Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2921) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal Communications Commission to conduct an inquiry into the impediments to the development of competition in the market for multichannel video programming distribution, as amended.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), another distinguished member of our subcommittee.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who is a new member of our committee and doing a great job.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) the principal author of the bill and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) who has indeed improved it so much with the privacy provisions. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to point out that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) and I have authored a bill that codifies in law the concept of forbearance of regulating the Internet. The FCC has voluntarily forborne any regulations of the Internet and we think that is proper. The bill we have offered indicates that the FCC should continue in that forbearance but that where and if areas of concern arise, such as this area of harmfulness to minors, that the Congress itself should make the decisions about how and where the Internet should be affected by any such restrictions or regulations. It is for that reason that we think this bill is very much in line with the concept of the White bill that we have earlier offered and which we will try to pursue passage in a future Congress. The concept again is that the Internet should be as free and open as possible. Otherwise, it cannot be the place where free expression under the first amendment is fully utilized as we all want it to be. But where areas exist, such as in this area of harmfulness to minors or areas where minors' information is being taken from them without parental consent, this is the area where Congress itself should express those areas of concern and come up with solutions. This bill is an honest attempt to do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, first, let me commend the gentlewoman for an excellent statement and, indeed, to confirm her statement. We have been very careful about using the language that the courts have already approved on the standard, the one approved by the Supreme Court. We have crafted the bill so that it applies only to commercial sites and not to ordinary speakers.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond. First of all, I want to point out that the harmful to minor standard was upheld in 1969 by the Supreme Court itself and that 48 States have such standards in their State laws. Five circuit courts have already examined those and approved those as constitutional, and that is the standard used in this bill. Secondly, I would point out that the owners and producers of these sites are liable only if they are commercial operators who do not put in filtering devices where parents can say yes or no. If in fact the filtering device is in place, and the parents say it is okay for our children to see this stuff, so be it. It simply requires, if someone is going to go into the commercial business of putting material that is harmful to minors under that Supreme Court standard on the internet, that that material must contain a filtering device so that parents have the ability to say yes or no. That is the sum and substance of the bill. And, again, I would urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. White).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) the principal author of the main part of this legislation which protects against pornography and children on the Net. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3783) to amend section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 to require persons who are engaged in the business of selling or transferring, by means of the World Wide Web, material that is harmful to minors to restrict access to such material by minors, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, today, we bring to the floor H.R. 2281, the WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act. The Commerce Committee adopted amendments which addressed some of the very tough issues that had yet to be resolved despite passage of the bill by the Senate. The substance of these amendments were ultimately incorporated into the bill which we consider today. Today, we take one more step toward final passage of legislation which will implement the WIPO treaties. It is indeed an historic moment. The United States is on the verge of setting the standard for the rest of the world to meet. Our content industries are the world's finest, as well as one of this Nation's leading exporters. They must be protected from those pirates who in the blink of an eye--can steal these works and make hundreds if not thousands of copies to be sold around the world--leaving our own industries uncompensated. This theft cannot continue. By implementing the WIPO treaties this year, we can help to ensure that authors and their works will be protected from pirates who pillage their way through cyberspace. As we rush to send a signal to the rest of the world, however, it is important that we not undermine our commitment to becoming an information-rich society--right here in the United States . . . inside our own borders. The discussion generated by the Commerce Committee has been invaluable to finding the balance between copyright protection and the exchange of ideas in the free market--two of the fundamental pillars upon which this nation was built. In our haste to produce legislation, we must not overlook the need to strike the correct balance between these two competing ideals. That is indeed the purpose of the legislative process--to debate, haggle, review and ultimately to hammer out what will be strong and lasting policy for the rest of the world to follow. A free market place for ideas is critical to America. It means that any man, woman or child--free of charge!!--can wander into any public library and use the materials in those libraries for free. He or she-- again, free of charge!!