Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I understand under the rules that the opposition was seized by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). I just want to say a word that the Committee on Commerce strongly opposes this amendment and asked me to make sure that the House is aware that there is strong opposition to this amendment, particularly because of the fact that number portability and wireless phones is something that creates great confusion and problems. This amendment could lead to those kinds of problems. The Committee on Commerce has examined this amendment in great detail and has urged me and the House to reject it on that basis. This could, in fact, create enormous expense on some of the local telephone companies because they would have to service number portability over long areas. Many of us have petitioned the FCC, and the FCC has agreed not to require this kind of portability in mobile phones or to have a different number system for mobile and fixed telephones as this amendment might end up requiring. So I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to go along with the Committee on Commerce on this amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. The answer is that the hearings, as the gentleman knows, are set by the chairman of the Committee on Commerce. I cannot commit to any dates nor time for that hearing. The gentleman knows that at this time. More importantly, this issue is now enjoined. This will be in the conference committee and this is our chance to strike a single blow at deregulation at a commission with a 1930s attitude.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Incredibly, all of the businesses in this great country who file accounting papers, documents with the SEC, the IRS, all our Federal agencies file under one set of accounting, the generally accepted principles adopted by the Federal Accounting Standards Board. One set of companies only, one set of telephone companies only, your local telephone companies, have to file two sets of books. They have to do it because in 1935 our FCC adopted its own system of accounting and has required the local telephone companies to file under that system ever since. Now, they have tried, to some degree, to adopt the general accounting standards, but they have not yet gotten there. The Senate just recently adopted a similar amendment saying to the FCC one set of books, one set of accounting for all the companies who file. Incredibly, the local telephone companies' competitors file under the general accounting standards. All of the other companies in America do, but the local phone companies have to file two books. Arthur Andersen says it costs the government, the phone companies and American consumers $270 million, wasted dollars, to have this double book accounting. Now, maybe we could make an argument for it when we used to regulate telephone companies on cost-base rates. Today, since 1991, we regulate telephone companies entirely differently, on price caps. With the new changes and modernization, it is time to deregulate this terribly regulatory burdensome double-book accounting system of the Federal Communications Commission. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, we did hold hearings. Every time the FCC has come up for authorization, we have discussed with them this topic. In 1985, the FCC agreed to go to the general accounting standards so that everybody had the same reporting requirements. The FCC agreed to do this in 1985 and still has not done it today. Instead, one set of telephone companies have to spend $270 million extra a year. And what does that mean for the competitors? It means they can charge higher rates. The competitors do not want this to happen, because if it does, they suddenly have to charge lower rates for their services in competition with those local companies.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend that this issue has already been engaged in. We have had discussions at authorization hearings with the FCC.

Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I can answer with a statement. This amendment does not change the auditing by the FCC. They can still catch any company, AT&T, MCI, any Bell company, doing anything wrong. This amendment does not change that.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman prefaced his request with statements I disagree with. I would like to correct the record, if I could, if the gentleman will allow me.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt). (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am often asked when I am at home, when is the government going to live by the same rules and by the same procedures that it asks other Americans to live by? For example, if I wanted to get a permit from the government in an area that might be considered a wetland, I have got to go through all the procedures of finding out whether or not an EPA assessment is required, and we have to file all those reports before we can get a permit. If I have a drug I want to sell in this country, I cannot say to the FDA, let me sell it first; we will do the scientific work later on, whether or not it works or whether or not it is going to hurt anybody. Americans are subjected to a simple rule when it comes to many of those agencies; get the science done, and then we will tell you whether you can do something or not. What the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) is doing, what this rule proposes, is a simple proposition, that this agency, OSHA, ought to get its good science done before it issues a regulation. It ought to have in front of it the best science possible to make the best rule that is the most efficient in our society. Not that it should not regulate, not that this is not a problem in the workplace, we know it is, but it ought to do it right, it ought to do it efficiently, and, most importantly, it ought to do it according to the best science. Now, this Congress funded that good science. This Congress put out nearly $900,000 to get that work done. All the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is asking is that that work be completed so that we can have the best rule, the most efficient rule, one that works, without causing undue cost or burden on the rest of the citizens of this country who pay their taxes and go to work every day and expect to be treated decently in our society. They are asking, is this government agency going to live by the rules we have to live by? Is this government agency going to do the good science first before it imposes a regulation on us, the same way we are required to do the good science first before we can get a permit from this government? It is that simple. Please support this rule, and please support the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) in the bill.