Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and his staff for all the excellent work on this bill, and my cosponsor, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for his excellent efforts, and his, as always, great cooperation, as we work toward passage of this anti-slamming legislation. Again, I would also like to commend and thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking minority member, for his excellent cooperation and support of this legislation. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I are here together to offer H.R. 3888, entitled the Telecommunications Competition and Consumer Protection Act of 1998. Why is it called the Consumer Protection Act? Because it is designed to protect consumers against this awful practice where telephone companies switch your service without your permission, often in some fraudulent fashion. Frankly, we are disappointed that we are here again today having to legislate for the second time on this subject. We thought we gave the Commission 2 years ago enough authority and enough direction to eliminate this practice. For those who have not heard about it, the volumes of complaints that have come in to the FCC now total some 20,000 just in 1997 alone. It involves this practice where the long distance local or advanced service provider in communications switches the consumer without ever even informing the consumer. Obviously, when you get your telephone bill and find out, if you notice it, you are being served by a different company that you never authorized, and you have just been slammed. In May of this past year the Senate passed an anti-slamming bill offered by Senator McCain by a vote of 99 to nothing. This should tell us something about how the House and Senate feel about this practice. To me, slamming is very similar to theft. I echo the frustration of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) that the FCC has failed so far to implement provisions pursuant to the slamming provision that we included in the 1996 telecommunications bill. Today, after a long, arduous process, we are finally considering a bill aimed at eliminating this awful practice. It reflects changes adopted in both the subcommittee and the full committee. We believe the bill strikes the right balance, it imposes strong anti-slamming provisions, without burdening the industry with costly regulation, or confusing an already wronged and perhaps sometimes confused consumer with a burdensome dispute process. In short, the way we finally crafted the bill, with great, again, cooperation and support by the chairman and his staff, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and his subcommittee, the ranking minority member, offers a less regulatory approach to solving the very same problem. It adopts a bifurcated process to the problem. It literally gives telecommunications companies two options. They can either police themselves properly through a voluntary code of subscriber protection practices, a code of conduct, if you will, or if they choose not to, the carrier suffers the consequence of very tough FCC regulation mandated by this bill. I trust that most, if not all, the carriers will choose to operate under their own code of conduct. The code will prevent slamming, and ensure that consumers are made whole if they have been slammed. If a carrier chooses not to participate or otherwise fails to live up to these codes, then it is subject automatically to the regulatory and legal penalties of the FCC, as contained in our subcommittee version of the bill. Although some might argue that this is somewhat of a watered-down version, let me make it clear, this gives the industry a single chance to voluntarily police themselves without the specific pro-consumer guidelines and government participation. But if they fail, then these regulations will go into effect. In addition, the bill preserves the role for the States to prevent slamming. States have taken an active role to eliminate slamming, and the bill preserves the States' discretion to pursue slammers whenever appropriate. In fact we grandfather the more stringent provisions of eight of our States who have in fact enacted anti-slamming legislation. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I have titled our bill the Telecommunications Competition and Consumer Protection Act of 1998. It is because the amendment is about more than just slamming. Indeed, there are a number of timely consumer and competition-related issues that require the House's urgent attention. For example, this legislation directs the private sector to help Congress find a solution to the problem of slamming, and also spamming. Spam, as many know, is bulk unsolicited e-mail. It is a nuisance to consumers and a threat to our telecommunications and information infrastructure. Why? Because spam clogs up the e-mail systems, and in fact can clog up one's personal e-mail box. Still, we have to recognize that Congress does not have the perfect solution to this problem. Hence, it is the sense of Congress that the private sector must address this issue, and the bill asks the private sector to help us achieve the right solution. It respects free speech, and also respects consumers' rights not to be spammed. Our bill also addresses a critical spectrum management issue, the FCC's refusal for the last 10 years to issue permanent cellular licenses to three underserved rural areas of America. It is time to issue those permanent licenses so that rural consumers in those areas can have the same benefits from the investment in infrastructure, improved services, and competition that has been available in many other parts of America. Finally, this legislation will end up addressing a problem of illegal CB