Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, one of the most shameful things that has occurred during the course of the debate on this bill was the covert attempt that was made to eviscerate the ability of the SEC and defrauded investors to sue reckless wrongdoers. In the Silicon Graphics case, a Federal District Court in California actually ruled that the act had eliminated recklessness as a standard for liability under the Federal securities laws, subsequently concluding that only deliberate recklessness, a legal oxymoron, would meet the Reform Act's pleading standards. Now, while I oppose this bill, I also feel quite strongly that if this bill is to become law, we needed to make it absolutely clear that we had not changed the scienter requirements in either the Reform Act or in this legislation. During floor consideration of the House version of this bill, my colleague from California articulated his view that the standard did not include recklessness. I strongly disagree, and believe that this mischaracterized the intent of Congress in both the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the Reform Act of 1995, for which I was a conferee, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the currently pending legislation. I am pleased to see that the Statement of Managers, which was provided to my office by the Committee on Commerce majority staff and which bears the signatures of the conferees to this act, has recognized that neither the Reform Act nor S. 1260 alters the scienter standard of the Exchange Act. I must note with some dismay, however, that the Statement of Managers on this bill, which was filed in the Congressional Record on October 9, does not contain essential legislative history from the original Statement of Managers provided to my office. I am informed that this was due to a clerical error, which resulted in the inadvertent deletion on page 4 of the Joint Statement. While some Members on this side, including myself, find it rather curious that this particular page mysteriously turned up missing, given how much time and effort was given to working this language out, I will accept this explanation at face value and I am pleased that the gentleman has made it clear that the version has been corrected and will be filed in the Record in connection with today's debate. There should be absolutely no ambiguity with respect to the intent of the Congress with respect to the fact that recklessness is and always has been a part of the scienter standard. The Federal courts have long recognized that recklessness satisfies the scienter requirement of section 10(b) and rule 10b-5, the principal antifraud provisions of the securities laws. It is true, as the statement of managers notes, that in Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, the Supreme Court left open the question of whether the recklessness could satisfy the scienter requirement of section 10(b) and rule 10b-5. However, the statement of managers failed to note that the court explicitly recognized that in certain areas of the law recklessness is considered to be a form of intentional conduct for purposes of imposing liability for some act. So I agree with the statement of the managers that the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I were conferees on, did not change the scienter requirement for liability. I am deeply troubled, however, by attempts which were made, some late in the course of the debate on S. 1260, to suggest that the reform act had in fact raised the pleading standard beyond that of the Second Circuit which at the time the reform act was passed was the strictest pleading standard in the Nation. That clearly was not my understanding in 1995, nor the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). I am pleased to that this erroneous interpretation has been rejected today. To have done otherwise would have created an illogical result. Because the antifraud provisions allow liability for reckless misconduct, it follows that plaintiffs must be allowed to plead that the defendants acted recklessly. To say that defauded investors can recover for reckless misconduct but that they must plead something more than reckless misconduct would have defied logic. During the course of the debate on this bill, it has been suggested by some that a footnote in the statement of managers from the 1995 reform act proves that Congress had adopted in 1995 a pleading standard different from the Second Circuit court standard. This footnote, which was inserted at the last minute without our knowledge, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) or I, stated that the committee chose not to include in the pleading standard certain language relating to motive, opportunity or recklessness. This footnote, and make no mistake about it, that is all it is, merely a footnote in a statement of managers drafted by a staffer without the full consideration of all the House and Senate Members appointed as conferees at that time to the 1995 act, including myself, does not mean that recklessness has been eliminated either as a basis for liability or as a pleading standard. Existence of this footnote in no way mandated the courts not follow the second circuit approach to pleading. The conference committee and the Congress that passed the reform act also chose not to expressly include conscious behavior in the pleading standard. Yet surely no one would suggest that in so doing the conference committee and Congress intended to eliminate liability for conscious misconduct. As the statement of managers for S. 1260 clearly indicates, it was the intent of Congress when it passed the reform act back in 1995 to adopt the Second Circuit standard. Mr. Speaker, I insert this and additional material to clarify any misinterpretation or misunderstanding that might exist on this issue, and I must conclude in saying that I find the colloquy that just took place between the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) does not comport with the facts as we understand them on our side and is not in fact the intent of the law.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on September 27, The Washington Post chronicled a shocking violation of patient privacy and the aggressive tactics of Pharmacy Benefits Managers. This article shines a light on efforts by PBMs, often owned by drug manufacturers to accumulate extremely sensitive and private medical data on individuals which they claim is being used to manage their health plans more economically. The article describes the experience of a woman whose prescription purchases were tracked by a pharmacy benefits manager, which in turn, used the information to inform her doctor that she would be enrolled in a ``depression program'', to monitor her prescriptions for anti- depression medication and to target her for ``educational'' material on depression. Even more alarming is that her employer had free access to all this sensitive information. As it turns out, this woman was not suffering from any depression- related illness. Her doctor prescribed the medication to help her sleep. She had no idea that by signing up for her managed care plan, she was signing up for an invasion of her privacy. By using her prescription-drug-card, the privacy she had every right to expect between patient, doctor and pharmacist was breached and abused This story serves to underscore my concern that laws protecting the privacy of personal information are woefully inadequate. In this electronic age, we must strengthen our privacy rights in proportion to the supersonic speed at which privacy can now be stripped from unsuspecting patients. I urge my colleagues to reflect on this situation and to work to address it in the next Congress. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 27, 1998] Plans' Access To Pharmacy Data Raises Privacy Issue--Benefit Firms Delve Into Patient Records By Robert O'Harrow Jr. Joan Kelly knew she would save money at her pharmacy when she used her prescription-drug card to buy an antidepressant her doctor prescribed to help her sleep. Instead of paying $17 for a month's supply of trazodone, she paid just $8. But Kelly didn't know that when she filled her prescription last fall at a drugstore in Austin, Tex., she would also be swept up in a technology-driven revolution to control medical costs, a new kind of managed care that trampled on her notions of privacy. Sensitive information about her prescription was flashed to PCS Health Systems, a company in Scottsdale, Ariz., that administers her pharmacy benefit on behalf of her health insurance plan. Computers instantly matched her information with other data previously collected about medications she had been taking, and the new data was stored for review by PCS administrators. A few months later, PCS sent Kelly's doctor a letter. At the request of Kelly's employer, it said, the company had peered into one of its databases of more than 500 million prescriptions, pinpointed her as someone who used antidepressants and enrolled her in a ``depression program.'' Kelly's prescriptions would not be monitored, it said, and the doctor would be notified of any lapses. Kelly also would be sent educational material on depression. The aim of the company, the letter noted, was to ``optimize pharmaceutical care.'' When Kelly's doctor told her about the letter, Kelly began to fret about being watched. She wondered if her bosses at Motorola Inc., which runs its own health insurance plan, would mistakenly think she was mentally ill. ``I feel it's an invasion of privacy,'' said Kelly, 50, who has worked at Motorola for 20 years as an engineering assistant. ``I feel that if I go looking for a job or a promotion, they'll say, `She's on antidepressants.' '' A Motorola spokesman said the company chooses not to receive information about specific employee prescriptions, but there are no laws preventing it from doing so. Indeed, there are few federal rules governing the use of personal information by companies such as PCS. They are called pharmacy benefit managers. Not long ago, such companies primarily determined if individuals' prescriptions were covered by a health plan. Today, they are technology-savvy giants that stand at the heart of a dramatic change in how medicine is being practiced under managed care. Using powerful computers, these firms have muscled their way into what was once a close and closed relationship between patients and their doctors and pharmacists. They have established electronic links to just about every pharmacy in the United States. And they now gather detailed prescription information on the 150 million Americans who use prescription cards. PCS, which administers the benefit of 56 million people, adds about 35 prescriptions a second to a storehouse of 1.5 billion records. PCS and other benefit managers said prescription cards should be considered an unprecedented opportunity to improve medical care and save health plans money. Working on behalf of health plans, the benefit managers said, they use the data to pinpoint dangerous overlaps in medications that shouldn't be taken together, or to suggest generic drugs that might be just as effective at a fraction of the cost. They also reach out directly to patients and advise them on when and how to take their medication, a practice they say saves money by improving individuals' health. Industry officials estimate that their companies have saved health plans billions of dollars in recent years. ``They're the patient's caretaker,'' said Delbert Konnor, president of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, an industry group that represents some of the nation's largest benefit managers. ``They're monitoring the physician. They're monitoring the patient. They're also monitoring the costs. ``The whole health care industry is in a state of strategic flux,'' Konnor added. ``It's the information that really is the valuable portion of what's going on.'' But a growing number of patients, doctors and pharmacists complain that they never gave explicit approval for personal information to be collected and analyzed. Some doctors contend that the benefit managers have overstepped their roles as administrators, and they worry that new programs touted as improving care mask efforts to market drugs. Critics say the top three benefit managers sometimes highlight medications made by their parent companies--drug manufacturers Eli Lilly and Co., which owns PCS; SmithKline Beecham, which owns Diversified Pharmaceutical Services; and Merck & Co., which owns Merck-Medco Managed Care. At the same time, drug companies often pay for benefit managers to send in-house specialists to visit doctors in attempts to modify patient care--sometimes without asking patients' permission. ``Right now people live with this myth that the doctor- patient confidentiality is sacrosanct. We know that's not true,'' said Janlori Goldman, director of the Health Privacy Project at Georgetown University. ``Once they file a claim, once they fill a prescription, the personal, sensitive information they shared with their doctor is fair game,'' she said. ``The information about them essentially becomes a commodity.'' Some specialists fear that patients anxious about giving up their privacy may ultimately lose trust in the medical profession. ``There's a fundamental realignment of the players here,'' said Daniel Wikler, a professor of medical ethics at the University of Wisconsin. ``The question is: Who is the patient supposed to look to?'' Regulators in Nevada, Ohio and elsewhere have begun examining possible violations of state confidentiality laws or regulations protecting medical records. Legislators in Virginia, New York and elsewhere also have begun considering laws that would give their states more control over pharmacy benefit managers. ``By what authority do these companies believe they have a right to collect this information?'' asked Charles Young, executive director of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Pharmacy. ``And once they get it, how are they using it? Is it in the best interest of the patients? Or is it in the best interest of the company?'' Pharmacy benefit managers have been in business for more than two decades. They began playing a more central and controversial role in health care just a few years ago. That's when drug manufacturers and pharmacy chains-- including CVS, Rite Aid and others--began spending billions of dollars to acquire such companies as part of the race to capture a larger share of the fast-growing market for prescription drugs. Improvements in computer technology also made it vastly easier to gather, store and track information about patients. This technology has become widespread in recent years, in part because of the plummeting cost of data storage and steady increases in computer processing speeds. New benefit management companies popped up everywhere. Now more than 150 pharmacy benefit managers manage 1.8 billion prescriptions every year, and the number of people who use prescription cards has more than doubled since 1990 to more than 150 million, according to the industry association. At the same time, the proportion of prescriptions covered at least in part by managed care has soared from about one in four to almost two of every three, according to IMS Health Inc., a health care information company. The market for prescription drugs is worth more than $81 billion annually, more than twice the amount at the beginning of the decade. Officials at the benefit management companies say that figure would be significantly higher without them. Studies by the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office and other researchers tend to support that contention. A GAO report said that three plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program estimated benefit managers saved up to $600 million in overall spending in 1995 ``by obtaining manufacturer and pharmacy discounts and managing drug utilization.'' The report also found a ``high degree of satisfaction'' among Federal employees with pharmacy benefit management services. A more recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office concluded that pharmacy benefit managers have helped to slow the rising cost of prescription drugs. The authors suggested in July that the benefit managers accomplished this by directing doctors and pharmacists to use certain lower-cost drugs. ``We're achieving the dual objective of ensuring appropriate care for patients, while at the same time reducing pharmaceutical costs for health plans,'' said Blair Jackson, spokesman for PCS Health Systems. To assess the impact of the benefit management revolution on personal privacy, it is necessary to understand how the system works. But that's not easy. Even many regulators and doctors have only recently begun to sort out how these companies gather, use and resell patient information. To many consumers, the process is almost invisible, even though in most cases they have given their consent by signing up for a health plan, industry officials say. It starts when someone uses a prescription card to get medication. Their information is electronically messaged to their health plan's benefit manager, a transaction that in most instances takes seconds. A