Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman, and you made two excellent points again. One is that among the various plans that we give the seniors an option to choose are the Medisave accounts. Medisave accounts are being used now. NBC showed a film the other night on New Jersey's plans in many corporate businesses where, instead of belonging to the Medicare system as you know it, you can choose instead to have the money deposited in a Medisave account. A catastrophic policy is purchased, the balance is kept in the account. If you do not use it, the money then becomes yours at the end of the year. If you use it, your high option coverage then kicks in to protect you. Those Medisave accounts do, in fact, allow people in the marketplace another option and, in fact, ought to be made available to seniors who want to perhaps use them, too. It does ensure [[Page H 10058]] accountability. When it is your money, you will spend it a lot more carefully. So it is one of the options that seniors will have. You do not have to choose it, but it is one of the options and is working quite well in many business settings in America for employees registered under health care programs with their companies. The gentleman also makes a second point. Under part B Medicare, that is the voluntary part; the part A is the part we all have to belong to today when we reach 65. That is the mandatory hospital coverage. But part B coverage is the voluntary part which most people choose when they have the option. That part B coverage covers your doctor bills primarily. That part B coverage is paid 68\1/2\ percent by the taxpayers of America, the young workers of America, and it is paid one-third, 31\1/2\ percent in fact, by the seniors who choose to participate in it. About one-third, two- thirds, you were right. What we do in our plan is to maintain that ratio through the 7-year period. The recipients of the program will still pay 31\1/2\ percent, the taxpayers will still foot the bill for 68\1/2\ percent, but we do one thing that cries out for reform. Here is the question. How can you ask a young couple earning $20,000 a year to continue to subsidize part B premiums for an older couple that is making $100,000 or $150,000 a year? You can understand why all of us working in the work force should help our seniors who are similarly situated in terms of income. But how do you explain to a working couple struggling to buy their own health care at $20,000 a year salary that they also have to subsidize the part B voluntary premiums of someone earning $100,000 to $150,000 a year? It is pretty hard to explain. The odd thing about it is, believe it or not, we are getting criticized by the other side, who should be against taxpayer subsidies for wealthy people. We are getting criticized for trying to make this change. What we are saying is that when you are in that income category, $100,000 to $150,000 a couple, that you should not have to depend upon those making $20,000 a year to pay your part B premium. That ought to be your responsibility if you are that well off. You ought not be counting on poor working Americans struggling to feed their families and pay their own health care. So our plan changes that and phases out that subsidy for the well-to- do in America who do not need a subsidy from those who are working in the poor and middle class families struggling to pay their own health care.

Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will let me emphasize that point, in the Medicare markup we adopted the lockbox amendment, which makes sure any savings the new Medicare reforms produce has to stay for Medicare purposes. It does not go for any other purpose such as a tax cut. It is used within the system to keep the system solvent.

Mr. TAUZIN. Well, if the tactics at the committee were bad, the tactics on the floor are worse, to pretend this was some real demonstration by real senior citizens, when this was an organized lobby group planning to disrupt the meeting. To bring pictures on the floor and make it look like some poor senior citizen was not heard is just Hollywood. That is all it is. We ought to put that behind us as quickly as we can and begin to debate the merits of our proposal. I agree, we have a good plan. We ought to debate it, and I am prepared to begin talking about it.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Committee on Commerce, and of all the speakers you heard this morning talking about the incident that occurred at the Committee on Commerce on the Medicare markup this week, I am the only person who was actually present for that incident. Let me tell you the truth about that incident; the facts, ma'am, just the facts, if you will. What occurred was a woman named Teresa McKenna, who is not some poor person worried about her Medicare, she is a paid lobbyist working for the National Council of Senior Citizens, brought a few of her members into the committee room as we had opened up the session to begin marking up the bill, and they began shouting and protesting at that markup hearing. The committees of the Congress work just like this body does. Members of the public are invited to attend and to sit in the galleries or sit in the committee rooms and to witness the process by which we mark up bills and debate them and process them through this House. Guests are always welcome, as is the press, at our committee markups. Had Ms. Teresa McKenna brought her members into this room, into this gallery, and conducted themselves the same way, began shouting and interrupting the process, the same thing would have occurred in this House as occurred in that committee room. They were asked three times by the officers in charge at the request of the chairman to either take seats or leave the room so that we could begin our business. Three times they refused. The officers had no choice then but to escort them out of the room. Immediately after they had been escorted under arrest outside the room, the chairman instructed the police officers involved not to press charges, but to release them to go free. In short, the committee did exactly what this House would do; it exercised its responsibility to enforce order in the process by which we debated the bill. Teresa McKenna represents an organization headquartered here in Washington. She has been representing it for some many years now. She is a paid lobbyist for that organization. You need to know about the organization. Last year it received $72 million of taxpayer funds to carry out their business. That is a pretty hefty sum. Can you imagine how much health care we could give to seniors in America if we spent that $72 million on some senior health care problems. But, instead, this group got $72 million of taxpayer moneys as grants from the Federal Government to do their work. [[Page H 10054]] Well, what kind of work do they do? They lobby. That is what they do. And, guess what? That $72 million was 96 percent of the income that that organization derived last year. That organization is almost totally taxpayer funded as a lobby group. Ms. Teresa McKenna took some of her members and tried to disrupt the process by which our committee was beginning to debate this extraordinarily important issue for the sake of all Americans, for our mothers and fathers and grandmothers and grandfathers and those to come. Now, should she and her members have been ejected from the room when they refused to obey? Of course. They would have been ejected from this Chamber the same way. Should they have been put in jail? Of course not. As soon as they were taken out of the room, the charges