Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. There is an exemption in your legislation for licensing. What we have to distinguish though is the difference between licensing and the FCC promulgating rules and regulations with regard to bandwidth, with regard for geographic distancing, with regard to who is eligible. Right now, based upon the regulations that are out there, $6\1/2\ billion-- billion dollars--has been bid by companies for this spectrum. If we change that today, all of that money is just going to be taken back off the table by all of these companies because of the uncertainty which is going to be established. So it has a big because these companies are bidding based upon the FCC's ability to lay out not just the licensing but the eligibility, bandwidth, geographic spacing of all of these technologies as well. So I appreciate what you are trying to do in licensing. It just does not quite reach the problem, and it will affect all of the cellular phone competition out there in the market.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank him and the gentleman from Virginia for making this amendment. To follow on what the gentleman from Michigan was just referring to, we have two very important issues that would, in fact, be affected if we did not pass the amendment before us right now. No. 1, out of the Commerce Committee last year we passed legislation on something called unlisted trading privileges. Now, it all sounds very technical, but the net result of it is that it allows the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, the Boston Stock Exchange, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Pacific Stock Exchange, Cincinnati Stock Exchange to get into all new activities in a much more telescoped timeframe than they have ever been allowed to engage in trading before. It is a real spur to competition out in the marketplace. It is something ultimately we were able to pass on a unanimous basis. But if the amendment does not pass, it will be impossible for the Securities and Exchange Commission to be able to get this regulation in place and to give benefits to the Chicago and Philadelphia and Pacific, other regional, stock exchanges in their competition with New York and the American Stock Exchange. Second, we have a tremendous revolution taking place in this country that involves cellular phones, faxes, and wireless technologies of all kinds. Last year we passed laws out of the Commerce Committee so that the Federal Communications Commission would transfer 50 megahertz of spectrum for use in this area. By the way, when you think about 50 megahertz, you have an idea just what that is, that is all of the spectrum now being used for cellular phones, all of them. We are talking about moving over the spectrum so we can have this revolution so the Dick Tracy two-way wrist radio is something that is in the stores within 2 or 3 years. If this amendment does not pass, it is going to stall, delay, and make almost impossible our ability as a Nation to get our product out onto the international market first so that we are most competitive, so the jobs are here in the United States. Those are two examples. We could go on, but I think that just so you have a sense of the range of concerns of industries as diverse as the Pacific Stock Exchange and every cellular and fax and wireless company in the United States. Let us hope this amendment passes. Anyone who is listening, American competitiveness very much depends upon the Spratt-Payne amendment passing this House this afternoon.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. Notwithstanding the arguments which the gentleman makes, and we can debate over whether that was an accurate assessment or not, but just for the sake of the discussion let us say it was accurate and let us say that the Soviets did panic, and let us say that the Soviets did go to the table and we were able to gain those strategic nuclear weapons, treat all of that as being conceded for the sake of this discussion, what possible gain would it offer us now to spend an additional $40 billion? We have won the concessions which are necessary in order to have these treaties put in place. We now have an inexorable and inevitable decline on both side's missiles, we have no technological proof that this system works. If they went for the bluff, so be it. But for the future, we have to now make our decisions based upon the technological capacity of this, of the technology.

Mr. MARKEY. I am only using the Bush administration numbers that there would be $35 billion that would need to be spent in order to finish this project, and additional tens of billions of dollars if an alternative Brilliant Pebbles project was adopted as well. We are only using the Republican administration numbers in this debate. The only question we have now is whether or not, given our success in basically destroying the Soviet Union, there is an identifiable enemy in the world that can justify this kind of expenditure. I would argue not, given the other tremendous pressures on our military and on our civilian budget that is going to become more evident as this unfolds.

Mr. MARKEY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MARKEY. If I may reclaim my time, it is only to make one point.

