Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose this amendment as it is drafted, as it is being debated out here on the floor. No matter how many times the proponents say as it is drafted that this does not affect the V-chip, the plain language of the amendment says the opposite. Its purpose, ``is the labeling of violent content in visual media products.'' That is what the V-chip does. We won that vote 3 years ago, and then the industry voluntarily, working with parents' groups, constructed a rating system that every parents' group in America supports. Now, if this amendment is adopted, it jeopardizes that system. A whole new system would have to be constructed under this amendment. There are going to be 26 million TV sets purchased in America over the next year with a V-chip in it, and 26 million the year after, and 26 million the year after that, all with the ratings system built in that parents support. If this amendment is adopted, it jeopardizes that, because a whole new system would be put in place and potentially jeopardize all of these new TV sets which will not have a ratings system that is in conformity with something that the government sets up. So that is why the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the American Psychological Association, the Center for Media Education, all of them endorse the V-chip and the system that we now have in place. It is voluntary. It is being built into TV sets today. It works. Parents want it. If there is some other new system people want to set up, we will go off and try to do that. But for the 6 hours a day the TV sets are on in America, millions of young parents are buying these TV sets. We should not have a new system. This one works. Vote no on the Wamp amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, thank the gentleman very much for yielding. Again, I want to thank him so much for all the work which he has done. I want to thank Tamara Fucile on my staff for all the excellent work she has done as well in helping to put all this together.

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1400, the Bond Price Competition Improvement Act of 1999. I would like to begin by commending Chairman Bliley, Subcommittee Chairman Oxley, the Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) for their leadership in bringing this bill forward for today's Subcommittee markup. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which is aimed at improving price competition in the nation's bond markets. On Wall Street, the term ``Price Transparency'' refers to the dissemination of market quotation and transaction information. Such transparency is of critical importance to all participants in our nation's securities markets. Experience has shown that price transparency produces several important benefits. It can help improve the liquidity and efficiency of a market by assuring that comprehensive price and trading information is disseminated to as many market participants as possible, so that the market price of securities will move more quickly to reflect the underlying economic value of the security. In addition, price transparency provides investors with greater protection from abuses by reducing the disparity of information that may exist between market ``insides'' and ``outsiders'' and providing public investors with more equal access to information that is available to primary and other dealers. With equal access to pricing information, investors in stocks or bonds can better evaluate the quality of execution and the value of their securities. This information is particularly useful for investors evaluating prices for less actively traded securities, where bid-asked spreads may be wider. Such data also can encourage competition among dealers and assist regulators in discovering possible manipulation, fraudulent mark-ups, or other wrongful conduct, or in determining the state of the market at any point in time. In 1975, the Congress directed the SEC to facilitate the creation of a National Market System for qualified securities. When the Congress enacted that legislation, it did not limit its application merely to stocks, but also included corporate debt securities. At the time, there were many in the broker-dealer community who vigorously opposed it. But some 24 years later the Dow Jones Industrial Average has been routinely topping the 10,000 mark, and all observers agree that the stock markets is much more efficient and more liquid in large part due to their increased transparency. In the 1980s, under the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, which I then chaired, Congress passed landmark government securities legislation that, in part, addressed the lack of transparency in that segment of the bond market. In 1991, the industry responded with GovPX, a 24-hour, global electronic reporting system for U.S. Treasury and other government securities. In the fall of 1993, the Subcommittee held comprehensive hearings on the municipal securities market. I observed at the close of those hearings that I have little sympathy for those who would keep information about quotes, trades, prices, and markups in the dark, away from investors, and that markets are more efficient, more fair and more liquid when investors can readily determined how much a security costs. The Subcommittee challenged the SEC and the market to respond to this need, and promised carefully targeted and bipartisan legislative reforms if they failed to do so. In response the industry in 1995, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) started collecting data on dealer-to-dealer transactions in the municipal bond market as well as disseminating daily summary reports. In 1998, the MSRB added coverage of customer trades to this system. I should note that in 1994 the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) established the Fixed Income Pricing System which covers some but not all high-yield corporate bonds. Aside from this action, over the years