Ed Markey

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, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2519, the Philanthropy Protection Act of 1995. I am very pleased to have cosponsored the legislation, along with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], and I want to compliment at this time the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for their work on the companion piece of legislation which is moving through the House this afternoon on the same subject. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2519 clarifies the exemptions provided in the Federal securities laws for charitable organizations. Under existing law, companies organized exclusively for religious, educational, benevolent, fraternal, or charitable purposes traditionally have been exempted from the registration and reporting requirements established for investment companies, investment advisers, and issuers of securities. These exemptions have reflected a longstanding congressional intent that such organizations should not be asked to comply with the comprehensive scheme of investor protection regulations designed to protect investors in the securities of for-profit corporations. Over the years, the SEC staff has issued a series of interpretive no- action letters that have spelled out the precise contours of these exemptions, thereby giving assurances to the charitable community that their fundraising activities would not result in any SEC enforcement action being brought against them. This arrangement worked quite well until very recently, when a class action lawsuit filed in the State of Texas placed a cloud of uncertainty over the exempt status of charitable donation funds. This lawsuit has alleged that the charitable donation funds maintained by the defendants are operating illegally as unregistered investment companies and that the gift annuities offered by these charities are illegal unregistered securities. While there is good reason to believe that this lawsuit ultimately would not prevail on the merits, its very existence has created great uncertainty, confusion, and concern within the philanthropic community. [[Page H 13674]] At the subcommittee's hearing last month, we heard testimony from several charitable and educational organizations, including the Massachusetts General Hospital, that the lawsuit in Texas has already had a chilling effect upon its donations. We also heard from the president of the Boston-based National Council of Planned Giving that this lawsuit was having an adverse impact on charities throughout New England. H.R. 2519 would eliminate the legal uncertainties raised by the Texas lawsuit by writing into the statute the longstanding SEC staff interpretive report of the nature and scope of the charitable organization exemptions. To ensure that the exemptions in the bill would not provide a loophole that would permit fraudulent activity, the legislation provides that the antifraud provisions of the Federal and State securities laws apply to charitable donation pools and the organizations that operate them. Again, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan consensus piece of legislation. I applaud the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] for their expeditious bringing of the legislation to the floor before the end of the year when so many Americans make their decisions as to whether or not they are going to be making large charitable donations. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial in this matter which recently appeared in the Boston Globe. The document referred to is as follows: [From the Boston Globe, Oct. 16, 1995] An Uncharitable Lawsuit Federal Judge Joe Kendall has a choice to make. Sitting in his Dallas chambers, he will soon decide whether to expose America's charitable institutions to an ignoble lawsuit that could cost them billions of dollars. In 1988, Louise Peter, now 90, of Wichita Falls, Texas, gave her $800,000 estate to the Lutheran Foundation in an arrangement known as a charitable gift annuity. At regular intervals the foundation pays Peter a certain sum based upon the value of her donation. In return, the charity keeps the Peter fortune upon her death. The annuities make sense. Donors minimize taxes and are able to enjoy their philanthropy while still alive. Charities, whose burdens burgeon with each pass of Washington's budget buzzsaw, enjoy greater and more consistent revenue. The only people who have reason to feel less than happy about the annuities are some of the would-be heirs who are passed over. The family of Louise Peter wants her money. Peter's grandniece, Dorothy Ozee, sued the Lutheran Foundation for issuing the annuity without an insurance license and for administering the Peter estate without license as a trust company, Ozee also accused the foundation of breaking federal antitrust laws by following the payout recommendations of the nonprofit American Council on Gift Annuities. Judge Kendall's preliminary ruling favored the greedy niece. Now he has to rule on her petition to make the lawsuit a class action against almost the entirety of America's philanthropic community. If the class is certified and the suit succeeds, the charities may be required to return billions in contributions plus treble damages. That is absurd. Charitable gift annuities have represented a legitimate way to help others for more than 100 years. Congress should quickly follow the Texas Legislature's lead and reiterate that the regulations in question were never meant to apply to charities. Judge Kendall's duty is to put an end to Ozee's bitter agenda of revenge.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark].