Mr. MARKEY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have come here through long, national discussion. It began in our time, in 1981, when T.K. Jones, who was the Assistant Secretary of Defense in charge of strategic and theater nuclear forces made a statement. He said that we would be able to protect our country against nuclear war if everyone dug a hole 6 feet deep, we put a door over that hole, and with enough shovels and enough dirt, everyone would be able to make it. That was the assistant Secretary of Defense for theater and strategic nuclear weapons in 1981. Now, as you can imagine, that caused quite a controversy in this country, but that was the civil defense plan for our Nation in the event of a nuclear war. Now it took 2 years to come up with an alternative plan; it was called star wars. We were Luke Skywalker, they were Darth Vader, and we were going to go to the heavens to knock down their intercontinental ballistic missiles. That is what we are talking about here. Now, there were cartoon versions of what that system would do. There was a moonbeams and stardust vision of what it would do, but in reality there was never even the remotest approximation of a working model of it, $30 billion later. What we have before us today is the latter day version of it, but this is no longer moonbeams and stardust, this is the giant pork barrel in the sky for defense contractors. This is just a follow-on to all of those contractors that want to continue on the gravy train without having produced anything yet. Even as we know it is going to put tremendous pressure on the resolution the rest of our budgets, we have to make very tough decisions in this Congress and the next. We are going to have very tough ceilings placed on us, we are not going to continue to support the things that do not work. I was not paying that close attention, but I am not aware of an amendment that passed on the floor earlier today that put the Soviet Union back together again. We won, Darth Vader lost, he is gone, he is not in the heavens, he is in Chechnya, and he is losing on the ground to a Third World power. We cannot afford an additional $40 billion in order to continue to pursue a defense strategy that might have made some sense at the height of the cold war but in the aftermath of the cold war and the present condition of Russia no longer makes sense, given the other constraints upon our limited fiscal resources. So, my argument to you would be this: that just as a practical fact of the matter, this system does not work, from Brilliant Pebbles to smart rocks to the nuclear bomb that was going to go off over our heads and stop the incoming missiles, none of this ever worked. If we want to continue to flow money into it, and the gentleman from North Carolina and many other Members out here on the floor made the point over and over, we are going to have to cut other things and cut them dramatically. It might be military readiness, it might be Medicare, it might be student loans, it might be Meals on Wheels.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. This important legislation, which received impressive bipartisan support last year, would ban U.S. assistance to countries which prohibit or restrict the transport of U.S. humanitarian aid. As we continue to evaluate our foreign aid program, it is critical that we assure that our foreign assistance reaches those in need quickly and efficiently. The unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid is particularly important in the republics of the former Soviet Union, where the transition from authoritarian rule to open, democratic processes has been especially difficult. While the forces of communism which once dominated Eastern Europe has been defeated, peace and democracy have not yet taken firm hold. As the struggle continues between the old guard and the past and the reform movement planing a free and democratic future, we must not abandon those who are working to establish democracy where once there was only repression, intimidation, persecution, and fear. The reform effort in central and Eastern Europe deserves the involvement and commitment of the United States. Since declaring its independence from Soviet rule in 1991, one of the countries in this region, the Republic of Armenia, has moved purposefully to establish a democratic system based on the principles of human rights and open market reforms. In the midst of a region marked by turbulence and instability, Armenia serves as a shining example of steadiness and freedom. There are several strategies which our government could use to nurture the reform effort undertaken by some of the nations in this pivotal region, including developing incentives for long-term U.S. private investment, providing emerging democracies with greater access to our markets, and extending the provisions of the general system of preferences to nations in the area. The most important and most basic step in our entire aid program, however, should be making sure that the assistance we are currently providing is delivered to its intended destination swiftly and by the most direct route possible. While successful and efficient delivery of humanitarian aid seems an obvious goal, it is one which is not always met. For example, much of the assistance destined for Armenia has been blocked by some of Armenia's neighbors as part of an on-going, 5-year economic embargo. The closure of cargo crossings in states bordering Armenia has forced the United States, in many cases, to transport aid around blockades at significant delay and expense. Because of the circuitous routes which United States aid to Armenia often is forced to travel, humanitarian assistance has been more susceptible to theft. Mr. Speaker, the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act is a common-sense bill which will ensure that we are not subsidizing nations which are making it more difficult and costly for us to deliver desperately needed aid. It will make sure that the assistance get through to those working to establish democratic institutions, and I rise in strong support of this important legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Speaker very much, and I thank the Republican leadership who are at this point graciously allowing me to speak out of order. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, at the conclusion of the special order, we are invoking Mo Udall's old saying that everything has been said but not everybody has said it. As we conclude this, I would just like to point out that one out of five children in the United States is poor. Poor. Fifteen million children live in single-parent homes, that is, where there is only one parent, and those children are five times as likely to be poor as children who live in families that have two parents. That is a staggeringly large number, millions and millions of children who are in this condition. Thirty-seven percent of the women who control these households get support from the men who father the children, but over 60 percent of these women get no help from the fathers. Let me give some statistics. Nationwide each year $34 billion goes uncollected in child support from fathers, $34 billion. Contrast that with the total amount of money that every taxpayer in America is asked to contribute to help out these mothers. It is $23 billion. So for all of the AFDC mothers and children in America, the total amount of money which is paid is $23 billion. The fathers owe $34 billion. Taxpayers have every right to be outraged. Why should they dip into their pockets to pay for what fathers across this country should be responsible for kicking in every day? I don't think the average taxpayer would mind paying if they felt mothers and fathers actually needed it. I hope we continue to discuss this subject in the future.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Representatives Mascara, Woolsey, and Kennelly to exempt laws and regulations pertaining to the collection of child support payments from the provisions of the bill before us today. One-fifth of America's children live in poverty. In part, this is because the structure of the American family has changed dramatically in recent years. According to the Children's Defense Fund, in 1992, one-fourth of American children lived in homes where only one of their parents was present; this represents an increase from only one-tenth of all children in 1959. Unfortunately, the financial consequences of living with only one parent are equally dramatic: Half of all children living in single parent homes are poor, as compared to about 10 percent of children living in two-parent households. Thus, children who live with only one parent are five times as likely to be poor as children who are living with both parents. The sharply higher rate of poverty among children living in single- parent homes is largely due to the fact that too many deadbeat dads do not contribute to the cost of raising their children. According to the Census Bureau, less than 60 percent of mothers who have custody of their children have child support orders, and of those who do have orders in place, half receive only part of the allotted amount of support or none at all. As a result, according to one study, within the first year after the father leaves a low- or moderate-income household, mothers report that 32 percent of their children go without food, 55 percent lack health care, and 37 percent do not have proper clothing. In short, because so many noncustodial parents are shirking their financial obligations, their children are going to school hungry and failing to receive the health care and clothing they need. As long as deadbeat dads can escape their responsibilities to their children by simply picking up and leaving a State, we cannot solve this problem. We must track down more deadbeat dads--even when they cross State lines--and force them live up to the financial obligations they have to their children. I believe that this amendment protects our ability to do this, and I urge you to support it.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add to the list a situation where, for example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the Department of Energy is also promulgating nuclear safety rules. Let us take the case of Seabrook, where Seabrook is on the Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts borders. What if there is a decision made with regard to nuclear safety that the State of New Hampshire does not want to comply with because of their own budgetary constraints? What recourse does the State of Massachusetts or Maine have with regard to a nuclear safety decision which could clearly affect large areas of both of those States if in fact there has been a budgetarily driven decision with regard to whether or not a safety or health-related decision should be implemented? I thank the gentleman for raising this very important health and safety issue, and I would urge support for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green]. This amendment would preserve strict safety standards at nuclear facilities and maintain vital emergency evacuation plans around nuclear sites. As we consider ways to reduce burdensome Federal mandates, we must not weaken the ability of the Federal Government to ensure a safe and secure environment for all Americans. This amendment is prosafety, not antinuclear. The issue here is only the ability to protect citizens around nuclear facilities, nothing more. As accidents at Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl should remind us, laws and regulations designed to improve safety and evacuation procedures around nuclear plants must not be compromised in a dangerous scorched Earth policy to do away with Federal regulations. I do not believe we have adequately examined just how this bill would affect the health and safety of Americans: For example, what would happen if a State or local government owns and operates a nuclear powerplant? What regulations would the State be mandated to follow? In New York, the State purchased the Shoreham nuclear powerplant for the purpose of dismantling it. What Federal regulations would New York State or any potential State-owned nuclear facility have to follow if it ran a nuclear plant? What obligations would a State-run nuclear facility have in disposing of nuclear waste? In the future, would weak safety and disposition regulations be permitted simply because they were cost-effective? I ask my colleagues to examine the human costs of passing this legislation unamended. I understand that regulations promulgated by independent agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Agency are exempt from provisions in the bill. However, are important nuclear safety and evacuation guidelines established by the Energy Department and the Federal Emergency Management Administration [FEMA] subject to the bill's restrictions? And how about a nuclear powerplant that sits on a State border? The Seabrook plant site in New Hampshire between Maine and Massachusetts. If New Hampshire refuses to meet a Federal nuclear safety standard, Massachusetts and Maine are exposed. Are these multi-State decisions solely subject to the budgetary constraints of a single State? This amendment would alleviate concerns that the bill would hinder the Federal Government's ability to establish important safety protections. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Green amendment.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which would reform securities fraud litigation in order to curb frivolous lawsuits while protecting and strengthening the ability of defrauded investors to sue. I believe that Americans can be justifiably proud of the substantial benefits we enjoy from the fact that we have the best securities markets in the world. Our stock and bond markets have expanded tremendously over the last several years. This has helped to finance the birth and growth of promising new industries such as telecommunications, computer software, and other high technology companies that create better jobs and promote economic growth. One of the most critical factors supporting the successful growth of America's market-based capital formation system is the high level of trust and confidence investors have in the fundamental integrity and fairness of our securities markets. Our Federal securities laws help assure stock or bond prices efficiently reflect the values of the companies that have issued them. This is achieved through a system of full disclosure of all material information about public companies, which empowers Americans so that they can make informed investment decisions about which company's stocks or bonds they want to purchase. But disclosure cannot effectively serve the needs of the investing public unless backed up by strong enforcement mechanisms that assure that those who lie, cheat, and steal will be caught and punished. Over the last decade, we have witnessed horrendous financial frauds involving hundreds of billions of dollars--including Lincoln Savings & Loan, Drexel, Centrust, Phar-Mor, Mini-scribe, and ZZZ Best. The rogues gallery of financial miscreants and malfeasors that were responsible for these crimes were brought to justice through the combined efforts of Federal regulators and individual investors who filed private lawsuits. Such private lawsuits perform functions that Federal bureaucrats cannot accomplish. They provide compensation to investors who have been defrauded and they supplement the SEC's enforcement activities by helping to deter companies that may be contemplating actions that would mislead their investors. The securities litigation provisions of the GOP Contract With America would give white collar criminals, stock swindlers, and financial con artists a license to rip-off the investing public. Make no mistake about it: H.R. 10, the so-called ``Common Sense Legal Reform Act,'' is special interest legislation at its worst. While it purports to take aim against abuses by attorneys, in reality the principal beneficiaries of this legislation will be huge corporations, wealthy Wall Street investment bankers, big six accounting firms, and well-heeled corporate lawyers. Who will lose out? The defrauded investors, pension funds, and State and local governments who are victimized by financial fraud, and every business in America which can't get capital to build because a competitor is cheating the system. Individual investors will face nearly insurmountable new procedural and substantive obstacles in bringing their cases to court. Proposals such as adoption of the English rule on fee shifting, establishment of heightened intent requirements that would eliminate recklessness as a cause of action in securities fraud cases based on a fraud on the market, and other proposed changes would effectively end securities class action litigation in this country. This would deprive potentially defrauded investors from being able to seek recovery of their lost savings. Unlike the Republican bill, the legislation I am introducing today would target the real problems and abuses that can occur in the existing litigation process without impairing the ability of defrauded investors to sue wealthy corporations, and the accountants or attorneys who knowingly or recklessly assisted them in perpetrating financial frauds. My bill contains reforms which would: Ban or restrict a range of abusive practices engaged in by plaintiffs' or defendants' attorneys; Streamline the securities litigation process by providing for an early evaluation process aimed at weeding out frivolous cases; Require the SEC to issue new rules to strengthen the safe harbor provisions provided for companies to issue forward-looking statements; Limit the potential financial risk faced by defendants in securities fraud litigation cases by providing defendants with a right to obtain contribution from their codefendants based on proportionate responsibility; Assure that the interests of plaintiffs' attorneys are more closely aligned with the interests of their clients by mandating at fees be calculated on the percentage of lost funds recovered, rather than on how many billable hours the lawyers have generated; Overturn the Supreme Court's Central Bank of Denver decision by fully restoring liability to those who knowingly or reckless aid or abet securities fraud; Overturn the Supreme Court's Lampf decision by establishing a statute of limitations for securities fraud cases of 5 years after occurrence or 3 years after the violation was actually discovered; Strengthen the role of auditors in detecting and reporting evidence of financial fraud; and finally; and Mandate an SEC study on the effectiveness of private enforcement of compliance with the Federal securities laws. This package of reforms represents a balanced alternative to the special interest smorgasbord set forth in H.R. 10. Over the next days and weeks, I intend to seek cosponsors