Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the E-Rate Policy and Child Protection Act of 1998. Mr. Speaker, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 contained a provision that I had battled for and advocated for many years. The concept was straightforward: make America's schools and libraries eligible for universal service funding so that these educational entities could receive discounted rates for telecommunications services. During FCC implementation of this provision, I coined the term ``E-Rate''--for ``education rate''--to describe a system of discounts for telecommunications services that would allow schools and libaries to enter the digital age and better prepare our citizens for the knowledge-based economy of the future. As a nation, we did the job of preparing previous generations to compete in the Industrial Era. From the founding of our republic, the common school movement and leaders such as Horace Mann provided the impetus for the ideal that each and every American should be entitled to an education, regardless of economic status. America cannot leave kids from middle class working families out of the knowledge-based economy and still hope to retain its economic standing in a fiercely competitive global environment. At the turn of the 20th Century, 10 of the 12 largest companies in America were natural resource companies. As we enter the 21st Century, the 10 largest and most rapidly expanding industries in the world are brainpower industries; telecommunications, computer software, microelectronics, biotech, material-science, among others. The E-Rate is an essential program for our country's economic future. Now that the E-Rate program is being implemented, some concerns have been raised about access to material on the World Wide Web that is inappropriate or unsuitable for children. I have long believed that technology can often offer a solution to some of the problems that technology creates. Software filtering technology and other blocking technology can help to provide some protection in schools to shield children from inappropriate online fare. Other solutions may also mitigate against minors gaining access to Web sites that parents and educators feel are indecent and want to shield from young children. I believe that the digital age will present both promise and problems. I also believe that we can embrace technological change, use it to empower our citizens and also face the challenges that technology poses for us. The purpose of the legislation that I am offering today is to ensure that local school and library officials think through the many issues of online access, and implement a policy for addressing access by children. This legislation will ensure that before schools and libraries obtain E-Rate funding in the future that they establish some policy governing access by minors.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have witnessed in the last 50 years in our country the rapid evolution of the personal computer. Moreover we have seen in the last few years the explosive growth of that global network of such machines that is called the Internet. Interestingly, a French Jesuit priest named Teilhard de Chardin talked about this emerging worldwide web. He wrote, however, not about the sheer wonder of a linked network of machinery, but, rather, about the true intelligence of such a network, the human aspect of it. In a book called The Formation of the Noosphere, a half century ago, he wrote the following: No one can deny that a network, a world network, of economic and psychic affiliations is being woven at ever-increasing speed which envelops and constantly penetrates more deeply within each of us. With every day that passes, it becomes a little more possible for us to act or to think otherwise than collectively. This philosophy foreshadowed what we would hear later from Marshall McLuhan, and McLuhan constantly made reference to that Jesuit priest, Teilhard de Chardin, when McLuhan coined the phrase ``global village.'' But that in many ways was just secular shorthand for Teilhard's philosophy. As a student at Boston College in the 1960s, I was taught this philosophy in the same way that the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), who is Jesuit-educated, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is the ranking Democrat on this committee who is Jesuit-educated, was also exposed to this very same philosophy of the interconnectiveness of all of us, the convergence of humans into a single massive noosphere, using the word ``noos'' for the word meaning ``mind'' in Greek. Although Teilhard articulated his vision using a religious lexicon, his concept of a web of human connectivity that would envelop the Earth and be propelled by human consciousness sounds remarkably similar to today's Net, and because we have the chance to animate technology with human values, it is vitally important for us to ensure that the technology does not define us, but that we define the technology with the human values that we want it to embody. There is a certain Dickensian quality to all of these technologies. It is the best of wires, and it is the worst of wires simultaneously. This wondrous set of telecommunications skills and technologies that makes it possible to build this new world of electronic commerce, to make it possible for children and schools across the country to be able to communicate on it, also has the capacity to compromise our privacy, to insinuate itself into our daily lives in ways in which we never anticipated. The legislation which we have before us today is a very important step towards protecting citizens, animating it with human values that reflects the best of what humanity believes this technology can provide for us. While limiting the negative consequences, the unintended consequences that so much is a part of the very same dual personality of these technologies. Again, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to again thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for his excellent work on this legislation. It is going to, I think, be looked back at as a very important piece of legislation. As we move from 30 to 40 to 50 to 60 million Americans with cell phones and PCS phones, they will be grateful that this law is on the books. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), of course, on our side as well as all the others on our side. I would like to commend the staff: Whitney Fox; John Morabito; Tricia Paoletta, a Boston College graduate, I might add, Jesuit-trained; Mike O'Rielly, Andy Levin and David Schooler for their work on the legislation as well; on my staff to Colin Crowell who has worked on these privacy-related issues for the last 6 or 7 years, becoming one of the Nation's real experts on the subject, all of them necessary in order to put this legislation together. By the way, Colin is also a graduate of Boston College and Jesuit trained, as a result reflecting these larger values I think in the spiritual and practical sense that Teilhard would have wanted. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time with the hope that the Members will give unanimous support to this bill this morning.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by complimenting the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the subcommittee, for the exemplary work which he has done on this legislation. It is very important legislation and it is legislation that really does help to fill a vacuum which has been created because of the advent of the digital era. Mr. Chairman, I also thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman of the full committee, for his work in making sure that this legislation is moved quickly, constructed properly, and that the American public get this protection as quickly as possible. I also express my thanks on our side to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and all the Members who have been very much concerned about this legislation, who as well deserve credit for how quickly we have moved it out here. In 1992, back in an era long gone by now when I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, I passed a piece of legislation which was signed into law by President Bush, outlawing radio scanners which were capable of listening in on cellular phone conversations because it was and it is illegal to eavesdrop on cellular phone conversations. The legislative intent at that time was to ensure that people could not manufacture, import, sell, or use scanners that allowed people to eavesdrop on people's cellular phone conversations. The bill that we are dealing with today is quite straightforward. It is simply an extension of that previous policy, but catching up with the rapid change in technology. The central point of the bill to simply extend the prohibition on the manufacturing of scanners to include not only cellular frequencies but also the frequencies used by the next generation of wireless technology, so- called PCS technologies, which are really digital technologies, microcellular telephone systems. Mr. Chairman, digital technology actually makes it more difficult for unethical people to eavesdrop on individuals' private conversations, but it is not in and of itself a fail-safe technological inoculation against privacy invasions. For that reason, I believe that this legislation is absolutely necessary today. We must pass it. In addition, I think that we should discuss as well the whole question of encryption policy. That is what kind of sound encryption policy can we put on the books in order to give people the ability to protect themselves with the best privacy-enhancing tools possible. Mr. Chairman, important ethical questions loom for us. In fact, as a society, this rapid technological change affects us all, no matter where we live, no matter which technology we now use. And although aspects of our evolving national telecommunications policy and networks represent a new frontier from a technological standpoint, we must always remember that the fundamental principles of right and wrong stay the same whether we are in the real world or we are in the virtual world. The same fundamental principles have to remain intact. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly that we need to establish basic privacy principles for the telecommunications arena. Just because personal information can be collected, just because it can be gleaned off of the airwaves, off of the Internet, or can be cross-referenced by computers into sophisticated data lists for sale to others, does not mean that it has been technologically predetermined that privacy rights and societal values have to bend to that technology. Last year I introduced legislation that would establish a Privacy Bill of Rights for the information age. And I hope that we can begin to have the kinds of discussion in this Congress, in this country, that would ensure that we have fully dealt with the implications of this technological revolution, that we have given the technologically savvy protections to people that they are going to need to protect their financial data, their health data, their personal information, and that they have real rights to in fact ensure that their privacy is not in danger. Mr. Chairman, today's bill addresses an important segment of our communications networks: The PCS wireless marketplace. It will be important for us as a society to pass this law, to give that protection, and then to move on to the even broader debate of the implications of our ever-expanding network of networks, the Internet, satellite, other wireless technologies, cable systems and others, so there is a broad-based Privacy Bill of Rights that every American is entitled to regardless of the technology which they are using. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to using today's debate and discussion as a foundation for a larger debate about privacy in this new era, in this cyberspace era into which we have all been dragged, willingly or unwillingly, with all of our private information put out there for observation by those of which we know little and, in fact, should be quite concerned. So I would like to say, again, the gentleman from Louisiana has identified this issue. He has been able to build a consensus on our committee that has made it possible for us to move forward in a dramatic presentation in our committee. He made quite clear to all of the Members how critical it was for us to move, and as a result, we are out here on the floor. The gentleman from Louisiana deserves great credit for this important legislation that moved so quickly. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Cable Consumer Protection Act of 1998. I am pleased to be offering this legislation today with my good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays. The purpose of our legislative proposal is quite straightforward. We believe that Congress must act to continue consumer price controls past March 31, 1999, when they are scheduled to end pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Telecommunications Act mandates that after March 31, 1999, consumer price controls for cable programming services end, a policy premised on the assumption that subsequent to enactment of the Act the telephone industry would mount a large scale assault of cable markets across the country. It is clear that competition to the cable industry has not materialized in any significant way after passage of the Telecommunications Act and that except for a few exceptions in limited areas of the country, the phone industry has largely pulled back from entering the cable business. Moreover, the cold reality is that for the overwhelming majority of consumers, an alternative wireline competitor is not going to show up in their neighborhood anytime soon to provide price competition to the incumbent cable company. The effect of lifting consumer price controls 13 months from now in the absence of robust competition would be to permit cable monopolies to charge what they want for everything but the broadcast-tier basic service without an effective marketplace check on their ability to raise rates excessively. This means that for the vast majority of cable consumers, the expanded tier of service that typically includes CNN, ESPN, TNT, DISCOVERY, MTV, and other popular cable programming services will be offered without any price limits in place. Without a legislative change to extend consumer price protections for cable consumers past March 31, 1999, consumers will be hit with a cable rate El Nino. Congress must act in time to adjust the law to take note of the fact that cable competition has not developed sufficiently to warrant lifting consumer price controls. The recent cable competition report from the FCC in January underscores this fact. The new Chairman of the FCC, William Kennard, noted when releasing the report that policymakers ``should no longer have high hopes that a vigorous and widespread competitive environment will magically emerge in the next several months.'' Our legislation would simply repeal this sunset date from our communications statutes. Cable operators would then be deregulated through two underlying provisions that are already available under the law. The first test for deregulating an incumbent cable operator in a franchise area that is contained in the Communications Act of 1934 would be met if emerging competitors served more than 15 percent of the households in a particular franchise area (see Section 623](l)(1)(B)). Second, if a local phone company offers a competing cable service directly to subscribers in a franchise area then the incumbent operator is immediately deregulated, without waiting for the phone company to garner 15 percent of the market (see Section 623(l)(1)(D)). As I said during deliberations on the Act in 1995, when Mr. Shays and I offered a cable consumer protection amendment, and which I continue to believe today, sound public policy should compel us to repeal consumer price protections only when effective competition provides an affordable alternative choice for consumers, making regulatory protections unnecessary. Until that time, the question boils down to this--do you want your monopolies regulated or unregulated? In my view, such protections should not be lifted on an arbitrary deadline set on the basis of politics instead of economics. I urge my colleagues to support this effort on behalf of millions of cable consumers across the country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). The gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums) and I, we shared three offices in a corner of the Rayburn Building for 10 years. And I know that the gentleman from Missouri felt ideologically isolated for most of those 10 years in between the two offices of Markey and Dellums. But, without question, the atmosphere of collegiality and conversation was one where both Ike Skelton and Ed Markey could agree that for 28 years Ron Dellums has been the conscience of Congress on peace and arms control issues for this country and for this globe. He fought the neutron bomb during the Carter administration. He fought the B-1 bomber during the Carter and the Reagan administrations. He fought the MX missle throughout the Reagan administration. He fought the Trident II-D-5 missiles throughout the Reagan administration. He fought the B-2 bomber through the Reagan, the Bush, and the Clinton administrations. And he has also been one of the leaders in pushing for a negotiated arms control agreement. He was one of the prime leaders of the nuclear freeze movement, fought for a comprehensive test ban, fought for a ban on antisatellite weapons. He opposed the efforts to abrogate the ABM treaty to exceed the SALT II limits. And then in what I believe is his most famous speech here on the floor, his famous ``Litany of Lunacy'' speech, discussing in eye- watering detail each