Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, Candidate Dole said earlier this year that he did not realize that jobs and trade and what makes America work would become a big issue in this campaign. A few weeks ago the House Republican majority whip claimed that families trying to live on $4.25 an hour do not really exist. Just what planet are these people on? It appears that the Republican leadership's social circle is restricted to those who are already doing quite well, nicely, thank you. In fact, according to this week's Forbes magazine, the bible of the Republican Party, the median income of the CEO's, of the 800 biggest companies in America was $1.5 million, up 15 percent from last year. When it comes to salaries, Republicans apparently subscribe to the Forbes doctrine: more dough for the CEO, but not even a dollar if you are blue collar, while corporate chieftains may be breaking out the champagne and caviar in the boardrooms this year, millions of American families are still scraping to make ends meet. Indeed, the Republican majority leader has promised corporate America that he will resist an increase in the minimum wage with every fiber in his being. It is just like Harry Truman always said, the Republican Party supports a minimum wage, the lower the minimum the better for the working people in this country. Unfortunately, the GOP leadership has now loaded up the bill with a grabbag of back-door bennies for their broadroom buddies. They just cannot stop themselves. Clearly, Republican leaders in Washington are out of touch with the needs of ordinary Americans. Yesterday this body voted with much fanfare to repeal the gas tax. That is $15 for each American. The minimum wage is $1,800 a year for working Americans.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, Harry Truman used to say the Republican Party supports the minimum wage. The lower the minimum, the better. In today's Forbes magazine, the bible of the Republican Party, we find that the 800 top chief executives in the United States averaged $1.5 million last year, up 15 percent. But for the minimum-wage workers in this country, the Republican Party wants nothing for them, no increase whatsoever, and the proposal they are bringing out here will lead to a reduction in pay for millions of these working people. The Republican Party has had two responses so far this year. First, like Oliver Twist, when he held up his empty bowl and said ``More,'' the workhouse master said, ``Too much,'' and the second Republican response has been revolutionary, as in the French Revolution when the starving French citizens pleaded for bread and Marie Antoinette said, ``Let them eat cake.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, candidate Dole criticized the Clinton administration for allowing the United Nations to permit Iraqi oil sales, claiming that offering Saddam Hussein a lifeline to prolong his dictatorship is bad policy and bad strategy. It is interesting to see candidate Dole suddenly expressing concern over the prospect of Iraqi oil hitting the world market. Where was candidate Dole over the last 6 months when the big oil companies, like a reckless driver on a bet, drove into the year with their inventory needles on empty, passing right by any number of global filling stations in an attempt to buy cheap oil from Saddam Hussein, who wants to sell the oil to get money to buy guns? Candidate Dole, did he chide the oil companies for bad policy and bad strategy? Did he criticize the oil companies for gouging consumers at the pump when the shortages resulted from their corporate irresponsibility and sent gas prices skyrocketing? No.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and ask the House to defeat the rule and to defeat the bill. Did the 4.3-cent gasoline tax of 1993 cause the 20-cent, 30-cent, 40- cent increase at the pump in 1996? That is what the Republicans and the oil companies would have us believe. The truth is that the oil industry dropped its overall inventory by 100 million barrels a day since last June, in a bet, a bet that Saddam Hussein would be allowed to sell more oil on the world market. And when that bet did not pay off, who had to pay? The American consumer had to pay because it is an inelastic gasoline marketplace in the United States. We cannot shift over to coal or to natural gas or to solar for our automobiles. We must pay whatever the market will bear. Because the companies did not have the inventory, we must pay. The consumer must pay. Now, the oil industry wants a tax break, 4 cents a gallon. The Republicans set up their bill so that the tax break goes to the oil refiners. Not to the consumers, to the refiners. The Democrats, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], and I, we sought to ensure that the money would go into the pockets of the consumers, but we are not allowed to make an amendment to do that. I wanted to have it written right into the Tax Code that owners of an automobile get back 30 bucks, which is the average tax on an automobile driver each year. Thirty bucks. An individual would get it back immediately. But no, the Republicans say we are giving the whole break to the oil refiners, who have already seen an increase of $90, $100, $120, $150 more this year that they are going to take out of the average automobile driver's pocket. Now, what happened? The oil industry drove right past a world awash in oil, all of 1995 and 1996, and did not put any stock in their inventory, betting on Saddam Hussein. After we had sent 500,000 men and women to that country in 1991, they had the temerity then to treat themselves as if they were any other industry and keep stocks at historic lows. So what happens? As the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] said, we have witnesses before our committee, economists that the Republicans have sent to us, that say that maybe the taxpayer will get back $15, total, if we give the break to the oil refiners, but many others said they are not going to get back any at all because the oil companies will pocket the $15 for themselves. Well, what they wind up with is $120 or $130, an increased price at the pump, the tax break that went to the oil refiners rather than to the consumer, and the oil companies walk away with $120 or $150 out of every person's pocket in this country. This is a closed rule. It is wrong. Candidate Dole is not going to say anything about the oil companies. Candidate Dole is not going to fight for the consumer at the gas pump. We will not hear him say a word about the oil companies, Candidate Dole. We are just going to hear him pointing back to a 4-cent gasoline tax in 1993. Well, what about the other $150 for the consumer? All he is concerned about is the $15, and he has not even got a mechanism put together that will get it back into the pockets of the consumers in this country. So the issue is very clear, ladies and gentlemen. If we believe that the consumer should get a tax break, we must vote against this rule; and then we must vote against this bill because it in no way assures under any circumstance that the consumer is going to see this at the pump. And by the way, the American consumer that pulls up to the gas pump knows this. It is not the guy there with the hose putting it into your tank; it is the refiner, the big boss, big oil that controls who gets this tax break, and Members know they are not giving it to the American consumer.