Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4201.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of our Committee on Commerce and the leader of our conference with the Senate, for the production of this incredibly, I think, historic act today. Let me also thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who joined the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and I as the five Members of the conference committee who duked it out with 17 Senators on the conference committee in order to produce this, I think, very good result, and, as I said, which we endorse today, albeit the fact that we believe at some point we are going to have to come back and make some repairs in it in order to make sure this does not become a haven for civil class-action lawsuits. Having said that, let me also use this moment to pay special homage and thanks to the gentleman from Richmond, Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, who is today adding another star on the chest of this warrior for telecommunications reform. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), as my colleagues know, was our chairman when he produced the historic 1996 Telecommunications Act that rewrote the 1930s laws on telecommunications, something we have been trying to do for a decade, and accomplished under his chairmanship. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) recently produced for us the conference report and the final action on the bill to deregulate satellites in this country and around the world, and that was an amazing and important accomplishment of his tenure. I mentioned earlier the on-line privacy acts that are going to provide Americans with much more security and privacy as they enter this new world of electronic commerce. Much of it is the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley). The national 911 bill that will provide a national number for people to call in terms of emergencies on the Nation's highways is a product of his tenure as chairmanship; now this historic digital signature act of the year 2000. But the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) is not through. This afternoon, we take up anti-spam legislation to protect Americans on the Internet from the avalanche of damaging and very disruptive spam operations that hurt electronic commerce and damage our capacity to use the Internet efficiently to communicate with one another. He is a cosponsor with me of the Truth in Billing Act to do something about making sure the telephone company bills we get clearly disclose what all those charges are about so Americans understand what is on that massive and complicated telephone bill. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) has been truly a warrior of the telecommunications reform. Today, we not only celebrate a historic, I think, beginning of making sure that electronic commerce is secure and legal and binding into the future, but I also see the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who I want to commend for her early work on this issue for many years. But today we not only celebrate the passage of this act, we celebrate, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) is nearing his retirement, an incredible series of accomplishments on behalf of the chairman of our Committee on Commerce. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Conference Report to accompany S. 761, the ``Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.'' This historic legislation, I believe, will promote the growth of electronic commerce and the Internet economy. For the first time in our nation's history, this legislation mandates that electronic signatures and records may take the place of handwritten signatures and hard, or paper, documents. And for the first time in our history, electronic signatures and records will have full legal validity. This bill, once enacted into law, will bring enormous savings to business through greater efficiency, faster transactions, and reduced paperwork. Moreover, consumers will save from lower transactions costs. S. 761, I must also mention, provides for extensive consumer protection. Not only are existing state and federal consumer protection laws unaffected, but the provisions regarding consent afford consumers with the greatest possible safeguards against fraud imaginable. Consumers must opt-in to electronic transactions, receive full disclosure of terms and conditions, and ultimately prove that they can electronically access and retain the information that is the subject of the consent. I submit that in all my time in Congress, I have never seen a more involved statutory framework for purposes of manifesting consent. In addition, S. 761 does not ignore international developments. It directs the Secretary of Commerce to examine foreign laws that may be an impediment to the use and acceptance of electronic signatures and records. The Secretary must also promote e-signatures overseas and work to remove the foreign barriers and impediments to commerce in electronic signatures and records. Finally, this legislation before us technology neutral. Mr. Speaker, in developing this legislation, the Conference Committee recognizes that certain technologies are more secure than others. The Committee also recognizes that consumers and businesses must as well be free to select the technology that is most appropriate for their particular needs, taking into account the importance of a transaction, the special nature of a transaction, and the corresponding need for assurances. To this extent, S. 761 is consistent with the ``Government Paperwork Elimination Act'' that we passed last Congress.