[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 38 (Thursday, March 30, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1961-S1968]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LAUNCHING OUR COMMUNITIES' ACCESS TO LOCAL TELEVISION ACT OF 2000--
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from
Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. What is the order of business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 2902.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10
minutes in support of S. 2097.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I ask
unanimous consent that I be recognized following Mr. Grams to speak out
of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my strong
support for S. 2097, the Launching Our Communities Access to Local
Television Act of 2000. I also commend Senator Craig Thomas and Senator
Tim
[[Page S1962]]
Johnson for the work they have done. They have been on the floor today
talking about this bill; more important, they have been working for
days, weeks, and even months trying to put this bill together. I really
thank them and commend them for all the work and effort they put into
getting this bill to where it is today.
During the 106th Congress, few issues have generated as many phone
calls, letters, and e-mails to my office as those opinions expressed by
rural Minnesotans concerned about the future of their satellite
television programs.
In recent months, Federal district court decisions terminating the
satellite signals of thousands of satellite subscribers and the
uncertain status of the Satellite Home Viewer Act have caused
unnecessary frustration and inconvenience for Minnesotans who depend
upon satellite television for informational, education, and
entertainment programming on a daily basis. For these reasons, I am
very pleased to have supported the enactment of legislation last year
that reauthorized the Satellite Home Viewer Act.
The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act has begun to encourage
greater competition between the satellite and cable industries while
also providing consumers in the top television markets with the benefit
of ``local-into-local'' television programming. Additionally, this law
has protected existing satellite subscribers from having their distant
network signals terminated and reduced the copyright fees paid by
satellite providers. This reduction in copyright fees has helped to
make satellite service more affordable to consumers, particularly in
rural areas.
I also recognize that millions of Americans in small, rural areas
have not begun to enjoy the local-into-local programming because
satellite carriers do not have the capability to provide this service
into small, rural areas immediately. In fact, two of the largest
satellite providers, DirecTV and Echostar, have testified that their
companies will initially provide local-into-local service to households
in the top 50-60 television markets. Thus, approximately 150 television
markets such as the Duluth-Superior, Rochester, and Mankato television
markets in Minnesota will not receive this programming as quickly as
urban markets.
I firmly believe that Congress should ensure that rural America
receives the benefits of this technology and local-into-local
programming. For these reasons, I have been working with my colleagues
on the Senate Banking Committee, industry groups, and consumers to pass
the ``LOCAL TV Act.'' This legislation would establish a $1.25 billion
loan guarantee program to facilitate access to local television
programming in rural Minnesota communities and throughout the country.
Importantly, the LOCAL TV Act will help to facilitate local-into-local
programming without mandating a specific technology to provide this
service and thereby encouraging competition and innovation by
independent cable companies and satellite providers.
I was very concerned that this legislation excludes several private
lenders from providing the financing to ensure local-into-local
programming throughout rural communities. Specifically, the LOCAL TV
Act provides that the federal government will guarantee 80 percent of
any loan that is provided by FDIC insured depository institutions. So
far, so good.
Mr. President, limiting the guarantee to 80 percent assures that
whichever lending institution provides the financing will have very
good reason to give the loan request extensive scrutiny to justify the
20 percent of the loan which is not guaranteed and perhaps decide not
to lend. This careful scrutiny would be less assured if we allowed 100
percent government loan guarantees.
I also support authorizing the FDIC insured lenders to have the
opportunity to participate in the loan guarantee programs. However, the
bill currently excludes certain private sector lenders which have
substantial experience providing multi-million dollar loans in a coop
environment and which have a track record of support for projects of
this size in rural areas.
For this reason, I have joined with Senators Johnson and Thomas to
introduce an amendment to this bill which will expand the list of
eligible lenders. Specifically, the Johnson-Thomas-Grams amendment
requires eligible lenders to have at least one issue of outstanding
debt that is rated in one of the three highest rating categories by a
national statistical rating agency. This provision will ensure that our
expanded list of lenders will have been subjected to rigorous
marketplace scrutiny. The process of achieving one of the three highest
investment grade ratings involves an intense review of the lender's
capital strength, lending expertise, and loan loss experience.
The wording for this amendment is almost identical to wording which
this body utilized last fall when we passed S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley bill. In that landmark legislation, the test of marketplace
scrutiny was used to determine which of the top 50 national banks could
conduct expanded activities in a bank subsidiary.