computer checks to see if the medication is covered and whether the drug is safe for a particular patient, in many cases as the patient waits for the prescription to be filled. The computers also match the prescription against a formulary, a list of medications the benefit managers have arranged for health plans to buy at a lower cost or that have been determined to be more effective. Health plans often get the discounts by pledging to use certain drugs exclusively. Sometimes the pharmaceutical companies give rebates as their drugs are dispensed, industry officials said. These formularies are the cornerstone of efforts to control drug costs. They also are a contentious issue. Critics, including some federal and state regulators, contend that benefit managers appear to have shown a bias toward the products of their parent companies. A study two years ago by the office of the public advocate for the city of New York, for example, found that benefit managers steered doctors and patients toward their parent companies' drugs, an allegation that the benefit managers deny. Public Advocate Mark Green said the companies should not have such sweeping access to patient records. They ``are using medical histories of millions of unsuspecting patients. This is as little known as it is wrong,'' Green said. ``It would be hopelessly naive to trust the voluntary virtue of these PBMs.'' If the benefit manager's computer approves a transaction, an affirmative message is sent back to the pharmacist. But if it determines that a less expensive drug can be safely switched, that suggestion is sometimes flashed back. PCS offers pharmacists up to $12 to secure approval from a patient and the patient's doctor for a ``therapeutic interchange'' of certain drugs. A change can't be made without such approval, PCS officials said. Meanwhile, a patient's information is stored in various computers, including data warehouses operated by the benefit managers. The technology allows the benefit managers to keep close track of individuals. In some cases, they remind patients to refill prescriptions and take their medicine at appropriate intervals, Medical officials say that up to half of all patients with some conditions--such as hypertension or high cholesterol--fail to take their medicine as prescribed. The benefit managers also can track people with chronic illnesses and offer suggestions about their care. These increasingly common efforts are known as ``disease management'' programs. One of the problems with these programs is the risk of misidentifying a person's ailment. Medical specialists say that's because certain drugs can be used to treat different problems. Kelly, the Texas woman, said she was mistakenly enrolled in a program called ``Journeys: Paths Through Depression.'' She took antidepressant medicine because she was having trouble sleeping because of menopause, she said, not because she was mentally ill. Karen Hill, the physician who was treating Kelly at the time, confirmed Kelly's account. In the letter, the company acknowledged the possibility of making an incorrect assumption about a patient's ailment and said those who have questions should consult their doctor. Kelly said she had no idea when she enrolled in her health plan that it would open the way to close scrutiny of her prescriptions. ``Mainly, what you're looking at is what you get and what you pay. I wasn't even thinking about personal information going out,'' Kelly said. ``With managed care, I know it's getting more convoluted. But this never occurred to me.'' Motorola officials said there was no reason for such anxiety. They described the PCS effort as a ``stigma-free mental health'' program that provides employees with help and educational material about depression. So far, 167 of the 5,721 employees enrolled in the program have opted out.Connie Giere, a benefit official at Motorola, said information about patients is protected. ``Obviously, we own that data,'' she said. ``But we have chosen not to receive that data because it's counter to our philosophy of confidentiality.'' Motorola officials said the company chooses only to receive general reports about trends, not the names of employees or other personal information. Pharmacy benefit managers also routinely urge doctors to change a patient's medicine to a brand or generic drug that the companies believe is less expensive or more effective. The benefit managers contact patients and doctors through letters, telephone calls and faxes. Some benefit managers also send messages to pharmacists as patients wait for their prescription. Bernard Steverding of Fairfax County received a letter several months ago that said the prescription he was taking to lower his cholesterol had been changed by a pharmacy benefit manager to another drug. The letter he received was typical, but it made him furious. The letter, from a company now called Express Scripts/ ValueRx, said: ``When we find a medicine that we believe to be better for a particular patient, we review the patient's medication profile and then confirm with the prescribing physician that a change of medication is appropriate. We know that the only way to help control prescription drug costs is in partnership with you and your doctor.'' Steverding and his wife said the letter arrived after the new prescription was filled and the change was made without his consent. Souzana Steverding said her husband wasn't sure if he should take the new drug concurrently with the remaining pills he had under the old prescription. ``We got this new prescription and didn't even know what it was for,'' she said. ``Nobody told us you can't take these two together.'' Dan Cordes, a vice president at Express Scripts/ValueRx, said Steverding had given his consent to the program by signing up with his health insurance plan, which authorized the collection of his prescription information. Cordes said Steverding's doctor approved the switch. ``It's a totally voluntary program,'' Cordes said. Officials at benefit managers say they take great care with the information they collect and understand its sensitivity. At PCS, for example, employees must sign a pledge that they will respect the confidentiality of personal records. Patient information also is encrypted or depersonalized whenever PCS transmits it. ``We clearly recognize that by being a part of the health care system we have to abide by this type of ethics,'' said Nick Schulze-Solce, a vice president for health management services at PCS. But given the limited oversight by state and federal authorities, there's no way to guarantee information will be used appropriately. In Las Vegas last year, patients who shopped at three independent drug stores later received $5 coupons and promotional fliers in the mail from a pharmacy chain, American Drug Stores. Among them was Mary Grear, a pharmacist and owner of the independent stores. Grear wondered why she and so many of her customers received the same flier. By looking in her own computers, she discovered they all had the same pharmacy benefit manager, a company owned by American Drug Stores. She complained to state authorities, who confirmed this spring that a pharmacy benefit manager owned by American Drug Stores had passed along the names and other information from confidential prescription records. Grear said she was outraged, both as a patient and a pharmacist. ``I mean, it's medical information. That's how it should be used. It isn't for marketing,'' Grear said. ``I believe it's between me and my health professional.'' State authorities also were unsettled. ``Something like this has never happened before,'' said Larry L. Pinson, president of the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy, who described the prescription records involved as ``very, very private medical histories.'' In response, regulatory officials in Nevada recently sent out a stern letter to 275 pharmacy benefit managers and other administrators, warning that many of the companies' activities may be illegal. ``You are now on notice,'' the letter said, ``and the board hopes that these illegal practices will now stop.'' Dan Zvonek, a spokesman for American Drug Stores, said the sharing of patient records by the companies was a mistake that would not happen again. He acknowledged that pharmacy benefit companies are struggling with privacy issues, trying to determine what's appropriate as financial matters take an ever larger role in decision making. ``You run this risk of stepping over those boundaries of confidentiality. But no one knows where those boundaries are,'' Zvonek said. ``You running a risk of ignoring the health care aspect and