Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin.)

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

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with my friend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). Mr. Speaker, a provision in this legislation provides that Internet service providers may not avail themselves of the compulsory license for terrestial systems under Section 111 of the Copyright Act and satellite systems under Sections 119 and 122. I, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) believe that a wholesale exclusion from the compulsory license based solely on the technology used by potential licensees to retransmit the program may be inappropriate. If on-line service providers can meet the underlying requirements of the compulsory license, they should not be discriminated against simply because of the medium used. It is my understanding that the gentleman is committed to working with me, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) in addressing this concern this session. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), is that correct?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this conference report represents the combined hard work of both the House and the Senate, which is, of course, long overdue. I am pleased to report that through this hard work we are able to present the House an agreement on changes to telecommunications and copyright law in order to provide the American consumer with a stronger, more viable competitor to their incumbent cable operator. This legislation will enact comprehensive reforms to the offering of satellite television service. I expect that the reforms contained in this bill will have a dramatic and beneficial effect on the multichannel video programming marketplace for years to come. Consumers today expect more from their video program providers, whether it is a cable company, a satellite company, their broadcaster or other distributors, including the Internet. Consumers are savvy and they now expect and indeed demand their video program distributor to offer a wide variety of programming at reasonable cost with exceptional picture quality. Today, there are some limitations on the ability of satellite carriers to meet consumer demands. These limitations put satellite carriers at a competitive disadvantage to incumbent cable providers. The main limitation on satellite providers is the inherent difficulty in providing local broadcast programming via satellite. Even though broadcasters are experiencing a dramatic reduction in their overall viewing audience compared to a few years ago, the overwhelming number of consumers still want local broadcast programming. Consumer surveys conclude that the lack of local broadcast programming is the number one reason some consumers are unwilling to subscribe to satellite service. This conference report we are placing before the House today is designed to put satellite on a competitive, equal footing with cable. The bill provides for a compulsory license to retransmit local broadcast programming, and ensures carriage for local broadcast stations through retransmission consent/must-carry elections. The bill also provides consumers with the enjoyment of the benefit of distant signals. This bill is not what all the industry desires. I want to make that clear. Parts of our industry do not like the bill. But the bottom line is it is good for consumers, and that is what really matters. For C- band users in my district and across America who have been calling, this bill grandfathers them. They are now legally eligible under this bill to receive signals they wrote and called about. Let me tell my colleagues some of the other good consumer things it does. It directs the FCC to develop a new program signal standard; that is, defines a better picture quality instead of the 1950 quality we were used to looking at and that currently exists. It gives it a year to do so and to come back to Congress with this new picture quality standard. It requires broadcasters to respond within 30 days to requests for waivers to receive distant signals, if they cannot get a good local signal. It makes it easier for consumers to either get the waiver or to take an eligibility test for the distant signal. And, by the way, it ensures that the consumer will not be required to pay for this testing. It directs the FCC to assist consumers in reviewing those eligibility disputes. It makes a national PBS satellite feed available nationwide to all satellite consumers and at a reduced copyright rate. It eliminates the 90-day waiting period for current cable subscribers who want to switch over to satellites. It sets the copyright rate for local signals at zero, ensuring such signals will be available at consumer friendly rates. It extends existing satellite copyright license for another 5 years, making sure they can get local signals. It cuts the copyright rates for distant network signals by as much as 45 percent, making service to American consumers cheaper and more affordable. It even allows owners of recreation vehicles and long-haul trucks to be eligible to receive distant network signals in their vehicles through their satellite service. For those who have been concerned or angered by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting sharing their donor list, worry no more. The bill prohibits the receipt of Federal funds to any CPB broadcast entity who shares their donor list, plain and simple, with any political entity. It also allows the contributor an added bonus. It allows an opt-out to make sure a name is not shared with anyone, whether affiliated or not affiliated. For those in rural America, this bill provides incentives. This is a good conference report. It combines the telecommunications provisions of H.R. 851, the Save Our Satellites Act of 1999, as reported, and the copyright provisions of H.R. 1027, the Satellite Television Improvement Act, as reported. The history of the bill can, therefore, be found in the applicable portions of the two reports filed by our two committees on these two bills. I think it strikes the right balance, and I urge my colleagues' support. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hard work of a large group of Members who had a role in bringing this conference report together: The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the subcommittee ranking member; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) from the Committee on Commerce; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the subcommittee chairman; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the subcommittee ranking member; and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) from the Committee on the Judiciary. This is a bipartisan, bicommittee approach to a very important legislative bill. If there is one bill that has to get done before we go home from this session, this is the must-pass bill. I am pleased we were able to work together to bring this compromise to the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say that this has been a long battle. I say congratulations to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). Today, we see real competition for cable. We know that when cable faces real competition, rates can fall as much as 25 percent. Today, real competition; tomorrow, real choice. This is a victory for consumers. For those of my colleagues who want to read the bill, it is on the web site at http://clerkweb.house.gov. My colleagues can pick it up on the web. More importantly, Americans will soon be able to pick up local television off of their satellite.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in opposition to this substitute. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the substitute, if adopted, will rob this body of one of its rare opportunities to do good not only by our generation of Americans but by generations yet unborn. We are about to enter a new millennium that, in large measure, is going to be governed by the enormous possibilities of not only the current Internet as we know it but as broadband, high-speed, always-on, always-available, supercontent-rich, broadband Internet services that are going to merge with television and provide us with new means of communicating and entertaining ourselves and indeed conducting electronic commerce across the span of the globe. It is going to make a smaller world and make possible enormous opportunity for citizens of this country and citizens of the word. But in order for that to flourish, the legal rules that are to govern electronic commerce ought to be made clear. The bill does that. The problem with the substitute is that it limits the bill only to those matters dealing with the formation of an electronic contract. Now, in the earlier discussions, I tried to point out to my colleagues that many things that happen in electronic commerce do not involve the formation of a contract. The best example is when we write a check and that check has to be physically delivered by the bank to the bank of the recipient to whom we are sending the money. Just the physical transfer of all those checks, all that paperwork, costs consumers in America $4 billion a year just moving that paper around. The substitute would do nothing to provide for digital signature in the electronic commerce of transferring money around in the form of payments and checks. I urge that this substitute be defeated and we stick with the main body of the bill.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman of the Committee on Commerce, for yielding me this time. I particularly want to commend him for this legislative effort and, like him, I want to thank particularly the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) of our committee who has done such great work over the years in helping to develop an electronic signature bill for the E-commerce age, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and others for working with the chairman of the committee in offering a very helpful amendment that we are going to hear about later today. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that this bill obviously has the support of an incredible array of business groups, including the United States Chamber, which is going to score this as one of our major votes this year because business sees this, of course, as a major step forward in the development of electronic commerce for our country and our country's economy. But I want to speak more importantly about the impact of this E-SIGN bill on consumers. I think we all agree that consumers are the backbone of the electronic commerce model. If consumers do not feel comfortable, if they do not feel at ease with this new technology, then they are going to lose confidence in the growing electronic commerce of our country and the world, and that is certainly a result no one wants. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that over 10 million Americans are going to join in the electronic commerce revolution this Christmas and make purchases for their Christmas gifts over the Internet. But as more and more consumers come to use the Internet and the electronic commerce, this E-SIGN bill is going to become more and more important. This bill strikes, I think, the right balance. It recognizes that we are moving toward electronic transactions and then allows many types of transactions to take place over the Internet while, at the same time, it continues to provide the protections that consumers have been accustomed to in the world of paper and written checks and contracts, and in the analog world itself. H.R. 1714, which I was very pleased to join the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) in sponsoring in its onset, recognizes that there are important State and Federal laws that protect consumers today such as the requirement that consumers be provided copies of important documents such as warrants, notices, and disclosures. This bill recognizes and retains these important consumer protection laws and develops a system whereby consumers can choose to accept electronic versions of the documents and then receive them electronically. Understand, consumers choose to do so. It furthermore provides that consumers must separately and affirmatively opt in and consent to receiving important documents electronically and then must be assured that those documents can be retained for future use. That is why this bill has the right balance, good for business, good for consumers. Let me say a word in opposition to the substitute that we will see. The substitute would apply only to contracts. Let me give an example of what the substitute will miss. Today we spend almost $4 billion handling paper checks with an electronic commerce world; $4 billion could be saved for consumers if, in fact, we could literally bank electronically without the necessity of all this paper. Imagine all the weight this paper has in the transport industries as cargo on planes. If one eliminates all that paper in our lives and in the shipment and cargoes and transportation, those kind of savings are ours if we reject the substitute and stick with the main bill.