the SEC has not made much use of the powers Congress granted it in this area to bring transparency to the corporate bond market. The legislation we are taking up today would help change that. H.R. 1400 would direct the SEC, within the next 12 months, to use the authorities Congress granted it back in 1975 to issue rules or take other actions to improve price transparency in the corporate bond market. Specifically, the bill would mandate that the SEC assure the prompt collection, processing, distribution, and publication of transaction information in the corporate debt market. This would specifically include, but not be limited to, last sale information. Under the bill, the SEC would be directed to assure that such information is made available to all exchange members, broker-dealers, securities information processors, and all other person. In determining the rules or other actions to take under the subsection, the SEC is also directed to take into consideration, among other factors, private sector systems for the collection and distribution of transaction information on corporate debt securities. Finally, the bill provides for a study by the General Accounting Office of measures needed to further improve price transparency. I support this initiative because I believe that bond investors deserve to get full access to the type of market information that will better enable them to determine whether they are getting the best price for their buy and sell orders. We recognize that Chairman Levitt has already taken some preliminary steps to move the industry forward in this area, and that as a result of his leadership, the NASD is currently considering rule changes which would create transparency and audit trail systems for the corporate bond market. In addition, we also understand that the bond dealers have also stepped in with a plan to make certain market information available, and we welcome that action. I would like to focus on the relationship on that initiative and this legislation, to ensure that the legislative history of this bill properly reflects the factors that went into consideration of its provisions. During the Subcommittee of Finance and Hazardous Materials hearing on H.R. 1400, I had an opportunity to ask SEC Chairman Levitt about several aspects of the bond dealers' initiative. His responses indicated that while the private sector initiative might be useful to investors, it also had some very significant limitations. For example, Chairman Levitt indicated that the scope of the private sector initiative was limited to investment grade debt, so that all the non- investment grade wouldn't even be covered. Chairman Levitt further indicated that the industry initiative relies entirely on voluntary participation. As a result, he indicated, if an interdealer broker doesn't volunteer to join the system, its trades wouldn't be displayed. In addition, Chairman Levitt testified that direct dealer-to-dealer or dealer-to-customer trades that don't use an interdealer broker wouldn't be recorded through the voluntary initiative. Moreover, the initiative would provide only for hourly dissemination of data, which Chairman Levitt agreed could prove pretty stale in today's fast moving markets. Finally, Chairman Levitt indicated that the SEC and the NASD need additional information about what is going on in the corporate bond market to perform their surveillance missions ``comprehensively and accurately.'' I mention this testimony because I believe that it is essential that the SEC and the NASD, as they consider how to implement the Congressional direction contained in H.R. 1400, must never lose sight of the fact that the current voluntary industry initiatives, while useful and welcome, have their limitations. That is precisely why we gave the SEC the authority to act in a comprehensive fashion, consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. And while we in Congress recognize these private sector initiatives and welcome them, we nonetheless are passing this legislation today because we are also aware of the gaps in those initiatives and the need to assure that appropriate action is taken by the SEC and to NASD to assure that any transparency system established for the corporate bond market is comprehensive in scope, is not riddled with loopholes, appropriately serves the needs of investors, and allows the SEC and the NASD to carry out their important market surveillance and enforcement missions. I believe the legislation we are considering today does this. It will underscore the determination of the Congress that effective and comprehensive action will be taken in this area. I urge passage of the legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as it moves through the legislative process.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, weeks after the tragedy at Columbine High School, we as a national community are still cognizant of the ordeal and attempting to make sense of this horrific incident and the other school massacres that followed it. Many of us are still asking questions and searching for reasons why our children are senselessly murdering each other in classrooms, schoolyards, streetcorners and their homes; why there is so much violence surrounding and savaging the youth of our country. There have been several factors cited as the possible causes for this emphasis on violence: the disconnection so many youths feel from their parents, peers, schools and communities; the harmful influence of the entertainment media; the easy access children have to guns; lack of support services for alienated and mentally ill teens; and the weakening of our moral and communal safety nets. While there are many informed opinions and hypotheses, there are very few definitive conclusions and little consensus as to who or what is responsible for this atrocity. This is a problem that can not be solved with definitive answers--there is no one answer. As a country Americans do agree that we must come