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, oil prices are up, profit for oil companies are soaring, oil company executives are recording record increases in their stock options. But crude oil prices are coming down, and oil companies are telling the New York Times it will take maybe to the rest of the year for us to figure out how to get that passed on to the consumer at the pump. This tax break, however, goes not to the consumer, but to the oil company refiners. And the Republicans say, well, that is the way to do it. Give it to the refiners. Do not you trust the refiners? Trusting the oil companies is like trusting in the tooth fairy. There is absolutely no guarantee that the oil companies are going to pass this on to the consumer. They have been ratcheting up prices over the last several months. Saddam Hussein yesterday was given the opportunity to sell oil on the world market. What happened? Oil prices continued to rise in this country. The marketplace which is presumed by the Republicans is not the marketplace observed by consumers at the gasoline pump. They want this tax break. The Democrats wanted an opportunity to give it to the taxpayer in their tax forms next year. The Republicans give the entire tax break to the oil refiners and ask them, pretty please, pass it on to the consumer at the pump. Well, we will wait for the rest of this year, and maybe, just maybe, some of it will trickle down to the consumer. But the consumer has been trickled on by Republican economic theories for the last 16 years, and they know very well after this last 5 months with the oil companies that there is very little likelihood that it is going to be passed on this year, and in fact what will happen is that not only the $130 they made out of each consumer in price rises, but the tax break itself will wind up in the oil company pockets.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. The reason that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] has framed this recommittal motion is that the American consumer has seen in the last 3 or 4 months an increase of 20 cents to 40 cents at the gas pump for the price of gasoline. Now, that means that oil companies are taking from $100 to $200 more this year out of the pockets of consumers for gasoline than they did last year. The Republican motion says that the 4 cent gasoline tax from 1993, which is their idea of relief for the consumer who is losing 100 to 200 bucks, they are going to get this 4 cent break, which is about 15 or 20 bucks, should go to the oil refinery level. That is where the bulk of their tax break goes. They give it to the oil refiners, largely, and they ask them to pass it on to the consumer. The gentleman from New York says, well, if that is how they are going to do it, we need that to be certified, we need to have some evidence that the large oil companies pass that tax break on down to the consumer. Now, we had alternatives to give the money right to the consumer, but the Republicans will not put those amendments in order. So the gentleman from New York's recommittal motion is quite simple. If my colleagues want to guarantee that the large oil companies pass that 4 cent gasoline tax break, 15 or 20 or 30 bucks, on to the consumer, then they must vote for this recommittal motion, or else the oil companies will gobble it up like a nice tasty snack.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out how much in agreement I am with the statements of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] on the issues of China and the extent to which they stand in contempt of the values which this country hold so dear. There use of slave labor in their country to undercut the prices of goods that are then sold in this country and others around the world is reprehensible. Their sale of nuclear materials to Pakistan and into the Middle East is also reprehensible and will ultimately come back to harm us and harm other countries in the world. Their pirating of goods from our country, software, intellectual property, while only at the beginning, is going to finally wind up hurting us in the one area which we believe this country should be in the lead in terms of ensuring that we are guaranteeing each child the opportunity to work in these high end skill areas in computers, in software, in telecommunications. These are not areas where we should allow the Chinese to take our intellectual property. What they have done in Taiwan, what they have done in other areas of their foreign policy, all of its is absolutely unacceptable. I hope that the wisdom of Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Wolf are heard here on the floor of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time, however, on a different subject. This week, the House will vote on the 4.3-cent gas tax repeal. This is perhaps the most unnecessary, most misguided legislative back flip of the 104th Congress. President Clinton already acted to break the oil price spiral of this spring by moving against the wishes of the oil industry to speed up the sale of the 12 million barrels of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve. He has also wisely initiated an investigation into the true causes of the 20- to 40-cent increase that some motorists have been forced to pay at the gas pump in March and April and May. And now, just today, Saddam Hussein has finally accepted the demands of the United Nations for allowing him to sell Iraqi oil on the world market. Oil prices may not finally come down from their 6-year highs, but we have just begun pumping up the hype over cutting the gas tax. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Republican rhetoric will soar. Never mind that most economists say that this 4-cent cut will go right into the pockets of, you guessed it, the oil companies, Even the oil companies themselves have conceded that they are unlikely to pass this tax through to consumers. They intend to keep it, plain and simple. And there is nothing in the package we will vote on tomorrow to prevent the outrageous outcome. I asked the Rules Committee for an amendment to fix this diversion of the tax cut to the oil companies, but the Rules Committee has prevented me from offering that alternative. Mr. Speaker, I had a quite simple amendment for this body. If you own a car, all you have to do is just check off on your tax form next year that you own a car and get back 30 bucks. The average American drives 12,000 miles a year. As a result, at 20 miles to a gallon on average, that is 600 gallons. You multiply the 600 gallons by 4.37 cents, and you get about 30 bucks. That is what this whole debate is about, by the way, 30 bucks. The simplest way of making sure that the American taxpayer gets it back is just putting it right on the tax form. If we are going to give a tax cut, why would we give it to the oil companies and ask them to perhaps at the pump at some point in the future to see, pretty please, if they would pass it on to the consumer when we can just put it as a line on the tax form? And that way the taxpayer gets it back guaranteed if they own a car and they check it off on the form. But, no, the Republicans refused to allow that to be made in order as an amendment so that we can make sure that it is the consumer and not the oil companies who get this tax break. Now, my constituents are appalled that Congress would respond to soaring gas prices by sending a rebate to the oil companies. They just do not trust the oil companies and neither should you. Just this weekend a preliminary study from the Interior Department uncovered a royalty ripoff by the oil companies of