The theory we used was that marketplace discipline is an important
threshold in sorting the qualified from the unqualified. That same
approach is being put in place here.
Lastly, our amendment also requires an eligible lender to have
provided financing with outstanding debt from the Rural Utilities
Service. This provision is important because the underlying bill
authorizes the Rural Utilities Service to be the administrator of the
loan guarantee program.
The second part of this provision states that the approved lender
must demonstrate to the loan guarantee board that it has the expertise,
capacity and capital strength to provide financing pursuant to the act.
Mr. President, I believe the Johnson-Thomas-Grams amendment will
strengthen the LOCAL TV Act and ensure that rural Americans will soon
enjoy the benefits of local television programming. I am pleased that
Chairman Gramm has been working to accommodate our concerns and
strengthen this legislation.
Mr. President, again, I commend and thank very much Senators Craig
Thomas and Tim Johnson for all their hard work in making this
legislation possible. I urge everybody's strong support of this
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BUNNING. I ask unanimous consent that the prior order to allow
Senator Byrd to follow Senator Grams be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise, first of all, to support S. 2097,
the LOCAL TV Act of 2000.
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment I had previously
offered and on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments about the
mistaken identity by the National Association of Broadcasters in
relationship to my amendment. What we have tried to do, and what this
bill has successfully done, is allow most of the areas in the United
States to have access to dish or satellite television. But there are
areas that have been excluded. I will give you an example of some of
those.
Areas are excluded when most of the television stations that are
received instate are based out of the State. I use Kentucky as an
example. If you want to hear something in Kentucky and you don't live
in Louisville or Lexington, or a couple of other smaller cities, such
as Bowling Green and Paducah, you must get your television news,
sports, entertainment, and everything, from out of State, a different
ADI, such as Cincinnati; Charleston-Huntington, WV; Knoxville, TN;
Nashville, TN; Evansville, IN; and on and on and on.
This bill does not adequately cover those areas because it says
generally if you are brought in an ADI area that is covered by an out-
of-State television station, you must accept that. There can be
exceptions. But, living in Kentucky, I surely don't want to have to
watch Atlanta television, or Atlanta news, or, for that matter,
Cleveland, OH, news on my satellite dish. I know most Kentuckians don't
want that.
Of all the issues that have come before the Senate, this has been the
one on which I have received the most information. I received a paper
put out
[[Page S1963]]
by the National Association of Broadcasters that criticized my
amendment to allow all or at least require one of the local markets in
Kentucky to carry it on the dish or on the satellite. It said it
``destroys the network affiliation relationship.'' But that is hogwash.
It does not destroy that. It just means that the people in certain
areas don't want to watch New York television as the thing they get on
their dish. If they are only going to go down to the first 60 major
markets in this country, that is what we are going to have to do in
many of the rural areas.
This loan guarantee program that we have will cover an awful lot of
other areas. But South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and
plenty of areas in this country do not have major markets and don't
carry all four--ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX--and will no doubt not have the
coverage they might like to have in their area.
``Undermines localism'' is another thing the National Association of
Broadcasters has said about the amendment I just withdrew.
Am I going to watch a local station from Paducah and go down there
and buy something that has been advertised on a Paducah station if it
is carried on my dish? Of course not. I am going to go to my local
store, or wherever it might be, and buy the exact same thing that is
available in my local area. I can pick up a local station out of
Cincinnati with rabbit ears. I don't need a dish for that.
It ``creates two classes of satellite viewers''--no, it doesn't. We
all pay almost the same amount for basic satellite television. My
amendment did not change that.
``Flies in the face of both copyright and communication laws'' --not
being a lawyer, and having dealt only with the prior law we passed last
year, I know full well it doesn't violate any of those provisions in
that law we had on the floor of the Senate.
Last, but not least, it says, ``it creates a huge regulatory
disparity.'' No other multichannel video provider has nearly such an
extensive ``must carry'' requirement. We don't want them to carry every
station in Kentucky. We want them to carry one that has four of the
major networks. That is what we want.
We will work it out later. I have talked with Senator Burns, who is
most expert on this, and I hope to work with Senator McCain on Commerce
to get this done. This is not the time nor the place to fight this
fight. I will fight it another day at a later date.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think while we have looked as if there
was inaction and chaos all afternoon--it felt like it at various
moments--the truth is, we have done our work.
