Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the reason why the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I and so many others came to the floor in 1992 to try to create the capacity of direct broadcast satellite to bring television programming to America was because at the time we had just gotten through deregulating the cable companies. We in Congress had taken away the power of local franchising authorities to regulate the monopoly cable company. We thought it was pretty important if we were going to be responsible for taking away the power of local governments to regulate the monopoly cable company that we ought to make sure consumers in America had a competitive choice. That is what it was all about. In 1992, we had to fight our way over a presidential veto to accomplish that goal, but we accomplished it. We created the capacity of television satellites to deliver satellite programming in competition with cable, but we left one thing undone, and that was the capacity of those satellites to include the local network programming in the package. So guess what? Satellites were born; direct broadcast satellite came into being. But it was an imperfect competitor. So last year we tried to perfect that 1992 legislation by giving the satellites the right to carry the local network programming in the package; in short, to give Americans a real choice. Why? Because we had taken away the authority to regulate the monopoly. Well, guess what? In March of last year, all the authority to regulate from Washington monopoly cable ended. We allowed that to happen, but across America, outside of the 70 major markets that will be served by this new legislation last year, Americans will either have no multichannel delivery or will be afflicted with a single channel delivery system that is now unregulated. We created, through this process of legislation, the possibility that many Americans will have only one choice for television programming. Today we cure that. Today we make sure that here in Washington we provide the loan guarantees, not the loans. We are not giving anybody a billion dollars. We are providing government-backed guarantees to make sure that the rest of America, in addition to the 70 major markets, the rest of America will have more than one choice. Now that is the way we ought to behave. If we are going to take away power to regulate monopolies, we ought to always ensure that consumers have real choice because then consumers can regulate the companies by choosing which they want to reward with their money and which they want to punish by taking their business away. With two providers in the marketplace, Americans will finally be protected. They will have choice and with choice will come fair prices. With choice will come fair packaging of products. With choice will come consumer regulation of the marketplace. I hope we pass this good bill.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, my friend, the previous speaker, indicated the Barrett amendment provided that this test would go forward, and then if the commission did not find any interference, it could move ahead and grant these low-powered stations. That is not what the Barrett amendment says. The Barrett amendment says that in 6 months, regardless of whether the commission finds interference, it can move forward with the issuance of these low-powered station licenses. Let me say it again. The bill says they have to do this study and report back to Congress and then Congress will say yes or no, proceed, based upon the results of that study. The amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) says to the FCC that they can proceed in 6 months regardless of whether the independent study produces a finding of interference. Do we really want to vote for that? Incredibly, the Barrett amendment makes one exception. It says even in 6 months the commission cannot remove the protections against interference for radio reading services to the public. Now, that is a very important service, but if radio reading services to the public deserve this protection from interference, do we not think other minority stations deserve that protection? Do we not think National Public Radio deserves that protection? Do we not think the local radio broadcasting station deserves that protection? Or would we rather have this report come back to Congress saying there will be all kinds of interference, but the commission is going to move ahead anyhow whether or not it interferes with the local station, with the minority station, with the community broadcast station, or any other station that exists in our communities? The FCC came up with this proposal. This is not a legislative proposal. The FCC decided to propose this new service. The FCC decided to propose it and then decided to implement it in spite of the fact that radio stations across America expressed concerns to the Members of Congress, whom the FCC is supposed to be answerable to, to check it out first to make sure it would not interfere with listening audiences around the country. When we invited Chairman Kennard to come and tell us about it, he declined the offer to testify. He sent an engineer instead. So we had a battle of engineers. We listened to the FCC lab test, which said that it is okay to do this stuff. And then we heard from other engineers, who had test results that indicated all kind of talk-over, all kinds of interference problems on all kinds of cheap inexpensive radios; the Walkman, the boom boxes, the radios next to the bedside. And the FCC's answer was, oh, those radios are inexpensive. They are not designed well; and, therefore, we do not care whether it interferes with those radios. It is okay to interfere with those radios. To 65 million Americans, it is okay to interfere with their radio listening because they bought an inexpensive radio. Shame on them. That is the attitude of the FCC here. If we adopt this amendment, we give the FCC authority to move forward in spite of the fact that it interferes with these less expensive radios. We give them the authority to move forward in spite of the fact it might jam up in a digital age and completely block out the signal of National Public Radio stations in our communities, or our community broadcasters in our communities, perhaps our minority language broadcasters in our communities. We give them the go-ahead and say it does not matter that they are supposed to be subject to Congress; they can do what they want, when they want to do it. And guess what? Tick off the 6 months with me. This bill gets through the House tonight, and it goes over to the Senate. Maybe the Senate passes it in May. Count them off for me. All of a sudden we are in December. Are we in session? No. We are not in session in December. The FCC even may go out of office next year. We do not know who will be in the FCC next year. But in December the FCC proceeds with the issuances of all these licenses whether they interfere or not. We come back in session next year, and we have to start shutting licenses and radio stations down. Do we really want to be in that pickle? Do we really want to start shutting radio stations down across America because they were licensed incorrectly? We have an obligation in Congress. We have an obligation to direct the FCC when it comes to the way the spectrum is used in America. We have an obligation to every radio listener not to let them issue licenses that are going to interfere with their listening. And yet the FCC is asking us in this Barrett amendment to do what they want regardless of the test results, except to protect one small little provision of service called radio reading. I suggest to my colleagues this is an ill thought-out amendment. This undoes the bill. The bill does not shut down FM low power. It lets 70 stations go forward immediately. Immediately. And it simply says for the rest, go the through not the lab test, the field test. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this long debate this afternoon; and I have listened to Members complain that our Republican party does not have an energy policy, that our country does not have an energy policy. We do have an energy policy in America. It is an energy policy defined over many years but certainly endorsed by the Clinton-Gore administration. It is an energy policy that depends upon foreign imports. It is a policy that says we will not necessarily produce enough energy for our own people. We do not need to. We can just depend upon foreign imports. That is our policy. We resist the production of our own resources where they are available with all sorts of moratoria against drilling. We refuse to look realistically at the potential of ANWR, will not open it up to drilling and production, even with all the proper environmental controls in place. We have a policy in this country, and the Clinton- Gore administration endorses it; and that is to depend upon foreign imports. Our Vice President has even written in his book that the gasoline engine was a scourge of mankind and that his policy would be for higher and higher taxes on gasoline to discourage us from even using it. So we have a policy in place. It is import what we need, and we ought to stop using it to begin with. That is our policy. It is pretty sad. Now, I rose on the floor of this House to support our troops in the Persian Gulf to go and defend those oil fields in Saudi Arabia. I would like to remind my colleagues about what I said that day. Because the highest percentage per capita of the troops who went to the Persian Gulf came from Louisiana. We had a higher per capita of soldiers, men and women, in that battle in the Persian Gulf defending those oil fields than any other State in America. Do my colleagues know how sad that was? And the reason that was true was we had such an unemployment in the oil fields of Louisiana that more of our men and women had signed up for the Reserves for extra income and signed up with the National Guard for extra income only to find themselves out of work in the Louisiana oil fields while they could be in battle defending somebody else's oil fields. I made a speech that night and said, I hope I am never called upon again to send another Louisiana man or woman into battle to defend somebody else's oil field when we do not have a national energy policy promoting production at home. But we still do not. We have an administration that still believes it is okay to import all we need and we are at the whim of whoever wants to charge us whatever they want for it. That is the policy we have in America. I had an explosion at a Shell plant not too long ago in my district. A cat cracker exploded and caused a couple of tragedies, a terrible experience. When that cat cracker exploded and that Shell plant was demolished, that whole community came together, and we recognized how critical it was to rebuild that plant. I wonder if that plant could have been rebuilt anywhere in America. But we rebuilt it in Louisiana. We have oil and chemical plants up and down the river in my district producing energy, producing products out of petroleum products for Americans, producing fuel oil, yes, and gasoline and diesel for this country. We accept the risk in Louisiana. I wonder how many new refineries we could build in this country in the other States of our great Nation. I wonder how many people would permit the building of another refinery. We have done them in Louisiana, and we rebuild them when something happens like what happened at the Shell plant. But we have got a national energy policy that relies upon imported refined products now because we do not have a policy to encourage the refining and production of refined products in America. Not only is our policy to import crude, our policy is to import the refined products, too. If my colleagues think we have a problem today with prices, just wait and see if ever there is another oil embargo like there was in 1976, just wait and see when the countries that control refined products decide to stop selling to us and the gasoline lines form again and the homes do not have heating oil and we go through a winter where the people suffer through it the way they did in 1973 and 1974. Remember those days. We do not have an energy policy in America because we are too timid to produce our own resources, and we are too timid to refine our own resources, and we are dependent on other people to do it for us; and then we complain because we do not like the price. Let us get a good energy policy in America. Let us not depend upon OPEC and foreign countries. Let us start thinking realistically about producing in America, for America, and refining in America the products we need in America instead of depending upon other people. Then maybe we would not need resolutions like this and we would not be crying over the high prices of gasoline.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me today in recognizing The Congressional Award and the thousands of young Americans and adult advisors who participate in this truly outstanding youth program. The Congressional Award is our own, United States Congress' own, award program for America's youth. The Congressional Award is a public private partnership created by Congress to promote and recognize achievement, initiative and service in America's youth. The Congressional Award provides a unique opportunity for young people to set and achieve personally challenging goals that build character and foster community service, personal development and citizenship. A 1986 recipient of The Congressional Award Gold Medal, John M. Falk in commenting on The Congressional Award said the following: The United States Congress, through the Congressional Award, has made a lasting and positive impact on every young person to receive this Award by simply recognizing and encouraging their service to our communities, their initiative and their unique achievements. The Congressional Award is a true public private- partnership that is premised upon the very basic concept that by recognizing and encouraging young people to give of themselves to their communities and their neighbors, not only will our communities be better off but so will our young people by the very nature of the experience--hopefully for the rest of their lives. The power and importance of the Congressional Award draws from the fact that truly any young person willing to accept the challenge can earn the Award. If you speak with a former Award recipient you will quickly learn how their lives have been changed in very positive ways by building self esteem and leadership skills, encouraging initiative and reinforcing the value of service to others. The Congress has every right to be proud of this bipartisan program and the manner in which they have directly enriched the lives of thousands of young Americans since 1979. On Wednesday, March 22, 2000 The Congressional Award Foundation will hold its Annual Gala at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center to celebrate 20 years of service and commitment to America's youth. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this program and join in the celebration. In addition, I would add special thanks to our private sector partners who make The Congressional Award possible through their support; they are: 2000 Congressional Award Gala Steering Committee Gala Chair Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. Gala Co-Chairs FDX Corporation National Association of Broadcasters National Broadcasting Company Steering Committee Abbott Laboratories Allied Domecq American Airlines

