Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Citizen Representative Act of 1996. For years, it has been widely recognized that deep flaws and gaping loopholes in the way campaigns are paid for in America have amplified the importance of well-heeled special interest groups, reduced the clout of small individual contributors, and favored wealthy candidates while effectively silencing the voices of citizens unable to raise the large sums of money needed to mount a campaign for Congress. Citizens across the country and many here in Congress understand that our system for financing campaigns in this country is broken and needs to be fixed. Skyrocketing campaign costs discourage everyday Americans from running for public office. Small, individual campaign contributions are crowded out by big money contributions from political action committees [PAC's] I believe the best way to accomplish meaningful campaign finance reform and make Congress more accountable to the public is to encourage congressional candidates to raise more of their campaign funds from small contributions from individual donors. The bill I am introducing today motivates candidates to rely on small contributions in two primary ways: funds from a voluntary checkoff of Federal tax returns will go toward a Citizen Representative Fund established at the Treasury Department to finance voter communications vouchers for candidates agreeing to observe the bills spending limits; and ceilings imposed on campaign spending from PAC's and large contributions will increase the importance of small donations. Enacting lobby reform legislation and tightening gift rules have generated momentum we now should harness to pass real, comprehensive campaign finance reform. We have a unique opportunity to invigorate our democratic process, return power to voters across the country, and restore faith in the Congress. We must not let this moment pass. If we fail to act, we will be preserving a system stacked in favor of wealthy individuals while preventing many potential candidates from getting a seat at the campaign table. Last month, press reports indicated that 11 House candidates each have used at least $100,000 of their own money to finance their 1996 campaigns, and 26 candidates have put at least $50,000 of their personal funds toward their races. A hefty bank account should not be a prerequisite for running for Congress. That's why the bill I am introducing today restricts to $25,000 personal contributions a candidate can make to his own campaign if the candidate wants to be eligible to receive the benefits provided in the bill. The bill also tames the powerful influence of PAC's. Last summer, the public interest watchdog group Common Cause released a study indicating that in the first half of the 1995 contributions from PAC's accounted for large chunks of House candidates' total campaign funds. The legislation I am introducing today requires candidates agreeing to the bill's spending caps to limit their expenditures from PAC's to 15 percent of their total spending. That's a maximum of $90,000 from PAC's. To ensure that voters get the facts about candidates running for House seats, the bill makes participation in two nonpartisan debates a requirement for receiving communications vouchers. Our democracy is fueled by full and open discussions of the important issues facing our Nation, and all candidates should communicate their positions to the voters so that well-informed decisions can be made. I have long believed that individual citizens should have more of a voice in campaigns for Congress. My bill expands the participation of everyday Americans in political campaigns through the voluntary checkoff and the emphasis on small contributions. I am hopeful that the House Oversight Committee will act on this legislation. As people around the world strive to build democracies in States where ballots once listed only one choice for seats in a bureaucracy unconcerned with the needs of its own citizens, we need to increase participation in the electoral process here at home to maintain a healthy democratic system that is responsive to all Americans.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today the Infectious Agents Control Act of 1996, which will address the need to keep infectious agents that could pose a serious threat to the public health and safety out of the hands of dangerous people while ensuring that these substances remain available to scientists with a legitimate research need for them. By now, most of Members of this body have probably read news reports about Larry Wayne Harris, the Ohio white-supremacist who ordered bubonic plague through the mail last summer. It is frightening to think that just about anybody with a 32-cent stamp and a little chutzpah could get a hold of any number of potentially dangerous infectious substances. The Ohio case may be an isolated incident or it may not be--we really don't know. Why? Because the Federal Government has no system in place today to regulate the transfer of these agents within the United States. I think that's a situation that needs to be corrected, and I am introducing legislation today to do so. Why worry about the flow of potentially dangerous infectious agents within our borders? Let me read you a few lines from an article on the threat posed by these agents when they are converted into biological weapons, written by U.S. Navy Commander Stephen Rose for the Naval War College Review. Cmdr. Rose writes that: Science can now reshuffle the genetic deck of micro- organisms to produce a theoretically unlimited number of combinations, each with its own unique blend of toxicity, hardness, incubation period, etc. In short, it is becoming possible to synthesize biological agents to military specifications. Thus, the world lies on the threshold of a dangerous era of designer bugs as well as designer drugs. Biological weapons have been called the poor man's atomic bomb. They are relatively cheap to produce, and you get an appallingly big bang for your buck. In fact, experts report that some of the supertoxins that have been developed in recent years are ten thousand times more potent than the nerve gases we are more accustomed to, which have been described as mere perfume in comparison to some of their biological competitors. The Office of Technology Assessment reports that some 15 nations, including Libya, North Korea, and Iraq, are suspected of having biological weapons development programs. Clearly, the potential of biological weapons to rain devastation down upon their victims should give those charged with preventing international terrorist attacks on our Nation cause for serious concern. However, the lesson we learned from the tragedy at Oklahoma City is that we cannot be satisfied to only look outward for terrorist threats. We must also be vigilant against home-grown threats from paramilitary groups within our borders, which could use biological or chemical weapons against their fellow Americans to further their radical anti-government agendas. On the morning of March 20, 1995, the Japanese Government was faced with just such a situation. A home-grown Armageddon-group called Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas--a deadly nerve agent that is 500 times more toxic than cyanide gas--in the Tokyo subway system, killing 12 people and injuring thousands more. According to a staff report on the incident prepared by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the Aum sect had its own chemical weapons manufacturing plant, for the production of sarin gas, and was trying to develop biological weapons, including botulism and anthrax. To get a sense of power of those weapons, consider this: 3 billionths of an ounce of botulism toxin would be enough to kill me. Incidentally, the staff report concluded that the Aum sect was ``a clear danger to not only the Japanese Government but also to the security interests of the United States,'' which was the target of much of the Aum leader's rhetoric. In an effort to reduce the risk of a similar attack in the United States, I am introducing legislation directing the Centers for Disease Control to develop a regulatory regime to control access to those infectious agents that could pose the greatest threat to public health if they fell into the wrong hands. It is my understanding that a working group including representatives of CDC, the Department of Justice, and other relevant Federal agencies already has begun to develop such a regime. My bill would ensure that that work is completed and the system is in place within 1 year of its enactment. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Budget Chairman John Kasich and Representative Joseph P. Kennedy II. I am hopeful that this legislation will be given the swift attention that the issue it addresses demands in the House, and that the Senate will take up similar legislation soon.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Dr. Ganske today in introducing the Patient Right to Know Act of 1996. When I was a boy, my mother told me, ``if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.'' Now when my mother said that, she was not talking about protecting the feelings of health plans. She was talking about people, who sometimes, unfortunately, become patients. So she would be quite surprised to see this dangerous twist on her advice in some of the contracts between doctors and health plans we see today. Today, to protect the feelings of health plans, doctors are being asked to restrict what they say to their patients. This is wrong, just plain wrong. No doctor can practice good medicine in a muzzle. The fact is, when you're a patient, what you don't know can hurt you. That's why Congressman Ganske and I are introducing the Patient Right to Know Act. The Patient Right to Know Act will prohibit health plans from restricting communications between doctors and their patients about treatment options, their benefits and risks, and other issues related to quality of care. It will ensure that doctors are allowed to tell their patients why a plan decides to pay for, or deny, a treatment. Finally, it will bar plans from restricting doctors from talking to their patients about financial arrangements they have with the plans which might affect those patients' access to care. The impetus for our bill was the increasingly frequent reports of health plans trying to keep doctors from talking freely to their patients about their health care needs, or forcing doctors to sign contracts that include clauses restricting doctor-patient communications. I was deeply disturbed by these reports, because I am a great believer in the principle of informed consent and restrictions on communications between doctors and their patients make informed consent impossible. Attacks on informed consent--which is the most basic patient protection--simply cannot be tolerated in our society. I have worked on consumer protection issues for a lot of years now, and I look at it this way: Patients are really just consumers of health care. Like any other kind of consumer, patients need complete and accurate information about the products or services available if they're going to make good decisions about the health care they consume. The only difference is, we are not talking about toasters or washing machines here, we are talking about people's health and lives. Now Dr. Ganske here has an advantage, because while I was at law school, learning about the rule against perpetuities, he was in med school, learning how to make sick people well. So when Dr. Ganske is feeling a little under the weather, and he goes to see his family doctor, he's on a pretty level playing field. He knows what questions to ask. He's probably already read about the latest treatment for whatever is it that ails him. But the ordinary Joe is at a disadvantage. He does not get the New England Journal of Medicine at home. He places enormous trust in his doctor, and depends on his doctor to tell it to him straight. When a health plan tries to control or censor communications between its doctors and their patients, that critical bond of trust is broken. Silence isn't always golden. Although he who has the gold sometimes tries to demand silence--the fact is, in today's world, knowledge and information are the coins of the realm. Nowhere is this truer than in the realm of health care. Hippocrates said ``Health is the greatest of human blessings.'' Surely, it is the most precious although many of us do not realize this until we ourselves or someone we love becomes seriously ill. Then, we would give away anything we have--all of our worldly treasures--to make them well again. At that moment, our greatest ally is our doctor, and our most valuable asset is the information he can give us. That is why passing the Patient Right to Know Act is so important.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation aimed at promoting competition in the electric utility industry. This legislation creates Federal incentives for the removal existing State- level barriers to competition in the generation of electricity--so that competition and market forces can be unleashed in a manner which will efficiently and reliably provide electric energy to retail consumers at a lower cost. Today, the electric utility industry operates as one of our Nation's last great protected monopolies. Presently, the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity remains fundamentally a monopoly enterprise. The monopoly nature of this industry has, in turn, necessitated a very strict system of Federal and State utility regulation aimed at protecting captive utility ratepayers from potential overcharges, abuses, and conflicts-of-interest. Over the years, Congress has taken the lead in promoting increased competition in the electricity industry. In 1978, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act [PURPA] first opened up competition by making possible the growth of independent power. This was achieved by requiring utilities to purchase power from such independent producers at their avoided cost. While there have been problems in some States with implementation of the act, by most accounts, PURPA has been largely successful in achieving its objectives. The congressional conference report accompanying the bill predicted that 12,000 megawatts of nonutility projects would be on-line by 1995. In actuality, by 1991, 32,000 megawatts was on line. In addition, the emergence of wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and other renewables industries can be directly traced to PURPA. In 1982, the Energy Policy Act [EPACT] built on the foundation established under PURPA by adopting an amendment I authored along with the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] which opened up wholesale transmission access. In the same legislation, Congress also adopted amendments to the Public Utility Holding Company Act [PUHCA] aimed at allowing utilities to establish exempt wholesale generators. As a result of industry changes prompted by these bills, we are now at a crossroads for the electric utility industry--half-way between the old heavily regulated monopolies of