focusing on profit.'' One source of profit for the benefit managers is the resale of aggregations of patient data. Although benefit managers remove patient names and other personally identifying information from the records, such data has become increasingly valuable for drug companies and health researchers. During companies mine the data, for example, to track how much a health plan spends on each specific drug and to try to document whether treatment resulted in the desired outcome. They also use the information to measure the success of direct marketing campaigns and to focus sales forces on doctors who prescribe certain medicines. Raymond Gilmartin, chief executive of Merck & Co., the giant pharmaceutical company that owns Merck-Medco, said that by monitoring how diabetics take their medication, the firm can save health plans $260 a year per diabetic by keeping them well--and out of the hospital. ``This is exiting stuff,'' Gilmartin said. ``This is the information everyone is looking for and that everyone wants.'' Among the many unresolved questions posed by benefit mangers is who has the final say on how personal date is used and maintained. In most cases, according to Schulze-Solce, the health plan that has contracted with a benefit manager to gather the information owns the information. In many cases that owner is an employer that provides it own health insurance. ``That of course is something that needs to be recognized,'' said Schulze-Solce. ``For society, it is important to get their arms around that because that is a potential source of leak. . . . In theory, [privacy] is depending on the self-discipline of those companies.'' In any case, officials at pharmacy benefit managers said patients, doctors and the rest of the medical community might as well get used to them. Not only are they increasingly important to the health care system, but they're not going away anytime soon. As medical professionals come to rely on a person's genetic history to recommend treatments, even more detailed data will be needed to provide proper care. Schulze-Solce said pharmacy benefit managers will be expected to help fill that need. He likened the development of pharmacy benefit managers to the evolution of nuclear bombs: ``In the case of nuclear weapons, you try to contain the risk,'' he said. ``Trying to go back is moot.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I strongly support passing this bill which implements the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaty. As the digital revolution sweeps over industries and countries it will provide new opportunities for market growth and innovation, easier access to remote information, and new distribution channels for products and services. The United States clearly leads the world in software products such as computer programs, movies, music, books and other multimedia products. In a post-GATT, post-NAFTA environment--in which we have made an implicit national economic decision to essentially let low-end jobs go and migrate to developing countries--we have an obligation as policymakers to ensure that we establish the climate in which America garners the lion's share of the high end, knowledge-based jobs of the new global economy. Because digital technology facilitates an almost effortless ability to transmit digitized software information across national borders and also permits exact copies of such work to be made, it is vitally important that the United States take steps to update existing laws by cyberspace. There's no question that protecting the interests of copyright holders will mean that the content community will feel more secure in releasing their works into a digital environment. Because of the worldwide nature of electronic commerce today, it also becomes imperative that we establish treaties with other countries ensuring that our intellectual property--in other words, our high tech jobs--are not compromised overseas. In deliberating upon this legislation, this Commerce Committee sought to better balance competing interests. This has not been an easy task. Encryption research issues, privacy implications, fair use rights, reverse engineering, and other issues are complicated but represent meaningful public policy perspectives. I am pleased that the bill before us has taken great strides to see that these issues are addressed properly and fairly. In particular, I commend the conferees for retaining the language that I offered in Committee protecting the individual privacy rights of consumers. This language gives an incentive to the content community to be above board with consumers with respect to personal information that is gathered by technological protection measures or the content or software that it contains or protects. If consumers are given notice of these practices and an opportunity to prohibit or curtail such information gathering then technological protection measures could not be legally defeated. On the other hand, consumers are within their legal rights to defeat such measures if their personal privacy is being undermined without notice or the right to say ``no'' to such practices. This is a good privacy provision that leaves to the industry the question of whether they want to conspicuously provide notice to consumers of their privacy rights, extending as well the opportunity for a consumer to effectively object to any personal data gathering, and in so doing prevent the defeat of technological protection measures designed to protect the industry's products. I want to thank Chairman Bliley, Mr. Dingell, Chairman Tauzin, Mr. Waxman, and many other members for the incredible amount of time and effort that has been put into the effort of resolving outstanding issues. And I want to thank the members of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Hyde, Chairman Coble, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Frank, Mr. Berman and others for their excellent work on these issues. This is a good conference report and I urge members to enthusiastically support it.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Boston, Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) very much for holding this special order tonight. I anticipate being the Dean of the Massachusetts delegation sometime very deep into the 21st century. The incredible work that the Massachusetts medical community has done on the gentleman from South Boston makes it highly unlikely that I will see the post of Dean of our delegation any time before I am a very old man. But, Mr. Speaker, by that time I think we all expect Joe Kennedy to be back. Not back here in the House of Representatives, but he will be back. He will be governor. He will be Senator. Maybe he will be more, but he is going to be back. This is just a little break. He is going to be able to see his two boys, seniors in high school, co-captains of their football team, every Saturday. He will be able to see them in their winter and spring sports. He will be able to get them on to their college curricula in the next several years. But he is far from finished in this business. It is just a little break. We all wish we could take the break that Joe Kennedy is taking right now. If the rest of us took a break for 4 years, we would be in oblivion. Joe Kennedy will probably be more popular 4 years from now, because of what he will be able to do in the private sector, in community activities over the next several years. And in addition, he will be able to, as well, make sure that his boys and Beth have at least this one brief shining moment of 4 years where he will be in one place for that period of time. Even as we debate over these final 4 or 5 days in Congress over whether or not we are going to take care of schools in the poorest neighborhoods in America, something that Joe has been talking about the whole time that he has been here, there is another bill that is hanging around here which is a banking bill. A bill that is going to overhaul the entire banking and securities and insurance industries in our country. Mr. Speaker, there is just one little sticking point which is that they do not want Joe Kennedy's provision that ensures that these wealthiest of financial institutions reinvest in communities, the poor communities where the money has come from. It just really drives them crazy that Joe Kennedy has so mastered the legislative process that he is almost single-handedly able to take on the most powerful financial interests in the world and frustrate them so that they cannot get what they want, and he understands that well and, in fact, supports it unless and until they always take care of the poorest