[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 38 (Thursday, March 30, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1949-S1956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  LAUNCHING OUR COMMUNITIES' ACCESS TO LOCAL TELEVISION ACT OF 2000--
                               Continued

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was a conferee last year on the satellite 
television bill. I worked very hard, along with a number of my 
colleagues, to put in a provision that would have ensured the benefits 
of this bill would be shared by rural America through a loan guarantee 
program.
  I appreciate the work of the Banking Committee under the leadership 
of Senator Gramm and Senator Sarbanes to report out a bill which 
provides a strong framework in which to move forward with this program.
  I appreciate the majority leader, Senator Lott, and the Democratic 
leader, Senator Daschle, who worked out an agreement with the committee 
leadership that put the bill before the Senate today.
  Senator Max Baucus of Montana introduced legislation with me last 
year. He has now joined with me on some very constructive amendments 
which I hope can be accepted.
  I am here today to stand with rural America. I am proud to be a son 
of rural America. I know that oftentimes the needs of this special part 
of our Nation must be heard on the Senate floor.
  I am not trying to change the main thrust or the intent of this 
committee-reported bill. My amendments don't alter the structure of the 
bill. My amendments simply say that I want the board, which will have 
the job of approving these loan guarantees for local-into-local 
television, to look at one thing. If we are going to have loan 
guarantees for local-into-local television, we should give additional 
consideration to the projects that can provide high-speed Internet 
access and emergency Weather Service reports to rural America.
  If rural America is going to have high-speed Internet access, it is 
going to have to rely on satellite service; cable companies are not 
going to put wire out for it. For most of those parts of the country, 
they are not going to have the kind of fiber optics that might do it. 
But they can do it with satellite service.
  I hope we will not allow a digital divide between urban America and 
rural America. Give us the special access through the satellite system.
  For example, say the board that is going to do the loan guarantees 
has two equally balanced satellite systems that might give the same 
level of service, and at about the same cost, but one would offer high-
speed Internet access to rural families; I say give that one the loan 
guarantee.
  In America, there is a growing disparity between the digital haves 
and have-nots as portions of our society get left behind at the same 
lightning pace at which Internet develops. Our amendment closes this 
digital divide.
  Having broadband, especially in rural areas, can provide 
opportunities to the handicapped, to the elderly, to education, and 
everyone, along with business opportunities and entertainment. Whether 
you are sitting on the dirt road at my home in Middlesex, VT, whether 
you are out in rural Utah, or whether you are in rural California, it 
means you can have the same kind of Internet business, the same kind of 
access to information, and the same kind of access to educational 
opportunities.
  My amendment would ensure that as long as the loan guarantee is to be 
made, the high-speed Internet access ought to be financed under the 
loan guarantee program, if there is excess capacity.
  All we say is, before the board gives a satellite company a loan 
guarantee to provide rural satellite service, ask, first and foremost, 
Will you provide high-speed Internet access for the people in rural 
America? If you do, you have a better chance of being supported.
  I want to provide a little history on this matter. A provision which 
we offered to conferees last year would have provided up to $1.25 
billion in loan

[[Page S1950]]

