Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. This bill contains a wide array of assaults against the public interest and good sense, which I intend to discuss further during the course of the debate. I am rising now, however, to talk about one particularly obnoxious provision of this bill that affects the Consumer Products Safety Commission. 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. The Rule providing for consideration of this bill deleted this rider with an equally objectionable self-executing provision which made in order an amendment by the Gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). This amendment was developed behind closed doors, without any meaningful Democratic participation. No mention of the amendment was made during the Rules Committee hearing on the bill, and the gentleman from Mississippi did not even testify on his amendment. Instead, the amendment appeared magically before the Members during the Rules Committee markup. And under the Rule which the Rules Committee approved and the House adopted earlier today, the amendment was attached to the bill--notwithstanding the fact that it violates Clause 2 of Rule XXI of the House Rules by legislating on an appropriations bill. Of course, the Rule took care of that problem as well by granting the amendment a waiver against all points of order. In light of surreptitious origins of this amendment, and the great haste with which it was adopted, is it any wonder that it contains serious flaws? Earlier today, during consideration of the Rule for this bill, we discovered that the authors of the amendment had mistakenly appropriated $5 billion for the amendment's execution, when they had actually intended to appropriate $5 million. By comparison, the entire CPSC budget is only $46 million. The Republican Majority actually had to offer a motion to correct the unintended financial windfall they almost provided to the CPSC. Despite this correction, however, the underlying amendment remains fatally flawed. During House debate on the Rule, one of the supporters of this amendment claimed that the proposal had the support of the Commerce Committee. As the Ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection-- which has jurisdiction over the CPSC--I can assure the Members that this was not the case. The Commerce Committee has never considered this matter addressed by this amendment. We have never had a single hearing on this subject. We have never heard a word from any of the affected industries and reportedly pressed for adoption of this amendment. We have never had a Committee or Subcommittee markup or cast a vote on this matter. So, while the Chairman and some of the Members of the Majority Side on the Commerce Committee may have agreed to this language, it is not accurate to characterize this provision as having had the support of the Commerce Committee. So, let's just take a look at what the issue is that this amendment addresses. 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 costs 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 interest of a few upholstered furniture manufacturers in Mississippi who are opposed to a mandatory furniture flammability standard. As CPSC Chairwomen 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 oppose this bill today 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 if this bill is approved the House, this provision will either be deleted in conference or vetoed by the President. I urge a no vote on the bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Digital Jamming Act of 1998. The growing incidents of ``spamming,'' and ``cramming,'' and ``slamming'' in our telecommunications arena represent an important series of consumer protection issues that need to be addressed by the Congress or by appropriate regulatory agencies. I am using the term ``jamming'' to describe all 3 consumer protection issues because they are all unscrupulous practices that either jam consumers' bills with unauthorized services or jam our nation's telecommunications networks with unwanted messages in the digital era. These are, in fact, particularly thorny issues to address because there are multiple players involved in resolving these problems in the telecommunications industry, and in the Federal Government, and at the State level as well. It is hard to find someone these days who has not had first hand experience with one or all of these issues. When someone is ``slammed'' their telephone carrier is changed without proper authorization and it usually leads to higher bills for slammed customers and a big hassle in clearing everything up. When someone is subjected to ``cramming''--their telephone bill gets filled up with all sorts of new and unauthorized charges. And with the rise of the Internet, the growth of unsolicited electronic messages--or spamming-- is becoming the daily, nuisance experience for countless people online and a burden on Internet service providers who often have their systems swamped with spamming traffic. Unfortunately, all three of these issues appear to be growing problems. The issue of slamming was addressed in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 where unauthorized switches in carrier selection were prohibited and a liability provision for unauthorized charges included in Section 258 of the Communications Act. The FCC is currently in the process of developing rules to further implement that provision and protect the public. I want to encourage the Commission's efforts to crack down on this problem and look forward to the Commission completing any rule revisions in the near future. Moreover, ``cramming'' is increasingly a billing quandary for consumers across the country who are taken advantage of and I believe that consumers deserve protection from this rising telecommunications affliction. Finally, the issue of spamming is quickly becoming the bane of many online surfers who log onto their computer only to find their mailbox stuffed with unsolicited electronic messages. Beyond the nuisance factor that massive spamming creates, it also engenders problems associated with the unsolicited sending of indecent material and online fraud perpetrated by a cadre of high tech hucksters who attempt to dupe people online into parting with their money. In addition, the millions of unsolicited e-mail messages clog up the networks of many online providers and this does a terrible disservices to other subscribers to such service and to online commerce generally. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to help address the spamming issue by building upon work that the Congress performed a few years ago in addressing unsolicited telephone marketing and which is codified in Section 227 of the Communications Act. In that earlier legislation, Congress granted authority to the Commission and authorized, at the Commission's discretion, the creation of a ``do-not- call'' database for people who no longer wanted to receive unsolicited telemarketing at home. The Commission elected not to utilize this authority in its rulemaking at that time. I believe it may be worth exploring however, the creation of ``do- not-contact'' databases for people who want to put a ``no soliciting'' sign in cyberspace and stop the flood of junk e-mail. This could be done at the Federal or State levels and technology has advanced to a point where this might be a cost-effective and efficient remedy. The legislation I will introduce will also include provisions building upon Section 258 of the Act to help address slamming and cramming issues. I believe it may be worthwhile to expand liability provisions contained in Section 258 to permit double damages to be paid to consumers--in addition to compensating ``slammed'' carriers for lost business--as a deterrent to slammers. In addition, the legislation tasks the NTIA in the Commerce Department with the job of conducting an analysis into third-party verification clearinghouses. Because those authorizing switches in carrier selection have a financial interest in making switches, it may be useful to explore the feasibility of giving the verification or authorization functions for switching carriers to a third party--either at the State or Federal levels. NTIA is asked to report back to the Congress on the feasibility and desirability of such a system. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House Commerce Committee, Chairman Bliley, Mr. Dingell, Chairman Tauzin, Mr. Gordon, and others on addressing these issues, as well as my other colleagues in the House who have expressed concern on these matters.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications for their work on this issue, and to single out the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his leadership on this issue, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and others, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), because we really have put something together here that I think really moves along the discussion on this issue. And I would like to single out Senator Wyden over on the Senate side, as well, who introduced legislation to this effect with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) last year. During the Committee on Commerce consideration of this legislation I expressed support for a moratorium on new Internet-specific taxes, but at the time I believed that the bill needed to be clearer in its scope and its definitions to ensure that no unintended harm was done in the process to any Federal or State regulatory authority to fully implement the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. All the regulatory fees, tax provisions and, in particular, the universal service provisions of the Telecommunications Act that were painstakingly deliberated upon and subsequently enacted are fully protected by this savings clause contained in the pending bill before us today. In addition we have attempted to ensure that this tax bill does not do unintended harm to telecommunications policy. I think that this goal is also achieved in the current version of the bill. This legislation before us this afternoon has been extensively changed since it was introduced and since our initial markup in the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection. The new legislation correctly limits the tax moratorium to Internet access, and the language in the bill more carefully defines such terms so that it is clear for the purposes of this legislation that it does not encompass other activities or services such as telecommunications or telecommunication services. Moreover, the legislation merely limits FCC and State authority to regulate prices charged directly to subscribers for Internet access or on-line services, but preserves FCC and State authority over any telecommunications carrier which bundles Internet access or on-line services in combination with telephone service. The legislation offered this evening also fully protects universal service support mechanisms by adding the savings clause that nothing in this legislation shall limit or otherwise affect the implementation of the Telecommunications Act. The legislation makes clear that Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act, which was added by the act of 1996, is fully protected. The Telecommunications Act for the first time specifically codified the principle of universal service and delineated Federal and State responsibilities, rights and obligations for universal service support. On the tax front the legislation now has a 3-year moratorium on taxes and Internet access. I think we now begin the dialogue with States and municipalities and governors as this process moves forward. I want to congratulate everyone here as we move this hurry-up offense right before the Fourth of July break, but I think we have tremendous potential if the Senate acts. General Leave

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a great amendment. Do you remember the old horror movie, The Night of the Living Dead, where the dead came back from their graves to stalk the Earth again? Well, that is what this program is, it is a dead government program. We killed almost the identical program last year, but Adam Smith spins in his grave as we stand out here trying to figure out how to give subsidies to Westinghouse and General Electric and other Fortune 500 companies, for them to figure out how to develop nuclear energy electrical generating capacity, when they have been in that business for 50 years. It would be one thing if they are starving. They are the wealthiest companies in the United States. The electric utility industry is the wealthiest industry in the United States. Over a 50-year period, we here on the floor of Congress have given this industry $47 billion in subsidies. What is the net result? We are now debating here in Congress, and in every State legislature in the country, something called stranded investments in electrical restructuring. What does stranded investments mean? Well, it is a euphemism for the word nuclear power plant, meaning how do we get this off of our books? How do we have ratepayers subsidize this boondoggle? In the marketplace, oil is cheaper in generating electricity, gas is cheaper