in the poorest communities in the United States. I think that is kind of a wonderful tribute to him right now. Oftentimes, people only receive credit in the political process by the legislation which they pass. But there is a bill which is dying right now, this financial services bill, because Joe Kennedy does not think it does enough. We will pass a bill at some point, next year, the year after, the year after that. And when we do, for sure it will include the provision which Joe Kennedy believes is indispensable to constructing a balanced and fair banking financial services system in this country and world. It is not just for the hedge fund investors who can pony up $5 million or $10 million a piece. It is also for the smallest and the poorest, the most ordinary people in our country. And he understands that, and he animates the debate here on the floor of Congress with those very specific values. When we vote here on the floor, the Chamber is exactly as it was in 1858 when it was constructed, except a compromise that was cut with the Daughters of the American Revolution about 30 or 40 years ago which allows just for 15 minutes for all of our names to flash electronically up on the board. When the Members come in and they gather here on the floor, they scan the board to see where people are on any particular issue. And a very large number of Members always check to see how Joe Kennedy voted because they know that Joe Kennedy is going to be voting for the poorest, for the most needy, for those who need help within our society. No joking, no kidding, that is what his vote stands for. Everybody knows that is what it stands for up there. No deals, no compromise, that is who he is. And I think that is quite a legacy to leave, that after 12 years people know that that is what that vote stands for up there, even as he understands the complexities of the most sophisticated financial, manufacturing, industrial issues and industries in our country and in our globe. So for me it has been an honor to serve with Joe over all of these years. He has been a very special presence here in the Congress, and I think that in the years to come the experience which he has gained here is going to further help not only the people of Massachusetts but this country and this world. We know not how that will manifest itself, except that it is inevitable that that day will arrive. I thank you, Joe, and I wish the best for you and Beth and for your two boys, because you deserve it.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, this legislation deals with the issue of slamming and it attempts to combat the unauthorized switching of a consumer's telephone carrier of choice. I want to thank Chairman Bliley and Chairman Tauzin, along with Mr. Dingell, for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. This legislation will provide consumers with additional protections in an effort to thwart the problem of slamming while and giving further incentives to the industry. Hopefully these additional provisions will bring unauthorized carrier switches down to a minimum. In addition, the bill offered to the House today ensures that these additional consumer protections are implemented in a way that is streamlined from a regulatory perspective and that treats carriers in a competitively neutral way. There's no question that every carrier and every industry segment is looking for its proper fair advantage to be built into the rules. I believe that the amendment that will be offered today wisely keeps intra-industry squabbles on the sidelines and focuses on the job at hand which is to address slamming in a way that protects the public in a competitively neutral way. Finally, I want to thank Chairman Tauzin for including in this bill a provision that I had in my slamming legislation which tasks the NTIA in the Commerce Department with the job of conducting an analysis into third-party verification administration. My feeling is that at the root of the problem with slamming is that the carriers have a financial stake in making unauthorized switches or freezing their customers from switching to others. I believe that ultimately, the long-term solution to this problem is to take away the authority to authorize switches or freezes from those who have a clear financial incentive to authorize such action. The NTIA is asked to explore the feasibility of an independent administrator or a series of independent regional verifying agents to authorize switches and validate switches before consumers have their telephone company changed. One example of why we may need to go to the implementation of a third party administrator or administrators can be seen by the recent use of something referred to as a ``PIC freeze.'' A PIC freeze is styled as a pro-consumer service offered by local phone companies to their customers whereby the local phone company promises not to change or modify the customer's service without direct instruction from the customer. While this may be quite appealing to some consumers, there is also significant competitive percussions that flow from such a service offering. The local phone companies might also utilize the PIC freeze device to lock up their own customers and impede competition by making it much more difficult for competitors to obtain and effectively and efficiently switch customers. There has to be a balance. A PIC freeze device aggressively employed by local telephone monopolies could become a significant impediment to competition in local, intraLATA toll, and ultimately long distance. telecommunications markets. This would obviously thwart the longtime goal of the Congress to introduce widespread and effective competition in all telecommunications markets as rapidly as possible. I wonder where long distance competion would be today if AT&T had vigorously employed offering ``PIC freezes'' to customer in the immediate aftermath of the breakup of Ma Bell. I suspect that the introduction of competition, and thus lower prices for consumers, would have been significantly retarded if such action had been undertaken. It's my view that a competitively neutral administrator or administrators could help solve these difficult consumer protection and competition issues. I look forward to NTIA's analysis of these issues. I'd also like to comment briefly on a provision that was dropped from this bill as it arrives on the floor. In the House Commerce Committee, Chairman Tauzin offered and the Committee unanimously adopted an additional provision to address policy issues that urgently need to be dealt with in the so-called ``C-Block'' or ``entrepreneurial block'' of the broadband PCS service. The recent hearing that the Telecommunications Subcommittee had on the C-block issue was very insightful. Virtually an entire class of FCC licensees is either in bankruptcy, returning its licenses, returning half of its spectrum, or on the verge of bankruptcy. The C-block provision that the Commerce Committee approved at the Full Committee markup remained true to the fundamental goals of both the 1993 spectrum auction law and the 1996 Telecommunications Act--both were designed to expedite the delivery of telecommunications services to the public and to create new competitive opportunities in the telecommunications industry for small and entrepreneurial businesses. In previous sessions, Members of the Commerce Committee, and indeed the House as a whole, enthusiastically endorsed the licensing of small businesses. As a result, the ``C-Block'' in the broadband Personal Communications Services (PCS) auctions was created. This action was taken by the FCC for the express purpose of achieving these two key congressional policy objectives. Along the way, however, a number of adverse events conspired to thwart congressional intent to create more competition and innovation and lower prices for consumers. First, the ``budgeteers'' discovered the airwaves. Believing that they had stumbled upon some magical fiscal alchemy that allowed them to literally create billions of dollars out of thin air, those intimately involved with the budget process both here on the Hill and over at OMB set spectrum policy on its head. Taking what was designed to be an efficient and expedited manner of licensing new services, they warped it and turned the FCC into a giant governmental auction house. They then flooded the auction with more and more spectrum to sell. In addition, judicial and regulatory delays encountered in fashioning the rules for small business licensees, as well as dramatic, unpredictable and quite negative changes in the final markets' receptivity to financing these businesses also put the goals of the Commerce Committee at serious risk. The result today is that a very large percentage of C-Block spectrum lies fallow. This does neither the taxpayer, nor the taxpayer-consumer any good at all. Consumers are daily paying more for wireless service across the country because these new competitors are not in the marketplace competing for their business. Job creation is also put on hold as dozens of licenses for choice markets languish in bankruptcy court. Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not contain the C-block provision because of the adverse ``scoring'' it was to receive from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and OMB in the Administration. The particular rules of budget scoring here on the Hill at CBO prevent us from facing reality. The reality is that these licenses are going to languish in bankruptcy and the Congressional policy of rapidly introducing lower prices, innovation, creating jobs and choices for consumers, through new competition will be seriously undermined. OMB, for its part, continues to live in a fiscal fantasy land with respect to how much money these licenses will raise for the Treasury. Rather than admitting its gross error in utilizing phony frequency money to balance the budget or, of late, to increase the surplus, OMB compounds the error by resisting bipartisan legislation to put sound telecommunications policy back on track. This is unfortunate. It's an anti-consumer, anti-taxpayer, anti- worker stance. The result will be a public policy morass. I hope that we can return to this subject next year and hopefully return integrity to telecommunications policy by cleaning up the problems created by placing auction revenue, above all other values, as our highest public policy goal. Again, I want to commend Chairman Bliley, Chairman Tauzin, Mr. Dingell, and our other colleagues for their work on this measure and urge the House to support it.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in Boston when a car has been totaled we assume that car is not going to go back out on the road again. Now, in Washington State they have a different relationship with these vehicles. They try to rehabilitate them, put that chassis back on top of the wheels again and get it back out on the road. We appreciate that. It is something that would not raise that big of an issue if all we were talking about is the sunroof that was being repaired, or if it was the internal upholstery that needed to be redone. But while it may include those repairs in the definition of being totaled, meaning that it would cost that much money in order to repair something and it exceeded the cost of the vehicle in its present condition, it could also include the fact that the steering wheel had come off in someone's hands as they were trying to turn left and the vehicle went right. It could mean that the entire chassis had been knocked off of the wheels, the axles of the car. It could mean a lot of other things. And under this legislation, the consumer would not be told that the wheel had come off in the last owner's hands, that the chassis had been knocked off of the axles and now been put back on, very carefully, but without notifying the subsequent purchaser that there might have been a problem. Now, you say what are we talking about? Well, since the average car is 8 years old, I went to Kelley's blue book on the Internet to find some cars that will not get any protection at all. Let us look at what we can find in the blue book of Kelley's on the Internet. Here we go. We got a 1990 Ford Escort LX hatchback, 2D, only 20,000 miles, air conditioning, power steering, only cost you $2125. You can buy this car right now, a 1990 car. Anyone interested? No warning. We do not know what has ever happened to that car, if it was totaled. How about a 1990 Chevrolet Camaro RS, convertible, 2D. If Congress does not get a raise, a lot of Members are going to be looking at cars like this. 75,000 miles, air conditioning, power steering, power windows, tilt wheel, AM-FM stereo/cassette, $5280. Do not know where it has been, do not know if it got totaled and if it did get totaled, they are not telling you. They are going to tell you that they just put in some nice upholstery. ``Doesn't it look nice? We got a nice shine on the outside of the car.'' How about this one: 1990 BMW. Always wanted to get one of those foreign jobs? Here it is. A 325I sedan, 2D, air conditioning, power steering; $7,075. Been totaled, but you are not going to be told that when you buy it. You buy it as is. They are not even going to tell you it was totaled. How about a 1990 Cadillac De Ville, in the mind's eye of every American the dream car. It is $6825, air conditioning, power steering, consumer-rated, condition excellent. Excellent. Who rated it? Have they been told that it was totaled? Do not have to tell anyone it has been totaled. I could go on and on, right down to I am sure a car that a lot of people would be interested in, the 1990 Jaguar XJ6 sedan, $5675. 1990. Air conditioning, power steering. Totaled. But they do not have to tell you that when you buy it. They are telling you this is a beauty. ``Want to take it for a spin around the block? Great. No, you don't have to take it out on the highway. I promise you. Great car.'' Well, ladies and gentlemen, this bill does not give the consumer the information, the knowledge which they need. I think we should reject it at this time and try to improve it next year. We are going to be trying to do a lot of that in the next session of Congress. I would hope at this point that all Members listening understand the real danger to consumers, to drivers on the road, not only those in the car but those in other cars on the road that the driver of the vehicle does not understand the potentially dangerous conditions under which he is operating. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California. He is without question a quintessential used car salesman. I appreciate the knowledge that he has about this subject, but the lecturing tone that he gives on this subject, well, is one where every American feels as though they are an expert on automobiles, and the younger you are, the more you feel as though you are an expert on used cars. I personally as a former owner of at least eight or 10 used cars stand here as much of an expert as anyone may in terms of the representations that were made by the previous owner to me. Now, you might say that it was kind of foolish of me to put down money for cars that ultimately I wound up paying in repair bills at least triple the cost of that car, but I think many Americans share the same circumstances that I have. I know it is not rational, I know that is not the way the real world should work, and I wish I did not meet some of the people from whom I got their used cars, but nonetheless they are out there, and these used car salesmen with a straight face try to convince people that they are doing them a favor. And all we are saying here is that there is a certain caveat emptor that should exist in the marketplace when it comes to cars that have not been totaled, but if they have been totaled, then there is an additional safety risk. And to the extent that public health and safety is at risk, then people should be told that that additional component is included in the price of the automobile. That is all we are really saying. Mr. Speaker, I again reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume just to conclude by saying that if the bill does not cover the average car on the road, then the bill simply does not go far enough. Again, it cannot be a consumer bill if every major consumer group in America is opposed to the bill. In conclusion, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) would like it to be noted that he is against this bill, and I do not think there is anyone who has ever served in this House who knows more about automobiles than Mr. Dingell. And Mr. Dingell, if my colleagues look up the word ``automobile'' in the dictionary, Mr. Dingell's picture is next to it. I do not think anybody in this body questions that. He thinks this is a bad bill, and I am relying upon the good sense and good judgment of Mr. Dingell on this issue, hoping that the Members will also vote no. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, exactly. The Virginia Tech football team totaled the BC football team, in the same way that the Cleveland Indians totaled the Red Sox last week. I do not think either a football team or a baseball team ought to be allowed back out on the field without some kind of warning to fans in Boston that they could be engaging in activity very dangerous to their psychic health.