[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9932-H9937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MULTICHANNEL VIDEO COMPETITION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1998

  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.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2921

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Multichannel Video 
     Competition and Consumer Protection Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. DIRECT-TO-HOME SATELLITE PIRACY PREVENTION.

       Section 705(d)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 605(d)(6)) is amended by inserting ``or direct-to-home 
     satellite services (as defined in section 303(v))'' after 
     ``satellite cable programming''.

     SEC. 3. TEMPORARY STAY OF SATELLITE ROYALTY FEE INCREASE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Copyright 
     Office shall not before December 31, 1999, implement, 
     enforce, collect, or award copyright royalty fees pursuant to 
     the decision of the Librarian of Congress on October 28, 
     1997, which established a royalty fee of $0.27 per subscriber 
     per month for the retransmission of distant broadcast signals 
     by satellite carriers, and no obligation or liability for 
     copyright royalty fees shall accrue before December 31, 1999, 
     pursuant to that decision. This section shall not affect 
     implementing, enforcing, collecting, or awarding copyright 
     royalty fees pursuant to the royalty fee structure affected 
     by the decision, as it existed prior to October 28, 1997.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).


                             General Leave

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on this legislation.

[[Page H9933]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, today I am delighted to bring to the floor for Members' 
consideration H.R. 2921, the Multichannel Video Competition and 
Consumer Protection Act of 1998. I want to commend the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for his leadership in bringing this bill to 
the floor, and my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), the ranking member, for his kind and gracious support and 
assistance.
  I introduced the bill in November of last year to address the 
inequitable decision of the Copyright Arbitration Rate Panel to 
increase the copyright fees that are paid by the direct broadcast 
satellite providers. This decision has resulted in increased rates for 
every DBS dish consumer in America.
  To date, the bill has garnered 157 cosponsors, representing Members 
from all parts of our Nation. The bill has substantially bipartisan 
support because it does the right thing, it protects consumers and 
promotes competition in the video marketplace.
  H.R. 2921 delays the impact of copyright fees that are paid by 
satellite providers and ultimately by consumers for distant network 
signals and superstations.
  The Librarian of Congress made a decision to raise the rates of 
satellite services to 27 cents per subscriber for superstation and 
distant network signals. This rate compares to the rate of 9.7 cents 
per subscriber for superstations, and 2.7 cents for network signals 
that cable operators pay.
  In effect, the satellite carriers, and thus, their consumers, are 
currently paying almost 270 percent more than cable for superstations, 
and 900 percent more for network signals. This enormous disparity in 
the copyright fees paid for the exact same signals has resulted in 
major rate increases for consumers, and has hurt the direct broadcast 
satellite industry's ability to compete with cable.
  The bill rolls back these copyright rates paid by the DBS service 
providers to the rate they were prior to the decision of the court or 
the Librarian of Congress' panel. This rollback will extend from the 
period beginning January 1, 1998, until December 31, 1999.
  Why are we doing this? We have seen the rapid development of the home 
satellite industry. Today direct broadcast satellite providers are 
offering consumers hundreds of programming channels in various 
packages. In part, these DBS companies have helped to keep cable 
companies from raising their rates, encourage them to improve their 
services, and to upgrade their networks.
  I do not have to tell Members how all three are seriously important 
to America's consumers. At a time when we need more, not less, 
competition in the video marketplace, we should not be burdening the 
DBS industry and its consumers with unnecessary and arbitrary 
additional costs.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cable rates have risen 
three times faster than the rate of inflation since the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed. As we approach March 31, 
1999, next year, when pursuant to that act cable will be deregulated, 
it is becoming increasingly clear that Congress has to consider 
legislation to further promote competition for the cable industry.
  I find it far preferable to promote true and meaningful competition 
for cable, and thus to let competitive marketplaces drive the prices 
down for consumers, than it is for us to constantly regulate. That is 
why it is so important to pass this bill. This bill declares a time out 
on the Librarian's decision until we can determine its impact on 
consumers and the video marketplace.
  This is an appropriate and measured response to the CARP panel's 
decision, and I hope this Congress will move this bill, give us a 
chance to make sure that next year we have the opportunity to ensure 
that more competition is available, more choice is available to 
America's television consumers, so that in fact better prices, better 
terms, better services become the wave of the future, rather than 
increase prices in a situation where customers have no other choice but 
to choose one service provider.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in wholehearted support of this very important 
legislation, and I rise first to praise the chairman of our 
subcommittee, which my long observation of him has led to I think the 
conclusion, not only by me but by everyone who observes this whole area 
of telecommunications policy, that he is the leading satellite samurai 
warrior in Congress. He of all Members has led the battle to ensure 
that the satellite industry will be able to compete and to provide 
vigorous competition for the cable industry, the product and the 
pricing that revolutionizes the way in which we receive video in this 
country.
  Now, I give him credit, but I know that the real inspiration is and 
always has been his father, who is the original satellite philosopher 
of Cajun country. He instilled a philosophy of competition into the 
gentleman from Louisiana which I deeply appreciated, and have been 
educated to appreciate, since we have about the same number of 
satellite dishes in my congressional district as we have hydroelectric 
dams. These are phenomenon that we have to have explained to us from 
Members in other parts of the country.
  Now because of the gentleman from Louisiana, we have been able to 
introduce a revolution, a revolution not of 8-foot dishes that we need 
a zoning variance to put in our backyards.