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, the objections to this bill are, in fact, process and schedule. The objections are that perhaps a better bill could have been written and, in fact, the Committee on Commerce I think has produced on occasion better language. The objections to the bill are that we do not treat in this bill short-term or temporary storage but it is the administration that is opposed to us doing so. We are trying to get a bill passed, trying to get it signed. We have been at this business for 15 years, and in the course of the 15 years of debate high level nuclear waste is now stored at 80 different sites in America in 40 different States. That is in addition to the DOE waste that is now stored at DOE's weapons facilities and, as a consequence, we have collected during this 15-year period nearly $16 billion from consumers, who we have promised we would take care of this mess; and yet we have failed to keep our commitments. The Court of Appeals has ruled that DOE has an obligation to take possession of nuclear waste in 1998, whether a repository is ready or not. 1998 has come and gone and yet now we stand in that court that the costs and the expenses of contractual damages could exceed $40 billion to $80 billion. This is taxpayer and ratepayer expenses we ought to be avoiding. So what is our only solution? Our solution is to pass this bill, and get it as quickly as we can into law. It does not do everything, but it does a lot. It provides indeed the backup of storage of spent nuclear fuel, for those who cannot build on- site storage. It maintains the nuclear waste fee at the current level until it is changed by Congress. It authorizes DOE to enter volunteer settlements of the billions of dollars of liability that taxpayers now face if we do nothing. It provides additional planning and safeguard. It requires additional research into new technologies. What it does not do is important. It does not take away EPA's authority to set radiation release standards at Yucca Mountain. It does require a review of EPA's proposed rules by experts at the National Accounting of Science and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It allows EPA and Congress to review their comments and it does not authorize interim storage prior to authorization of permanent repository authority at Yucca Mountain. It does not violate the Budget Act, and my understanding is that the administration's objection to this bill makes no sense whatsoever. Madam Speaker, it is time for us to settle this issue and to begin the process of avoiding this overhanging liability to the American taxpayers. Forty States, 80 different sites; it is time for us to settle it. I want to commend my friend from Michigan for bringing this bill forward and for understanding the practical realities. Yes, we could argue process; yes, we could argue schedule; yes, we could argue for 12 hours on this floor. The result would be the same. The issue would go undetermined and unsettled. It is time, schedule permitting, process permitting, for us to settle it, and to begin to bring an end to this awful 15-year debate, an end that provides for some permanent resolution of this issue, some permanent repository for nuclear waste, so that American citizens can avoid this overhanging problem of damages and so that we can rationalize this system of protection and provision for ultimate storage of these wastes. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to vote for it. It is critical that we pass it on to final action by the Senate and the White House.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let me be, perhaps, very clear about what this bill is not about so we do not get confused as we almost just did. It is not about zoning laws. Zoning laws under Federal court decisions are not takings. The reason they are not takings is all land owners benefit mutually from zoning laws. The government is not taking away one's value there. It is enhancing the general value of all properties zoned one way or another in that zoning condition. We are not talking about nuisance laws. Nuisance laws are being held by the courts not to be takings. We are talking about the kind of laws in which the general public benefits from, but a single landowner or class of landowners has to sacrifice his property for. Dolan v. The City of Tigard is the best case on record. In that case, the City of Tigard, a local authority, tried to tell a landowner that we will only give you a building permit, which he was entitled to, if you give us some of your land for a green space and a running back. Now, the court, after 10 years of litigation, finally held to that local authority, the Supreme Court rule did not have the right to take that man's and that woman's property in the course of giving them or not giving them a building permit without paying them just compensation. That was a taking. This bill is all about making sure that wherever Federal civil rights violations of property takings occur, be they by Federal authorities or State authorities, that one has the right at least to go to Federal court and get one's Federal civil rights on property adjudicated. I want to make that point again. The court in Dolan v. The City of Tigard made it very clear that the fifth amendment protection against government at any level taking your one's rights without paying one, that fifth amendment right is a civil right. The court said it is no different, no distant relative to any other civil rights in the Bill of Rights, whether they be the right of free speech or the right of assembly or the right of religion. The court in that decision said, in effect, that the right of Mr. Dolan and his wife to be protected against their own local government was not a local decision to be decided in State court. It was involving a civil right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. And the Supreme Court of our land finally settled it. Now, why did it take 10 years? Because they had to go through this entire appeal process for all the court system. All the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) is doing is saying where this federally guaranteed right ought to be protected for the citizens of this land, they at least ought to have the Federal courts to go to to protect them. That is all this bill does. When the right to go to Federal Court is taken away because it happens to be a State authority that took the property, or because it happens to be a local or county or parish authority that took that property, when that right is taken away to go to Federal Court, the landowner is condemned to 10 years of litigation. There was another case in Texas that took 10 years, and it finally ended up in the court of claims and the government lost because they had taken the full value of a property owner's rights in a lot in a subdivision that they had declared a wetland. In that case the court begged Congress to do something about this. Nobody in our country ought to have to wait 10 years to go to court to get an answer as to whether or not the government took their property. This bill is all about process. It is not about defining takings, it is not about saying when a taking occurs, it is not about saying what conditions under which a taking occurs are going to apply in the law of the land. It is simply about process. And if we deny people process to get their federally guaranteed civil rights adjudicated, we are denying them their rights. If it takes 10 years to get some court to finally tell a landowner that the government ought to pay the full value, not the value that is left over after the landowner has been regulated to death, then something is wrong in America. This amendment ought to be defeated. This bill ought to be passed.