together as a nation to stop this menace, which is putting all of our communities and way of life at risk. In order to combat this difficult challenge, we must reach a national consensus on how to respond. We must carefully, deliberately, dispassionately analyze the depths of the problem. Today, Mr. Burton, Mr. Tierney and I are introducing legislation to create a national commission on youth violence that will examine the many possible reasons why so many children are becoming killers and help us find solutions to diminish this imminent threat. In order to thoroughly study the many dimensions of the problem this panel should be composed of the country's finest experts in the fields of law enforcement, teaching and counseling, parenting and family studies, child and adolescent psychology, Cabinet members, and religious leaders. After 18 months of work, the commission would be responsible to report its conclusions to the President and Congress and recommend a series of tangible steps to take in order to reduce the level of youth violence and prevent another community from feeling the same pain and grief as the residents of Littleton. There are several steps that must be taken by Congress and the citizens of our country in order to preserve the safety of our children. We understand that this problem is not one that can be solved over night, or with any single piece of legislation. Despite this we have legitimate policy and philosophical differences to overcome in order to tackle this problem. There is not a guarantee that with this commission that we will find these answers and solve our problems, but we believe there is hope for doing so and therefore deserves our support.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which would require a federal investigation of the marketing practices of the firearms industry. Specifically, my legislation, the Stop Taking Aim at Our Kids Study Bill, would require the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to work together to fully examine gun manufacturers' marketing efforts towards children. As evidenced by the recent school shootings in Littleton, Jonesboro, and Springfield, children and firearms can produce a deadly combination. Gunshot wounds are the second leading cause of death among youngsters nationwide--second only to automobile accidents. Every year 4600 children are killed by gun fire, and each day 13 children are gunned down in America. That is the equivalent of one Columbine High School tragedy every day. Sadly, these numbers are rising. To effectively combat this dramatic and disturbing rise in gun violence among our children, we must first understand the factors contributing to our culture of violence. We must examine the role the media and the entertainment industry play in glamorizing gun violence, we must analyze the availability of guns to children, we must evaluate the role parents play in teaching their children about gun safety, and we must investigate the firearms industry's targeting of children. My legislation would take the important first step of combating youth violence by directing the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commissioner to look at the marketing practices of gun manufacturers towards children. While some firearms manufacturers have worked responsibly with their customers to educate them about the importance of using guns safely when near young children, others have unscrupulously identified young children as an important consumer group and targeted them with little thought to the social consequences of their actions. Advertisements for children's guns which herald the importance of ``Starting 'em young'' and encourage kids to buy guns that ``will make them stand out in a crowd'' need to be closely examined. This legislation is not a panacea. I do not pretend that this bill will solve our nation's problems of youth gun violence. It will, however, begin an important dialogue about firearms manufacturers' and marketers' contribution to the high incidence of gun violence and gun death among our nation's children. By identifying those who carelessly target our children for profit, my bill will hold the firearms industry responsible for its actions. I hope that the House will act swiftly to adopt this important bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, last night I joined Mr. Condit and Mr. Waxman in introducing the Health Information Privacy Act of 1999, the ``Condit-Waxman-Markey'' bill. Without question, the rapid advance of the Information Age is revolutionizing the American economy and forcing the evolution of new relationships both good and bad. There is no area of its development that causes more anxiety for ordinary people than the area of privacy. And there is no area of privacy that causes more anxiety for Americans than the privacy of their most personal health information. Today, we are experiencing the erosion of our medical privacy. With the stroke of a few keys on a computer or the swipe of the prescription drug card, our personal health information is being accumulated and tracked. This erosion of our privacy threatens the very heart of quality health care--doctor/patient confidentiality. By undermining this sacred relationship, we destroy the trust that patients rely on for peace of mind, and doctors depend on for sound judgment. In an HMO today, anywhere from 80-100 employees may have access to a patient's medical record according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego California. With such unrestricted access to one's personal health information, it's impossible to separate the health privacy keepers from the ``just curious'' peepers. Not to mention the greatest threat to your medical privacy--the information reapers. The evolution of technology has provided the ability to compile, store and cross reference personal health information, and the dawning of the Information Age has made your intimate health history a valuable commodity. Last March, the Wall Street