in generating electricity, coal is cheaper in generating electricity and wind is cheaper in generating electricity, but we are supposed to subsidize Fortune 500 companies in a technology that is more expensive? Mr. Chairman, no electric utility has purchased one of these since 1973. If they think it is such a great idea, why do they not build them themselves? They have got more money than the Federal Government, if they want to invest in it. But asking the taxpayers to have themselves tipped upside down and shake another 5 or 10 million bucks out of them for an industry that has not been able to figure out in 50 years how to make this technology effective in the marketplace, is just a complete and total waste of money. Mr. Chairman, the Foley amendment, on a bipartisan basis, Democrat and Republican, is something that each one of us should be able to back tonight to prove that we are faithful to the taxpayers' message to us that we should stop squandering their money, handing it over to the private sector, investing in programs that would not work in the real world marketplace. Vote ``yes'' on the Foley amendment.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize The Brooks School in Medford, Massachusetts in the celebration of its 100th Anniversary. During its century-long presence in the Medford community, The Brooks School has set innovative standards in excellence and diversity in public education through its programs of intellectual, physical, and social development of children. On May 30, 1998, The Brooks School will be holding a public celebration to honor its rich history of instruction and service to the young people of Medford. The undying commitment of The Brooks School to excellence in diverse public education should serve as an inspiration to us all. I congratulate the students, alumni, and faculty of The Brooks School for perpetuating effective education in the Medford community, and I wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, and I am very happy that the committee has agreed to accept the amendments sponsored by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and myself for inclusion in the en bloc amendment. This amendment, quite briefly, continues to make this distinction between nuclear power plants, which are used to generate electricity that have light bulbs and toast made for civilians in their homes, and nuclear power plants or linear accelerators which are used to construct nuclear bombs. For 50 years in America we have kept these two facilities separate. When people have their lights go on at home, they know they are not making any material that could be used in the construction of a nuclear weapon. Now, the Congress realized this, and back in 1982, Senator Hart and Senator Simpson were able to pass an amendment which memorialized this. Kept them separate. But there is a little bit of a loophole. They did not mention the word ``tritium.'' And what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and I are seeking to do is add that word, this critical ingredient for nuclear bombs as well. Otherwise, the TVA, civilian electricity generator for use in homes, will be able to qualify as a nuclear weapons material bomb making factory. And that is not good, especially when we are trying to convince the Indians that they should not use their civilian reactors for nuclear material; the Pakistanis that they should not use their civilian reactors for nuclear materials; that only military facilities should be used. The facility that we are talking about here is a civilian facility that is overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is a policy which has served America well for 50 years. I urge the committee to adopt the en bloc amendment.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I am joining with a bipartisan group of colleagues in introducing legislation to prevent further growth of the international crime, Nigerian Advance Fee Fraud. Every day, thousands of Americans fall subject to get rich quick schemes. Unfortunately, Nigerian Advance Fee Fraud is a whole new era of scamming money out of innocent people. Known internationally as ``4- 1-9'' fraud after the section in the Nigerian Penal Code which addresses fraud schemes, these scams have reached epidemic proportions. As a personal target of such scams, I am introducing the Nigerian Advance Fee Fraud Prevention Act of 1998 to bring this swindle and its perpetrators into the forefront of the American public, and focus the Government on implementing a national and international strategy to combat these shams. This form of bilk is widespread, targeting over 60 countries worldwide. The perpetrators of these hoax's don't discriminate when choosing their targets, everyone from small to large corporations, religious organizations, and individuals are all fair game to these criminals. I myself have been targeted four times by these flimflams in just over 7 months. The perpetrators of this swindle will send letters to unknowing victims, mostly senior citizens, claiming that the Nigerian Government overpaid the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation on a contract. Instead of giving the money back to the government, the scammer indicates they need a foreign bank account to deposit $50 million, of which 30% would remain in the victims' bank account for them to keep. So, what is the actual scam? The scam does not actually require the transmission of a bank account number (although many victims obligingly provide it). The victim supplies a letterhead, which is used to forge letters of recommendation to the American Embassy for travel visas and it is also used to persuade other prospective victims. They way they get money from the victims is much craftier. Victims are pressured into sending money for unforeseen taxes, fees to the Nigerian Government, and attorney fees. These fees can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. The perpetrators of these scams often allege that the victim must travel to Nigeria in order to complete the transaction. If the victim is unable to travel to Nigeria, they proceed to demand more money from them for power of attorney fees and other associated taxes. Often when a victim does travel to Nigeria, the scammer explains to them that there is no need for a visa. In fact, a visa is required by the Nigerian Government. The perpetrators then bribe airport officials to bypass immigration, and use this illegal entry as leverage to coerce the traveler into releasing more money. Violence and threats of physical harm may also occur. To date, 15 foreign businessmen and two United States citizens have been murdered in Nigeria in connection with a ``4-1-9'' scam. Perpetrators of these scams are rarely prosecuted or jailed by the Nigerian government, which is also suspected of playing a role in these schemes. Money garnered from these schemes is used to fund other illegal activities, including drug trafficking or violent crimes. This is a growing concern to the international community, and among the thousands of Americans who fall victim to these scams. The Nigerian Advance Fee Fraud Prevention Act of 1998 will direct the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to jointly report on actions taken by the Nigerian Government in apprehending the perpetrators of 4-1-9 scams, efforts taken by the United States to inform American about such schemes, and other such actions which are or should be undertaken to end of these schemes, including the imposition of sanctions on the Nigerian Government.