radio operators who are transmitting signals significantly above legal levels. We are working on the final language of that. We understand that the Senate bill contains provisions which, when we get to conference, we hope to properly resolve. The bill in the end would, we hope, make it permissible for local law enforcement officers to help us stop the illegal transmission of these signals that interfere with telephone calls and television reception. Hopefully we can resolve this with the Senate as we go forward. The bill offered by myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) simply says, enough, already. It is time for Congress to take action, to weigh in, to stop slamming, to help prevent spamming, and to make sure these rural customers get service, just like other parts of America. It is a good bill. It is bipartisan, pro-consumer, and we urge the House, indeed, to approve this bill. Let me make one final comment, Madam Speaker. That is to join my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) in regrettably noting that we had to drop the C-block reforms that our committee adopted. We have dropped them because we simply cannot, we think, include them and get final support of this bill. Unfortunately, because we are dropping them, the C-block mess will go on just a little longer. For consumers out there who do not know what a C-block is, a C-block was a section of spectrum that was auctioned off for wireless services in America for which now we find ourselves in bankruptcy disputes. Many of these companies are returning the spectrum unused, with all of these potential wireless services being denied consumers, and the government having to settle for as little as 10 cents on the dollar of the auction fees. It begs for a solution. In our bill we provided a solution, only to learn that it is too late in the session for us to get agreement with the other side in that solution. However, I want to make a pledge to this House and to the members of the general public out there who have watched this mess develop. We will, at the first chance next year, embark upon a solution of the C- block mess to get the spectrum out so Americans could have the benefit of it, and to make sure that the American taxpayer is properly protected in this mess that has been allowed to go on for too long. It is time for America to realize revenues from the deployment of this spectrum, and for consumers to realize the benefits of the use of this spectrum. Our committee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), are determined to make sure we get a resolution of this matter as soon as we can in the next Congress. Madam Speaker, again I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and as I said, his great staff, for making this bill possible. It is the hope that before we wrap this session we will make it very clear that spamming will be hopefully resolved in the marketplace, and slamming will soon be illegal, and that folks who live in rural areas will soon get the service the FCC has denied them for 10 years now.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. We all know, of course, that we have long ago entered the information age, but what we are about to enter is the new information digital age. This WIPO Treaty implementation bill is extremely important not just to America and Americans but to citizens of the world. As we enter this information digital age, it becomes increasingly easy for people to make perfect copies of other people's works; their music, their books, their videos, their movies. In short, the WIPO treaty is an attempt worldwide to protect those intellectual properties from thievery, from duplication, from piracy. How do we protect those works perfectly in a digital world and, at the same time, respect something pretty critical to Americans: The free exchange of ideas and information; the ability of any kid in America to walk into a library and examine free of charge a work of fiction, a book written by one of the masters, to see a video, or to hear some music over the radio, or to operate a simple device like a VCR at home to see a movie later that was played earlier in the day? How do we protect the fair use of those works of art, those intellectual properties and, at the same time, protect them in a digital age? This House dramatically improved this bill as it left the Senate. As the Senate had produced the bill, there were no protections for citizens for these fair uses of information in a library, in a bookmobile, with a VCR. As this bill now comes back to the House and Senate from conference, the work of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Commerce, in particular, in making sure that there was a balance between the free exchange of ideas and protecting works in a digital age, were protected in this bill. The right to do encryption research. The right to be able to webcast music on the internet. All of these issues now have been wrapped into an excellent compromise that I think sets the stage for the rest of the world to follow. This is a critical day. America provides more information to the world than any other country of the world. Protecting those works in commerce is critical. We set the mark today with a strong implementation bill, but we do it carefully, respecting the right of people to fair use in accessing information in a free society; in making sure that libraries and schools of thought in universities can still do research, and all of us can access information in a society that so prides itself on free speech and the free exchange of information. To all who have worked on it, the chairman of the full committees, and to all the Members who have put in so many hours, this is a good day, this is a good bill.

Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I speak only to answer the last comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). The bill we passed on online pornography did not make criminals out of anyone who puts something on the Internet that may be harmful to minors. What it did was to say that it is criminal for someone to commercially set up a pornography site without establishing some way for parents to be able to say no to that site in their homes. That is all we did. In fact, if a parent wants to allow his child into that pornographer's site, it can. If the parent wants to look at it, it can. It simply made criminal the act of commercially providing that kind of material without giving parents the opportunity to say no to that material coming into their house. I hope the President signs that bill. He ought to sign it. It is a good bill that would give parents some control over what comes over the Internet and is available to their children.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to assure that a duly licensed low powered television station may utilize its authorized spectrum to offer to the public digital-based interactive broadcast services, and wireless Internet access, one or two way, portable or fixed, or connection to the Internet via the Interactive Video and Data Service (IVDS). The Federal Communications Commission demonstrated sound judgment in granting limited ``experimental authority'' to such stations to develop alternative approaches for offering to the general public digital data services, including wireless Internet access at reasonable prices, and I want to make their authority permanent. In its short period of existence, the Internet has grown to become an important medium for the conduct of commerce, the education of our children, and the maintenance of the informed and enlightened electorate necessary to a free society. Given its status in the United States as a substantial educational, promotional, commercial and distribution channel, the Internet is one of the engines which is driving the United States economy to record levels of productivity and employment. One of the shortcomings of the technology is that it is wire bound. Through the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission and private entrepreneurs, however, that shortcoming is being ameliorated. There are currently a number of low-power television stations in the United States which have obtained experimental authority to provide Internet service because this service is an innovative use of the spectrum which will benefit the public. It is the policy of the United States, as evidenced by the provisions of Sections 7, 10, 11, and 273 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to remove barriers to entry and to foster innovation in the telecommunications marketplace. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to ensure that these low power stations offering Internet service may continue to provide the public with high speed wireless Internet access. Recent history of telecommunications aptly illustrates the demand and utility of wireless access. Wireless telecommunications has been a substantial enhancement to the United States economy. Wireless Internet access promises even greater but similar economic benefits. Use of low- power television stations for wireless Internet access would facilitate the provision of the Internet to schools and public libraries without the necessity for expensive rewiring of those facilities. For these reasons, there is substantial public interest benefit in encouraging the provision of wireless Internet access. I anticipate that the subcommittee on telecommunications will take this matter up early next year. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation with several original cosponsors. They are Mr. Dingell, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Klink, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. Burr. Mr. speaker, this legislation essentially begins the process of reviewing the inadequacies of FCC implementation of the local competition provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Specifically, our bill amends provisions contained in section 271 of the Act, dealing with interLATA (long distance) entry by the Bell Companies. It is frustrating that nearly three years have passed since the Telecom Act of 1996 was enacted into law. Five applications for long distance service have been received by the FCC, and four have been denied. The fifth, an application approved by the Louisiana Public Service Commission by a vote of 4-1, is now pending at the FCC. Frankly, I am not encouraged that it will be granted when the FCC makes its decision on October 13 of this year. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was intended to open up competition in both the local and long-distance markets; but, the FCC appears determined to preserve the long-distance service monopoly that traditional interexchange companies have enjoyed since the conception of the telephone. Today, only business subscribers are realizing more choices from competitors to incumbent LECs. This legislation will attempt to codify what the intent of the conferees was during their deliberations on the 1996 Act. That is, the states should have explicit authority over determining intrastate interLATA service in their respective states. In addition, the legislation we are introducing today would modify other provisions of the law as noted in the attached talking points. I look forward to working with all of our colleagues early in the 10th Congress to loudly send a message to the FCC, the Department of Justice, and the administration that the ``status quo'' is no longer acceptable. Only true, open competition in all markets will be acceptable now, not later. Highlights of InterLATA Communications Improvements Act of 1998 State Jurisdiction Over Intrastate InterLATA Services. The legislation authorizes the state public service commission to grant BOC applications to provide intrastate InterLATA telecommunications services upon satisfaction of Track A/B, the competitive checklist and public interest requirements. If the State fails to act on an intrastate InterLATA application within the 90- day decision period, the application is deemed granted. Resale Authority. On February 8, 1999, BOCs would be authorized to resell the InterLATA services of unaffiliated companies. Amendments to Track A/Track B. The Track A/Track B requirement would be eliminated effective February 8, 1999. In addition, the legislation removes the requirement that a Track