Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill is a complete fraud. That is the bottom line. They have got hundreds of billions of dollars for tax cuts, mostly for the rich, but not one penny to extend the Medicare trust fund, which is going bankrupt, by the way, in the year 2008. Let us go back to their balanced budget of 1997. The premise was that we would have to cut Medicare and home health care, those are visits made to people's homes who have Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and other chronic diseases, $115 billion to give a $90 billion tax break for mostly the wealthiest in America. Now we have this huge surplus. Now, what do the Republicans say? We are going to give that money back to the Medicare recipients; we are going to give that money back to the HMO health care recipients? No, they say, we do not have enough money for those people. Now, the problem, of course, is that the programs were cut fraudulently, using numbers that were not accurate in 1997 in terms of the problem with Medicare. It turns out today that the CBO says that in fact they have found miraculously $88 billion more of savings in Medicare for this 5-year period, and they found an additional hundreds of billions of dollars of revenues that they did not project. How much goes back to Medicare on the Republican side? They do not have a penny. If we kick them in the heart over here, we are going to break our toes. They just do not want to help these old people on Medicare. So, my colleagues, our substitute, with the effort to try to help those most vulnerable, the senior citizens within our society, intends on guaranteeing that Medicare is extended 10 extra years in solvency, so that the senior citizens in our country are going to be given the protection which they deserve. My colleagues, the Republican substitute does nothing, nothing to help the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. Vote ``no'' on the Republican budget here today on the House floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment. Mr. Chairman, the House Republicans have loaded up this bill, which should be noncontroversial, with all sorts of peculiar provisions. Remember, this bill was supposed to be a bill to help out the victims of Hurricanes Mitch and George and to provide loans to United States farmers hurt by low commodity prices, but instead the Republicans have loaded it up with controversial proposals that virtually guarantee a presidential veto. For whatever reason, the Republicans have apparently decided to demand offsets, that is, cuts in other programs, in order to ensure the emergency relief that is in this bill. So they decided to use the bill, in other words, as a mechanism to target cuts for programs that the isolationist wing of the GOP simply does not like. Forget that we have a budget surplus. Forget that we can afford to help our Central American neighbors and help our farmers here at home without having to slash these other programs. No. The House Republican leadership wants to use this bill to rescind programs for international financial banks, slash funding for safeguarding of dangerous nuclear weapons material from Russia and slash funding for global warming studies. First their supplemental would cut $150 million that would have been used to dismantle and safely store fissile material, bomb grade material, from thousands of Russian nuclear bombs. This is material which could be used for thousands of nuclear bombs. It could be sold to rogue nations or terrorists for use against the United States. It is in our national interest to help the Russians dismantle their weapons and to store them in a form which is no longer usable for nuclear explosive purposes. Just one week ago, the Republicans felt so strongly about the need to spend tens of billions of dollars on a dubious missile defense system to protect us against nuclear attack that they actually brought up a resolution to this floor saying that it was the policy of the United States to deploy a missile defense system. Now this week they are apparently no longer concerned about weapons of mass destruction except, of course, when it comes to blaming Bill Clinton for the fact that the Chinese spies had penetrated Los Alamos back during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Apparently it is Bill Clinton's fault that the Governor of Arkansas failed to prevent the Chinese from penetrating Los Alamos during the Reagan and Bush administrations. So based upon the record of the last few weeks, we now find that the GOP is willing to spend billions on missile defenses of doubtful utility, it is willing to blame Bill Clinton for things that happened when we had a Republican in the White House, but it is not even willing to spend even $150 million to dismantle nuclear warheads that might end up in the hands of Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic. Of course, if that ever happens I am sure that they will try to blame Bill Clinton that this money was cut. Right now we are in a very sensitive situation with the Russians. Russian Prime Minister Primakov actually has turned his flight around in mid-air on the way to the United States to protest the NATO plans to bomb the Serbians. At this point in time, do we really want to send the Russians the message that we are no longer interested in helping them dismantle their nuclear warheads? At this tense moment in our relations with Russia, is that really the message we want to send? Despite our disagreements with Russia over Serbia, we still have a vital national security interest in working with the Russians to prevent bomb grade materials from getting into the wrong hands. This bill undermines that effort. In addition to this fatal shortcoming, the Republican supplemental bill would rescind $648 million appropriated to guarantee the U.S. commitment to the World Bank, to the Asian Development Bank and to the Inter-American Development Bank. Now we are living in a global economy. We can no longer insulate ourselves from what happened around the world. If the economy of Russia or Brazil collapses, our stock market, our investors, feel the effects. If the financial markets conclude that this Congress is walking away from its commitments to sustained financial stability, then it would be a mistake. I hope that the Obey amendment is adopted.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to express the Sense of Congress regarding the direction of the U.S. program to maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile in the post-Cold War era. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which President Clinton signed in 1996, bans all nuclear explosions in order to promote nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation ``by constraining the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and ending the development of advanced new types of nuclear weapons.'' The treaty requires us to maintain the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons without explosive tests. It does not require us to spend $60 million for new submarine warhead designs. It does not require us to spend $198 million on underground ``subcritical'' nuclear tests and preparing for banned explosive tests at the Nevada Test Site. It does not require us to spend $466 million on fusion explosion experiments that could lead to hydrogen bombs that don't need uranium or plutonium, which would be a nonproliferation nightmare. And it certainly does not require us to spend $5.5 million for a new National Atomic Museum, colocated with the Anderson-Abruzzo International Balloon Museum. These and other projects are an expensive jobs program for nuclear scientists, in the guise of keeping unneeded weapons design, testing, and manufacturing capability. They are inconsistent with our commitment to nuclear disarmament in the Nonproliferation Treaty and with the purposes of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Faced with our massive investment in nuclear weapons research, other nations are slowing arms reductions and keeping their own nuclear weapons development programs, thus putting our real security at risk. The safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile can be maintained with a more modest program of surveillance of the warheads and occasional remanufacturing when necessary. The resolution I am introducing today expresses support for such a custodianship program that protects our national security without wasting money or providing cover for new nuclear weapons programs that will prolong the Cold War and undermine the unsteady international nuclear non-proliferation regime. The resolution expresses the Sense of Congress that the nuclear weapons stockpile can be maintained with a program that is far smaller, less expensive, and does not require facilities or experiments that are likely to be used for warhead design or development. The resolution thus urges the Secretary of Energy to redirect the program for custodianship of the nuclear weapons arsenal toward less costly and less provocative methods that are consistent with United States treaty obligations. I hope this resolution will serve as a useful vehicle for educating the Congress and the public about the nature of the current stockpile stewardship program and for promoting consideration of less costly and less destabilizing alternatives. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this resolution, and moving towards a more sound nuclear policy.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Sixteen years ago Ronald Reagan stood in this Hall and articulated a vision. We, the United States, or Luke Skywalker? And the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire, and we were going to build a Star Wars system, an umbrella over this country that would render the intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Soviet Union useless, impotent and obsolete, in his words. And of course the whole scheme was concocted by ET, not the cuddly little alien from the Spielberg movies, but the original ET, Edward Teller, his vision. In the years since then Star Wars went from the star dust and moon beams of Reagan's rhetoric to become a giant pork barrel in the sky. In fact, we have spent approximately $50 billion on missile defense over the last 15 years with virtually nothing to show for it. But I have some good news for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The Cold War is over. We won. The Soviets never used their weapons. Now it was not because of Star Wars, because of course there was no Star Wars in the 1980's, and there was no Star Wars in the 1990's. The reason that we won was that we had a superior political and economic and military strategy apart from Star Wars because it never existed, and now, since their internal contradictions have led to the collapse of the Soviet system, for some reason or another the majority believes that we should take up the Star Wars prequel 3 months before the new George Lucas film hits the theaters. This resolution gives us a preview of things to come, and we need to give it two thumbs down. According to the GOP script, despite the end of the Cold War we are still going to deploy missile defenses. Why? Because, we are told, there are new ballistic missile threats from North Korea, and Iraq or China because, we are told, we need to defend against accidental nuclear war at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. This is a bad idea. The North Koreans are starving to death, and we routinely bomb the heck out of Saddam Hussein with impunity. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons. Did he use them against us when our troops were heading towards Baghdad? No, he did not. Do my colleagues want to know why? Because we would wipe him off the face of the earth, that is why. We have overwhelming massive retaliatory capacity. If either side, any country, ever used weapons of mass destruction against us, we would destroy them. The greater threat from Korea, the greater threat from Iran is that they will put a nuclear weapon onto a freighter, put it right into the Seattle or the Boston or the San Diego port and just detonate it. We will not know where it is coming from, and we will not be able to identify the source. That is our greater threat by far, and if at any time they want to use any other means, then we will be able to give massive retaliatory response capacity to that problem. The problem with the Republicans is, yes, the Cold War is over, but they still want Star Wars. They have arms race amnesia. They have forgotten everything but their favorite weapon system. But the real danger from the Republican plan is not the tens of billions of dollars which we are going to waste, but rather that it could touch off a new arms race between us and the Russians or the Chinese. As the Duma meets to determine whether or not they are going to ratify the START II treaty which would result in the elimination of 3200 strategic weapons, do we really want to be talking about the deployment of a ballistic missile system that would make them even more vulnerable to a first strike from the United States? Do we want the Chinese to think that we are going to build a defensive system that allows us to attack them and they cannot attack us back? Do we not think that they are going to go to a new round of offensive weapons by an emboldened right wing military in both countries and other countries around the world that will result in us having to spend tens of billions of other dollars? When we make a step like the Republicans ask us to do today, we not only waste tens of billions of dollars, but we wind up ultimately undermining our security because of the investment made by our potential enemies in weapons which could actually hurt the United States of America.