[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.

                          ____________________