A company provide telephone exchange service exclusively or predominantly over its own facilities. It also provides that Track B is satisfied if the BOC's statement of generally available terms and conditions (``SGAT'') has been approved by the state public service commission or if the state public service commission has permitted such SGAT to take effect. FCC Consultation with State PSC. The legislation directs the FCC to affirm the evaluation of the state public service commission concerning BOC compliance with Track A/Track B and the competitive checklist unless the FCC determines by clear and convincing evidence that the state evaluation is clearly erroneous. Public Interest Determination. Effective February 8, 1999, the public interest requirement of Section 271 is deemed to be satisfied upon a finding that the BOC has satisfied the competitive checklist. Incidental InterLATA Services. The legislation would expand the definition of ``incidental InterLATA services'' to include data communications and international telecommunications and information services. Section 271 Approvals and Denials. Decisions approving or denying Section 271 applications must include a written determination of whether the BOC has complied with the statutory standard for InterLATA relief.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), who has led us so well this season, and to commend my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), for this legislation. I must tell my friend from Massachusetts that whenever we mix politicians and used car salesmen, we are certainly begging for a lot of trouble here. It is like Thunderbirds of a feather flying together, I suppose. But this is a good bill. This bill, the National Salvage Motor Vehicle Consumer Protection Act, may not indeed rise to the level of importance of health care or telecommunications policy, but it is very important legislation. The bill simply protects consumers, and it protects legitimate automobile dealers, and it protects others from the fraud artists who would try to pawn off stolen or unsafe cars on those who have no way of knowing better. For the first time it will close the numerous loopholes created by 50 separate State salvage laws that have literally permitted car thieves to get away with murder. This legislation is just as important to the used car consumer as the Telecommunications Act was important to consumers of phone service, and like the Telecommunications Act, we needed to carefully balance the needs of consumers and the needs of people in the business. We had to balance greater consumer disclosure against the effect their title brand might have both on the value of a vehicle and the cost to insure that vehicle, and we had to balance the need for consistent terms and procedures in titling vehicles against the State's right to maintain its sovereignty, and we needed to balance the need to maintain current business practices against the benefits of improved consumer disclosure. As we passed the bill at the end of last session, Congress attempted to strike that balance, and the gentleman from Washington spent 2 years working with our committee and all the interested outside groups to address all the issues raised in our many hearings and discussions, and while I am proud of our work then, the bill before the House today actually reflects additional efforts made to accommodate the critics of the legislation. For example, legislation before the House today tells States that if they accept Federal funds to upgrade the computer systems in their DMVs, that they are under an obligation to either adopt the uniform procedures in this bill or to tell their consumers that they may be purchasing a car with a checkered past. Either way the present situation is improved because consumers are on notice that there may be a potential problem. If a State adopts all of the procedures outlined in the legislation, a consumer is notified in no fewer than four differ ways as to the status of the vehicle. And even more importantly, consumers in other States have notice about the vehicle's status as well. This is a vast improvement over the status quo. Now, some of the critics of the legislation will argue that the thresholds of the bill are too high or they do not include enough cars in the definitions, so this bill addresses those concerns. It allows the States to set whatever percentage threshold they deem appropriate for defining a salvaged vehicle and allows our States to provide greater disclosures by allowing them to brand certain vehicles as, quote, older model salvaged vehicles, unquote. It even struck the prohibition on the use of certain other terms to describe salvaged vehicles. This bill represents a significant effort to address the concerns of the critics of the House-passed proposal. So I would like to take this opportunity again to commend the gentleman from Washington and the Majority Leader of the Senate for their hard work on this legislation. They have both labored to try and include the suggestions of as many parties as possible and to even accommodate the interests of some who may not be squarely in favor of this approach, including some consumer advocates and some of our friends in the minority. They both deserve to be commended for their efforts. In closing, Mr. Speaker, the bill of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) represents a strong step forward for used car consumers. I strongly support the bill and urge our colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. Let me indeed indicate that this is but one step. Our staff and our committee, our chairman and our ranking member, are indeed to be commended for taking us down the right path. We have much work to do. I want to pledge to my colleagues as we complete work on this bill that they will hear and see from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I again as we approach the date of March next year when cable is set to be deregulated. We will be presenting, hopefully, for this House to consider, various options on how to make sure competition is really available for the American consumer, who, in many parts of America, is given one choice when it comes to cable, take it or leave it. That is not a good American choice. In a good American marketplace it means various choices, good prices, better service. That is the kind of marketplace the Committee on Commerce is committed to developing for the television consumers of America, and we will not stop until that is done. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair indicate how much time we have remaining?

