability. Facilitating deployment of new technologies, such as wireless terrestrial service, could also advance the important priority of stimulating direct competitors to cable in all markets. Strong price and quality competition to incumbent cable systems is still woefully absent in today's marketplace. There are, for example, several companies poised to offer competition to cable through wireless services. One of these potential cable rivals is Northpoint Technology, which could provide cable services using existing equipment. Finally, the conference agreement requires the Commission to conduct a number of rulemaking proceedings related to the rights of television broadcast stations, such as network nonduplication. These rulemaking procedures shall apply to commercial and noncommercial televisions stations. Again, my congratulations to the Commerce and Judiciary Committee conferees. I urge support of the bill and I urge members who support more effective competition to incumbent cable systems to support strong rules at the FCC clarifying ``good faith'' negotiating obligations on those entities offering retransmission consent of their station's signal. Phone companies, cable overbuilders, and satellite operators need clear, pro-competition rules at the FCC and I believe the Commission ought to do this on an expedited basis. There's no reason to delay. I again urge support of the bill.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in urban America, for a generation, we have not been able to take advantage of the satellite revolution. Yes, laws have been passed to make it possible for those that live in rural America, whether they have these 8-foot dishes in their back yard that would have required zoning variances in Boston, to be able to capture programming that benefits their consumers. In 1992, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and I, out here on the floor, argued for better programming access so that satellite dishes would have better access to more programming. And that passed and actually gave birth to the 18-inch dish, this pizza-sized satellite dish, which would make it possible in urban America to put a satellite dish on one's home or in the back yard without having the neighbors protest in those densely populated communities. However, the problem existed for all urban consumers because they could not get their local TV stations on their satellite dish. So those who came from Boston could not get channel 4, channel 5, channel 7, channel 56, channel 38, channel 25, where the Bruins and the Celtics and the Red Sox reside. So, as a result, consumers in Boston and other urban areas were forced to continue to use cable as the other mechanism by which they could have programming other than broadcast plus broadcast come into their home. This bill changes that. This bill, for the first time, makes it possible for consumers in urban areas to really think seriously about getting a satellite dish, because for the first time they can get their local TV stations. They do not have to get up and start fooling with the rabbit ears on their TV set if they want to switch over from satellite to their local TV stations. They will not have to buy the local basic cable package if they want to get their local TV stations in concert with their satellite dish. So this local-into-local service is going to begin the revolution which will make it possible for urban Americans to enjoy the same video enjoyment which rural Americans have had access to for a generation. I know I am planning on considering that purchase this Christmas. I am, however, very disappointed that the conference committee did not accept the stronger House version of this provision that would have been more competitive, more pro-consumer, and would have ensured that we have telescoped the time frame fully to the point where every single urban American would have been able to consider immediately this new satellite service. In general, the House bill was a better bill than what the Senate produced or what we wound up with here at the end of the process. Late changes in the conference are a step in the right direction, and it made the bill more acceptable. And I believe that it is worthy of support, even though I believe Congress is giving up an excellent opportunity to promote greater choice and price competition, price competition to cable. I am hopeful that we can return in the next Congress and revisit these cable competition issues. Consumers deserve greater choice and they deserve greater efforts on the part of policymakers to make such choice ubiquitous and affordable. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has gone through the litany of legislative saints who played a role in bringing the bill this far, and I want to compliment in turn each of those that the gentleman from Louisiana has mentioned. This is, although not perfect, a step forward in bringing this technological revolution to urban Americans, and I hope that it can find support here on the floor this evening. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, up in Boston, there is one man whom we revere whose philosophy is instilled in each of us. His philosophy was, ``All politics is local.'' His name was Tip O'Neill. Tonight he would be saying, ``All politics is local-into-local,'' making sure you can take your local TV stations, beam them up to a satellite and bring them right back down, watch the Red Sox, watch the Bruins, watch the Celtics, on their local TV stations. Then you can disconnect your cable company if you like. If they are not coming soon enough to satisfy you and there is bad service, if they are putting up the rates too high for the limited number of channels they are providing you, this option now becomes one that you can consider. My father used to say to me, ``Eddie, I'd disconnect cable in a second, but it would just be a pain to have to get up and flick the switch and then try to move the rabbit ears.'' Mr. Speaker, tonight for my father and for millions like him across the country, this gives them the opportunity to begin to make that decision. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. It has been a long road, Mr. Speaker, to reach this point. We began in our committee probably 25 years ago with the cable revolution forcing telephone companies and electric companies to allow cable companies to put their wires on their poles. We had to pass laws forcing then as the cable companies got very large to force them to sell their programming to satellite companies so that the satellite companies would be able to compete against cable companies. Each one of these steps is part of a government plan, part of a bipartisan, Federal Government plan to add more competition to the marketplace. If it was left just to the incumbent companies, we would never have any additions to the video revolution. We would never have reached the day here where we can debate whether or not streaming video, America OnLine, should be part of this debate. It is only because we have made these tough government decisions to break down barriers to entry to new technologies that we are able to debate this tonight. For millions of Americans for the first time beginning this Christmas, they may have the opportunity of deciding just to disconnect their cable and to get their local television stations for the first time from a new place, a satellite dish, and to also have at the same time the freedom of having the couple of hundred channels that satellite offers to them. That is what makes me so excited about this bill. It no longer will be a rural revolution, it now becomes officially an urban revolution. Again, not all of the provisions that I wanted are in this bill. I do not think we are going to see the price competition which would have been made possible if we had made some tougher decisions, but I do think we are tonight taking that first step towards making urban Americans equal citizens with rural Americans in this satellite revolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is inadequate. The Republicans have been standing on the floor for the last month holding up a penny saying, oh, people are not willing to cut a penny out of the entire Federal budget, although it would affect, ironically, many of the programs that they now are out on the floor saying they care so much about. But in 1997 they led the effort to cut Medicare by what they said was going to be $110 billion. It has wound up now at $210 billion and, at the same time, they had a tax break out here on the floor for the wealthiest Americans for $275 billion over 10 years. Now that was a nice package in 1997. A tax break of $275 billion, that is the law for the wealthiest in America; cut Medicare by $200 billion, just over 5 years, and then come back in 2 years and say, look at the great surplus, look where it came from. What do they say to the people on Medicare? We are going to give back a nickel out of that $200 billion cut in Medicare. To the hospitals, to the home health servers, to the communities across the country, to the people who are sick in our country, and old, they get back a nickel. And what do they do with the rest of the surplus? Oh, they have a new idea, an $800 billion tax break for the wealthiest in America over the next 10 years. So who is funding this huge tax break idea, the money that goes back to the communities, actually to the wealthy under their plan? The people who are funding it are people who are in nursing homes. The people who are funding it are people who they cut viciously, this program. Hospitals and nursing homes are hemorrhaging and they want to put a Band-Aid on it today.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts, for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I support the modernization of the financial services industry in the United States. Because of global competition and rapid technological change, it is critical that we update the laws which deal with every aspect of the financial matters of the people of our country, but there is a fatal flaw in the heart of this bill. The financial institutions say that they need synergies of being able to provide brokerage and banking and insurance services to every American. As a result, they can be giving the American people no privacy protections. What the American people say is give us the synergies, but take the ``sin'' out of those synergies. Do not compromise our privacy. If one has had one's checks in the same bank from the last 25 years, all of those checks can now be shared with all the insurance agents inside of this new financial services institution, with all of the brokers inside of this financial institution, with the telemarketing affiliates of this financial services institution to do a financial profile of one for their marketing purposes. If this financial services company creates a joint agreement with another financial services company, one cannot protect that information either. This is all one gets, Madam Speaker, from one's new, huge, bank holding company: Notice. Notice is all one gets. What is the notice? The notice is one has no privacy rights. That is the notice. None. Because it interfere with their ability to make money at the expense of one's family's secrets. No one should vote for this bill. It is a fatally flawed bill. We should be able to deal with this issue simultaneously with letting the big boys get all they need. We should take care of what ordinary people need for their families as well.