Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by my dear friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), a valued member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and thank her for this motion. This motion is obviously to instruct the conferees on H.R. 3448, the other Tauzin-Dingell bill, the Tauzin-Dingell Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act; and also I want to, obviously, thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for again an extraordinary bipartisan effort to do what I think is something awfully important and necessary for our country. As the gentlewoman explained, this bill came out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in December and passed the House by 418 to 2, again a remarkable expression of the concern all Members have on both sides of the aisle for protecting America from these chemical and bioterrorism attacks. I believe that now we have to work even more diligently to reconcile the differences between our House-passed bill and the bill the Senate eventually passed in late December and go to a conference and get this bill accomplished as quickly as possible. At its core, H.R. 3448 is about the safety and about the security of our country, a country that is now faced with profound new threats of terrorism and public health emergencies. Increasing Federal resources available to identify, to prevent, to deter and to respond to threats of bioterrorism is probably the most important thing we can do now in improving our readiness to face an enemy that is now here at home and threatens a free and prosperous society. For fiscal year 2002 we have already addressed increasing the funding to combat bioterrorism through appropriations bills and by administrative actions. We must be careful not to disrupt or delay this very much needed funding by unnecessarily imposing substantial new requirements on the grants or the funding for fiscal year 2002. We must also enact a strong framework that combines smart, innovative policy with these additional resources to prepare our country for these bioterrorism threats, to improve our abilities to respond, as the gentlewoman said, quickly and efficiently if, in fact, those threats not only arise but are carried out as many predict al Qaeda and other members are still attempting to do. Title I of the House-passed bill is intended to step up our preparedness and our capacity to identify and respond to these kinds of threats. The title will improve communications between and among the levels of government, public health officials, first responders, the health care providers and the facilities that must obviously take care of victims in the case of those emergencies. As we work to reconcile the House- and Senate-passed bills, we must also enhance the controls on deadly biological agents in order to help prevent bioterrorism, establish a national database on dangerous pathogens. Even today we do not have a national system in place for tracking the possession and use of the anthrax that has already killed and injured citizens and continues to pose a threat to our national and economic security and public health and welfare, not to mention the lives of our postal workers and others in our society who are threatened by such an attack. Title II of the House-passed bill imposes new registration requirements on all the possessors of the 36 most dangerous biological agents and toxins. It mandates tough new safety and security requirements to ensure that only legitimate scientists working in appropriate laboratory facilities can gain access to these potential weapons of mass personal destruction. Title III of the House bill protects the food and drug supplies by increasing Food and Drug Administration resources to hire more inspectors at the border where so little of our food is inspected and by providing additional authority for the FDA to detain food and to investigate credible evidence of contamination and to improve access to records to assist in investigating any threats to our food supplies. Finally, we must recognize the need to provide for the vulnerability assessments, emergency response plans and other actions with respect to public drinking water supplies. All of us should pay special attention to what is happening in Rome where tunnels were found and suspects arrested who had materials on hand designed to infect the water supplies of the Americans who work in our embassy there and could possibly have poisoned them and damaged them or hurt them or killed them. That single incident in Rome ought to stand as a stock warning to everyone in this country that it can happen here, too, if we are not careful. Title IV of the House-passed bill requires a comprehensive review of the ways to detect and respond to chemical, biological, radiological contamination of drinking water, as well as ways to prevent and mitigate the effects of physical attacks upon those assets. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on both sides of the aisle for their tireless, extraordinary efforts to produce H.R. 3448. Once again, the House led the Senate in getting this legislation passed, but the Senate has done its job, too, now, and we need to reconcile the differences between the legislation. I look forward to working expeditiously with the House and Senate managers to resolve those differences so this country can quickly get a strong public health security and bioterrorism response bill to the President's desk, not just this year but hopefully by the time we conclude in another month. We ought to get this thing done not in months but in days and weeks, and we ought to put it on the President's desk so the country can have the benefit of this kind of security. I urge my colleagues to support this motion and commend the gentlewoman for presenting it to the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers; and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3448) to improve the ability of the United States to prevent, prepare for, and respond to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a distinguished member of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that one of the complaints about the bill as we originated it is that it took away one of the carrots that would encourage the local Bells to open up their local markets. What the gentlemen are doing with this amendment is making sure there is a stick there too; that the FCC can hammer the Bells any time they fail to open up their market, as required by the 1996 act. This is a great amendment, and I commend both gentlemen for it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the Big Apple, New York (Mr. Fossella), a distinguished member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito). (Mrs. CAPITO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader of the House.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, to clear a matter for the record, I want to be clear that the manager's amendment provides that the saving clause found in section 601(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 shall be interpreted to mean neither the antitrust laws nor the application of those laws by the courts are repealed by, precluded by, diminished by, or incompatible with the Communications Act of 1934, this act, or any law amended by neither such act. Mr. Chairman, we have seen some pretty charts today. I remember when the networks were really getting the election wrong last year, when they got the Presidential election so messed up with all their predictions. Tim Russert came with a little chart, a little chartboard, and he said, Here it is, the election will be settled in Florida. He was so right. I watched all these pretty charts, and I have drawn my own while we were talking. This is the state of broadband in America. This is what broadband looks like. Ninety percent of America is unserved, unconnected, and 90 percent of America denied the benefits of this incredible new technology. Guess who lives in that 90 percent? The Members guessed it, people who live in the rural parts of America, people who live in the underserved parts of America, the people who live in the minority centers of our cities in America, the people who are going to be the last ones cable reaches out to with broadband if cable is the only provider on the ground. Look at the state of broadband in America. Only 10 percent of Americans are connected, and two-thirds of that, 70 percent, about, is connected by cable. No wonder, no wonder AT&T cable is the biggest opponent of this bill. There is a quote in a Wall Street Journal article last week: `` `Global Crossing built the highway,' '' the high-speed network, ``says Jeffrey Eisenach of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, but the FCC destroyed the incentives for the Bells to build the on ramps.'' They were talking about the Tauzin-Dingell bill getting rid of these phony regulations that have stopped the building of the on and off ramps to the rest of America. No wonder that bill ``. . . is hung up, thanks to its opposition from AT&T and the other cable operators.'' This is the same fight we fought in 1992, the same fight when we came to this floor with a dream, a dream that instead of regulating the cable companies, we could create competition for them in video. We stood on the floor of this House in 1992 and on the Senate floor and passed a bill saying there would be an alternative, there would be a theater in the sky, satellite television, and 20 million Americans now have the benefit of satellite direct broadcast television, 500 beautiful channels of television to compete with cable; not just a second choice, I will remind the Members, but a second store to keep cable honest. This bill is about keeping cable honest, about creating a competitor to broadband, about building the on and off ramps for the 90 percent of America that is left out, about making sure that the Internet is free of regulation. No wonder the regulators oppose this bill. They would love to regulate the Internet, just like the taxing authorities would love to tax the Internet. Keep the Internet free, free broadband deployment, connect America, give us all a chance to enjoy this amazing technology. That is what Tauzin-Dingell does, and that is why we need to pass the bill.