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, in 1694 the British parliament ruled that banking should not mix with commerce. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton, in the United States, decided that banking should not mix with commerce. Thus, it has been over the last 300 years in the Anglo-American tradition. Now we are told, since the 1980s, that we should mirror the Japanese model of Keiretsu, where bankers and industrialists work very closely together. In fact, we were told in the 1980s here in Congress that if we did not model ourselves upon the Japanese economic system, that we would become an economic power of the past. Now, in the 1990s, what do we see? Keiretsu in Japan means bankers and industrialists apologizing to the Japanese people for destroying their economy over the last 15 years. The American system continues on with its entrepreneurial, Darwinian, Adam Smith, ruthless set of decisions, with bankers deciding, venture capitalists deciding, which one of the American companies deserves more capital, not because it is tied to it, not because it is married to it. What happens as a result of the Japanese system? Something called Asian flu. That comes from having bankers too closely tied to industrialists, having too deep of an investment in them and anyone who gets close to them. What is recommended here by the Roukema amendment? That we should, as well, engage in Keiretsu. Our system is working. It has worked for 300 years. We do not have to abandon it and emulate the Japanese. The correct vote here tonight is no on Roukema, no on the Japanese system. It has failed, and failed badly. Vote yes on the Leach amendment. The Leach amendment will keep the continuation of the Anglo-American system.

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, again, let us go back. What are we talking about? Separate subsidiary means we are putting it over here in a separate operation that makes it possible for the SEC, for insurance regulators, to know what we are doing. An Op-sub is an operating subsidiary. That is what they want to call it. That means it will be right inside the bank, hard for the SEC, hard for the insurance regulators to get inside to know what is going on. Op-sub really stands for ``ordinary people subsidizing'' risky business by banks. Alan Greenspan, here is what he said in a letter to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) on May 4, last week, ``Operating subsidiaries also pose serious risks to banks and their deposit insurance funds, and potentially the taxpayer, and will cause serious conflicts in the ability of functional regulators to carry out their supervisory responsibilities.'' Chairman Breeden, George Bush's chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, he says that it will cause a ``dulling narcotic effect of those subsidies and the related bureaucratic nannyism will work a prompt and significant alteration on the culture of Wall Street.'' We can create a level playing field allowing each of these industries to compete and to consolidate without having the inherent bias that is built in, the conflicts that are built in by having the expansion of the Federal safety net blur over into these operating subsidiaries and causing real dangers to depositors and taxpayers alike. Vote no on the LaFalce amendment if we do not want to see a repetition of some of the financial shenanigans which we have all come to see during our lifetime.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time, and I want to congratulate him and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) along with the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the ranking Democrat for the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for their excellent work on this bill; and all the other members, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and everyone else who has worked on this bill. Banking, insurance, securities. Now, to the ordinary person listening to this debate, it sounds like a struggle between the very rich and the extremely wealthy. ``What is my stake in this debate?'' the ordinary person says. Well, it is really a debate about investors and depositors and businesses and consumers. And, in fact, it is a debate about a fundamental change being proposed in the capital formation system in the United States that is the very engine which drives capitalism in the United States. Now, back in 1933, when Glass-Steagall was put on the books, it was in the aftermath of a great economic collapse in the United States, and there was great concern about the mixture of investment banking with ordinary banking. Now many people argue times have changed. And they have. But something has not changed. That is human nature. It is still the same. And the very same forces of greed and fear which existed in 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932, throughout the 1930s, still exists today. Now, tearing down Glass-Steagall is a good idea if we build in the proper safeguards, fire walls to protect investors and depositors and taxpayers. If we do not, it is a disaster for this country and it would be a great mistake for us to pass legislation here today. We have tried to pass legislation for the last 15 years or so in this area. But like the character created by Albert Camus in his famous novel, ``The Myth of Sisyphus,'' in 1942, Congress has pretty much engaged in an exercise where we gain great satisfaction from just trying to get the boulder up to the top of the mountain but never successfully making it. And in fact, that is how this whole exercise may actually end. But it is worth the effort. Over the years, however, it has