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I met Mo Udall in Malden Square, my hometown, in January of 1976. I was a State representative, and I endorsed him for President out of a collection of people whom I did not know, but I felt that Mo Udall had the instincts and the grace and the intelligence to be a great President. He came to my hometown and I met him at an event, and he shuffled me into the back seat of his car and I drove around with him for a day listening to him talk and watching him influence every single person who he met, whether he was just shaking their hand or giving a speech. But the effect was uniform and permanent, and I was one of the people who was affected by him. My predecessor in Congress announced the next month that he was not going to run for reelection, and I ran and I won. Much to my surprise, within the year I was a member of the Interior Committee with Mo Udall, this man whom I held in awe as the chairman of the committee, even though I sat at the very bottom rung of all of the committee seats. And over the years the experience has become too numerous to mention, but we always encouraged Mo, in 1980 and 1984, to please run for President. And he would say that he was considering it because the only known cure for Presidentialitis was embalming fluid. And so he was always considering it, and we were encouraging him to consider it because he was someone who would have been a great President. I remember in 1979, I think that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bruce Vento) were with us, and we went up to Three Mile Island in a bus to check out the accident. And we pulled in with a bus, up within 10 feet of those looming, eerie cooling towers, with radioactivity permeating every inch, and we were going to go inside. And Mo, deadpanned, as we were sitting there looking at this facility, looked at each of us and said, ``Men, I hope you each wore your lead-lined jock strap today. This could be serious.'' And so we went in laughing, even with our apprehension, because this was Mo's way of taking even the most serious moment and ensuring that he had found the lighthearted way of looking at it. As my colleagues know, we each vote with a card, and the card is something that registers our vote. We put it in a machine and then, in this accommodation between the Daughters of the American Revolution and technology that was cut in this chamber in the early 1960s, our names all flash up on the side of the wall. And 15 minutes after the vote begins, they all disappear and the chamber goes back to how it was in 1858. And when each of us vote, our vote is recorded up there, yea or nay. Well, every time I walked in the door for 15 years I looked up to see how Mo Udall had voted, because I knew that Mo Udall would cast the correct vote, the right vote, and I could measure myself by whether or not I had the political courage or wisdom to vote the way he did at that time. But I was not the only one who did that, Mr. Speaker. Scores of other people came in the chamber each time, during all the time I was in Congress, and looked up at that wall to find out how he had voted. In those final years, when he had Parkinson's, this terrible disease which traps the mind inside a body that will not function the way it wants, that mind, that sense of humor, that insight was still inside of him and still speaking, still talking to us, even though it was hampered by this physical ailment that ultimately took him. And I think one of the things that we can do for Mo over the next year is to make sure that for the Parkinson's patients, for the Alzheimer's families that saw this huge cut in home health care in the 1997 balanced budget amendment, that cut by 20, 30 or 40 percent the amount of home visits that these spouses can have as relief from this disease as they try to care for their families, is that we can make sure that we restore all that money; that we give to these families what they need in order to give the dignity to their family member that they love so much. And in Mo Udall's memory, I think that that would be a worthy objective for us to try to achieve this year. Mo, without question, was one of my idols. I revered him and I loved him and I am going to miss him dearly, and I thank my colleagues so much for holding this special order.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 669, a bill that will allow more Americans to serve our country as Peace Corps Volunteers. Peace Corps volunteers play a vital role in the development of some of the worlds' poorest communities. Through the contributions of these volunteers, great strides have been made to improve education, economic development and healthcare. In recent years, our foreign neighbors have come to depend on Peace Corps volunteers for the grass root assistance, and the demand for volunteers increases every year. Furthermore, American interest in the Peace Corps has risen by 40%. Increased funding for this program over the next three years is essential to insure that more Americans can make a difference around the world. With great pride I recognize the individuals in the Peace Corps and this organization for its commitment to helping our international neighbors. Organizations such as the Peace Corps have not only established proud traditions of goodwill and service around the world, but also have contributed to improved relationships with people of other countries. Support for the Peace Corps requires little more than one percent of the resource allocated for foreign assistance. The benefit gained from this investment will be felt by both the foreign countries we help and the volunteers who return from their service with a better understanding of the world. Let us continue to support the Peace Corps Organization as a display of the strong American commitment to international development and partnerships.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join today with Representative Connie Morella to introduce the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act of 1999. This bill is designed to reassert workers' rights to have their claims of unlawful employment discrimination settled by a court of law. During the last decade, our nation has witnessed a sharp increase in the use of binding arbitration as a means of resolving legal claims. In particular, the number of employers using arbitration to resolve complaints of illegal employment discrimination or sexual harassment in the work place has skyrocketed. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, in just two years the number of employers using arbitration almost doubled; jumping from 10 percent of employers in 1995 to 19 percent of employers in 1997. The nation's leading association of arbitration professionals, the American Arbitration Association, concurred, noting that their caseload of employment arbitration disputes more than doubled between the years 1993 and 1996. This rise in the use of arbitration has produced largely positive results. Voluntary arbitration, when it is administered in an impartial manner, can provide employees and employers alike with a fair, fast and inexpensive mechanism to resolve disputes. But too many employers have taken this potentially impartial judicial forum and tainted it by requiring arbitration of all employment discrimination claims. As a condition of employment or promotion, a growing number of employers are requiring workers to agree to submit any future claims of job discrimination to mandatory binding arbitration panels. By forcing employees to sign away their fundamental rights to a court hearing, employers across the country have succeeded in circumventing our nation's civil rights laws. Employees who sign mandatory arbitration contracts give up their right to due process, trial by jury, the appeals process, full discovery and other ``guaranteed'' rights. In essence, mandatory arbitration contracts reduce civil rights protections to the status of the company car: a perk which can be denied at will. The United States Constitution guarantees every citizen ``equal justice under law''. Forcing employees to choose between their civil rights and their job denies them their right to equal justice. Mandatory arbitration of civil rights is wrong even if the arbitration process is balanced. But, too often, it has a semblance