                              {time}  1945

  Of course that is possible in Iowa or Louisiana, Oklahoma. But not in 
Boston. Not three-decker homes with 8-foot dishes hanging off the back. 
That is not going to work.
  But the vision was of 18-inch dishes, dishes that could be put 
between the petunias out in the backyard, hanging off of the back of 
the three-decker. But to do that requires programming that is 
available, HBO, ESPN, and programming that is affordable.
  Interestingly, and I am sure it comes as somewhat of a mystery to 
most Members of Congress and without question to most Americans, it is 
the Library of Congress that determines the price that people pay for 
this programming. Now, tell me who is going to get that answer on 
Jeopardy? I do not think so. I think we could put that question up 
almost every other week and continue to stump people.
  So, because of the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana, we 
bring legislation today that helps to make it possible for us to ensure 
that there is a pricing scheme that reflects the fair market.
  Now, the Library of Congress says, ``We determine what the fair 
market price is.'' And, of course, the response that we make is how can 
they determine that? The cable marketplace is a monopoly. There is no 
fair market that exists in the cable universe as it exists today.
  Now, we hope to reach the point in time where telephone companies and 
electric companies and multipoint distribution systems from other 
sources provide competition. But while we are waiting, we have to be 
very conscious of the fact that we are still devising the mechanism by 
which this marketplace is competitive.
  The legislation which the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the distinguished member of 
both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary, 
bringing the wisdom of both committees to this process, helped to 
construct out here on the floor, I think helps us, at least over the 
next year, to buy the time we need in order to get an honest and fair 
resolution of this issue.
  It is my hope that in the course of this evening, listening to my 
colleagues who are so wise on these issues from the hollows of southern 
Virginia to the bayou country in Louisiana, that we can produce a bill 
tonight that helps to advance the cause of a truly competitive video 
marketplace.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). I 
have been called a lot of things, but John Belushi or not, but I 
appreciate

[[Page H9934]]