to my bill and I fully expect to offer this legislation, or amendments derived from it, to H.R. 10 when it is marked up in our subcommittee. While the specifics of this bill may undergo further refinement during the course of discussions with my House colleagues, and some additional or related provisions may be introduced later, the fundamental principles of fairness to investors that this bill imbodies will not be altered. In conclusion, I am proud, as a Democrat, to have supported the evolution of a market system that provides investors with the right to obtain full disclosure of critical investment information. I believe that investors who are defrauded by false or misleading financial statements, or inflated puffery about a corporation's earnings, products or prospects, or the value of its securities, should have a right to sue for recovery. The bill I am introducing today would preserve that right, while eliminating certain abusive or problematic practices that unduly burden the overwhelming majority of companies who are seeking in good faith to play by the rules and comply with the law.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which would reform securities fraud litigation in order to curb frivolous of defrauded investors to sue. I believe that Americans can be justifiably proud of the substantial benefits we enjoy from the fact that we have the best securities markets in the world. Our stock and bond markets have expanded tremendously over the last several years. This has helped to finance the birth and growth of promising new industries such as telecommunications, computer software, and other high technology companies that create better jobs and promote economic growth. One of the most critical factors supporting the successful growth of America's market-based capital formation system is the high level of trust and confidence investors have in the fundamental integrity and fairness of our securities markets. Our Federal securities laws help assure stock or bond prices efficiently reflect the values of the companies that have issued them. This is achieved through a system of full disclosure of all material information about public companies, which empowers Americans so that they can make informed investment decisions about which company's stocks or bonds they want to purchase. But disclosure cannot effectively serve the needs of the investing public unless backed up by strong enforcement mechanisms that assure that those who lie, cheat, and steal will be caught and punished. Over the last decade, we have witnessed horrendous financial frauds involving hundreds of billions of dollars--including Lincoln Savings & Loan, Drexel, Centrust, Phar-Mor, Miniscribe, and ZZZ Best. The ``rogues gallery'' of financial miscreants and malfeasors that were responsible for these crimes were brought to justice through the combined efforts of Federal regulators and individual investors who filed private lawsuits. Such private lawsuits perform functions that Federal bureaucrats cannot accomplish. They provide compensation to investors who have been defrauded and they supplement the SEC's enforcement activities by helping to deter companies that may be contemplating actions that would mislead their investors. The securities litigation provisions of the GOP Contract With America would give white collar criminals, stock swindlers, and financial con artists a license to rip-off the investing public. Make no mistake about it: H.R. 10, the so-called Common Sense Legal Reform Act, is special interest legislation at its worst. While it purports to take aim against abuses by attorneys, in reality the principal beneficiaries of this legislation will be huge corporations, wealthy Wall Street investment bankers, Big Six Accounting firms, and well-heeled corporate lawyers. Who will lose out? The defrauded investors, pension funds, and State and local governments who are victimized by financial fraud, and every honest business in America which can't get capital to build because a competitor is checking the system. Individual investors--such as those here today who have suffered financial losses as the result of the Orange County bankruptcy--will face nearly insurmountable new procedural and substantive obstacles in bringing their cases to court. Proposals such as adoption of the English rule on fee shifting, establishment of heightened intent requirements that would eliminate recklessness as a cause of action in securities fraud cases, enhanced pleading requirements, elimination of cases based on a fraud on the market, and other proposed changes would effectively end securities class action litigation in this country. This would deprive potentially defrauded investors from being able to seek recovery of their lost savings. Unlike the Republican bill, the legislation I am introducing today would target the real problems and abuses that can occur in the existing litigation process without impairing the ability of defrauded investors to sue wealthy corporations, and the accountants or attorneys who knowingly or recklessly assisted them in perpetrating financial frauds. My bill contains reforms which would: Ban or restrict a range of abusive practices engaged in by plaintiffs' or defendants' attorneys; Streamline the securities litigation process by providing for an early evaluation process aimed at weeding out frivolous cases; Require the SEC to issue new rules to strengthen the safe harbor provided for companies to issue forward-looking statements; Limit the potential financial risk faced by defendants in securities fraud litigation cases by providing defendants with a right to obtain contribution from their codefendants based on proportionate responsibility; Assure that the interests of plaintiffs' attorneys are more closely aligned with the interests of their clients by mandating that fees be calculated on the percentage of lost funds recovered, rather than on how many billable hours the lawyers have generated; Overturn the Supreme Court's Central Bank of Denver decision by fully restoring liability to those who knowingly or recklessly aid or abet securities fraud; Overturn the Supreme Court's Lampf decision by establishing a statute of limitations for securities fraud cases of 5 years after occurrence or 3 years after the violation was actually