were dropped and they were dismissed. I wanted to clear that up first of all. No Speaker of this House, Democrat or Republican, could put up with that kind of disorder in this body. No chairman of the committee, Democrat or Republican, would have put with that kind of disorder in the committee process. Did our committee have hearings on Medicare? Our committee held 10 hearings on Medicare this year. Ten hearings. That is more than the previous three Congresses combined held on Medicare. We had lots of hearings. We have had meetings all over the country. We have had focus meetings all over the country. Members have had town hall meetings all over the country. Citizens have had many opportunities to discuss with us this critical and important issue of how to save the Medicare program. So when you hear Members on the other side get up and make believe that some poor senior citizen was arrested because she just wanted to be heard, understand the truth. This was a lobby group, paid for with Federal funds through grants, that was just trying to disrupt the process. That is what occurred the other day. What the committee did was exactly what the Speaker of this House is obliged to do. The committee gave them three warnings, and then had them removed from the room, and they should have done so. We processed the bill from 5 o'clock that day until 11 o'clock that night. We came back at 10 o'clock the next day, and we finished our work at approximately 12:30 midnight the next day. Our committee worked diligently and hard and debated amendment after amendment after amendment, offered mostly by Members on the other side, before we finally produced the Medicare bill for this House to consider next week. I will in a minute begin to discuss with you the merits of that Medicare bill. I want to first yield to my friend from Florida.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. If I can, I want to go back, cross over from Medicare to Medicaid again. I want to remind you all that something happens when you get to Washington that changes you somehow. I hope the freshmen really have a great success in changing the way this place works. When Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, he understood that government mandates, government command, control, all these strings we tie to these programs simply create inefficiencies, paperwork, fraud, abuse, and all kinds of things. He begged the Congress for several years, ``Please get rid of those mandates, send us the money in a block grant, let us run our program in the State of Arkansas, we'll all be better off.'' Guess what we are proposing? We are proposing to do exactly that, to send Medicaid moneys at a 4.9-percent growth rate per year for 7 years. We are planning on sending that to the Stats just as Bill Clinton pled with us to do, without all the strings, with the simple requirement that the plans they submit to carry it out have the same protections for seniors and for poor people that the current Medicaid system does. So what are we doing? We are proposing to do what Bill Clinton wanted to do as Governor. Why on Earth is he opposing it as a President now? Did something happen? Did he drink some water here in the Potomac that changed his mind? I do not know, I do know this. For people to believe that there is a monopoly on caring hearts and intelligent minds in Washington bureaucrats and there are no people at home with caring hearts and intelligent minds, capable of better running these programs is to believe something I have not heard in my district and my State in a long time. The truth is if we do what Bill Clinton wanted as Governor and create these programs with incentives and lack of mandates for people at home to deliver these services the way folks at home know how to deliver them, we are going to be in much better shape. And if we recreate Medicare so that seniors have the kinds of real choices that most other Americans have, they will have better care. If they do not like the new plan, they can stay in the Medicare system as it is. We will make sure it is well-funded. But if they want to go to something better, they will have that choice just like other citizens. Is that not the kindest thing we can do to folks we love who are senior citizens today?

Mr. TAUZIN. For those who complain that this has not been an open process, let me assure you, I have never seen a more open Congress than this one. We have had more bills come in under an open rule, more discussion on this floor than I have ever seen in all my career here. I do not know if you know it, but in the last three Congresses there were seven hearings on Medicaid. In this Congress we have already had seven hearings on Medicaid, as many hearings as three Congresses combined. We need to debate this in the light of day indeed, and we are doing that, and I have never seen more open discussion in all my years. This is a subject every senior has a great interest in, every working American, and we all ought to share in that debate again as we have proposed in the end. We will come up with some answers for America, not just for one party or the other.

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me just point out that we do not need fistfights in the hall, and shouting matches in the hall. [[Page H 9734]] American seniors do not need to be scared to death about this stuff. We need to debate it as adults. They would like to see us have that open debate as adults, trying to find rational solutions to a system about to go bankrupt. The last thing we need to see ever again is another picture of people shouting at each other in the hall. This is not a partisan issue. This is about mothers and fathers and grandfathers and grandmothers and about the working Americans who try desperately to try to earn a payroll enough to support them in their senior years. This is a good debate for us to have and we ought to have it as adults. Americans want to see that. They want to see us start acting like Americans once in a while who want to save this country instead of as partisans fighting in the hallway.

Mr. TAUZIN. The status quo the gentlewoman from Connecticut was defending relies upon us deciding one day to raise taxes dramatically. That is the status quo they are defending. Liberal Democrats have no problem with that. I think most Americans do. To raise the payroll tax sufficient to keep this system out of bankruptcy, we are told, will require a doubling of the payroll tax payments of working Americans by the year 2040. That is how immense the problem is if we do not cure it today. That is their solution. You try to explain that to working Americans who can barely get by on the paycheck today, we are going to double their payroll taxes. That is not going to work. What will work is a system of choice and reform in the Medicare system so that seniors can take advantage of what you and I can take advantage of today, choosing plans that work better for us in a system where cost does count and people are interested in efficiencies and better treatment. I saw an NBC program that centered on a program in Arizona where citizens have the choice there to go to HMO's. They showed some senior citizens telling their story, about how much better care they were getting and how much better treatment they were getting and how much better their lives were under an HMO. They showed New Jersey where Medisave accounts were being used and how citizens there were saying how much it saved them money and really improved their health care system. Those are just two of the options our Medicare proposal will allow seniors in America.