foundered because, while banks have wanted the extra powers that would come with repealing Glass-Steagall, they have always wanted to do so without the requisite safeguards being put into place so that we do not repeat the past. The bill before us now has good and bad and ugly, like that old Clint Eastwood spaghetti western. The good is that we keep out Op-subs. We will keep hearing that. It will be defined to us as an operating subsidiary. What Op-sub really stands for is ``ordinary people subsidizing'' banks. That is what Op-sub means, spreading the Federal protection for banking activities over into securities, over into insurance areas. Ordinary people subsidizing risky business, that is bad. It is not in the bill. However there are some things in the bill which are bad and ugly. The Leach amendment seeks to deal with the mixture of commerce and banking. I support that amendment. It is a good amendment. The Bliley-Dingell amendment seeks to deal with the deficiencies which exist in the protections for depositors and investors, and I support that amendment. They should both be adopted if our goal is to form a more perfect version of what this legislation should be so that we can move to a future without Glass-Steagall, but at the same time give the protections to investors, to depositors, to taxpayers which they deserve.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I want to congratulate him and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and all those that worked to put together this bipartisan manager's amendment, because it really does help to close up a lot of the problem areas that had developed in the drafting of the legislation with regard to how investors and depositors were going to be protected in the legislation. Specifically, I speak here as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection. We had real questions about whether or not the Federal Trade Commission was going to have the authority to be able to follow these antitrust questions, as banks affiliated with insurance or with financial institutions, securities institutions, or even with nonfinancial institutions. In this amendment, we clarify that the Federal Trade Commission has the antitrust authority to be able to look at these transactions, and that the Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust review is retained in a way that covers these bank mergers with financial and nonfinancial institutions. I thank the gentleman for making that possible.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, for 40 years our country, this planet operated under a doctrine of mutually assured destruction, meaning that both the United States and the Soviet Union stockpiled nuclear weapons in vertical proliferation, 5,000, 10,000, 15,000 nuclear weapons apiece, when only 200 apiece would be necessary in order to destroy totally the populations of both the United States and the Soviet Union. It was important for the Cold War to come to an end, because there was a very slight likelihood that either country would ever use these weapons, because the other country would have guaranteed their sure and certain total destruction. The greater threat has always been horizontal proliferation. The spread of weapons from country to country to country, to subgroups, to terrorist groups, to other parties around the globe who do not live under this threat of mutually assured destruction. The problem is that we in the United States do not on a consistent basis get enough information about this threat so that we can formulate policies, sanctions, that will guarantee that those around the world who are intent on gathering these technologies to themselves and then using them against their enemies or against the American people, know that we have a strong policy of deterrence against their use. The Weldon-Markey amendment, as it was originally formulated, ensured that we would desubsidize any country, any company in the world that was identified as one which was trafficking in materials which could be used for proliferation purposes. That is putting real teeth, financial teeth into the American policy towards these issues. Unfortunately, in negotiating with the intelligence community and others who are not yet ready to embrace that policy, we are unable to bring that full amendment with all of the power of the American purse string to this floor here today. But what we do is we ensure that there will be a report made to the Intelligence Committees. I believe it should go to other committees as well so that there is a broader understanding of the importance of this issue. In the post-Cold War period, there are only two great agendas for our country. One is ensuring that the American people finally get the full benefits of the prosperity which is being created in this world and that our people benefit from it, and secondly, that we deal with the aftermath of the Cold War in terms of these national rivalries that manifest themselves both in human rights violations, religious violations, and in proliferation threats spreading across this planet. This is a good first step. I hope that the House adopts this amendment. It will at least begin the process of giving us the information which we need, and hopefully, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and others can come back here next year and we can ensure that there are teeth which are built into this system so that the Congress votes to deny any financial assistance to any country or any company which sells these technologies into the hands of those who are not abiding by the nonproliferation safeguards which this world has to have in the 21st century. So I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), for his leadership. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and all of those who have worked on this issue, and I hope that the House, in its wisdom, adopts this very important first step here today.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much and I want to congratulate him on his amendment. I think he is adding substantially to the nature of this bill, in the change which is taking place internationally, its impact upon the United States, and how fully we should understand it. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about takings. This is a debate about givings. The givings of the American people for 35 years to a single company and a single orbiting cartel. The American people gave this company a domestic monopoly over resale of INTELSAT and Inmarsat services. The American people gave to COMSAT and Inmarsat and INTELSAT immunity from antitrust law. The American people gave them privileged access to orbital slots and to spectrum. The American people gave them access to all of these privileges because there were no other companies, there was no other way of doing it; only by using this mechanism could we create this industry. Over the years, the American people have granted the same opportunities to electric monopolies, to local telephone monopolies, to long-distance monopolies, to cable monopolies. But we always reserve the right, when technological change makes it possible, to introduce competition. In fact, within the legislation that was passed in 1962, the Congress expressly reserved the right to repeal, to alter, or to amend the provisions of the 1962 COMSAT-INTELSAT Act. We reserved to ourselves this right, as we always have. Now, we can go back in history, all the way back to 1602 when Queen Elizabeth had granted to one individual and one company a monopoly on playing cards in England. Now, the Parliament ruled, after a point in time, that other companies should be able to get into the business of selling playing cards in England. It is the famous monopolies case. Now, the courts in England ruled that the Parliament had the right to have other companies sell playing cards, notwithstanding the original monopoly. Standard Oil, 1911 in the United States, says, we have got a monopoly; the Congress has no right to break up our monopoly. The Supreme Court of the United States in 1911 ruled, the Congress has a right to break up monopolies, the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department has the right to break up monopolies. And every electric company, every telephone company, every cable company, every monopoly for time immemorial has argued that it is a takings. It is not. It is a givings. We gave it to them, and we have the right to take it back with reasonable economic regulation, which does not put them out of business. We are not putting COMSAT out of business. We are allowing other companies to get into business, because the reality is that for at least the last 15 years, that taking has been COMSAT, INTELSAT and Inmarsat blocking other American company's ability to get into these markets. The taking goes on every day when dozens of companies across America do not create jobs because they are denied the opportunity. They have had this right taken from them. The consumers do not have lower prices because that opportunity has been taken from them. That is what this legislation is all about. It is ending the giving, that we have been undertaking for 35 years, to a monopoly. That is the privilege of the Congress. We have always had this right and we will always retain that right. So I say to my colleagues, we have a choice. Support for the Morella amendment is for a continuation of monopoly, of a global economic cartel with COMSAT as its American subsidiary, its American affiliate continuing on this tradition of denying American companies and American workers the ability to get into these industries the way we shoot to dominate the global marketplace. I urge a very strong ``no'' on this amendment. For those of us who believe in competition, for those of us who believe in opening up markets, for those of us who believe that America is going to be the dominant telecommunications leader, a vote ``no'' here guarantees that we enter this world as its dominant power.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, in 1945, a visionary, Arthur C. Clarke, began this international space odyssey in writing an article which pointed out that by the positioning of satellites at a point over the Earth's equator, it would be possible to create an international telecommunications satellite-driven system for all the entire world. Now, this vision of Arthur C. Clarke was one that only really began to be implemented in 1962 with the creation of INTELSAT, a government- driven organization, necessarily because of the need for the missiles to shoot the satellites up and the government contracts to construct the satellites. However, as the years have gone by, it has become clear that private sector companies as well can compete in this marketplace, and there have been dozens of companies, many of them successful, which have begun the process of entering these marketplaces. And so now the test for American and international policymakers is to match the vision of Arthur C. Clarke with the philosophy of Adam Smith. That is roofless, Darwinian capitalism. We must ensure that we have made a full injection into this international satellite cartel of the reality that they are competing for business with other companies. Now, America has the lead in this field. We are number one, looking over our shoulders at number two and number three. The major obstacle to us leaping out into an almost insurmountable lead is this international cartel; government-granted, government-sanctioned, and 30 years old. It is time for us to end this cartel and allow these American-based satellite companies to get out and into international markets. Now, why is this important? It is because as this Congress has voted for NAFTA, for GATT, for the WTO, we are essentially saying as a country that we are going to allow our low-end jobs to go to Third World countries. That is what we are saying. But in turn what we are saying, quite self-confidently, is that we believe that we can capture the lion's share of the high-end jobs, the technology-based jobs, the jobs that relate to the high education in our country. We cannot allow an international cartel to continue to wall out American companies from the marketplaces of this planet because that is where our great high-tech education-based opportunities lie. Otherwise, we have the worst of all worlds. Our low-end jobs go as Third World countries produce these manual labor products, but we do not gain access to the markets in these countries around the world where we can market our high-end products. This bill telescopes the time frame that it will take for America to have its companies gain access to every single country in the world with the satellite-based services, and in every one of the service areas. That is why we bring this bill to the floor today. And it is not to put COMSAT out of business. COMSAT will remain in business. It will remain competitive. It will remain with the capacity to enter into any one of these markets, but only at the point at which it is privatized, only at the point at which COMSAT, with INTELSAT, has given up its monopoly. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for the time that he has yielded to me, and I hope that this legislation passes.