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and encourage Members not only to support the rule, but to adopt this conference report. This is the culmination of several attempts in this Congress and other Congresses to find a compromise with the other body and with Members of this body that would properly and legally make valid signatures of Americans, and, in fact, signatures of citizens of the world, in the electronic commerce age, and also to make the records, electronic records behind the documents and agreements we reach electronically, legally binding records upon the parties who sign those agreements and enter into those contracts in the electronic age. Americans tell us that privacy and security are the two biggest concerns as we enter this new e-commerce age, making sure in effect that as we enter this age, that citizens who take advantage of electronic commerce, both to sell their products and services, or to purchase them, will have the knowledge that, number one, they are dealing in a secure system, so this bill is written in a way that is technologically neutral and calls upon the genius and creativity of this amazing new marketplace to develop the highly encrypted products that are going to make commerce in the electronic age even more secure than commerce in the paper age. Secondly, I want to commend this House and this Congress for the activities we have already undertaken to protect privacy in the key areas that are most of concern to Americans, the areas of medical information privacy, the area of children's information privacy, and, most recently, in the financial services bill, in protecting people's privacy as they deal with their financial records, with mortgages and bank accounts and security transactions in the Internet age. I also want to point out that there are some people that are afraid of this age. I suppose every time there were major changes in the way Americans did business, in the way we interacted with one another, there was fear. When the telegraph first came upon the scene, I can assure you there were the similar fears that the telegraph was somehow going to create a world that people would live in fear of. In fact, there is a wonderful book called ``The Victorian Internet'' which traces the history of the telegraph and speaks of the same concerns that people in the world had about the telegraph that we hear about the Internet today. But what was true with the telegraph is also true with the Internet and electronic commerce: It is upon us, it is an age which is arriving rapidly, and more and more Americans are finding that they can have more efficient businesses and more efficient transactions when they in fact become conversant with the Internet and conversant with the possibilities of the Internet in learning and trading and in long distance medicine, in amazing new opportunities it will make for the people of the world. This bill is a major step forward in making sure that that world is secure; that there are legally binding, responsible actions taken as a result of interacting on the Internet; that when I sell my products to you and you sign up, it is as valid a deal as if you came to my store and purchased my products. I can count on them to honestly keep their contract, and they can honestly count on me to live up to my agreement to sell them those products and services according to the terms of our agreement. Like many bills, this is a compromise. This bill contains in my opinion a little overreach. It contains a little too much bureaucracy, a little too much in the way in which we insist that people consent first to join this Internet world. It may need some work in the future for us to improve it. I am the first to tell Members it is not perfect in that regard. It literally goes overboard to make sure that when people consent to be part of the electronic age, that they really consent. It even has language in it that says that we have to prove that we are capable of receiving all the documents and notices and information that we are consenting to be part of in the electronic age; not just giving our e- mail address as we would give our phone number and address in the paper age, but actually proving that our computer is capable of handling all the information that is going to be faxed or e-mailed to us as part of the electronic transaction. Let me also say that nothing in this bill requires one to be part of this electronic commerce age if they do not want to be, no more than one is required to own a credit card if they do not want to. My father, whom I lost 9 years ago and miss dearly, and will this summer when we always celebrate his birthday, I do not think he ever owned a credit card. He never made a credit purchase. I have made up for it, believe me. I use a lot of credit. But the bottom line is that nothing requires an American to use the services of the Internet or to use this bill to sign electronically for purchases and sales. This is purely voluntary. It is an opt-in system. We have to consent to it. We have to know what we are consenting to. We have to prove we are capable of literally giving the consent, prove we have the equipment and means by which to engage in electronic business in this new age. It is a pretty extensive consent agreement provision. It also contains language making sure that the consumer protection laws of every State are incorporated, that