Mr. TAUZIN. We have just handled the Medicaid reforms out of the Committee on Commerce. We are going to take up the Medicare reforms on Monday. We will begin the debate. But let me tell you what the real option is, and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has pointed it out. The option is either fix this system, control costs, and create a better choice for Americans or else raise taxes dramatically to keep this system from bankruptcy. [[Page H 9733]]

Mr. TAUZIN. Even after that 2-year period, senior citizens sign up for a year at a time, so that you choose your plan for the next year. Within that first 2-year period, you can try them all. You can see which one really meets the needs of your circumstances and which one really provides you the best medical care. You may find one where, for example, you find that your drugs are covered. You may find a plan that is better in fact because it includes some dental care that was not available in another plan you were in. The short and sum of it is you can choose as a senior citizen when today you cannot. You have one choice only and the choice you have, the status quo, is about to go bankrupt. What kind of a choice is that?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, one of the neatest parts about our plan is that if any citizen is unhappy with the plan they chose, they can move back.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speakr, I sure do. I joined this revolution in full uniform and armor just a couple of months ago, but there were many conservative Democrats, as you know, that helped to make the contract a reality in this House, and in this House, and in this House in the first 100 days. One of the reasons I think that it was such a successful 100 days, as the gentleman already pointed out, is the incredible zeal, the incredible talent of the new Members who arrived here, the new Republican freshman class, dedicated to one thing more than anything else, and that is to change the way this place works and to find solutions to American problems, rather than just to play party games all day. I have been delighted now to have the chance to work with the new Republican majority for the last several weeks since our August break, and I have been delighted with the temper, with the incredible energy and the organization that I see still burning bright within the party to get this revolution completed. Mr. Speaker, we have only just begun. If we cannot end this session with the real dedication of balancing the budget the way the freshmen came up here so dedicated to do, to saving Medicare from bankruptcy, and to ending welfare as we know it in America, and to building an American system of government where the government is our servant again instead of our master, then shame on us. We have such an opportunity this year. This debate we will be entering into in the next several weeks over how to redefine the systems of health care in America is one of the key ingredients. Now, the President himself has admitted that the Medicare system in America is ready to go bankrupt in 7 years unless we do something dramatic and immediate. The President, as the Governor of Arkansas, pleaded with the Federal Government for many years to change the system of Medicaid to make it one that worked for needy people instead of one that wasted money on mandates that just cost money, just made people work, just created an invitation to fraud and abuse. The Governor Clinton pleaded with us to do exactly what we are now recommending we do in Medicaid reform. During the next several months, as we complete this journey toward a balanced budget, as we debate these critical questions of Medicaid and Medicare reform, and end the system of dependency on welfare in America as we have come to know it as a way of life instead of a stopping off place on the road of life, as we enter into this several months of debate, this will be our finest hour and our severest test as a party and as a people. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to come down today when I heard my colleagues talking, and I wanted to congratulate my colleagues and to urge that we never lose this fire. I am delighted to be a part of it and anxious to see us move on to the final victories.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of and coauthor of several provisions in the manager's amendment offered by the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, I would like to describe intent with respect to some of its provisions. As the author of a similar amendment on resale in full committee, I would like to clarify the meaning of the resale provision in section 242(a)(3), as amended by the manager's amendment. As drafted, local exchange carriers, including the Bell companies, must offer services, elements, features, functions, and capabilities for resale at wholesale rates. Subsection (b) then permits the carrier to prohibit a reseller from offering a service, element, feature, function, or capability obtained at a wholesale rate to a different category of subscribers to which the wholesale rate applies. This provision is intended to permit carriers to continue, at the wholesale level, their tradition of classifying their retail customer services--for example, residential services versus business services and even of subclassifying within such service categories, for example, general residential and lifeline services. By referring only to the resale of services offered at wholesale rates, this provision would not prevent a local exchange carrier from including in its retail residential services tariffs that prohibit a reseller from reselling the retail residential rate to business customers. Many local exchange carriers have such conditions in their tariffs, and many State commissions use such conditions as a way of preserving universal residential services. The commissions require the local companies to offer subsidized residential services to promote universal service. However, the subsidized services are not offered to business customers, who generally are expected to cover the costs of their own services and to defray the shortfall from the subsidized residential customers. If resellers were allowed to resell these subsidized residential retail services for business purposes, the burden on others of universal service would increase. Indeed, the whole system of universal service would be jeopardized. Furthermore, section 242(b)(4)(C) requires that the rates at which the services, elements, features, functions, and capabilities are offered at wholesale pursuant to section 242(a)(3) are to cover the costs of items, including any cost incurred by the local exchange carrier in unbundling those items. Second, in section 245(a)(2)(A), as amended by the manager's amendment, the word ``predominately'' describes the extent that local telephone services are offered by a competing provider over its own telephone exchange service facilities. Included here is a short statement of intent with regard to this provision and specifically how the word ``predominately'' should be construed for legislative history. Third, under section 242(d)(2), the intent of the subparagraph, as amended by the manager's amendment, is to exempt from the joint marketing prohibition all carriers which have in the aggregate less than 2 percent of the presubscribed access lines installed nationwide; that is, competitive access providers such as Teleport and MFS, among others. The word presubscribed is important to identify those carriers exempted from the joint marketing provisions of the bill. Fourth, in section 245(d)(4) of the bill, I would like to clarify the meaning of the ``Standard for Decision'' provision. The subsection provides that the Commission cannot approve a Bell company's application for interLATA or manufacturing relief unless it determines that the company has satisfied certain conditions and that the company's interconnection agreements comply with the act. The Commission is simply required to determine whether the conditions for relief set forth in the law have been met by the particular Bell company. If they have been met, then the Commission must grant the applications. It is not free to require the Bell company to meet other requirements or to withhold approval to achieve some other public policy goal that the Commission might consider important. In effect, we are telling the Commission that if it concludes that the Bell company has complied with the detailed requirements that we set forth in the law, then it must grant the application. It may not apply any public interest test or requirement on its own. Fifth, I want to clarify our position with respect to telephone company entry into video markets. First and foremost, we are interested in competition--increasing consumer choice in programming, providers, services, and rates. I am confident that telephone companies will enter video markets with consumer choice uppermost in their minds. H.R. 1555 encourages video competition and telephone company entry in a number of ways: First, it gives all telephone companies the choice between entering video markets as title II common carriers or as title VI cable operators. We do not intend to impose title II regulation and title VI regulation on telephone companies that enter video markets. Second, whether telephone companies choose the title II option or the title VI option, the bill allows them to provide voice and video services over integrated facilities. Third, if a telephone company chooses to enter the video market as a title II common carrier, and its affiliate provides programming on the telephone company's VDT platform, the bill clarifies that neither the telephone company nor its affiliate will be required to apply for a title VI franchise. Again, this is because we do not intend to impose title II and title VI regulation on telephone companies. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am submitting an article from the July 2 Washington Post describing my concerns about the lack of competition in long distance rates, something I outlined during floor debate on H.R. 1555. ``Predominately'' Section 245, as added by the bill, provides the method by which a Bell company may request authority from the FCC to offer interLATA service on a State-by-State basis. Section 245(a)(2)(A) sets forth an additional requirement to verify that the local exchange is open to competition. There must be at least one competing provider that offers telephone exchange service to business and residence subscribers, either exclusively over its own telephone exchange service facilities or predominantly over its own telephone exchange service facilities in combination with the resale of the services of other carriers. The phrase ``predominantly over its own telephone exchange service facilities'' is intended to ensure that the competing provider is doing more than repackaging and reselling the services of the Bell company. The Commission will establish guidelines for determining whether the ``predominantly'' requirement of section 245(a)(2)(A) has been satisfied. It is my understanding that in setting forth these guidelines the Commission will consider only the local loop and switching facilities used by the competing provider to provide telephone exchange service. It is also my understanding that the competing provider will be deemed to be providing service ``predominantly'' over its facilities if more than 50% of the local loop and switching facilities used by the competing provider to provide telephone exchange service is owned by the competing provider, or owned by entities not affiliated with the Bell company that is applying for interLATA authority. For example, if the competing provider uses a combination of facilities, 25% of such facilities being owned by the competing provider, 26% of such facilities being resold facilities owned by entities not affiliated with the local Bell company, and 49% of such facilities being resold facilities of the local Bell company, then the ``predominantly'' requirement of section 245(a)(2)(A) would be satisfied. If the competing provider uses a combination of facilities, 50% or more of such facilities being resold facilities of the local Bell company and the remainder being owned by the competing provider or obtained from entities not affiliated with the local Bell company, the ``predominantly'' requirement is not satisfied. [From the Washington Post, July 2, 1995] Long-Distance Carriers in a Quandary on discount plans, there's no answer from many customers (By Mike Mills) Night and day, AT&T Corp., MCI Communications Corp. and Spring Corp. pummel each other with often vicious advertising campaigns touting their own discount calling plans as better than the rest. From the [[Page E 1700]] look of it, long-distance rates are heading nowhere but down. But more than 60 percent of the nation's 97 million households don't subscribe to a long-distance discount plan, according to industry estimates--and their rates have been going up. The non-discounted ``basic'' rates that they pay have risen nearly 20 percent since 1991, in part to help finance the discount plans that they're ignoring. This fact is central to a debate over a broad telecommunications bill now before Congress. The country's seven Bell telephone companies, barred from the long-distance business by court order, argue that five times since 1991 the Big Three long-distance carriers have raised ``in lock step'' the basic rates that most Americans pay. The long-distance industry isn't really competitive, they say, and would benefit from the immediate entry of the Bell companies. Long-distance companies counter by saying that's the wrong way to look at it: Most of the country's long-distance calls are made by people on discount plans, they say. Those who aren't on the plans hardly call long distance at all. The Senate last month passed a bill giving the Bells rights to gradually enter the long-distance business. The House is scheduled to take up its version of the bill later this month. In the past 10 years, discount programs have emerged as the chief tool of competition between AT&T, MCI and Spring, which account for about 95 percent of the $75 billion-a-year long- distance industry, according to the Yankee Group research firm. But to belong to such a plan, you have to sign up. ``If you're not on a plan, get on one,'' said Brian Adamik, director of consumer communications at the Yankee Group. The right plan depends on your calling habits, according to the Washington-based consumer group Telecommunications Research & Action Center. The True Savings plan of market leader AT&T, for instance, offers 25 percent to 30 percent off most domestic long- distance calls, as long as you make at least $10 in calls a month. MCI's New Friends and Family matches that, then tosses in 50 percent discounts to customers who call within a ``calling circle'' of relations or pals who also subscribe to MCI. Sprint tries to make things simpler with a flat rate of 10 cents a minute. Time-of-day restrictions often apply. The first question most consumers ask when they see those promises of long-distance discounts is ``based on what?'' The answer is, basic rates, which often rise even as the discounted prices fall. Long-distance carriers say the Bells are focusing on basic rates unfairly, and point to their discount plans as evidence that their industry is competitive. Long-distance rates overall have declined about 70 percent since the AT&T breakup, they said, adding that the Bells should not be allowed into their market until the Bells first show they couldn't use their control of local phone networks, through which most long-distance calls pass, to favor their long-distance services. The question then becomes: How many people pay basic rates--and how many calls do they make? Surveys by AT&T, PNR Associates of Philadelphia and the Yankee Group all arrive at the conclusion that about 60 million households don't belong to a plan. For about half of them, it's hardly worth the bother of signing up: About 30 million spend less than $10 a month on long-distance calls, according to the Yankee Group, and wouldn't benefit from the discount plans, which generally don't provide discounts unless the customer spends at least $10 a month. That leaves about 30 million households that would benefit from joining a plan. But, for a variety of reasons, they don't. ``The typical individual thinks there's something attached,'' said Deanna Weaver of Burke, who recently joined her first discount program. ``There isn't any risk, but some people find it hard to believe.'' Many people also may simply be tuning out the ads. Of 1,000 people surveyed in a recent poll by the public relations company Creamer Dickson Basford, 78 percent said they are tired of ads promising that one calling rate is cheaper than another. To long-distance companies, customers who spend next to nothing every month are the equivalent of people who hog tables at a restaurant and order only soft drinks. In many cases, carriers lose money serving them. AT&T estimates it costs $3 to $5 a month to service a single customer, which includes the cost of billing and payments into various federal telephone funds. People who hardly call at all typically are basic-rate customers. Long-distance companies argue that it's not unfair to edge their rates up, so as to lower the numbers who are money-losing propositions.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Tucker].