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to help America's energy consumers by repealing an outdated law that is keeping the best of the new technologies and innovative services from reaching our marketplace. I am pleased to be joined by twenty-one of my colleagues in introducing this important legislation. Our bill, which is almost identical to legislation passed out of the Senate Banking Committee, would repeal a New Deal Law, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA). Our legislation is a bipartisan initiative. The current Democratic and previous Republican Administrations have called for repeal of PUHCA. This legislation would implement the recommendations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) made in 1995 following an extensive study by the SEC of the effects of this outdated law on today's energy markets. PUHCA is a law that has outlived its usefulness. It imposes unnecessary costs on consumers and directly undermines the intent of recently enacted federal and state policies designed to bring more competition to America's energy market. PUHCA was enacted in 1935 to address abuses arising out of pyramid corporate structures at a time when electric utility regulation was just starting at both federal and state level. PUHCA's primary purpose was to dismantle more than 100 complex utility holding company structures that, in many cases, took advantage of weak federal and state regulations to pursue inappropriate business practices. The result of this dismantling is that the number of utility holding companies registered under PUHCA has been reduced to the current 14. These 14 electric and gas utility holding companies are required by PUHCA to operate under arbitrary investment caps that preclude them from investing in areas of need. Other utility companies are exempt from PUHCA's caps, but must operate primarily within one state in order to maintain their exemptions. Our nation's gas and electric utility companies, therefore, must operate principally within certain geographic ``boxes.'' This stifles innovation, hinders competition, and undermines development of regional electricity markets. This inhibits the very competition that Congress has sought to foster in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. America's natural gas and electric power industries, confronted by lower growth rates, environmental mandates and the need to emphasize conservation, are trying to become more than just suppliers of electricity and natural gas. To succeed in this new economic environment, they must become providers of energy information and services. PUHCA, however, stands in the way of the efforts by our nation's utility industry to serve consumers in a more efficient manner. The counterproductive restrictions that PUHCA places on these companies are based on historical assumptions that are no longer valid. The factors that existed when PUHCA was enacted in 1935 no longer exist today. Federal and state laws at that time were inadequate to protect consumers and investors 60 years ago. Today, federal and state regulations have become much more comprehensive and sensitive to market conditions. PUHCA, however, remains an economic drag on America's energy industry. The ability of state commissions to regulate holding company systems and, together with the development of regulation under the Federal Power Act of 1935 and the Natural Gas Act of 1938, have eliminated the regulatory ``gaps'' that existed in 1935 with respect to wholesale transactions in interstate commerce. The expanded ability of state commissions and the FERC to regulate inter-affiliate transactions has rendered the 1935 Act unnecessary. Simply put, America no longer can afford the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. Using conservative estimates, the cost of this law runs in to the billions of dollars. Restrictions of the ability of companies registered under PUHCA to diversify range from $2 billion to $4.5 billion in present value terms. PUHCA's utility integration restrictions impose social costs between $1 billion and $8 billion. In addition, the administrative costs of complying with the 1935 Acts requirements are substantial. Our legislation would reform regulation of utility holding companies by repealing the duplicative SEC-related provisions of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, while assuring that the SEC retains all of its non-PUHCA jurisdiction of securities and securities markets in order to protect investors. Our bill would put gas and electric power companies on an equal competitive footing, allowing them to take advantage of market opportunities that benefit investors and utility companies. Our legislation will remove those limitations on registered companies' corporate structures, financing and investments to which they alone have been subject. At the same time, however, under our legislation, registered companies will continue to be subject to all government regulation intended to protect investors to which other industry participants are subject. SEC authority under the 1935 Act, the Trust Indenture Act and State Blue Sky laws will all remain in place. Our bill will assure FERC access to those books, records, accounts, and other documents of holding companies, their affiliates and subsidiaries, that are relevant to costs incurred by a public utility company and are necessary for the protection of consumers with respect to rates. Our bill also gives states the right to inspect books and records that ``have been identified in reasonable detail in a proceeding before the State commission, are relevant to costs incurred by such public utility company and are necessary for the effective discharge of the State commission's responsibility with respect to such proceeding.'' In the new environment confronting the utility industry, PUHCA has become nothing more than a bottleneck that constrains the ability of our nation's natural gas and electric power industries to serve consumers. PUHCA is an anachronism that burdens utility systems with costs and restrictions that impair their competitiveness and prevent them from adapting to the new and more competitive environment. PUHCA is no longer a solution because the problems of the 1930's have been replaced by effective state and federal legislation and by the realities of today's marketplace. It is time for Congress to act on the recommendations of the SEC and enact our legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, NBC has its own rating system.