they are maintained. Nothing takes away from the protections that consumers now enjoy from those who would like to defraud us. The beautiful thing about this new age is that electronic signatures can be more precise, much more precisely identified, than the signature we write on a paper that can be copied by some people. Electronic signatures with heavy encryption can be much more secure than the world of paper we now live in. Secondly, it can be much more efficient. I want to invite all Americans to think of this. When we used to have a business in the old brick and mortar age before the Internet that depended upon citizens being able to come into the store, get to the store in a car, by bike, by foot, we had a limited marketplace. Today with the Internet the marketplace is global. Today, with a little store in Chack Bay, Louisiana, selling tobasco or other great seasonings, we can enjoy now a worldwide market on the Internet and sell to a whole community of people that is global. Making that system work efficiently and creating legally binding agreements in that system is what this bill is all about, literally to facilitate global commerce. The bill contains features that insist that our government negotiate with other countries, to insist that they have similar legally binding provisions in their laws so when our citizens interact and sell products to their citizens or vice versa, when we buy products from them, we both have legally binding agreements, just as much as we do here in the good old U.S.A. on this great Flag Day. This is again not a perfect bill, it may need refinements in the future. I think it is a little too bureaucratic than I would like, but it is a great step forward. I endorse it fully. This rule ought to be adopted. We need to pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues not only to pay this bill some attention, but also to do what they can to inform the citizens on their own websites about this new capability that Congress is enacting today to further advance the security of transaction in the e-commerce age and to further advance the ability of Americans to be part of this incredible new opportunity age that the Internet and e-commerce is going to make for all of our citizens.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that today while I was conducting a hearing in the House Committee on Commerce on broad band legislation, that the House is moving to pass an important piece of legislation to help the Internet community and all telephone consumers of America. That was a bill to repeal the 3 percent telephone tax that has been on the books as we know on and off since the Spanish American war. The telephone tax operates as a tax on the Internet because much of the Internet service flows over the telephone. As a result, this 3 percent tax collected originally to fund the Spanish American War and left on the books for lo these many years had to go. Today, the House joined in large numbers in repealing that tax. I want to congratulate the House in making that great decision today. In fact, a study done by the Progress and Freedom Foundation indicates that over the last 12 years, telephone taxes have gone up in this country 62 percent, that telephone taxes, that taxes on the business of talking to one another in this country have risen a remarkable 62 percent. That includes State, local and, of course, Federal taxes. When the combination of all these taxes mount up on a person's telephone bill, it means in effect that more and more people cannot afford to be on the Internet. In fact, the Progress and Freedom Foundation estimates that well over 20 percent of America will not access the Internet because of the high level of telephone taxation. Now, what is ironic about that is that we live in a country that prides itself on free speech. In fact, the first amendment to our Constitution is an amendment that protects American's right to free speech, in effect protects our right to free speech against the Government infringing upon it. I want you to think about that for a second. In this wonderful free speech society that prides itself and in fact brags about free speech around the world, we in America tax speech in many jurisdictions of our country more than we do tobacco. In other words, the taxes on telephones in many jurisdictions of America are higher than the taxes on tobacco, which is supposed to be a sin product. Speech is supposed to be honored and respected in America. In this great House we honor and respect the right of free speech in our wonderful debates on the great issues of the day. Yet our government taxes talking on a telephone so high that it amounts to more than the taxes on tobacco in many parts of America. You would think we would honor speech by getting rid of those taxes, lowering those taxes; and so this House began today that process. By eliminating the 3 percent excise tax on talking on telephones, we hopefully have begun the process to honor and respect free speech again in our society. Eliminating this tax is going to save millions of Americans many millions of dollars over the years that unfortunately has been taken from them as they use their telephones or connect to the Internet. More importantly, as we repeal this 3 percent telephone tax, we will be making access to the Internet more affordable for many people in this country. Think about telephone taxes another way. It is one of the most regressive forms of taxation you can possibly imagine, because we all use the telephone. We use it to keep