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill once said, in a tribute to the Royal Air Force, ``Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.'' Under the Gingrich budget, it can only be said that the reverse is true. Never have so many given so much for such a privileged few. The Republicans are giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy while hard- working, low-income individuals and families get hit with a $32 billion tax increase. They are repealing the alternative minimum tax, returning us to the days when some of America's most profitable corporations paid no taxes whatsoever. They are going to allow employers to treat their workers' pension funds like corporate checking accounts. They would blacken the soul of the land of opportunity by cutting funding for child nutrition programs and student loans. How are you supposed to get a job in the 21st century when you cannot get a decent education or a decent meal in the last decade of the 20th century? They would slash nearly a half trillion dollars from Medicare and Medicaid, putting the health of millions of seniors and poor children and disabled Americans at risk. They would nearly double Medicare premiums and eliminate those current law guarantees that the poorest seniors get help paying those premiums. Millions of seniors in poverty, many of them widows, depend on Medicaid to pay for their Medicare premiums, deductibles, and copayments. The last time I pointed that out on the floor in this budget, that it would clobber poor seniors, the Speaker ran to the floor and said that I was either ignorant or misinformed. Well, guess what, I was right and he was flat wrong. And when I challenged him to fix it, he turned his back on the seniors of this country. Well, Mr. Speaker, this ``my way or the highway'' galloping Gingrichism is going to have a commonsense answer. You are wrong, Mr. Speaker. Stop it or America's seniors and working families will stop it for you.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], my classmate from Boston College Law School, for his courtesy. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conyers motion to instruct the conferees on the product liabilities legislation. The motion is very simple, but it cuts to the core of the issue of how we are going to treat the aged, women, and children who have suffered injuries due to a defective or malfunctioning product or medical malpractice. The motion very simply states that the conferees be instructed not to agree to any provision that would limit the total damages recoverable for injuries by aged individuals, women, or children to an amount less than that recoverable by other plaintiffs with substantially similar injuries. Why is this necessary? The reason is that the House bill abolishes joint liability for noneconomic damages in all civil cases, not just product liability cases, and limits noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases to only $250,000. These provisions have the effect of treating low-income workers, retirees, women and children, and the disabled less favorably than those who earn large salaries. Wealthy corporate executives who suffer injuries will be able to recover substantial sums of money due to their economic losses, but seniors on Social Security, women who work at home, they will be punished under this bill. Support the Conyers motion.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the strength, courage, and determination of Travis Roy, a freshman player for Boston University's world-class hockey team. On October 20, 1995, Travis was paralyzed from the neck down while playing in his first collegiate hockey game. Born on April 17, 1975, Travis spent his childhood in Yarmouth, ME, a closely-knit [[Page E 2109]] town of 6,000 people. He was designated an all-State player at Yarmouth Academy, where as a freshman he told his father that he dreamed of playing Division I hockey. He played his junior and senior years at Tabor Academy, where he was a New England All-Select pick both years. A highly recruited forward, Travis landed one of only six coveted spots on the defending national champion Boston University hockey team. Less than 2 weeks ago, 11 seconds into his first shift as a BU Terrier, Travis fell head first into the boards, fracturing a vertebrae in his neck. He was quickly attended to by trainers, doctors, and his father, Lee. Even during the most terrifying moment of his life, Travis focused on achieving his goal of playing Division I college hockey. While lying on the ice, motionless and without sensation, Travis looked to his father and said, ``I made it''. Travis has made a career out of challenging the odds. Now, with his parents Lee and Brenda Roy by his side, Travis faces the biggest challenge of his life. While doctors predict a difficult road ahead, I have faith that Travis can overcome the odds this time as he has done so successfully in the past. With the support of his family and friends, I know that Travis is going to ``make it''.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Congressman Faleomavaega and Congressman Stark have joined me in introducing legislation today to encourage the French Government to stop exploding nuclear test devices. Despite an international nuclear testing moratorium in effect since 1992 and the important progress made by the permanent extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, France has detonated two nuclear test devices at its facilities in the South Pacific. Additional tests are planned. This legislation is very straightforward: Until France's nuclear tests stop, the bill makes importing France's celebrated Beaujolais wine more expensive in the United States and therefore less palatable to American consumers. As this year's ripe French grapes are pressed into another vintage of France's prized Beaujolais wine, French nuclear testing in the South Pacific is reaping a bitter harvest: A harvest of worldwide criticism, protest, and censure. We are sending France a clear and simply message: To paraphrase Ernest and Julio Gallo ``You will sell no wine during testing time.'' The bill increases the current import fee on Beaujolais by 800 percent. All France needs to do to stop this year's Beaujolais from going down the tubes is to stop testing nuclear weapons. The French Government has pledged to sign a comprehensive test ban next year that will outlaw all future nuclear test explosions. President Chirac recently has said that France will shorten its planned series of test explosions in the South Pacific. In addition, last Friday, France promised to sign the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty by the first half of 1996. These steps are encouraging. However, France should take them now instead of making promises while continuing to blow up nuclear test devices on fragile coral reefs in the middle of the ocean. France's underground nuclear test explosions at these reefs produce