Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the balance of the time. This debate is a travesty. We are allowed 10 minutes to explain this fundamental change in the whole history of the Internet. It is pretty much a joke. If two consumers go into a car dealership and one wants to buy a Ferrari and another decides to buy a Ford Taurus, that is their choice. The Ferrari is expensive and has all sorts of bells and whistles. But once those two customers drive the Ferrari and the Taurus off the lot, the car dealership shouldn't be allowed to tell them where they can and cannot drive. We don't have certain roads or destinations just for Ferraris or just for Taurus drivers, and the auto dealership certainly shouldn't be permitted to put up new toll booths to extract fees on those highways. That limits freedom. That is what the Republicans and the Bell companies are doing tonight. If you like the way the Internet is today, vote for the Markey amendment. If you don't want new broadband taxes, fees imposed upon the Internet, vote for the Markey amendment. If you agree with the National Religious Broadcasters, with the Gun Owners Association, Common Cause, the Christian Coalition, and the ACLU, you vote for the Markey amendment tonight. Because if you don't, there is going to be a fundamental change in the whole history of the Internet. You can't put together a coalition like that unless something fundamental is happening in America. It goes to voices, all of these organizations who feel it is going to be limited, and choices, the choices that consumers are going to have and the choices that entrepreneurs are going to have in getting onto this information highway without having to pay special fee or tax to the telephone companies or cable companies. Vote ``aye'' for the Markey amendment. Preserve network neutrality, preserve the Internet as we know it today. There is nothing wrong with it, and you won't hear a word from the Republicans or from the telephone companies making a case that there is anything wrong.

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

Mr. MARKEY. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the full commerce committee, the gentleman from the State of Michigan, Mr. Dingell. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 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. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with grateful appreciation if unanimous consent could be granted by you and by the other Members of this House that I have my name withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 2048.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. In a post-GATT, post-NAFTA global world, global economy, you need an ongoing plan as to who is going to gain access to telecommunications technology, Information Age technology. Well, the Republicans have constructed a defeatist policy. Knowing that 50 percent of the children in America will be minorities by the year 2020 in our country, they have refused Congresswoman Solis, Congresswoman Watson, representing the Hispanic and the Black Caucus, to come out here to make an amendment that would require the telephone companies to build out on the poor side of town, because we know they are going to the wealthy side of town, and they want this decision to be made at the Federal Government level. Every mayor in the past has made this decision because they negotiate the contract with the cable company, but the Republicans say we are not even going to have a debate on that issue on the House floor. On net neutrality, 20 minutes, 10 minutes for either side. Net neutrality, an issue which is going to fundamentally change the nature of the Internet forever. On the naming of post offices, the Republicans give 40 minutes of debate. On changing the Internet for the rest of eternity, 20 minutes, evenly divided. It is so disrespectful of the importance of these issues that it almost defies description, but it is a reflection of the telephone company agenda, and the Republicans have decided to take that agenda 100 percent. Now, what did the telephone companies have to do with inventing the Internet? Nothing. The browser? Nothing. The World Wide Web? Nothing. What have they had to do with the Internet from the beginning of time? Nothing. But what the Republican Party has done is side in this bill, in a gag rule that does not allow us to debate the important issues, with the telephone company against every entrepreneurial company in America, the future Sergey Brins, the future Marc Andreessen of Netscape and Google. They are going to have to pay a broadband tax to the telephone company to gain access. It will be their highway. That is what they say. Well, that runs fundamentally contrary to the agenda which we need to have for the future of America as the entrepreneurial telecommunications Information Age giant in a modern world. This is our strength, and it also completely ignores the role that these 50 percent of minority children are going to have in terms of access to it. No requirement to build out into the poor parts of town. Now, what kind of plan is that for America? It is a defeatist attitude, and the Republicans have just basically put in this bill the tech agenda for America in a rearview mirror. It is a sad commentary. Now, Congresswoman Solis wants to have an amendment out here so we would debate red-lining to make sure the telephone companies just do not go to the good parts of town. They are going to my part of town. They are going to anybody's part of town that has money in their pocket over $100,000 a year. Sure, that is great. Members of Congress, they are going to be fine. But what about the people in the neighborhoods that people drive around? Are they going to get access to it? Not under their bill, and by the way, not a debate to be had on the House floor. It is so disrespectful. It is so defeatist. It is so lacking in vision as to what our country needs for entrepreneurs and for minority children, and I beg the Members to vote ``no'' on this rule, to open it up. Forty minutes on the naming of a post office, 20 minutes on the future of the Internet. Vote ``no'' on this Republican rule.