Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I take this moment for very personal reasons. At this moment my mother, Enola, is recovering in a hospital in New Orleans, Ochsner Clinic, from her third very important cancer surgery. In 1960 she was operated on for breast cancer, and survived that awful plague. In 1980 she was operated on for lung cancer, and survived that awful condition. Today the doctors reported to me just a few minutes ago that Mom has come through successful uterine cancer surgery with at least a 90 percent chance of recovery. Mom, to you and to all the cancer survivors across America, what an inspiration you are to your family and to this country in the fights you wage against this awful disease. To all who struggle in the fields of research, and who raise the monies and spend those critically short dollars to find a cure for this awful disease, I ask them to keep up their great work. They have given me my mother all these years, and I deeply appreciate them. Mom, God bless you, and a speedy recovery, dear.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1554.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I commend the Speaker pro tempore, first of all, whom I know wanted to speak from the House floor in support of this legislation for his handling of this matter today. I again thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for his excellent cooperation as he has always exhibited with me and the members of our subcommittee and to thank the staff. We sometimes fail to do that. I want to make sure that both the minority staff and the majority staff on both committees are highlighted today because so much of this technical work is their hard work and product. I want to thank them for it. Finally, to join the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) in his exhortation that this indeed is a revolutionary moment in video programming. I want to thank all of my colleagues for coming together to make this happen, not for the satellite or cable companies but for the consumers of America because this truly is one of the best consumer protection bills we have passed in a good long while.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Richmond, Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and welcome the chairman and leader of the full Committee on Commerce. (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the understanding of the gentleman, as usual, is correct.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), himself a leader in the fight to get local television into satellite programming. (Mr. BURR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 70 seconds to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) who is actually a contributor to our committee's work. (Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 1554. I would like to begin by commending my counterpart on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and recognizing, indeed, that our competition and yet our cooperation has yielded today a very excellent product. Yesterday he and I introduced H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act, which represents the combined work of the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary. I want to thank all colleagues on both committees for working with us to craft a compromise, and in fact to craft such an important bill. The bill makes substantial reforms to the telecommunications and copyright law in order to provide the American consumer with a stronger, more viable competitor to their incumbent cable operator whom we just completed the deregulatory process for this March. Cable is deregulated. It needs a competitor. This important legislation will provide cable with a real competitor. Mr. Speaker, we saw similar important legislation on the Floor before. In 1992 my colleague and dear friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I led the fight to the 1992 Cable Act on an issue called ``program access.'' That fight was to make sure that we could critically jumpstart the satellite industry. Many noted that the program access amendment that was adopted in that fight revolutionized the video programming industry and launched the age of satellite direct-to-home video. Today, the reforms we are considering are no less revolutionary in impact. Consumers today are pretty savvy. They now expect, indeed demand, their video programming distributor, whether it is a satellite company or a cable company or a broadcaster or whoever it might be, that they offer video programming that is affordable with exceptional picture quality. Today, however, satellite carriers face legal and technological limitations on their ability to do so. These same limitations put satellite carriers at a competitive disadvantage to incumbent cable operators. Even though broadcasters are experiencing a dramatic reduction in overall audience share compared to just a few years ago, the overwhelming number of consumers still want their local programming, the local television station, to provide services to them. Consumer surveys conclude that the lack of local broadcasting programming is the number one reason why consumers are unwilling to subscribe to satellite service and, therefore, limited to a single competitor, the cable operator. The bill today we are considering is designed to put satellite television providers on that competitive equal footing; to provide compulsory license to retransmit the local broadcast signal in the satellite package; to make sure that retransmission consent must-carry rules apply; that nonduplication syndicated exclusivity and sports blackout protections are all included. In other words, to put satellite on equal footing with cable so consumers can have a real choice. Mr. Speaker, this bill combines the telecom provisions of both the Save our Satellites Act and the Satellite Television Improvement Act. We, therefore, believe it is a great bill as a combination of our two committee efforts. I want to join my colleagues in thanking the hard work of members on both committees, particularly the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, for his excellent leadership; to the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who has always worked so well with us; to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who is such a good partner with me on these important issues; to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and to the ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) of the Committee on the Judiciary, for their extraordinary cooperation. This is bipartisan, bicommittee, and we are going to solve some awfully important problems for every American in the country who enjoys video programming in this country. I am pleased to work with my colleagues on this compromise and join them in supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the understanding of the gentleman is correct. As long as a station does not refuse to deal with any particular distributor, a station's insistence on different terms and conditions in retransmission agreements based on marketplace considerations is not intended to be prohibited by this bill.