radioactive materials that will, over time, leak into the surrounding environment. In fact, scientific studies conducted in the area around the test site have found evidence that this is already occurring. In 1987, marine researcher Jacques Cousteau examined the reefs and collected water samples. In his report, Cousteau indicated that the water samples contained concentrations of the radioactive isotope cesium-134. Cousteau also noted that reefs are the ``worst possible choice' for locating a test site because of the potential for leakage of radioactive contamination. In addition to environmental damage, French nuclear testing also severely undermines ongoing efforts to conclude a CTB outlawing all tests for all time. French testing slows the momentum toward global nuclear disarmament which was achieved at the U.N. conference permanently extending the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I am pleased that Congressman Faleomavaega and Congressman Stark have joined me in this effort, and I hope that France listens to the message we are sending today and stops testing immediately.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, last Thursday night the Speaker stood in this well and charged me with misrepresenting the facts, with engaging in an absurd misrepresentation and allegation. He said, in fact, there is a provision in the Medigrant program that provides that senior citizens at the poverty level and below have all of their part B premium paid for by the taxpayers 100 percent. Now, my hope was that when he spoke last Thursday night, he was going to include that in this reconciliation package. They have not. In fact, only 44 percent of all those poor seniors' Medicare part B premiums are going to be covered. They are not, in fact, protected at all 100 percent. Just the opposite is the case. Mr. Chairman, back in the 1960's our political leaders asked us not what our country could do for us, but what we could do for our country. Well, in 1995, the Republican motto is ask not what our country can do for us, but ask what we can do for the country club. This is a contract with the country club. This takes money out of the pockets of senior elderly, out of students, piles it up, and then gives tens of billions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthy in our country. The wealthy are not asked to sacrifice. Mr. Chairman, back in the Civil War, because the wealthy could buy their way out of the war, they said it was a rich man's war but a poor man's fight. Well, here in this reconciliation battle in 1995, it is a rich man's war but it is a poor man's fight. The rich man get tremendous, tens of thousands of dollars in tax breaks, and the poor seniors have their Medicare premiums go up. The poor students and working class families have their student loan payments go up, and yet the Republicans stand here and tell us that they care about the working people in this country. Mr. Chairman, this is a wrong vote for America, just plain wrong. Vote no on the Republican reconciliation bill.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me. In my 19 years in Congress, Mr. Speaker, I have never taken a special order before. This is the first time I have ever done so. The reason that I do it is that unfortunately, the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], in making his final remarks for the Republicans to this great House on the historic Medicare bill, invoked my name several times and attributed to me a motive to deliberately mislead this House with regard to the fact of whether or not the 11 million widows in the United States who live on an income of under $8,000 a year have protection, to ensure that they will not have to shoulder the burden of the dramatic increase in their part B premiums that has been included in the Republican Medicare reform. The Speaker stated that, in fact, I should have done my homework in order to know that they are covered, and that in fact it was misleading to say that they were not covered, and that all who are below the poverty level have their premiums covered under the law of the United States. Well, technically speaking, the Speaker is correct. They are covered under existing law, and the Speaker will continue to be correct for at least 5 more days, or until next Tuesday when the Republican Medicaid bill comes on to the floor which strips out the protection and the extra subsidy which those below the poverty level receive for their Medicare part B premium. At that point at which the Medicaid bill of the Republicans hits the floor, there will be no protections for those widows across this country numbering 11 million who are on Medicare and who will see their premiums increase over the next 7 years by a traumatic amount in order to put aside a huge fund for the tax breaks for the wealthy.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Maryland very much.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. The only way to guarantee that they will be protected. Now, let me add as well that in our committee we had a vote on an amendment made by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] to protect them. On a party line vote all Republicans voted not to protect the seniors. On the Medicare bill we did the same thing with an amendment by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush] to protect the senior, more impoverished elderly, those widows, so that they would not have to pay the premium. So I assume, to be quite frank with the gentleman, the Speaker is a busy man and he does not have time to peruse each and every piece of legislation. That is the only conclusion that I can reach and be, I think, noncontentious in terms of what he might have intended. Mr. Speaker, next week the Medicaid bill goes before the Committee on Rules, and we intend on making this amendment, one that we request the Committee on Rules to put in order on the floor next week as part of the Medicaid bill. If the Speaker wants to ensure that every senior impoverished widow in America is protected, we will have an opportunity in the committee on Rules to have that amendment put in order, and every Member out here on the floor, if the Republicans put that amendment in order, will have a chance to make true what it was the Speaker said on the floor today. Otherwise, there will be no protection.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, he was not accurate because the Republican Medicaid bill, which will be out here on the floor next week, will strip out that guarantee. In the Republican Medicaid bill, as you know, they block-grant the Medicaid program, cut the whole program by 20 percent, send it back to the States, and in fact repeal every requirement that we in this Congress have put on the books to protect those elderly seniors.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I would ask the Speaker as to what the proper time would be.