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 include extraneous material on the bill just passed.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to join my colleagues, the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), who has made a very important announcement this week about his own retirement, in the success of this work and so many works that he has carried through our Committee on Commerce over the years of his stewardship. All of us owe a debt of gratitude to him for his leadership on our committee, and on this bill in particular. As the gentleman said, it has been a bill that he has worked on throughout his stewardship as chairman of our committee; and he has brought it to a compromise position now where Members on both sides of the aisle, antagonists for many years over this bill, have come to common agreement. I want to thank him in particular for working out the concerns that I have had over the years with the provisions called ``fresh look,'' which I believe would have abrogated contracts. I will be very careful in watching the implementation of this legislation to ensure that the FCC does in fact respect the sanctity of contracts as this legislation is implemented. But, most importantly, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking minority member, for the extraordinary way in which the final conference indeed answered the concerns of many of us with regard to the implementation of this legislation and has arrived at a point where we can all agree that this does in fact accomplish the goals of privatization and of open market competition and, more importantly, add new elements, new companies and new competition and choices for Americans in satellite service. This has been a long fight for the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley). Tonight represents a very big victory for him in his efforts toward achieving open markets and satellite competition and for choice for consumers. I think we all owe him, as I said, a debt of gratitude and compliment him on his good work. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this compromise agreement and conference report and urge all the Members of our body to adopt it and send it on to the President. I would like to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol for their work on the compromise satellite privatization legislation crafted by this conference. The effort to create a new policy framework that more accurately reflects the emerging global satellite marketplace than does current satellite communications law, has been a bi-partisan one. I am pleased that we have finally reached this point where we have before us prudent and reasonable compromise legislation that will privatize INTELSAT and Inmarsat in a competitive manner, and will also ensure that the United States continues to enjoy its position as a world leader in global satellite communications technology and service. Moreover, this compromise legislation will enable the completion of Lockheed Martin's proposed $2.7 billion dollar acquisition of COMSAT, which will further enhance market competition. I am pleased that the legislation repeals unconditionally upon enactment the current ownership restrictions on COMSAT that have prevented Lockheed Martin from purchasing 100% COMSAT. COMSAT has carried out its job as the U.S. signatory to INTELSAT quite successfully. However, COMSAT's business performance acutely demonstrates that COMSAT must reinvent itself if it is to better react to the ever-evolving marketplace. Because of its inability to swiftly take advantage of new market opportunities, COMSAT, over the years, has experienced a steady decline in market share. This compromise legislation unshackles COMSAT from the antiquated regulatory burdens that have to date hampered its success. This legislation enables Lockheed Martin to complete its acquisition of COMSAT. By fortifying COMSAT, through an infusion of financial and human capital, Lockheed Martin will transform COMSAT into a vibrant commercial company, thereby introducing a new American company in the satellite services marketplace. Consumers will be the beneficiaries of this increasingly vibrant satellite marketplace as competition brings about lower prices, superior technology and greater choices. As a fervent protector of property rights, I am pleased to note that this compromise satellite privatization legislation recognizes the property rights of the industry participants. Specifically, the legislation does not contain any ``fresh look'' provisions. To include ``fresh look'' would allow the Federal Government to permit COMSAT's corporate customers to abrogate their current contracts with COMSAT. The ``fresh look'' provisions were rejected by both chambers because they amounted to an unconstitutional takings of COMSAT's property and violated the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause which prohibits the government from taking private property without just compensation. No one can doubt that COMSAT has a property interest in its existing contracts. Indeed, this asset represented a significant portion of the $2.7 billion dollar purchase price of COMSAT offered by Lockheed Martin. This constitutional violation would have subjected the U.S. Government--and the taxpayers--to substantial claims for damages. In that same vein, this conference agreement wisely rejects Level IV direct access--a provision like ``fresh look'' that would have forced COMSAT to divest its investment in INTELSAT at fire sale prices before INTELSAT's privatization. I will watch the Commission closely as it implements this legislation to ensure that it does not force the abrogation of contracts or other such agreements. In fact, one of the primary marketplace successes that will grow out of this conference agreement will be the benefit to customers and consumers from unshackling a new competitor in the satellite industry from the restrictions placed upon it last summer by the FCC. Although at an earlier point in this process some Members viewed INTELSAT's spinoff of New Skies Satellites with suspicion, New Skies has proven itself to be a persistent and independent competitor--even in the face of limitations imposed by the FCC on its access to the U.S. market. By the time the conferees arrived at the negotiating table, New Skies was well on its way to an initial public offering of stock. If conducted within the broad time frame established by the conferees, the IPO will entitle New Skies to full and nondiscriminatory U.S. market access under the bill. I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Bliley and ranking Member Markey, as well as to Chairman Burns, for responding affirmatively to the concerns of other House conferees that the New Skies issue be addressed. Once the New skies IPO is done and its stock is trading publicly, the underlying purposes of this legislation will have been met. Thus, I am confident that the FCC will respond by removing the discriminatory conditions it previously placed on New Skies' ability to extend the full benefits of vigorous market competition to American customers. Again, I commend my colleagues for their hard work in developing the proper framework to inject genuine competition in the international satellite marketplace by privatizing INTELSAT and Inmarsat in a meaningful way and for allowing the transformation of COMSAT, a company that has served this country well.