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble and I are introducing the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act. The bill represents the combined work of the House Committee on commerce and the House Committee on the Judiciary. I am pleased to report that, through hard work and difficult consideration, 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 programming providers, whether it be their cable company, their satellite company, their broadcaster or other distributors--including the Internet. Consumers are very savvy, and they now expect--indeed, demand--that their video programming distributor offer a wide array of programming at a reasonable cost, and with exceptional picture quality. Today, however, there are some limitations on the ability of satellite carriers to meet consumer demand. These limitations put satellite carriers at a competitive disadvantage to incumbent cable operators. The main limitation on satellite providers is the inherent difficulties in providing local broadcast programming via satellite. Even though broadcasters are experiencing a dramatic reduction in overall audience share compared to just a few years ago, the overwhelming number of consumers 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. The bill Mr. Coble and I are introducing today is designed to put satellite on 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 for network non- duplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout protections. Mr. Speaker, this bill 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 legislative history of this bill can therefore be found in the applicable portions of the reports filed by our two Committees (i.e., H. Rep. 106-79 for Title I, and H. Rep. 106-86 for Title II). Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hard work of the large group of Members that had a role in bringing this new bill to introduction: Chairman Bliley, Ranking Member Dingell and Subcommittee Ranking Member Markey from the Commerce Committee; and Chairman Hyde, Subcommittee Chair Coble, Ranking Member Conyers and Subcommittee Ranking Member Berman from the Judiciary Committee. This is a bi-partisan, bi-committee approach to a very important legislative bill. I am pleased that we were all able to work together and bring this compromise to the House.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask consent that the Committee on Commerce be permitted to file its report on the bill, H.R. 851, no later than midnight, April 9, 1999.

Mr. TAUZIN

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to also single out again the work of the staff who have always, as I said, toiled long hours to help us bring bills like this, complex in nature, technical in nature, to the floor. I want to again acknowledge and thank Andy Levin and Colin Crowell, and from the majority, Tricia Paoletta, Mike O'Rielly, Cliff Riccio and Luke Rose for their excellent work on this bill and for our entire committee and subcommittee. Again, I say thanks for the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) in helping us to move this legislation to the floor, as well as to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their excellent cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a new, extremely bright new voice, on our committee and the author of the legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today we are here to protect the privacy of the near 68 million Americans who use wireless telecommunications services and the countless millions who will use those services in the future. Privacy is important to all of us. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for introducing H.R. 514 and for shepherding this important bill through the Subcommittee on Telecommunications of the Committee on Commerce. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and his staff, again for the excellent cooperation and again the bipartisan spirit that our committee so often shows in these telecommunication issues and other matters before our committee. We begin our review of this issue in the 105th Congress. Two years ago the Subcommittee on Telecommunications held a hearing on wireless privacy. What our Members learned at that hearing was astonishing. Off- the-shelf scanners can be easily modified to turn them into electronic stalking devices. With the clip of a wire, a scanner can pick up a cellular conversation in a nearby vicinity. In fact, we actually did that. I demonstrated the soldering of a small wire and within 3 minutes converted a scanner, a legal scanner, into an illegal listening device; and my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), helped with the demonstration by making a private telephone conversation. We picked it up in the committee room, with his consent in advance, and we listened to him as he plotted an overthrow of the committee, a coup d'etat, and we demonstrated in fact how easy it was to listen in on somebody's private conversation. I want everyone to know that we thwarted that coup d'etat, and we have been good friends ever since. What our Members indeed learned was that privacy was deeply at risk in America, and although current law and FCC rules prohibit such eavesdropping, the technology was readily available to intercept cellular phone calls. We also learned at the hearing that some people believed that the present law did not prohibit them from modifying legal scanners to turn them into eavesdropping devices. In fact, a whole modification industry had developed. It was openly advertising in print media and over the Internet, complete with easy-to-follow instructions on how to listen in on neighbors. H.R. 514 was introduced to crack down on those modification scanners and to prevent a new scanning market from developing for new digital wireless services. The bill prohibits the modification of legal scanners for that purpose. It requires the FCC to adopt regulations that extend current protections, this is very important, to the new digital service, such as the personal communication services; protecting the paging and specialized mobile services, the new digital so-called secure communications, to make sure they remain secure. What our Members discovered