--can absorb the ideas and visions of mankind's greatest writers and thinkers. This bill contains an amendment that will protect fair use rights by means of a review by the Secretary of Commerce which will be conducted every three years. I thank Mr. Oxley for offering this original amendment at Subcommittee and I thank Chairman Bliley, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Markey, Mr. Klug and Mr. Boucher and their staffs for their efforts in reaching this important agreement. I would also like to thank Mr. Waxman and Mr. Lazio for their participation in reaching this agreement. Similarly, by adopting my amendment on encryption research, Commerce Committee again made an invaluable contribution to this important legislation. The amendment provided for an exception to the circumvention provisions contained in the bill for legal encryption research and reverse engineering. In particular, these exceptions would ensure that companies and individuals engaged in what is presently lawful encryption research and security testing and those who legally provide these services could continue to engage in these important and necessary activities which will strengthen our ability to keep our nation's computer systems, digital networks and systems applications private, protected and secure. Finally, I want to commend my colleagues, Dan Schaefer and Rick White for their efforts in reaching agreement on a provision which has been included in this bill to address the concerns of webcasters. Webcasting is a new use of the digital works this bill deals with. Under current law, it is difficult for webcasters and record companies to know their rights and responsibilities and to negotiate for licenses. This provision makes clear the rights of each party and sets up a statutory licensing program to make it as easy as possible to comply with. It is a worthy change to the bill and again, my thanks to Mr. White and Mr. Schaefer. I can't emphasize enough to my colleagues the importance of not only this legislation, but also the timing of this legislation. An international copyright treaty convention is a rare and infrequent event. We thus stand on the brink of implementing this most recent treaty-- the WIPO copyright treaty--knowing full well that it may be another 20 years before we can revisit this subject. From here, we go to conference with the Senate and then this bill will go to the White House for the President's signature. Let's make sure we strike the right balance. Copyright protection is important and must be encouraged here. But in pursuing that goal we must remain faithful to our legacy, and our commitment to promoting the free exchange of ideas and thoughts. Digital technology should be embraced as a means to enrich and enlighten all of us.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, let me first tell you that as far as this unfunded mandate argument goes, we have discussed personally this issue with our governor, the head of our natural resources in Louisiana. They tell us it is certainly right and fitting that Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama should have the same jurisdictional enforcement capacities that Texas and Florida have, and they would be very willing to accept that responsibility if the State was accorded that responsibility in this bill. They are prepared for it. Of course, our fisheries and wildlife department would love to have more money. That is the reason he mentioned that in his letter. But the truth of the matter is that they want parity of jurisdiction, just as much as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and I, who represent Louisiana, would love our State to have parity of jurisdiction. I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland about the fiscal state of affairs in Louisiana. I assure you, our State officials are one with us in this request. Secondly, let me point out that the Callahan amendment makes no change substantively in the fisheries laws. The laws are going to be enforced, whether by the Federal authorities or the State authorities, the same. Thirdly, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) made the point, the fact that in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama there is a 3-mile fisheries limit enforcement for State authorities, and in Texas and Florida, 3 leagues enforcement authority. Literally, it sets up a crazy boundary line for enforcement. It does not mean the Coast Guard is not going to be out there. The Coast Guard will still enforce the laws outside the 3 leagues. It will still be there to protect against drug induction into our country. It will still be there protecting the fisheries laws on its side of that 3 leagues. This amendment simply means that Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama would enjoy the same enforcement jurisdictional authority that Texas and Florida have in the same Gulf waters. Finally, let me point out that the Gulf Fisheries Council finds itself in great problems with our own NMFS authority here in Washington. National Marine Fisheries consistently overrules the Gulf Council. The Gulf Council has great problems with our own authority here in Washington, D.C. But let me assure you of one thing, we in Louisiana are as sincerely interested in maintaining a red snapper population as any of you, believe me, from California or Maryland may be. Red snapper are important to our commercial industry. It is also important to our sports fisheries industry. If the commercial red snapper industry is at all worried, it is not worried about who enforces the laws 3 miles or 9 miles or 12 miles outside of our boundaries. They are more concerned that the sports fishermen do not get a bigger share of the quota. That is the real battle. Right now the few boats who fish commercially take 51 percent of the red snapper quotas right now. Sports fishermen would love to have a bigger share of that. That is a battle they fight at the council level. It has nothing to do with what authority enforces the law. I can assure you, red snapper is critical to the sportsmen and to the commercial interests in our State and those of us who want to see that wonderful species of fish preserved. We do our job in Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama to preserve them. We simply want the same authority that is accorded Florida and Texas in that regard.