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 17 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, as a conferee appointed to H.R. 1554, and as a proponent of competition, I deliberated long and hard to promote increased consumer choice in the video marketplace by strengthening the competitive position of satellite carriers as they go head to head with incumbent cable operators; however, they are not the only competitors in the evolving video marketplace. Since enactment of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, cable over- builders have acquired franchises all across the country and have begun to operate traditional wireline systems. In addition to these familiar distribution systems, several new digital wireless cable systems, which use microwave frequencies to transmit programming, also offer consumers a competitive alternative. Although incumbent cable systems still dominate the video distribution market, satellite carriers continue to gain market share and, with the advent of local into local, will see even greater consumer interest in their product. Unfortunately, the newer entrants--the over builders and the digital wireless providers--still face some pretty stiff obstacles in their efforts to penetrate this market. The single most significant hurdle they face is access to popular programming at fair prices. This issue has long-term significance for video competition and my subcommittee will continue to study this important problem. However, in the short- term, these new competitors are running into serious retransmission consent problems that prevent them from expanding as fast as they would like and that unnecessarily deprive consumers of an alternative choice. When attempting to renegotiate retransmission consent contracts, these new competitors are told they must take other programming services they do not want. Too frequently, they are told they must purchase a ``bundle'' of programming that includes the broadcast signal they want, but also includes programming in which the broadcaster or his affiliated network has a financial interest. As you might expect, ``bundles'' of programming cost a lot more than a single broadcast signal, and they take up valuable channel space that the new entrants would prefer to use for other programming--programming they choose to carry, not programming they are forced to carry. The bottom line is that these ``tying'' arrangements are not optional, they are forced on these new entrants as the quid pro quo for obtaining retransmission consent; impose higher programming costs on new entrants that put them at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis established players in the market; and take up valuable channel space which, in the case of wireless operators, is limited to the spectrum space available. If our efforts to increase consumer choice are to succeed, we must go beyond what we have been able to accomplish in H.R. 1554. I ask my colleagues to join me in a pledge to reopen the debate about nondiscriminatory retransmission consent and agree to study this matter further to see what additional steps we can take to strengthen the competitive position of all new entrants into the video marketplace. If we succeed, consumers will enjoy lower prices, better service quality and more choice.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, when I last addressed the House concerning H.R. 3261, at Chairman Bliley's request, I read his statement into the Congressional Record. Due to my long legislative history in issues relating to the satellite industry, I believe it is necessary for me to provide some additional views as the House and Senate prepare to begin a conference aimed at reconciling differences between their respective bills. The Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act of 1999 is an important step forward in Congress' efforts to update the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 (1962 Act). I wish to acknowledge the efforts of Chairman Bliley in reaching out to members of the Telecommunications Subcommittee to address important issues and advance the legislative process. Mr. Speaker, reform of the 1962 Act is vitally necessary, as technological innovation and marketplace competition has dramatically changed the satellite industry over the past 30 years. Indeed, the arrival and rapid advance of undersea and underground fiber-optic cable systems has forced the industry to move beyond what many policymakers have thought to be its only role: universally providing telecommunications services to broad audiences. While the industry will certainly continue to lead efforts to develop new markets, satellites are now highly sought after to provide the capacity and redundancy necessary to continue the explosion in telecommunications usage, data transmission, and e-commerce. In other words, we have now learned that not only are cable systems unable and, in some cases, unwilling to reach everyone, they may not be able to service everyone. As the landscape of the marketplace continues to change more cable and satellite systems find themselves in direct competition for customers, and we have been forced to reconsider our assumptions regarding the average satellite services user. No longer are these users simply interested in access to services; satellite customers want exactly what other telecommunications customers want. They want choice in the marketplace. They want the option of different transmission systems. They want broadband services over the Internet. They want high quality and highly dependable services. And they want it now. This change in consumer demand, coupled with the exponential increase in Internet usage, interactive data and direct-to-home satellite services fuels much of the growth in the satellite services industry today. The result is a dynamic and highly competitive marketplace. How competitive? One need look no further than the chapter 11 filings of Iridium and ICO to understand that you won't be around long in this business if you're only resting on your laurels. Mr. Speaker, I believe we can make this market even better for consumers. As the conference committee moves forward, we need to ensure that legislation intending to direct the future of the satellite industry is consistent with current economics, and that it recognizes the enormous strides toward full, free and private competition that are already underway. We need to ensure that a wide range of issues are addressed in a manner that fosters even more competition, and that Congress enacts balanced legislation which offers all companies in the satellite services industry a level playing field. I want to specifically commend Chairman Bliley for working to improve upon H.R. 1872 in several important areas. I am particularly gratified that the House legislation has effectively ensured that private contracts negotiated between entities are safeguarded and not subject to manipulation as a result of new legislation. We also need to be sensitive to the fact that this bill is necessary to accommodate a commercial transaction between two companies that have already received regulatory approval for their merger. In this regard we should work to ensure that any action of the Congress should not diminish the value of current investments or ongoing business activities. We should also ensure that no single competitor in the satellite services industry is advantaged or disadvantaged by our actions. In our effort to create a more dynamic marketplace, we should endeavor ourselves to provide even more consumer choice. Any limitation on services that any one company would offer should be seen as an outcome that reduces consumer choice. As I said previously, at a time when demand for Internet and other broadband services are driving growth across the telecommunications industry, it would be terribly ironic if an action of the Congress actually limited choice in the satellite market. I am optimistic that we will produce legislation in the conference committee that is genuinely pro-competitive and offers customers around the world more choices. I look forward to working with Chairman Bliley and Senator Burns to produce legislation that meets these objectives.