Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton) coauthor of the bill.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we bring to the floor the Child Online Protection Act, the bill that has been introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton), under the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley). The legislation that we are bringing to the floor also includes the child privacy protection provisions similar to those of my bill, H.R. 4667, the Electronic Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 1998. As many know, Senator Bryan has similar child privacy legislation moving through the Senate, and hopefully we can enact children's privacy legislation before Congress adjourns this year. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and others for agreeing to add this provision here at the end of this session. The first part of the legislation we consider this afternoon is designed to protect children from Internet fare that is inappropriate for them. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is content out on the Internet that is harmful to children and that they ought not to have access to such on-line fare from their computers. In the previous session of Congress, the Communications Decency Act provision of the Telecommunications Act established a national indecency standard that the Court struck down because it was overly vague and broad, and I agreed with that decision. I opposed the Communications Decency Act out here on the floor. The standard in the bill before us today is ``harmful to minors,'' much narrower than the Communications Decency Act. Yet like the CDA, the bill would propose a national standard rather than a community- based standard of what harmful to minors means. The legislation before us raises a number of difficult policy questions such as whether a policy of community-by-community-based standards of harmful to minors is at all possible in a global medium, whether the Internet requires national treatment for what is harmful to minors across the country. The legislation also tacitly determines that filtering or blocking software cannot do the job of protecting minors, and, therefore, the government needs to step in and regulate access to certain Internet content. I have long believed that technology can offer a solution to some of the problems that technology itself creates. Software filtering technology and other blocking technology can help to provide parents some tools for shielding children from inappropriate on-line fare. In addition, I believe that other solutions may also help to mitigate against minors gaining access to Websites that parents want to shield from young children. I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for going to great lengths to listen to the concerns that many of us have and thank him for the adjustments that he has made in the legislation to meet some of those concerns. While many of us still have concerns over the scope and the timing of some of these provisions, I hope that as we proceed and further discuss these provisions with our friends in the Senate, we can address how we define the scope of those entities that are providing inappropriate content and properly distinguish them from those entities that are solely conduits for accessing that information; further talk about alternatives such as filtering; and perhaps address the timing of when certain provisions become effective; and adjust the commission in the bill to make its membership more bipartisan and reflective of the bipartisan manner in which this body deals with telecommunications issues generally. Mr. Speaker, the second part of the bill, as the chairman of the subcommittee has pointed out, addresses the issue of child privacy on the Internet. The issue of privacy in the Information Age, and in particular children's privacy protection, is quite timely as the Nation becomes ever more linked by communications networks such as the Internet. It is important as we tackle these issues now, before we travel down the information superhighway too far and realize perhaps that we made a wrong turn, that we had a chance to build in protection for kids before this technology took too much control over the lives of kids across our country. In general, I believe that Congress ought to embrace a three-part comprehensive policy of privacy for children in our country: Number one, that every parent should have knowledge about information which is being gathered about children in our country. As we know, many of these Websites attach cookies, attach this technology which allows them to gather the information about children without the knowledge of those children or parents. I believe that every family should know when information is being gathered about their children. Secondly, notice that those companies, that those individuals plan on reusing that information for purposes other than that which was originally intended by the family, by the children. And thirdly, that the family, that the consumer, that the children, have a right to say no, that they do not want this information to be reused other than that purpose for which the family had, the children using the Internet at that time. These provisions in this bill are very consistent with those larger principles. The Senate has included language that is nearly identical; not quite, but very close in their bill. It gives us a chance to deal with this children's issue, this privacy issue, and I would hope that the full House today would adopt the bill in its entirety. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the subcommittee, again for his graciousness in helping us to add that provision.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just think it is good electronic ethics for Website operators to know that they have a responsibility to children in our country. They should obtain parental consent. And I thank all who have helped to work on that issue, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). On our side, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and his staff have worked with us very closely to craft this in a way which we believe does really meet this very great concern that is rising across the country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Electronic Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 1998'' This issue of privacy in the information age and in particular, children's privacy protection, is quite timely as the nation becomes ever more linked by communications networks, such as the Internet. It is important that we tackle these issues now before we travel down the information superhighway too far and realize perhaps we've made a wrong turn. The legislation I am introducing today picks up on the excellent work of the Federal Trade Commission in its investigation of the privacy practices prevalent on the Web and in particular children's privacy practices. The legislation contains children's privacy protections similar to those contained in a Senate bill offered by Senator Bryan (D-NV)--as well as provisions that pertain to adult privacy that are contained in my previous privacy legislation (H.R. 1964). These are critical issues for the growth of electronic commerce and I hope that we can legislate on these issues yet this Congress. Mr. Speaker, the issues of child and adult privacy in an electronic environment, must find its ultimate solution in a carefully conceived and crafted combination of technology, industry action, government oversight or regulation. Without question, the issues posed by advances in digital communications technology are tremendously complex. Again, how best to protect kids in a manner that puts real teeth into privacy protections must be addressed for the Internet to grow as a commercial medium. What may have worked for privacy protection or parental empowerment in the phone or cable or TV industry may not adequately serve as a model when these technologies converge. Therefore I believe we must pursue other creative alternatives. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we must recognize that children's privacy is a subset of a parent's privacy rights. The bill I am introducing today is premised on the belief that regardless of the technology that consumers use, their privacy rights and expectations ought to remain a constant. Although the bill deals in detail with Websites with respect to children's privacy, ultimately I believe that in the era of convergence we will need to harmonize rules across media. Whether consumers are using a phone, a TV clicker, a satellite dish, or a modem, every consumer should enjoy a Privacy Bill of Rights for the Information Age. These core rights are embodied in a proposal I have advocated for many years and I call it ``Knowledge, Notice and No.'' I hope to work with all of my colleagues in the House as we proceed in this important public policy area to instill the values of privacy and security in our communications marketplace. In short, I believe the Congress ought to embrace a comprehensive policy whereby consumers and parents get the following 3 basic rights: (1) Knowledge that information is being collected about them. This is very important because digital technologies increasingly allow people to electronically glean personal information about users surreptitiously. I would note here that many Internet browsers, for example, use ``cookies''--a technology that can identify and tag an online user--unbeknownst to the user--and keep track of what Web sites a person visits. (2) Adequate and conspicuous notice that any personal information collected is intended by the recipient for reuse or sale, or conversely, to allow consumers to give notice electronically to indicate the particular privacy preferences of the consumer. And, (3) the right of a consumer to say ``no'' and to curtail or prohibit such reuse or sale of their personal information. In addition to the children's privacy provisions, the bill is structured so that in Title II the FCC and the FTC ascertain whether there are technological tools that can empower consumers and parents before taking additional action to protect the public. The bill also requests the agencies specifically determine if there are industry standards and practices that embody this electronic Privacy Bill of Rights. Where technological tools don't exist, or where a particular industry refuses to embrace this code of electronic ethics in a way that solves the problem, then the government is obliged to step in and reinforce protection of privacy rights. Again, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House on important children's privacy issues this session and on other areas of online privacy as the debate moves forward.