was a residual belief out there, harkening to the early days of radio, that because the airwaves are a public good, all communications traversing over them are public as well. We discovered an almost right-to-listen mentality, and that mentality is directly inconsistent with cellular users' expectations and, of course, would hamper the growth of wireless communication services that promise so much good for our personal and our professional lives. Our Members were disturbed by such a callousness for privacy of communications, an intent on establishing the policy that, regardless of the media, private communications deserved to remain private. H.R. 514, therefore, provides that interception alone of wireless communications is illegal. Current provisions in the Communications Act provide that an interception without divulgence is legal. In other words, eavesdropping alone is not illegal under the Communications Act today. Divulgence alone is also prohibited. Existing Communications Act provisions prohibit a person from divulging an intercepted communications, wireless communication. While we abhor electronic stalking and the violation of privacy rights divulgence brings, we did not intend to punish unintentional behavior. We therefore prohibit in H.R. 514 only intentional interception. The gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who has done such a great job on this bill, will offer an amendment today that will clarify that our intent is only to punish divulgence that is in fact intentional. The unintentional divulgence will not be punished. I thank her in advance for her efforts to safeguard the consumers' privacy, while ensuring that first amendment freedoms of the press and of free speech are not in fact hampered by our bill. When we first began our examination 2 years ago, we were dismayed that the FCC, the most likely enforcer of violations against scanning abuses, was deferring to the FBI and the Justice Department for enforcement. These law enforcement agencies obviously have serious crimes to investigate, so often eavesdropping and divulgence of private communications violations was simply not pursued. We were surprised to hear this, despite the fact that one of our witnesses at our hearings 2 years ago, the FBI official in charge of the TWA crash investigation on Long Island, told us that FBI agents were unable to use their cellular phones during that investigation because the press was scanning and then divulging their intercepted calls when writing articles about the investigation, in fact hampering their ability to find what happened in that awful plane crash. This illegal interception and divulgence of communications over commercial cellular services was hampering a major FBI investigation. Because of the current lack of aggressive enforcement, the bill now requires that the FCC, regardless of what other enforcement agencies are doing, that they must investigate alleged violations and in fact take action to prevent them. H.R. 514 leaves undisturbed legitimate uses of scanners. Let me say it again for all Members. This bill does not affect the legitimate scanner, the legal scanner such as those that are used for public safety channels or listening to NASCAR communications for automobile races. Legal scanners, not modified to listen to your cellular phone, are legal today, will remain legal tomorrow. The bill only seeks to prohibit the interception of communications for services that are exclusively allocated for commercial service, for which consumers have the expectation of privacy. We believe we have successfully balanced a number of competing concerns, and I ask all Members to vote for this very good bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) on behalf of all of us on the committee for the excellent job on this bill, and I look forward to working with her on many other high-tech issues as we learn them together. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Richmond, Virginia (Mr. Bliley), who is not only the chairman of our Committee on Commerce but the chairman of what we consider to be the most important committee in the House of Representatives. (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill just passed, H.R. 514.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for those most kind and warm and generous remarks about the gentleman from Louisiana. I know that there are many others who would like to similarly make comments for the record. There is leave to do so. The day before yesterday we held an hour special order to honor and extend our respect and admiration and best wishes to the gentleman from Louisiana on behalf of the people of Louisiana and this grateful Nation. If Members would like to submit words for the record, there is 5-day leave and I would encourage them to do so. In that special order, we wanted the Nation to know a few very important things about this man. One of them is that he comes from an extraordinary lineage. It was his ancestor of many great degrees back, Robert Livingston, who as Minister to France signed the Louisiana Purchase on behalf of President Jefferson and purchased the territory from which 13 States or parts of States have been carved. Yet with that amazing lineage behind him, Bob Livingston rose from very humble beginnings. Losing his father at a very early age, his mother nevertheless went to work in a shipyard in Louisiana to raise Bob and his sister and to give them a chance at an education. Bob himself returned to that shipyard to work as he got his own education in his later years. But Bob's life has been spent in public service. Bob did a stint in the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Navy Reserve. He worked most of his career as a U.S. Justice Department prosecutor in New Orleans as a prosecutor for the criminal court system in New Orleans and for the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana before coming to this body and serving for those 21\1/2\ years. He has given his life to public service. And our State and our Nation are deeply grateful, Bob, for all you have done in your whole life for this country and for the people of our great State of Louisiana. More importantly, Bob Livingston has been a remarkable legislator in this House of colleagues who all rise to different levels of greatness. Bob Livingston, acknowledged by many Members of the Committee on Appropriations the other night, is probably the single individual most responsible for finding the consensus in the last 4 years as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that has delivered for this country a surplus for us to talk about this year, has taken us out of deficit, not in 5 or 7 years as predicted but in a short 2-year period. Mr. Speaker, for all the things he will be remembered for and for all the good things he has done in this body and throughout his public career, I think this Nation owes him a debt of gratitude for that most important thing of taking us out of deficit and giving us a surplus to debate this year. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Bob Livingston) may not ever get the credit he deserves, Mr. Speaker, but I will tell my colleagues that I know it in my heart and the people of Louisiana know it in their heart: We have rarely seen a man of that kind of dedication and spirit and deep respect and love and compassion and, as was said, tolerance for different opinions represent our State than has Bob Livingston. Louisiana will miss him sorely, and on behalf of all the people of his great district, and by the way Bob leaves with not a 60 or 70 or 80 percent approval rate, Mr. Speaker. He leaves Congress with an over 90 percent approval rate. On behalf of those people in his district and the entire State of Louisiana and, I know, this great Nation, I thank my friend for all the years he gave us. God bless him and Bonnie and his family. Mr. Speaker, I want to wish the gentleman from Louisiana the great Cajun wish of joie de vie. I hope his life is full of joy, that his life is rich and that the retirement he justly deserves is one that he and his family will fully enjoy. Again, Bob, thank you. God bless you.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for doing so because I would be remiss if I did not second what the gentleman has just said, that we are about to see the complete deregulation of cable in America at the end of March. If American citizens cannot receive network programing over their satellites when they are entitled to receive it, they are going to be forced to either climb up on the roof and try to put up antennas that may or may not get good signals or go back to the monopoly cable company which will be deregulated. We in this Chamber, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has been a valiant soldier in this effort along with me and others, have tried to desperately make sure that cable has a competitor out there before they are deregulated. This court decision means for thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Americans, they are forced back into a cable monopoly instead of a competitive choice. It is critical that we find a solution this year to get local signals into the satellite feed so that Americans have a real choice when cable is deregulated. You and I know when there is only one store in town, you get bad prices, bad service and bad quality of products. But when you got a choice, when there are two stores in town, prices get better, service gets better, quality gets better. Americans deserve a choice in television. This moratorium is just a stop-gap measure to help us find that solution, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. TAUZIN

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his excellent statement and remind him that last year the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and I toured this country and debated in 30 of our great cities in America the issue of replacing the current Income Tax Code with a simple, fair code, either a flat income tax or no income tax and a national sales tax which is a plan that I have espoused. The crowds were enormous. Americans are ready for this Congress to act. I just had a great conversation with the chairman of our Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), who is also a strong supporter of repealing the IRS and the Income Tax Code and replacing it with a consumption tax like a sales tax. He has assured me that before he leaves Congress this session he intends to give us a chance to not only debate this issue but perhaps even resolve it. I want to congratulate the gentleman for being a soldier in this quest and wish him the best of luck because not only the people of Green Bay but the people of America are depending on us.

Mr. TAUZIN

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

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield half of that time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, but let me first inform the House and the American public that, as many now know, consumers across America have been notified that they will soon lose access to network programming signals that are currently delivered via satellite. Satellite television distributors are under now a Federal court order to terminate delivery of these network signals because of a finding that distributors have violated the Satellite Home Viewers Act. What we learned in the subcommittee yesterday was that, with new FCC findings, some 220,000 American citizens who are scheduled to be terminated from network signal delivery are, in fact, qualified to receive those signals legally under the act. What we are announcing today is the filing of a moratorium bill, with the support of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a lot of other members of our committee and Members of this Congress, a moratorium bill to give us 90 days to work this problem out without unnecessarily cutting off Americans from network programming delivered by satellite. It is intolerable that over 200,000 citizens would be terminated in that service without giving them a chance to qualify under the act according to the FCC's new findings. Let me point out we are not suggesting in our legislation that any violations of law be tolerated. Those folks who can receive local signals are going to have to do so. But the hundreds of thousands who are going to get cut off this weekend unnecessarily should not be cut off, and we are hopeful that this moratorium bill can become law quickly next week in order to protect their rights. We had hoped that the parties could settle this. We still encourage them to do so this weekend. We had hoped that the broadcast and satellite industries would walk into court this weekend together and ask the court to modify its injunction to incorporate the new FCC findings so that these hundreds of thousands of Americans would not lose their network signals. But unless the parties go to court this weekend and modify the injunction, our only way to protect those consumers while we work with the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Commerce on a new Satellite Home Viewers Act to provide those local signals to consumers, our only hope will be this moratorium bill which we are filing today and which we intend to move expeditiously next week absent an agreement by the parties to do so. I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.