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House insist on its amendment and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just briefly, and then I have requests for time that I will honor. Let me first thank my friend from Massachusetts for those very eloquent and kind words. It occurred to me as he was addressing the topic that the United States decision to create these international bodies along with countries around the world led, in fact, to the launching of communications satellites that are now serving the entire globe. To a large measure, it was those satellites beaming real information, the truth, across a wall in Berlin to citizens who were locked inside of a totalitarian system that could survive only by continuing to lie to them about how bad things were in the West and how bad democracies were and how awful free market systems were. It was those satellites that looked across that wall into grocery stores full of food in Houston, Texas and Massachusetts and Louisiana and gave a lie to all of those old messages that the Soviet Union had unfortunately piled upon their own citizens to convince them that their system was somehow better. When they turned around and went to grocery stores in Moscow and could not buy cabbage, could not buy potatoes, it suddenly dawned on them that the lie would not hold anymore, and the wall, indeed, had to come down. The irony is that the satellite system that our governments helped construct, ending up creating freedom, of breaking down walls like the Berlin Wall all over the world, and democracies and free markets now are beginning to flourish across the globe as the old systems have crumbled, the old systems of totalitarianism, communism and, in fact, controlled markets that simply did not work. So satellites gave and are giving the world freedom. And now, we in the House of Representatives are making another historic decision, that now it is time to free up the satellite system, to make it free and competitive, just like it has helped to free up the competitive juices of the economies of the world and to give people freedom across the world. It is a kind of an ironic twist that now, the good work of these satellites and of our government decisions are now leading us to a place in time when we can free up satellites now to be just as competitive as the forces they themselves helped to unleash across the globe. That is indeed an irony. It is also an irony that we meet today on this satellite freedom bill right after we passed SHVA, the Satellite Home Viewers Act, which was also a bill designed to free up competition and the delivery of telephone services here in America. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a special word to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) before I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). We took on this battle together years and years ago, long before we joined hands on the floor of the House in 1992 in that historic battle to create direct access to programming for the satellites that created direct access to television for millions of Americans and that may, indeed, be the first real competition to monopoly cable across America. Again today we are joining hands in an effort, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and others, to free up satellite communications to competition across the world. It has been an extraordinary pleasure for me, coming from the Bayou country of Louisiana, to know and to work with the likes of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and to share with him his intelligence, his wisdom, his wit and his leadership. I thank the gentleman so much for that privilege, and it is indeed an honor to join the gentleman tonight in another great historic effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3261, the Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act of 1999. In 1962, Congress passed the Communications Satellite Act. It was well intended and indeed may have fit the times. But the world has changed in the almost 40 years since then, particularly in telecommunications and space technology. It is high time the law caught up with reality. As many of my colleagues know, I have been working on this issue with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for a number of years now. The gentleman from Virginia has led the effort to author and to pass in the last Congress, indeed, this bill through the House and on to the Senate. This year, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts, the gentleman from Virginia introduced H.R. 1872. That bill was passed by 403-16. This year, we have gotten together again, made modifications to the bill, and I think we have a stronger consensus around the bill than we even had last year. I am pleased indeed to join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and a number of others who have joined him as cosponsors of the original bill. The bill now incorporates in identical form, with minor changes regarding dates, all of last year's provisions with respect to privatization and reform that were reported out of the committee and passed by the House last year. However, the bill is different with respect to two issues. It enhances the direct access section and eliminates the section known as ``fresh look.'' Thus, we have acted on the basis of the hard work of the committee and the House of last year but in the process of building consensus, we have changed some important provisions. The international satellite communications market is dominated now by the intergovernmental organization known as INTELSAT as well as by Inmarsat, which has done a limited form of privatization. These organizations use their market power to expand into services that the private sector is frankly chomping at the bit to provide. INTELSAT is run by a combination of the world's governments and is owned by a consortium of national telecommunications monopolies and dominant players, by government monopolies, for government monopolies, of government monopolies. Its supporters call it a ``cooperative.'' The gentleman from Virginia would call it indeed a ``cartel.'' Thus, it is critical not only that INTELSAT and Inmarsat be privatized but also that real competition be unleashed in this sector. A privatized cartel, Mr. Speaker, is still a cartel, the gentleman from Virginia will tell you. Today, the owners of these organizations are often the same folks that control licensing decisions and foreign market access. Thus, they have the ability and the incentive to make it hard for U.S. satellite companies to enter and to compete in their national telecom markets. The only effective way to foster pro-competitive privatization in an intergovernmental organization is to indeed use access to the U.S. market as part of the leverage. INTELSAT is treaty-based. You cannot sue them, tax them or regulate them as you would a private company. So this legislation eliminates the diplomatic privileges and unfair immunities that would give INTELSAT and COMSAT a leg up on their private sector competitors in a private sector marketplace of competition. No one in that market should be above the law. Finally, the legislation ends the monopoly over access to INTELSAT from the U.S. held by COMSAT. The bill permits free competition, known as direct access. According to the FCC, COMSAT'S average margin in reselling INTELSAT services is still an amazing 68 percent. It is not bad if you can get it, but consumers could do, I suspect, a lot better. Consumers and taxpayers will benefit from the lower prices that this legislation will bring. Businesses and their employees will benefit as new markets will open. And the American people will benefit by bringing satellite policy into the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and commend the gentleman from Massachusetts who has been a stalwart with the gentleman from Virginia in bringing this issue through the Committee on Commerce and to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3261) to amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to promote competition and privatization in satellite communications, and for other purposes.