discovered; Strengthen the role of auditors in detecting and reporting evidence of financial fraud; and finally, Mandate an SEC study on the effectiveness of private enforcement of compliance with the federal securities laws. This package of reforms represents a balanced alternative to the special interest smorgasbord set forth in H.R. 10. Over the next few days and weeks, I intend to seek cosponsors to my bill and I fully expect to offer this legislation, or amendments derived from it, to H.R. 10 when it is marked up in our subcommittee. While the specifics of this bill may undergo further refinement during the course of discussions with my House colleagues, and some additional or related provisions may be introduced later, the fundamental principles of fairness to investors that this bill embodies will not be altered. In conclusion, I am proud, as a Democrat, to have supported the evolution of a market system that provides investors with the right to obtain full disclosure of critical investment information. I believe that investors who are defrauded by false or misleading financial statements, or inflated puffery about a corporation's earnings, products or prospects, or the value of its securities, should have a right to sue for recovery. The bill I am introducing today would preserve that right, while eliminating certain abusive or problematic practices that unduly burden the overwhelming majority of companies who are seeking in good faith to play by the rules and comply with the law.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor of legislation introduced today which proposes to update our Nation's communications laws for the information age. Introduced by my colleague John Dingell, this legislation embodies measures--H.R. 3626 and H.R. 3636--which were approved in overwhelming fashion by the House in the previous Congress. Together, these bills represented the Nation's roadmap for the information superhighway. I want to commend my distinguished colleague, Mr. Dingell, for quickly bringing these issues to the attention of the House by introducing this legislation on the opening day of the 104th Congress. Although approved by impressive margins in the House, the Senate was unable to complete work on a similar measure due to a number of factors, including the lack of sufficient days remaining in the legislative calendar. Titles III, IV, V, and VI of the bill introduced today consist of the language of H.R. 3636, which I introduced in the 103d Congress with Representative Jack Fields. Working closely in bipartisan fashion with our other subcommittee colleagues, we were able to propose radical changes and needed reforms to our Nation's communications laws. This bill passed the House by a vote of 423 to 4 last year. It is my hope to again work closely with now-Chairman Fields and other committee members, in a nonpartisan way, to repeat our legislative success in the new Congress. The purpose of this legislation is to help consumers by promoting a national communications and information infrastructure. This legislation seeks to accomplish that goal by encouraging the deployment of advanced communications services and technologies through competition, by safeguarding ratepayers and competitors from potential anticompetitive abuses, by preserving and enhancing universal service, and by addressing longstanding legal and regulatory issues posed by the Modification of Final Judgment [MFJ], which broke up Ma Bell a decade ago. The bill will preserve and enhance the goal of providing to all Americans high-quality phone service at just and reasonable rates. This goal of universal service is one of the proudest achievements of our Nation during the 20th century, and this legislation will ensure it endures beyond the year 2000. Second, the legislation will promote and accelerate competition to the cable television industry by permitting telephone companies to compete in offering video programming. Specifically, the bill would rescind the statutory ban on telephone company ownership and delivery of video programming. Telephone companies would be permitted, through a separate subsidiary, to provide video programming to their subscribers so long as they establish an open system to permit others to use their video platforms. But they must enter the business the old fashioned way: by building a new system and not just through buying up an existing system. In addition, the legislation will promote competition in the local telephone market. This market is one of the last monopoly markets in the entire telecommunications universe. We all have witnessed how the long distance market and the telecommunications equipment market has benefited tremendously from competition. Just 10 years ago, you had one choice in long distance--AT&T--and one choice for a phone--black rotary dialed. Through Federal policies, hundreds of equipment makers and long distance companies now exist, providing rigorous competition. We can see those same benefits in the local telephone market, and thereby benefit consumers by giving them more choice at lower prices. Moreover, the legislation addresses issues related to the breakup of AT&T. The bill lays the foundation to resolve issues with respect to the line of business restrictions placed upon the Bell operating companies at the time of the breakup. It sets the stage for determining how and when a Bell company may participate in the long distance marketplace. In addition, this legislation stipulates the terms and conditions for Bell company participation in the information services, alarm, and equipment manufacturing markets. This legislation will effectively take these issues out of the courts and will provide a blueprint to the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Justice, and State regulators as to how to move the industry toward greater competition while protecting consumers and competitors from the potential for monopoly abuses. This bill will also provide a modicum of certainty to participants in the marketplace, allowing CEO's, investors, and entrepreneurs to effectively plan for the future. Again, I want to commend Mr. Dingell for introducing this legislation. I look forward to working with him, Mr. Fields, Mr. Bliley, and other committee colleagues, on legislation to overhaul the 1934 Communications Act for the 1990's.