the past and the new competitive electricity marketplace of the future. We now have a growing independent power industry, increased cogeneration, and increased interest by industrial customers in lowering rates through competition. While transmission and distribution systems appear likely to remain a natural monopoly, we now have an historic opportunity to bring full competition to the business of electricity generation. The transition to such a competitive market, however, will require both Federal and State action. Right now, following the overall policy direction mandated by the transmission access provisions of EPACT, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] is moving forward on a proposed rulemaking on wholesale wheeling and stranded investment. This is a positive development and I look forward to adoption of a final FERC rule this year. In addition, several States, including Massachusetts, have initiated retail wheeling proceedings which, when completed, will open up retail competition and consumer choice by eliminating monopoly control over retail electricity generation. Unfortunately, many other States are either not moving forward all or have become stalled part of the way through the process. I find this troubling in light of the fact that many in the utility industry are now arguing for a repeal of PURPA by suggesting that competition is already here. The reality is that full competition has not yet arrived. We cannot and should not deregulate into a monopoly environment; we can and should deregulate into a competitive marketplace. The bill I am introducing today provides incentives to move toward competition. Specifically, my legislation will link any repeal of the mandatory power purchase provisions of PURPA to the arrival of real competition in the market for electricity generation. It would establish overall Federal standards for competition which could be met either by divesting generation from transmission and distribution assets or, alternatively by permitting retail power generation competition on an open and nondiscriminatory basis. In addition, the bill establishes certain minimum certification requirements aimed at ensuring that energy efficiency and renewables programs are retained and that the low-income consumers receive protections against price discrimination. Utilities in States that meet the minimum certification requirements and either the retail competition or divestiture standards in the bill would be freed of the mandatory power purchase requirements of PURPA. In other words, my bill deregulates--but it deregulates by creating the conditions in which true competition can exist. I agree with Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Schaefer it makes little sense to adopt piecemeal bills such as a repeal of the mandatory power purchase provisions of PURPA or a repeal of PUHCA. We cannot get rid of the protections built into these bills without also attaching the fundamental reason these laws were enacted in the first place: the continued existence of a government protected utility monopoly. With the bill I am introducing today, I hope to advance the dialog on the difficult and complex issues Congress will be confronting as we consider legislation regarding PURPA. Obviously, there are many broader restructuring issues that are not specifically addressed in my bill. These include the need to retain certain PUHCA restrictions on abusive interaffiliate transactions, the appropriate boundaries of Federal and State regulatory jurisdiction, treatment of conservation, efficiency, and renewables, and need to eliminate certain Government subsidizes for the power marketing administrations. While these are difficult and complex issues, I believe that electric utility restructuring--if done properly--will benefit all consumers of electricity. A properly crafted approach holds out the hope of lowering electricity rates through increased competition, while simultaneously protecting the societal and environmental benefits of conservation, improved efficiency, and greater fuel diversity. I look forward to working with the leadership of the Commerce Committee as we proceed into this debate on electricity restructuring legislation, so that we can produce a truly balanced and bipartisan approach to bringing real competition and consumer choice to the electricity industry.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman]. (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo]. (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I would like to begin by complementing the gentleman from Louisiana, Jack Fields, and the gentleman from Virginia, Tom Bliley, and all of the Republicans that worked on this bill for so long. They conducted the process in a bipartisan fashion. It is to their credit. I want to compliment the gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell and so many of the Democrats on our side who have worked on this bill for so long, 4 years, 4 long years. A similar bill passed near unanimously in 1994. The gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, in fact came to the well and called it the model of bipartisan legislation in 1994. In the Senate that year, unfortunately, it kind of died in the final 3 or 4 weeks. But it was revived in January of last year, and, working together in that spirit of bipartisanship, the bill was brought back out here on the floor again today. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the way in which the gentleman from Texas, Jack Fields, at the subcommittee level, especially for me, comported himself, and worked to make sure that this bill would be done in away that dealt with the ideas that had to be dealt with. This bill is critically important, because it unleashes a digital free-for-all. We take down the barriers of local and long distance and cable company, satellite, computer, software entry into any business they want to get in. Once and for all, all regulations are taken down. The premises are the same as they were in the bill a couple of years ago: More jobs and more choices. Now, there is a kind of paradox, because the larger companies are going to have to lay off people in many instance in order to remain competitive with the thousands of companies who are going to be creating new jobs on this information superhighway, with the net result of many tens and hundreds of thousands of new jobs, far more than have ever existed in this area of the American economy. For me, that premise of competition has always been the preferred mode that we should use in order to accomplish this revolution in our society. Mr. Speaker, the bill contains many very important provisions. It contains a V-chip that will allow parents to be able to protect their children against the 500 channels, which is, by the way, only shorthand for infinity, because that is how many channels will be coming into people's homes. They are going to need an effective way of blocking out programs which are offensive to their families. It also preserves the concepts of localism and diversity which are so critical in our telecommunications marketplace so that we will have many voices in each marketplace. It also will ensure learning links built into each classroom, K through 12, through preferential rates which is going to be absolutely essential in the post-GATT, post NAFTA world. As we let the low-end jobs go in our society, we have to make sure that every child K through 12 is given the skills that they are going to need in order to compete for these high-skilled jobs that otherwise will go to any other place in the