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, NBC was the one network who felt they were under too much government pressure to adopt a rating system others agreed to. They adopted their own rating systems.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues were given a choice today as to whether or not to pass a bill that would provide Federal funds for the installation of Internet services and connections to our schools and libraries in a fashion that allowed the spending of that money without filters so that children could, in fact, access pornographic sites in those schools and libraries, if my colleagues had a choice of doing that, or they had a choice of passing a bill that provided Federal funds to schools and libraries which included filtering devices to make sure that the kids in those schools and libraries use the Internet for good reasons and not to access these sites, which would my colleagues choose? Is there any doubt they would choose the latter? Is there any doubt that my colleagues would tell the FCC in this case, which is spending this money, that give to the schools only on condition that they put these filters in. These filters are inexpensive, they are easy to install. The government is putting up the money anyhow, and if Federal dollars collected by the FCC are being spent to install these systems, is it so draconian to say that we ought to spend 50 of those dollars to make sure that that computer system has such a filtering device? If the filters were not available, if the technology was not readily and cheaply available on the marketplace, my colleagues might have an argument. But this technology is abundantly available, it is inexpensive, and it is inexcusable for our Federal Government to be spending money, putting in Internet systems into schools and libraries without it. What the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) are saying is that when this money is spent by the Federal Government to assist our schools and libraries in connecting our children to the Internet, we have this simple little requirement that they include in their plan a filtering device, cheap, inexpensive, easily installed. Not to pass this would be a crime.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago when ratings for television were discussed and V-chips were discussed, there were bills to do this. For government to step in and establish rating systems, we did the wise thing then, and I ask my colleagues to do the wise thing today. Reject the notion of government ratings. We took our committee on telecom to Peoria. We took with us Eddie Fritz, we took with us Jack Valenti, the representatives of the movie, cable and the television industries, and we let them meet with parents in Peoria. We let parents talk directly to the industry. Out of it came an industry-agreed-upon ratings system for television that is going to work with the V-chip. There are ratings right now on video games, ratings on movies. For government to step in and mandate a system would not only offend first amendment rights, it would disturb a very healthy process already going forward with industry and parents and communities around America to set up ratings that we can understand and work with. The last thing we need to do is have government rerating all that stuff, government interfering with the first amendment in our society. We need more parents to pay attention to what industry is doing to tell them what is in movies, books and videos.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hyde amendment, not because I oppose what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) would like to see in this country. I think all of us would like to see less violence, all of us would like to see less obscenity in movies, all of us would like to see the culture expressed in our media, on the Internet and in the books and games and movies that our children watch to be less violent and less obscene. The problem basically, as I know has been expressed many times here, but I need to say it again as chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection whose principal responsibility is to protect this free speech society, is that we cannot constitutionally do this. We cannot constitutionally dictate the content of speech in America as much as we would like to, as emotionally as I feel, as deeply as I hurt when I see the scenes on television that we have seen of children killing children. I am reminded about that child at Columbine who said, look, we all watch the same movies, we all play the same games, but we do not go around killing our classmates. Go check with that family, go check with those kids, go check with that culture that these kids grew up in, and do something about it. But do not think that because we see these same movies we are going to end up killing each other. We need to do something much more basic than regulate free speech.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with extreme pleasure that the Louisiana delegation presents to you the newest member of our delegation, the newest Member of the American House of Representatives, Mr. David Vitter. David is extremely well qualified to join this body. Unlike the Member in the well, who graduated from Harvard on the Bayou in Louisiana, David actually got his education at Harvard University. He is a Rhodes Scholar. He and his lovely wife, Wendy, are the parents of three beautiful children, including a young set of twins. Their three daughters are here today to celebrate this day with them. Like Chris John in our delegation, they are the parents of twins, and we are real excited to have him and his family join our delegation. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Bob Livingston is here, a former member, as you know, and Mr. Jimmy Hayes is here from Louisiana, also to welcome David. Would you please join me in welcoming again the newest member of the Louisiana delegation and the newest Member of our House of Representatives here in Washington, D.C., Mr. David Vitter.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, no. The bill goes beyond prohibiting exclusive contracts in only one respect. In order to prevent refusals by a station to deal with any particular distributor, the FCC is directed to bar not only exclusive deals but also any other discriminatory practices, understandings, arrangements and activities by the station which have the same effect of preventing any particular distributor from the opportunity to obtain a retransmission consent arrangement.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is again correct.