guarantees to help finance the delivery of local broadcast stations to 
rural America. I pushed for that amendment because certain satellite 
companies were concerned that they could not cost-efficiently provide 
``local-into-local'' satellite service to markets more rural than about 
the top 60 to 70 markets. That meant that bigger cities would get the 
local broadcast television service but that rural areas, by and large, 
would not.
  Other Senators, not on the conference were also vitally interested in 
providing this service to rural America. I know that Senator Burns and 
his key staffer on this issue Mike Rawson worked long and hard to get 
this language included in conference.
  In addition, Senator Baucus introduced a bill which I cosponsored to 
address these rural concerns after efforts to include it in the 
conference report failed.
  I do not want to be misunderstood, I want to point out that the 
leaders of the satellite industry--such as Charlie Ergen of EchoStar 
who is known for his creative and innovative ideas--want to provide 
this local service.
  I want to congratulate Charlie Ergen for his recent partnership with 
iSKY which will offer consumers two-way wireless broadband access via 
satellite along with satellite television service. This broadband 
access will be 30 times faster than current dial-up speeds of 56k 
according to news accounts. Charlie has often been a leader in this 
arena and he has done it again.
  I also want to point out that in Montana or my home state of Vermont, 
or in Alaska, or a Great Plains state, or elsewhere, receiving local 
broadcast television over satellite is more than entertainment.
  Local television provides local weather, local news about 
emergencies, and local public affairs programming. It is a way for 
residents to better participate in government and to more effectively 
influence local government, school board or zoning decisions.
  This bill that we are debating is indeed very important.
  I need to emphasize a very important point. Section 336 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 sets forth requirements for the rollout to 
digital television. This bill in no way is intended to alter or change 
those requirements.
  Thus, it is imperative for the Board to only approve loans made to 
finance a local television signal delivery system that will be forward 
compatible and in compliance with the digital television rollout 
requirements in the Communications Act.
  It is thus common sense that applicants for loan guarantees under 
this legislation must be able to show that the proposed signal delivery 
system will be forward compatible. Applicants should be required to 
show how their proposed delivery system can be readily adapted to 
deliver local television signals in a format compatible with the 
digital rollout requirements. Without this, I do not see how the loans 
could be other than risky.
  This conversion to digital television also cannot be ignored. I have 
met with Jim Goodmon, the CEO of Capitol Broadcasting, on this matter 
and appreciate his visionary role and his willingness to take the lead. 
Digital TV is more than just a crystal clear moving picture. Digital TV 
can use multiple channels and datacasting on their single digital 
channel to better serve the public. I have been advised that the same 
digital bandwidth used to broadcast HDTV can also transmit as many as 
three video channels and a data signal on the single digital channel.
  Thus, during the recent floods that devastated North Carolina, WRAL-
HDTV, a digital station in Raleigh, was able to simultaneously 
broadcast on one digital channel: coverage of a basketball game; 
continuous local news on flood conditions; the continuous sweep of the 
local Doppler radar showing where the rainfall was the most severe and 
the direction of the storm; and, a data broadcast alongside the video 
services that enabled home computer access to specific flood, traffic, 
rainfall and emergency information. Jim Goodmon and his staff down in 
Raleigh did a great job during this crisis and I commend them.
  Thus, I do not want loans under this bill to interfere with the 
rollout under the Communications Act. Rural America deserves digital 
service along with urban America.
  I want to raise an additional matter. I am concerned that additional 
steps will be needed to assure full competition in rural areas and 
convenience to consumers. In a nutshell, multiple providers of 
satellite service may be needed in many areas to provide service to 
rural customers. However, if the set top boxes and satellite dishes are 
incompatible with these systems then competition will be reduced and 
consumers will receive fewer services or have to purchase additional 
satellite receivers at an additional cost of hundreds of dollars.
  This same integration or interoperability problem exists regarding 
program and schedule information. Access to program and schedule 
information would enable third party satellite providers to create 
integrated program guides. This would enhance consumer choices and 
provide more competition.
  Resolving these interoperability problems so that multiple satellite 
TV signals, offered by competitors, can be accessed by consumers in a 
convenient and inexpensive way is in the public interest. The FCC 
should use all its authority to resolve these matters.
  In addition to the points I have just made, and the amendments I have 
offered, I want to point out improvements in the bill which I hope can 
be addressed at conference. I believe that the three-person Board 
should have more of an oversight and loan approval role and less of a 
day-by-day management role. The management of the program should be 
with the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service. For example, 
references to the Board on page 28 should be struck and the 
Administrator and the Board should work out the regulations together.
  Also, the Board should delegate responsibility for loan guarantees of 
up to $50 million to the Administrator.
  It is also important, to assure that this bill is not biased toward 
the cable industry, that spectrum rights be allowed to be purchased or 
leased with the guaranteed loans. If cable borrowers will be able to 
purchase cable and install that cable using the guaranteed loans then 
satellite borrows should be able to use the loan proceeds for spectrum 
rights, which is their medium to deliver signals.
  I also support the amendment offered by Senators Thomas and Johnson 
that would allow the Federal Financing Bank and the National Rural 
Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation to participate in these loan 
guarantee programs. They could offer borrowers a lower rate than 
commercial banks and should not be excluded from this process.
  In section 4(f) the full $1.25 billion in aggregate for all loans 
should not be artificially limited by including other debt in the $1.25 
billion. In section 5(h) the Administrator, in consultation with the 
Board, should establish and approve the credit risk premiums and 
amounts.
  To ensure that the Administrator can best protect the interests of 
the United States the text on lines 3 through 10 of page 38 should be 
replaced with the following: ``after exercising of rights and remedies 
by the Administrator any shortfall in the guarantee amount''. This 
would allow the Administrator working with the Board to restructure a 
loan if that were the best way to protect the government's interest. I 
am very nervous about section 5.
  The Administrator should have more responsibility to manage the 
program. Daily management by a 3-member board that does not meet daily 
will not work very well. Also, section 5(l) appears to give state 
courts jurisdiction over the United States.
  I am also worried about that unless more flexibility is provided 
under section 4(d)(2) and (3) that excellent loans for excellent 
projects will be needlessly denied because of the timing of when 
paperwork is done, or when the FCC approves certain regulations, or 
when spectrum rights are obtained. Also, the unnecessarily constraining 
collateral, security, insurance and lien requirements will make it very 
difficult for the program to work well. These duplicative constraints 
do not provide additional protection for the United States.
  I will urge the conferees to provide a strong oversight role for the 
Board, greater ability of the Administrator to manage the day-to-day 
operations, more flexibility for the Administrator, a more level 
playing field with respect to cable TV, and other improvements.