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4017. While all of us would support a clean reauthorization of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, I must reluctantly oppose this bill because of the serious concerns I have regarding the Shimkus amendment that was adopted during the Commerce Committee's markup of this legislation. In its present form, this provision would have a negative impact on efforts to promote development of cleaner alternative fueled vehicles and reduce our nation's dependence on imported oil. For this reason, I, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentlelady from Oregon (Ms. Furse) and the gentlelady from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) all were opposed to the Shimkus amendment when it was considered in the Committee. One of the primary goals of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (or ``EPAct'') was to enact a comprehensive national energy policy that strengthens U.S. energy security by reducing dependence on imported oil. Currently, the United States consumes seven million barrels of oil more per day than it produces. EPAct establishes goals of a 10 percent displacement in U.S. motor fuel consumption by the year 2000 and a 30 percent displacement in U.S. motor fuel consumption by the year 2010 through the production and increased use of replacement fuels. The Act also allows the Secretary to revise these goals downward. According to the latest projections by the Energy Information Administration, the transportation sector will consume 15.8 million barrels per day of petroleum in 2010. Of this total, about 9.2 million barrels per day of petroleum are projected to be used by light duty vehicles. The Energy Information Administration also estimates that 60 percent of our total petroleum demand will be imported in 2010. Significant gains in displacing petroleum motor fuel consumption by the year 2010 are expected to occur by replacing gasoline with alternative fuels such as electricity, ethanol, hydrogen, methanol, natural gas and propane, in a portion of the U.S. car and truck population, which is projected to be in excess of 200 million vehicles in the year 2010. Currently, alternative fueled vehicles comprise a small fraction of the total U.S. vehicle stock. To enable the Act's displacement goals to be met, alternative fuels must be readily accessible and motor vehicles that operate on these alternative fuels must be available for purchase. Thus, two important elements of reducing petroleum motor fuel consumption are: a nationwide alternative fuels infrastructure and the availability of alternative fueled vehicles for purchase at a reasonable cost by the general public in a wide variety of vehicle types and fueling options. Under EPAct, a motor fuel must meet three requirements to be considered to be an alternative fuel. First, it must foster substantial environmental benefits. Second, it must be substantially non-petroleum. Third, it must promote energy security goals of the Act. While I share the stated concern of some supporters of the Shimkus amendment that many alternative fueled vehicles acquired in response to EPAct do not actually operate on alternative fuels, the Shimkus amendment doesn't even adopt this shortcoming in current law. The amendment would allow the Secretary of Energy to allocate credits for each qualifying volume of the biodiesel fuel purchased for heavy vehicles to satisfy EPAct requirements imposed on certain covered persons and fleets. The sponsors of the Shimkus amendment agreed to make certain modifications in this amendment prior to the Committee markup, such as striking the transferability of these credits, making certain modifications in the definition of biodiesel that clarifies that it covers only fuel substitutes produced from non-petroleum renewable resources, and making certain clarifications in the DOE authority to lower the percentage of qualifying biodiesel volume for reasons relating to cold start, safety and vehicle function considerations. While these changes have helped to improve the amendment, and I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentlelady from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy) for agreeing to make them I still have significant concerns about the language adopted by the Committee. First, I question whether it makes sense to allow biodiesel fuel to be used to meet up to 50 percent of the alternative fueled vehicle requirements under EPAct. The purpose of the alternative fuels program was to create incentives for private sector investments in new and more environmentally benign technologies which could meet our nation's long term energy and transportation needs without reliance on imported oil-- much of which comes from the Middle East. The Shimkus amendment could undermine this important energy security goal by reducing by up to half the number of alternative fueled vehicles acquired in this country each year. Congress decided in 1992 to encourage the shift from petroleum by first getting alternative fueled vehicles on the road so that the infrastructure for alternative fuels could be supported. Allowing use of a fuel which is 80% petroleum to displace the acquisition of vehicles which don't rely on petroleum-based fuels will do little to help the U.S. achieve energy independence from oil imports. In fact, according to DOE staff, switching every single diesel vehicle in the United States to B-20 would only displace 4.2% of petroleum usage. Second, alternative fuels under EPAct are required to foster substantial environmental benefits. It is my understanding that NOX emissions, a leading source of health-threatening smog, are not reduced in biodiesel blends with less than 35 percent bio-mass derived fuel. Moreover, I note that diesel-fueled vehicles are the source of more than 40 percent of the pollutants from motor vehicles and are also the primary transportation source of fine particulate matter (PM), which has been determined to be a major public health problem. Additionally, in August 1998 the California Air Resources Board designated diesel particulates as carcinogenic toxic air contaminants. The decision means that California state regulators must examine strategies to limit human exposure to the chemicals and illustrates the growing consensus on the need to further reduce dangerous diesel emissions. Allowing a fuel which is largely petroleum-based to receive credits to meet up to 50 percent of the alternative fuels requirements of EPAct will complicate efforts to achieve the fundamental purposes of the alternative fuels program. Therefore, if this legislation moves forward, I and others on this side of the aisle would be far more comfortable if biodiesel credits were limited to a much lower level of between 20 to 30 percent. Third, I have concerns about the definition of ``qualifying volume'' of biodiesel fuel. Under the amendment, a minimum of 450 gallons of biodiesel fuel qualifies for one credit. I think this quantity is far too low. Under current law, the purchase of an alternative fueled vehicle--which may serve in a fleet for an average of 5 or 6 years--is worth one credit. Under the Shimkus amendment, a vehicle which burns 450 gallons of biodiesel per year would receive one credit for every year it is in service, or 5-6 credits.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following address. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for inviting me to this historic celebration--the commemoration of a 50 year milestone in the advancement of public health in the United States. No other community in America has ever contributed as much to the health of all Americans as the town of Framingham--a veritable medical mecca. We are here today to honor you and the gift of life you have given to our country. I am pleased to be among so many friends and so many experts in the fields of medicine and research. Framingham is blessed with the very best State House delegation in Massachusetts--State Senator Dave Magnani, and State Representatives John Stefanini and John Stasik. And what a great local government--represented today by Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Chris Petrini. Our Master of Ceremonies, Dr. Timothy Johnson, a modern day Marcus Welby--he's on ABC now, but he was dispensing his outstanding medical advice to all of us in Boston long before he made it really big--right here on Channel 5. Jay Lander and the many other study participants and their families whom we congratulate and thank today. The guardians of the Framingham Study--Doctors William Castelli, Aram Chobanian, and Daniel Levy. One of the federal government's top health experts, Dr. Claude Lenfant, Director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at NIH. And to this distinguished public health pantheon we welcome a world leader, America's Doctor, the Surgeon General of all of these United States, the Pied Piper of Prevention, Dr. David Satcher. There is no kinder, wiser, more conscientious or creative caregiver in the land, and we are grateful for, and honored by his presence and his willingness to devote his great talents to helping all of America's people lead healthier and more productive lives. As I was preparing for today's event, it occurred to me that the willingness of the people of Framingham to volunteer for this monumentally important civic cause has proven to be as critical to the promotion of our nation's health as the Minutemen of Middlesex County were to the promotion of our democracy. It is extraordinary to think in 1948, in a town of only 28,000 people, nearly one out of five residents stepped forward to answer the call for