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and those that worked with him to bring this bill to the floor. As many of my colleagues know, the securities litigation reform bill was first filed way back in 1992. It was a bill that we crafted, in fact I was the lead sponsor of it then, to put an end to strike lawsuits in this country of which 94 percent were settled out of court at 10 cents on the dollar. When lawsuits are filed and settled at that rate, 94 percent of them, at 10 cents on the dollar, it paints the picture that I think in a bipartisan way this Congress responded to in 1995. It paints a picture of strike lawsuits, frivolous lawsuits that do not have value except to force the people who have been sued to divvy up, to pay up 10 cents on the dollar just to end the lawsuit, to end the abusive lawsuits. When were they filed? They were filed immediately when any stock prices changed up or down. They were filed in cookie cutter fashion, very often with the same plaintiffs on the front of the class action lawsuits, very often by the same set of lawyers in America, a unique set of lawyers who constantly brought these strike lawsuits aimed at the directors of corporations, aimed at the corporations themselves, aimed at the accountants and the law firms that represented those corporations, aimed at as many people as they could gather in a lawsuit so at 10 cents on the dollar the lawyers can make a killing. Did the shareholders who supposedly were defrauded do well in these lawsuits? Absolutely not. We found out that the shareholders got as little as four cents of the claims, four cents of the supposedly defrauded amounts. The truth was that the law before 1995 existed for the benefit of a few lawyers who literally were abusing the system with these strike suits. And abusing who? The corporations, their investors, their pension fund investors, all of us who invested in these corporations thinking that we were making a legitimate investment in a corporation that was going to go out and try to earn a profit for their American stockholders. Instead these corporations were having to pay tribute time after time at 10 cents on the dollar for these strike suits aimed at the heart of corporate America and aimed at the heart of all of us who invest, from the poorest American who invests through their pension funds to the richest who invest in Wall Street directly. The bottom line was that in 1995, this Congress in a bipartisan fashion not only passed that bill but overrode a presidential veto, a bill that had the support then of the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. But what did we find out after passing the bill even over a presidential veto with such a huge bipartisan majority of over two-thirds? We found out that the same lawyers attempted in the State of California to overcome that Federal law and set up a regime in California to file all the same lawsuits simply in State court in California. We found that time and again the same lawyers were filing the same cookie cutter lawsuits in State courts around America. In short, they were avoiding the reforms we passed over a presidential veto in Congress by using other jurisdictions to accomplish it. So we are here tonight to perfect that law, to say you cannot use the State courts to do the same illicit, abusive strike suits that you were formerly doing in Federal court. Have we taken away any legitimate rights of people who have been harmed? No. Lawsuits brought on fraud charges both in State and Federal courts can go forward. They simply go forward under the reforms we passed both on the Federal law and now conforming that Federal law to the 50 States. In short, this bill perfects the work of the 104th Congress in 1995. I urge the passage of this bill and the end of these abusive lawsuits.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we recently had an election in Louisiana under the ``motor voter'' law. That election left us with a huge and extended voter inquiry by the Senate committee questioning the outcome of that Senate race. The reason that happened in our State was, the allegations of people registering improperly and then voting multiple times by simply changing outer garments and coats and walking back in the polls and voting again, the reason all of that happened was because the election safeguards in our State completely broke down. The Senate committee that investigated that election ended up saying, ``We cannot tell you whether or not voter fraud occurred in Louisiana, because all of the systems by which we ought to be able to tell whether it occurred broke down.'' A newspaper in Lake Charles using the motor voter law attempted to register 21 fictitious individuals and ended up registering 19 successfully. One of them was a dog, and anyone representing themselves to be that person that was a dog could have shown up on Election Day in Louisiana and voted because this was no requirement in the law then to produce any photo I.D. Since that time, the Federal Government has finally allowed Louisiana to require a photo I.D. It is now the law of Louisiana, now approved by the Justice Department in our State following that terrible, indeed questionable election in Louisiana. What this amendment does is to do two things that I think are vitally important to improve the motor voter law in our country. It says that the States can indeed provide mail balloting if they want to, mail registration, but that if they do, proof of citizenship should be required. We ought to know who is registering. We should be able to prove who we are; and then, secondly, when one shows up to vote, there ought to be some identifiable photo, just as one would present a photo when one checks one's luggage at an airport or try to buy tobacco in a grocery store, some identifiable indication of who you are, that you are the person who is registering. Those two changes are critical for valid elections in America.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, on July 15, 1998, I was inadvertently detained, and missed rollcall 280, on H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder, as my colleagues know, that people lose faith in government, politics. This government made a contract with American farmers in 1996, and American farmers across the board gave up parts of their farm support programs, and sugar was no different. Sugar gave up its non-recourse loan program. Sugar, in fact, assessed itself $288 million that is going to deficit reduction over the next 7 years. Sugar farmers relying upon that contract, tens of thousands of them in Louisiana, have made long-term commitments, and this little 1-cent reduction in the loan rate that people say will not devastate them translates to a 5.5 percent reduction in the price of sugar for the farmer. For whom? For the big multinational sugar refining corporations. On, yes, there is money and politics involved in this. America made a contract with its farmers. We ought to keep our word today. It is a 7- year contract. American farmers depend upon that contract, have made long-term commitments. Shame on this House if we break our word and violate that contract.