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, with the balance of my time let me reiterate a point. Ninety percent of Americans in the USA polls say they are concerned about violence. I think 100 percent of us in this Chamber certainly ought to be concerned about the violence on television, but there are technologies for parents to use right now. Here is one, the Telecommander, and there are others where parents can buy equipment to put on all the televisions, the old ones and the new ones, not just the new ones that are going to be sold, and, if my colleagues do not plan to handcuff their kids to the new television when they leave the house, the V-chip is not going to do them any good. There are other technologies on the market. The networks are prepared to help these inventors, these patenters, to bring to us products like this where we can program our set, where the Government is not setting a program for us, but where parents are doing it, and, when we come right down to it, the choice between the Markey amendment and the Coburn-Tauzin amendment and the Molinari amendment is whether or not my colleagues believe parents ought to be making the choice about what their children see or whether my colleagues believe the Government ought to be doing that with a V-chip installed in every new set that will not work anyhow unless somebody is willing to chain their children to the old set. Mr. Chairman, kids are pretty smart. As my colleagues know, most know how to program these things better than we do, but, more importantly, they are smart enough to know, if only the new set has that control on it, they can just go into the second room and watch the old set. The truth is the technology is there for parents to control all the sets in their house. Parents have that responsibility today. The technology is being developed over 17 years for this patent alone. The technology is on the market, will be more available on the market in the years to come, and, if my colleagues believe that parents ought to make those choices, that Government ought not be involved in censorship and deciding what kind of programming is going to be available for children, then, my colleagues, vote with the Coburn-Tauzin-Molinari amendment. If my colleagues believe Government has that role, if my colleagues trust Government to decide what is offensive to our families, then vote with the Markey amendment. It is that simple. If my colleagues want something that really works, go with the new technologies, go with the programs that allow parents to control all the sets in their house, not just the one set that the Markey amendment will impose the Government standard on. Mr. Chairman, it is that simple a choice. Vote for parents' control rather than Government control. Vote for the Coburn-Tauzin-Molinari amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman to enforce the long-distance restriction on the seven Bell companies, the district court approved the establishment of the so-called local access transport area or LATA system. The drawing of the LATA system is extraordinarily complex and confusing. There are 202 LATA's nationwide; four of them are in Louisiana and they bear no relationship to markets or customers. Yet it is the LATA system that is used to regulate markets and limit customer choices. LATA boundaries routinely split counties and communities of interest. LATA boundaries can even extend across State lines to incorporate small areas of a neighboring State into a given LATA. Louisiana does not have any of these so-called bastard LATA's but our neighboring State to the east, Mississippi, does. Towns and communities in the northwest corner of Mississippi, such as Hernando, are actually part of the Memphis LATA. That's Memphis, TN, not Mississippi. The enforcement of the long-distance restriction on the seven Bell companies and the establishment of the LATA system effectively preempted State jurisdiction over entry and pricing of telecommunications service. In the process, State authority over intrastate inter-LATA telecommunications have been impeded. For example, in Louisiana the Public Service Commission instituted a rate plan that provided K-12 schools with specially discounted rates for high speed data transmission services. With the availability of the education discount, it was contemplated that school districts could upgrade their educational systems, establish computer hook-ups, and tie into their central school board locations to improve and facilitate administrative services. The public school system in Louisiana is aggressively implementing communications technology to improve access to educational resources and streamline administrative processes. There are 64 parishes in Louisiana. Each parish has its own school district. Thirteen of the sixty-four parishes are traversed by a LATA boundary, meaning the school district locations in each parish are divided by the LATA system. Consequently, K-12 schools in the Allen, Assumption, Evangeline, Iberia, Iberville, Livingston, Sabine, St. Charles, St. Helena, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. Mary, Tangipahoa, Vernon, and West Feliciana Parishes are unable to take advantage of the education discount program as intended by the Louisiana Public Service Commission. The LATA boundary effectively prevents the schools in these 13 parishes from linking to the Louisiana Education Network and the Internet as well. These failures are attributable to the fact that the inter-LATA restriction dictates alternative, circuitous routing requirements to link the schools--making the service unaffordable. The chart to my right depicting the scenario of the Vernon Parish School District is just one example of this routing problem. The inability of these 13 school districts to network K-12 schools is denying the students, teachers, and administrators throughout these parishes the opportunity to utilize new tools for learning and teaching. The LATA system arbitrarily segments the telecommunications market. Many business, public, and institutional customers, such as the 13 parish school districts in Louisiana, have locations in different LATA's which makes serving them difficult, costly, and inefficient. In Louisiana, BellSouth has filed tariffs with the Public Service Commission, is authorized to provide the high-speed data transmission services, and would be in a position to offer the services to the 13 school districts at specially discounted rates were it not for the inter-LATA long-distance restriction. In the alternative to BellSouth, to receive the desired service any one of the 13 school districts must resort to the arrangement by which the service is provisioned over the facilities of a long-distance carrier. Typically, this would involve routing the service from one customer location in one LATA to the long- distance carrier's point of presence in that LATA then across the LATA boundary to the carrier's point of presence in the other LATA and then finally to the other customer location to complete the circuit. As the explanation sounds, this alternative route utilizing the long-distance carrier's facilities is less direct, more circuitous, and more costly to the customer than a direct connection between the two customer locations. Of the 13 affected school districts in Louisiana, I have chosen the example of the Vernon Parish schools to show the cost penalizing effect of the inter-LATA restriction. Most of the schools in Vernon Parish are in the Lafayette LATA and are connected by a [[Page H 8458]] network based in Leesville. Unfortunately, two schools in the Hornbeck area are across a LATA boundary and linking them to Leesville is so expensive that Vernon parish has not been able to include them in the network. Hornbeck