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise with significant concerns about the bill before us this afternoon. S. 852, authored by Senator Lott, is the companion bill to H.R. 1839, introduced by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White). I opposed this bill when it originally left the House, and I oppose it again today. Mr. Speaker, this legislation ought to be crafted in a way that establishes a high level of consumer protection, while allowing States to provide additional protections for their citizens. This bill does not achieve that goal, and it has a number of problems. The sale of rebuilt, wrecked or totaled vehicles, and just so those who may be watching or listening to this debate understand what we are talking about, it is that category of cars that have been totaled. That is what we call it in Boston. I do not know what other parts of the country may call it when a car is in such a wreck that it essentially costs more money to repair it than it does to junk it, but in Boston we call it a totaled car. Well, that is what this legislation deals with, that category of cars that have been totaled. We believe that there is substantial risk of death, or disability, or personal injury or financial ruin to large numbers of people, and that this bill ought not to pass. It is not that an effort has not been undertaken or that has not consumed a huge amount of time. It has. It is that, at the end of the day, the bill does not achieve the goal which was sought. For example, I continue to have concerns that the different definition in the bill of a late-model vehicle is overly narrow. This legislation would exempt sellers of cars of models over 6 years old and worth less than $7,500 from having to disclose accident damage. The Department of Transportation tells us that the average car in America is 8 years old. And so the fleet of automobiles that is going to be potentially exempted under the provision of this bill is huge. It would seem to me that even if one wanted to preempt the States, that one would at least want to cover the average car on the road, at least cars that are 8 years old. Now, it seems, I think to a lot of people, somewhat of a surprise that the average car is 8 years of age, but that is the reality. These cars are the ones most likely to be those on used car lots and most likely to be safety threats to our citizens. Although this legislation gives States some flexibility in limited fashion to change the percentage, I am still concerned about it, because it would have the effect of preempting vital consumer protection laws for all used car buyers at each State that opts into the Federal titling plan. The bill also requests the Department of Transportation to issue national regulations and standards relating to title granting, but it does not contain any money to help the States to implement it. There is no adequate enforcement provision. No private right of action is contained in the bill. An individual cannot sue themselves. With all the pressing cases that they have, relying upon United States attorneys to take a used car dealer to court for allegedly misbranding a title of any car is a false hope for any consumer in our country. We need a private right of action, so that if someone misbrands a title or omits vital information, a consumer can then take them to court to seek redress. When this motor vehicle salvage bill passed the House earlier in this Congress, I expressed the hope that we could improve the bill authored by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) to make it satisfactory from a consumer perspective as the process moved forward in the Senate and in our conversations with the other body, and the Senate actually approved this motor vehicle salvage bill recently, adopting a pro- consumer amendment offered by Senators Levin and Feinstein. This amendment ensures that States could go further and protect consumers even more. Unfortunately, the very changes that improved the bill in the Senate and started to make it consumer friendly are being deleted from the bill before us today. Rather than working with those of us who had problems with the bill, this bill is being brought to the floor with these consumer protections and State authority provisions being summarily dropped. In short, Members are being asked to pass a bill to protect consumers that lacks the support of the national consumer groups and the State attorneys general. In its current form, this bill is opposed by the Consumer Federation of America, opposed by the Center for Auto Safety, opposed by Public Citizen, opposed by the National Association of Consumer Advocates, opposed by U.S. PIRG, opposed by the Consumers Union. How on earth can this bill be characterized as a pro-consumer bill if all the large, national consumer groups strongly oppose its passage? I urge Members to oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4353, the International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) of the subcommittee who handled this bill magnificently along with the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), who, in an evenhanded way, working with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and myself and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton) over the last several months has helped to craft, I think, a very important forward-looking piece of legislation, and I am very proud to have been a cosponsor with them on this bill. Back in the 1970s there were a series of widely reported scandals and investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission into bribes and other illicit payments to foreign officials and illegal domestic political contributions by American corporations. Hundreds of United States corporations were found to have made such payments to foreign government officials including more than 25 percent of our Fortune 500 companies. Clearly the widespread corrupt practices that were taking place during this period were fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of free and fair markets and, I believe, ultimately harmful to the interests of the United States because they damage the interests of shareholders of these United States companies. In response to these practices, Congress enacted the Federal Corrupt Practices Act to establish an explicit bar against bribing foreign government officials and creating requirements for accurate books and records and devising and maintaining a system of internal accounting controls. When Congress enacted this legislation, it was hoped that by taking the lead to curb bribery by our corporations, America would put pressure on other developed and developing industrialized nations to adopt similar laws inside their own countries. Today, this Congress, pursuant to the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) is taking up legislation which is the fruit of our earlier legislative efforts in the original Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and in the 1988 amendments to this Act to put pressure on foreign governments to adopt strong laws against bribing foreign government officials. After many years of difficult negotiations, the United States succeeded last year in securing the agreement of 33 countries, including almost all of the OECD States and several other nations, to a Convention which is closely modeled after the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In order to implement the terms of the Convention, H.R. 4353 strengthens U.S. law by extending its coverage to cover foreign persons and corporations, bribes paid to officials of international organizations, and clarifying that the law's prohibitions should be construed to cover any payments made to secure any improper advantage. This is the right formula for the future of the world. We have to add more integrity to the global marketplace. Consumers and investors across the planet have to know that, wherever business is being done, it is being done by a set of rules. That is agreed by every single industrialized nation so that all are given full protection. I want to congratulate again the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley). They worked closely with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton), and I. We are proud to be cosponsors of this seminal piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we have no other requests for time on this side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill; not perfect, but it is good. My mother passed away in July afflicted by Alzheimer's for 10 years. We kept her in our home. My father, who is 87, tended to her every single day all day long for 10 years. The only way that that was possible was for the home health care aide to give him some help in the course of each day. It is very difficult for people who want to tend to this population, which will number in the millions as each year goes by, as the baby boomers get old, for us to allow people who want to avoid the indignities of nursing homes, which my father wanted to do for my mother, because he wanted to honor her by keeping her in the house, in our house that she never left, except when she was hospitalized for diseases unrelated to Alzheimer's. This bill is critically important for millions of families who want to offer the same kind of protections for their loved ones. I hope that it passes unanimously.