world that is providing their workers with those skills. It also expands very important privacy protections to individuals in their relationships with these very large companies. People will be able to go to a Radio Shack and be able to purchase their own set-top box. They will be able to purchase their own converter box, their own modem. They will be able to purchase any product which is accessible to this information superhighway. It offers, in other words, real competition in the consumer electronics marketplace as well. We have come a long way in the last 15 years in this country. Back then we had one big telephone company. We had three television stations in most communities in the country. Today we have faxes. We have digital satellites. We have personal computers. We have cellular phones. We have brought this country into the Information Age. As the gentleman from Texas said, we now unleash this new revolution, for 15 years and beyond, in terms of massive changes that are unimaginable, but will be the product of competition. The worldwide web was unimaginable 15 years ago, and today it is the coin of the realm in the marketplace. It was Government funded and created, but nonetheless it has been transmogrified into a private sector wonder. So we are all going digital. Life will never be the same. This bill helps to speed up that process ever further. So in conclusion, again, I cannot compliment the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] enough for his leadership, for his vision on this bill. I cannot thank enough the gentleman from Virginia, as well, for the way in which this process has been guided and especially to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields]. I want to compliment him for the gentlemanly way that he treated all of us throughout this process. He has been a good friend to all of us and ultimately to the consumer of this country by the competition that is unleashed in this bill. I hope that everyone supports this rule and ultimately supports the bill when it comes to the floor in final passage.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day. The legislation which we are considering has been constructed over a 4-year period. Much deliberation has been given to this legislation. Many issues so complex that they could not be resolved in brief periods of time had to be deliberated after much expert opinion over month-long periods. The product that we have out here on the floor is not perfect, but it is the blueprint for the information superhighway of the 21st century. Its most important component is that it uses competition as its core, as its soul. Everything in this bill is not perfect. The bill, in fact, guarantees that no company in any industry will any longer be able to rest comfortably knowing that they have a monopoly and that telecommunications or computer or long distance or software or whatever high technology industry that they seek to make their fortunes in. In addition, we ensure diversity. We ensure that consumers are going to have choices. There will be two wires at a minimum to almost every single home in the country, each wire able to perform every single one of the services. If you throw in the electric companies, which also have the capacity to do so, we are going to have a revolution which the smallest companies, the smallest software companies, that thousands and thousands of software companies and computer companies which represent the real job creators over the next generation will, then they can one way or the other get their product into the homes, into the businesses of every single person in this country. This is a revolution. It breaks down all the old models of one cable company, of one television company. It breaks new ground in a way that should make every Member of this Congress proud. It is not perfect, but it is the best overall blueprint that any country in the world has ever come up with. We have the lead in all telecommunications fields. This bill allows us to sprint out further and look behind us over our shoulder at No. 2 and No. 3 in the world. We should not delay yet another 2 years. Let us pass this bill. On the issue of spectrum, for each of us here in Washington there is a channel 4, a channel 7, a channel 9. Next to it is a channel 3, a channel 6, a channel 8. The broadcasters will be given channels 3, 6, and 8. They will convert over to digital on those channels, and then they have to give back the old channels here in Washington. Channel 4, 7, and 9 must be given back, and then we can auction off those channels. They are only left with the same amount of band width as they have ever had. Let us not have this red herring to float out here on the floor. There is no digital spectrum, there is no analog spectrum. There is spectrum. You use digital equipment or analog equipment. The broadcasters need time to convert over to digital equipment. The spectrum is the same. I want to compliment, finally, the people who constructed this bill. On my staff, Colin Crowell and David Moulton who worked tirelessly. David Leach, chief staffer for the minority; Alan Roth and Andy Levin on our side. Mike Regan, Cathy Reid, Christy Strawman on the majority side. Michael O'Rielly, J.D. Derderian, Steve Cope. This bill was put together after thousands of hours of discussion. It is a very good bill for the future of this country. We will have to come back and revisit it again and again in order to ensure that we continue to perfect that which we seek for this country. But this bill is the best that any in the world have ever seen. We are breaking ground that Japan and Germany and France and England do not have the nerve to take. We are going to enter a brave new world where our companies will be forced to produce the best products, the best service at the lowest price and highest quality that will be sold around the world. Some companies will be winners, some will be losers. Many more will be winners than losers. Our country ultimately will be the big winner. This is a good bill. It is one that this House should be proud of. It is a bipartisan product of work over a 4-year period. Again, I compliment the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, and my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, Jack Fields, for his hard and courageous work on this bill; the gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, chairman, once and future; and all the Members, minority and majority who have contributed to this process. It is something this House will be proud of. It will be, when we look back, the one product out of this 2-year period where all Members of Congress, when they are sitting in their rocking chairs, can point back to and say ``I was there when the blueprint of the 21st century was noted on the floor of the House of Congress.'' Vote ``yes'' on this telecommunications bill. Mr. Speaker, over a number of years, Congress has sought to update antiquated communications laws while remaining true to the three core principles of the Communications Act of 1934 that have guided communications policy for decades: universal service, diversity, and localism. These three principles have served our Nation well and have helped bring Americans the finest communications technology and service in the world. The challenge for policymakers is to reform the rules in a way that retains these core values as they are impacted by two new factors: rapid technological change and fierce competition. In many ways, the conference report on S. 652 makes great progress in accomplishing this task. In fact, many of the key