over $850 million owed but not paid to the Federal Government, to the Federal taxpayers. Why should we rebate the gas tax to these deadbeat drillers who raise gas prices? Mr. Speaker, if the Interior Department investigation of the royalty ripoff found $850 million in overcharges, what will the Department of Energy investigation of the gas price rip-off find? Well, guess what. The Republicans are proposing to pay for the gas tax by taking it from the Department of Energy. That is right, they are cutting $600 million from the very agency which is investigating the gas price ripoff. Looks like they want to call off the DOE bloodhounds before they catch up with the oil companies. Not since Hogan's Heroes have we had so many Sergeant Schultz characters averting their eyes from wrongdoing while chanting ``I hear nothing, I see nothing.'' This is the response which we get from the Republican side. But the American people can see it more clearly. Gas prices go up, oil company profits have gone up. The pay of oil company executives in the last 60 days has been soaring. The top 30 executives at the biggest 6 oil companies have seen their incomes increase on an average of $700,000 just for those 60 days. Investigations of the oil companies get curtailed. Deadbeat drillers do not pay royalties. Congress cuts a tax that has nothing to do with the increases, allowing the industry to make even more. Let us defeat this unfair rule on the gas tax repeal so that we can amend the bill to ensure that all of the savings are passed on to the consumer. That is, after all, the entire intent of this exercise, to make sure every driver, every owner of every automobile gets back the $30 that the 4 cents a year per gallon represents. Now, how did we get into this mess? Well, as all consumers know, their oil prices have gone up at the gas pump 20 to 40 cents a gallon in 1996. But the Republicans and the oil companies, they keep pointing back to a 4.3-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax in 1993. Why do they not have the hearings? Why do we not have the investigation into why gas prices went up this year 20 to 40 cents? We know it had nothing to do with that gas tax in 1993. What did it have anything to do with? Well, it had everything to do with the issue of the oil companies keeping their inventories at historic lows. What had happened was, they bet, the oil companies, that Saddam Hussein would be allowed to sell 2 billion dollars' worth of oil each 6 months into the global economy. As a result, what they did was they took their oil stocks that they keep here in the United States, and they reduced them down to 100 million barrels a day below where they historically had had them. In other words, like a reckless driver on a bet, the industry simply drove with the needle on empty, passing right by any number of global filling stations that were, by the way, awash with oil all last year in this, in a foolish attempt to buy cheap from a terrorist who wanted to sell oil to get money to buy guns, and he would not accept any restrictions upon the sale of that oil in terms of where the profits would go. Of course, the oil companies are not gambling with their own money. They are gambling with your money. In a free market, the oil industry would be punished for this outrageous behavior by consumers switching to other fuels. But cars cannot be switched overnight to alternatives. So instead of being punished, this inelastic market rewards the negligent parties with higher prices at the pump and higher profits in the board room. In fact, the personal compensation of oil executives has gone up nearly as fast as the price of gasoline. As I have said, oil company stock, executive stock options rose $33 million in just the last 60 days for the top five executives in the six largest oil companies. They must be crying all the way to the bank. Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, we have absolutely no response from the Republicans in terms of conducting the hearings that are necessary to find out exactly what did happen. If they did, we would be putting the moral pressure, which we should, upon these oil companies to keep inventory high. We sent 500,000 American men and women to the Persian Gulf in 1991, not to prop up a nascent democracy in Kuwait. No, we did it in order to ensure that the oil supply would come to our country. The oil companies should not be under price controls, but they should have a moral responsibility to every other industry in this country, to every consumer in this country to keep their tanks filled in case Saddam Hussein or any other dictator in this world decides to play games with our oil marketplace. That is all we ask from them in return for the deployment of 500,000 men and women in 1991, billions of dollars on a yearly basis to keep the oil lines open into our country. If the store runs out of Cheerios, you buy corn flakes. If they do not have orange juice, you buy grapefruit juice. But if there is no gasoline, there is nothing else you can put in your tank and they know it. The oil companies have no right to conduct themselves in that way, oblivious to the impact it has on our entire economy. That is why oil prices went up 20 to 40 cents at the pump. And that is why this whole debate over the 4.3-cent gas tax in 1993 is a political diversionary tactic by the Republicans intended to ensure that there would be no inspection of what the oil company responsibility is to our country. So I ask once again for the Republican leadership to give us the opportunity to put in order an amendment which will ensure that the tax break will go directly to the consumers. Under their formulation, it goes to the oil companies. Out of all industries in this country after the last 6 months with their spike, with the spike in the prices that they are able to charge for this one good that goes in every gasoline tank in our country, we should ensure that it does not go into their pockets. So that is why I rise, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope that my colleagues tomorrow would defeat the rule, which denies us the ability of ensuring that this tax break goes directly to consumers.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague Congressman Gerry Solomon in offering a bi-partisan which we hope will put China and other would-be proliferators on notice that the United States will punish nations that trample our arms control laws and violate international treaties designed to curb the spread of nuclear weapons. China is a pathological proliferator, plain and simple. Over the years, Beijing's rulers have compiled a mile-long radioactive rapsheet of weapons offenses that make China the Al Capone of atomic commerce. Despite rock solid evidence that China broke United States law by selling nuclear-related equipment to Pakistan and cruise missiles to Iran, the State Department has decided to let Beijing off the hook. No sanctions will be imposed in response to China's latest violations. The amendment which Congressman Solomon and I are offering today expresses the sense of the Congress that sanctions should have been imposed on China for its most recent illegal sales. Our amendment also contains a tough reporting requirement. Within 60 days after the enactment of the authorization bill, the amendment requires the President to report to Congress on what commitment our Government is seeking from China to ensure that China establishes an effective border enforcement system to prevent future transfers such as the