Senator Baucus has an amendment which I intend to accept. Senator
Hatch as a second-degree amendment. I will be supportive of both the
second-degree amendment and first-degree amendment. We will accept
those.
Senator Johnson and I have worked out differences. We will accept
that amendment.
We will then be ready for a vote on final passage.
Senator Baucus may offer his amendment when he is ready. I have
already offered the amendment for Senator Hatch. If Senator Johnson
wants to offer a second-degree amendment to it, he can. If not, if
someone will pass it to me, I will do it.
We are putting everybody on notice that we are coming to the happy
hour. We should be able to finish our bill in about 15 minutes. People
can start moving in this direction.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Amendment No. 2900, As Modified
(Purpose: To make minor and technical changes.)
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) for himself, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Robb, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Burns, and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered
2900, as modified.
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
Warnings),''.
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 Warnings),''.
On page 33, line 19, strike ``areas,'' and insert ``areas
and the number of States (including noncontiguous States),''.
On page 33, beginning in line 22, strike ``estimated cost
per household to be served.'' and insert ``efficiency in
providing service given the area to be served.''.
On page 33, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
(B) Additional considerations.--To the maximum extend
practicable, the Board should give additional consideration
to projects which also provide related signals (including
high-speed Internet access and National Weather Service
Warnings).
On page 33, line 24, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is an amendment to which the chairman
of committee has graciously stated he agreed. This is a modification of
an earlier amendment I provided. This amendment essentially provides
that related signals, including high-speed Internet access and National
Weather Service warnings, be included in the criteria when the board
decides which loans to guarantee in providing for local-into-local
service.
One of the modifications, frankly, is as follows: Including
noncontiguous States.
I chuckled a little bit because that is Alaska, which is wonderful.
But it also is a technical matter that makes it more likely it is not
necessarily constrained by otherwise constraining language.
The amendment basically says that, to the maximum extent practicable,
the board should give additional consideration to projects which also
provide related signals--again, including high-speed Internet access
and National Weather Service warnings.
The whole point is, we have an opportunity to help provide broad
bandwidth Internet service to rural America while we are now passing
legislation which gives incentives to provide more local-into-local
television coverage to rural America. I believe we should take
advantage of that opportunity and give a little boost and a little
preference to those applicants who will provide that additional
capability.
I want to sort of chime in on the point the Senator from Texas was
making about the floor looking as if we were not doing our work. There
was a group of Montana high school students here about 2 or 3 hours
ago. They asked me, Why aren't there more Senators on the floor and why
are we not doing business? I explained to them, as the Senator from
Texas essentially said, that a lot of work is not done directly in
debate but there are negotiations and kind of behind-the-scenes work
going on to work things out. I compliment the Senator for his work in
helping us accomplish that objective.
Before I finish, I also want to pay particular compliments to not
only the Senator from Texas but to my colleague from Montana, Senator
Burns. Senator Burns has been very active in helping provide both local
coverage and satellite coverage. I want to particularly note that; in
addition, certainly managing a bill of this size, Senator Johnson as
well as Senator Leahy from Vermont.
There are a lot of people who worked on this. We are making progress.
Sometimes it is a little slow. It is not very expeditious, but that is
the nature of our democracy. I thank them.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus for working with us
on the amendment. We are supportive of the amendment and we accept it.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased the amendment I cosponsored
was agreed to.
That amendment did three important things. First, it made clear that
any plan put forward to provide local broadcast signals to rural areas
takes into account service to Alaska and Hawaii. Under my amendment
these non-contiguous States are elevated from afterthoughts to priority
consideration.
We also altered another priority in this bill that could have
inadvertently penalized the most rural States. Originally the bill
mandated that the cost
[[Page S1964]]
per household of providing service be a top priority.
Such a provision sounds good on its face but the high cost of service
to outlying areas is one reason why the incumbent satellite and cable
providers are not serving our areas. My amendment doesn't remove cost
as a factor, but it ensures that rural states aren't penalized when
proposals are made.
Finally, this amendment includes language that would allow high-speed
internet access to also be supported by the loan guarantees.