Journal wrote about the ultimate information reaper--a company that is ``seeking the mother lode in health `data mining' ''. This company is in the process of acquiring medical data on millions of Americans to sell to any buyer. Currently there is no federal medical privacy law to constrain the information reapers as they delve into large data bases filled with the secrets of millions of individuals. These data bases represent a treasure chest to privacy pirates and every facet of your medical information represents a precious jewel to be mined for commercial gain. With this unfettered access, patient confidentiality has become a virtual myth, and the sale of your secrets a virtual reality. Because of the rapid evolution of technology, we have fallen behind in assuring a right that we have come to expect--the fundamental right to keep our personal health information private. Due to the deadline imposed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 1996, Congress has until August 21st to enact a medical privacy law. We have no time to waste. Now is the time to unite in an effort to move legislation forward. The Condit/Waxman/Markey bill is a good consensus and comes at a time when consensus is crucial. This bill creates an incentive to use information which is not personally identifiable wherever possible, it would require a warrant for law enforcement to access medical records and it would provide a federal floor creating a uniform standard without preempting stronger state laws. I look forward to working with Rep. Condit and Rep. Waxman and the rest of my colleagues in the House of Representatives on this important issue. I believe together we will succeed in passing a strong federal medical privacy bill which will give patients the right they deserve-- the right to medical privacy.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We should not be deploying ground troops of the United States armed forces in Yugoslavia until Congress has authorized such a deployment. That is what we did in Desert Storm, that is what the War Powers Act contemplates, and that is what we should do. I do not know today how I would vote on such an authorization. I believe that we should be very cautious about getting ourselves into a ground war in the Balkans, and we should recall the lessons of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and not pass a Gulf of the Adriatic Resolution that provides an open-ended and unconditional authorization for the use of ground forces. But we should also keep a ground troops option open in case the air campaign proves unsuccessful, the ethnic cleansing continues, and all our NATO allies agree that ground forces could achieve our military and political objectives. I will vote for the resolution offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) to authorize the present air campaign in Yugoslavia. It is underway, it has had some success, and we should support it. I will oppose the removal of our military forces from their positions in connection with the present air campaign, because I believe the President and NATO need to be given a chance to try to stop the bloodshed and ethnic cleansing. I will also oppose the proposed declaration of war the gentleman from California offers us, because I believe that such a step would needlessly inflame an already tense political situation in Europe and our relations with Russia. But while I will oppose the gentleman's resolutions, I want to compliment him on bringing this debate to the House floor. It is the most important power that Congress has and it is critical that all our voices be heard.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with Rep. Dan Burton to introduce a joint resolution requiring the Surgeon General to prepare and issue a new Surgeon General's Report on media violence and its impact on the health and welfare of our children. It is by no means all we should do in light of the tragedy in Littleton, Colorado, but is it certainly the least we should do. Orignial cosponsors of this initiative include Represenatatives Jim Moran, Connie Morella, John Spratt, Joe Pitts, Jim McDermott, Greg Ganske, and John LaFalce. We join with every parent, school official, student, religious leader and every other American who is struggling to identify what has gone so wrong with the process of growing up in America that our kids can kill our kids without remorse. This is not a new subject. If the horror that unfolded last week at Columbine High was in any way unique, we could comfort ourselves with the fantasy that is was the product of one or two sick minds. But we know that violence has become as American as apple pie, and we are reaping a bitter harvest as we continue to tolerate a culture which teaches kids to kill and be killed. Our culture has become infused with violent images and messages and the methods of delivering those images has multiplied exponentially. Television shows that glamorize massacres, movies that pantomime violent school killing sprees, video games that teach children how to shot to kill their targets and Internet sites filled with vicious, destructive messages all function as desensitizing, conditioning mechanisms making it easier for our children to commit heinous crimes without understanding the finality and brutality of their actions. Violent TV and film images now have a new interactive digital face in video games and on the Internet. Guns are everywhere. Highly efficient assault weapons are available for sale on the street for the price of a pair of sneakers. More and more children are becoming alienated and depressed without the support structures needed to mediate their troubles, treat their illnesses, or protect them from themselves. This is a very deep and complicated mess we're in, but it is our mess, a problem we share across the land. There is no place to run to escape its effects. We are facing a monumental task, which I would liken in its scope to a Marshall Plan for America, where the