policy proposals embodied in the legislation trace their roots to the Markey-Fields and the Dingell-Brooks legislation of the 103d Congress--H.R. 3636 and H.R. 3626, which were approved by the House by an overwhelming 423 to 5 vote. For example, it will help establish learning links to K-12 schools, libraries, and hospitals. It contains expanded privacy protections for consumers. It unbundles set-top boxes and other interactive equipment so consumers can buy the equipment of their choice. It helps to ensure access by disabled persons to telecommunications equipment and services. The bill will make sure that universal service evolves over time and that all competitors contribute to the system. It allows the phone industry into the cable business and vice versa. It breaks down the last vestiges of monopoly control over local telephone service as a condition of Bell entry into new business opportunities. These were all elements of the Markey-Fields legislation of the 103d Congress. The conference report on S. 652 reflects a series of compromises between the House and Senate that resolve to my satisfaction the series of objections I raised to H.R. 1555 when it was approved by the House last August. The conference report on S. 652 being brought back to this body is a much-improved piece of legislation. It scales back or removes many of the problematic provisions of H.R. 1555 while retaining procompetitive, pro- consumer measures that I strongly support. Title I of the legislation will break down barriers to competition in the so-called local loop. Ridding the communications industry of the last vestiges of its monopoly past has long been a goal of mine. I believe strongly that we need to bring competition to every nook and corner of the telecommunications industry and break down monopoly barriers so that small companies and electronic entrepreneurs could get into the game, create jobs, and compete for consumers. My overarching policy objective in this telecommunications legislation has been to create jobs and choices for the American people. For this reason I have consistently opposed monopolies and worked to rein in monopoly power and abuses wherever they arise. Why? Because monopolies limit choices. Monopolies retard technological development. Monopolies do not avail consumers of the lowest prices and the highest quality. For me, competition has consistently been the preferred vehicle for bringing affordable and high-quality telecommunications technologies to the American consumer. The compromise bill will allow the regional bell operating Companies into the long distance business, telephone companies into the cable television business, and the long distance industry, cable industry, and others into the local phone business. Over the long term I believe that increased competition between and among these hitherto separate industries will create tens of thousands of jobs. Moreover, I believe that the real explosion in terms of job creation, innovation, and new services will come from the computer and software industry as it converges with the telecommunications industry and further expands high-technology networking in the country. The original House proposal would have deregulated cable systems within 15 months of the date of enactment. The pending legislation will deregulate the rates of most cable systems 3 years from now--in March 1999. The rationale for deregulating cable systems at that point is due largely to the success of the Cable Act of 1992. Although the cable industry fought the provision vigorously, the Cable Act of 1992 gave emerging satellite competitors and others access to cable programming, making competition viable. I am encouraged by the progress that direct broadcast satellite companies and wireless cable companies are making in signing up customers and competing against incumbent cable operators. It is my hope that robust competition will develop between these industries by 1999 to an extent that sufficiently avails consumers of affordable marketplace choices for multichannel video programming. In addition, many of the cable provisions of the House bill that I found objectionable have been favorably resolved in the pending bill. The legislation no longer requires 3 percent of subscribers to complain to the FCC prior to inducing a rate review. Instead, franchising authorities may complain to the Commission after receiving consumer complaints. The legislation also does not contain provisions that would have generally and prematurely deregulated subscriber equipment. The legislation also requires the Commission to resolve challenges to must-carry status within 120 days after a request is filed with the Commission. Broadcast stations have historically been important sources of local news, public affairs programming, and other local broadcast services. This category of service is an important part of the public interest determination to be made by the Commission when deciding whether a broadcast renewal application shall be granted by the Commission. To prevent local television broadcast signals from being subject to noncarriage or repositioning by cable television systems and those providing cable services, I believe it is important to recognize and reaffirm the importance of mandatory carriage of local commercial television stations, as implemented by Commission rules and regulations. The conference report also contains provisions which would allow registered utility holding companies an exemption from the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 [PUHCA]. PUHCA is a complex statute that regulates the operations of large registered multistate electric and gas utility companies. It requires registered holding companies to obtain prior SEC approval before establishing affiliates, issuing securities, or entering into new lines of business. The act affects the ability of registered to enter into telecommunications because PUHCA restricts registered utility diversification into nonutility businesses by requiring such businesses to be functionally related to the utilities core business--i.e., at least 50 percent of such businesses must serve core utility functions such as internal business communications. PUHCA was enacted to deal with the fact that State PUC's cannot effectively regulate the operations of multistate utility holding companies with complex corporate structures and an ability to cross- subsidize at the expense of captive ratepayers. While much has changed since PUHCA was enacted in 1935, the electric utility business remains a monopoly and there remains a temptation for self-dealing and cross- subsidization at the expense of captive utility ratepayers. Many House conferees felt that unless we end the electric utilities' continued monopoly over electricity generation, we must retain certain controls and protections if we were to allow PUHCA-registered holding companies to diversify into telecommunications. We felt that PUHCA provisions of the Senate bill do not adequately address the threat of cross-subsidization or self-dealing at the expense of captive utility ratepayers. Despite our strong reluctance to including PUHCA-TELCO language in this bill, we were able to work out on an approach based on the EWG provisions of EPACT that would adequately protect consumers and investors. This compromise would: Require the FCC to certify a registered's telecommunications company is PUHCA-exempt for specific telecommunications purposes. Certification of the telecommunications entity is necessary to ensure that it is exempt from PUHCA solely for enumerated telecommunications