Pakistan sale from taking place. The reporting requirement also directs the President to explain the significance of China's assurances made last week that it won't misbehave again. This bipartisan amendment has the support of Members on both sides of the aisle, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the Common Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act is an interesting title for this bill. I suppose the Republican majority decided to put common sense into the title because it is so clearly absent from the rest of the bill. This legislation would take away the rights of working American families to meaningfully punish huge corporations that put faulty and sometimes deadly products onto the market and hurt American families. Eliminating such protections would give product manufacturers or sellers a green light to cut dangerous corners, to reap higher profits. The result? More deadly products like the Dalkon Shield, exploding Ford Pintos, flammable children's pajamas, defective heart valves and other nightmares that cause serious injury or death. Now, interestingly, these cases are only 1 percent of the cases. Thirty-three percent of the cases in the courts are businesses suing other businesses. And the National Law Journal, looking into 12,000 cases that have gone on for more than 3 years in Federal court, came to the conclusion that almost all of them were businesses suing other businesses. If we are going to deal with the backlog problem, let us look at that, not whether or not an individual where a lawnmower blew up in the wife or the daughter or the child's face can sue to collect. Let us deal with these businesses. So what weighty legal issues are businesses suing each other over? Let us take a look. McDonald's sought a temporary restraining order to prevent Burger King from airing ads comparing the Big Mac unfavorably to the Whopper. Haagen Daz sued Frusen Gladje, alleging that it had infringed on Haagen Daz's exclusive right to market premium ice cream with a Scandinavian flair. Walt Disney sued the Motion Picture Academy to force a public apology for an unflattering portrayal of Snow White at the Academy Awards ceremonies. Scott Paper sued Proctor & Gamble claiming that it allegedly misled consumers about the absorptive power of Bounty paper towels by claiming Bounty was the quicker picker-upper. And finally, Hormel Foods, maker of the luncheon meat Spam sued the Muppets production company to stop them from calling a character in a new Muppets movie Spa'am, alleging that the character represented an unclean, grotesque boar that would call into question the purity and the quality of its products. So the Republicans want to give Spam the right to put the Muppets on the witness stand to resolve these business issues, even if it takes 2 or 3 years in court. But if Joe Citizen has a defective product which has maimed him or his wife or any of his children, you are out of luck. We are putting limits on you. You are ruining the court system with the 1 percent of cases you bring in. The individual against businesses. But if businesses sue other businesses, no restrictions whatsoever. This is the world on its head. This is a special interest business protection against individual Americans making corporations responsible for their own actions when they hurt Americans in our country. The President's veto should be sustained.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the political party that once suggested that catsup should be counted as a vegetable in school lunch programs has given us a new plan to slash funding for public schools across America. Over the weekend the Republican majority leader suggested that repealing the 4-cent tax on gasoline be paid for by cutting education for the children in the United States. He said if there is a place where we are getting a declining value for an increasing dollar it is in education. That is right, the majority leader of the Republican Party wants to cut the education budget of our country. And to do what? Well, the Colombo-like, Dick Tracy-like investigations of the Republican Party have found that the 4-cent increase in gasoline tax in 1993 is somehow related to oil company executive speculation in the oil market in 1996, which has led to a 20-cent increase in the price of gasoline for consumers across this country. Now, you are never going to hear a word from the Republican Party about the oil companies increasing gasoline by 20 cents a gallon in the last 3 months. Not a word. They are going to keep pointing back to a 4- cent gasoline tax in 1993 that actually led to a reduction in the price of oil over the next 2 years. Why? Well, because they want to avoid some very simple facts. Fact No. 1: The central reason that oil prices are rising in America is that the oil company executives across the board, every one of them in 1995, decided that they were going to lower the inventories that they kept to hand in order to ensure against excessive cold weather or something else going on well below their average for the preceding 20 years. Now, that is fine if it had not also been tied to a bet which they had, which was that Saddam Hussein would accept safeguards placed upon how he would use the profits from the sale of oil if the United Nations and the world community allowed has back into the marketplace for the sale of oil. Surprisingly, Saddam Hussein refuses to accept the safeguards, which would ensure that the money, the profits which he would obtain would be used for humanitarian purposes within his country and not for a massive military buildup. The oil company executives ran on empty. If we rode around in our automobile with the needle on the gas gauge down on empty and then ran into a traffic jam, we would blame ourselves. The oil companies ran on empty. There was plenty of oil in the world. The world was awash in oil all of last year and the beginning of this year, but they decided not to go to the filing station to fill up because they thought they were going to go to Saddam Hussein's gas station. Mr. Speaker, any other industry in the free market, if the Cherrios company forgets to put aside enough Cheerios, guess what? People go and buy corn flakes or raisin bran and they are the loser. Not the oil industry. They did not, through mismanagement, put aside sufficient reserves, and what happens? I tell my colleagues what happens: a 41- percent, on average, increase in profits in the last quarter for the oil companies. Forty-one percent profits. What to hear something else? Seventy-four percent profits for the secondary oil companies, and a 799-percent increase in profits for the oil drilling companies, all in the last 3 months. The last 3 months. The Republicans want to blame the 1993 4-cent gasoline tax for your 20- or 30-percent increase at the pump this year, not pointing a finger at the oil companies' mismanagement. That is like a Red Sox fan blaming the trade of Babe Ruth for the fact that we are behind 10 games in the pennant race this year. The Republicans should be ashamed for talking about cutting the education budget instead of looking at the oil companies, where they should.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership wants to cut education funds for children in this country in order to give a tax break which is going to wind up in the pockets of oil companies, by every economic analyst's view in this country. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reports that the first quarter profits at the big oil companies went up 41 percent in the first 3 months of this year. The five top executives at the six top oil companies in the last 2 months enjoyed 32 million dollars' worth of increases in their stock options; the oil company executives, $735 apiece went to each oil company executive. Clearly, the oil company executives are not upset about higher prices at the pump. They are crying all the way to the bank. Who are we going to ask to pay for this? The children of the country, in cutting education programs for them. How about looking at the oil companies? They are tipping consumers upside down and shaking money out of their pockets.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans want to repeal the 4.3-cent gasoline tax. Let us debate that. But there is no guarantee that the oil companies are going to lower prices by 4.3 cents, so the consumer would just ride over to the gasoline station, pay the extra 4.3 cents that the oil companies had in lower prices and they wind up with no extra money in their pocket. The only way in which we can be sure that the consumer gets a break is if we impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies. In that way, the consumer, as taxpayer, will get that 4 cents back into their pocket. In addition, down in Texas, Koch and Citgo and Coastal have closed down 300,000 barrels of oil refinery gasoline per day as of last Friday. Up in New Jersey, there is another 190,000 barrels that Tosco is not producing. We need the President to move in, to use his Executive power, to jawbone these energy executives, so that the 500,000 barrels of idle gasoline refining capacity is put back on line by this weekend, so that we flood the marketplace with gasoline. That drops the price of oil in the global and American marketplace.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, gas prices are shooting up at the pump. Meanwhile, the big oil companies have just announced record profits. Gasoline inventories dwindle. Meanwhile, three major refineries announced routine shutdowns on the very same day, last Friday. Pump prices soared 30 cents on oil company speculation. Meanwhile, their Republican defenders in Congress blame a 4-cent tax. The President initiates an investigation and releases reserves. Meanwhile, the Republican Congress sits on its hands. Where are the hearings? People want answers. Why are the oil companies doing this? But all we get is a Republican silence of the lambs. Mr. Speaker, consumers are in need, and all we get is a Republican fig leaf for the naked greed of the oil companies. Let us face it. The gas tax is a dry hole. If we want to strike oil, let us pass a windfall profits tax on the money that the oil companies are taking out of the pockets of consumers. They are tipping consumers upside-down and shaking money out of the pockets of these consumers. Let us have Republican hearings on this oil company scam on the American people.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Tufts University in Medford, MA and to honor its 88,000 plus alumni on the occasion of the 12th annual celebration of Tuftonia's Day. On April 21, Tufts students, alumni, professors, administrators, and parents gathered on its campuses in Medford, Boston, and Grafton, MA and around the country and world to observe Tuftonia's Day, a holiday that is dedicated to celebrating the achievements of the Tufts community. This day derives its name from the title of the revered Tufts football fight song written by E.W. Hayes, class of 1916. Tufts University is a world class institution of higher education that was founded in 1852 by Charles Tufts. From the undergraduate through the professional degree level Tufts University instills in its students the importance of volunteerism and the need to give something back to one's local community. The theme of this year's Tuftonia's Day was TuftServe, which focused on volunteer alumni involvement in community service. Last year, Tufts University alumni recorded more than 19,000 volunteer hours of community service. This is an outstanding record that should serve as an inspiration to us all. I congratulate the alumni of Tufts University for their hard work, their dedication and their loyalty.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, Harry Truman used to say that the Republican Party supports the minimum wage: The lower the minimum, the better. Now that we are at a historic minimum, the Republicans will not even give the American people a vote on the floor of the Congress so we can give America a raise, and that is wrong. Mr. Speaker, I remember when I was a boy, and minimum wage jobs, when the minimum wage went up 20 cents, it was a raise. It gave you something to be proud of. It gave you a little extra money. For Americans to get an extra one buck an hour is $1,800 a year. That is the average 40-hour workweek. That is a lot of money for families. You can buy a lot of food and health care with $1,800. That is $1 an hour. Give America a raise. Give people who make the minimum wage the decency of allowing them to fulfill Harry Truman's promise for this country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on this solemn day of remembrance I join Armenians throughout the United States and around the world in commemorating the genocide of innocent Armenian men, women, and children slaughtered with ruthless precision during the closing days of the Ottoman Empire. It is crucial that we recall the chilling events of this dark chapter in world history, face the historical facts directly and without hesitation, and dedicate ourselves to preventing such atrocities in the future. The historical record shows that in 1915, a systematic massacre of Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders began. Continuing until 1923, the cruelty and ruthlessness which marked this campaign of terror still shock the conscience more than 80 years later. Between 1915 and 1923, 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives, and more than 500 thousand were expelled from their homes. Innocent Armenians were rounded up and sent away to unknown destinations to be murdered. Uncovered by a researcher only a few years ago, a report from a United States consul stationed in eastern Turkey from 1914 to 1917 provides disturbing details of this coordinated effort to commit genocide against the Armenian people. This record of cold-blooded murder is harrowing. Despite the calculated attempt to purge the Armenian people from their land and erase Armenian culture and traditions, today the Republic of Armenia is working to establish a vital and progressive nation built upon democratic institutions. The Armenian Government has drafted a constitution, launched a program of industrial reform, privatized agricultural land, and made substantial progress in small- enterprise privatization. Armenia also has taken steps toward resolving the Karabakh conflict and moved to stabilize its economy based upon free-market principles. I am pleased that our Government has recognized the importance of Armenia and has been working closely with international lending institutions to help ease Armenia's transition to a market economy. Through a comprehensive assistance program, USAID has funded numerous initiatives in Armenia, including one aimed at improving the distribution of much-needed commodities such as kerosene. Armenia has cooperated with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, made the difficult fiscal decisions necessary to construct a market- based economy, and steadily progressed towards a free and open democratic system. As we mark the anniversary of the Armenian genocide, we join with our Armenian friends in remembering those who lost their lives in the early years of this century. While we reflect upon the past and dedicate ourselves to preserving the history of this humanitarian disaster, we also look forward. We look forward to a future in which Armenia will, we hope, grow prosperous, achieve economic strength, and, above all else, enjoy peace.