one of the increasingly more stupid basing modes that were designed for the MX Missile, dense pack, rail mobile, small underwater missiles, and point defense ABM deployment, each one of them devastated by the Dellums' knife to the heart. Now, some people say, well, he was a gadfly in the early years, but he matured over time. Well, I do not think in his third year in Congress Richard Nixon put Ron Dellums on his enemy's list because he was a gadfly. One has to be a lot more effective than that than to come to the President of the United States' attention on a little list he is keeping inside of his top drawer. When he came out and said that we should put economic sanctions on South Africa, he was a gadfly. But of course the one thing that turned Nelson Mandela from a political prisoner into the President of a country was Ron Dellums' efforts over 10 years as the gadfly, but then as a visionary as the world begins to accept his understanding of what had to happen in order to change the climate in this world. When he became Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, all the members said, he is pretty reasonable on those issues. And when he became Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Development, they said he is pretty reasonable on those issues. And when he became chairman of the National Security Committee, everyone started to say he is pretty reasonable on those issues. But he never compromised his principles at any time. Now, as far as I am concerned, one of the great things that is going to come out of this is that we will all remember Ron Dellums as someone who, not only sounded good on every single issue that he ever spoke to on this floor, but never, ever looked as good as Ron Dellums when he was out here on the floor. This is a combination that is unique to Ron Dellums of all of the Members that I have ever known in my 22 years in the United States Congress. For me, the most poetic, ultimate result of his career will be that, for eternity, his portrait will sit above the Chair in the National Security Committee, looking down at every chairman of every Joint Chiefs of Staff that will ever testify before the National Security Committee. And Ron Dellums will be peering down at him asking him the question: Yes, sir, I understand your interest in every weapon system that has been put as a blueprint on the design board of the Pentagon, but have you considered all of the other needs of society? Have you balanced your request so that all of the other problems in our society can be dealt with as well? Ron Dellums, you are my friend. You are my hero here in Congress for my 22 years. I mourn your leaving, but I am glad for you because you have served our country as well and nobly as any man in your generation, and I thank you for it.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this legislation represents a finetuning of provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that addresses the universal service system. The bill before us today allows a common carrier that is not subject to the jurisdiction of a State commission, including those telephone companies owned by certain federally-recognized Indian tribes, to be designated by the Federal Communications Commission as an eligible telecommunications carrier for universal service funding purposes. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 stipulated that State commissions are authorized to designate which telephone companies are so-called eligible telecommunications carriers for purposes of universal service funding. The provisions of the Telecommunications Act, however, did not account for the fact that in a few instances, States have no jurisdiction over telephone companies owned by certain federally- recognized Indian tribes. Because States have no jurisdiction in this area, such companies would have no way of becoming designated as eligible telecommunications carriers and receive universal service support. This bill is a technical correction to the statute that is entirely consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The bill ensures that telephone companies currently receiving support for universal service can continue to do so whether the designation of eligible telecommunications carrier is made by the State commission or, in the case of a company not subject to State jurisdiction, by the Federal Communications Commission. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], for his work on this issue; the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] for his work on this issue; and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] for his work in ensuring that we do have an equitable and universal application of a plan constructed in the 1930's which has served our Nation well. The universal service system of telecommunications was originated as good economic policy: Let us bring the whole country together, not just the 35 or 40 percent that had telephones in the middle of the 1930's, but let us have every home in America with access to it. It turned out to be not just good economic policy, but it turned out to be good social policy as well because it helped to knit our country together, that families could call each other wherever they were in the country, business could be conducted anywhere in the country. This amendment seeks to clarify an omission so that these particular Indian tribes are not excluded, and I want to congratulate the Members that have brought the issue to our attention. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to again congratulate all of the Members who worked on this legislation, and to add in the name of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor], who is also quite concerned about this issue, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], who has expressed great interest in ensuring that there is an equitable distribution of this benefit. With that, I would hope that the Members of the House would accept this bill.