activities. This is based on EWG model that has been highly successful, with over 250 applications approved to date. Provide for state prior approval for converting existing rate-based facilities for use by the exempt telecommunications company. This protects electric consumers investment in facilities constructed for their benefit (otherwise such facilities might be transferred to the telecommunications affiliate at less than fair market value. This protects captive ratepayers from subsidizing telecommunications activities that don't benefit them. Grant the SEC authority to obtain risk assessment information regarding financings of the exempt telecommunications company so that it can assess a substantial adverse impact of such financings on the registered holding company, in light of total invested in core utility operations, telecommunications, exempt wholesale generators, and foreign utility companies. This will allow the SEC to take action to deny a proposed financing of an EWG, FUCO, or utility affiliate if it determines that the financial health of the registered is in danger as a result of telecommunications financings. Provide for prior State and local approval of affiliate transactions. This ensures captive ratepayers do not pay an inflated price for telecommunications service, due to the incentive to use a monopoly market, electricity, to subsidize entry into a competitive one, telecom. Assure regulators access to books and records and provide audit authority. This is necessary to ensure State and Federal regulators can examine all relevant utility and affiliates records to ensure cross- subsidization is not occurring. Assure no preemption of State/local authority to protect electricity consumers. I believe that this is an acceptable compromise on this difficult issue, and I commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] for their work on this matter. The conference report on S. 652 also contains a provision that I authored as part of H.R. 3636 in the last session of Congress and that was embodied by legislation authored by Chairman Bliley and myself in this session. Section 304 of the bill will unbundle set-top boxes, converter boxes, and other interactive communications equipment and make them available for purchase from third parties. I believe that this is a procompetitive, proconsumer provision that will enable computer companies, telecommunications equipment providers, and other entrepreneurs to innovate and sell new high-technology gadgets to consumers without having to sell out to the owner of the wire that delivers multichannel video programming. I believe this will help to replicate for the interactive communications equipment market the success that manufacturers of customer premises equipment [CPE] have had in creating and selling all sorts of new phones, faxes, and other equipment subsequent to the implementation of rules unbundling CPE from common carrier networks. The conference report on S. 652 is most improved in its treatment of mass media ownership issues. I had battled and fought against the mass media provisions of H.R. 1555 because I felt that such provisions indiscriminately repealed rules that helped protect important values such as localism and diversity. During floor consideration of H.R. 1555 in August I successfully amended the bill to scale back the TV network audience reach from 50 percent to 35 percent and reinstated the broadcast-cable crossownership prohibition. The conference report states that the Commission's regulations on national ownership caps should be increased to the 35 percent level and that limitations on the number of stations one entity could own be eliminated. This policy decision reflects a carefully calibrated balance and I believe that the duly considered view of Congress on these matters should settle the issue for many years to come. With respect to the broadcast-cable crossownership rule, the conference report explicitly states to the FCC that repeal of the statutory prohibition shall not be interpreted as a signal to repeal the Commission's broadcast-cable crossownership rule or even to initiate a rulemaking to repeal the rule. The conference report expressly did not seek to wipe out the broadcast-cable crossownership rule and therefore the Commission is advised not to expend its limited resources reviewing this issue. Much improved is the provision eliminating local ownership limits on radio stations. Although both the House and Senate bills eliminated the local ownership limits of 4 stations per market but because of concerns expressed by myself and others on the conference committee, as well as by the Clinton-Gore administration, local limits were reinstated in conference. The conference report revises section 73.3555(a) of the Commission's regulations to provide for ownership limitations based upon market size. The conference report does not define the term ``radio market'' and the Commission will need to apply a definition of such term as part of revisions contemplated by this section. I also applaud the fact that the bill includes two issues that I have long advocated. The conference report includes important new consumer privacy protections and also includes a provision similar to one that I authored as part of H.R. 3636 that will include links to schools, libraries, and hospitals as part of a telecommunications universal service obligation and contribution. Privacy and security concerns on the information superhighway will continue to grow as the network grows and as more and more personal information is digitized and rides on the highway. More work needs to be done in this area to protect transactional information and to ensure that people have every opportunity and right to protect their data with encryption technologies. I will continue to work on this issue but the privacy provisions of S. 652 are good ones and an important down payment for consumers. As many of you may know, establishing learning links to K-12 schools has long been a concern of mine and the conference report on S. 652 will make such links affordable for every school in the country. I believe it is imperative that we link all the classrooms in the country because it is the only way that we can mitigate against a growing digital divide where some schools get access and others do not. We must bring all our kids along to the future. No nation can hope to prosper in a fiercely competitive global economy where information is the coin of the realm if it does not give the bottom 10, 15, or 20 percent of its society the Information Age tools necessary to compete for jobs in such an economy. Another benefit of this bill is the inclusion of the V-chip, an initiative I launched in 1993. The V-chip is the nickname of a feature which, when included in a television set, allows the viewer to block programming that is rated. Congress has moved forward with this provision because it is a technological solution to a problem facing parents everyday--how to effectively enforce standards in their own homes regarding what is suitable for their children to watch on television. I am personally very gratified that the provision sponsored in the House by myself, Representative Dan Burton, Representative John Moran, and Representative John Spratt, was chosen by the conferees as the basis for compromise. This has ensured that the development of a model rating system as envisioned by this bill will, under no circumstances, be imposed by rule on any broadcaster. In fact, under this bill, no program will ever be rated unless industry participants decide to do the ratings