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 376) to amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to promote competition and privatization in satellite communications, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourn today that it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in special order to begin what will become in the next year, the year 2000, one of the most serious debates that I think this House will ever engage in. As we meet here in this Chamber, an historic revolution is occurring, as silently as the day, perhaps, when the United States produced more plastic than it did steel. As we speak today, a revolution in our economy, in our communications, in our whole international social structure, is happening all around us. It is a revolution called the Internet, and it is about to explode upon the world in a new and faster form called broad band Internet. Just recently one of the groups here in Washington, Legg-Mason, did a study to indicate how fast would this new broad band high-speed Internet be deployed in our great country, how soon would citizens have access to this amazing new system by which we will not only conduct our business, but entertain one another and learn from one another, and eventually even deliver medical services to one another? Legg-Mason indicated that 3 years from now they anticipate that approximately half of Americans will have access to high-speed broad band Internet services. At the same time, they indicate that half of America will have access through two, three, or even four or more different providers. Then they look at the other half of America. The other half of America they looked at 3 years from now they estimate will only have access to a single provider, in some cases, and for a full fourth of Americans, there will be no provider of Internet high-speed broad band services. What does that mean in a real sense? It means that for one-fourth of America there will be no chance to access high-speed digital broad band Internet services. It means that for that one-fourth of America, they will be left out of this high-speed electronic commerce revolution. It means for that one-fourth of America, that children will grow up in an educationally and informationally deprived society. It means that new high-speed electronic commerce services will not be available to those businesses. It means that citizens will not have access to all of the long-distance learning and telemedicine that the high-speed broad band services will bring. In short, it means that as this incredible fast train of broad band services is leaving the station, that some Americans are going to be left in its dust, and will have no access to the incredible opportunities the new millenium will bring in the digital age. Who are those one-quarter of Americans who will have no access? Members probably can guess who they are. They are going to be the citizens in the most poverty-ridden sectors of our country, the minority centers of our country, the poor rural minority and poor rural sectors of America, the poorest and most sparsely populated parts of the West, and some parts of the South. A good way to see that one-quarter of America is to look at a map that shows where the high-speed hubs are, where the backbones for these new systems are currently deployed. We will see, for example, that California has 177 of these high-speed hubs, and in Louisiana we have two. We have one in Baton Rouge and one in New Orleans. California has more of these high-speed hubs, in fact, than does 31 other States combined. Most of the States of the West and the rural parts of our country have no such high-speed hubs. That is where we will find that part of America that is going to get left behind in this incredible information revolution. Look to the inner cities, look to the poverty, the minority centers of our country, and we will again see a lack of high-speed deployment of broad band services. We will see again a sector of our country that will be left out. For a full quarter of America who will have at least one Internet broad band provider, we will see a part of America that unfortunately will have to deal with a monopoly, a single provider of these immense services. So for one-half of our country 3 years from now, Americans will either have none of these services or, unfortunately, have a service that is provided by a single monopoly player. Yesterday this House took dramatic action to provide a new form of law to give to the satellite television companies new rights to compete against the monopoly cable companies in our communities. That is pretty important. A monopoly cable company can charge what it wants, can lump as much programming into a package as they want, and we have to take it or leave it. When the satellite company can offer a full component of packaged products that includes local signals as well as cable broadcast programming, all of a sudden consumers have a choice. All of a sudden television services become much better for consumers. As choice and competition comes to the marketplace, better prices, better terms, better conditions. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I just talked about another bill to free up international satellite communications in order to create competition, lower prices, choice for consumers, not only here in America but across the world. What I am speaking of tonight is a situation that is about to develop in this incredible world of Internet services where television, telephones, data will all combine in a digital stream that will arrive at our homes or not arrive in our homes, depending upon whether or not we are connected to broad band and to broad band networks. Let me just give an idea of about how important this is. In just 5 years, since the first introduction of the World Wide Web, the Internet economy, which is now $301 billion, already rivals old economy sectors like energy, at $223 billion, and autos, at $350 billion, and Telecom at $270 billion. It is already, in 5 years, as big as some of these century-old economy sectors that took hundreds of years, literally, to get as big as they are. The Internet spread to 25 percent of our population in just 7 years. By contrast, electricity reached 25 percent of Americans in 46 years. Telephone took 35 years. Television took 26 years. The Internet took 7 years to reach a quarter of America. Commercial activity on the Internet is expected to be $100 billion by the end of 1999, and double that in the year 2000. By 2002, on-line business-to-business transactions will total a whopping $842 billion. MCI/WorldCom, for example, said that net income nearly tripled to $1 billion for the third quarter in 1999, and 40 percent of their company revenues are now in Internet and data services. What I am saying is that the Internet has arrived. It created 1.2 million jobs in the U.S. in 1998. Ten percent of the United States adults, 19.7 million persons, are now telecommuters. They work from home and they save employers $10,000 per employee because they telecommute, reducing absenteeism, lowering job retention costs. I could go on and on, I think my colleagues get my drift. Mr. Speaker, the Internet is upon us, but if my colleagues think this old slow Internet has made a difference in this economy and is currently making a huge difference in the success of the American economy and freeing up economies across the world, they ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until they see high-speed broadband. People have asked what is the difference? Internet has to be turned on. One has to dial it up, have to wait for it to warm up and heat up and compete with more and more traffic on the slow system. Sometimes the traffic gets so heavy as new customers come on line that it is difficult to get service. High speed Internet is like that refrigerator. It is always on, always chilled, always ready to go and it is hot and it is fast and it is full of information. It will contain real-time video. High-speed broadband digital services means on television direct telephone calls where we can see one another. It means on television all the Internet commerce services which are growing and growing in the economic sectors of America. Business-to-consumer commerce totaled $8 billion. That is huge. Business-to-business commerce totaled $43 billion last year, and we are told by 2003 it will become $1.3 trillion. Mr. Speaker, all of that business happening on high speed networks, but some people will be left out. In this coming year, we will begin debating whether or not it is time in America for this House, this Congress, to declare broadband Internet policy. To make sure, as we have tried to do with cable, as we have tried to do with satellites, as we have tried to do with so many of our economic sectors, that no longer will some people be left out, caught on the wrong side of the wire, caught in this great digital divide, left out as this fast, high- speed train leaves the station. Deprived and depressed and left behind in a faster and faster world, or whether we will have a policy in America that says to broadband Internet providers, ``Here is your chance to serve every American.'' And every American is entitled to a choice of different providers, so that every American has a chance to be on that system. I recently had a high-tech conference in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where we explored that whole set of issues in my home State of Louisiana. We were recently ranked in Louisiana as 47th in the Nation in terms of Internet connection. That is not good. That is awful. We need to be way up there. Why? Because Louisiana has a huge problem of adult illiteracy and an education system that cannot seem to cure it. We have one of the highest uninsured populations in America per capita. We need some help. High-speed, broadband Internet can solve so many of those problems. We learned at that conference that there are children in my home State who start first grade with a 50-word vocabulary. Who go to school in the first grade knowing what a tomato looks like, but not knowing the word ``tomato.'' Who know what a wagon does, but ``wagon'' is not in their vocabulary. Imagine those children connected to the Internet at home and all the sudden exposed to a worldwide view of information and learning. Connected to their teachers's web site at night to get help with homework and enlarge that vocabulary and give themselves a chance in the world. Imagine if we do connect and we get high-speed services to a State like Louisiana what a difference it can make for the people of our State. And yet, those children today start with a 50-word vocabulary. Most children in America start with at least a 500-word vocabulary. Now, imagine if my State, or many parts of it, are left out of this high-speed digital revolution. Imagine if our children still start with that 50-word vocabulary and other kids in America connected to the broadband start instead with a 5,000-word vocabulary or 10,000-word vocabulary. Imagine how much further behind those kids become. Imagine a small business in a rural town that is told because they do not have high-speed broadband Internet connectivity to the rest of the economy that their customers will not do business with them anymore. They are out of business unless they move to a high-speed Internet center somewhere. Imagine what it does to rural America, to poverty America, to minority centers in this country when they are told businesses cannot operate here because they are not connected and Washington never created a policy to ensure that they would be connected. Imagine our company, our town, our school, our city, our hospital connected to a single monopoly provider unregulated by government. Imagine those conditions. We are not much better off than the one who is not connected at all. That is the world Legg Mason predicted for America in 3 years if we do not soon declare a new broadband policy for this country. Mr. Speaker, when we come back to session early next year, I will be joined by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), former chairman of the Committee on Commerce and now ranking minority member. I will be joined by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) who serves on both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Commerce and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who is an esteemed and honorable member of the Committee on the Judiciary. We will be joined on the floor by many other Members who will begin talking about this issue and begin trying to elicit the help of Americans in create an interest here in Congress toward building a broadband Internet policy for this country that says no child will be left out, no one will be caught outside the digital divide, no one will be left behind as the high speed train leaves the station. Recently, a book was published by a fellow named Tom Friedman called ``The Lexus and the Olive Tree.'' In it he says in this new millennium there will not be a First World and Third World anymore. There will not be First World economies and Third World economies anymore. There will either be a fast world, part of this incredible high speed electronic commerce world where we all are connected and we all can reach each other and communicate and teach and learn and commerce with one another, or the slow world, left out, left behind. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to say tonight, and we will try to say next year in special order after special order, that America could not and should not let that happen to any citizen of our country. We cannot have half of America left behind. We cannot have a fourth of America totally locked out of this digital revolution. We cannot say that this is the land of opportunity for some but not for others. Mr. Speaker, I will be back on the floor with my colleagues when we come back in January and we will burden you night after night because we will be on this floor talking about this digital divide, talking about the necessity to have real competition and real delivery of services to every citizen of this country in broadband Internet digital commerce, teaching, learning, medicine, and all the wonderful opportunities that those systems will bring.