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we have reached the critical juncture in this Congress, debating whether or not in fact we will deal with the critical issues that face our country, the issues that the families of this country want to see addressed, and whether we will do so in a reasonable and responsible fashion. The Republican Party has argued that we should balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. The Democratic Party has responded that they, as well, want to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. We will agree upon that. We are going to do that as a Congress and as a nation. The issue becomes how do we do it, how can it be done in the fairest possible fashion to every family in our country. How can the sacrifice be distributed that ensures that every family is treated fairly? That is the great debate going on in this Congress. The Republican Party says that as part of balancing the budget, they must fulfill their commitment to ensure that their crown jewel in the Contract With America is given over to the wealthy, those who are in the upper-income brackets. They must receive huge tax breaks. Ordinary families say, well, that does not sound too fair. If you look back over the last 20 years, we have not had any increase in the wages, those of us in the bottom 60 percentile or 70 percentile of wages in this country, people making $20,000 and $30,000 and $40,000 a year. So if there are going to be tax breaks given out, the tax breaks should not be given out to the wealthy. We should get the tax breaks, so we can educate our children in high school and grammar school and in college. That is where the tax breaks should go, not to the wealthy. And if you are going to cut programs, you cannot cut Medicare part B and make Grandma pay an extra $400 a year when she only makes $13,000 a year on average; all of the elderly, senior, retired women, when at the same time you are not going to touch the timber subsidies and the mining subsidies and the grazing subsidies, et cetera, et cetera, that the big business interests get. It has got to be fair. Grandma or Grandpa, they do not mind sacrificing. God knows, they do not mind sacrificing. They took us through the Depression, they took us through World War II, and they built us into the greatest country in the world in the 1950's and the 1960's, so they do not mind sacrificing. They have sacrificed their whole lives. What they want is fairness. The tax breaks cannot go to the wealthy. The tax breaks have to go to people who can educate their kids. The programs that get cut cannot be for the elderly: Medicare, Medicaid. The programs have to be grazing subsidies and timber subsidies and Star Wars and all the rest of these crazy programs that should not be given Federal subsidies anymore. That is the only fair way of doing it. The Republicans say, do not worry about it, because if you balance the budget by the year 2000, interest rates are going down 2 points and the oil, the water of prosperity, will flow evenly across all of those in this great country, and we will not have to do anything else for ordinary working people. The reality is that it has not flowed that way for the last 15 years, since Reaganomics began. We have seen this distortion in terms of who are the beneficiaries of the wealth in our country. The rich are getting richer and the rest are just paying taxes. That is how this system has wound up in this country. Ordinary people are the ones who are afraid that their jobs are not going to produce the income they need for their families. The fallacy in the Republican argument that interest rates are automatically going down two points--and by the way, the Democrats would wish that that would be the case, too, because we support a balanced budget, just as much as the Republicans do now--is that there is a doctrine. It is called NAIRU. It is called the non-accelerating inflationary rate of unemployment, the non-accelerating inflationary rate of unemployment. That means that the rate of unemployment, once it goes below a certain point, and, for these purposes below about 5.5 percent, about 6 to 8 million Americans unemployed. Mr. Speaker, I will return at a later date to continue my discourse on this subject.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1990 we passed in this body the Children's Television Act. In that act we set as a requirement that the Federal Communications Commission had to go into a rulemaking on the question of what the responsibilities of local broadcasters would be to have served the educational and informational needs of the children who live within the broadcast area of every television station in the United States. During the Bush years there was no real activity on this rulemaking that had to be undertaken, and there was a delay of almost a year before Reed Hunt was in fact confirmed as the new Chairman of the FCC in 1993. The FCC is in a rulemaking right now on this issue, and it is I think about as important a debate as we can have in this country because, while the V-chip which we passed on the floor and is now law, as signed by President Clinton, gives to the parents of the country the ability to block out excessively violent, sexually material on their screen, and that will be a technology available to parents within the next couple of years, it still does not in any way ensure that there will be quality positive children's television that will enhance the educational and informational needs of children across the country. That is what the Children's Television Act rulemaking at the Federal Communications Commission is all about. It is my belief that the Commission has to take a very strong stand on this issue. We know that children watch, on average, 4 to 7 hours of television every day. Now, would that it was not so, but we have moved from the 1950's in the era of ``Leave It To Beaver'' to the 1990's in the era of ``Beavis and Butthead.'' Increasingly, the broadcast stations in our country have reduced dramatically the amount of children's television of educational content that they put on the air, and instead, substituted the Flintstones or the Jetsons, and argued that in fact those are programs of educational quality because the Flintstones teach children about the archaeological age and the Jetsons will teach children about the future. But parents know that they really do not serve any educationally nutritious role in the development of young people's minds. So this debate at the FCC is quite important. I am of the opinion that the FCC has to put on the books a requirement that a minimum of 3 hours per week, even that is embarrassingly low, but 3 hours per week be the standard, and that every broadcaster have to meet that minimal standard. Now, we know that the good broadcasters are going to do that anyway, and they will far exceed the 3-hour minimum. But we will capture those broadcasters who think of their broadcast license as nothing more than an opportunity to print money, just take in the advertising dollars and to use it