participation in this long- term affair of the heart. They devoted their lives to a revolutionary undertaking, demonstrating the same deeply felt spirit of voluntarism as their forebearers who took up their flintlocks to beat back King George III. When the history of Western Medicine is written, every one of those first 5,000 volunteers, and every one of the subsequent wave of 5,000 offspring and spouse volunteers, and every one of the more than five hundred Omni Study volunteers, will be listed in the history books under the heading of ``Public Health Patriots.'' Because for the past 50 years, you have opened your lives to save all of ours. Make no mistake about it, the Framingham Heart Study has been revolutionary--changing the way our entire country thinks about medicine and revolutionizing our understanding of heart disease. Framingham has set the standard for the very best in medical research, bridging the gap between science and advocacy. It has made history as one of the first major health studies to include women who had long been neglected in the halls of public policy, in research studies, and in clinical practice. Fully 55 percent of the original cohort and 52 percent of the second generation ``Offspring Study'' were women. This fact is significant because heart disease was long believed to be only a man's disease--but thanks to Framingham we know that it is in fact the #1 killer of American women, that the symptiom presentation may be different in women than men, and that there are important steps that both women and men can take to protect themselves from the dangers of cardiovascular disease. Research is medicine's ``field of dreams'' from which we harvest new findings about the causes, treatments, and prevention of disease. And we have harvested a great deal of knowledge about heart disease from our national investment in the Framingham Heart Study. In 1948, the United States Public Health Service wanted to know why the rates of heart disease were rising in America. Since then, the Study has been answering that question, and for the first time in history identified risk factors for heart disease. The federal government's total contribution to the Framingham Study has been just $43 million dollars--but that $43 million dollars has produced 50 years of data and over 1,000 scientific papers--the Holy Book for Healthy Hearts. I believe this is one of the best investments our government has ever made, because it has paid life-saving dividends: Since the time the study began, the death rate from heart disease has declined by 50 percent. Perhaps the most long-lasting contribution of the Framingham Heart Study will be the way in which it turned the attention of medicine inexorably towards prevention as a strategy for reducing the ravages of disease and for improving the quality and quantity of our lives. Framingham has given us a public health model that extends well beyond the heart and challenges the mind as well. You see, we are finally waking up to the fact that only through lifestyle and behavioral changes will Americans achieve optimal health. That is because at the turn of this century, in the year 1900, the average life expectancy in the United States was 48 years of age for women and 46 years for men. Americans died of infectious diseases, and for women, also from complications of childbirth. So, from the dawn of time to the year 1900, we had added just a few years to the lives of Americans. However, for a person born today, the average life expectancy is 79 years of age for women and 72 years for men. Over the last 98 years, through government sponsored public health interventions including better sanitation, immunization, and advances from our federal investment in medical research, we have added thirty bonus years to the lives of Americans. Today, the major killers of people in the United States are chronic diseases--including heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic lung disease and diabetes, for which over 50 percent of the cause are behavioral and lifestyle factors--smoking, poor diet, lack of physical activity, alcohol and illicit drug abuse, unsafe sexual practices, and not wearing a seatbelt. As a result of the extraordinarily well-designed Framingham Heart Study, our nation learned about risk factors and adopted the prevention message that the Framingham Study put on the map. Healthy diet and exercise will help prevent heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, and some types of cancer. Conversely, cigarette smoking is the #1 preventable cause of death in America. It not only causes lung cancer and chronic lung disease, but it is a leading contributor to heart disease as well. Yet 1 in 4 Americans smokes, 1 in 3 high school seniors smoke, and one-third of them will die of their addiction. Furthermore, there is a growing epidemic of obesity and sedentary lifestyles in America. But today we spend only one percent of a 1 trillion dollar health budget on prevention. I believe it is time to put prevention on the front burner of our nation's health care agenda where it belongs. Because more than any miracle drug we could discover, changing health-damaging behaviors and eliminating environmental health hazards could decrease premature death in America by one half, chronic disability by two-thirds, not to mention dramatically cut health care costs. As we enter the 21st Century and adapt the Framingham Study to help us better understand all of the diseases that affect us today and into the future--diseases like Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, cancer, and the genetics of many other illnesses--the work of Framingham's Public Health Patriots will go on and on, and the rest of us will have even more reason to praise all of the volunteers gathered here this afternoon and the thousands of others who are with us in spirit. In closing, I'd like to share an ancient proverb: ``He, let's also make that she--who has health has hope. And he who has hope has everything.'' That's what this landmark Framingham Heart Study and your important contributions are all about--providing hope for a healthier future for the citizens of Framingham, of Massachusetts and for all Americans. I am proud to represent you, I salute you, and I thank you with all of my heart for opening your lives to science to save our lives and the lives of generations of Americans to come.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to Instruct the conferees on the bill H.R. 4328. Section 342 of the Senate-passed version of the Transportation Appropriations Bill contains an extremely controversial legislative rider which would amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to allow commercial and private helicopter fly and land in Alaskan wilderness areas, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges and National Forests. This is an ill-advised rider. Helicopters simply do not belong in Congressionally designated wilderness areas, except in cases of emergency, which is already permitted by law. The concentrated noise that helicopters produce and their ability to hover, move slowly, and descend anywhere can drive wildlife out of habitat areas and destroy the wilderness experience of those visiting these protected places. Some in the Republican Majority seem to be spending half their time trying to pass laws like the so-called American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (which was supposed to protect us from an invasion of imaginary black helicopters), and the other half of their time trying to allow real commercial helicopters to buzz through pristine wilderness areas, disrupting the wildlife, annoying campers, hunters, and hikers. The Alaska National Lands Conservation Act contains a carefully crafted compromise which allows fixed-wing airplane landings in Alaska's wilderness areas. This provision in current law was adopted because Congress recognized that airplanes were a reasonable and necessary way to reach some of the remote wilderness areas in Alaska, and they cause only a fraction of the noise and disturbance produced by helicopters. To now undo this compromise and allow helicopter landings in wilderness undermines the original intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Alaska National Lands Conservation Act of 1980. We have had no hearings on such a significant change in national wilderness policy in the Resources Committee, which is the jurisdictional authorizing Committee. We have had no process. No bills have been introduced in the House that would authorize such a change in the law. We have heard no testimony as to why Congress should undo the compromise which was struck back in 1980 when we last considered this issue. In 1996, the U.S. Forest Service considered a request to allow helicopters to land in the Tongass National Forest, but rejected it due to public opposition. Shouldn't we at least have a single hearing before we tell the helicopter pilots: Gentlemen, start your engines? Sportsmen and conservation groups are opposed to this provision. This rider is opposed by the National Audubon Society, Sportsman's Network, the Wilderness Society, the Alabama Rifle & Pistol Association, the Alaska Wilderness League, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Alaska Center for the Environment, the Alaska Conservation Alliance, the Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition, the Alaska Rainforest Campaign, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, the Denali Citizen's Council, the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, and the Trustees for Alaska. In addition, this rider is also opposed by the Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Association, which represents more than 300 small Alaskan tourism businesses that depend on Alaska's wild lands and wildlife. The Motion to Instruct would direct the conferees to oppose this ill- advised provision that would disrupt the wilderness character of Alaska's national parks and wildlife refuges. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing two bills which are aimed at addressing the confidentiality of personal financial information, the ``Securities Investors Privacy Enhancement Act of 1998'' and the ``Depository Institution Customers Financial Privacy Enhancement Act of 1998.'' Today, the legal and regulatory walls are breaking down that previously have restricted or limited affiliations between banks, securities firms, and insurance companies. This makes sense in light of the trends currently taking place in our economy: globalization, rapid technological change, and demonopolization. But the great truth of the Information Age is that the new telecommunications technologies that financial services giants use to create and market stocks, bonds, insurance policies, and loans to homes and businesses have a certain Dickensian quality to them: we have the best of wires and the worst of wires. Electronic commerce can allow corporations to become more efficient and workers more productive. But this same technology can avail financial services conglomerates of the opportunity to track personal information, compile sophisticated, highly personal consumer profiles of peoples' buying habits, hobbies, financial information, health information, and other data. As a consequence, as our nation moves to allow securities, insurance companies, and banks to affiliate, we must recognize that the resulting conglomerates will have virtually unprecedented access to the most sensitive personal and financial information, and they will be largely free to share this information among the various affiliates or even sell it to others. The companies say this will produce ``synergies'' that will benefit the consumer. But it may also facilitate intrusions into personal privacy. What will this brave new world look like? When a husband dies, will the life insurance company tip off the securities affiliate to cold call the grieving widow as soon as she's received the check from her deceased husband's insurance policy in order to try and sell her stocks and bonds? Will a bank deny a consumer a loan, because information it's obtained from its affiliated medical insurance company indicates that he or she has cancer? Will a bank share or sell information about a consumer's credit car or check purchases with affiliated or non-affiliated parties? The answer is yes. These companies will exploit their access to consumer personal information whenever they see a business advantage in doing so. The consequences for consumers can be disasterous. Just a few months ago, for example, the SEC signed a consent decree with NationsBank for making misrepresentations to their bank customers that the risky derivative securities their operating subsidiary was going to try to sell them were as safe as CDs. According to the consent decree: NationsBank assisted registered representatives in the sale of the Term Trusts by giving the representative maturing CD lists. This provided the registered representatives with lists of likely prospective clients. Registered representatives also received other NationsBank customer information, such as financial statements and account balances. These NationsBank customers, many of whom had never invested in anything other than CDs, were often not informed by their NationsSecurities registered representatives of the risks of the Term Trusts that were being recommended to them. Some of the investors were told that the Term Trusts were as safe as CDs but better because the paid more. (unquote) In reality the ``Term Trusts'' that NationsSecurities was selling the public consisted of funds that invested in risky derivatives that largely have lost value for investors. We need to protect the public against the type of abuses of bank customers' privacy that this episode has so dramatically exposed. Moreover, a letter I recently received from the SEC indicates that a proposed rule to strengthen privacy protection has been languishing before the NASDR for over a year without action and that the proposed rule may need to be strengthened. In addition, the SEC letter indicates that there are gaps in SEC authority to protect the privacy of mutual fund investors and investment adviser customers. The legislation I am introducing today would address problems in each of these areas. I think we should all be able to agree that consumers have a right to know when personal information is being collected about them. They should receive adequate and conspicuous notice whenever any personal information collected is intended to be reused or sold for marketing purposes. And, most importantly, they should have the right to say ``NO'' and to curtail or prohibit the use or resale of their personal information. Current law provides consumers very little protection for their private financial records. The Right to Financial Privacy Act applies only to the federal government. The Fair Credit Reporting Act applies only to consumer reports provided by consumer reporting agencies. It generally exempts a bank's disclosure of its customers' account records. Moreover, a 1996 amendment to that Act has weakened the restrictions on transfers of financial information among persons related by common ownership or control. State law is also inadequate, because the vast majority of states lack laws which establish any meaningful restrictions on banks disclosing customers' records to non- governmental entities. Only seven states--Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, and Maryland--have financial privacy statutes that forbid disclosures of confidential financial information to private as well as governmental entities. One state--California--has a statute constitutional guarantee of private that has been interpreted by the courts to apply to a bank's disclosure of customer financial records. Some states have recognized common law doctrines that recognize some privacy protection for financial records, but only seven states have adopted the common law doctrine of implied contract of confidentiality in the context of bank-customer relations. Unfortunately, the scope of the duties imposed by such implied contracts of confidentiality are unclear. The two bills I am introducing today, the ``Securities Investors Privacy Enhancement Act of 1998'' and the ``Depository Institution Customers Financial Privacy Enhancement Act of 1998'' would help reverse this unfortunate trend. These twin bills would give investors in stocks and bonds, mutual funds, clients of investment advisors, as well as depository institution customers, and other consumers of other affiliates of financial services companies the privacy protections they deserve. The bills would establish under federal law the principle that financial services institutions generally must provide notice to the consumer of when information is being gathered about them, disclosure whenever the institution intends to offer such information to any other person, and a requirement for the express written consent of the consumer if the information is to be transferred or sold to any other person. I urge my colleagues to support these two bills, and I look forward to working with all interested parties to secure their enactment.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, on June 16 this House passed a bill to present a Congressional Gold Medal to Nelson Mandela. The long story, to bring us to a point where this body would vote a Congressional Gold Medal to Nelson Mandela, began with Massachusetts University's cutting off their investment in South Africa; with the State of Massachusetts passing a State law prohibiting any contacts with the State of South Africa. And slowly but surely the international community heard that message, and slowly but surely the international community tightened the reins around South Africa so that Nelson Mandela could become the elected president of that country. It began, though, in Massachusetts. Another great individual, another winner of the Nobel Peace Prize languished for 5 years under House arrest in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the Burmese people's democracy movement, placed under arrest because she had the temerity to win 82 percent of the vote in a democratic election. The State of Massachusetts has passed a law saying that we do not want to have business relationships with the country of Burma. Recently, Aung San Suu Kyi was released from House arrest, but the military leaders of Burma still tightly control her movements. And only if we continue to keep the pressure on Burma will Aung San Suu Kyi one day address a joint session of Congress. Now, the World Trade Organization believes that we should not in Massachusetts be able to take action against Burma. In Massachusetts. I am in favor of GATT. I am in favor of NAFTA. I am in favor of free trade and global economic competition. The World Trade Organization serves its purpose when it prevents a company from using laws to stifle competition. The World Trade Organization serves its purpose when it prevents a state from stifling competition. But it does not serve our purposes when it denies the freedom of people in countries around the world from being protected by the individual actions of States within our Nation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Cigars Are No Safe Alternative Act of 1998. Mr. Speaker, available scientific evidence demonstrates that regular cigar smoking causes a variety of cancers including cancers of the lip, tongue, mouth, throat, esophagus, larynx, and lung. That same evidence demonstrates that heavy cigar smokers and those who inhale deeply are at increased risk of coronary heart disease and can develop chronic lung disease. Despite these serious and deadly health risks, cigar use is up dramatically in the United States over the last five years: small cigar consumption has increased by an estimated 13%, large cigars by 70%, and premium cigars by a whopping 250%. Teenagers are a fast- growing market for these deadly tobacco products. In fact, data from the Centers for Disease Control's 1997 Youth Risk Behavior Survey indicate that among high school students, over 30 percent of the males and 10 percent of the females are current cigar smokers. Mr. Speaker, cigars are not a safe alternative to cigarettes. Compared to a cigarette, nicotine yields for cigars are 9 to 12 times greater; tar yields 2 to 3 times greater; and large cigars emit 