that reference. The fact of the matter, it was my friend from 
Massachusetts who was there by my side, shoulder to shoulder, battling 
for the rights of satellite consumers to have the right to programming 
in this Chamber in 1992 that gave birth to these small dishes. And he 
did so, as he said, when very few of his consumers relied on satellite 
reception of television. With so many in Virginia, where the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), my good friend, lives, and those of us in 
bayou country, and in Colorado, the State of the gentleman that I am 
about to introduce, have to rely on satellite signals live.
  It is really a credit to the gentleman from Massachusetts that he 
learned how important it was to folks in rural countries like ours to 
have satellite television reception. I want to tell my colleagues that 
he learned that by coming to my home in Chackbay with me where my 
mother fed him a Cajun meal. And I have often threatened, when he was 
not with me on a bill, to explain to him what he ate that night and 
coerce him to join me in an effort. But he has always been there by our 
side on this issue, and I want to commend him and particularly my 
friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), for his help.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Dan Schaefer), another great friend. But I also want to say, Mr. 
Speaker, how sadly our Committee on Commerce is going to miss not only 
his friendship, but his service to this country and his incredibly 
talented and gifted service to the Committee on Commerce. The gentleman 
from Colorado is not just a close personal friend of all of us on both 
sides of the aisle, but he has been a great Congressman for his State 
and country, and we will miss him dearly.
  (Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2921. This is a 
situation where a lot of talk has been made about cable television rate 
increases. Last year, the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, 
in a report to Congress found that noncable television programmers, 
i.e., wireless cable and DBS, continue to experience substantial rates 
of growth.
  However, the FCC report found that noncable television programmers, 
particularly Direct Broadcast Satellite operators, face several 
obstacles as they compete for television viewers. One of the most 
substantial obstacles is the Copyright Office-mandated increase in the 
copyright royalty fees that multichannel video programming operators 
pay to retransmit broadcast network and superstation signals to their 
consumers.
  In September of 1997, the Copyright Arbitration Rate Panel increased 
satellite broadcasters' rates, as has already been said, from 6 cents 
per subscriber per month for broadcast network signals and 14 cents per 
subscriber per month for superstation signals, to 27 cents per 
subscriber per month for retransmission of both signals. Meanwhile, the 
statutory prescribed rate for cable transmission remains at 2.7 cents 
per subscriber per month for network signals and 9.7 cents per 
subscriber per month for superstation signals.
  Mr. Speaker, I cosponsored this particular piece of legislation and 
am a strong supporter of it because it will roll back the copyright 
fees paid by satellite broadcasters to its past level. This will give 
us time to enact other legislation that will promote competition for 
the consumers in this country in the multichannel video programming 
industry and give consumers greater choices.
  I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding and for this 
excellent piece of legislation that has been brought out of our 
committee.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the exceptionally 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I want to express appreciation to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his leadership on this 
measure and for yielding this time to me. I also want to thank my 
friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, for 
his very fine work on this measure. He has contributed substantially to 
resolving a major problem, and I want to thank him very much for his 
efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation which will 
remove a major hindrance that exists today to the arrival of viable 
competition in the multichannel video marketplace.
  As Members of Congress, we are hearing complaints every day from our 
constituents about cable television rates, the high level of those 
rates at the present time, and the fact that cable television rates are 
going up faster than the price of most of the products and services in 
the American economy. In fact, in many communities, cable TV rates are 
even increasing faster than the price of health care services.
  Many of us believe that while some measure of rate regulation may be 
necessary in the interim period in order to address those problems of 
rates, over the long-term the right answer, and the best approach to 
addressing the concerns of ever-increasing cable television rates, is 
to bring competition into that market and make sure that the consumers 
of multichannel video services have a choice and have viable 
alternatives. Many of us also see the satellite industry as being the 
most viable immediate competitor for the cable industry.
  Unfortunately, the regulation that was issued last year by the 
Copyright Office in the Library of Congress places a major barrier in 
the way of the arrival of that competition because it imposes copyright 
fees for the delivery of material over satellites that are many times 
greater than the fees imposed upon cable systems for the delivery of 
exactly the same programming.
  In fact, with regard to network signals, the fees will be nine times 
greater when imposed upon satellite deliverers of this programming than 
upon cable systems, and with regard to superstation signals, the 
difference is three times, three times more for the satellite carrier 
than for the cable company.
  This discrepancy also disproportionately affects the rural consumers 
of satellite services because most of the satellite dishes are found in 
rural America today. And as a representative of a rural district, that 
fact has particular resonance with me.
  The amount of this charge per year for every consumer of satellite 
services is about $20. That is the amount of the increase imposed by 
the Copyright Office, and so it is not an inconsiderable amount of 
money.
  The legislation before us would impose a freeze on the imposition of 
these disproportionate and unwise fees until the end of 1999, and that 
gives us an opportunity here in the Congress to establish a mechanism 
that will assure that the same fee is imposed upon satellite systems 
and cable systems and other providers of multichannel video services so 
that we have fairness, we have balance, and through the copyright fees 
we do not favor one provider of these services over others.
  It is a very wise approach. I commend the gentleman from Louisiana 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts for bringing the measure forward, 
and I urge its approval by the House.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Burr) from the Committee on Commerce, and a dear 
friend.
  (Mr. BURR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 2921. This legislation delays for 18 months CARP's 
decision to increase royalties paid by satellite carriers on 
retransmission of network broadcasts. During this period, we will have 
time to examine the impact that an increase will have on consumer rates 
and on competition.
  While copyright holders certainly deserve compensation for the use of 
their signal, rate adjustments should not be used to create competitive 
disadvantages. By passing this bill, we will help ensure fairness for 
rural viewers who cannot receive over-the-air broadcast and live in 
areas not served by cable TV.