themselves. No government entity will ever rate a show; no government bureaucracy will ever rate a show; no government agency is empowered to sanction any broadcaster for refusing to rate a show. It is our hope that each segment of the television industry will eventually recognize that giving parents information that allows them to protect their children will improve, not harm, free, over-the-air broadcasting. It is simply an update of the on-off switch of the three- network 1950's to the 500 channel universe of the coming century. Movies are being rated, computer games are being rated, the Internet is introducing screening devices, cable television is prepared to rate their shows, and it is inevitable that broadcast television will expand and refine the application of ``Parental Discretion Advised'' warnings to the whole range of shows considered potentially harmful to children. It will be several years before television sets include the V-chip. First, the industry must develop a ratings system. Second, the set manufacturers must build new sets to include the electronics to read the ratings. But every parent will be pleased to know that, the day President Clinton signs this bill, it will have been declared in the public interest for this country to warn parents of programming that could harm their kids and to provide parents the means to block such programming out of the home, if they choose, with this simple, ratings- and-blocking device. Finally, I want to commend Chairman Bliley, Mr. Dingell, Chairman Fields, and other members of the conference committee for their excellent work in bringing together the compromises necessary to reach final agreement.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln]. (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch]. (Mr. DEUTSCH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the question before this body today is whether to suspend the rules of the House in considering legislation which would grandfather flow control authority for certain local jurisdictions and waste management facilities. While I support flow control legislation, I do not believe this is an appropriate bill for consideration under procedures which circumvent the committee process. In bringing up the flow control bill on the suspension calendar, there has been a serious breach of the normal legislative flow control. Without explanation, we have bypassed the normal full committee markup process and denied members of the Committee on Commerce their opportunity to offer amendments to this legislation. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials reported a flow control bill, H.R. 2323, on May 18 of last year. H.R. 2323, which also contains provisions addressing the issue of allowing States and local governments to limit receipt of out-of-State municipal waste, has been languishing before the full Committee on Commerce for the last 6 months. No full committee markup of the bill has ever been scheduled. The language before us today was only introduced as a bill this morning. In fact, the bill which we have is marked ``12:20,'' at 12:20 this afternoon. It is now 2:20 in the afternoon. For 2 hours we have had the bill and the bill itself has been changed from the last version which we saw. Mr. Speaker, that is wrong, just from a procedure perspective, in terms of what all Members are owed as procedural due process in the notice of important substantive changes in legislation. It contains provisions that were not agreed to by the minority, and it deletes the interstate waste language. Reportedly, this new bill was negotiated downtown between special interests who did not favor the subcommittee-reported bill apparently lacked the votes at full committee in order to weaken it. So as a result, it has been weakened in the Committee on Rules, with no public notice, with no debate, and with all Members now expected to vote upon legislation which has not gone through the traditional legislative committee process. In addition to the substantive changes made in the flow control language, the bill has also delinked flow control from the interstate waste legislation. This creates serious problems for many Members who are concerned that their States and localities not become the dumping grounds for out-of-State waste. In the past, the flow control and interstate waste bills have always been linked together in the same legislation. In the 103d Congress, for example, a flow control/interstate waste bill was considered by this body under an open rule that allowed Members to offer amendments where the will of the Members could be fully expressed. The resulting product was approved by the House by unanimous consent. In this Congress, the Senate passed legislation which addresses both the flow control and interstate waste issues. Delinking these two issues, as is being proposed today, means that we may not have any interstate waste legislation this year, despite the fact that 23 Governors have called for such legislation. I must object, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to consideration of this bill today under suspension of the rules. The bill before us is controversial, and maybe Members have been denied their opportunity to offer amendments as a result of this procedure. I urge the Members to oppose the motion to suspend the rules of the House so we can defeat this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARKEY. I respect the work the gentleman has done. The gentleman did good work at the subcommittee. I supported the gentleman's work. It should have come through the full committee and out here on the floor in a comprehensive way. We should not cede our responsibilities to the Senate.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, after exploding six nuclear weapons tests, the French Government has announced an end to its nuclear testing program. Last Saturday's explosion, it turns out, was the ``last thermonuclear tango in Paris.'' First, however, France joined China as the only nation to break a nuclear testing moratorium in effect since 1992. Then it was forced to admit that radioactive chemicals from its test site in the South Pacific have leaked into the sea. When President Chirac visits Washington this week, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] and I will deliver a letter to the French Government along with several of our House colleagues praising France's decision to stop detonating nuclear test devices. In our letter, we also urge France to permanently close its testing site in the South Pacific and to begin a complete cleanup operation. France's pledge to sign a comprehensive test ban treaty outlawing all nuclear weapons is a good position to take. But France should close its testing site as an act of good faith with the rest of the world.