[[Page S1951]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I commend my good friend and colleague 
from Vermont for his leadership on this issue, as well as Senator Gramm 
from Texas, and my colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, and others 
who are addressing this issue. Frankly, there is a great need in rural 
America. I compliment him and thank Senator Leahy for his work.
  I am a cosponsor with Senator Leahy in his efforts not only to help 
bring faster local-to-local service via satellite to rural America but 
also to help provide stimulus for more broad bandwidth coverage to 
rural America as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2900

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), for himself, Mr. 
     Leahy, and Mr. Robb, proposes an amendment numbered 2900.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 25, line 10, insert after ``local television 
     stations'' the following: ``, and related signals (including 
     high-speed Internet access and National Weather Service 
     broadcasts),''.
       On page 30, strike line 9 and insert the following: ``means 
     by which local television broadcast signals, and related 
     signals (including high-speed Internet access and National 
     Weather Service broadcasts),''.
       On page 33, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       (B) Additional considerations.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, the Board should give additional consideration 
     to projects which also provide related signals (including 
     high-speed Internet access and National Weather Service 
     broadcasts).
       On page 33, line 24, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be 
temporarily laid aside and that the previous amendment then pending be 
the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. 2097, the 
Launching of Our Communities' Access to Local Television Act of 2000. I 
commend the senior Senator from Texas, Chairman Gramm, for the great 
work he has done to bring the bill to this point. The bipartisan effort 
he has encouraged and the painstaking process by which he has produced 
this bill is to be commended. He has done a tremendous job of watching 
it from the banking perspective to make sure we could have the loan 
guarantees and that there would be neither favoritism nor the potential 
of putting banks or other institutions in financial trouble. He spent a 
great deal of time and effort on it. I appreciate the willingness of 
all the members of the Banking Committee to work together to get this 
bill to this point.
  As many of you will recall, last year during the appropriations 
process, this bill would have been a part of that, but there was a lot 
of concern about how loan guarantees should work, not just loan 
guarantees for satellite television but loan guarantees, and this is a 
landmark effort to develop a pattern for banking loan guarantees.
  Last November, Congress passed the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement 
Act to bring the law governing the direct broadcast satellite industry 
up to date and reflect the current state of technology. As part of that 
bill, Congress authorized, for the first time, satellite companies to 
retransmit local stations back into their local markets. However, due 
to satellite capacity, the two national direct broadcast satellite 
companies--DirecTV and Echostar--will only be able to serve the top 50 
of 210 television markets. That is about 75 percent of the households 
in the Nation, but that leaves 160 markets, which is 25 percent of the 
Nation--a very important part, as Wyoming is included in that--without 
satellite-delivered local television stations. The two media markets in 
Wyoming are ranked 197 and 199. Remember, we are serving the top 50 out 
of 210. So 197 and 199 are way down the list, meaning that without some 
sort of incentive, local television will probably not be available in 
Wyoming.
  The bill before us will provide that incentive. It establishes a 
Federal loan guarantee program to promote the delivery of local 
television signals at places such as Wamsutter, WY. The bill provides 
the criteria to protect the taxpayer to the maximum extent. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates this bill could cost American 
taxpayers about $100 million less than previous versions. There is a 
cost involved, a potential cost.
  The Banking Committee had to balance its need to protect the taxpayer 
and its need to provide a reasonable incentive to make investing in 
rural television service a worthwhile project for private risk capital. 
During the committee's deliberations on the bill, we looked at all the 
other existing government loan guarantees and examined what either made 
the program successful or, in some cases, caused it to fail. We have 
taken great care to ensure the loan program is fair and has the 
greatest chance of achieving the goal of providing local television 
service to rural America.
  People rely on TV not just for entertainment but for news and weather 
and special warnings of impending disasters. Children rely on it for 
educational programming, and soon students will need improved access to 
the information superhighway. The more rural a person is, the more that 
person needs to have access to TV for critical information as well as 
for entertainment. Almost 40 percent of Wyoming television households 
are satellite subscribers, the third highest penetration rate in the 
Nation. People are not choosing satellite over cable or some other 
system but are satellite subscribers because it is the only way to 
receive any sort of television programming.

  Wyoming has television stations in only three cities: Casper, WY, 
about 48,000 people; Cheyenne, 50,008; and Jackson, which fluctuates 
during the season but I think is listed at about 6,500 people. The rest 
of the State is served by stations from out of State or by relay 
transmitters that bring Wyoming stations to outlying towns.
  Wyoming has vast open spaces. The borders on Wyoming are about 500 
miles on a side, with that big square out there. It gives us a little 
difficulty with lapel pins because we are not recognizable.
  We have low populations and lots of distances. We have high altitudes 
and low multitudes. We have tall mountains that make the best efforts 
by over-the-air broadcasters and cable companies even more difficult. 
For households that are in remote areas of the State beyond the reach 
of cable and relay, satellite is the only reliable and cost-effective 
choice.
  But until now, satellite has had one distinct drawback. There was no 
way to get the news or other local programming through reliable access 
to a local Wyoming television station. It is doubtful that without some 
kind of Federal encouragement local television stations would be 
available to rural households. This bill provides the proper incentive. 
It gives equal opportunity throughout the United States. It is 
important to rural Americans, and I do urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to come back this afternoon--I