20 times more ammonia, and up to 10 times as much other cancer causing agents. In order to drive home the message that smoking cigars is not a safe alternative to smoking cigarettes, I am introducing the Cigars Are No Safe Alternative Act of 1998. The CANSA Act will prohibit the sale and distribution of cigars to any individual who is under the age of 18. It will directly impose restrictions on the sale and advertising of cigars directed at youth, and eliminate cigar advertising on electronic media. It will encourage cigar manufacturers to end the practice of paying for, or participating in cigar product placements in movies and on television where a substantial segment of the viewing audience is under the age of 18. And it will direct the FDA to require warning labels on cigars to warn cigar users about the health risks presented by cigars. Mr. Speaker, the CANSA Act will also require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study on the health effects of occasional cigar smoking, nicotine dependence among cigar smokers, biological uptake of carcinogenic constituents of cigars, and environmental cigar smoke exposure. It will require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to report to Congress on the sales, marketing, and advertising practices associated with cigars. And in addition, the Secretary, acting in cooperation with the FDA, the FTC, and the Department of Treasury, shall be required to monitor trends in youth access to, and use of, cigars and notify Congress of the results. Mr. Speaker, if and when Congress does act to reduce teen smoking, we must send the unambiguous message to children and adolescents that cigars are no safe alternative to cigarettes. I urge all members to become cosponsors of the Cigars Are No Safe Alternative (CANSA) Act of 1998, and to support its passage in the House.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Ms. Shari Lewis, America's Gentle Giant of Children's TV. This child of a magician who wove so much TV magic in the minds of America's young people died last Sunday after a tough battle with cancer. To everyone who knew Shari, to everyone she may have come in contact with however briefly, she was warm and generous and curious and spirited, leaving you with the feeling that someone special had just treated you as someone special. This talent for spreading kindness was so powerful that it translated perfectly through television to the enormous delight of America's children. She gave her voice, literally, to her famous companion Lamb Chop, a sock puppet with spunk and wisdom, and the two of them created a world of learning, thought and fun on public television. In 1993, I held an oversight hearing to examine broadcaster compliance with the Children's Television Act of 1990. Shari Lewis was kind enough to testify, and Lamb Chop provided a separate statement. In honor of this wonderful woman, the world she helped create for our children, and the angel-on-the-shoulder quality of her plea to the broadcasting community for a higher commitment to educational programming for children, I ask the concluding words of Shari's statement, in which she challenges the industry to step up to its educational programming obligations for children, as well as the entire statement of ``Miss Lamb Chop,'' be inserted in the Record, as follows: Partial Statement of Ms. Shari Lewis But the commitment to accept the challenge, the very real challenge, should be at the heart of the industry and the basis for broadcast renewal. If all broadcasters were regulated so they had to provide good stuff equally, perhaps there would be a race for quality, just as there now is a race for market share. If each broadcaster had to provide a minimum amount of educational, information stuff, stations would boast of what they were doing for the community's children as they now boast of ratings. And advertisers would be very pleased to be seen as servicing the community. It comes down to responsibility. I have deep convictions, and I know that there is in the human spirit hate and violence and other dark emotions. It is right that we should acknowledge them on TV in responsible ways. We should also acknowledge that in every human spirit there is the desire to learn and laugh and do good and help other people. I wanted to end here. Unfortunately, Lamb Chop has insisted on being heard today. This was not my idea. I do not approve of it. My mother says it is not dignified. However, Lamb Chop insisted. So if you will excuse me, I will get her. Lamb Chop, come on. Statement of Lamb Chop Miss Lamb Chop. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know, am I on my own time, or do I get only part of Shari's? Mr. Markey. You get your own time, Lamb Chop. Miss Lamb Chop. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman---- Ms. Lewis. What do you have on your mind? Miss Lamb Chop. It is not what is on my mind, it is what is in my heart. Ms. Lewis. All right. What do you have to say? Miss Lamb Chop. I want to say---- Ms. Lewis. All right. Go ahead. Speak from your little lamb heart. Miss Lamb Chop. I can't do it with you sitting there. Go away. Ms. Lewis. No, darling, I can't go away. If I am not here, you can't talk at all. Talk. Miss Lamb Chop. All right, but if you want to interrupt, lift your hand. Your left hand. Mr. Chairman, I have been entertaining children for 35 years, which is a long time in the life of a 6 year old. I would like to say that we really need your help and your care and concern, and we need the best that you grown-ups have to offer. And if you give it to us, we will give the good stuff back. Not only to you, but to our own children as well. Ms. Lewis. Lamb Chop, I couldn't have said that better myself. Miss Lamb Chop. I know. Ms. Lewis. Say good-bye, Lamb Chop. Miss Lamb Chop. Good-bye, Lamb Chop. Ms. Lewis. Good-bye, everybody. Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I want to congratulate all of the Members who have worked on this legislation, Madam Speaker. As the digital revolution sweeps over countries and industries, we are going to see a dramatic change in the nature of the American economy, because we are the clearcut leader in the post-GATT post-NAFTA world. As we cut this implicit deal with the American people where we are going to let the low-end jobs go, it is critical for us to garner the lion's share of the high-end jobs. We are the world's leader in software, without question. In these computer, movie, books, video areas, we are the unquestioned dominant leader. It is our job to make sure that we construct treaties, laws, that protect our high end, our products that are related to the high education level which we are giving the citizens of the United States. Built into this law are protections for the privacy of Americans, as well. We do not want corporations being able to insinuate themselves into the privacy of Americans, finding out where they go, what they do, as they use these new software technologies. I think we have struck a nice balance, which is going to give marketplace incentives to industries to ensure that individuals have the knowledge on information that is being gathered about them, know that it may be reused, but also have the right to say no. I think it is going to be a good compromise forged. I urge a very strong yes for all Members of Congress on this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. Under the version of the bill reported out of the Appropriations Committee, a legislative rider was attached which would prevent the CPSC from adopting a rule regarding flammability standards for upholstered furniture until an outside panel was convened to examine the toxicity of fire retardants that would be used to treat such furniture. Currently the CPSC is considering a flammability standard for upholstered furniture. They are doing so pursuant to a petition from the National Association of State Fire Marshals, who asked the CPSC more than four years ago to develop a mandatory safety standard for upholstered furniture to address the risk of fires started from open flames--such as lighters, matches, and candles. The Fire Marshals called for such a rule because the U.S. has one of the highest fire death rates in the world. Nearly 4,000 people died in 1995 because of fires that started in their homes, of which nearly 1,000 were children under the age of 15. Over the last four years the CPSC has been going through the process of taking public comments, conducting laboratory tests, and evaluating all the technical and economic issues relating to adoption of a safety standard in this area, including requirements relating to use of flame resistant chemicals to treat upholstered furniture. The CPSC staff has been working with scientists from other agencies, such as the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the EPA to assure that all of the significant public health and safety issues associated with adoption of such a rule would be studied. Now, the bill before us today contains a provision that would, in the words of CPSC Chairwoman Ann Brown, ``completely halt work currently underway . . . on a safety regulation to address the risk of fire from upholstered furniture'' According to Chairwoman Brown, ``more fire deaths result from upholstered furniture than any other product under the CPSC's jurisdiction.'' The proposed rules in this area could save hundreds of lives and hundreds of millions in societal costs every year, according to CPSC staff estimates. And yet, instead of allowing the CPSC to proceed with its process, the legislative rider that has been attached to this bill would add at least a year's delay by requiring unnecessary and costly technical review and halting Commission work. This anti-consumer rider will add additional cost and delays to an ongoing rulemaking process at the CPSC. It will micromanage the cost- benefit analysis that the CPSC is already required to undertake before it adopts a final rule. And it does so why? Well, according to last Friday's Washington Post, this provision is in the bill to benefit the narrow economic interests of a few upholstered furniture manufacturers in Mississippi who are opposed to a mandatory furniture flammability standard. As CPSC Chairwoman Brown has noted, the furniture industry's ``lobbyists are bringing the proper work of government to a halt.'' I think this is wrong. We should adopt the Motion to Recommit with Instructions that is being offered by the Gentleman from Wisconsin and allow the CPSC to move forward in conjunction with the EPA to adopt a flammability standard for upholstered furniture that fully protects the public from harm. The Clinton Administration has indicated in its Statement of Administration policy that it is opposed to this provision and warned that ``efforts to block the development of a new safety standard represent a threat to public health.'' I agree, and I hope that the Members will support the Obey motion.