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, we are told how difficult it is, how complex it is to deal with all of these privacy issues. But when Citigroup is doing business in Germany, and the German laws say that every German citizen has the right to protect all their information, has the right to say, no, they do not want it shared, Citigroup gives every German citizen a contract protecting their information. Now, they do not want to give that same contract to American citizens in their own country. Citigroup says no, we cannot do it in America. It is too complex. Now, the American laws have figured out how to ensure one's tax returns do not get shared, how one's driver's license information does not get shared, one's video cassette rentals, one's cable TV viewing habits, one's telephone call records, the location of where one is when one is using one's cell phone. Yes, we can pass laws for that. But the financial services industry says, it would really ruin our synergies if you made it necessary for us to protect your private information, your checks. If one wrote a check for one's child's psychiatrist, for one's prostate cancer, for one's wife's breast cancer, no, one cannot protect that information. It is our product to sell to market. There is only one thing that really exists here, Madam Speaker. One gets one notice, and one gets one notice only from these banks. Here is what one is going to get: Notice, you have no privacy. They are going to be legally required to tell one one has no privacy. Commerce without a conscience. Profit before privacy. Can we not have a balance in this country? William Shakespeare, 5 centuries ago: ``Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing.'' ``'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands.'' But ``he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed.'' Here, Madam Speaker, one's good name enriches the financial services industry and will make each family poor, indeed, as it is robbed, stolen, filched, and capitalized upon by the financial services industry in this country. Vote no on this bad bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that there really is not a gulf that exists between Democrats and Republicans over our support for electronic commerce. That is clearly something that the Committee on Commerce has been working on for the last 15 years. Every single bill has been able to be produced with near unanimity. It is clearly a tribute to our committee that we have been able to work together in that fashion. At the full committee level, we worked closely with the majority on a bill that dealt with electronic signatures; and we really worked together in a very bipartisan fashion. Since the full committee, the whole notion of the bill has been broadened out to include records as well, another issue area that is quite complex but resolvable and one in which I thought that we had made enormous progress. In fact, I know we had made enormous progress through the end of last week. It was clearly our intent to have worked with the majority to, once again, demonstrate our ability to work in a bipartisan fashion in this area. It was our hope that, at the end of the day, that would be the case. I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for including a provision allowing consumers to decide whether to opt in to receive contractual documents in electronic form. This opt-in provision goes a long way towards ensuring that consumers do not unwittingly forgo existing protections under State and Federal law. However, there were other issues that are also in play that include what kind of notice, whether it be conspicuous or otherwise, that consumers are entitled to under existing laws to receive these documents in writing. So, again, we are quite regretful on this side because we clearly would like to support a piece of legislation that advances these goals and could be passed on a bipartisan near-unanimous vote out here on the floor. But at this point I have to regretfully ask the Members to vote no. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on either side.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to include for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill. They oppose it in specific particulars, and I would like at this point for it to be included in the Record. H.R. 1714.--Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act The Administration strongly opposes House passage of the revised version of H.R. 1714, the ``Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.'' The Administration believes that electronic commerce can provide substantial benefits to consumers, and seeks to foster the expansion of this medium. Secure electronic signatures can play an important role in this area, and the Administration supports their development and dissemination. However, the Administration also believes strongly that individuals should have no fewer consumer protections in the on-line world than they do in other forms of commerce. That disparity could undermine consumer confidence in electronic commerce, and impede the growth of this important new medium of trade. While some improvements have been made, H.R. 1714 still goes well beyond what is necessary to facilitate electronic commerce, and unnecessarily deprives consumers of important protections. The Administration believes that Federal legislation is appropriate to ensure the validity of electronic agreements entered into by private parties under State law before the States have an opportunity to enact the Uniform Transactions Act (UETA). We therefore support the bill's provisions affirming the legal validity of contracts that are memorialized and signed in electronic form. The Administration also believes, as noted, that consumers must be granted the same protections on-line that they currently receive off-line under existing laws and regulations. Unfortunately, many Americans today do not enjoy reliable and regular access to the Internet. To ensure that an electronic disclosure will have the same impact upon consumers on-line as paper disclosure has now, regulators must have the authority to make