[[Page S1952]]

talked some this morning--to talk about this bill. It is a very 
important bill to us. It is one that provides an opportunity for us to 
have local television in rural areas. There is great support for this 
idea. We are trying to find a way to put it into the proper perspective 
in terms of the lending of money to guarantee loans that will cause 
this to happen--I agree with the chairman--where we have 80 percent of 
a loan guaranteed by the Federal Government, but that the remaining 20 
percent be done in the private sector without further guarantees by the 
Federal Government, by the taxpayers, so there is that sharing of risk 
and that incentive to continue to be very careful with these kinds of 
expenditures. There is no question that this is a somewhat risky 
operation, something that is new and technically different.
  The conversation we are having currently, of course, is to provide an 
opportunity for CFC, the Cooperative Finance Corporation, to be a 
participant. CFC was formed in 1969 by the Rural Electric Cooperatives 
and provides private capital. I have worked with it a great deal, 
having been manager of a rural electric association in Wyoming for a 
number of years.
  CFC was not created by the Federal Government and does not receive 
Federal funds. This is a private corporation. CFC has 31 years of 
experience in lending to rural electric systems, and since 1987 has 
provided more than $3 billion to rural telecommunications projects.
  Our Wyoming rural electrics, starting 15 years ago, were involved in 
bringing satellite TV to rural consumers and have been doing that from 
a programming standpoint. Unfortunately, we could not get our local 
stations, and that is what this is all about. This is something the 
rural electrics have been involved in for some time.
  CFC is AA rated. It has $16 billion in loan assets. Over 31 years, 
CFC has had only $77 million in losses and has loss reserves of $235 
million.
  This is a strong organization and one that is capable of doing this 
work. Furthermore, it is owned and operated by citizens, by rural 
people, by boards of directors of the rural electrics, by people who 
are elected to serve.
  What we want is to give an equal opportunity for this unit to give 
loans and to participate as well as others.
  CFC has backup lines of credit with 50 banks. These lines of credit 
amount to about $5 billion. This is a large group. We have heard some 
information about the allegation that a loan loss by CFC will result in 
rate increases to 25 million consumers. I think that is very 
farfetched. I do not believe it is accurate.
  If CFC incurs a loss, CFC, as a private corporation, will incur the 
loss, with no liability to the Federal Government.
  If CFC incurs a loss and its interest rates increase, rural utilities 
are free to borrow from other lenders, including banks and other 
finance companies.
  Co-ops are not responsible for repaying CFC losses or obligations. 
What we need to do, of course, is to ensure they are treated like 
others in the private sector. But this idea that they somehow have a 
special advantage in that any losses can be passed on to rural electric 
consumers in the electric business is not true. We have heard a great 
deal about that.

  The bottom line is, in the worst case scenario, CFC's rates could 
increase and co-ops would then borrow from other entities.
  CFC is a private cooperative. It is paternalistic to set up this 
private organization to have people governing under the rules of 
private sector and private enterprise and to suggest the Senate ought 
to design for them their rules. I reject that idea.
  I am happy to say we are seeking to find some language that will 
satisfy the need to move forward with this bill and also to provide an 
equal opportunity for CFC to participate without unwarranted 
supervision. I am hopeful we can find that arrangement.
  We ought to make that discipline work. I think we can, and I 
certainly look forward to working with others this afternoon so we can 
pass this bill and move toward rural communications and local-to-local 
communications.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Johnson amendment No. 2898.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, because an amendment is pending, rather 
than ask it be set aside to offer another amendment, I will make a few 
comments about something I intend to do. I am glad the distinguished 
chairman of the Banking Committee is here, so he has a chance to listen 
to some of the comments and maybe have a dialog on what I am attempting 
to do.
  First, I congratulate the chairman of the Banking Committee and the 
Senator from South Dakota and all those on the Banking Committee who 
have worked so hard to bring this legislation to the floor. It truly 
addresses a very important need for rural America, and that is the 
guarantee that people in rural America are not going to be treated as 
second-class citizens when it comes to their access to the information 
age.
  This legislation addresses a problem of allowing companies that 
provide satellite television and broadcast signals getting into rural 
parts of America and providing them the same type of quality 
information services that someone in the city of Washington, DC, or any 
of the large metropolitan areas of our country are already receiving 
because that is where the people happen to live.
  The people in rural Texas or in rural South Dakota or the people in 
rural Louisiana are no less important than people in the large cities 
of America. Without this legislation, it is very clear that people in 
these areas will not have access to this information because, in many 
cases, it is not economically feasible to spend large sums of money to 
provide information to sparsely populated areas of our country. That is 
unfortunate, but that is recognizing the way things are.
  The purpose of the legislation, as I understand it, is to lower the 
overall cost of bringing satellite and television broadcast to rural 
America, something that has almost unanimous agreement and is in the 
national interest. Without this legislation, people in rural areas 
would simply not have the same advantages as we do in urban areas. 
Clearly, this is very important.
  One of my concerns, I say to the distinguished managers of the bill, 
is that when you look at what it costs to bring broadcast signals to 
rural America, it is not only a question of building satellites for 
rural areas and moving into these areas.
  That represents about 45 percent of the cost of the actual satellite. 
But getting the satellite, obviously, launched into space represents 
about 37 percent of the total cost of bringing broadcast signals, 
through satellites, to any part of this country.
  I think you have to agree that a significant cost associated with all 
of what we are trying to do today is actually launching the satellite 
into space in order to bring the broadcast signals to all parts of the 
United States. Forty-five percent is the actual satellite cost; 
insurance is 12 percent; the ground costs are another 6 percent. But a 
very significant portion of the cost of bringing a satellite into 
working condition is the cost of launching it. More than one-third, as 
I have said, of the cost of the satellite is expended when the actual 
satellite is launched into space.
  Clearly, it would further our goal of lowering the cost of bringing 
these services to rural America if we could also lower the cost of 
transportation, which is a very significant cost throughout our 
country.
  Launch costs, obviously, are a very significant component of the 
overall satellite costs, but I think they can be reduced. That is why I 
take the floor this afternoon to make a suggestion.
  The authors of the legislation, again, who are to be commended for 
their vision, have clearly indicated that launch costs were on their 
mind when they crafted the bill.
  I was looking at the legislation, and clearly the legislation, on 
page 30 of the actual bill that is pending before the Senate, talks 
about the type of loans this bill envisions. It says:

       . . . a loan may not be guaranteed under this Act unless--

  It spells out what the ``unless'' is. But what it actually says is 
that, in other words, it will be allowed if it does the following. In 
other words, a loan

[[Page S1953]]

can be guaranteed under the legislation pending before the Senate if:

     the loan is made to finance the acquisition, improvement, 
     enhancement, construction, deployment, launch, or 
     rehabilitation of the means by which local television 
     broadcast signals will be delivered to an unserved area or 
     underserved area . . .

  Therefore, the bill, as it is currently pending before the Senate, 
talks about trying to make loans available to cover a number of things, 
one of which specifically mentioned in the bill is the launch of 
satellites designed to bring broadcast signals to rural parts of 
America.
  As I tried to point out initially, 37 percent of the whole cost of 
this project is in the launching of the satellite. Obviously, without 
the launching of the satellite into space, you, in fact, are not going 
to ever complete the rest of the project. I think it is very relevant, 
when the bill talks about a loan guarantee program, that the launch is 
listed as one of the means by which broadcast signals are ultimately 
brought to all parts of America.
  I think, for that portion of the industry that launches the 
satellites into space, the loan guarantee is very important. An 
interesting thing that I would point out is, when you are in the launch 
satellite business, when you are in the business of building a 
spaceship to, in fact, launch a vehicle, you have been competing 
against other countries where their governments do it. You are 
competing against industries that are totally financed by their 
respective governments because it has been in their national interest 
to do so.

  In the past, that is also what we have done in this country through 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, where NASA has used 
the shuttle to launch the satellites into space, and the taxpayer has 
been paying for the cost of those vehicles. But, clearly, NASA is 
getting out of the business. We are trying to say to the private 
sector: We want you to move into this business. We want you to build 
the launch vehicles. We want to create a new industry in the private 
sector, get the Government out of the business of launching broadcast 
satellites, and let the private sector do it.
  But one of the disadvantages our private sector has is that they are 
competing against other countries that are involved in doing this, and 
they cannot compete on a level playing field. What we are suggesting is 
that we help the U.S. industries become involved in this in a 
competitive fashion, which I think is very important.
  U.S. companies that are having to compete against other countries are 
not able to compete on a level playing field. Therefore, when the 
country of China or the country of France--highly subsidized by their 
Governments--is trying to sell their launch vehicles to the United 
States, obviously, they can do it at a price that makes our companies 
not able to compete.
  I think the authors of the bill are right on target. Some might say: 
The Government should not be in the business of loan guarantees. It is 
not a function of our Government. The exact opposite is true.
  Historically, the U.S. Government has sought to assist the private 
sector by saying, we are going to help--we are not going to monopolize 
it; we are not going to do it, but we are going to help the private 
sector do it. One way we can help certain activities that are important 
to our country is by loan guarantee programs.
  I point out, for the commercial shipbuilding industry--very important 
to my State and to the State of the Senator from Texas, as well as all 
the States along the coast that have the shipbuilding industry--we have 
had a title 11 shipbuilding guarantee program, in which companies have 
been able to go into the private market, borrow money from the private 
sector, from private banks, from private insurance companies, and 
having a certain portion of that loan guaranteed by the Federal 
Government. It allows them to get a better interest rate and allows 
them to get financing for something that may not be able to be financed 
otherwise.
  Where we have tried it before, in the area of shipbuilding, it has 
worked very well. It has worked at a profit to the U.S. Government 
because the loans have been paid back. The Government has made money. 
The work was done. The ships were built. The Loan Guarantee Program was 
an integral portion of it.
  Currently, when you look at whether financial assistance is available 
in this area in the private sector, without any help from the 
Government, it is interesting to see what the comments are from those 
in the financial markets.
  We have had hearings on this legislation before the Senate Commerce 
Committee. One of the companies that does the bulk of financing these 
launch vehicles is Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette. When they testified 
before the Senate Commerce Committee, as the largest group of 
investment bankers in the country, they talked about the problem of 
being hampered by the inability to find the necessary private financing 
for these types of ventures, particularly when they are, in fact, 
competing against other countries that are government-financed 100 
percent.