is only 16 miles from Leesville but it is in a different LATA. BellSouth could provide a direct and economical connection between the Hornbeck schools and Leesville but it is prevented from doing so because of the inter-LATA restriction. Instead, the connection between Hornbeck and Leesville would have to be made through an indirect routing arrangement involving a long- distance carrier, AT&T. In this scenario, the route would run from Hornbeck to Shreveport, then 185 miles across the LATA boundary to Lafayette, before finally reaching Leesville, a total distance of 367 miles. The inter-LATA restriction forces Vernon Parish to use a longer and more expensive route to connect all the schools within its district. If BellSouth was allowed to provide the direct connection between Hornbeck and Leesville, the cost to connect the Hornbeck schools would be almost $48,000 less each year, a savings that could enable the parish to include them in the network. The inter-LATA restriction is imposing a tremendous cost penalty on users of telecommunications and is preventing telecommunications from being used in cost effective and efficient ways. The manager's amendment would make it possible for customers like the Vernon Parish School District to take advantage of the benefits of telecommunications technology by giving them greater choices in service providers. For this reason, the manager's amendment is worthy of your support. The relationship between section 245(a)(2)(A) and 245(a)(2)(B) is extremely important because they are, along with the competitive checklist in section 245(d), the keys to determine whether or not a Bell operating company is authorized to provide interLATA telecommunications services, that are not incidental or grandfathered services. As such, several examples will illustrate how these sections function together. Example No. 1: If an unaffiliated competing provider of telephone exchange service with its own facilities or predominantly its own facilities has requested and the RBOC is providing this carrier with access and interconnection--section 245(a)(2)(A) is complied with. Example No. 2: If no competing provider of telephone exchange services has requested access or interconnection--the criteria in section 245(a)(2)(B) has been met. Example No. 3: If no competing provider of telephone exchange service with its own facilities or predominately its own has requested access and interconnection--the criteria in section 245(a)(2)(B) has been met. Example No. 4: If a competing provider of telephone exchange with some facilities which are not predominant has either requested access and interconnection or the RBOC is providing such competitor with access and interconnection--the criteria in section 245(a)(2)(B) has been met because no request has been received from an exclusively or predominantly facilities based competing provider of telephone exchange service. Subparagraph (b) uses the words ``such provider'' to refer back to the exclusively or predominately facilities based provider described in subparagraph (A). Example No. 5: If a competing provider of telephone exchange with exclusively or predominantly its own facilities, for example, cable operator, requests access and interconnection, but either has an implementation schedule that albeit reasonable is very long or does not offer the competing service either because of bad faith or a violation of the implementation schedule. Under the circumstances, the criteria 245(a)(2)(B) has been met because the interconnection and access described in subparagraph (B) must be similar to the contemporaneous access and interconnection described in subparagraph (A)--if it is not, (B) applies. If the competing provider has negotiated in bad faith or violated its implementation schedule, a State must certify that this bad faith or violation has occurred before 245(a)(2)(B) is available. The bill does not require the State to complete this certification within a specified period of time because this was believed to be unnecessary, because the agreement, about which the certification is required, has been negotiated under State supervision--the State commission will be totally familiar with all aspects of the agreement. Thus, the State will be able to provide the required certifications promptly. Example No. 6: If a competing provider of telephone exchange service requests access to serve only business customers--the criteria in section 245(a)(2)(B) has been met because no request has come from a competing provider to both residences and businesses. Example No. 7: If a competing provider has none of its own facilities and uses the facilities of a cable company exclusively--the criteria in section 245(a)(2)(B) has been met because there has been no request from a competing provider with its own facilities.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey amendment. In 1992 we fought a royal battle on the floor of this House, a battle designed clearly to begin the process of creating competition in the cable programming marketplace. The problem in 1992 was not the lack of Government regulation, although that contributed to the problem in 1992. The problem was that because cable monopoly companies vertically integrated, controlled by the programming and the distribution of cable programming, cable companies could decide not to let competition happen. They could refuse to sell to direct broadcast satellite, they could refuse to sell to microwave systems, they could refuse to sell to alternative cable systems. The result was competition was stifled. The demand rose in this House for reregulation. The good news is that in 1992, despite a veto by the President, this House and the other body overrode that veto, adopted the Tauzin program access provision to the cable bill, and created, for the first time in this marketplace, real competition. Mr. Chairman, are you not excited by those direct broadcast television ads you see on television, where you see a direct satellite now beaming to a dish no bigger than this to homes 150 channels with incredible programming? Are you not excited in rural America that you have an alternative to the cable, or, where you do not have a cable, you now have program access? Are you not excited when microwave systems are announced in your community and when you hear the telephone company will soon be in the cable business? That is competition. Competition regulates the marketplace much better than the schemes of mice and men here in Washington, DC. Consumers choosing between competitive offerings, consumers choosing the same products offered by different suppliers, in different stores, in the same town. Keep prices down, keep service up. Competition, yes; reregulation, no. [[Page H 8474]]