I thank Senators Burns, Baucus and Leahy for their help.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2900), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2902, as Modified
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send a modification to the amendment I
previously sent forward on behalf of Senator Hatch.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment (No. 2902), as modified, is as follows:
On page 49, strike lines 1 through 13 and insert the
following:
SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.
On page 50, line 23, strike ``10.'' and insert ``9.''.
On page 27, line 21, strike ``10'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``9''.
Mr. GRAMM. I don't think there is any further debate on this
amendment. I believe it is acceptable to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified.
The amendment (No. 2902), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. GRAMM. We just received a copy of the amendment Senator Johnson
and I worked out. While he is reviewing it, let me make my concluding
remarks.
We had a very difficult mandate, to take a bill from last year and
make it possible for people living in rural America to get their local
television station so they can receive local news, the local weather,
the local football game, all of which are critical to life in this
great country that we know as the United States of America.
The problem from last year is that, with the confluence of interests
that would be affected, they put together a bill that was 100 percent
loan guarantee, that did not have an effective way of protecting the
taxpayer. Therefore, the scoring by the Congressional Budget Office was
a potential default rate of about 45 percent.
On a bipartisan basis, we have now put together an alternative. We
have a loan board made up of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board,
the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Agriculture, or
their Senate-confirmed designees. We guarantee only 80 percent of the
loan. We have an expanded ability to go behind shell corporations to
get to real assets.
We have put together a bill aimed at protecting the taxpayer. It is a
risky business trying to come up with the technology and investing $1
billion to get local television stations to rural America. A lot of
things can go wrong. This is a dangerous business we have undertaken.
Given that the Senate and the House of Representatives, by
overwhelming numbers, decided this was something that needed to be
done, we committed in the Banking Committee to try to do right. We said
that the Committee would report a bill by the end of this month. In
fact, we passed a bill unanimously in our Committee a month ago. I
believe we have done as good a job as possible given the mandate we had
and given the interest of the people who are both on the Committee and
serve in the Senate.
I am proud of this bill, and now we have to go to conference. They
have divided jurisdiction in the House, and it will be a difficult
conference.
My goal is to stay true to two principles: No. 1, we want to enhance
the chance that people who live in rural America, especially in
isolated areas, can get their local television signal. Second, we want
to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money. We want to guarantee to
the best of our ability not only that the loans will be made but that
they will be paid back. It does no good to make bad loans, because bad
loans don't produce local TV signals. Bad loans simply cost the
taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars and do no good.
I thank Senator Johnson who has been a leader on this. I thank Conrad
Burns. More than anybody else, Conrad Burns is responsible for this
bill passing the Senate today. He had the idea, he put together a
proposal, and he worked with Members to put together a better proposal.
He has been the constant driving force for this to happen.
When ABC Saturday football comes on with the local football team, I
hope people will think about Conrad Burns and the leadership he
provided in making it possible for them to view these shows.
We will dispense with this amendment by a voice vote. Anyone who
wants to make a last-minute statement on this bill, please come to the
floor. We are very close to a vote on final passage.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. First, I compliment my colleague, Senator Johnson, for
the extraordinary efforts he has made in reaching this compromise. I
compliment, as well, the Republican manager, Senator Gramm, for the
work that has gone into the agreement that we now have reached.
This is an important piece of legislation. I think we are going to
see a very strong vote. It is, in large measure, due to the
contributions and leadership of Senator Johnson and Senator Gramm. I
hope we can dispose of both of these matters shortly.
It has been a long time coming. But it was worth the wait.
I want to thank my colleagues--especially Senator Johnson--for making
essential improvements. Because of their patience and persistence, we
are now--finally--on the verge of passing a bill that will give rural
Americans the same access to affordable local TV programming as
everyone else in our nation.
Senator Johnson's amendment is the heart of this bill.
It will allow banks associated with rural cooperatives to lend coops
enough money to build their own satellite facilities.
The reason this is so critical is because commercial satellite
broadcasters have made it absolutely clear: They have no interest in
serving rural markets. They don't think it's worth their time or money
to build satellite TV facilities for rural markets.
The same is true of many commercial banks.
If the only choice for rural communities was to borrow from
commercial banks to build satellite facilities, the communities--very
likely--would end up paying high interest rates.
Those high interest rates would drive up the costs of building the
satellite facilities.