  They pointed out in their testimony that in some cases the cost of 
the launch vehicles, and the insurance that goes with it, almost equals 
the entire cost of the satellite itself. So if we want to help bring 
broadcast signals to rural areas, we cannot just look at the satellite 
itself that needs to be constructed, you also need to look at the 
vehicles that would be built in order to launch those satellites into 
the sky.
  It was really interesting, colleagues, that last week we had the head 
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, before our 
committee. Dan Goldin was testifying. I asked him a question about this 
concept. He said the provision was very innovative. He said this 
provision:

       . . . would help small and big rocket companies to overcome 
     critical barriers so that we have technology that will allow 
     us to improve the reliability ten times and cut their cost by 
     a factor of ten. This will enable us to have private launch 
     services not involving the Government. This bill makes sense 
     to me.

  This is the person who is the head of NASA saying that this idea of 
having a loan guarantee for the launch vehicles is something that makes 
sense to him, that it would allow us to increase the reliability by 10 
times, and that it would allow us to decrease the cost by a factor of 
10, which is very significant.
  Obviously, we should be looking for more reliable launch vehicles. We 
should be looking at vehicles that cost a lot less. The Government 
should not be in the business of building the launch vehicles, but we 
can assist companies--small companies and large companies--by making it 
easier for them to get adequate private sector financing for these very 
important ventures. I have not offered an amendment, I say to the 
distinguished Banking Committee chairman, because there is an amendment 
pending at the current time, I did want to outline the concept of an 
amendment I am prepared to offer, and will offer, as to the feasibility 
of saying that if you are going to have a loan guarantee program for 
the actual satellite, there is a desperate need for a loan guarantee 
program for the vehicles that will be required in order to launch the 
satellites.

  We have in the past used foreign launch vehicles from France, China, 
and the Ukraine, using Ukraine launch vehicles because there is not an 
adequate supply of launch vehicles in this country. Those rockets and 
launch vehicles have been inadequate. They have been imperfect. They 
have had failures and at a great expense to the satellite industry in 
this country. How much better would it be if we were to have a viable, 
growing private industry in this country that were assisted by a loan 
guarantee program to enable them to get adequate financing in the 
private sector in order to launch the satellites for the purpose of 
bringing broadcast signals to rural areas as well as to urban areas in 
the country.
  Due to the fact that an amendment is pending, I will not be able to 
offer my amendment at this time. I yield the floor until such time as 
it is appropriate for me to offer an amendment. I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Louisiana for 
raising the obvious point that one of the

[[Page S1954]]

technologies that would be potentially subsidized under this bill is 
satellite technology. If you are going to have a satellite, you have to 
put it into orbit. We have been for some time in the process of trying 
to commercialize space. There are companies now that are beginning to 
respond to that potential with real investment and real potential.
  The question the Senator from Louisiana asked was, Would not this be 
a good time to address this additional problem? Personally, I believe 
this is something that will have to be addressed and looked at. The big 
difference is, on the loan guarantee proposal before us, we have had a 
series of hearings. We have gone to great lengths to try to minimize 
the potential exposure to the taxpayer. We have tried to call in 
technical expertise to be sure we understand what we are doing.
  In terms of expanding this program now on the floor of the Senate to 
launch vehicles, I don't see how we could possibly get that job done. I 
think this is, in terms of this bill, a bridge too far. I think it is 
something that will be looked at. I know, from having talked to them 
personally, there are at least two private companies that are 
interested in commercial launching to try to do in America what we are 
contracting out to France and to China.
  We have two problems in considering this today. One is that under 
unanimous consent, only relevant amendments are in order. This 
amendment would be deemed to not be relevant, in my opinion.
  Secondly, I could do my due diligence as chairman of the Banking 
Committee to agree to an add-on loan guarantee on the floor of the 
Senate when we have not held a hearing, when we have not looked at it, 
when we know relatively little about the technology, the public/private 
competition, the economic feasibility of the project. We don't have any 
scoring from CBO as to what it would cost. It may very well be at some 
point, someday, we will be in a position of looking at the proposal 
that has been made by the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. I don't 
believe we are at that point today.