for whatever purposes they want, excluding children as a constituency. So this is very important, and it is my hope that all Members who are concerned about this issue will in fact join in the effort to advance this children's television agenda at the Federal Communications Commission. In addition, and I want all Members to be aware of this, as part of the communications bill we also ensure that each one of the 51 public utility commissions in the United States has to go into a rulemaking to ensure that every school in the United States has access to advanced digital technologies. Now why is that important? Very simply, because as we pass GATT and NAFTA here on the floor of Congress, we are basically constructing a new compact with the people in our country. One, we are letting the low-end jobs go, and increasingly that is the case across this country. But secondly, we are also saying that we are going to try to tie it to high-end jobs, the high-technology jobs of the future so that they will be based here in the United States. Well, what kind of competitive people will we have if we have not thought through a strategy to ensure that every child in the country, not just the children of the upper and the upper-middle class in our country, but every child, including those in the bottom 40 percentile, have access to the skills they are going to need, have the skill sets that they are going to need in order to compete for these higher-end jobs? That is why we have to give parents the weapon of blocking out the excessive violence and sexual material. That is why we have to have more positive children's programming on commercial stations. That is why we have to ensure that the public broadcasting budget is kept high so that the quality programming of Sesame Street to Barney, right through the day remains on the air, and that is why we have to ensure that every child has access to these computer technologies in every classroom from K through 12 from the day they begin school.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the ostensible justification for moving this legislation today is that our criminal justice system is overcrowded, sluggish, excessively costly. We have to do something about it. And if this bill did anything about it, I think that we could give some praise to the Republican Party. However, what they have done here is avoid the real litigation explosion in our country. Product liability cases constitute only about 2 percent of all lawsuits filed in State courts and only about 3 percent of all civil jury trials. By comparison, 48 percent of the civil lawsuits filed in State courts and 18 percent of all the cases tried are disputes between businesses. These business-versus-business lawsuits accounted for 63 percent of the lawsuits since 1989 which resulted in a verdict or a settlement exceeding $50 million. So what has the conference report done on these lawsuits? Absolutely nothing. The Committee on Rules would not even allow me to bring an amendment out here on the floor on this blight upon the law system of our country. The conference report actually contains provisions that explicitly exempt all civil actions brought for commercial lawsuits from any of the harsh new procedural substantive provisions in the bill. Let us just consider some of the cases they do not want to deal with. McDonald's brought a temporary restraining order to prevent Burger King from airing ads comparing the Big Mac unfavorably with the Whopper. Walt Disney sued the Motion Picture Academy to force a public apology for an unflattering portrayal of Snow White at the Academy Awards ceremony. Advil sued Tylenol for such weighty legal issues as whether Tylenol was as effective as Advil for headache pain and whether Tylenol is unbeatable for a headache. Scott Paper sued Procter & Gamble, claiming it had allegedly misled consumers about the absorptive power of Bounty paper towels by claiming Bounty was the Quicker Picker-Upper. Now, did they go after these cases in this bill? Absolutely not. Business suing business frivolously, and area after area? Which case do the Republicans want to take on? It is where an individual has been harmed by a product, where the lawnmower, where some consumer product has exploded in the face of a family member. Those are the people they are going to take on. Those are the people they are going to tell cannot sue any longer. This is a disgrace. The real abuse in the courts are businesses suing businesses. That is 90 percent of the problem that we have got, frivolous case after frivolous case being brought. It is time that we brought the truth to these issues and rejected this conference report.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with sorrow and frustration that I rise to oppose this bill. Reform of our health care system is long overdue. The fact that some 40 million Americans do not have health insurance is an absolute disgrace, and it is high time that we do something about it. Last week the Committee on Commerce unanimously approved legislation that would have provided at least some relief to millions of hardworking American families by ending job lock and limiting the use of preexisting condition clauses. It was a good first step. It was incremental, to be sure. It would have guaranteed that health care was affordable, but at least it would have been accessible. It was modest, and for that reason I had hoped that a large majority of Members from both sides of the aisle could support it. Mr. Speaker, my mother always says that a half a loaf is better than none, and I supported that bill, even though it was really only a couple of slices. I know the American people want the whole loaf. Unfortunately, the leadership has taken a couple of good, wholesome slices of health insurance reform and slapped a whole lot of extraneous junk food on top, creating a health care hoagie of medical savings accounts, caps on medical malpractice awards, and other unhealthy additives. These anchovies and olives and onions are sure to tickle the taste buds of a very few special interests, but cause heartburn for millions of consumers. Barry Goldwater's old words can be twisted here this evening, because now the Republican Party believes that extremism and the defense of special interests is no vice. ``The American Medical Association wants it, we will just toss it into this bill.'' Barbara Tuchman wrote a very famous book back in the early 1980's, entitled the ``March of Folly'', basically chronicling throughout the ages the mistakes.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, assault weapons. The narcotic of the NRA. The weapon of choice for lunatics bent on slaughtering large numbers of their fellow men, women, and children. Congress banned these killing machines. The public is disgusted with gun violence. But now a radical wing of the Republican Party, which controls decisionmaking in the House of Representatives, has decided to legalize these crowd-killing devices again. Why? Promises made, and promises kept. Promises made and promises kept. The NRA has come to town to redeem a promise, and the Republicans who made this deadly deal are about to keep it. The whole world is watching. It is appalled that a Nation soaked in the blood of gun violence would legalize the more efficient massacre of innocents. Let us stop this Congress before it hurts people across this country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the second amendment does not allow Americans to own tanks or bazookas or grenade launchers or assault weapons. But the chief lobbyist of the NRA testified before Congress this year that anyone should be able to own them. I cannot believe that we are actually debating on the floor of Congress whether the American people are safer with these guns on or off the streets. But we are debating it today. Why? Promises made and promises kept, ladies and gentlemen. Promises made and promises kept. The NRA has come to town to redeem a promise, and the Republican freshmen who made this deadly deal are about to keep it. Do not insult our police officers, who are sick and tired of having their fellow officers gunned down by crackpots. Do not insult the mothers and fathers of elementary school children sprayed with 106 rounds in Stockton, CA. Do not insult the American people, who saw their own White House peppered with gunfire by a lunatic with an assault weapon. Stop this Congress before it hurts somebody. Vote no.