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I have with me a small chart that shows the result of judge-made law when it comes to telecommunications. What we just debated on the manager's amendment was to end the system of the LATA lines, the lines on the map drawn by the judge regulating communications policy in America. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those LATA lines, a line of restriction of competition. This line runs through Louisiana, through one of my parishes in Louisiana, separating the town of Hornbeck and Leesville. Mr. Chairman, they are in the same parish. The school board in that parish, in order to communicate from one office to the other, has to buy a line that runs from Shreveport to Lafayette back to Leesville at a cost per year of $43,000 more than they would have to pay if they could simply call 16 miles across these two communities. Mr. Chairman, the court-ordered line has cost that school board $43,000. This is the kind of court-made law we avoid in this bill. Let us not give it back to the Justice Department. Let us write communications law in this Chamber.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I think it is important tonight, as we celebrate the work of Committee on Commerce and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] in particular, we also give due credit to the incredible preliminary work done over the years by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the former chairman of the Committee on Commerce. Much of the work that is in this bill reflects efforts that were made over the years by Mr. Dingell, and he deserves much credit for this bill tonight. I rise in support of H.R. 1555. Recently the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], and I had the opportunity to discuss telecommunications policy with government officials from several South American countries. During one of those discussions with the FCC counterpart in Chile, we asked that gentleman where in his country's communication infrastructure did they need the most investment, hoping to get some signal about where America and American companies could interact with that country in doing those investments. The gentleman who represents the FCC in Chile responded astonishingly. He said, That is not my business; it is up to the consumers and our companies to make those decisions. He reminded us of a lesson we forgot in telecommunications policy for many years, that consumers and companies making choices in a free marketplace where competition governs instead of court orders and regulations set on high here in Washington generally benefits the consumer much more than the best laid plans of mice and men here in Washington, DC. He reminded us about our own free enterprise system, and H.R. 1555 reminds us about the values of competition. It remarkably keeps the program access provisions we adopted in 1992 that has produced the satellites that are now sending direct broadcast television signals to homes all over America in rural parts of this country where cable never reached. It has produced for us competition in areas where people only had one provider of television, one provider of telephones and all of a sudden now there are choices coming to them. This bill will produce more of those choices. It has the possibility of several million new jobs for Americans, as we develop these new technologies and the new choices for our citizens. It will reach rural areas that we have been trying to force companies to reach. It will reach them by the sheer force of the free market, because now with multiple services, it will be profitable to serve communities as small as 12 people, when we could not serve them with a mere telephone, even under universal service. This bill will do more to bring us together as a country by linking us together with communication, education, information, recreational programming, data services, including medicine at home and education at home for people who never saw education. This bill is a good bill. It deserves our endorsement.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] said it. Bureaucrats at EPA are out of control. We have not been in control, either, for many years. The bureaucrats and their environmental lobby friends have controlled this agenda for too long. They have seen to it that for years we could not bring reforms to ESA, reforms to clean water, wetlands regulation, cost-benefit analysis, property rights issues. They and their friends have dictated the agenda in this body for too long, and let me surprise the Members, we are not yet in control. If Members want to see property rights passed into law, then Members had better defeat this amendment. If they want to see cost-benefit analysis become law, they had better defeat this amendment. If they want to see revisions of wetlands regulations in the clean water, the litigation mess we have created in Superfund reform, if they want to see a decent ESA Act passed, Endangered Species Act passed, reform; if they want to see any of these laws, they had better vote against this amendment. This bill is our only chance to control the bureaucrats out of control. Why? Because if we do not control their money, they control the veto pen. The President has promised a veto on [[Page H 7946]] property rights. He has threatened a veto on clean water. He has already, and his friends, delayed consideration of cost-benefit analysis regulatory reform. I urge Members to vote against this amendment if they want any of these things done. It is our only chance to control the agenda.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, this bill is exactly what Corrections Day ought to be about. The scientific community says that San Diego's treatment facility is as good or better than secondary treatment requirements under the technicalities of the Clean Water Act. The scientific community agrees that they should not have to do what the technicalities require, because they are doing as good or a better job than the technicalities. And yet, the community has to spend millions of dollars every 5 years to get a waiver, which they may or may not get depending upon who is in charge of the EPA. Mr. Speaker, not only does the scientific community agree that they should not be required to do this secondary treatment, but the California EPA agrees and the local Sierra Club agrees. And yet, the community still has to spend taxpayer dollars to get someone in EPA to agree every 5 years. Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what Corrections Day ought to be about. This bill ought to pass. We ought to end this stupid technical requirement when the science says it is unnecessary.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. My friend the gentleman from Hawaii has asked some legitimate questions. Let me try to answer them if I can right now. First, the Secretary of the Interior currently has the authority in new leases to grant initial royalty holidays based upon water depths. The notion is that we can and in fact in the next 5-year lease plan, the leases will contain royalty relief for these deep water drills. Why? Because they will not occur without some royalty relief. Louisiana has recognized the same thing in our State and has granted royalty relief to get wells drilled that would not otherwise be drilled. The Secretary has the authority as to new leases and intends to exercise it. Second, he is not sure of his authority in regard to current leases where drills are not going to occur unless some royalty relief is provided. He is asking for a clarification of that authority. In fact, the Clinton administration and the Secretary of the Interior supports what the Senate has done in S. 158 which was negotiated at the end of the last Congress and is not contained in the Senate version of the bill we are debating now. The motion to instruct would invalidate what the Secretary of the Interior and the Clinton administration want to see happen and in fact have encouraged the Senate to include in the bill we are debating. What do they want to include? They want to include a provision that clarifies the Secretary's authority to grant royalty relief on existing leases in deep waters of the central and western Gulf of Mexico only in those areas where drills would not occur but for this royalty relief. In short, what the Secretary is asking for, and these are his words through Bob Armstrong, the Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior: We support S. 158. It is consistent with the administration's objectives. The deep water areas of the gulf contain some of the most promising exploratory targets in the United States but industry confronts substantial economic and technological challenges to bringing it into production. The