That, in turn, would drive up the price rural Americans would be
forced to pay for local TV programming.
Senator Johnson's amendment, though, means that banks associated with
rural cooperatives can also make loans to build satellite facilities.
The coops will charge lower interest rates than commercial banks.
This is a huge victory for people in small towns and rural
communities in South Dakota, and all across America.
The reason we fought so hard to get this bill right is because this
is not just about entertainment. This is about public safety.
It is potentially about life and death.
Local stations provide local news and public affairs programming.
They also provide weather updates.
A year and a half ago, a tornado destroyed much of the town of
Spencer, South Dakota. As devastating as that tornado was, it could
have been far worse. It could have claimed many lives.
One reason it did not may very well have been because Spencer is
within the Sioux Falls local broadcast area.
People could turn on their TVs and see that the tornado was coming,
and take cover.
But most South Dakota communities are outside both the Sioux Falls
and the Rapid City broadcast areas.
Without Senator Johnson's amendment, it is doubtful that they would
be able to receive local weather or news reports.
Rural coops have a 60-year history of responsibly promoting economic
development throughout rural America. By
[[Page S1965]]
adding them to the pool of qualified lenders, we have greatly improved
this bill.
I commend Senator Johnson again for his leadership, and I urge my
colleagues to vote for his amendment and this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, we have had a discussion going on
throughout the course of this afternoon relative to the satellite
television legislation and an amendment that is necessary on this bill.
I commend Senator Gramm, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee,
and his staff, Senator Thomas, Senator Grams, Senator Burns, Senator
Sarbanes and his staff, and others who have worked diligently on this.
We have spent a lot of time on it.
I believe we are almost at the moment where we can offer a compromise
amendment and resolve this once and for all. We just received a copy of
the amendment. There are one or two points that are being checked with
counsel. Within literally minutes, we should be able to confirm the
language is exactly what we think it is.
I am appreciative of the bipartisan effort that went into making this
legislation a reality. The legislation last fall was a good bill. It
permitted the broadcast of local signals to local areas, but we did
need the guarantee loan provisions to get into the smaller television
markets.
It has just been confirmed to me the language is as we thought.
Again, I applaud Senator Gramm and others for their work in that
regard.
Amendment No. 2903
(Purpose: To address certain lending practices)
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], for himself,
Mr. Gramm, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Burns, proposes an
amendment numbered 2903.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 30, strike line 22 and all that follows through
page 31, line 3, and insert the following:
``(D)(i) the loan (including Other Debt, as defined in
subsection (f)(2)(B))--
``(I) is provided by any entity engaged in the business of
commercial lending--
``(aa) if the loan is made in accordance with loan-to-one-
borrower and affiliate transaction restrictions to which the
entity if subject under applicable law; or
``(bb) if subclause (aa) does not apply, the loan is made
only to a borrower that is not an affiliate of the entity and
only if the amount of the loan and all outstanding loans by
that entity to that borrower and any of its affiliates does
not exceed 10 percent of the net equity of the entity; or
``(II) is provided by a nonprofit corporation, including
the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation,
engaged primarily in commercial lending, if the Board
determines that such nonprofit corporation has one or more
issues of outstanding long term debt that is rated within the
highest 3 rating categories of a nationally recognized
statistical rating organization, and, if the Board determines
that the making of the loan by such nonprofit corporation
will cause a decline in the debt rating mentioned above, the
Board at its discretion may disapprove the loan guarantee on
this basis.
``(ii)(I) no loan (including Other Debt as defined in
subsection (f)(2)(B) may be made for purposes of this Act by
a government entity or affiliate thereof, or by the Federal
Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, or any institution
supervised by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight, the Federal Housing Finance Board, or any
affiliate of such entities;
``(II) any loan (including Other Debt as defined in
subsection (f)(2)(B) must have terms, in the judgment of the
Board, that are consistent in material respects with the
terms of similar obligations in the private capital market;
``(III) for purposes of subclause (i)(I)(bb), the term `net
equity' means the value of the total assets of the entity,
less the total liabilities of the entity, as recorded under
generally accepted accounting principles for the fiscal
quarter ended immediately prior to the date on which the
subject loan is approved;''.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself, Senator Thomas, Senator Burns, Senator Grams, and Senator
Gramm. We have worked throughout the afternoon to expand the universal
qualified lenders without sacrificing taxpayer protections in the bill.