  Obviously, the Senator has a right to offer his amendment. I do not 
believe we should adopt his amendment today. I think we are already 
carrying a pretty heavy load on this bill. In order for this to go 
forward as it is now written, the Appropriations Committee is going to 
have to appropriate a quarter of a billion dollars. I believe we would 
have a train that would be overloaded if we added this loan guarantee 
to it today.
  I am not hostile to what the distinguished Senator from Louisiana is 
trying to do. I simply do not know enough about it to make that 
decision today on the floor.
  Before I could get to the point of making a decision on it in the 
Banking Committee, we would have to meet with a lot of different 
people, a lot of different competing technologies. We would have to 
meet with NASA. We would have to analyze this in detail. We would have 
to do our due diligence. We would have to hold public hearings. We 
would have to go through a markup in the Banking Committee to try to 
refine it, as we have the bill that is now before us. We are just a 
long way from that.
  I am sorry I am not in a position of being able to support the 
Senator from Louisiana. As of today, I am not.
  Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 2897. That will pull down my 
amendment and pull down the Johnson amendment with it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The question is on agreeing to the Bunning amendment, No. 2896.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Bunning amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the amendment be stacked after the first vote we have today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I will address my remarks to some of the 
points the Banking Committee chairman made, if he will give me his 
attention, regarding some of the concerns he raised in his comments 
about the amendment I outlined but have not yet offered.
  On the point the chairman raised, that we do not have a scoring on 
the amendment, the scoring is very simple. It is $250 million. That is 
what is authorized. We don't authorize a nickel more or a nickel less. 
It is not difficult to figure out the scoring and the cost of an 
amendment that authorizes $250 million. It is $250 million, if that 
amount is in fact appropriated.
  He also said we needed to have hearings on this amendment. The 
Congress has had hearings on the amendment. We had hearings in the 
Senate Commerce Committee. We had people from industry testify. We had 
large and small companies testify. We had the head of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration testify. We had a sufficient 
number of people testifying about the pros and cons.
  He raised the point that we should hear from NASA as to their 
opinion. I provided the opinion of NASA when I quoted from the 
statement of the distinguished Administrator of NASA, Dan Goldin, in 
which he said this amendment could conceivably increase launch vehicle 
reliability by 10 times and decrease the cost by a factor of 10.
  So there could not be a clearer statement. He concluded by saying: 
``This bill makes sense to me.'' You can't get a clearer statement from 
NASA as to what they think about the amendment. There could not be a 
clearer statement about the cost of the amendment other than the fact 
that we authorize $250 million, not a nickel more, not a dime less but 
$250 million.
  So it is very clear. One, we know what the costs are; two, we have in 
fact had hearings in the Senate on this question; three, we have heard 
from industry, both large companies and small companies; and finally, 
we have heard from NASA, which said that it makes a great deal of sense 
to them, including the fact of reducing the cost of launching vehicles 
by a factor of 10. I don't know who else we can possibly ask to come 
before the Congress and address this question.
  The final point--and I will not prejudge the ruling of the Chair--is 
on the question of the relevancy. It is clear that the bill before the 
Senate right now covers the cost of launching satellites to bring 
broadcast signals to rural America. It is in the bill. The bill clearly 
says that the loan guarantees are for the acquisition, improvement, 
enhancement, construction, deployment, and launch of satellites--the 
means by which local television broadcast signals will be delivered. 
Well, launching a satellite is absolutely essential and totally 
relevant to putting satellite broadcast signals into rural America. It 
could not possibly even be more relevant to the bill before the Senate. 
The bill itself talks about launching satellites.
  My amendment provides a loan guarantee to launch satellites. If that 
is not relevant, I am not sure what would ever be relevant. We are not 
talking about germaneness. We are talking about relevant to the bill 
before the Senate, and this is a loan guarantee for launching 
satellites to bring broadcast signals to rural areas. My amendment 
creates a loan guarantee program to launch satellites to bring 
broadcast signals to rural America. It does it through a different 
department, but obviously it has to be relevant. You don't have to have 
exactly the same language in an amendment as the bill for it to be 
relevant. It has to be relevant to what the bill does that is pending 
before the Senate. I think the question of relevancy is very clear.

  The fact that we have had hearings in this Congress on this specific 
amendment, and the fact that we have had

[[Page S1955]]

NASA testify in favor of this amendment and say it would reduce the 
cost by 10 times, reduce the liability by a factor of 10, and the fact 
that we have had industry, both small and large companies, appear 
before Congress and testify as to their opinions on this means that we 
have had hearings, we have the support, and it is certainly relevant, 
and I think it is the right public policy.
  While I can't offer the amendment at this time because another one is 
pending, we will do it at the appropriate time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, what is the current business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, 
No. 2896.
  Mr. BREAUX. The yeas and nays have not been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have been ordered.
  Mr. BREAUX. Is it in order to ask unanimous consent to temporarily 
set aside that amendment in order to offer an amendment?
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, people yell at me so much, 
I don't hear so good. Will the Senator repeat that?
  Mr. BREAUX. I am asking to set aside the pending amendment to offer 
my amendment. Is that appropriate?
  Mr. GRAMM. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order to make that request.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside in order to offer my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2901

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2901.

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Section 4(d)(2)(a) of S. 2097 is amended by striking the 
     word ``launch,''.
       S. 2097 is amended by inserting the following Section 5A:

     ``SEC. 5A. APPROVAL AND ADMINISTRATION OF LOAN GUARANTEES 
                   RELATING TO LAUNCH VEHICLES.

       ``(a) Authority To Approve Loan Guarantees Relating to 
     Launch Vehicles.--To further the purposes of this Act 
     including to reduce costs necessary to facilitate access to 
     local television broadcast signals in unserved and 
     underserved areas, without unnecessarily creating a new 
     administrative apparatus, the Secretary of Transportation is 
     authorized, subject to the provisions of this Section, to 
     approve loan guarantees relating to space launch vehicles. 
     For this purpose, the credit assistance program established 
     in Section 1503 of Chapter 1 of Subtitle E of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Pub. L. No. 
     105-178, is expanded to include projects for the design, 
     development, and construction of space transportation systems 
     and infrastructure, including launch and reentry vehicles 
     subject to the licensing requirements of Section 70104 of 
     Title 49, United States Code.
       ``(b) Funding.--To fund the cost to the Government of loan 
     guarantees provided under this Section for space 
     transportation systems and infrastructure projects, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $250 million for Fiscal Year 
     2001, and such other sums as may be necessary for each of 
     Fiscal Years 2002 through 2005. From funds made available 
     under this subsection, the Secretary of Transportation, for 
     the administration of the program, may use not more than $2 
     million for each of Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005. For each 
     of Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005, principal amount of 
     Federal credit instruments made available for space 
     transportation systems and infrastructure projects shall be 
     limited to the same amounts set forth in Section 1503 of 
     Chapter 1 of Subtitle E of the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century, Pub. L. No. 105-178.
       ``(c) Regulatory Authority.--To carry out the provisions of 
     this Section, the Secretary shall, within 120 days after 
     enactment of this Act, adopt such regulations as he 
     reasonably deems necessary. Such regulations shall not be 
     inconsistent with the provisions of Section 5 of S. 2097, the 
     ``Launching Our Communities' Access to Local Television Act 
     of 2000.''