challenge is to rebuild the social structure of a society while respecting the Constitutional freedoms which all Americans cherish. We can begin by examining the ways that children and young adults learn violence. The evil behavior that those young killers displayed at Columbine High School was not born in them nor learned from their parents. The strong correlation between violent messages delivered to our kids and antisocial behavior delievered by our kids to society is well- documented. It was the fundamental finding of the Surgeon General's Report of 1972 and the Report by the National Institute of Mental Health in 1982. Both reports focused on television's impact on behavior. But since that time, the capacity of the entertainment deliver ever more graphic depiction of violence has vastly increased, and the outlets for delivering these images to children without the intervention of adults has multiplied many times. Moreover, the research community and the entertainment and interactive media has produced a vast compendium of research, polling, and analysis--much of it confusing and conflicting--but which is much more relevant to today's world than what was studied 15 or 30 years ago. The last government-sponsored review in 1982 includes the following introductory sentence: ``In view of the evidence that children are already attentive to the television medium by the age of 6 to 9 months, it is no longer useful to talk of the television set as an extraneous and occasional intruder into the life of a child. Rather, we must recongize that children are gorwing up in an enviromment in which they must lean to organize experience and emotional responses not only in relationship to the physical and social environment of the home but also in relation to the omnipresent 21-inch screen that talks, sings, dances, and encourages the desire for toys, candies, and breakfast food.'' As the Information Age takes hold and as youth violence takes new and ever more disturbing twists through America's soul, we cannot afford to develop national policy on the basis of such a quaint view of the problem. Therefore, we are calling on the Surgeon General to provide the country with a new Surgeon General's Report that reflects our contemporary crisis, that takes into account both the promise and problems of interactive media, and that makes findings and recommendations regarding how to combat the sickness of violence and to rebuild our national spirit. Let me conclude by emphasizing my personal view that the President is correct to focus attention on the contributing factor of gun availability to children and the collapse of parental supervision with regards to dangerous weapons. Our response to the spread of guns into the hands of our kids has been as disproportionate as our response to the cultural glamorization of gun use. And while I expect to learn much from the dialogue and the research we are asking for today, I do not expect the front-line function of parenting to be found any less fundamental to raising healthy children than it has ever been.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank all of the Members who have involved themselves with their staffs in this issue, and everyone else in America who has written and called on this very important issue of their access to local television stations over their satellite. This is a revolution that we are unleashing in today's legislation. We are going to make it possible for the first time for people to buy an 18-inch satellite dish and get their local TV stations over the dish. They will be able to disconnect their local cable company. For the first time they will have some other place to go. It will not just be out in rural America or in the deep suburbs with big backyards. It is going to be in urban America. This is going to be in house after house. In the most densely populated parts of our country, people are going to be able now to buy satellite dishes, 18-inch dishes, and know they get their local TV stations as well. I cannot imagine a bigger moment in the history of this video revolution than what we are doing here today. I hope that when we get done with this legislative process and the President signing the bill, that the provisions we have included here on the House side are included, because the promise of today is something that is going to revolutionize the way in which America, and urban America especially, has access to all of the video programming being produced nationally and at a local television station level across our country. Again I want to thank all of the Members. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I first want to begin by invoking the litany of saints who have worked on this legislation. No easy task. Many indulgences have been earned by Members and staff alike that can be cashed in, redeemed at a later point in their life, as evidence of their good faith in working together for the betterment of the public in general. I want to thank the chairman of the full Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Bliley); the chairman of the full Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde); to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the Michigan duo, who worked together cooperatively on this project; to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and their staffs as well. I would also like to recognize my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). As he pointed out, going back to 1992 we have tried to move the universe in a way, first, where the 18-inch dish satellite industry would be made possible. It was not before 1992, because this industry did not have access to HBO and Show Time and the other programming that is necessary to offer real competition to the incumbent cable monopolies in communities across the country. If we want these 18-inch dish satellites to move from rural America and exurban America, the far reaches of suburban American, into suburban and urban America, so that