of impartiality. Mandatory arbitration panels are often comprised solely of members hand picked by the industry they are supposed to regulate. At best such a setting has the appearance of unfairness; at worst, it is a tainted forum in which an employee can never be guaranteed a truly fair hearing. Like forcing employees to buy goods at the company store, the price of such so-called justice is just too high. The legislation Mrs. Morella and I are introducing would protect the rights of workers to bring claims against their employers in cases of employment discrimination. By amending seven Federal civil rights statutes to make it clear that the powers and procedures provided under those laws are the exclusive ones that apply only when a claim arises, the Civil Rights Procedures Protection Act would prevent discrimination claims from being involuntarily sent to binding arbitration. In short, this bill prevents employers in all industries from forcing employees to give up their right to go to court when they are discriminated against on account of race, sex, religion, disability, or other illegal criteria. This legislation has the endorsement of numerous civil rights groups, including the National Organization for Women, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Partnership for Women & Families, the National Council of La Roza, Women Employed, the National Employment Lawyers Association, and the National Association of Investment Professionals. By reinforcing the fundamental rights established under various civil rights and fair employment practice laws, our bill restores integrity to employer--employee relationships. No employer should be permitted to ask workers to check their Constitutional and civil rights at the front door.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, for a consumer, if they subscribe to cable today, they can get all of their local TV stations on that cable system. If they subscribe to satellite, they cannot get the local channels. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and I, and the other members of our committee, we are going to try to rectify this. If Tip O'Neill was here today and looking at these issues, he would say that all politics of satellites are local, into local. How do we provide local people with their local TV stations? We are going to try to do that this year, and, I think, provide real competition through wireless, through satellite and other technologies to the cable industry and give the consumer a real break. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman points out, there are thousands of people across the country who are affected by this court ordered cutoff of distant TV signals, meaning that people with satellite dishes cannot pick up the national NBC or CBS or ABC or Fox feed. Specifically here I think CBS and Fox are in question. The legislation that we are introducing today will help give consumers limited relief to reapply for permission to obtain these signals or to apply for waivers from their local broadcasters, that is, write or visit their local TV station and say, ``Please, I can't get your signal here locally. Let me take this national feed so I can gain advantage to the programming, news and entertainment that are so valuable for my family.'' Equally important, it will give Congress additional time to develop a long-term plan to update the Satellite Home Viewer Act and to include permission for satellite local-to-local broadcasts. Meaning that we have to now develop as a strategy a way in which an individual with an 18-inch dish now, to pick up their local TV stations. Today, they cannot do that. Today, it is impossible. If you want to have a satellite dish, you have to give up access to your local TV stations. You have got to put up your own antenna. You have got to subscribe to the cable service as a supplement. But you cannot get it all from a satellite dish. What we are going to try to do this year is craft legislation that will make it possible for you to buy an 18-inch satellite dish, pick up all of that great cable and satellite programming and have access to your local TV stations at the same time. Then people will have real consumer choice. So, the legislation, which has been drafted by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) working with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I and other members of our committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) and a long list of Members is something which we think makes lot of sense. But again, we have this moment arriving where on March 31 all regulation of the cable industry goes off the books, and we, as the committee, are going to have to respond. We are going to have to find ways of insuring that the consumers have access to more competition and that there is a real protection.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important clarifying amendment which will protect innocent people from being swept up in a statute which is clearly aimed at wrongdoers. I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for this important refinement, which I think at the point of enforcement is going to be very helpful to law enforcement officials because it will make it quite clear what it was that Congress intended. I would urge all Members to support the amendment.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), for bringing this bill to the floor today and to thank him and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for the way in which the minority have been treated on this excellent bipartisan legislation. We have crafted this bill over a couple-of-year period, and it reflects that very close consultation between majority and minority that has always characterized the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection. And I want to particularly single out the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for her work on this legislation. She has helped us to fine-tune it in her brief time here on the committee, and she is the lead sponsor here today, and I want to thank her for her work on this legislation. The bill that we have before us today offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) is essentially the same wireless scanner legislation that the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved last session. No action was taken on that legislation in the Senate, and so we return early this session, under the leadership of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) to approve it again in the hopes that the other body will do likewise. There is a very important amendment that the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) has crafted, which I think should be included. This legislation modifies the wireless scanner prohibitions contained in the Communications Act and updates them to address digital wireless technologies. The legislation clarifies our intention that legally protected conversations should not be readily available to scanner enthusiasts who buy scanners for entertainment or for other interests, but they should not be able to eavesdrop on their neighbors. It leaves available those public frequencies utilized often by police and fire and emergency service personnel for scanner hobbyists to continue listening in on. It ensures that everyday wireless conversations, legally protected conversations, are not easily picked up and listened to. The bill on the floor this morning has four main parts. First, the bill extends current scanner receiver manufacturing restrictions to prevent the manufacture of scanners that are capable of intercepting communications in frequencies allocated to new wireless communications, namely personal communications services and protected paging and specialized mobile radio services. Second, the bill prohibits the modification of scanners and requires the Federal Communications Commission to strengthen its rules to prevent the modification of scanning receivers. This is very important, because committee records from this year and last year make clear that some entities are restoring scanners that comply with the Federal Communications rules so that these scanners can obtain protected frequencies. Third, the bill makes it illegal to intentionally intercept or divulge the content of radio communications. Finally, penalties are increased for violations; and the legislation requires the Commission to move expeditiously on investigations of alleged violations. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we point out that digital cellular, the next generation of cellular services, and digital personal communications services are less susceptible to unauthorized eavesdropping than analogue cellular that most people in our country have been using over the last decade. Yet, digital cellular and PCS are not completely immune from eavesdropping because, in a never-ending saga of technical one-upmanship, the equipment for intercepting digital calls and converting digital conversations is becoming more available and more affordable. Currently, such digital scanners remain vastly more expensive and complex than existing off-the-shelf scanners that intercept analogue communications. However, one of the purposes of the bill is to prevent a market from developing for less expensive digital scanners by clearly prohibiting the authorization of such scanners by the Federal Communications Commission. In the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, consumers will best be protected through a combination of the scanner provisions we are poised to approve today and the implementation of encryption technology so that consumers can encode their own conversations and their own private data. For this reason, we must make sure that the United States encryption policy avails consumers of the opportunity to utilize the best, most sophisticated technology, so that they can help to protect themselves, and I urge the wireless industry to help make these encryption technologies available to consumers in an affordable way. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I want to again commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), because the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I and the other Members on our side feel that we were very fairly treated. We feel it is a good piece of legislation. We compliment the chairman, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and all involved in it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by commending the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman, for the exemplary way in which he has handled this very important path-breaking piece of legislation. He, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), have treated myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) very well in terms of ensuring that the minority have their views completely included in terms of the deliberations and ultimate product which has been produced. We also want to compliment the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for the work and the leadership which he has given on this issue. He is the lead sponsor of the bill. Just as the gentleman from Louisiana has been saying, this is a new era which we are in in which 68 million Americans now subscribe to some form of wireless technology. 68 million. This was something that was rare in America in 1990 and has almost reached the point of ubiquity in terms of either subscribing or thinking about subscribing to this technology. As a result, we have to update our laws to ensure that we are moving in a direction which deals with the implications of the introduction of such a pervasive technology. What this bill does today is to take something which was relatively experimental a decade ago and to transform it into a national emergency system; something where it makes it possible for Americans in their automobiles, as they are walking, if they have an emergency health or safety condition which has developed, to dial up a 911 number and to be able to immediately access the resources which they would need in order to deal with the problem that has now confronted them or their family. This is a dramatic change in terms of how our country is going to deal with these issues. When we are in our home we try to teach young people how to dial if there is a fire or a police emergency. When we are younger, each one of us is taught that the firebox is at the end of the street and to only pull it when there is an emergency. But it has been put there for that purpose and do not allow anyone else ever to pull it, because it would not be right because it has been put there for that particular reason. Now, because of this new technology, people are able to travel anywhere, to any corner of our country, far away from those corner fireboxes, far away from the wire-fixed land phone system, and still be able to call in. What this legislation does is ensure that it is a national system, that there are standards that are established that will ensure that it will work for all Americans when they are on the road. There is a particular part of this legislation, and the gentleman from Louisiana referred to it, that I think will serve our country well, which is that even as it makes it possible to dial up in the event of an emergency on a wireless phone, it also creates the more sinister side of cyberspace which is the capacity to be able to use this as a national tracking system. No matter where we are in our car with our cell phone, that someone might be able to track us where we went. What the legislation makes quite clear, and I thank the gentleman for including this provision, an amendment which we had which we put into last year's bill and now is reincluded in this legislation, which guarantees that the information can be used only for emergency purposes and it cannot be reused for any other purpose unless there has been a preauthorization by the consumer giving authority to a company or to public authorities to be able to use it for other purposes. I think that is the correct balance, and I think the legislation with that balance is something which is going to serve our country very well. The gentleman from Louisiana has gone through all the details. There is no point in going through the litany of all of the excellent provisions which are built into the legislation. But, again, I cannot compliment the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) enough in terms of the way we have been treated. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the rest of the Democrats on the committee appreciate it. And, again, a tip of the hat to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for his good work. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), who has given us great leadership on this issue.