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, during our subcommittee markup on this bill earlier this year, we asked a panel of witnesses about the judging of the Holyfield-Lewis championship unification fight that had just occurred. Two said the scoring was incompetent, two indicated that it was dishonest, and the last said Lewis was robbed. Well, we all are robbed when one of our national sports becomes tainted in such a way. I grew up watching boxing as a child with my grandfather and my dad in the little community of Chackbay, Louisiana. I have heard of too many young fighters who have put so much into training themselves for a big fight only to suffer from what Muhammad Ali has called the ``dishonest ways'' of promoters. This bill protects boxers from dishonest promoters. It prohibits coercive contracts and empowers the States to develop uniform rules and regulations governing the sport. It requires the sanctioning bodies, the referees, judges, and promoters to disclose any conflicts of interest and sources of compensation to help the States enforce their laws and protect boxers from any taint of corruption. I want to note, as my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), has done, that this legislation has the support of the president of the Association of Boxing Commissioners, Ring Magazine, International Boxing Digest, Boxing News, numerous promoters, managers, and boxers, all of who want to clean up this sport and indeed restore it to its former glory. Last June, when we began our work in the subcommittee, we indeed promised that we would bring this reform bill to the floor of the House. I am very happy that the Committee on Commerce, with the help of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), kept that promise and we have now delivered this bill to the floor of the House. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for working so closely with the gentleman from Ohio on this legislation, and, of course, the chairman and ranking member of our full Committee on Commerce for moving this bill forward. This is long overdue, and those who love the sport of boxing, as I do, and so many do in my district and across America, will hail this day as a very important day in restoring the dignity and the glory of the sport of boxing in America.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, a study here in Washington by Legg-Mason recently reported that we are about to become a Nation of haves and have-nots in the worst way. That report says that as long as 3 years into the next millenium, one-half of America will still be deprived of high-speed digital Internet access. That means that for half of America, our families, our businesses, will not have access to the Information Age, while the other half of America will have good, competitive service. Guess who is left out? Rural America, the poor, the impoverished parts of our country. It means that for half of America, they will either have a single monopoly provider or no provider at all. Why? Because of old laws that still exist on the books to regulate long-distance and local phone companies. Those old laws restricting competition in those areas are going to hold back the deployment of high speed to half of America. Members should try to explain to a business in their district, if they live in rural America, like I do, that has to shut down because it cannot get access to the Internet. Explain to a family that cannot get their children educated that they did not do anything about it. It is time to change those old laws and to end this system of haves and have-nots in America.

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 on this legislation, S. 800, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me first compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his usual excellent cooperation and the spirit by which we always bring our bills to the floor on telecommunication from the Committee on Commerce. I want to also thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), our chairman, and the other members of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection for the excellent work they have done on this bill. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and new father of his third son, Daniel Martin, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), for not only sponsoring this important piece of legislation, but for leading the charge to make it that which we know it will be soon, the law of the land. Congratulations on the birth of a new son, and we wish the gentleman from Illinois and his wife the best, and this is a good day for him as we hopefully pass this legislation on to the President of the United States for signature. Mr. Speaker, 1998 was a landmark year in the history of this country. In 1998, more Americans bought cordless phones than wire phones, and for the first time in the history of this technology people were wireless. In fact, some 80 million Americans now carry wireless telephones or pagers. Studies show that most of those American subscribers of these wireless phones purchase them for safety reasons. People count on those phones to be their lifeline in emergencies, a parent, for example, driving down an interstate highway with babies in the back seat draws comfort from knowing that if the car is involved in a crash, he or she can call 9-1-1 for help, and an ambulance will soon be there. An older American driving alone on a long trip