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I made remarks earlier about the intent to 
offer this amendment. I will not repeat the arguments in favor of it. I 
will only summarize by saying the Senate Commerce Committee had a 
complete and full hearing. The distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee is on the floor today. We had the privilege of hearing 
NASA Administrator Dan Goldin testify on this amendment, saying it 
would save as much as 10 times the cost of a launch vehicle and improve 
the reliability of those by a factor of 10. We are hearing from big 
launch companies and also small launch companies that are interested in 
this industry, and trying to improve it.

  We had testimony from people in the finance business who speak to the 
difficulty of getting adequate financing in the private sector because 
of the questionable nature of the launch vehicle industry and 
testifying to the fact that a loan guarantee program would be very 
helpful.
  The final point is that when you talk about bringing satellite 
broadcast signals to rural America, you cannot just talk about the 
``big ball'' that, in fact, is the satellite. You also have to talk 
about how you get the satellite into orbit around the country. Thirty-
seven percent of the cost of bringing that broadcast signal to rural 
America involves the cost of the launch vehicle.
  Currently, the United States relies on China, France, Ukraine, and 
other countries that are not market-based countries but, rather, are 
countries in which their industry is financed 100 percent by the 
government. Our companies cannot compete unless we have a level playing 
field.
  Therefore, the concept of providing a loan guarantee program of a 
definitive amount of money we know will cost $250 million. That is the 
money authorized. It would have to go through the Appropriations 
Committee to get the appropriations, but it could not be any more than 
$250 million to create a loan guarantee where they could go to the 
private sector and get a loan from the banks. Having a percentage of it 
guaranteed by the Federal Government is good, sound economic policy. It 
is good broadcast industry policy. It is a policy this country should 
embrace. In areas where we have done it before, as in shipbuilding, it 
has worked very successfully.
  I suggest this amendment is very relevant because the bill itself is 
clear that the Loan Guarantee Program ``is for the acquisition, 
improvement, enhancement, construction, deployment and launch''--
emphasizing launch--``rehabilitation or the means from which local TV 
broadcast signals will be delivered to an unserved area or underserved 
area.''
  It is clearly relevant, and both amendments are an effort to try to 
help through loan programs the delivering of broadcast signals to rural 
America.
  This is not a germaneness question. It is a relevancy question. If 
this is not relevant, I don't know what would be relevant on an 
amendment on the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, as I said before, I have some sympathy for 
the Senator from Louisiana. I think this is obviously a very real issue 
to be considered. But the bottom line is we are on the floor with a 
bill that has been a year in the making having to do with our goal of 
trying to see that everybody who lives in rural Texas or rural America 
has access to their local news and local weather and to the local 
television station.
  You could write volumes about what we don't know about this subject, 
even though we have worked on it for a year, even though we have had 
extensive hearings, even though we have had innumerable private 
meetings, and even though we have gone through a markup in committee 
where we have

[[Page S1956]]

debated it at some length and reached some consensus on it--not total 
consensus.
  The problem with the Breaux amendment is that this is an area, while 
it is obviously of importance in terms of one potential technology that 
might be used in the bill--and that is a satellite--we in our bill are 
not setting out technology as such. We are letting the marketplace 
decide that. The point is we have had no hearings. We have heard from 
no one. We have not discussed, analyzed, or studied this in any detail. 
We are not ready to make a decision on this today.
  Under the unanimous consent agreement entered into on November 18, no 
amendment is in order which is not deemed to be relevant--not relevant 
to mankind, not relevant to any problem facing us in the future, or any 
opportunity but relevant specifically to the bill that is pending 
before the Senate.
  I make a point of order that the amendment offered by Senator Breaux 
is not relevant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is 
not relevant and the point of order is sustained.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I take it that the Chair is not in the 
position to give a reason behind the ruling.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The program in the amendment is not what was 
envisioned by the unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. BREAUX. I inquire of the Chair: Is that not an argument for the 
question of germaneness as opposed to the question of relevancy?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Germaneness is a different test which is not 
at issue here.
  Mr. BREAUX. Further parliamentary inquiry: Is not the statement of 
the Chair relevant to a question on germaneness as opposed to a 
question of relevancy?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The statement of the Chair was with regard to 
the relevancy standard.
  Mr. BREAUX. I will not pursue it. Obviously, I accept the ruling of 
the Chair.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________