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, again, this is a very important piece of legislation. The FCC has the responsibility for ensuring that these location technologies are built into wireless technologies over the next 2 or 3 or 4 years. We want to encourage the FCC to make progress on that issue, meeting the deadlines which have been established. At that point, we will have an ability to get help for everyone in the country who has a wireless phone and at the same time protect their privacy. That is a good balance. This is a good bill. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) once again, and all the staff who have worked on it, the litany of saints that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) mentioned and everyone else that helped. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we have an historic opportunity. There is going to be, by all estimates, a budget surplus over the next 15 years. We can use that money for our seniors and say to them they do not have to worry again about whether or not Social Security is solvent; they do not have to worry again as to whether or not Medicare will be there for their health care bills. But what the Republicans say is they want a 10 percent across-the- board tax cut. They want to return the money back into the pockets of ordinary people. Well, Mr. Speaker, in 1997, structural reforms in Medicare and home health care resulted in a diminishing capacity to deal with the problems of the seniors in our country. In my own little area, instead of the 450,000 home visits for seniors who have a spouse with Alzheimer's or with Parkinson's, now this year only 270,000 visits. That is what restructuring does. It reduces the benefit. Let us save Medicare with the surplus.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I rise in support of H.R. 193, the ``Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Wild and Scenic River Act.'' Wild and scenic areas are found not only in the vast expanses of the American West but also in pockets in the midst of the cities and towns of the East. As the areas around Boston, including my own district, become increasingly crowded and urban, it is important to preserve natural areas where the beauty and tranquillity of nature can become a part of the everyday lives of local communities. Through the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord rivers has flowed a remarkable current of history and beauty. Back in 1837 Ralph Waldo Emerson commemorated events that had taken place above the Concord River in 1775 with his unforgettable words, ``by the rude bridge that arched the flood, their flag to April's breeze unfurled, here once the embattl'd farmers stood, and fired the shot heard round the world.'' Nathanial Hawthorne wrote of the beauty of the Assabet: ``Rowing our boat against the current, between wide meadows, we turn aside into the Assabeth. A more lovely stream than this, for a mile above its junction with the Concord, has never flowed on Earth,--where, indeed, except to lave the interior of a poet's imagination.'' Today we have even greater need of scenic rivers to excite the ``poet's imagination'' in each of us. This bill, by giving Wild and Scenic River status to the Assabet, Sudbury, and concord rivers, will help ensure that they continue to inspire local communities and the nation in this and future generations. I would like to thank my distinguished colleague Mr. Meehan for his tenacious leadership on this bill, and I am glad to join the bipartisan roster of its supporters.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to eliminate the preemption of State prescription drug benefit laws in connection with Medicare+Choice plans. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by every member of the Massachusetts congressional delegation. Mr. Speaker, on January 1, 1999 many seniors in Massachusetts lost the unlimited prescription drug benefit available from their Medicare HMO due to a provision in federal law that was interpreted by a court to override Massachusetts state law. Massachusetts is the only state which had a law of this kind--one which required Medicare+Choice plans doing business in the state to provide an unlimited prescription drug benefit to seniors. Despite the efforts of the entire Massachusetts congressional delegation, the Administration, and the Governor of Massachusetts to find a legislative or administrative fix at the end of last year, which included making it possible for the HMOs to do the right thing and extend the benefit, the HMOs refused to provide the unlimited benefit. This vital benefit must be restored, and the legislation I am filing today will restore the coverage this year. Mr. Speaker, my Massachusetts colleagues and I believe that Congress did not intend to pre-empt the Massachusetts prescription drug benefit law and force seniors in Massachusetts to choose between prescription drugs and food or other necessities when it passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Congress can clarify its intent by passing the bill we are introducing today, and correct the gross injustice perpetrated upon Massachusetts seniors enrolled in these plans.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this matter should never have been pursued by Ken Starr, it should never have been pursued by the Committee on the Judiciary, and it should never have reached the floor of the House of Representatives. This matter belongs in family court, not in the court of the United States Senate, with the Chief Justice of the United States presiding. Yes, the President made a grievous personal error, to the detriment of his family. But no, it is not an offense against the State or our Constitution. We are now on the threshold of overturning the people's choice for President through a perversion of the Independent Counsel law, a runaway partisan investigation of the most intimate, private activity, having nothing, absolutely nothing to do with a real estate deal in Arkansas. Ken Starr has twisted and warped his task from one in which he was out to find the truth to one where he went out to get the President and First Lady of this country. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are amending the Constitution of the United States on the floor of the House of Representatives here today. Make no mistake about it, this is a constitutional amendment that we are debating, not an impeachment resolution. The Republicans are crossing out the impeachment standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, and they are inserting the words ``any crime or misdemeanor.'' We are permitting a constitutional coup d'etat which will haunt this body forever. A constitutional clause intended to apply to a Benedict Arnold selling out his country will now be expanded to cover every personal transgression. Every future President, Democrat or Republican, will be subject to harassment by his political enemies, who can credibly threaten impeachment for the slightest misconduct. This is wasteful, it is foolish, it is dangerous. When we talk to people in the supermarkets, on the streets, they believe that the high crime against the Constitution is their families being cheated out of their government's ability to work on things that affect their families: Medicare, social security, the democratization