sure that electronic notices and disclosures will actually reach and be understood and retained by consumers. H.R. 1714 also would allow businesses to condition credit or other services on a consumers' consent to notices or disclosures--even when the consumer is incapable of receiving or retaining them. The Administration strongly objects to this bill on several grounds. First, the bill purports to protect consumers by requiring them to ``separately and affirmatively'' consent to the use of electronic records. Unfortunately, this provision requires just an additional paragraph of small print in the form contract prepared by a business. The notice to the consumer need not be conspicuous, the consumer need not be told of his or her right to obtain information in the form required by law, and the consumer need not be told which specific records would be affected. More fundamentally, these current law notice and disclosure requirements were created to protect vulnerable consumers allowing businesses to redefine the protections based on ``consent''--something that businesses may not do with respect to paper transactions--is thus an open invitation to consumer deception on a broad scale. Second, the scope of the bill's preemption is unjustifiably broad. Neither the States nor Federal regulators will have any ability to eliminate the abuses that may occur when electronic records are used. With respect to Federal regulators, the bill by its terms eliminates all such authority. With respect to the States, the bill's grant of authority is illusory because it prohibits (in section 102(b)(4)) any State action inconsistent with the bill's provisions, leaving the States powerless to curb any abuse that the bill itself fails to prevent. Third, the bill overrides all Federal and State laws or regulations concerning notices necessary for the protection of safety, shelter or health (there is a narrow exception for notices relating to the termination of utility services, eviction or foreclosure of a primary residence, or the termination of health or life insurance). Although the States are permitted to reinstate such regulations, the bill creates a gap in protection--in the critical area of safety and health--for the several years that inevitably will elapse before these rules can be reenacted. Federal agencies have no power to reinstate any Federal notice and disclosure requirements needed to protect health, safety, or shelter. Fourth, the bill recognizes the importance of preserving Federal regulations by requiring certain entities (including banks and other financial institutions) to file or maintain records in a specified form, but fails to ensure that regulators' safety and soundness authority will continue to allow the establishment of minimum standards for computer security and interoperability. The bill also preempts all State laws and regulations regarding the maintenance of records. As a result, entities regulated under state law, such as insurance companies, will be able to decide for themselves how to maintain information, thereby undermining regulators' ability to ensure the soundness of these institutions and to detect violations of the laws and regulations governing them. Fifth, the bill contains a provision (adding section 3(h)(1) to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) that appears to preempt State and Federal record and signature requirements, including those applicable to forms required under Federal and State tax laws and regulatory statutes such as ERISA (existing Federal securities law requirements are exempted from this broad waiver). This means that the securities industry would have the right to force Federal and State agencies to accept electronically signed documents immediately, even if, for example, the agency has not yet implemented an electronic filing system. Title I of H.R. 1714 appears to preserve filing requirements in Federal regulations (but not statutes) and in State laws, and we see no justification for establishing a special preferential rule for the securities industry. Finally, the bill contains other technical and drafting flaws likely to create the very confusion that it is supposed to eliminate. Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting point that we have reached in the history of electronic commerce. We, in negotiating in good faith over the last month, had reached a point where most of the good players, most of the honest business people in the electronic commerce world had signed off or were close to signing off on protections for consumers. Most of them know, all of the good business people know, that the continued growth of electronic commerce is not contingent upon the ability of businesses online to be able to perpetrate fraud on consumers. They know that. There are some, of course, that like to hide in cyberspace, like to disappear into this veil of spectrum or fiber optic that makes it very difficult for the legal authorities to be able to track them down when they have harmed consumers. And it is at those particular entities that we would be targeting any consumer protections. But again, let it be known that we had reached pretty near agreement with most of the major players in the industry across the board on these consumer protections. And that is really all it was, it is to create the same kind of a balance in cyberspace that exists in the real world, the same kind of comfort level that people would have to go online with their money, with their credit card to know that they would be paid respect by merchants online in terms of the notification, the records, the confidence that an individual could have. My hope is that, as we move forward, we will be able to work with the majority once again and with the outside parties towards establishing that balance. I am afraid that the administration is today indicating that they would be likely not to support, even to veto, this legislation in its present form. I would prefer to be negotiating without the administration around. We do it on a bipartisan basis. We produce legislation. Hopefully, that is the way in which the bill will proceed from this point on. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Conyers), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I do so again to urge my colleagues reluctantly to oppose this bill. It does not have the balance which it needs in order to ensure that while we advance the electronic commerce revolution which is transforming the American economy, that simultaneously we are able to deal with the sinister side of cyberspace, we are able to deal with those that would engage in the same kind of anticonsumer activity that we have passed laws in our country over the last 30 years to protect against in the real world. And so the recommendation that we have to give is to vote ``no'' on this bill at this time but with the promise that we are going to work on a bipartisan basis to work out something which is deserving of the support of every Member of the House.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the problem with being a Red Sox fan is not unlike being in the minority with this particular Republican in the majority. We just do not have any chance to win. We can, like, script it, as my colleagues know, differently each time to make it interesting; but the outcome is always predetermined, and we lose. So I am quite used to this, given the way in which the umpires stole the American League championship from the Red Sox. Today, I rise to denounce the assault on America's environmental tradition in this Interior appropriations conference report. I am honored to have helped shape the tradition in a small way by ensuring fair royalties for our oil and gas reserves in a law which I authored in 1981 when I was the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Investigations overseeing the Department of Interior by preventing corporations from robbing the American people of their natural resources. How then can I accept this bill in which the Republican leadership plays with the Minerals Management Service like a yo-yo? The Minerals Management Service proposes rules valuing our oil and gas reserves. The Republicans respond with riders, restricting the rule. For 4 years this yo-yo has rolled back and forth without resources trapped on the string; and, true to form, an additional 6-month delay has been attached to this conference report. It is time to end this destructive game. Cut the string and give the American people reasonable compensation for oil and gas from Federal lands. Mr. Speaker, I wish that I could say that this was the only threat in the Interior Appropriations conference report, but I cannot even say it is the worst. Extension of grazing permits and an allowance for increased mining waste on Federal lands are just a few of the destructive provisions that remain. They buzz around this bill like gulls in a trash dump. We cannot accept a conference report with any of these provisions. We have a responsibility to our natural resources, to our tradition of environmental stewardship. As we enter the 21st century, we must not relinquish this responsibility. We must protect our resources and we must start by defeating this Interior conference report on the floor this evening. I thank the gentleman from Washington State for his national leadership and for his civility and compassion for Red Sox fans.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, there is a terrible travesty about to be visited upon the American people. A deal between the Republican leadership and the White House has been perpetrated. It will lead to the compromise of every single American's privacy. Every check they have ever written, every insurance exam for their family, their medical records, the checks they have written out for the last 20 or 30 years, they can all be now sold to anyone who wants to buy them, every secret in their family. This is a deal that the Republican leadership and the White House have signed off on. If they have their income tax form done for them by H&R Block, there is a law that says they cannot reveal it. But if they use their income tax form to apply for a mortgage, under this new law, they can sell their income tax form. They can give out that information to anyone. But if they want to complain to Prudential or to Bank One, do not try to call the CEO. He has got an unlisted number at home. He is concerned about his privacy. He does not want them to bother him. But they do not give a hoot about the ordinary American's privacy.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the baseball gods are smiling down upon Red Sox Nation. The hardball heroes of Boston are in the process of lifting one of the most vexing curses of all time, the curse of the Bambino. For the Fenway faithful, the curse has taken on mythic proportions. It is Shakespearean, epical, Biblical, in the same league as the curse of Macbeth, the curse of King Tut's tomb, or the curse of the Tower of Babel. Mr. Speaker, today I join with the millions of Red Sox fans who are saying, wait until next year, no more. How will Pedro, Nomar, and the rest of Olde Towne Team meet this daunting challenge? They will blast away at the Bronx Bombers in the House that Ruth built. They will swarm the stadium and swat the sultans' spell. They will crush the curse of the Bambino. Mr. Speaker, this year is our year. The Red Sox are about to have their millenium moment. The Indians could not stop them, the Yankees cannot stop them, and neither the Mets nor the Braves will be able to stop them as they become the final Major League Baseball world champions of the millennium. The Sox in six, Mr. Speaker. This year we win the World Series.

Mr. MARKEY

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