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time, and I thank everyone who has participated in this enormously important debate. As has been pointed out by the gentleman from Massachusetts, back in 1962, largely in response to the challenge from the Soviet Union with the launch of Sputnik and the paranoia which overtook the West, the United States not only began a process of putting a man on the Moon and developing intercontinental ballistic missiles at a pace that had not yet been matched in our country, but it also helped to organize something which would create an international satellite consortium using government-based entities to launch these satellites, because there was no private sector capacity within the West in order to accomplish these goals. This consortium, INTELSAT, later matched by another group called Inmarsat for satellite-based maritime communications, became the basis for, the foundation for, international satellite competition. It served us very well, as did most monopolies, in electricity, in local telephone, in long distance telephone, in cable in the initial stages of these industries. But over time it became clear that private sector competition in each one of these industries was possible. In each case, of course, the incumbent monopolist argued that it would be a takings, it would be illegal to take away this monopoly which had been granted by the government. But the reality was that the government had made a decision initially in order to grant to one entity the ability to be the first into the field, in order to establish it, but always retain the right to be able to break up the monopoly when private sector competition arrived. Today we are going to debate the last frontier of monopolies, this one in outer space, this one where INTELSAT and Inmarsat, with its American signatory, COMSAT, seeks to retain its monopoly access to this satellite communication internationally. What our legislation does is break it up. It says to COMSAT, it says to INTELSAT, it says to Inmarsat, ``You must privatize. You must move to the private sector. You must give access to every other private sector company to that which you have.'' That is the objective of this legislation. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the full committee, has been the leader on this issue, driving it as an important final stage of our efforts to have privatized this international telecommunications industry. Now, these two entities, INTELSAT and Inmarsat, two international orbiting cartels, are not going to simply wake up one day and say, ``Fine, take back our monopoly,'' because we have been waiting for the last 20 years for them to do that. It is not going to happen. They are not going to shed themselves of their privileged access to international frequency spectrum. They are not going to voluntarily give up their immunity from antitrust law. They are not going to compete against American-based satellite companies on an even ground, simply because we ask them to do so politely. This legislation and the rule which accompanies it is a fair set of recommendations for the debate, and then for the substantive decision- making here on the floor. I hope that the Members today understand how historic this debate is. It really will help to revolutionize the way we communicate on this planet.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a one-time-only, free-agency ability. Mr. Chairman, for many years, major league baseball did not allow players to go out and contract with other clubs. Players were locked in. They might have signed a contract with the team they were with, like the Red Sox or the Yankees, in the 1930s and 1940s, the 1950s or the 1960s, but they were tied to them. A player could not sign with another team. But when free agency came around, you were free to look around; then a player signed a new contract and was bound to that contract. We have to have one-time-only free agency for all of these companies in America that have been tied into the monopoly. Then we can say to the rest of the world, tear down those barriers to the entry of American companies into free competition across the globe. This is the other wall that has been up to Americans going across the globe. The Berlin Wall came down; so too must these telecommunications barriers, because that is the area where America has to be number one if we are going to get the benefits of the post-Cold War era.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. We have to understand that the whole field of telecommunications has been revolutionized since the early 1980s. We all operated in the United States and around the globe under the presumption that a monopoly was natural, that there was only one place we could go for everything that we expect as services in the telecommunications field. All of that has changed since the early 1980s. For example, in 1982 when AT&T was broken up, it was the largest company not only in the United States but in the world. We had one telephone company. There was no Bell South, there was no NYNEX. MCI and Sprint were tiny little companies. No U.S. West, no Southwestern Bell; it did not exist. We had one company, one-stop shopping. We all thought it was a natural monopoly. When the Justice Department broke it up even as Congress was beginning to move to break it up, we said to every customer in America, part of that consent decree, we can choose another long distance telephone company if we want, we can have a fresh look. We do not have to be tied into any long-term contracts we had with AT&T. We are starting a new world, one in which we are encouraging competition in the marketplace. Now this phenomenon manifests itself over and over again as we break down these monopolies. It happens in all kinds of service areas. And the FCC has taken the precaution where necessary in other areas in order to accomplish this goal. For example, when the FCC in 1992 ordered expanded interconnection rules and allowed local telephone competitors greater ability to compete for special access services, the FCC allowed customers who typically had signed contracts for 6, 7, 8 or more years the opportunity to renegotiate their terms or switch to new competitors in the marketplace without termination penalties, because there was now competition in this marketplace. And maybe something that is even more familiar or typical in ordinary American life; that is, when people dial 1-800 The Card for American Express or 1-800 Flowers, and a customer has ever dealt with them over the years, they might have said, well, that