feels safer knowing that if an accident occurs or symptoms strike, they can call 9- 1-1 and the State police will soon be on the way. But there is a problem with that expectation. In many parts of the country when a frantic parent or a suddenly disabled elder punches 9-1- 1 on the wireless phone, nothing happens; and in many regions, in fact, 9-1-1 is not the emergency number. The ambulance and the police do not come, and someone may be facing a terrible life-threatening emergency, but they are on their own because they do not know the local number to call. S. 800 will fix that problem by making 9-1-1 the universal number to call in an emergency any time anywhere in the country. The rule in America ought to be simple. If one is on a highway, a byway, bike path or a duck blind in Louisiana where someone calls 9-1- 1, they ought to get help. S. 800 will provide that help, and that is why I am glad to be here to take final action on it. Passing the bill is a recognition as the telecommunications industry changes that laws must also change to govern their operations. Let me provide a little background on the bill. The bill started 3 years ago as a much broader effort. Since then, we have listened closely, pared the bill back. This year my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), reintroduced the bill; and it passed overwhelmingly in the House. The other body took our product, made a couple of changes to reflect new information, and essentially the Senate version is nearly identical to Mr. Shimkus' bill, and today's action will send that bill on to the President. It establishes parity between the wireless and wire line communications industries. It provides, in fact, a situation where wireless phones not only will be that safety link but will be eventually locatable; that is, when one makes a wireless call, they will be able to be found and cars will be able to become smarter, and in fact when accidents happen not only will they be helped, but the search will be taken out of the search and rescue. Rescue will be available more quickly. The Senate replaced a provision in the bill for straight parity provisions in liability that we considered essentially okay, and we concur in those changes. The protections are necessary to help ensure that the wireless technology develops and matures to provide greater services. It also provides, as I said, 9-1-1 service to receive the same protection from liability under State and federal laws as users of wire line 9-1-1 services. This good samaritan principle should apply also on a State by State basis. S. 800 again improves wireless users' privacy by limiting the disclosure of location information to specific instances. Locatability, yes; privacy, still protected. This is good, sound public policy. It will enhance security and safety for consumers. I want to thank the other body for the great work they did on the bill. I particularly want to thank the members of the Committee on Commerce, but especially my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for his excellent work on this piece of legislation. This is a good one that all Members should support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to first take a second to compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts on the provision that he so eloquently spoke about. His privacy provision is one that he has fought for and we have agreed upon extensively across the Committee on Commerce philosophies, primarily because it not only protects a person's privacy in the sense of someone selling that information, it also protects us from Government knowing where you are going and what you are doing in your life, so it keeps people protected from that kind of scrutiny. I think it was equally important that this amendment be adopted for that purpose. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the author of the legislation in the House and the father of a new son.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses a great many problems simultaneously. I want to compliment my dear friend, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), for the extraordinary efforts she has made to continue to press forward for this legislation, having the experience she has described in mind, and again my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), for moving it forward. The one thing we are not doing in this bill is addressing the question of tower siting, and we have taken it out of the bill because it is still a very controversial question that has to do with local jurisdictions and zoning and what have you. But that problem poses a real problem for many parts of our country. Right here in the Nation's capital, Rock Creek Parkway still does not have cellular service. So citizens in this area who are using that parkway, women and men who are jogging in that park with their children, maybe subject to some unfortunate attack or some problem with their health cannot dial 911; they cannot dial anybody, because there is no cellular service. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I have been pressing the park agency for the agreement to allow cellular service to come to Rock Creek Parkway, but unfortunately, after giving us promises of meeting deadline after deadline after deadline, there is still no agreement to authorize tower siting for cellular service in Rock Creek Parkway. If we cannot get it done right next to the capital, imagine how much trouble Americans all over the country are having getting cellular service established in places where our own Government sometimes stands in the way. Mr. Speaker, I wish that we had been able to address that problem in this bill. We were not. In order to get the bill through these two bodies and on to the President's desk, it is so important to get 911 out there and all the features we have just described that we have had to drop that important feature of tower siting. But my friend from Massachusetts and I will continue this fight to see to it that one day Rock Creek Parkway has cellular service and that other parks and recreational areas of the country similarly get the right to have that sort of safety protection for the citizens who use those parks.