of access to jobs and education for every family in our country. The ultimate Republican paradox is that they dislike the government, but they have to run for office in order to make sure that the government does not work. In 1995 and 1996, they tried to shut down the executive department. In 1997 and 1998 they shut down the Congress. Now they are going for a political triple play. They are going to shut down the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the Supreme Court of the United States simultaneously. Mr. Speaker, we have become the laughingstock of the entire world because a sexual scandal is being allowed to consume our tax dollars, our media, our judiciary, and our opportunity to deal with the problems of ordinary families. We must censure the President for what he did wrong. We should be given the right to vote to censure him, to put this matter behind us so that we can work on the problems of every other family in America. We have worried about the President's family for an entire year. It is about time we went back to the business of every other family. GOP used to stand for ``Grand Old Party.'' Now it just stands for ``Get Our President.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution, and of President Clinton's decision to order airstrikes against Iraq. In 1981, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered the Israeli Air Force to destroy Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor, because of growing evidence that this French-supplied ``research reactor'' was being transformed into a covert nuclear bomb factory. World reaction to the attack was swift and harsh. The French, the Russians, and even the UN Security Council condemned the bombing. The Reagan Administration criticized the raid and temporarily suspended arms shipments to Israel. But in reality, Israel had done the world an enormous favor. It has set back Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction by several years. During the Gulf War, the U.S. and its Allies again targeted Iraq's efforts to acquire nuclear, chemical, biological, and ballistic missile capabilities. In the aftermath of that struggle, international inspectors found clear and convincing evidence of a massive Iraqi program to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Since that time, one of the fundamental goals of U.S. foreign policy has been to assure that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities are dismantled, and to prevent Saddam Hussein from rebuilding the capacity to hold the world hostage. That is what yesterday's air strikes against Iraq were all about. This isn't Wag the Dog; its Enemy of the State. It's Target the Tyrant. Does anyone really want the President to give that madman even more time to hide his weapons, fortify his military, and spawn terrorism? This is a cruel and savage dictator who has already used chemical weapons against both the Iranians and his own people. He fired Scud missiles at innocent Israeli civilians, and he is hellbent on amassing an arsenal of nuclear, chemical, biological, and ballistic missiles so that he can again threaten stability in the Persian Gulf region. Yes, the President should comply with the consultative provisions of the War Powers Act as he proceeds with this military action. And he has in fact been consulting with the Congressional leadership, as provided for under that Act. But he had no choice but to take a prompt decisive action in this matter. President Clinton deserves our nation's support in this decision, and the heroic men and women in our armed services who are carrying out his order deserve our support and our prayers. They are engaged in a noble mission, whose objective is no less than to avert the threat of a nuclear holocaust and reaffirm the sanctity of international law.-

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call to the attention of my colleagues the outstanding work being done by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The Commission has put into effect an innovative program, under which it works cooperatively with industry to get hazardous products off store shelves within days, instead of the weeks and months that it traditionally takes to negotiate a recall. Everyone wins under this new system--especially the consumer, who is protected from possible injury, This Fast-Track Product Recall Program was recently honored with a 1998 Innovations in American Government Award. The CPSC was one of three federal government winners of the $100,000 award this year. These awards are funded by the Ford Foundation, and administered by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in partnership with the Council for Excellence in Government. The CPSC's award-winning program was highlighted in the December 1998 edition of Government Executive magazine, and I would like to submit this article for the Record. [From Government Executive, Dec. 1998] A Fast Track to Consumer Product Safety--Quick Recall of Faulty Products Serves Everyone Fast-Track Product Recall Program U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission When a consumer product could hurt or even kill somebody, the traditional regulatory response is understandable: to find fault and then decide how to punish the manufacturer. But there's a new attitude at the Consumer Product Safety Commission--charged with monitoring consumer product safety nationwide: When a product has the potential to hurt or even kill somebody, the preferred course is to work with the manufacturer to get that product off the market fast. That is the aim of the Fast-Track Product Recall Program, launched as a six-month pilot in July 1995. With 21,400 deaths and 29 million injuries annually due to faulty consumer products, the issue of unsafe products is not a small one. And the size of the problem only compounded the frustration of CPSC staff over how long it traditionally took to implement a recall--time delays exacerbated by the frequently adversarial nature of the process. And so staff in the Commission's Office of Compliance decided to try a new tack. In discussions with companies, staff learned two things: The recall process itself--which frequently called for lengthy testing and investigations-- sometimes got in the way of rapid recall. More serious, though, was that in initiating a recall, the Commission would in every case make a ``preliminary determination'' of a product defect in order to justify the recall. Because such ``PDs,'' as they were called, implied guilt, companies afraid of liability suits frequently fought them as a matter of course. That, too, only served to drag out the process. To avoid all that, the Commission and manufacturers negotiated a trade. If companies would volunteer for fast- track, the Commission would sidestep much of the process involved in initiating a recall, including the preliminary determination. The new avenue for recalls caught on quickly. Since the program was launched (it became permanent in March 1997), nearly half of all recalls are fast-tracked. In 1996, 103 fast-track recalls were initiated within an average of 10 days; in 1997, 105 recalls were initiated within an average of 17 days. While a week may seem like a long time for some defective product to stay on the shelves, it is a vast improvement over the weeks or months that it takes to initiate a recall under the traditional system. Not only is the new system faster, it also appears to be more effective. The percentage of products returned by consumers for repair or replacement has averaged over 60 percent for fast-track, compared with 30 percent under the traditional process. And the new system is very cost- effective. Although nearly half of all recalls are now fast- tracked, they account for only 10 percent of the Commission's $16.5 million compliance budget.