Thanks to the good faith on all sides, we have now allowed cooperative
lending entities, such as the CFC and CoBank, to participate in the
program while ensuring maximum protection of the taxpayer dollars.
I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
Mr. GRAMM. If the Senator will yield, I know Senator Domenici wanted
to vote on final passage and has to leave to attend a meeting. I do not
think anybody opposes the amendment on which we have worked out a
consensus. If the Senator wants a rollcall, obviously, we will have
one.
Mr. JOHNSON. I appreciate there is a timeliness issue here, but I do
think it is important to have a rollcall on this amendment. This is a
very significant matter. This is going to the conference committee. I
am hopeful we can expedite that matter.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment
be voted on immediately following a short statement by Senator Burns.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I can make my statement following the vote.
Mr. GRAMM. We can do it quickly. I ask unanimous consent that after
the amendment is adopted, we proceed to third reading and that there be
an immediate vote on passage of our bill, to be followed by the cloture
vote on the gas tax legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have a couple thank-yous, because this
has been an issue that has been worked out mostly because of the
cooperation of a lot of folks.
Last year, as my colleagues know, we ran into that brick wall called
Texas Gramm. Nonetheless, he has just been a champion of getting this
piece of legislation to the floor and getting it worked out. We have a
better bill. Under his guidance, under his recommendations, I think we
have a better bill. We have a better bill for the taxpayers. We have a
better bill for the people who want to receive their local-into-local
via satellite.
I also thank Senator Johnson and the ranking member of the Banking
Committee, Senator Paul Sarbanes, and my colleague from Montana, who
made it stronger because they understand the infrastructure is going to
be broadband services in our rural areas. This is a giant step forward.
Also, I thank the leader, Senator Lott, who put this on the calendar
and said it had to be one of the important things we pass this year in
this Congress. I appreciate his leadership. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Dakota wish to be
recognized?
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I reiterate my request for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2903. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 49 Leg.]
YEAS--99
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
[[Page S1966]]
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Boxer
The amendment (No. 2903) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next
vote in the series be limited to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has today
passed a bill that I tried to have passed along with the comprehensive
satellite reforms enacted a few months ago at the end of the last
congressional session. The reforms we authored are already bearing
fruit. Satellite carriers are beginning to serve their customers local
television, which they had not done before. As part of our
comprehensive reform we developed a loan guarantee program to help
ensure that smaller markets would not be left behind in enjoying the
benefits of our reforms.
The chairman of the Banking Committee requested further time to
review and improve if possible the program, and we were able to work
together to meet his concerns. The bill the Senate adopts today is
similar in most respects to the legislation we developed last year, and
I am pleased that we are finally able to pass this important
legislation.
I hope the House will act expeditiously on similar legislation, or
take up the Senate legislation as soon as possible. I have long
championed the provision of local television signals by satellite
carriers for many reasons. First, it allows for more direct competition
against cable customers alike, in the form of lower prices and better
services, as well as expanded choice. Second, I believe that local
television helps unite local communities by providing programming
relevant to that community. It is important that Utahns know what is
happening in their communities, and be able to participate in civic
affairs as informed citizens. They need to know what the local weather
forecast in New York. And they enjoy watching the local sports teams,
or other Utah-related programming. Third, I think local television
service is more consistent with the current market relationships than
beaming the programming tailored to other communities into our local
communities.
For these reasons, I pushed reforms to allow satellite companies to
carry local programming for a number of Congresses, culminating in our
passage of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 last year.
The one piece of unfinished business from that package of reforms was
the loan guarantee program we adopt today. Under this legislation,
government-backed loans will be made available to ensure that those
smaller markets, the markets that most need local television delivery
by satellite or other means, are not left behind. The satellite
carriers and cable companies understandably serve the larger markets
first, where costs are lower and revenues potentially greater.
Hopefully with the adoption and eventual enactment of this legislation
today, we will go a long way to help all our local communities enjoy
together the programming most relevant to them, their local television
signals.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2097, the Launching
Our Communities Access to Local Television Act of 2000. Enacting this
legislation will complete our work on the Satellite Home Viewer
Improvements Act that we voted into law last fall. Simply put, the
LOCAL TV bill is the last piece of the puzzle that will encourage
competition to cable in all markets, not just the top 20 or 30 largest
urban areas.