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join Telecommunications Subcommittee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-LA) in introducing this bill today. The legislation we are proposing today will help to promote competition to our nation's cable monopolies and will help to provide consumer protection. The legislation will promote greater competition to cable monopolies in a couple of important ways. First, the bill will expand program access rules to reflect the highly-concentrated nature of the current cable programming market and enable competitors to obtain the programming they need to compete effectively. Program access is a key provision that is the lifeblood of many of cable's fledgling competitors. The program access provisions are expanded to include all cable programming, not only programming that is from vertically- integrated programmers and delivered via satellite. Exclusive programming arrangements for incumbent operators may be permitted, but only by obtaining a public interest waiver from the FCC for such channels as locally-produced and locally-originated cable news channels, for example. Second, the bill will establish a low-cost basic tier so that Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) consumers--or potential DBS customers--who today cannot receive local TV channels as part of a DBS service may obtain a lifeline basic tier over the cable wire. This will permit consumers to obtain their local channels in a way that will affordably complement their satellite service. Both the program access and low cost basic tier provisions will help to promote greater competition to cable monopolies. I also want to note at this point that I look forward to working with Chairman Tauzin on legislation that will allow satellite competitors to broadcast local TV stations back into local markets via satellite. Hopefully Congress can address that issue as well in the near future. With respect to consumer price protections, the bill seeks to protect consumers by permitting local franchising authorities to certify that an incumbent cable monopoly is not offering consumers an acceptable range of choices and thereby retain FCC consumer price protections for an additional year. This does not mean that the bill is mandating a la carte cable offerings, but rather it means that we'd like to see a greater range of cable programming packages, or ``mini-tiers,'' that cater to particular programming interests of consumers. This approach also attempts to deal in part with the faulty premise of the FCC's so-called ``going forward'' rules, which went into effect in 1995 and reversed the good job the Commission had been doing up until that point and which has saved consumers approximately $3 Billion. The premise of the Commission's rule change was that the cable monopolies needed an incentive to launch new cable programming channels. The new rules allowed for programming costs to be passed on to consumers, plus operators were allowed to charge an extra 20 cents per subscriber per month on top of that for each of up to 6 new channels. Cable operators responded by adding more channels and today claim the high cost of providing those channels as part of the rationale for why cable prices are increasing so drastically. One obvious result of the FCC's adjustments to its rates is that too many cable consumers are paying excessive monopoly rents to cable operators who blissfully allow their programming units to let costs rise because the cable operator is allowed under the Commission's rules to simply pass these costs along to cable subscribers. No need to ask advertisers to shoulder part of the burden--all of it can go on the cable bills of many working Americans or those on fixed incomes. (Most American companies see their stock prices rise when they are able to announce that they are effectively controlling their costs. Cable companies gleefully see their stocks rise as they fail utterly to hold the line on their programming costs.) Yet this failure to control programming costs also means that incumbent vertically-integrated programmers cannot only pass these inflated costs on to their customers, but also means that the costs borne by new entrants competing against them get inflated as well. These higher programming rates unnaturally inflate the costs of competitors attempting to take on the entrenched cable club. This is clearly anti-competitive. In addition, the FCC's ``going forward'' rules also wound up forcing many consumers to pay more for programming that they have little to no interest of ever watching. The grievance of paying for unwanted programming on a 35-channel cable system is exacerbated when we move to a 60 or 80 or 100 channel universe. A more robust marketplace would help ensure that consumers would not have to pay for all of these unwanted channels and would more adequately reflect the programming demands and desires of different cable consumers. But we do not have anything remotely close to a competitive cable marketplace today. And the current marketplace is so overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of monopolies that the cable club has little interest in catering to consumer choice. That's why we are introducing this bill today. Chairman Tauzin and I have lived this cable odyssey together for many, many years. We are familiar with the industry--both its promise and its problems. And we are familiar with all of their tired arguments as to why rates keep going up and up even as inflation stays at near record lows. Chairman Tauzin has been driven in his pursuit of promoting cable competition and so have I. The legislation that Chairman Tauzin and I are proposing today will help address pending cable problems. It says that cable systems are deregulated on March 31, 1999 unless a local franchising authority certifies that the incumbent cable company does not offer an acceptable level of choices in the programming offered to consumers. This means that local franchising authorities can help ensure that consumers get additional, smaller programming packages and do not have to take all of the unwanted programming. Right now, cable rates are rising multiple times the rate of inflation. The massive assault on cable markets that we had expected from the phone companies has not materialized and, except in a few scattered communities across the country, the phone industry has largely pulled back from plans to enter the market in a big way. And we have this deregulation date looming in March of next year. I want to applaud Chairman Tauzin for the leadership he is demonstrating in taking on this vitally important issue for consumers, for the economy and for innovation. And I am happy to be an original cosponsor of this proposal.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 872, the ``Biomaterials Access Assurance Act.'' Modern medical science has produced true miracles, and we want to encourage continued innovation in this area. We all want to assure that those who suffer from injury or illness can get access to the treatments and technologies needed to treat or cure them. At the same time, however, we must recognize that consumers deserve protection from defective or unsafe medical devices or drugs. Since that the FDA cannot always be safely relied upon to prevent dangerous or unsafe drugs or medical devices from reaching the market, consumers currently depend on our system of tort law to compensate them for the harm caused by such products and to create incentives for product and materials manufacturers and suppliers to undertake rigorous product testing, issue appropriate warnings, and obtain sufficient insurance or indemnification to guard against litigation risks. While I am generally skeptical about the notion of carving an entire class of persons out of tort liability, I agree that we should assure that patients can obtain access to critically needed medical devices. The House today is presented with a more narrow and limited biomaterials bill, which represents a significant improvement over previous incarnations and minimizes the prospect that injured consumers would be unable to obtain appropriate redress and compensation. Specifically, the bill before us today addresses the three concerns I had raised about legislating in this area in the Subcommittee's oversight hearing last year. First, it is a free-standing biomaterials bill, and not part of a broader product liability reform effort. Second, the so-called ``English Rule'' of the original bill has been dropped, which would have forced losing litigants to pay litigation costs. Third, and most importantly, an effort has been made in the impleading provisions of the bill to address the concerns I raised in the hearing regarding the need to assure that fraudulent suppliers could be held liable for their actions. These are all positive changes, and in light of their adoption I intend to support this legislation today. I do wish to note, for the record, however, that I continue to have some concerns about the extension of the bill to cover manufacturers of component parts in addition to raw material suppliers. While I understand the arguments made in support of this legislation as it relates to the supply of raw materials, this bill also protects the manufacturers of ``component parts'' of implantable devices. Raw materials, such as silicone or polyethylene, are vastly different subject matter from components, which can be as technically diverse as