Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding because it is important as we are about to adopt this amendment to understand that it does not just give the FCC the power to punish a Bell for not opening up its local market, for not complying with the law, section 251, which is mandated but unenforced today. It does more than say we are going to fine you and penalize you if you fail to do that. It contains authority that Mr. Powell and the FCC requested of our committee to order any Bell company to cease and desist and to enforce that order in court if any Bell company conducts itself in a fashion that is anticompetitive. So what this amendment does and what makes it so very important to the bill is that it says while the Bells are allowed to get out and deploy the new broadband systems, they cannot forget their obligation to open up the local telephone markets to as much competition as we can get. In short, this is a total competition bill, competition for telephone in the local market and enhanced competition in the Internet broadband market. This amendment completes the package in a big way. Again, I commend it to all the Members' attention. Hopefully, it will be adopted unanimously. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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 half of this time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

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 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. 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.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as we begin debate on the Tauzin-Dingell bill, I think it is important to recognize that once the House gets through with its business today perhaps Americans can start enjoying Coca-Cola and Pepsi commercials again instead of these massive commercials advertising for or against Tauzin-Dingell. It is also important to say what Tauzin- Dingell is as opposed to what it is not. What it is is an effort that my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the former chairman of the committee and I have worked on for years, a bill we filed in 1999 because we saw in advance of what has occurred the collapse of so much of the high tech industry if we did not free broadband from the grip of bureaucratic regulation and if we did not create an incentive for there to be real competition in the marketplace, so we filed the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act. That is the real title. Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment, that is what it is all about. Now, there are two worlds out there. There are two worlds out there in communications. There is the old world of communications, the old voice telephone world that is still heavily regulated by government at all levels, local, State and Federal levels. That is an old world that is regulated in price and terms and conditions in a way that separates the way we talk to one another on the basis of distance, long distance and local. There is a new world, the future of communications that is characterized by the Internet which does not care how far we live from one another. It does not care how tightly we are packed into communities or how sparsely we live in rural communities of America. It is the Internet world. It is the satellite world. It is the world of cable-delivered systems where distance is irrelevant, where we pay a single rate and then we can communicate, and we are not caught in this old world recollection of distance. On the Internet it does not matter whether I live in Tokyo or Seattle or Jack Bay, Louisiana. I can communicate with anybody in the world. But even the Internet is part of the old world now. Today we talk about a new world of Internet communications called broadband. As I said earlier, when I tried to explain this to my buddies at the hunting camp, I like to use this analogy: When you think about the old Internet it is like going to the refrigerator to get a cold beer and finding out the refrigerator is turned off, and you have to turn it on, and you have to put your beer in and wait for it to get cold, and then sometime later you finally get it and enjoy it. That is the old Internet, the old dial-up service. The new broadband Internet we are talking about has systems that are so fast, so rich, always on, always ready, it is like going to that refrigerator, and it is always on, and when you open the door you have the bierskeller in there. There are so many varieties of rich, wonderful choices for you. In the real world we talk about choices on entertainment, information, education, and all sorts of things like long distance tele-medicine, all made possible when we finally connect America to the big broadband Internet systems that have been built in this system in this country but do not have on or off ramps for Americans to get on and off. After all these years, only 10 percent of Americans are connected to these systems. These are the lowest denominator systems. If I am in high speed and you are at low speed and we are connected, I am at your speed. Until we get more Americans connected with broadband, until we get real competition in those systems, America is handicapped and the high tech economy is in neutral. This bill is about jobs. It is about creating 1.2 million jobs by turning loose the investments in broadband deployment, by making sure that every company that can deliver a line to a house can offer broadband services. It is about consumers. It is about ensuring that consumers who live in the country, consumers who live in the inner cities of this country who might wait forever for broadband services get it on a lot quicker. It says there must be deployment within the 5-year period to every part of this country, every community. It says we will have competition in that deployment. I was on the floor of this House in 1992, a long time ago, to make sure that cable television had a real competitor. And this House joined with me and the Senate joined with me, and eventually we had to override a veto to make sure that satellite television had a chance to compete against cable television. Today, we make the same fight for consumers. We make the same fight to make sure everybody has a chance to get broadband Internet services, and we want to make sure that they have competition and choice in that marketplace. That is what the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act is all about. It is good for consumers. It is great for jobs. It is great for this economy. It sends the right message. It sends the Internet, high speed, rich, fast, fully deployed broadband Internet is going to be available to Americans without the heavy hand of government regulating it in terms, prices and conditions. It means that we will have choice and competition in that marketplace and that all Americans will enjoy the benefits instead of just a few of this amazing revolution in communication. This is about the future. There are people who rise on the floor and will talk to you about the past and how we ought to employ all the rules and regulations of the past to this new communications structure. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I will ask you to think about the future and how we can build a future where every American has access to these new systems and we can be rich in education and information and entertainment and commerce again. We can put America back to work and get this economy going and give Americans real choice in high speed broadband Internet services. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for the excellent work I think we put in together with our staffs to ensure, in fact, that the antitrust laws will fully apply to all operations of the Bell companies as they currently conduct their business and telephone service and in their new businesses in broadband. He and I are equally committed to watch carefully the performance of these companies and others to make sure that consumers have the benefits of competition and not the penalties of monopoly unregulated service. We are going to work together, and I thank him again for working with our subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

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. 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. Yes.

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

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

Mr. TAUZIN. What happens to the time if the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) does not appear to use it?

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, there are two amendments before this House, both of which provide access for these competitive telephone lines to the new fiber and the new systems the Bell companies would deploy under this bill. The only difference is that the Cannon-Conyers amendment would put on those conditions all the rules and regulations that currently stifle the delivery of those services. Every high-tech representative in this town, all the associations that represent companies from Lucent to Motorola, and the two largest associations of all the high-tech companies of America, over a thousand of them, have written us letters urging us to defeat Cannon and Conyers, because what it does, it guarantees that broadband will not be deployed to people in this country without all those rules and regulations of the telephone industry regulating the Internet. That is why they want that amendment defeated. The Buyer-Towns amendment, on the other hand, gives those competitive telephone companies full access to those facilities of the Bell at fair rates set by the FCC, not by the Bell companies. There are two proposals before us. I am going to ask Members in a minute to defeat the previous question to give the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) a chance to offer their proposal. If we defeat that previous question and motion, they will have a chance to offer their motion. Then they can vote Buyer and Towns up or down. If Members vote for that, that will be on the motion to recommit, and we will conclude our business. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the author of the bill.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we also clarify the effects of that kind of a decision if we do allow the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to recommit this bill with the Canyon- Conyers amendment added to it. If we allow that to happen without voting against the previous question, without giving the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) a chance to amend that motion to recommit, it is tantamount to adopting the Conyers amendment on the bill without ever having a chance to vote on Buyer-Towns. Therefore, is it not correct that for Buyer-Towns to have an opportunity to be voted upon that the Members will have to vote against the previous question on the motion to recommit?

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