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for coming together on this very important piece of legislation, bringing our two committees into focus here, and to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for working so closely at subcommittee and full committee level with us on the Committee on Commerce to make this happen. The first bill, as my colleagues know, was heard by the committee and reported last October, and I think in that regard historically we need to credit the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) for the 2-year effort they put into bringing this issue to the House floor today, in trying to resolve what could be a sticky problem of how to make the Internet work with E- commerce in a world of 30,000 different taxing jurisdictions. As my colleagues know, when the computer married up with the telephone, a whole new world opened up to Americans and to the world community. All of a sudden, when computers married up to telephones, cellular telephone service and PCS service became available, and all of a sudden the whole world became a much smaller place. Now we are beginning to see the marriage of computers and this incredible telephone industry and the television itself in a world of computers and Internet services that will increasingly bring America and the world closer in the world of commerce. We have gone from the industrial age indeed to the communications or information age, and now we are beginning to see the fruits of it in E-commerce, as electronic commerce becomes the means by which more and more Americans and citizens of this world will do business. It is critical at this juncture just for us to call a time out to make sure that policy works, that this wonderful world of computers which has delivered so much value to Americans, which has been generally an unregulated world, which has increased in value and dimension and service not only to our citizens but to citizens of the world as it marries up to this highly-regulated world of telephones and television, that we do not make a lot of mistakes that would kill the goose that laid the golden egg. This moratorium is critical to the progress of electronic customers. I urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington, for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, let me relate an incident in Louisiana where I once asked a local politician why he thought we spent so much money in political campaigns. His answer was, well, you know, Billy, the other candidate always goes on television before you are ready to go on television. They start telling lies about you, and then you have got to go on television to answer those lies much sooner than you wanted to go on television or you probably could afford to go on television. Then as the campaign draws closer to election day, they go back on television, and they start telling the truth about you, and then you have really got to spend a lot of money to answer those ads. The bottom line is, whether that is true or not, we spend an extraordinary amount of money in campaigns across America for State, local, and Federal elections. The rules by which we raise that money and spend it inevitably get written by whom, by the incumbents, by those of us who have been fortunate enough to win an election and to serve in public office. Inevitably, the campaign practice rules we write in the State legislatures and here on the floor of the House and in the Senate, inevitably, those rules are suspect. People always believe those rules must have been written to favor incumbents. Inevitably, when Democrats propose a campaign practice reform or when Republicans propose a campaign practice reform, those reforms are suspect, because people believe, quite naturally, that one party must have written the rule to gain a fair or perhaps even an unfair advantage over the other party in the coming election. So the question we should be thinking about as we once again debate another round of campaign practice reform laws is whether we should be the ones proposing those reforms or whether, in fact, an independent commission on which no incumbent Members of Congress can serve should be proposing those reforms while we in the end endorse those reforms by a single up or down vote. That is the concept between a single commission approach. I want to commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) and others who have worked on it for the thought here. The thought is that if you want a credible campaign practice law that has in it no suspicion that it favors incumbents, no suspicion that it was drafted to make the Democratic Party more advantageous in the election than the Republican Party or some independent third party. To give any one a better chance than the other in raising the funds and spending the funds in the campaigns of America, then why not this commission approach? It makes an awful lot of sense. It preserves to the Congress the ultimate authority to vote up or down on the recommended reforms, but it leaves the meticulous fashioning of those reforms to an independent commission composed of nonincumbents. It leaves literally to nonincumbents the duty of fashioning the intricate details of campaign practice reform law. Let me tell you where I come down quickly. I would hope, whatever we do in the context of this debate, that we remember in the end it is the citizens of this country that are most benefited if we do two simple things: that we make sure that there are reasonable limits to donations in all cases, and secondly, there is full disclosure to the American public. If the American public knows how campaign money is raised and knows how it is spent, all under reasonable limits, I think it will have provided the best reforms we can provide with the least amount of suspicion that we did it simply to favor ourselves or to favor one party or the other. How do we get there from here? I recommend the commission form.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White).

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 Reps. Barton, etc. in introducing this important legislation. Our bill, which is similar to legislation already pending in the Senate, would repeal a New Deal Law, the Public Utility Holding 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. It 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 pyramided 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 had 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 provider 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 not 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 regular 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 into the billions of dollars. Restrictions on 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 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 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 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.