[[Page H9935]]

  I would also like to take this opportunity to add that we could help 
all satellite subscribers by enacting legislation like my SALSA bill, 
which allows DBS providers to retransmit local TV stations to their 
local markets. This will provide a long-term solution to problems 
highlighted by recent court cases.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 
2921, and to continue working on the other outstanding issues facing 
the satellite TV industry.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to commend the gentleman's 
statement and to pledge to him my continued efforts to see to it that 
we do pass local-into-local legislation in the next Congress. That will 
give the satellite providers a chance to offer local signals in that 
satellite package. That, in essence, would give much more coverage and 
competition to rural consumers. I will assist in every way to make that 
happen.
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, like 
this legislation, that would protect consumers, and I look forward to 
additionally protecting consumers with the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just, in conclusion, to compliment the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). This is a part of an overall strategy that we 
have to construct if we are, in fact, going to introduce real 
competition into the video marketplace.

                              {time}  2000

  The cable company remains largely a monopoly in 97 percent of our 
country. The telephone companies, after promising in the 1996 
Telecommunications Act that they were going to, by the year 2000, 
provide a second wire, second video service in almost every community 
in America, have pulled back from that commitment. I think that in this 
satellite area, though, we have a real potential to provide an 
alternative, not just for rural, not just for the most suburban 
communities in America, but for urban America.
  And I think that in exploring this whole question of whether or not a 
local television station, here in Washington Channel 4, 5, 7, 9, and 
50, can be carried by a satellite and beamed right back into the homes 
in that viewing area holds the key to whether or not we are going to 
give consumers, cable consumers, disgruntled, unhappy cable consumers 
across this country, the ability to just disconnect their cable company 
and, instead, just subscribe to an 18-inch satellite dish service with 
the local broadcast stations as well.
  I have introduced, with the leadership of the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), 
legislation that we are hoping that we will be able to move in the 
future that will make that possible. Because I know it is very 
frustrating to cable consumers across the country to know that if they 
disconnect their cable and move to satellite today they lose their 
local broadcast stations. That is frustrating to them because they 
really do want to disconnect in millions of homes across the country. 
And working with the gentleman from Louisiana to create a way in which 
we can get those local stations up on satellite, and to deal with this 
white area issue, to deal with the issue of who can receive the distant 
signals, is something that I think is absolutely critical.
  I am pledging my continued assistance to the gentleman from 
Louisiana. I have been his partner now for the past 17 or 18 years on 
this issue, and I have now become an urban Pioneer.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I think we could be called urban samurais.
  Mr. MARKEY. Well, Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not know what 
we would be called there, but I will work with the gentleman to make it 
possible.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
just want my colleagues to know that the gentleman makes such an 
important statement. Competition to cable is not real until the local 
signals are part of the package.
  We all know that the local television signals are the part of the 
television that is watched the most. They are the programs that people 
most desire in that package. And when they cannot get those local 
signals from the satellite distributor, they have to receive, instead, 
long-distance signals.
  Now, the awful truth about what the librarian did was to say to 
satellite consumers that not only are they to be penalized by not 
having the local signals, but they are going to have to pay more than 
the cable subscriber for these long-distance signals, just to hit them 
one more time. That is so unfair.
  Getting this straightened out in this bill is important, but my 
friend makes such a valid point. This is but one of the many pieces of 
the puzzle we have to solve in order to make sure that consumers in 
America have real choices in true packages that contain both the local 
signals and all the other wonderful cable programming that the cable 
industry rightfully takes great pride in having provided to America.
  I pledge to my friend the same partnership we have enjoyed for many 
years to put all those pieces together.
  Mr. MARKEY. Once again reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say 
in conclusion that I am looking forward to working with the gentleman, 
as his urban and suburban samurai sidekick, in making it possible for 
us to bring this revolution to every American in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns), another distinguished member of our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  I say to my colleagues that we are here, roughly at 8 o'clock at 
night, and there are not a lot of people on the House floor, but what 
we are doing this evening is extremely important, particularly for 
those Americans not just in the suburbs or in the urban areas, but also 
in rural parts of the United States, which I represent, who have 
satellites. And they are out there trying to get their picture and they 
do not realize that this CARP, this Copyright Arbitration Royalty 
Panel, increased the royalty charge to the satellite companies so 
tremendously, so egregiously, that it almost put them out of business. 
So the people in the rural part of the United States, particularly in 
central Florida, will be impacted tremendously.
  It is fundamentally important that this bill that we are here talking 
about tonight go forward, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
is doing a whale of a job to make this point. Because what really we 
are talking about is government increasing the cost of services and 
eliminating competition. And if we did not have this bill tonight, and 
we did not put this 18-month moratorium on, then what would happen is 
the government would increase this and the share of satellite would go 
down.
  In fact, I have here a graph that in 1997 the satellite industry had 
about 11 percent of the market and they were paying about 22 percent of 
the distribution fees. One year later, after CARP, this Copyright 
Arbitration Royalty Panel, increases the fees tremendously, the 
satellite share is now at 12 percent. Only increased 1 percent, yet 
their amount of distribution fees went up to 39 percent.
  So I mean there is a clear example of government stepping in, 
increasing the cost, with the help and approval of the Librarian of 
Congress, as the gentleman mentioned, and so we are going to knock out 
all competition for satellite. Simply tripling the royalty fees is 
unfair. It was no gradual matter. It just came in in a whoosh, tripled 
these royalty fees, and, in the end, people in the rural part of the 
United States will not be able to afford satellites because the 
satellite companies will pass these charges on.
  So Congress basically has to ensure that the satellite services have 
a financial foothold in order to make a lasting competitive challenge. 
Without this bill, without the efforts of the chairman we would not 
have that opportunity tonight.

[[Page H9936]]