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

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

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 this legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, today I am delighted to bring to the floor for Members' consideration H.R. 2921, the Multichannel Video Competition and Consumer Protection Act of 1998. I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, and my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member, for his kind and gracious support and assistance. I introduced the bill in November of last year to address the inequitable decision of the Copyright Arbitration Rate Panel to increase the copyright fees that are paid by the direct broadcast satellite providers. This decision has resulted in increased rates for every DBS dish consumer in America. To date, the bill has garnered 157 cosponsors, representing Members from all parts of our Nation. The bill has substantially bipartisan support because it does the right thing, it protects consumers and promotes competition in the video marketplace. H.R. 2921 delays the impact of copyright fees that are paid by satellite providers and ultimately by consumers for distant network signals and superstations. The Librarian of Congress made a decision to raise the rates of satellite services to 27 cents per subscriber for superstation and distant network signals. This rate compares to the rate of 9.7 cents per subscriber for superstations, and 2.7 cents for network signals that cable operators pay. In effect, the satellite carriers, and thus, their consumers, are currently paying almost 270 percent more than cable for superstations, and 900 percent more for network signals. This enormous disparity in the copyright fees paid for the exact same signals has resulted in major rate increases for consumers, and has hurt the direct broadcast satellite industry's ability to compete with cable. The bill rolls back these copyright rates paid by the DBS service providers to the rate they were prior to the decision of the court or the Librarian of Congress' panel. This rollback will extend from the period beginning January 1, 1998, until December 31, 1999. Why are we doing this? We have seen the rapid development of the home satellite industry. Today direct broadcast satellite providers are offering consumers hundreds of programming channels in various packages. In part, these DBS companies have helped to keep cable companies from raising their rates, encourage them to improve their services, and to upgrade their networks. I do not have to tell Members how all three are seriously important to America's consumers. At a time when we need more, not less, competition in the video marketplace, we should not be burdening the DBS industry and its consumers with unnecessary and arbitrary additional costs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cable rates have risen three times faster than the rate of inflation since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed. As we approach March 31, 1999, next year, when pursuant to that act cable will be deregulated, it is becoming increasingly clear that Congress has to consider legislation to further promote competition for the cable industry. I find it far preferable to promote true and meaningful competition for cable, and thus to let competitive marketplaces drive the prices down for consumers, than it is for us to constantly regulate. That is why it is so important to pass this bill. This bill declares a time out on the Librarian's decision until we can determine its impact on consumers and the video marketplace. This is an appropriate and measured response to the CARP panel's decision, and I hope this Congress will move this bill, give us a chance to make sure that next year we have the opportunity to ensure that more competition is available, more choice is available to America's television consumers, so that in fact better prices, better terms, better services become the wave of the future, rather than increase prices in a situation where customers have no other choice but to choose one service provider. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. I think we could be called urban samurais.

Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is indeed gracious in remembering all those who helped us so diligently day and night to make this bill come true, and we deeply appreciate that. Let me say in conclusion that this bill is but one step. I want to make a point that I think all Members of Congress should be aware of, and that is there is nothing in our policy that in any way denigrates from the great work that cable has done in bringing new programming, in bringing extensive and delightful varieties of programming to America. Indeed, we are very grateful for that. We are simply saying in this policy that for those who decide to receive that programming on a satellite transmission rather than over a cable, or over the air, as in New Orleans, or in Atlanta in a terrestrial air distribution system, those consumers are entitled to equal treatment. We should not be putting copyright fees that are three times and nine times as high on a consumer simply because they choose to receive that wonderful programming one way or another. Secondly, we are saying that, in the end, this Congress will be faced with the choice of either reregulating cable, because it does not have a competitor, or we will have successfully provided for Americans the chance to regulate that marketplace by themselves deciding which of the methods of transmission they prefer, whether satellite, terrestrial wireless, or cable, or several cable systems in their community. To me, I hope to all of us, the best solution is to give Americans those choices. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and our chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), are all committed to making sure that in the end America decides the right way to have more choices and less regulation in this important marketplace.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). I have been called a lot of things, but John Belushi or not, but I appreciate that reference. The fact of the matter, it was my friend from Massachusetts who was there by my side, shoulder to shoulder, battling for the rights of satellite consumers to have the right to programming in this Chamber in 1992 that gave birth to these small dishes. And he did so, as he said, when very few of his consumers relied on satellite reception of television. With so many in Virginia, where the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), my good friend, lives, and those of us in bayou country, and in Colorado, the State of the gentleman that I am about to introduce, have to rely on satellite signals live. It is really a credit to the gentleman from Massachusetts that he learned how important it was to folks in rural countries like ours to have satellite television reception. I want to tell my colleagues that he learned that by coming to my home in Chackbay with me where my mother fed him a Cajun meal. And I have often threatened, when he was not with me on a bill, to explain to him what he ate that night and coerce him to join me in an effort. But he has always been there by our side on this issue, and I want to commend him and particularly my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), for his help. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Dan Schaefer), another great friend. But I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, how sadly our Committee on Commerce is going to miss not only his friendship, but his service to this country and his incredibly talented and gifted service to the Committee on Commerce. The gentleman from Colorado is not just a close personal friend of all of us on both sides of the aisle, but he has been a great Congressman for his State and country, and we will miss him dearly. (Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) from the Committee on Commerce, and a dear friend. (Mr. BURR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to commend the gentleman's statement and to pledge to him my continued efforts to see to it that we do pass local-into-local legislation in the next Congress. That will give the satellite providers a chance to offer local signals in that satellite package. That, in essence, would give much more coverage and competition to rural consumers. I will assist in every way to make that happen.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I just want my colleagues to know that the gentleman makes such an important statement. Competition to cable is not real until the local signals are part of the package. We all know that the local television signals are the part of the television that is watched the most. They are the programs that people most desire in that package. And when they cannot get those local signals from the satellite distributor, they have to receive, instead, long-distance signals. Now, the awful truth about what the librarian did was to say to satellite consumers that not only are they to be penalized by not having the local signals, but they are going to have to pay more than the cable subscriber for these long-distance signals, just to hit them one more time. That is so unfair. Getting this straightened out in this bill is important, but my friend makes such a valid point. This is but one of the many pieces of the puzzle we have to solve in order to make sure that consumers in America have real choices in true packages that contain both the local signals and all the other wonderful cable programming that the cable industry rightfully takes great pride in having provided to America. I pledge to my friend the same partnership we have enjoyed for many years to put all those pieces together.