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am making an inquiry as to when the proper point would be to make a point of personal privilege on the privileges of the House to clarify a number of erroneous statements made about my statements in the well of the House before the recommittal vote.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we will, with this one amendment, the only amendment we are allowed to make, and it automatically goes into the bill, ensure that Medicare part B premiums will only go up what current law requires. Otherwise, of the 37 million seniors on Medicare, 11 million of them are widows living on under $8,000 a year. By the year 2000, by the year 2002, this is a $300 a year hidden tax on them in order to put together a pile of money which will give someone making $350,000 a year 60 of these widows' money each year for a $19,000 tax break. Mr. Speaker, it is the only vote we can ask our colleagues to make, the only amendment we can make here today. We ask Republicans to give us a yes vote on this one page out of 900 pages that ensures that that premium increase is not unfairly used by 60 each of these elderly widows to provide for a tax cut of $19,000 a year in the year 2002 for those that do not need it, making over $350,000 in our society. Mr. Speaker, they built our country. They sacrificed for our country. They would not mind sacrificing again, but to ask for this sacrifice from the most vulnerable elderly widow population, in my opinion, is beneath what this House of Representatives should do here today. We ask for only one yes vote in the course of this entire debate, and it is on this very simple amendment. On this issue there is one thing that separates the senior citizens from the Republican majority, on this issue the senior citizens are right and they are wrong.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, not since the feudal days of lords and serfs has such an effective system of transfer of wealth from the poor and giving it to the rich been enacted. Mr. Chairman, the trustees of Medicare said that part A is $90 billion in arrears over the next 10 years. The Democratic substitute solves that problem. The Republican substitute solves that problem and then takes out an additional $180 billion more than is needed. Now, listen to this. Of the 37 million Americans on Medicare, 11 million of them are widows living on an income of $8,000 a year or less. Under the Republican proposal, those 11 million widows, by the year 2002, each year will have their Medicare part B premiums go up $300 to $400 a year. Mr. Chairman, in that same year, those who make more than $350,000 a [[Page H 10344]] year will get a $19,000 tax break. It takes 60 widows paying $300 to $400 a year more to give a tax break into the pockets of the wealthy making $350,000 a year. Mr. Chairman, under the Republican plan, the rich get rich and the poor get poorer, and that is wrong. Just plain wrong. We have a better country than that. There is no uniform sacrifice here. The contract with the country club that the Republicans signed a year ago on the steps of the Capitol requires the poor in this country to be tipped upside down. GOP used to stand for ``Grand Old Party.'' Today, it stands for ``Get Old People.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. Working in a bipartisan fashion with the members of the majority, it is our hope that we will be able to craft a historic telecommunications bill which will open all telecommunications marketplaces to full and open competition. As we all know, each of these marketplaces, from cable to long- distance to local telephone markets, have been subject to historic monopoly practices. This bill will open them wide open and permanently. We now go with the naming of the conferees to negotiate with the Senate, and it is our full intention that out of this historic negotiation we will be able to produce a bill back out here on the floor of the House within a very short period of time ready for a vote and then presentation to the President of the United States for his signature. That is the sincere, deep-felt conviction on the part of all who have participated in this process, and let us hope that the naming of the conferees today begins a very short process toward the culmination of that proceeding. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], and I, and all the members of the committee have the full intent of making that the final product of our efforts this year.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the B-2 bomber truly is an extraordinary aircraft. After 14 years of flunking a whole series of Air Force performance tests, this year the B-2 has evaded detection by Republican budget-cutting radar, overcome Pentagon efforts to end further procurement, and out-maneuvered taxpayer groups working for a balanced budget. This ``Airborne Edsel,'' however, does seem to have difficulty handling more tangible obstacles like rainclouds and mountainsides. According to a report prepared by the General Accounting Office, the B- 2's radar cannot distinguish rain from other obstacles and has fallen short of meeting some of its most important mission requirements. The GAO report indicates that software problems have delayed flight tests, changes in the plane's mission will further increase costs, and the contractor--after 9 years of production--is still delivering B-2's that don't meet Air Force mission requirements. Originally designed to drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union, the B- 2 is the plane that time forgot. The cold war's over, Chechnya--not world conquest--preoccupies Russian military thinkers, and the Air Force now places a higher priority on other weapons systems. Still, the call for more B-2's persists. The Nation's top military officials oppose further procurement of B-2 bombers, including: The Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Air Force Chief of Staff. An Air Force budget paper makes it crystal clear: ``Given the current threat, there is no military requirement for additional B-2's.'' Let's make the Stealth bomber truly invisible by eliminating funding for more bombers.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with instructions.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself one-half minute. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma just made reference to the Senate bill and knows that that is not the House bill. The House bill does not have any Government censorship. At no time are broadcasters mandated to do any ratings. We mandate that a violence chip be built into television sets, but at no time do broadcasters in fact have to rate their own shows. If they do not do it, they do not do it. But we give them the V-chip. The Coburn amendment is nothing more than the Hollywood and New York producers wish, that there be no protection for children. Vote no on the Coburn amendment or else the V-chip dies.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)