  We will return next year, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) mentioned, and pass legislation to allow the satellite customer 
to get local-to-local service so they can have their local channels 
beamed directly to their homes. But I am hoping tonight that we can 
move forward and that the Senate, by unanimous consent, will pass this 
tomorrow. There is no reason not to. There is no controversy involved 
here. We should get this passed so that the competition in the 
satellite industry will increase, and I again commend the chairman for 
his efforts.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 
to me.
  In the course of the debate I did not properly mention the work that 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. John Dingell), on our side, and the 
work also done by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Bliley), on the 
majority side, to help to formulate this policy, because it has been 
long in the making. We still have much more work to do, but we could 
not have done it without their able work, as well as the work of our 
staffers. We have David Schooler and Andy Levin and Colin Crowell on my 
staff; and Justin Lilley and Whitney Fox, it is like an all-time all-
star team on the gentleman's side, that have worked together to make 
these policies come to pass.
  I just wanted to publicly recognize them for all the excellent work 
which they have done.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  Let me indeed indicate that this is but one step. Our staff and our 
committee, our chairman and our ranking member, are indeed to be 
commended for taking us down the right path. We have much work to do. I 
want to pledge to my colleagues as we complete work on this bill that 
they will hear and see from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) and I again as we approach the date of March next year when 
cable is set to be deregulated.
  We will be presenting, hopefully, for this House to consider, various 
options on how to make sure competition is really available for the 
American consumer, who, in many parts of America, is given one choice 
when it comes to cable, take it or leave it. That is not a good 
American choice. In a good American marketplace it means various 
choices, good prices, better service. That is the kind of marketplace 
the Committee on Commerce is committed to developing for the television 
consumers of America, and we will not stop until that is done.
  Mr. Speaker, would the Chair indicate how much time we have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin) has 4 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) has yielded his time back.
  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.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill. It is 
something of an irony that I do, since at my house we do not have 
cable, we do not have a satellite dish, and we barely have a 
television. But I like this bill because it seems to delay things until 
folks can sort out exactly what is fair and what is equitable in order 
to enhance competition, which is the American way.
  I commend my colleague for bringing this forward and the chairman of 
the committee for bringing it forward to increase competition and to 
make sure that there is a level playing field for all of those who 
provide services to our homes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, when I was going down the litany of saints 
who helped to make the satellite policy possible, I did forget Hugh 
Halpern and I forgot to mention Mike O'Rielly. And I think in order for 
us to have a complete and definitive list of those who labored in the 
vineyards for this competition in the video marketplace, that they all 
be listed at this time, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is indeed 
gracious in remembering all those who helped us so diligently day and 
night to make this bill come true, and we deeply appreciate that.
  Let me say in conclusion that this bill is but one step. I want to 
make a point that I think all Members of Congress should be aware of, 
and that is there is nothing in our policy that in any way denigrates 
from the great work that cable has done in bringing new programming, in 
bringing extensive and delightful varieties of programming to America. 
Indeed, we are very grateful for that.
  We are simply saying in this policy that for those who decide to 
receive that programming on a satellite transmission rather than over a 
cable, or over the air, as in New Orleans, or in Atlanta in a 
terrestrial air distribution system, those consumers are entitled to 
equal treatment. We should not be putting copyright fees that are three 
times and nine times as high on a consumer simply because they choose 
to receive that wonderful programming one way or another.
  Secondly, we are saying that, in the end, this Congress will be faced 
with the choice of either reregulating cable, because it does not have 
a competitor, or we will have successfully provided for Americans the 
chance to regulate that marketplace by themselves deciding which of the 
methods of transmission they prefer, whether satellite, terrestrial 
wireless, or cable, or several cable systems in their community. To me, 
I hope to all of us, the best solution is to give Americans those 
choices.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and our chairman, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), and our ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), are all committed to making sure 
that in the end America decides the right way to have more choices and 
less regulation in this important marketplace.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2921.
  It is important to note that the bill we are considering today is a 
short-term fix to a greater problem. The greater problem is how do we 
encourage more competition to cable television so consumers can get 
more choices and not be held capitive to ever-increasing rates? The 
answer to that question is not simple, and it is one the Commerce 
Committee continues to grapple with. What is clear, however, is that 
emerging alternatives to cable, like satellite television, should not 
be put at a competitive disadvantage to incumbent monopolies. That 
problem is one that we are attempting to fix, in part, today.
  Both cable and satellite television operators are required to pay 
copyrights royalties fees for the right to carry distant broadcast 
signals at ``superstations.'' Last year, a ruling by the Librarian of 
Congress required satellite television operators to pay almost three 
times the amount of money that cable operators pay--for the same 
programming. Obviously this is unfair, and flies in the face of 
Congressional policy to make sure that similar telecommunciations 
services are subject to similar rules and regulations.
  This bill would freeze the copyright rates at preexisting levels to 
that parity continues between these competitors. Of course, the hard 
question remains: at what level should the rates be set for both cable 
and satellite television operators when the freeze mandated by this 
bill expries next December? The answer to that question must be 
evaluated in the context of several other important issues, such as 
whether satellite operators should be allowed to transmit local 
broadcast stations and, if so, whether traditional ``must carry'' rules 
should apply.
  If we are to achieve the goal of the Telecommunications Act to open 
up all markets to competition, and free consumers from the tether of 
cable television monopolies in the process, we must address these 
issues comprehensively and quickly.
  I thank Chairman Bliley and Subcommittee Chairman Tauzin for their 
leadership on the rate freeze issue before us today, and look forward 
to working with them to resolve these larger competitive concerns next 
year.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2921, as amended.

[[Page H9937]]

  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to promote 
the competitive viability of direct-to-home satellite television 
service.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________