is a good service; but what if I switch from AT&T over to MCI? Well, what we said through the FCC was they could take their number with them. There was portability. They were not going to be locked into AT&T. We had to create some means by which the newer companies could compete against the old monopoly. Now that is really intended to open up opportunities for dozens, for hundreds of new companies to get in and to compete, to break down the old models. We are not the Soviet Union, we are not Japan, we are not Germany. We wanted to be number one, and we wanted dozens, hundreds of companies out into these fields. That is what is making us special in the world right now. As a matter of fact, if we look back at the 1980s, after the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, the breakup of AT&T might be looked back at historically as maybe the greatest and most important decision that was made in our country, because we were opening up opportunities for customers to have different choices and for more competitors to get into the marketplace. And the core, central part of looking at this ``fresh look'' issue is that because COMSAT has been a monopoly, that when the monopoly goes away, the customers should be freed up to look for better opportunities, once. Take their one-time-only opportunity to look around, shop around. However, here is what we know: that because competitors to COMSAT have never had direct access to INTELSAT, according to the Federal Communications Commission, there has been a 68 percent markup in the price charged by INTELSAT, 68 percent. Now, when direct access is allowed, should not these customers who have been locked into the old monopoly have the freedom of going out and getting the best deal in the marketplace? Do we not want every company in the United States to have the lowest possible cost in all of their telecommunications services, so whatever they do inside of their company is much more competitive as they sell their product around the world. That is what this is all about, after all, lower energy prices, lower electricity prices, lower telecommunications prices; it is the cost of hundreds of thousands of companies in America in terms of the product they are trying to make. We are trying to lower the cost here. Give them a fresh look, let them go out. If NBC or CNN or any other company in the America that buys their telecommunications services wholesale who wants to get a fresh look, why should they not be allowed to get the benefit of this policy?

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I join with Representatives John Dingell and Greg Ganske, Leader Dick Gephardt, Leader Tom Daschle, Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Barbara Boxer, and the many patient and health groups, in support of H.R. 3605, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Congressman Dingell for his strong and sure leadership on this issue; Mr. Dingell got involved early, pulled the key players together and produced an excellent bill which will, in fact, protect patients once enacted. I want to say a special word of thanks to Representative Greg Ganske, with whom I have been working closely for some time on the Patient Right to Know Act (H.R. 586) which would ban gag clauses from managed care plans. His power of persuasion over some of his Republican colleagues to join him in co- sponsoring the Patients' Bill of Rights Act will be very helpful in passing a managed care reform bill this year. Representative Ganske and I have been involved for quite some time in putting together a bill which would prohibit managed care plans from restricting the medical communications between doctors and patients based on what the plan did and did not cover. Our bill was based on a very simple premise: when you're a patient, What you don't know can hurt you. And our anti-gag clause bill, which now has 300 co-sponsors, is included in the Patients' Bill of Rights Act. The Patients' Bill of rights Act expands on that principle. It says: What you don't know and don't have access to and aren't protected from can hurt you. That's why the Patients' Bill of Rights Act makes it possible for people to have some choice of plans, access to specialty and emergency care, and direct access to OB/GYN care and services for women. That's why the Patients' Bill of Rights Act makes it possible for patients to get more information about their health plans, and have greater faith that the confidentiality of their medical records will be protected. And that's why the Patients' Bill of Rights Act recognizes that patients are also health care consumers and establishes strong consumer protection standards, internal and external grievance procedures, and measures which respect and protect the provider-patient relationship. When President Clinton delivered his State of the Union speech on January 27--99 days ago--one of the single most sustained waves of applause followed the president's call to action for Congress: to pass a consumer bill of rights and responsibilities for America's patients. Well, tomorrow, we will hit Day 100 of total inaction. The American people are demanding that Congress fill their managed care reform prescription--the Republican leadership should fill that prescription with the Patients' Bill of Rights Act. Once again, I'd like to thank Congressman Dingell, Senator Kennedy, our Leaders and all of my colleagues who are working so hard to move this legislation forward.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, and to honor the more than 78,000 alumni of this great university as they gather to participate in the 14th annual celebration of Tuftonia's Week. During Tuftonia's Week, students, alumni, professors, administrators, and parents will gather to celebrate the achievements of the Tufts community. This community encompasses students and graduates that live in more than 100 countries around the world. From the undergraduate through the professional degree level, Tufts University instills in its students the importance of volunteerism and the need to give back to one's community. Once again, the theme of this year's Tuftonia's Week celebration is TuftServe and focuses on volunteer involvement and community service. Since its inception in 1995, Tufts alumni have recorded over 300,000 hours of volunteer service. Their contributions to the community-- locally, nationally, and globally--should serve as an inspiration to us all. I congratulate the students, alumni, and faculty of Tufts University for their hard work and commitment to the community.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.