batteries, tubes, wiring and pacemaker leads. Yet there is little, if any, substantiation in the legislative record for broadening H.R. 872's protections to the manufacturers of such components. While I, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and others on this side of the aisle support the bill moving forward, we believe liability protection for manufacturers of component parts should be very carefully reviewed before this bill achieves final passage. If the provision remains in the bill, it should be construed as narrowly as possible to avoid unintended consequences of limiting liability of the makers of the manufactured pieces of such devices. I hope that we can work in conference to address these concerns. In addition, I am concerned about reports that an effort may be underway to use this biomaterials bill as a vehicle to get into conference on a broader product liability legislation, or to broaden the scope of the bill to cover other medical devices. I want to caution strongly against either course of action. My support is contingent on one very specific understanding: that this legislation not be expanded beyond the form reported by the Commerce Committee. I would, for example, be strongly opposed to changes in which FDA- regulated products are included within the class of biomaterials that receive special protections in this bill. On June 23, 1998, we received a letter from Jim Benson, executive vice president of the Health Industry Manufacturers Association (HIMA), assuring us that it is the intention of that organization to oppose any efforts to change the bill as reported or encumber it with other legislative items. I commend HIMA for taking this stance. This possibility is not mere speculation. On July 9, 1998, the New York Times reported that Senate Majority Leader Lott had handwritten an amendment into the Senate version of H.R. 872 on behalf of a major medical device manufacturer, Baxter International. Baxter recently lost a $18 million lawsuit to the family of Andrina Hansen, who suffered severe brain damage because of a faulty Baxter Intravenous, or IV, connector. In 1991, Mrs. Hansen underwent surgery for a bleeding ulcer. After successful surgery, the disconnection of a postoperative IV forced air into her brain, causing a stroke. Mrs. Hansen spent four years in a nursing home as a quadriplegic before she died. When her family took legal action, all defendants settled except Baxter Healthcare, a subsidiary of Baxter International and the manufacturer of the faculty IV connector. According to the court record, Baxter's internal memoranda documented the company's awareness that its IV connector design allowed IV tubing to slip. This defect was also the subject of almost 70 lawsuits over 20 years. Baxter also manufactured a newer, improved connector which prevented fatal incidents like Mrs. Hansen's. But Baxter never warned patients or health providers of these problems. The proposed Senate amendment would insulate Baxter and similar underserving manufacturers of component parts of ``containers and their related products to be used to collect fluids or tissue from the body or to infuse or to otherwise introduce fluids or tissue into the body'' from liability for defective and dangerous products. This would be true even if it was the component, such as Baxter's defective IV connector, and not the entire device which was the cause of injuries or deaths. In a July 10 letter to Senate Majority Leader Lott, Alan Magazine, president, and Ronald Dollens, chairman-elect of HIMA wrote of their organization's ``very serious concerns about expanding [H.R. 872] to medical devices not considered during the four-year long debate on this legislation.'' I take HIMA at their word in this commitment, and commend them for making it. I also accept the assurances of our colleagues on the Commerce Committee that passage of this bill without amendment is their intention. But if that is not the case--if this bill is amended adversely or becomes a vehicle for unwarranted Senate changes--then I will not support it and in fact will do all I can to see that it does not become law. In its present form, however, this is a limited bill that I think the Members can and should support. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the gentleman from Virginia's unanimous consent request of July 21, 1998 that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1689 and to insert extraneous material, I wish to take the opportunity to extend upon my earlier remarks regarding this legislation and to respond to some rather incredible--and I believe inaccurate--remarks made by some of my distinguished colleagues regarding this legislation. As I have indicated, I oppose this bill. If this bill is to become law, however, it is imperative that we clarify what the scienter requirement will be under the national standards created by H.R. 1689. My colleague from California--Representative Cox--seems to believe that standard should not include recklessness. I strongly disagree. 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 federal securities laws. It is true, as some of my colleagues have noted, that in Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, the Supreme Court left open the question of whether recklessness could satisfy the scienter requirement of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. My colleague from California, however, omits to state 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.'' My colleague from California also neglects to state that since Hochfelder was decided, every court of appeals that has considered the question -- ten in number -- has interpreted the text of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 to impose liability for reckless misconduct. And these courts had good reason to so hold. Recklessness is vital to protect investors and the integrity of the disclosure process. Without liability for reckless misstatements, injured investors would be able to recover only if they were able to prove that a defendant had intentionally lied. This would enable defendants who deliberately disregarded available information to avoid liability for investor losses, and would encourage corporate chieftains to bury their heads in the sand. The recklessness standard promotes meaningful disclosure. Our securities laws are premised on disclosure. Issuers of securities must make full and fair disclosure of material facts to investors when offering their securities. If issuers of securities are liable for misstatements and omissions only when they consciously make false disclosures, they will have less incentive to conduct a probing inquiry into any potentially troublesome areas they discover in the course of preparing their disclosure documents. The recklessness standard helps ensure that disclosure is thorough and meaningful because it encourages issuers to know what is taking place in their own companies. Finally, the recklessness standard helps bring deliberate securities violators to justice by preventing them from hiding behind evidentiary hurdles. Proving a defendant's actual knowledge of fraud in a securities case is often not possible. Defendants in securities fraud cases do not as a matter of course admit their fraudulent intent. Proving actual knowledge is particularly daunting when, as is often true in securities cases, the evidence relating to the defendant's state of mind is entirely circumstantial. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit--one of the ten courts of appeals to have put their stamp of approval on recklessness--has noted: ``Proof of a defendant's knowledge or intent will often be inferential . . . and cases thus of necessity [are] cast in terms of recklessness. To require in all types of 10b-5 cases that a factfinder must find a specific intent to deceive or defraud would for all intents and purposes disembowel the private cause of action under Sec. 10(b).'' I do agree with my colleague from the state of California that the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act did not change the scienter requirement for liability. I am deeply troubled, however, by his attempt to attribute to the Reform Act Conference Committee--of which I was a member--an intention to raise the pleading standard beyond that of the Second Circuit--which, at the time of the Reform Act was the strictest pleading standard in the nation. That clearly was not my understanding nor my intent. Indeed, not only is my colleague attempting to revise history, he is doing so in a manner that would create 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 defrauded investors can recover for reckless misconduct, but that they must plead something more than reckless misconduct defies logic. Likewise, I must take strong exception to the suggestion of my colleague from California about the Conference Committee's intentions regarding a footnote in the Statement of Managers. That footnote, inserted at the last minute without my knowledge and without any discussion of the matter by the Members during the Conference Committee meetings, states that the Committee chose ``not to include in the pleading standard certain language relating to motive, opportunity, or recklessness.'' Contrary to my colleague's statements, this footnote-- and make no mistake about it, that's all it is, merely a footnote--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 mandates that 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 doing so, the Conference Committee and Congress intended to eliminate liability for conscious misconduct. My colleague points to the fact that the President vetoed the bill because of his concerns that the conferees intended to adopt a pleading standard higher than the Second Circuit's. Members in both the House and the Senate following the veto made clear that we did no more than adopt the Second Circuit standard. In this regard, I strongly agree with my colleague from California, Congresswoman Lofgren, who stated in the legislative history following President Clinton's veto: ``The President says he supports the second circuit standard for pleading. So do I. That is what is included in this bill.'' I would suggest that it is the gentleman from California, rather than myself and other opponents of this legislation, that are trying to rewrite history. I continue to feel that both the Reform Act of 1995 and the present legislation are bad for investors and bad for our financial markets. We do not need to compound the harm done by this legislation with revisionist histories that seek to surreptitiously eliminate liability for reckless behavior.