Mr. TAUZIN

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3783, the Child Online Protection Act. Last month the Committee on Commerce overwhelmingly approved this bill. The bill as adopted would simply make it illegal to sell pornography to minors on the World Wide Web unless and until an adult verification system is in place. Let me make it clear, the bill does not try to control the sale of that material to adults. Neither does it say one cannot sell it to a minor for whom an adult says it is okay. It simply says that insofar as the sale of material to a minor, that the producer of that product cannot do so without the consent of the parents in an adult verification system that actually works. It directs the FTC to promulgate regulations within a year of the date of the act prohibiting commercial websites and online operators from collecting personally identifying information from children 12 and under, unless certain requirements are met. This is an FTC agreement that has been reached and supported and already adopted on the other side that we have added by amendment to this bill. Further, the public posting of children's identifying information in chat rooms and other online forums may pose safety concerns, and the bill simply protects against those things happening. The bill requires four simple things. It requires ample notice to make sure that operators provide clear, prominent, understandable notice on their sites of what information they are collecting from children, how they will use it, and disclosure practice for that information. Second, it states that operators must obtain parental consent; and third, that operators must prohibit inducements to provide personal information from the children by games and contests; and that operators must disclose the specific types of information collected to a parent, and offer the parent the opportunity to opt out of future use of that information. For those who are still denying that the legislation is not needed, I ask them to go back to their offices and surf the net for a few minutes. If Members take a few minutes, Members will see that H.R. 3783 really attempts to solve a real, not a perceived, problem. If Members go to an Internet search engine such as Yahoo, type in ``porn'' or ``sex'', under porn I am told we will receive more than 105,000 matches, and under sex, receive 670,000 matches. Within seconds Members can retrieve information from any one of these hits, and they will display, in many cases, pornographic material. Some sites will have warnings, 18 or older. Other sites ask for credit cards or information prior to entering, but virtually all the sites contain teasers that display sexual behavior, in an attempt to lure us into that site, us or our children. Imagine, now, a Member's 8- year-old son or daughter is accessing that same information. The bill that we are considering today makes an honest attempt, without interference with the first amendment, to provide that our sons or daughters will not easily access this information without our consent. It is effective because it focuses on the commercial seller of pornography, and it uses a constitutionally already verified protection phrase, ``harm to children,'' rather than the obscenity phrase that was attempted in the 1996 act and was rejected by the Supreme Court. In short, H.R. 3783 attempts to address all the issues raised by the Supreme Court. It has a narrow prohibition, tighter definition, and a realization that the applicability of the law may change as technology is involved. I want to particularly commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, who is the principal author and who has worked so diligently with all members of the committee to make sure it came out with unanimous consent, and with conditions and language that we think is supportable in any court challenge. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for his leadership on this issue. He knows, as we all know, that this is a real problem, and this bill attempts to solve it in a real simple but meaningful way. Mr. Speaker, I encourage Members to support H.R. 3783, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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 this legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, just to make everyone clear on the fact that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is the principal author of these on-line privacy provisions, and they come, as he has pointed out, with full recommendation of the FTC and many consumer and family and children's support groups around America. I have a long list. I also wanted to add that the provisions do include a safe harbor provision which says to the industry that if they can come up with a better provision, they can submit it to the FTC, and that would be the one that would be used. That is a very good type of provision that we like to include in this type of Internet legislation.