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, already twice the Government has been shut down, once in the fall, once in December, and now we are skidding up towards a third point where the Government could be shut down yet again. The conditions that the Republicans are imposing, we must cut the EPA by 20 percent, we must cut the Department of interior by 10 percent, we must gut environmental laws or else they will not allow the Government to operate. GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now GOP stands for gang of polluters who will shut down the Government unless we gut environmental laws in this country. They say the definition of insanity is someone that keeps doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. The Republicans think they can shut down the Federal Government for a third time and that the people of this country will not be upset. They will be. This time they are going to say, ``Three strikes and you're out.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to join with Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley, Subcommittee Chairman Jack Fields, and the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee, John Dingell, in support of the Securities and Exchange Commission's authorization for fiscal year 1997. Each of them deserve praise for their efforts to develop a solution to the persistent problem of how to provide a stable funding mechanism for the SEC--an agency long recognized by Members of both parties as one of the most effective, efficient and essential anywhere in Government. The funding mechanism contemplated by the bill is workable and responsible, and deserves broad bipartisan support. Most significantly, it removes the temptation that has seduced administrations, past and present, to view securities registration fees as a source of general revenues. Especially during the bull market of the last 6 years, these fees have greatly exceeded the size of the SEC's overall budget. I am, of course, reluctant to see revenues cut at a time when some are seeking to slash the resources made available to support our children's education, our elderly's right to retire with dignity, and every person's right to a clean environment. At the same time however, we must be certain that the gamesmanship that has surrounded SEC budget deliberations for the last several years is ended permanently. Notwithstanding my support for the bill coming before us today, I continue to believe that the mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission--to protect the Nation's 100 million investors and to ensure fair and orderly markets--is so vital to our national interests that the Commission should be self-funded, subject to annual Congressional approval of its budget. Although I will continue to support the self- funding concept, I am satisfied that the proposal before us today is a significant step in the right direction, and I am pleased to endorse it. I am somewhat less sanguine about the size of the SEC budget as contemplated by the legislation. In light of the record levels of investment in our markets, the unprecedented number of new investors attracted to them, the complexity of many of the securities that are sold, the increasingly sophisticated marketing techniques used to sell them, and the growing volatility the market is experiencing as we attempt to adjust to the remarkable altitudes we have recently reached, the commitment of additional resources to this remarkable agency would certainly be justified. Here are some facts and figures worth keeping in mind when thinking about the SEC's budget. In 1940, the SEC had 1,400 full-time staff. Fifty-six years later, the SEC has 2,800 full-time staff. In 1940, the typical daily trading volume on the New York Stock Exchange could be counted in the thousands. Today, an average day involves 400 million shares, and the New York Stock Exchange has increased its capacity to handle well over a billion shares a day. Another 450 million shares are traded on the NASDAQ, representing interests in more than 5,000 companies. Of course the NASDAQ didn't even exist in 1940--it was invented in 1972. Derivatives didn't exist in 1940 either--nor did money market funds, mortgage-backed securities, bond funds, hedge funds, junk bonds, penny stocks, stock options, program trading, financial futures, poison pills, or triple witching hours. I've addressed the funding mechanism in the bill as well as my concern about the SEC budget. Let me briefly touch upon why the soundness of our system of securities regulation is so important, and why trendy proposals to sweep away important aspects of securities laws need to be considered carefully, lest they lead to unintended and possibly devastating consequences. For a rapidly growing number of Americans, and a vastly higher percentage of the population than in 1940, hopes for the future--dreams of being able to send a child to college, to buy a new home, or to retire in dignity--are increasingly dependent on the stability, integrity, and success of our financial markets. Indeed, this growing dependence by individuals on the success of the market may be a stealth contributor to middle class Americans' growing anxiety about the future. For tens of millions of Americans with stakes in the market through a pension plan or mutual fund, the effectiveness and safety of our markets, and the existence of a vital and vigorous SEC, is neither an abstract nor an ideological issue. The important bill brought before us today recognizes the crucial role that the SEC plays in promoting fair, honest, and successful capital markets. Again, I applaud the work of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], chairman, and all on the majority side who worked in a bipartisan fashion, especially the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], so that we could bring this bill out here today. I speak for the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the distinguished ranking member, in extending our plaudits to the majority for their work. This has been done in a bipartisan fashion, working in close cooperation with Chairman Levitt of the Securities and Exchange Commission and their staff to ensure that we could produce a budget that would give predictable sources of revenue to the SEC for their very important mission, especially in these coming months and years when the aerodynamics of the existing market may in fact come into question and we have to ensure that we have got an agency there that can manage the consequences at that time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.