people buy the dishes and put them out between the petunias, we have to give them the programming they want. In most of America they have already got their local TV stations. They can pick them up on their cable system but they cannot pick them up on their satellite dishes. They have to take in these national feeds of CBS, NBC, Fox. What we do in this legislation, and I think the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) should be congratulated on this, I have worked with him closely to accomplish the goal, is we make it possible for the first time for an 18-inch dish satellite owner to get their local TV stations over their satellite dish. Consumers can pick up their local channel 4, 5, 7, 25, 38, 68, with their local sports teams over their satellite dish. Now, this is in an effort to balance two very important issues, localism and universal service. On the one hand, we want everyone to have access to television service, and that is why we were very flexible in allowing people to pick up over their satellite dishes these national fees. But as more and more people in the urban areas disconnected their cable system and bought a satellite dish, that meant they were disconnecting their local TV stations as well and the advertising revenues which these local TV stations need. So here what we try to do is solve the problem using technology, which means that the local consumer can have universal access to their local TV stations using a new technology, an 18-inch satellite dish. Now, that is real progress. And the committees working together, I think, have formulated a bill which really will work for the overall betterment of consumers, giving them a competitor to their local cable system and I think forging a new revolution in technology and consumer choice in America. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all Members, and I especially want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, for working with me on this local-into-local issue, meaning a local TV station gets fed right back into the local market through their satellite transmitter, their satellite dish. I think it is going to cause a real revolution. I thank all involved. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the only reason that I seek recognition at this time is because of an unfortunate omission in my original listing of saints that deserve credit and I just want it to be known that the honorable gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) shall be known as ``blessed Howard Coble'' after this proceeding because of his forbearance and understanding in this entire process. At the end of the day, this is a very important, high-value public interest product which is in the well of the House being debated today; and it is in no small measure because of the work of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and I just wanted to recognize that publicly. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the tragedy in Colorado has saddened our country and has highlighted a deadly mix of violent imagery and guns. Addressing the cumulative effects of years of violent imagery means addressing issues on TV, in the movies, and on the Internet. Dealing with children's access to guns and explosive materials is something we must do as a society. An effective, proactive response must include a willingness on the part of industry leaders to deal pragmatically with access to certain content on the Internet. I strongly encourage the industry to begin a dialogue with parents and community leaders on this issue. The reality is that the Internet has a Dickensian quality to it. It is the best of wires and the worst of wires, simultaneously. It has the ability to ennoble and enable, and at the same time to debase and degrade. It is time for our country to begin the discussion as to how we are going to resolve this tension in favor of the children in our society.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I join Armenians throughout the United States and around the world on this solemn day of remembrance commemorating the genocide of innocent Armenian people perpetrated during the waning days of the Ottoman Empire. On this day, the 84th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide committed in Ottoman Turkey from 1915 to 1923, it is crucial that we recall the horrific events of this dark chapter in world history and dedicate ourselves to preventing such atrocities in the future. History shows that in 1915 the systematic massacre of Armenian political, religious, and intellectual figures began. This slaughter continued until 1923, although the memories of this campaign of terror still haunt us today. From 1915-1923, the Armenian population was expelled from their homeland. One and a half million Armenians lost their lives and over 500,000 surviving refugees rebuilt their lives outside of Armenia, many of them coming to the United States to build their new homes. The Armenian-American population, many of whom reside in my district, have prospered in the United States and contributed to our cultural enrichment, enhanced our diversity and become strong members of our society. Despite the calculated effort to banish the Armenian people from their land and eradicate Armenian culture and tradition, today the Republic of Armenia is striving to establish a strong and progressive nation committed to establishing democratic institutions and ideals. The Armenian government has launched a program of industrial reform, privatized agricultural land, and made substantial progress in small- enterprise privatization. Armenia has also made an effort to take steps to resolve the Karabagh conflict and moved to stabilize its economy based upon free market principles. I am proud we are here today to demonstrate American solidarity in our support of Armenian efforts to achieve a bright future. As we acknowledge the 84th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, we join with our Armenian friends in remembering those who lost their lives as a result of this terrible tragedy. While we reflect upon the past and commit ourselves to learning from the history of this humanitarian disaster, we also look forward to a brighter future for Armenia. We look forward to a time in which Armenia will, we hope, grow prosperous, achieve economic strength, and, above all, enjoy peace.