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1110, the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Wild and scenic areas are found not only in the vast expanses of the American West but also in pockets in the midst of the cities and towns of the East. As the areas around Boston, including my own district, become increasingly crowded and urban, it is important to preserve natural areas where the beauty and tranquillity of nature can become a part of the everyday lives of local communities. Through the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord rivers has flowed a remarkable current of history and beauty. A century ago Ralph Waldo Emerson commemorated events that took place above the Concord River a century before that with his unforgettable words, ``by the rude bridge that arched the flood, their flag to April's breeze unfurled, here once the embattl'd farmers stood, and fired the shot heard around the world.'' Over 100 years ago, Nathanial Hawthorne wrote of the beauty of the Assabet: ``Rowing our boat against the current, between wide meadows, we turn aside into the Assabeth. A more lovely stream than this, for a mile above its junction with the concord, has never flowed on Earth,--nowhere, indeed, except to lave the interior of a poet's imagination.'' Today we have even greater need of scenic rivers to excite the ``poet's imagination'' in each of us. this bill, by giving Wild and Scenic River status to the Assabet, Sudbury, and Concord rivers, will help ensure that they continue to inspire local communities and the nation in this and future generations. I am glad to join the entire delegations of Massachusetts and New Hampshire in its support.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, S. 2375, the ``International Antibribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998'' is important legislation for this Congress to approve and for the President to sign. I am an original cosponsor of the House companion to this measure and fully support the bill we are approving today. International bribery and corruption continue to be problems worldwide and the Administration has done excellent work in gaining consensus among a large number of nations to crack down on these corrupt practices. The Commerce Department has stated that it has learned of significant allegations of bribery by foreign firms since 1994 totalling over $100 billion. Taking action today to update the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in concert with action to be taken by our major trading partners, is designed to achieve an international marketplace of greater integrity and fairness. Most of the provisions of this bill are identical to the provisions which passed the House a few weeks ago. Much time has been spent over the last few days to nail down provisions that are integral to any legislation hoping to pass muster as a comprehensive antibribery and fair competition measure. The legislation we are sending back over to the Senate takes modest steps toward a more equitable marketplace environment for international satellite telecommunications. The simple fact is that INTELSAT and Inmarsat are intergovernmental organizations that compete in the marketplace against private U.S. companies. This is unfair. Everyone recognizes that this must change. Even the U.S. signatory to these organizations--COMSAT--realizes that this situation has to change. No entity in the global marketplace ought to enjoy special privileges when competing against private American companies. American jobs and innovation are at stake. It is not surprising that intergovernmental organizations will do everything they can to perpetuate their current existence. It is also not surprising that monopolies and dominant providers will do everything they can to squash the competition. That is why it is often incumbent upon policymakers to act to curtail anticompetitive activity. In the international arena, American companies are trying to gain market access and win markets while intergovernmental organizations are trying everything in their power to slow down American competitors, using intergovernmental privileges and hiding anticompetitive action against American companies behind the cloak of special immunity granted ages ago. This has to end. What this legislation provides is a modest step to level the proverbial playing field. No marketplace participant ought to be immune from the legal parameters of the marketplace, no intergovernmental organization ought to compete against the private sector in delivering service to consumers. The bill before us contains provisions to address the special advantages of the intergovernmental satellite organizations and to ensure that they do not improperly escape coverage by the FCPA. Thus the legislation is designed to make clear that bribery of intergovernmental organizations does not escape the coverage of the FCPA. It also contains provisions to remove the special advantages of such organizations. The legislation stipulates that international organizations providing commercial communications services shall not be accorded immunity from suit or legal process in connection with their role as a provider, directly or indirectly, of commercial telecommunications services to, from, or within the U.S. I believe this is an important step forward and one which recognizes that American companies should not suffer competitive disadvantages due to privileges and immunities enjoyed by intergovernmental organizations competing with the private sector but having failed to fully privatize in a pro- competitive manner. In addition, the bill directs the President to secure the elimination, or substantial reduction, of all privileges and immunities that are accorded Intelsat and Inmarsat. Given that this will be the first time in a great number of years that the Congress has spoken on international satellite communications I believe it underscores the strong bipartisan desire of the Congress to move expeditiously toward a pro-competitive privatization of the intergovernmental organizations. Taken in the context of the overwhelming vote this year for H.R. 1872 in the House, the direction of policy desired by Members of Congress is clearly toward putting all companies on even footing and letting the marketplace decide winners and losers. Our overarching goal is a freely open competitive marketplace bringing to an end the era of government sanctioned communications cartels in satellite communications. I want to commend the leadership and tenacity of Chairman Bliley in ensuring that these important satellite provisions are in this comprehensive bill. I want to also commend the work of Chairman Mike Oxley, Mr. Dingell, as well as our Senate counterparts. In addition, I want to also salute the work of our Commerce Secretary Bill Daley, for spearheading this effort from the Administration and for the excellent result we have achieved due to his effort.