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

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

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. In this case, Mr. Speaker, the cellular service provider has agreed to put the cellular service antennas onto already existing towers at the tennis center. We would think that would be fine, and we would have cellular service for this park. We still cannot get those approved. It is an example of a problem that exists all over America, and unfortunately, we do not cure it in this bill, but we are not through in our efforts to get service for Rock Creek Parkway. I know the gentleman from Massachusetts will not give up, anymore than I will give up in that effort. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, asking all Members to join us in this bill, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 800) to promote and enhance public safety through use of 9-1-1 as the universal emergency assistance number, further deployment of wireless 9-1-1 service, support of States in upgrading 9- 1-1 capabilities and related functions, encouragement of construction and operation of seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable networks for personal wireless services, and for other purposes.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I do not often do special orders, but something recently occurred that has caused me to come to the floor of the House today and to announce a very special project that will occur on Monday in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, at Louisiana State University. And many of the Members of the House have recently seen copies of this map published in the local newspaper, The Hill, and the local newspaper, the Congress Daily and others in this area, and it is a map that indicates the U.S. Internet POPs, the points of presence of broadband hubs in America. What is interesting about the map is that an awful lot of our country does not have the presence of an Internet, a broadband high-speed hub, located on their map. The map becomes more interesting when it is compared to a report that was recently published on the new economy index, an attempt by the Democratic Leadership Council to identify the States of our country where the high technology or digital economy has really arrived and is achieving great results for its citizens and the places around our country where the high technology economy, the digital economy, the Internet economy, however you want to call it, has yet to arrive and may be very slow in arriving. The State new economy index ranked the States of America in terms of the high-technology connects, the connectivity of our people, of homes, of businesses, to the Internet and the presence of broadband capable structures that are going to allow those States and those economies to do well in the new millennium. In that list of States are listed, of course, the real winners, the States where the high technology economy has really arrived and where high technology hook-ups, the connections to the Internet, the capacity of the systems are really very present. The top two States are Massachusetts and California. The lower States, the lower 25 States include Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Indiana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Iowa, South Dakota, Alabama, North Dakota, Montana, my own State of Louisiana, West Virginia, Arkansas and Mississippi. We are ranked 47th in Louisiana in high-technology connects. Now why did I find that so alarming, and why this event in Baton Rouge next Monday? I found it so alarming because, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Commerce, I have seen the high-technology economy at work in other parts of the country and around the world. I have seen how connecting to the Internet makes a difference in the education of children. I have seen how connecting to the Internet makes a business prosper or fail. I have seen the promise of the broadband technologies, in effect high- speed Internet connects, to an economy are going to make the difference between whether some economies succeed or fail. And I have lived in the State of Louisiana that I love dearly and yet I know suffers from a high illiteracy rate and a need for children to be uplifted, an economy that desperately needs a connect to this high- technology economy; and yet I see these numbers that say we are 47th, and I see so many other States lingering near the bottom of this list. And so on next Monday we have convened what might be the last big high-technology summit conference of this millennium where on October 11 in Baton Rouge we are going to feature such speakers as: Bill Kennard, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Robert Pitofsky, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Barry Diller, the chairman and CEO of USA Networks, Charlie Ergen, chairman of Echostar Satellite Communications, Bob Coonrod, chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Greg Maffei, the Senior Vice President of Microsoft, Afshin Mohebbi, the President and CEO of Quest Communications, Mike McCurry, former White House spokesman, now a cochairman with our own Susan Molinari of the broadband Coalition, an organization formed to try to make sure every part of America, not just the few States that have high-technology connects, but every part of America is brought together; that we do not have a digital divide in the new economy of the future; along with folks like Hal Krisbergh, chairman and CEO of Worldgate Communications, a company that is manufacturing equipment that can put every child in this country on the Internet on television without the necessity of a computer for about $5 a month rental, technologies that mean the difference between children being left behind, and businesses being left behind and economies being left behind or being a part of the new fast economy that is being described as the new economy of the new millennium. This summit conference will be available to all of America on the Internet, and I want to tell you how you can log in, how you can tune in. If you are interested in knowing how critical it is for your homes and your businesses to be connected to the Internet and to be, more importantly, connected to the high-speed Internet of the future, the broadband services that are going to combine all the new economies on the Internet with the high-speed visual and audio and data services that are going to be available on those services. If you are interested, you can tune in. It will be broadcast live on the Internet all day long next Monday, and you can find it at www.mobiletel.com. That site is connected to other ISPs or Internet service providers. You can tune in, you can get a sense of how your State can do what Louisiana, I hope, will do, and that is start a major effort to connect every family, every business to this new economy and to the high speed Internet. Join us at www.mobiletel.com on Monday all day at LSU and learn what the future looks like for your State.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)