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Tufts University in Medford, MA, in honor of the more than 80,000 alumni who will turn their attention today to their alma mater in celebration of the university's 15th annual Tuftonia Day. This special day marks the anniversary of Tufts University, the second oldest college in the Boston area. Tuftonia celebrates the day in 1852 when Massachusetts Gov. George Boutwell signed Tufts' charter. The celebration was established in 1985 as an opportunity for alumni to celebrate their thoughts of the institution and reminisce with old friends about the bonds made at the university. The gathering provides an opportunity for those connected with the school to celebrate the many achievements of the institution. For these reasons, the focus of Tuftonia is once again, TuftServe, which centers on the school's volunteer alumni in community service. The alumni of the institution have logged over 350,000 hours of volunteer service ranging from a wide array of endeavors. The intent of the celebration is to allow the opportunity for current students, alumni, professors, administrators, and parents to join in a gathering commemorating the achievements of the college community. Tufts University enrolls approximately 8,500 students representing all 50 states and 90 countries around the world. The campus community extends from Medford, Boston, and Grafton, MA, to the campus abroad in Talloires, France. The diverse student body and vast cultural experiences it reflects further instills Tufts' reputation as a formidable institution of higher education. Tufts has a reputation of excellence in academic achievement, and its commitment to volunteerism and contribution to the community serve as an integral part of the impressive reputation. Tufts University should be applauded for instilling in its students, both past and present, the importance of voluntarism. Their contributions to the community on all levels should serve as an inspiration to us all. I commend the students, alumni and faculty of Tufts University for their hard work and commitment to the community.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Representatives Bliley, Dingell, Oxley, Towns and several other Members of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials in introducing aimed at improving price competition in the nation's bond markets. Price Transparency, or the dissemination of market quotation and transaction information, is of critical importance to investors in our nation's securities markets. Experience has shown that price transparency produces several important benefits. It can help to improve the liquidity and efficiency of a market by assuring that comprehensive price and trading information is disseminated to as many market participants as possible, so that the market price of securities will move more quickly to reelect the underlying economic value of the security. In addition, price transparency provides investors with greater protection from abuses by reducing the disparity of information that may exist between market ``insiders'' and ``outsiders'' and providing public investors with more equal access to information that is available to primary and other dealers. With equal access to pricing information, investors in stocks or bonds can better evaluate the quality of execution and the value of their securities. This information is particularly useful for investors evaluating prices for less actively traded securities, where bid-asked spreads may be wider. Such data also can encourage competition among dealers and assist regulators in discovering possible manipulation, fraudulent mark-ups, or other wrongful conduct, or in determining the state of the market at any point in time. In 1975, the Congress directed the SEC to facilitate the creation of a National Market System for qualified securities. When the Congress enacted that legislation, it did not limit its application merely to stocks but to all securities--including debt securities. In fact, the only type of securities that were not included were so-called ``exempt securities''--Treasury bonds, government agency securities, and municipal securities. At the time this legislation passed, there were many in the broker-dealer community who opposed it. But some 24 years later the Dow Jones Industrial Average has topped the 10,000 mark, and all observers agree that our stock markets are much more efficient and more liquid in large part due to their increased transparency. However, over the years the SEC has not made much use of the powers Congress granted it in this area to bring transparency to the corporate bond market. The legislation we are introducing today would direct the SEC to use the authorities Congress granted it back in 1975 to issue rules or take such other actions as may be necessary or appropriate, to improve price transparency in the corporate bond market. Specifically, H.R. 1400 would mandate that the SEC assure the prompt, accurate, reliable, and fair collection, processing, distribution, and publication of transaction information in the corporate debt market. This would specifically include, but not be limited to, last sale information. The SEC is directed to assure that such information is made available to all exchange members, broker-dealers, securities information processors, and all other persons. In determining the rules or other actions to take under the subsection, the SEC is directed to take into consideration, among other factors, private sector systems for the collection and distribution of transaction information on corporate debt