in touch with our loved ones; we use it constantly in our businesses. Everyone uses the telephone. And in a real sense, when you talk about taxes being progressive or regressive, this is the most regressive tax that I can possibly imagine. Everybody pays it. The poorest of Americans who use the telephone pay a higher percentage of taxes with telephone taxes than they do in any other form. So this House really has done America a great favor. I am proud tell you that it was in 1998 that the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and I filed the first bill to repeal the Spanish American 3 percent telephone tax. It has taken a few years, but this House today agreed with us. We are delighted in fact that the House has now sent to the Senate a bill to end this 100-year-old Spanish American War tax. I want you to know the Spanish can breathe easy tonight. The war is over. We have ended collecting a tax that ran that war. We should be very proud in fact that we are finally taking the right path in making both telephone and Internet service more affordable for people and getting rid of some of this heavy burden of excessive and regressive taxation on the folks in America who use the telephone. We have only just begun. As we go through the process of trying to make sure that the Internet is free and accessible for more and more people, free of these heavy taxation burdens, our committee and the Committee on Ways and Means will continue to see whether or not we can hopefully give Americans even more relief from taxation. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, our efforts will continue. We are going to look seriously at possibly putting some kind of limitation on the FCC's ability to constantly raise taxes', and one day just hopefully one day we will honor and respect free speech in America the way our forefathers intended.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 336, 106th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, today we held the second of a series of hearings on the issue of broad band deployment in the Subcommittee on Telecommunications. And in completing that hearing today, we arrived at a point where over 200 Members of this House, I think 207 by today's count, have endorsed and cosponsored H.R. 2420, which is a bill designed to prevent from happening in this country what so many people are talking about, something called the digital divide. It is a bill designed to ensure that all Americans have access to high-speed broad band Internet services that are being deployed in some parts of America. According to a study by Legg Mason, in the next 4 years about half of this country will have access to several, not one, but several different providers of high-speed broad band services. Now, for those of you who use the Internet, what we call the narrow band Internet, broad band Internet will be absolutely like day and night. It will provide Americans with access to incredibly high-speed data including both audio and visual images, in other words, motion pictures, streamed over the Internet in full realtime. It will open the door in short to incredible new opportunities in entertainment, information, long distance learning, and telemedicine and all the things that Americans look forward to in terms of this telecommunications revolution. It will indeed open the door to new opportunities in electronic commerce for small businesses across America. But the ugly truth is that this high-speed, fast-speed train that is about to arrive and provide all these wonderful services for about half of America will not arrive at all for about a quarter of Americans and will arrive only with one provider for another quarter of our great country. That means as far out as we can see, 4 years from now, fully half of our country will have only one provider of these new services or no provider at all. Now, if you live in any part of America that is not connected to this wonderful high-speed broad band network, you are going to find out that not only are you missing great opportunities but you may have to move. If you are a small business not connected to some of these networks, and you cannot connect to the high-speed network in which your business should be connected because it is part of an integral e-commerce distribution system, you may find yourself having to leave a small town in rural America that you grew up in and relocate your business elsewhere, or you may find out you are losing an awful lot of business. The problem for Americans is that the quarter of Americans who will not have any services generally live in rural America or in urban center city portions of our country. So the urban poor and the rural poor of our country will be the last to receive the benefits from this high- speed digital revolution. Now, something can happen to change that. Buried in the ground, connecting all the rural communities of America and much of the urban centers of our country are fiber optic cables that have been laid by the telephone companies, the Bell companies. But under Federal law, these cables, these fiber optics that could connect little towns across America to the high-speed trunk lines of this new broad band revolution cannot be used because the FCC literally will not allow the telephone companies to get into the broad band business across what is called LATA lines. They may be State boundaries or lines drawn on a map inside a State that currently separates local and long distance telephone calls. You should ask me what does local and long distance telephone calls have to do with the Internet and this broad band revolution. I should tell you it has very little to do with it. It only has to do with voice communication, telephone communications. But these old laws that restrict the local telephone company from crossing those lines and getting into long distance telephones also currently restrict the telephone companies from connecting all the small parts of America to the broad band Internet. It is time we lift those restrictions. In 1996, we tried to deregulate communications in America. We did a pretty good job, but we left the regulations in place on the local monopoly telephone companies until there was enough competition for telephone service in those local markets. We certainly did not intend to stop the telephone companies from being a full-fledged competitor to connect rural parts of America, small town America, urban center city America to the great advantages of this new age of communications, the broad band digital high-speed network. So House bill 2420 will do just that, will lift those restrictions, will create competition, offer connection, connectivity for everyone in this country. That means ending the digital divide. Mr. Speaker, House bill 2420 needs to be passed. We are rapidly approaching the point where over 218 Members of this House will have signed on urging its passage.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1832, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. I grew up as a young boy living in south Louisiana. The first television set in our community came to my grandfather's house, and some of my earliest bonding memories with my dad and grandfather were when we got together with our friends from the whole community and gathered around that only television set in our area to watch the great boxing fights of our day. Perhaps the greatest fighter in all of boxing history is Muhammad Ali. Muhammad Ali gave his name to this legislation because he believes it is absolutely critical to help protect boxers and clean up the sport from the occasional unscrupulous individuals who have recently given it a bad name. Last June, my Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing on this legislation to get input from various State boxing commissioners, promoters, managers, boxing fans, and boxers. Coincidentally, the hearing took place just after an extremely controversial decision in a fight between Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis, in which an International Boxing Federation judge awarded the title to Mr. Holyfield, the IBF champion, instead of to Mr. Lewis, the World Boxing Council champion and clear apparent winner according to most boxing commentators. At our hearing, one witness said the decision by the IBF judge was dishonest, two said it was incompetent, the third called it ``highly influenced'', and Middleweight Boxer Alfonzo Daniels simply replied, ``Lewis was robbed''. We are all robbed when this kind of corruption and incompetence touches on this great sport. Since that time there have continued to be indictments and allegations of corruption in the sport. The Miami Herald reported that over 30 prize fights have been fixed or tainted with fraud in the last dozen years. A Los Angeles Times investigation found that boxing ranking were sometimes sold by sanctioning bodies and that boxing promoters and managers make thinly disguised bribes to improve their boxers' standings and to get them more lucrative fights. In fact, the week before the House passed an earlier version of this legislation last November, a Federal grand jury issued a 32-count indictment against the President and three officials of the International Boxing Federation on charges of taking bribes from promoters and managers to manipulate rankings, as well as racketeering and money laundering. According to the Federal prosecutor, ``In the IBF, ranking were bought, not earned . . . completely corrupt[ing] the . . . ranking system.'' This legislation will remove the few rotten actors that have been giving a bad name to the numerous honest and hardworking individuals that have made this sport so great. It is good for boxing and good for boxing fans. We will now all be able to trust in the integrity of the sport, and enjoy without suspicion boxing's championship fights, just like I did with my father and grandfather many years ago. In conclusion, I would like to thank some of the people who have worked so hard on this legislation to make it a reality, including ABC President Greg Sirb, promoter Tony Holden, Senate Commerce Committee staff Paul Feeney, George Otto with the Quarry Foundation, and of course the Great One, Muhammad Ali, without whose persistence and support we would not be able to achieve what we are about to accomplish here today.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to put this issue in perspective. The New Orleans Airport is indeed owned by the City of New Orleans, but it is not located in the City of New Orleans. It is located principally in Jefferson Parish, principally in the area represented by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). It is partially located in a Parish of Saint Charles. We do not have counties, we have parishes in Louisiana, so I apologize for some of the confusion. The County or Parish of Saint Charles, it is one of the counties or parishes in my district. Now, the proposal by the New Orleans Airport Authority is to extend the airport with a new runway into Saint Charles Parish, a significant change in the location of flight patterns and aircraft movements and a difference in literally noise and safety concerns for the people of Saint Charles Parish. Unfortunately, Saint Charles Parish is allowed one representative on the New Orleans International Airport Board, appointed by the mayor, not selected by the people of Saint Charles Parish, and that is all they have on this board. There is no real local input in the governance of the airport, no local input into the decisions that are made with regard to takeoffs and landings and all the issues that are important when communities are affected by airport extensions into their rural, and, in this case, suburban communities. So what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) is proposing is a very simple thing. It simply gets us into the conference committee, where hopefully we can begin the discussions with the City of New Orleans on how in fact to move towards some reasonable regional governance of this facility before it extends into another county, another parish, like Saint Charles Parish, another Congressional District even such as my own. I want to point out to my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) that indeed we have always talked and cooperated on these issues, and I think we will again on this issue, once we get past this point. But last year the New Orleans Airport Authority, without consulting my office, without talking to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), tried to get language into the TEA-21 bill that would have, in fact, appropriated $30 million for property purchases in the Parish of Saint Charles to move this extension forward without ever talking to us. We found out about it almost by accident, that it was being added to the bill with the help of some lobbying group here in Washington, D.C. hired by the City of New Orleans. Now, that is not the way to cooperate either. I think we can reach a point of cooperation and agreement if we simply get to the place where I hope we can get in the conference committee where we can talk. I just want to make this one point. If we could amend this bill today, to say that the airport extension could go forward if, in fact, we move significantly to regional governance, that is the amendment we would have offered today. We cannot do that under the rules. All we can offer is some sort of prohibition on spending. So what we have chosen in this amendment to do is to prohibit engineering payments. We understand that not likely are there going to be any engineering studies done anyhow. This amendment simply gets us into the conference where we can talk with our two Senators, and the three of us, hopefully with the City of New Orleans, can perhaps work this out. That is why I hope we adopt this amendment today, and put us all in a position where everybody sort of has to talk, whether they like it or not.

Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman indeed knew, this gentleman and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) knew, of New Orleans' interest in extending that runway. We have been supportive of the airport doing so. We have always, however, reserved our support upon conditional conversations about regional governance, conversations leading to some real say-so from the parishes, the counties, affected. We have not gotten to that point. This amendment gets us there.

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out again what occurred last year was an amendment to the FAA authorization bill that provided $30 million, instructing the FAA to give priority consideration to land acquisition in St. Charles Parish, and we had received no notice of this. We discovered the amendment after it had, in fact, entered into the bill. It is for that reason that we need this amendment. We are not asking that the regional governance issues be settled. All we are saying is give us this amendment and that will compel the parties indeed to talk about regional governance. We met with our Governor in Louisiana and the Governor is prepared to help us achieve this result. We simply do not think this extension ought to go forward. Until we have had those discussions, that is what this amendment will help us do. I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), we have worked together many, many years in the State legislature and here in Washington, D.C. He knows of my close friendship and my effort over all of these years to work with him. I can give him my assurance that if we get this thing into conference we will have those discussions; we will get back to a position where the mayor and the Governor and we and our two Senators can begin to reach for common solutions. I simply have to make sure that the folks in St. Charles Parish I represent, just as the gentleman has to make sure that the folks in New Orleans that he represents, are properly represented in these discussions. They are currently not. They want to make sure, as their representative, and I am sure the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) has the same situation in Jefferson Parish, that those discussions actually happen. There is no promise of discussions. There is no refusal to meet, but they actually have to happen before we go forward. Why? Because we all want to go forward. We all want to see the airport completed. We want to see new runways created. We want to see regional governance and regional cooperation around that airport, and I give the gentleman my word I am going to work with him to that end.