At the SHVIA Conference just this past year, we tried to tackle how
to encourage ``local-into-local'' service into all areas, not just the
biggest and most lucrative TV markets. But we only had mixed success.
So it made sense to postpone the debate until this year. At the time, I
was not entirely comfortable with the precursor of this measure. But I
did then and I do now strongly support its goals. Today's package
develops an approach that combines incentives and loan guarantees,
which will pave the way for ``local-into-local'' service to reach into
our rural areas. I am encouraged by the revisions that addressed the
concerns of Chairman Gramm and others.
For example, a loan guarantee must be approved by a board comprised
of the Treasury Secretary, Federal Reserve Chairman, and the
Agriculture Secretary. Such a board is unlikely to sign off on an
overly risky proposition. Their review will help ensure fiscal
discipline and prevent the taxpayer from being left on the hook for a
bad deal. Furthermore, the government will not underwrite the entire
amount of the loan. Holding lenders to 20 percent of the amount
financed will make them scrutinize a loan application long and hard
before they extend credit under this program.
Moreover, we still allow market forces to make this program work. The
LOCAL TV bill does not favor any particular technology. It is
technologically neutral. Therefore, whether it is satellite, cable or
an emerging technology, anyone with the entrepreneurial spirit to take
on the task of delivering local television signals to remote areas is
eligible for the program. By creating this incentive for all to
participate, we permit the market to determine who will win a loan
guarantee under this law.
Hopefully, and most importantly, this bill will help local-into-local
get rolled out more ubiquitously to rural markets in Wisconsin around
Green Bay, Madison, Eau Claire, and Wausau and to other areas across
the country. This is a good thing for consumers and, very simply,
that's why I support passage of this measure.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today first of all to commend those
members on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to bring
this important loan guarantee bill to the floor. It is the final
piece--and in my view, the key piece--of a lengthy effort to enact
comprehensive reform of our nation's satellite television laws.
Last year, we passed a bill that I was proud to cosponsor, the
Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999. It restored service to
thousands of Virginia households who had been cut off from their
network signals, and more importantly, allowed satellite television
companies to finally provide local network services to consumers. My
only disappointment about the Act was that a last-minute deal removed a
provision which would have made it easier for viewers living outside of
major metropolitan areas to get satellite broadcasts of their local
television stations.
As a result, the only market in Virginia that can receive local-into-
local service is the metropolitan D.C. area, leaving over 94% of
satellite households in my state without this crucial service. The
satellite industry is not required to start offering local service to
all their customers, and they've made it clear that they don't intend
to do so, leaving many Americans without this important service.
I believe that every household in Virginia, and, indeed, across
America deserves the same quality local television service. This isn't
just a matter of helping rural areas get the latest episodes of ``Who
Wants to Be a Millionaire?'' or ``NYPD Blue''--it's about ensuring that
all consumers have access to vital local public safety information,
school closings, weather and news programming that we've come to rely
on.
There's no question that the market is out there for these services--
I've been inundated with thousands of phone calls, letters and post
cards from Virginians who want to subscribe to them. Unfortunately,
many companies and cooperatives who are interested in providing new
local television services have held back because the financing can be a
bit tricky.
The bill before us today will help to address this problem. By
providing loan guarantees that support new satellite services that
serve rural areas of the country, we can help facilitate the
transmission of local television signals to areas of the country that
are not able to receive this service. Earlier today, I joined Senators
Johnson and Thomas in introducing an amendment that would significantly
improve the loan guarantee program by expanding it to include those
entities that are most adept at providing rural utilities. I'm very
pleased that a modified
[[Page S1967]]
version of this amendment has been accepted, and believe that it will
go a long way toward bringing affordable local television signals to
unserved areas in Virginia.
Mr. President, I'd also like to talk for a moment about a second
amendment which I've cosponsored, along with Senators Baucus and Leahy,
to address the issue of the emerging ``digital divide'' between urban
and rural America. While many people generally think of Internet access
as something that you get over telephone lines, consumers are
increasingly able to access the Internet at much faster speeds through
the same systems used to transmit cable and satellite television.