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to express the Sense of Congress regarding the proper direction of U.S. efforts to maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile in the post-Cold War era. Currently, the Department of Energy's Stockpile Stewardship squanders billions of dollars on facilities to research and design new warheads, and continue nuclear weapons development as if the Cold War had never ended. In doing so, it bolsters nuclear weapons aspirations of other nations who follow our lead, and puts our real security at risk. It is time to stop this wasteful approach and develop a custodianship program more adequately suited to modern needs. The resolution I am introducing today urges DOE to crease its ill-advised stockpile stewardship program and develop a program that is less costly, less provocative, and less likely to spend billions on facilities with little relevance to the safety of the arsenal. Many experts have suggested that there are alternatives to the Department of Energy's current stockpile stewardship program that can maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal at a significantly lower cost. None of these alternatives have been seriously considered by DOE. In reality, many of the projects funded under this program are nothing more than a jobs program for nuclear scientists, but a jobs program with serious non-proliferation consequences. Other nations already look to our massive investment into nuclear weapons research and use it to justify their expanding nuclear programs. To promote the kind of curatorship of the arsenal that is really needed with the end of the Cold War, I am today introducing a resolution which expresses support for a program that protects our national security without being a guise for new weapons programs that will further undermine the already unsteady international nuclear non- proliferation regime. This resolution expresses the Sense of Congress that the nuclear weapons stockpile can be maintained with a program that is far smaller, less expensive, and which does not require the facilities or experiments that are likely to be used for warhead design or development. In addition, the resolution urges the Secretary of Energy to direct the Department of Energy program for custodianship of the nuclear weapons arsenal towards less costly and less provocative methods and to cease the current stockpile stewardship plans of the Departments. It is my hope that 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 promoting a more informed debate and consideration of less destabilizing and costly alternatives. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this important resolution.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible bill. I mean really a bad one, a stinker. Write it down, top 10 this year, Bad Bills. When I was reviewing the legislation, I was reminded of a poem that I once learned as a child: As I was going up the stair I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today; Oh, how I wish that he'd stay away. The proponents of this bill would have you believe that a man has appeared on the stair in the form of investors flocking from Federal to State courts pursuing frivolous class action suits against honest corporate chieftains. But the fact is that the number of class actions filed in the States is lower this year than it was last year. In fact, it is lower this year than it was in the year before this Congress passed their Federal Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995. Fewer State class actions, this year. So there is no increase in State class action suits. People are not looking for that as a loophole around the Federal class action law. It is just not happening. In fact, what is happening is the loophole that is being closed is the one that the authors of this bill in 1995 told us would still be open, which is that they were not going to touch the State securities laws, that we should not complain, because people can still go to their own home States. That is the loophole. The loophole is that people who do not want ordinary citizens to be able to ban together in order to protect themselves against fraud are going to have that final door shut in their face with a much-heightened standard, making it much more difficult than ever before for individuals banding together to go in if they have been defrauded. And believe me, when the market goes up 4,000 or 5,000 points in 3 or 4 years, the bad stocks and the fraudulent stocks go up with the good stocks. You do not find out which ones were the fraudulent ones until the market goes down. Believe me, Newton's law of gravity will take hold here, working in combination with Adam Smith in the future. We will find out that that is the case. But what do they do? They say, if you find out that you have been defrauded, you cannot any longer rely upon your State's laws for how much time you have. In Massachusetts right now, my home State, by the way, there have only been three class action suits brought in Massachusetts in the last 3 years. Three in 3 years, none of them against high-tech companies. What an epidemic. Three in 3 years. None against high-tech companies. There are 65 in California. If they have got a problem in California, go to Sacramento. That is why we have State legislatures. Devolution, have you heard about it? It is a big movement in the 1990s. Go to the State legislatures. If you have got a problem, go there. We should be voting on this. The assembly? The Senate? California? Big debate? Have you heard about it? No, I have not. They come to Washington. I do not get it. We do not have a problem in Massachusetts. By the way, none in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Louisiana, across most of the country, no suits. What are we doing here? We should be in Sacramento. It is cooler. It is 95 degrees here in Washington. We should be watching the California State legislature in California debating this great crisis. No, there is no man on the stair except for those who are trying to cut away those rights and privileges that for 60 years have been given to all investors across this country. Mr. Speaker, I include the following comparison for the Record:

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is absolutely correct. When we pass legislation out here mandating better appliance standards, after all, what is a utility? What is a coal or oil or nuclear power plant? All it is is the combined demand of refrigerators and stoves and toasters. If we make them more efficient, we reduce the need for us to have to pollute the atmosphere for the children of the next generation. Support the Skaggs amendment.

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, when I was a kid, my mother always told me to work smarter, not harder. For the largest part of the 20th Century, the United States has worked harder, not smarter. We have fought making automobiles more efficient, we have fought making homes more efficient, we have fought making industry more efficient because we felt we lived in a world of inexhaustible energy. We also believed simultaneously that this fossil fuel or nuclear fuel which we were consuming would have no impact upon the environment. Well, it turns out that there is a negative impact on both the economy and upon the environment if we use fuels that are not as efficient, not as smart, as those that are the best available. But what has happened over the years is that the energy conservation strategy, one which over the last 20 years since the first oil shock has proven to be very effective as a mechanism for having us rethink our relationship with energy, still is battled by the forces of old energy, shall we call it, and that old energy is so powerful that notwithstanding their dominant role in the provision of energy in our country and around the world, they still believe that they should be beneficiaries of handouts inside of the Federal budget. Now, what the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) is offering this afternoon is a very modest amendment, one which will adjust the Federal budget in terms of our priorities so that the energy conservation, the ``working smarter, not harder'' strategy which does not get the rest of the subsidies, the rest of the benefits that the other more powerful energy industries in America receive, move just a little bit of this money, just a very small amount of the money over into this agenda. This is ultimately the way in which, it seems to me, we should be wanting to deal with Kyoto, that we should be wanting to deal with this global warming issue. Mr. Chairman, the CO2 that is emitted up into the atmosphere is a relatively small percentage, yes, of the overall atmospheric gasses, but because it creates a cover over our sky, it creates a greenhouse effect, as the earth's warming sends up these rays which then are reflected back down. Now, how long do we want to go? How many weather forecasts are we going to have to see before we begin actually investing in an alternative strategy; not displacing the old strategy, but having a better and more sensible mix for the 21st Century? That is what the Skaggs amendment is all about. It is moving our energy agenda to the 21st Century, so that we have the proper strategy to deal with these environmental issues, and, ultimately, economic issues which will face our country. So I congratulate the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) for his amendment, and I hope that it is adopted by all the Members here today. There could be no more important amendment. In fact, if the President was ever going to veto a bill, I would hope it would be over an issue like this, because it is so directly related to the future of our relationship between energy and the environment.