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, that is exactly true. That is the point the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) made, and let me answer it. It is true, and that is all the more reason why we need to talk. This extension will not occur until the community of St. Charles has an agreement with the City of New Orleans and the community of Jefferson Parish has an agreement with the City of New Orleans. It is not going to happen by sneaking changes or amendments into the law to provide for $30 million to go out and buy property in the district I represent. It is only going to happen when we have the conversations I think this amendment will lead us to.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes in support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1291, the Internet Access Charge Protection Act of 2000, and I urge my colleagues today to show their support for this important pro-consumer legislation. A number of Members have made this floor vote possible, and I would like to begin by noting their contributions. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) is the author of this most important legislation. He has identified the significance of this issue and has worked hard with the committee to ensure that the bill is balanced and represents a continued contribution to the public interest. Let me also commend the leadership of the House, who showed an early and critical interest in bringing this legislation to the floor today. Finally, as always, let me note the work of the bipartisan leadership of our Committee on Commerce, its chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), both of whom always contribute to the bipartisan spirit by which we bring legislation important to the Nation on telecommunication matters to the floor. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents the best interests of this body. No matter how complex an issue is and no matter how controversial it may be, this institution can find a way to craft a balanced bill which serves the interests of consumers and of the technologies. Over the years, the Committee on Commerce has labored hard to provide for universal access to the Nation's telephone network. While competition and innovation have been the hallmark of telecommunications policy, so too has universal service. We have balanced these goals over the decades, and we will do so again today with this legislation that is before us. More to the point, H.R. 1291 will preclude the Federal Communications Commission from imposing permanent charges on Internet service providers when those charges are intended for the support of universal service. At the same time, it is important to note that this bill will permit the Committee on Commerce and the FCC to continue to consider the implications of the growth of Internet telephony, particularly its long-term implications on consumer access to the telephone network. This is a critical issue, and yet we know so little about what it means for those who depend upon affordable access to telecommunications service. The FCC, for example, has advised Congress that it is too early to tell what the future holds for universal service as more voice traffic migrates to Internet telephony. At the same time, the FCC warned that it does not want to stifle the growth of Web-based applications such as Internet telephony. The FCC, in other words, has told us the record on this matter is not yet complete, nor is Congress prepared with a well-developed record in this area either. That is why the legislation makes it clear that Congress is not predetermining the issue of access charges and Internet telephony. Let me make it clear to my colleagues, this bill leaves this important debate for another day. It is neutral on this point. It decides it neither way and leaves it for a future debate, leaves it for Congress and the FCC to settle at a future time. But this House can today and should address the central issue of permanent charges on Internet data access, and it should do so today. The Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce has recommended to us that access to the Internet should remain tax free and unregulated. Today's monthly Internet access services are affordable and charged on a flat rate basis. As a result, the Internet is available to children to surf the Worldwide Web for information, reports and learning. It is available for e-commerce businesses to grow and expand without the burden of permanent charges. This bill ensures that that affordable access is continued on into the future. H.R. 1291 will help ensure that this affordable access is the rule, not the exception. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Congressman Schnell may indeed be a bogus Congressman but the issue is not bogus. There are real lawyers litigating in the courts on this issue today, and real debate before the FCC. This bill puts an end to the debate and protects the Internet from per minute charges for all of those who have affordable access today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a real Congressman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a dear friend and the author of the legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first point out that there is no contribution to universal service right now in any access charge assessed against Internet users for data services. This is not occurring. The FCC has an exemption on the books right now that prevents such access charges for universal service. Universal service is not threatened by this bill today, and no one should feel otherwise. Secondly, there is no Member of the House who has proposed to make access charges for data services on the Internet support universal service. The only person who suggested that is this artificial bogus Congressman, Congressman Schnell, that is the subject of some e-mail conversation on the web. Third, if there was an opportunity to create a digital divide here, it would be in the case if Congressman Schnell or some litigator in the Eighth Circuit or some litigator at the FCC ever succeeded in changing the FCC's exemption. If ever these litigators succeeded in assessing per minute charges for data use of the Internet, indeed, we would be helping to create a digital divide. It is the absence of per minute charges on the Internet that is making the Internet affordable to poor people, to children, to struggling new-coming businesses on the web; to the growth, in fact, of the electronic commerce in America and across the world. It is the absence of per minute charges that is helping us to make sure that a digital divide does not happen when it comes to access to the Internet for children, libraries, hospitals, schools, for people in general in this country. Today we codify that rule. In this bill we say never shall the FCC assess per minute charges for access to the Internet for data services. That is a good thing. We ought to put this to rest. This bill does it. I commend my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for doing so. We leave to a future debate the question of telephone service, where indeed universal service is critically important. We leave that debate open. We make no judgment. We are neutral on that point. This is a good bill. It deserves the support of the House. I urge its final passage.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1291.