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, when I was going down the litany of saints who helped to make the satellite policy possible, I did forget Hugh Halpern and I forgot to mention Mike O'Rielly. And I think in order for us to have a complete and definitive list of those who labored in the vineyards for this competition in the video marketplace, that they all be listed at this time, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me. In the course of the debate I did not properly mention the work that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. John Dingell), on our side, and the work also done by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Bliley), on the majority side, to help to formulate this policy, because it has been long in the making. We still have much more work to do, but we could not have done it without their able work, as well as the work of our staffers. We have David Schooler and Andy Levin and Colin Crowell on my staff; and Justin Lilley and Whitney Fox, it is like an all-time all- star team on the gentleman's side, that have worked together to make these policies come to pass. I just wanted to publicly recognize them for all the excellent work which they have done.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Once again reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say in conclusion that I am looking forward to working with the gentleman, as his urban and suburban samurai sidekick, in making it possible for us to bring this revolution to every American in our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just, in conclusion, to compliment the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). This is a part of an overall strategy that we have to construct if we are, in fact, going to introduce real competition into the video marketplace. The cable company remains largely a monopoly in 97 percent of our country. The telephone companies, after promising in the 1996 Telecommunications Act that they were going to, by the year 2000, provide a second wire, second video service in almost every community in America, have pulled back from that commitment. I think that in this satellite area, though, we have a real potential to provide an alternative, not just for rural, not just for the most suburban communities in America, but for urban America. And I think that in exploring this whole question of whether or not a local television station, here in Washington Channel 4, 5, 7, 9, and 50, can be carried by a satellite and beamed right back into the homes in that viewing area holds the key to whether or not we are going to give consumers, cable consumers, disgruntled, unhappy cable consumers across this country, the ability to just disconnect their cable company and, instead, just subscribe to an 18-inch satellite dish service with the local broadcast stations as well. I have introduced, with the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), legislation that we are hoping that we will be able to move in the future that will make that possible. Because I know it is very frustrating to cable consumers across the country to know that if they disconnect their cable and move to satellite today they lose their local broadcast stations. That is frustrating to them because they really do want to disconnect in millions of homes across the country. And working with the gentleman from Louisiana to create a way in which we can get those local stations up on satellite, and to deal with this white area issue, to deal with the issue of who can receive the distant signals, is something that I think is absolutely critical. I am pledging my continued assistance to the gentleman from Louisiana. I have been his partner now for the past 17 or 18 years on this issue, and I have now become an urban Pioneer.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the exceptionally distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Well, Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not know what we would be called there, but I will work with the gentleman to make it possible.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in wholehearted support of this very important legislation, and I rise first to praise the chairman of our subcommittee, which my long observation of him has led to I think the conclusion, not only by me but by everyone who observes this whole area of telecommunications policy, that he is the leading satellite samurai warrior in Congress. He of all Members has led the battle to ensure that the satellite industry will be able to compete and to provide vigorous competition for the cable industry, the product and the pricing that revolutionizes the way in which we receive video in this country. Now, I give him credit, but I know that the real inspiration is and always has been his father, who is the original satellite philosopher of Cajun country. He instilled a philosophy of competition into the gentleman from Louisiana which I deeply appreciated, and have been educated to appreciate, since we have about the same number of satellite dishes in my congressional district as we have hydroelectric dams. These are phenomenon that we have to have explained to us from Members in other parts of the country. Now because of the gentleman from Louisiana, we have been able to introduce a revolution, a revolution not of 8-foot dishes that we need a zoning variance to put in our backyards. Of course that is possible in Iowa or Louisiana, Oklahoma. But not in Boston. Not three-decker homes with 8-foot dishes hanging off the back. That is not going to work. But the vision was of 18-inch dishes, dishes that could be put between the petunias out in the backyard, hanging off of the back of the three-decker. But to do that requires programming that is available, HBO, ESPN, and programming that is affordable. Interestingly, and I am sure it comes as somewhat of a mystery to most Members of Congress and without question to most Americans, it is the Library of Congress that determines the price that people pay for this programming. Now, tell me who is going to get that answer on Jeopardy? I do not think so. I think we could put that question up almost every other week and continue to stump people. So, because of the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana, we bring legislation today that helps to make it possible for us to ensure that there is a pricing scheme that reflects the fair market. Now, the Library of Congress says, ``We determine what the fair market price is.'' And, of course, the response that we make is how can they determine that? The cable marketplace is a monopoly. There is no fair market that exists in the cable universe as it exists today. Now, we hope to reach the point in time where telephone companies and electric companies and multipoint distribution systems from other sources provide competition. But while we are waiting, we have to be very conscious of the fact that we are still devising the mechanism by which this marketplace is competitive. The legislation which the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the distinguished member of both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary, bringing the wisdom of both committees to this process, helped to construct out here on the floor, I think helps us, at least over the next year, to buy the time we need in order to get an honest and fair resolution of this issue. It is my hope that in the course of this evening, listening to my colleagues who are so wise on these issues from the hollows of southern Virginia to the bayou country in Louisiana, that we can produce a bill tonight that helps to advance the cause of a truly competitive video marketplace. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

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