responsible and orderly development of these resources are in the national interest. [[Page H 7582]] Our Interior Secretary is asking for this clarification. The Senate has provided it in the bill. The motion to instruct would eliminate it. We ought to vote against this motion to instruct. Why is it important to have this clarification? Because without it, the Secretary may not be able to in fact provide the same royalty holiday that he is going to provide in the new lease program on current leases that are not going to be developed without this authority. The expectation is that if the Senate provision is adopted later on when the conference reports or later on by action of this House as well, that we are likely to see at least two new fields, and the Secretary of the Interior has said probably 12 new fields are going to be brought in that would not be brought in otherwise. What does that mean? That means that we are not going to get that production unless this royalty relief is provided just as the Secretary has concluded new leases are not going to be developed in the next 5 years without some assistance to make sure that those leases are brought forward, some royalty relief. Does it mean we are giving up the royalty income indefinitely? No. It simply means that a royalty holiday is provided to get the project started. What is the effect of it? The effect is that if you bring in leases that would not otherwise be developed, the Nation gets the benefit of that oil. Second, once the leases are in production and the royalty holiday is over, the Government then begins collection the money. The likelihood is tat the Treasury will collect millions upon millions of dollars that it would not otherwise collect because the leases would never get drilled. It is that simple. We in Louisiana who have been from time to time the No. 1 gas- producing State in America, the Nos. 2, 3 or 4 depending upon whose calculations and what kind of depression we are in oil-producing State in America, we in Louisiana have come to understand that. We give royalty relief for the same reason, to get the wells drilled. Once they are drilled and production is on board, the royalty holiday is over, then the people of Louisiana start collecting not only the benefits of the jobs and the production but the royalties from those fields that would not otherwise be drilled. The Secretary of the Interior is asking for that same authority. It is on the administration's request now that the Senate has included this language. To adopt this motion to instruct is to go against the wishes of the administration and against the national interest. I ask that Members oppose the motion to instruct.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I rise in support of House bill 70. It is rare that I get a chance to speak in favor of a Clinton administration policy initiative, and I do not want to miss that chance today. I want also to associate my comments with the gentleman from Ohio, who did an excellent job of pointing out what is wrong with current policy. The reason current policy discourages jobs, discourages domestic production, discourages the use of American bottoms and tankers and discourages the maritime jobs that, in fact, this bill will help promote itself because current law is based upon the policy of artificial restraints in the marketplace. There is a reason why we lost almost 200,000 jobs in Louisiana. There is a reason why the oil and gas industry in America lost nearly 400,000 workers. There is a reason why so many oil and gas jobs have left this country. So many companies are, in fact, investing everywhere else in the world in oil and gas exploration and development and sales. The reason has been artificial restraints on the marketplace imposed upon the industry by this body and by regulatory bodies here in Washington, DC. Now, Congress has come to understand that. That is why over the last decade we have begun the process of repealing most of those artificial restraints. It was artificial price supports in the marketplace that led to the gas shortages in this country in the last several decades. It was artificial price penalties in the form of windfall profit taxes, about 90-percent windfall profit taxes, that drove so many companies outside of the arena of American production. it is still artificial restraints upon production led by environmentalists who put limits on offshore development, who will not let us develop the Arctic reserves in the Arctic wildlife national reserve. It is still those artificial restraints which caused so many companies to look elsewhere around the world for opportunities to produce energy, and it is those artificial restraints which have put us in a position today where we are more dependent upon foreign sources of energy than ever in our Nation's history. The White House has caught on. The administration has figured it out. The gentleman from Ohio gave you the numbers. Removing this one little artificial restraint will do a lot of good for Alaska production, will do a lot of good for California production, will add one modicum of support for domestic production again here in this country. There are other artificial restraints we ought to look at. We ought to look at the artificial restraints which make it almost impossible to develop many offshore areas in America, that put off limits large areas rich in hydrocarbon resources in Alaska and other areas of this country. When we had the 5-year leasing plan before our Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, when we still had a committee, the gentleman representing the administration years ago came forward to tell us there was still going to be maintained in the law moratoriums in drilling offshore. We said ``Why?'' He said, ``Well, we are trying to identify the highly environmentally sensitive areas and the low hydrocarbon areas.'' We asked him, ``Well, if you find an area high in hydrocarbon, low in environmental concerns, will you allow those to be drilled?'' He said, ``Well, not quite. We have got some of those off limits, too.'' He could not explain it except in politics terms. The bottom line is politics, Federal regulations, artificial restraints have put this country in a vulnerable position today, and today we have an opportunity to at least remove one of those artificial restraints, and removing this one artificial restraint will help to some degree, will help Alaska, will help California, and in the large measure, as my friend from Ohio has pointed out, help us all in jobs again, helps us all in restoring some semblance of domestic incentive to produce again for this Nation. This is a good bill. I commend it to you. I am proud to cosponsor it. We need to pass it and get it into conference committee. Yes, my friend from California, I hope in conference committee we begin to debate an incentive policy for deep offshore drilling. If this country ever needs something, it is to turn around the disincentives we have had for decades and create some incentives again to produce for America. We ought to debate that in conference. Tomorrow I will be filing a bill comparable to Senator Bennett Johnston's bill on the Senate side to do just that. It is time for us to recognize that America cannot remain dependent upon foreign sources, that incentivizing the industry here at home makes sense, and removing artificial barriers to production, exploration, development, and refining in this country make good sense for this country, too. I hope never again to have to vote to send young Louisiana boys and girls to war in the Persian Gulf because they could not get a job in America producing energy for this country. It is time we start turning that around.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].