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. Let me begin by saying that I have been in Congress for 30 years now and served on the Energy Committee for 30 years, and this is absolutely the worst energy bill I have seen since the refinery bill the House defeated just over 1 month ago. In fact, it is the same exact bill risen from the grave like some horror movie monstrosity to haunt this House and our country once again. This bill also comes to us, just 10 months ago, as I said, when President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law. That bill contained a refinery siting provision. Those provisions were praised at the time by the Republican leadership and the President who claimed that it promotes greater refinery capacity, so more gasoline will be on the market, and it increases gasoline supply by putting an end to the proliferation of boutique fuels. That is 10 months ago, on the greatest energy bill that America had seen in a decade. But now less than a year after the House passed and the President signed the Republican energy bill into law, as people are screaming at the pumps, as they are being tipped upside down and money is being shaken out of their pockets, as the American people realize that the Republican Party has allowed OPEC and the oil industry to take advantage of every single consumer across the country, this House is now poised to repeal the refinery siting law. The Speaker, the Republican Speaker praised last summer and replaced it with a brand-new refinery siting scheme. The House Republicans have come up with just another new way of helping the oil and gas industry. Apparently, they do not like the bill they enacted last year; they want a new one. The problem is that the new snake oil that is being peddled in this bill is no more effective than the old snake oil it replaces or the snake oil the Republicans were peddling on the House floor 2 years ago or 3 years ago or 4 years ago. This bill will not reduce gas prices at the pump, it will not curb spiraling gasoline or home heating oil gas prices. All it does is throw more regulatory subsidies, taxpayer subsidies, at wealthy energy producers who do not need any more government handouts. Here is what the Bass refinery bill would do: Direct the President to designate no fewer than three closed military bases to be turned over to the oil companies for use as an oil refinery. Mr. Speaker, this is one terrible bill. I urge the Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, spoofing is when a caller masks or changes the caller ID information of their call in a way that disguises the true origination number of the caller. In many instances, a call recipient may be subject to pretexting through spoofing, which can lead to fraud, personal ID theft, harassment or otherwise with the safety of the call recipient in danger. On the other hand, lest we think that spoofing always has nefarious aims, we must recognize that there may be circumstances when a person's safety may be put in danger if the true and accurate call origination information is disclosed as well. What we seek in caller ID policy is balance, and I believe the legislation before us today, after changes were made in committee consideration, more adequately strikes the historic balance we have sought to achieve for consumer privacy and security. For instance, Members of Congress often have direct lines in their office, but in order to ensure that such lines do not become generally public and, therefore, remain useful to us, it may be necessary to keep such direct numbers confidential and have the outgoing caller ID information indicate a different number at which our offices can be reached for return calls. That gives the recipient a legitimate phone number to call back, but keeps confidential lines private. There are many doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers and other professionals who would similarly like to keep direct, confidential lines private in this way who have no direct intention of misleading anyone. In addition, there may be instances, for example, when a woman at a shelter seeks to reach her children, when spoofing is important to safeguard someone's safety. Moreover, informants to law enforcement tip lines or whistleblowers have additional reasons for why their calling information should remain private. We should not outlaw any of these practices, and I think the legislation now incorporates the notion that the intent of the caller is vitally important in gauging whether spoofing unfairly violates privacy and security. With that, I commend the chairman for the changes he was willing to make in the committee deliberations of the bill, and I congratulate him and I congratulate Mr. Engel from New York for his splendid work on this legislation. Mr. Dingell and I have enjoyed working on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Upton for this legislation and commend as well Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell for the cooperative bipartisan way this bill has been has been handled. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, S. 193, is similar to legislation that previously passed the House. It was approved by the Senate unanimously a few weeks ago. This bill, simply put, raises the cap on possible fines that the FCC can levy for violations of its broadcast indecency rules from $32,500 per broadcast licensee to $325,000. I would like to emphasize that this legislation does not make indecent broadcast illegal, nor does the bill define what is or is not indecent material. Indecent content aired over broadcast TV and radio is already illegal between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. What speech constitutes indecent material will be left to the FCC and the courts to determine. Again, this legislation simply updates the statute with respect to the amount of money that the FCC can levy as a fine for violations of its rules, and establishes procedures for considering broadcast license awards, renewal, or revocation when repeated violations are found. I think this legislation has obvious broad support on both sides of the aisle because it merely increases the amount of fines available to the FCC to enforce its existing rules. I intend to support it, and again commend Chairman Upton, Chairman Barton, and Ranking Member John Dingell, and our other colleagues on this bill as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Rule and to the underlying bill. Let me begin by saying that I've been in Congress for 30 years now, and this is absolutely the worst energy bill I've seen since the bill the House defeated just over one month ago! In fact, it is the same exact bill--risen from the grave like some horror movie monstrosity to haunt this House yet again. The Rule we are considering for this bill is an absolute insult to this House and to the Members. It is a complete and total gag Rule. It makes absolutely no amendments in order. It allows only one hour of debate on the bill. It waives all points of order against the bill. The Rules Committee Republicans voted down Democratic motions to report this bill with an open rule. The Rules Committee Republicans voted down a Democratic Motion to make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) to strike provisions from the bill that would require the designation of no less than 3 closed military bases for use as refineries. The Rules Committee Republicans voted down a Democratic Motion to make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) to establish a Strategic Refinery Reserve to help cushion the shock of extreme supply disruptions with a federal refinery that would have surge capacity to produce refined products when needed. Why are the Republicans afraid of having a debate and a vote on these Democratic amendments? Are they afraid of giving the Members an opportunity to approve a measure that might actually do something to reduce gas prices, and ensure that the rights of local communities are not trampled upon in order to advance the interests of the oil industry? We should be able to have that debate and vote on these amendments today. We shouldn't be forced to put our amendments into a recommittal motion at the end of the bill in which we will only have 10 minutes of total debate time. Once again, the Republican Majority that controls this Congress is abusing its power and trampling upon the rights of the Minority. This bill has never been the subject of any legislative hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was introduced by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), on May 2nd of this year and then brought immediately to the House floor on the Suspension Calendar one day later. Now, the Suspension Calendar is normally used for non-controversial bills that have approved on a bipartisan basis. Most of the time, we use the Suspension Calendar to bring up bills to name post offices, pass commemorations, or enact Sense of Congress resolutions. It is entirely inappropriate to use the Suspension process for a bill as contentious as the Bass bill, because that process bars any amendments and sharply limits floor debate. Thankfully, the Bass bill failed when brought up as a Suspension. It deserves to fail again here on the Floor today. There still have never been any legislative hearings on this bill. There still has been no Subcommittee or Committee process. The Democratic Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee have been walled out. This is a bad bill. It deserves to be defeated. I urge the Members to reject this Rule, to reject this unfair process, and to reject the Bass Refinery bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not asking for this amendment to be considered en bloc. I would ask for the gentleman from Kentucky to explain further his point of order so that it can be better understood by the Chair and by the proponent of the amendment. I would yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may continue to make a parliamentary inquiry, we have a CBO score that says that there is actually a reduction in outlays of $20 million. I am asking my staff to present to the Chair, before he concludes his ruling, the actual documentation from CBO that reflects that finding, which I think would as a result mean that the amendment was in compliance. Mr. Chairman, I think we are each aware at this point there is a certain amount of terminological inexactitude in the numbers that both sides are using right now; and, as a result, I defer to the ruling of the Chair. But I will announce that I will try to come back with a redrafted proposal in this area.