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Gilman-Markey amendment. We are all familiar with China's past proliferation record. Over the years, China has been the Wal-Mart of weapons of mass destruction for countries such as Iran and Pakistan. Over the years, China has perfected the game of promising the United States that it would stop its nuclear garage sales with a nudge and a wink to the Ayatollahs of the world. Last week, China scored the winning point in its game of nuclear ``trick or treat.'' It got to take the treat and to play the trick. They got the treat of U.S. nuclear exports and the trick of assisting Iran and Pakistan to build the so-called Islamic bomb. The President has announced that he will certify the 1985 nuclear cooperation agreement with China, claiming that China has been sufficiently moving forward and becoming a responsible member of the international nonproliferation community and is therefore deserving of access to American nuclear technology. However, it was only this past June that the CIA had this to say about China: During the last half of 1996, China was the most significant supplier of weapons of mass destruction-related goods and technology to foreign countries. The Chinese provided a tremendous variety of assistance to both Iran and Pakistan's ballistic missile programs. Pakistan was very aggressive in seeking out equipment, material, and technology for its nuclear weapons program, with China as its principal supplier. China has repeatedly pledged to curb its habit of providing nuclear missile, chemical, and biological weapons to countries such as Iran and Pakistan, but China has repeatedly broken its pledges. The nuclear cooperation agreement was negotiated in 1985, but it has not been implemented because no President has been able to meet the congressionally mandated conditions associated with its implementation which include Presidential certification that China has become a responsible member of the international nonproliferation community. I do not believe that this was the case in 1985, and I do not believe that it is now. A 1985 AP story about the agreement pointed out that the Reagan administration had relied upon a verbal statement sealed by a champagne toast to conclude the agreement, and we all know how well China lived up to that solemn pledge. And now we find ourselves in what might be an identical situation. The administration says it got some verbal nonproliferation commitments from China and some written commitments that no one has yet seen. What has been made public about China's nonproliferation commitment seems to have some problems. One, the agreement only prevents new nuclear cooperation with Iran's nuclear weapons programs and allows continued cooperation between China and Iran to take place in at least two nuclear contracts. The agreement appears to have a loophole that could allow the resurrection of a currently suspended but not canceled contract to build a uranium enrichment facility in Iran since that contract would not fall into the category of new nuclear cooperation. The agreement does not condition nuclear cooperation with Pakistan or any other country besides Iran. The agreement does not contain provisions that would halt the transfer of nuclear-capable missiles to Iran or other countries. Now perhaps once Congress gains access to all the information, we will decide that the promises that have been made are sufficient. On the other hand, after we hold hearings, review the documents, and have some time to observe China's behavior, we may come to the conclusion that the agreement contains empty or insufficient promises, and we may want to do something about it. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and I have made this amendment to give Congress the additional time it is going to need in order to make this agreement, ultimately carefully fashioned to advance the goals which Congress has been trying to protect which this country has been advancing in the years ahead. I hope that all Members of the Congress can support us this evening in sending this very important message. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Let me reclaim my time one more time to say I agree with the gentleman, it is where we draw the line. But if the average age of the average automobile on the American highway is 8 years of age, then at least let us give that protection. We can decide that in 10 years, in 12 years it is caveat emptor, but, my God, most of us, when and if we buy a used car, we are going to be buying it in the sixth to eighth year category. So that is the only point I am trying to make here. The gentleman has moved the bill in the correct direction. I just think it stops short of capturing that group of automobiles which really is the most desirable used car that is being sold in America but with representations that may not fully reflect the safety of the car. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this point.

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

Mr. MARKEY. If I may reclaim my time, what if, rather than the case the gentleman singles out, what if it was the axle of the car that was damaged? What if it was that the steering wheel, in fact, had been coming off in the hands of the previous owner? What if, in fact, the engine on a frequent basis had been exploding into flames in the driveway of the previous owner and he had been trying to unload it on some unsuspecting consumer looking for a bargain? So, yes, the sun roof answer is an interesting one and kind of a cute one, but it does not get to the core of our concern, which is the safety-related issues that could be covered up. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. White].

Mr. MARKEY. That is correct.