Our amendment simply clarifies that this new loan guarantee program
should look at ways that the same systems which are deployed in rural
areas to deliver local television services can also be used to deliver
new broadband communications services. At a time when television and
the Internet are heading in a direction where they may soon converge,
we ought to have the foresight to look at ways that new communications
systems can support multiple services and technologies, particularly
when the government is helping to finance the deployment of these
systems. This amendment has also been accepted.
Again, Mr. President, I strongly support the underlying bill, and
commend those on both sides of the aisle who have helped move it to the
Senate floor. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure
that we take steps to further enhance the range of choices consumers
have in the marketplace.
Administrative Procedure Act
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Is it the case that the
program established by S. 2097, the ``Launching Our Communities' Access
to Local Television Act of 2000,'' would be subject to the
Administrative Procedure Act? For example, would the Board established
by this Act be required to make its proposed rules and regulations
available for public comment and other relevant procedures under the
Administrative Procedure Act?
Mr. GRAMM. The Senator is correct. Public involvement must be an
essential part of this program if it is to succeed. The Board
established by S. 2097 falls within the definition of an ``agency''
under section 552 of Title 5 of the United States Code (Administrative
Procedure Act) and therefore will have its rulemaking subject to the
Administrative Procedure Act. All parties will have an opportunity to
be heard. This openness to public comment will help ensure that the
interests of those most likely to benefit from the loan guarantee
program--television subscribers in unserved areas--will be represented.
In addition, an open rulemaking should help ensure that no applicant
for a loan guarantee will receive consideration apart from the merits
of the proposed project.
Mr. ENZI. I thank the chairman for this clarification.
application of copyright and communications law to loan guarantee
applicants
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it would be appropriate at this point to
explain our joint view regarding the application of copyright and
communications law to those who provide local television signals with
the assistance provided under this Act. We all agree that the rights,
obligations, and limitations that apply to applicants under this loan
guarantee program ought to be the same as those providing similar
services without the assistance of the loan guarantee program. Congress
passed comprehensive rules in this area just a few months ago at the
end of the last session, and it is our joint intention to clarify that
those rules apply to applicants under this program just as they do to
others who take advantage of the reforms passed last year. To
underscore this position we have offered an amendment, and that
amendment has been accepted, that will clarify some confusion resulting
from the manner in which section 8 of the underlying bill was drafted
by dropping section 8 from the bill altogether. It is the general rule
that otherwise applicable law will apply absent a clear statement to
the contrary. Since the relevant sections of Title 17 and Title 47
would apply, the attempt to list the provisions that apply in this
context is superfluous, and to the extent that the drafting in current
section 8 could be read to be inconsistent with current law, it merely
causes needless confusion. It seems best, therefore, to simply drop the
provision and make a clear statement that currently applicable
copyright and communications law will apply to applicants under the
loan guarantee program just as it does to those providing similar
services without loan guarantee assistance. Do my colleagues agree?
Mr. STEVENS. I do agree. It was never the intention of those who
worked on the broad satellite television reforms in the last session to
establish any different copyright or communications rules for loan
guarantee applicants, but rather that they be governed by the same
rules as all others in the market. If special rules were established
for loan guarantee applicants, the loan guarantee program would have
collateral effects on the market for subscription television services
by causing a confusing disparity in the rules applicable to
competitors, and possibly skew competition in unforeseen or
inappropriate ways. I agree that it is important to clarify the
application of law in this way at that time. I would ask the managers
of the bill if they agree with us and will commit to work through
conference to the end of ensuring that the rules we adopted last year
will continue to apply to applicants and non-applicants alike?
Mr. GRAMM. I agree with my colleagues that we should clarify that
current copyright and communications law will apply to applicants and
non-applicants alike under our loan guarantee legislation. And I will
continue to work, as I have heretofore, to ensure that our loan
guarantee bill does not change the application of the rules passed last
year with regard to applicants or other non-applicant providers of
television services.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MACK (when his name was called). Present.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Mack
NOT VOTING--2
Boxer
Domenici
The bill (S. 2097), as amended, was passed.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in regard to the legislation just passed,
I
[[Page S1968]]
compliment the chairman of the committee, Senator Gramm, and also
Senator Conrad Burns, for their leadership. They worked on this
legislation for a long time. I compliment them on passing a good bill
and passing it overwhelmingly.
____________________