Mr. TAUZIN. Is the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) present to use that time?

Mr. TAUZIN. Yes.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, we certainly accept that explanation and understand it. Mr. Chairman, while we are awaiting the arrival of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to another great Member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close so that the other gentlemen may use up their time. parliamentary inquiry

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Chair would call on the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to use this time as we are using our time so that this debate can be balanced as we go forward. My concern is that if an opponent who has time in his pocket waits until the very end of the debate and then uses it all, then it very much unbalances this debate. That is not normal procedure for this House.

Mr. TAUZIN. The Chair has satisfied the gentleman in his request. I thank the Chair.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if I can make a further parliamentary inquiry, the normal procedure for us to debate general debate on a bill is that time is used equally by proponents and opponents. If one of the opponents is saving 10 minutes to be used after debate is all finished, that disrupts the normal procedure of the House. I would inquire as to why this is being allowed.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the Chair, did I hear you to say the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) had an additional 10 minutes not being used at this time, because we are trying to allocate time between proponents and opponents as equally as possible.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, it comes down to this. All Members who walked into this room this morning and voted yes on the rule should vote against the motion on the previous question, because that preserves the rule and does not allow these parties to undermine the rule that Members voted for. Vote no on the previous question and then yes on Buyer-Towns, yes on the amended motion to recommit, and yes on final passage.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make necessary technical, conforming and clerical corrections in the enrollment of the bill, H.R. 1542.