Mr. MARKEY. All right. Well, listen to this one. This might have been something that has been in the back of my colleague's mind over the years. I bet we all had a little bit of a fantasy about this car, a 1989 Jaguar XJS convertible, beautiful car, really a beautiful car, air-conditioning, power steering, power windows, power door locks, tilt wheel, AM/FM cassette, leather, alloy wheels, 7,125 bucks, 1989, 8 years old, the average age of a car in the United States. I think that we at least should have the average car. Now we all know that an automobile that is older than this, as my colleagues know, is not going to be worth, on average, 7,500 bucks. It is tough to find a car that is 8, 9, 10 years old that is worth 7,500 bucks, but yet that is the average age of the cars on the road, and millions and millions of Americans every single year purchase a car in that age category because they cannot afford to buy a brand new car. Are not they entitled to some minimal amount of information about whether or not the previous owner had a major crack-up with the car? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. White].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to compliment the gentleman from Washington State, and the gentleman from Virginia, and the gentleman from Louisiana for their work on this legislation. It is a complicated piece of legislation, and where we draw the line is, of course, one that is, as my colleagues know, a judgment that is quite subjective. The bill that is before us today exempts sellers of cars where the automobile is 6 years, 6 model years, or older and worth less than $7,500. Now that is just a judgment call, but we are told that the average, the average automobile in the United States is 8 years old or older. So if the average car is 8 years old and we are picking 6 years, what are we talking about? So what I did was, I had Kelly's Blue Book site on the Internet pulled up so we can take a look at some of the cars that one might be able to purchase that would not be covered, one would not get any warning that the car had had serious damage to it. Here are just a few of the 1989 model cars that the bill exempts in the Blue book: A 1989 Chrysler Le Baron premium convertible 2-D, 100,000 miles; 1989; one could get it for $1,310; but they do not have to say if it has had a major collision, they do not have to give any information about it. How about a 1989--would my colleague be interested in this: A 1989 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme coupe, 110,000 miles, cruise control, AM/FM stereo cassette, compact disk, CD changer, premium sound, sliding sun roof, and get it for 1,900 bucks? But my colleague is not going to get any information about whether or not it was in a crash. How about this one? See if my colleague is interested. A 1989 Alfa Romeo Spyder convertible, compact disk, CD changer, premium sound, air- conditioning, power steering, the works, 4,470 bucks. 1989. But it is exempt; they do not have to pass on this information about whether or not it had a major accident. Now how about this one if my colleague is not interested in the others? A 1989 Porsche 944 turbo coupe with air-conditioning, power steering, power windows, power door locks, tilt wheel, cruise control, premium sound, sliding sun roof, alloy rear wheels, excellent trade-in value, 7,455 bucks. This is a 1989 Porsche, no information about whether or not it had accidents. I am almost done. As my colleague knows, I have got to go through the entire inventory in the store, and then I will be more than willing to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no remaining speakers on my side, so I would urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].

Mr. MARKEY. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, how much time I have remaining? The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Packard]. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 9 minutes remaining.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise with significant concerns about the bill before us this afternoon. This legislation is opposed by the Center for Auto Safety, the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, U.S. PIRG, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, Public Citizen and the Consumers Union. I believe the author of this legislation commenced with very noble intentions, but was forced into a rather elliptical legislative scheme to induce State actions for fear of triggering an unfunded mandates claim. As a result, this legislation ultimately does not require States to do much of anything to protect consumer safety. There are no mandatory safety inspections in the bill. Safety inspections are optional. Moreover, this bill may unwittingly lead to greater consumer confusion about the condition of used cars because States will undoubtedly have various requirements for consumer disclosure from coast to coast. In addition, the bill may force States to rewrite better consumer protection laws in which the terms ``rebuilt salvage vehicle'' or ``salvage vehicle'' now appear. It would prevent States from using a damage threshold of under 80 percent, which is higher than a number of States' laws, and higher than the recommendations from the Nation's attorneys general and a special task force that delved into these issues in depth. Second, I continue to have concerns that the definition in the bill of a ``late model vehicle'' is overly narrow. This legislation would exempt sellers of cars over 6 model years old and worth less than $7,500 from having to disclose any accident damage. My car, my beautiful Buick Park Avenue, is 7 years old. It only has 42,000 miles on it. If I had a major accident, I would not have to disclose that, even though I could represent that it only had 42,000 miles, looked like it was in good condition. The average car on the road these days is close to 8 years old. The Department of Transportation tells us that. So we are potentially exempting a very large fleet of automobiles from the provisions in the bill. Third, the legislation does not include a private right of action for aggrieved consumers. I believe that a private right of action ought to be included in the bill so that individuals can act without having to wait for a State attorney general to take action. Again, this legislation is opposed by the Center for Auto Safety, the Consumer Federation of America, and all the rest of the groups that I mentioned. I would hope that before the legislative process is over, the bill will be adjusted so that consumer groups will support what is ostensibly being done on their behalf. I do believe that we will still have an opportunity in the other body and in conference with the Senate to further improve the bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] for the way in which he has conducted proceedings on this bill, and I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. White] for their willingness to work with people on this side of the aisle and to listen to our concerns and those of national consumer organizations. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. White] has made some adjustments in this legislation, and I thank him for that, but I continue to feel that this bill needs further adjustment and hope that we can continue to improve upon the language before the House this afternoon or when we reach conference committee with the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I am opposed to the bill in its current form, yes.