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the point is that, one, we are unhappy, again I will make that statement, with the procedures that have been adopted in order to bring this bill out on the floor. There is no need for it to come out under this particular process on this particular day, disrespectful of the interests of other Members who have worked long and hard on this subject as well. On the issue of the protections which it is going to give to the public health and safety, the point is that no one is certain of the risks contained in the depths of these ponds and lagoons. We have creatures in these black lagoons that can be transmogrified into very dangerous substances as they are put into human bodies. That is why this is such a critical subject for us to be deliberating out here on the floor. That is why we support a study of these bodies of water, of these ponds, of these lagoons, and that it be conducted in an expeditious fashion. I anticipate that the industry will cooperate in providing data to the EPA and that the agency will commit adequate resources to this study. But because the bill does not require the EPA to make a judicial reviewability determination that these ponds or lagoons are not dangerous, I must oppose this measure because we just do not know whether these ponds or lagoons are dangerous to the health of the communities around them. Supporting this legislation does not ultimately provide a mechanism by which that determination can be made and be judicially reviewable to ensure that the final measure of protection for the public health and safety is provided. So I urge all the Members and their staffs who are listening to this debate, that a no vote is the appropriate vote. Some fine-tuning is needed. The bill should be brought out in a more procedurally appropriate fashion, but this day at this time, no is the right vote on this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the only reason I want to recognize myself is I did not vote for this bill at the full committee level. It was a voice vote that I dissented from. Five of us have in fact filed dissenting views in the committee report. So I wanted the Record to be made clear on that issue, that there was opposition to the bill, although on a voice vote it did pass. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to suspend the rules and to pass H.R. 2036. First of all, I object to the way this bill was brought to the floor for consideration under the suspension calendar. It is not in fact a procedure that is at all appropriate. With regard to H.R. 2036, the majority worked with the minority throughout the committee process. Because of this, we agreed to take up this bill under suspension so long as important language was included in the committee report. The report was filed only hours ago, This is very distressing since it prevents Members and staff from reviewing the details of this bill. Also, due to the last-minute decision to proceed today, some of my colleagues who had anticipated speaking against this bill could not be here. Compared to the other abuses of the suspension calendar that we have seen today, this is a minor grievance. However, we resent the continuing abuses of what is supposed to be a nonpartisan, noncontroversial process. The second point I want to make about this bill is that although it is receiving some bipartisan support today, it is not completely without controversy. As the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] outlined, this legislation would give EPA authority to grant certain blanket exemptions from environmental standards that they have been barred from making by recent court decisions. I under how Members of Congress and the administration want to work with the business community to develop a regulatory system that is more accommodating and flexible. However, I do not believe that we can lightly dismiss the environmental concerns that have been raised about this bill. In 1992, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a Bush administration regulation which would have allowed hazardous waste generators with waste water treatment systems to simply dilute their hazardous waste and dump it into an unlined pit or lagoon rather than requiring them to take measures to reduce toxicity or otherwise minimize the threat posed by the waste. The court held that simple dilution did not address the hazardous components in the waste, and if these components migrated into the ground water, they could pose significant risks to human health and the environment. Current law requires that hazardous components and a variety of wastes be effectively treated not just diluted. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] has argued this bill is needed in order to eliminate unnecessary and duplicative environmental regulation. When sufficient regulations are in place to protect public health and environment, that is a goal that we can all support. Unfortunately, this is not a situation where regulations are redundant. The Clean Water does cover any release of hazardous components from one of these lagoons into a nearby river or lake. However, leakage into ground water supply is beyond the scope of the Clean Water Act and releases of these hazardous components into the air are not regulated under the Clean Air Act. EPA has stated that the risks posed by treating certain hazardous wastes in this manner are relatively low. However, the Agency's own preliminary analysis tells a very different story. Last summer they concluded that these wastes do pose potentially significant health risks including cancer risks approaching one in a thousand, if ground water becomes contaminated. I am aware that EPA regards the current data as somewhat limited, which is why we pushed for language in the bill allowing the Agency to collect and assess additional data. After much discussion, it was agreed that they would be given 5 years to complete such a study. Although the Agency can probably meet an earlier deadline, I am satisfied to see that a time limit was adopted. Regardless of any deadline for completion of the study, there can be no doubt the intent of this bill is that EPA will dedicate adequate resources to develop a technically sound study in an expeditious manner. More importantly, however, I believe the Agency should be required to make a final determination based on their scientific study as to whether or not release of hazardous components from any of these holding areas into the air or ground water poses a threat to public health and the environment. It is troubling that the bill's proponents who assume there is no significant risk involved here lack the courage of their convictions. Why should not the EPA have to inform the public and the Congress of the conclusions it draws from the study that we are requiring the Agency to undertake that so fundamentally deals with the public health of the public in our country? The amendments adopted during the markup sessions of the Committee on Commerce greatly improved the original bill by adding language directing EPA to complete a study within 5 years. The report language clearly directs EPA to begin the study within 60 days and to complete it as soon as possible. However, without the inclusion of a judicially reviewable final determination, the legislation lacks the commonsense requirement that EPA reach a decision to act or not act based on any risks identified in the study. If that additional provision had been included, if that extra safeguard of the health of Americans had been approved, then we would be in a different posture out here on the floor today. If out of respect for the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] and the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse], and other Members that wanted to speak on this bill, that we were giving them that opportunity, then we would not find this bill so unacceptable. But in its current form, under the procedure which we are using, we find it unacceptable, and we urge all Members that care about health and safety, care about the water, which goes into hundreds of thousands, if not millions of human beings across this country, to vote ``no,'' to send a strong signal that we want a better, substantive, and procedural way to handle these critical issues of public health and safety. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.