securities. Finally, the bill provides for a study by the General Accounting Office of measures needed to further improve price transparency. I support this initiative because I believe that bond investors deserve to get full access to the type of market information that will better enable them to determine whether they are getting the best price for their buy and sell orders. I know that Chairman Levitt has already taken some preliminary steps to move the industry forward in this area, and that as a result of his leadership, the NASD is currently considering rule changes which would create transparency and audit trail systems for the corporate bond market. In addition, I understand that the bond dealers have also stepped in with a plan to make certain market information available. I welcome each of these initiatives, and would suggest that the legislation we are introducing today should be seen as complementing them by underscoring the determination of the Congress that effective and comprehensive action will be taken in this area. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as it moves through the legislative process.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we all understand in Washington that sometimes you are the beaver and sometimes you are the cherry tree. Even so, it is outrageous that the Republican majority has chosen to treat Medicare as a cherry tree, to be cut down while the Republican beaver gets fatter on tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, there is no other issue other than the war in Kosovo of greater public policy concern than extending the solvency of Social Security and addressing our senior health crisis while preserving Medicare. This budget flinches in the face of those challenges. Instead, it takes resources that we desperately need to devote to those problems and commits them instead to an exploding tax cut that threatens the return of a structural deficit. It is an insult to the seniors of this country that the Republicans are talking about tax cuts while at the same time they are not setting aside one penny to extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund or the solvency of Social Security. There is a health care hurricane on the horizon in our country, Mr. Speaker. The highest growing part of our population is over 85. The Republicans do nothing about the Medicare crisis about to hit. Vote ``no'' on the Republican budget.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank him for bringing this resolution out onto the floor, because it makes quite clear in its language, and I read, that huge and fiscally irresponsible tax cuts set forth in the reconciliation directives in the concurrent resolution are in fact jeopardizing our ability to be able to deal with the social security and Medicare crisis in our country. Now, if the majority, if the Republicans, want to vote for our resolution, then they are essentially now taking that oxymoronic position of being carnivorous vegetarians. They are trying to be both at the same time, which is fine, I guess, for this evening and trying to have it both ways, but the reality is that the Republican budget does not extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by one day. Instead, the Republican resolution ignores the dark clouds on the health care horizon and offers an $800 billion tax cut proposal. This hurricane that will hit the health care system is something that we all know to be real. We have the baby boom generation that is about to hit the retirement system, to start to have all of the health care problems that come with aging. The Republicans insist on attacking the President's budget. We are not, on the Democratic side, defending the President's budget. We have a different budget on our side, one that does ensure that Medicare and social security is made solvent, that these programs are not cut in any way, and that we ensure that the tax cut of the Republicans does not dip their straws into this revenue and make it impossible for us to take care of ordinary families. I hope that everyone in the House sincerely supports this Democratic motion. I am afraid that too many are going to pay tribute to it only by the hypocrisy which will be evident by, I am afraid, supporting something that at the end of the day they will never in fact support when the real votes come on the House floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, for all Americans, we are now in the ``Goldilocks economy''. It is not too hot, not too cold, just right, everywhere but on the Republican side and their CBO numbers. Over there it is the ``Mamma Bear economy''. It is always too cold. So their CBO numbers right now have the American economy growing at 2.3 percent for this year. Forget the fact that the economy grew at 6.1 percent for the first quarter. Forget the fact that everybody else in America is projecting 3 or 4 percent growth. And guess what that means? That means we have to cut back on how much we can help out on Medicare, how much we can help out on education, how much we can help out on the environment. The CBO was off by $100 billion in 1997. They were off by $75 billion in 1998. And they are off by at least $50 billion this year. And in July of this year, when the money shows up, guess where it is going. It is going for a tax break for the rich. This money is in something which the Republicans, Senator Domenici, is calling right now, he is calling it a tax reduction reserve plan. That is the Republican plan, a skeleton key for their lock box this July that will take $50 or $60 billion for tax breaks for the wealthy. No money for Medicare, no money for education, no money for the environment, but money for those tax breaks. That is the secret plan. That is what this is all about. They continue to have the remarkable ability to harness voluminous amounts of information to defend knowingly erroneous premises. This debate is a fraud. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore