[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 32 (Friday, March 12, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PROTECTING AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, March 12, 2004

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation to protect 
America's national security. My bill prohibits foreign governments from 
controlling or owning U.S. communications networks. This is not a new 
concept. It has been the law for more than fifty years, but the Federal 
Communications Commission has failed to enforce it in recent years.
  Let me be clear from the onset--this bill places ownership and 
control restrictions on foreign governments, not on companies, which 
simply happen to be foreign. This distinction is important, and we must 
recognize the realities of the world we live in. Foreign government 
interests are not always our own, just as our interests will, at times, 
vary from theirs. If we do not protect our interests, no one else will 
either--which leaves a massive security vulnerability when it comes to 
communications.
  For example, most people are not aware that nearly half of the U.S. 
video distribution runs over a satellite network controlled by a 
foreign government, Luxembourg. That same government opposed the U.S. 
led coalition in Iraq and was one of the few nations which wanted to 
throw NATO out of Europe. So I ask, is it really a good idea to put 
those satellite links under foreign government control, especially when 
those very links are used to distribute our nation's news? Whether it 
is the recent blackout or 9-11, we all know the panic created when we 
are cut off--no information coming in, and no information going out. We 
are an information-based society, and when access to information is 
compromised, our security is compromised.
  Another concern is the vast amount of U.S. military communications in 
the Gulf region, which rely upon satellite networks controlled by 
foreign government. The Wall Street Journal reported on September 9, 
2003, that Eutelsat, and I quote, ``snared much of the extra business 
to help U.S. forces conduct surveillance and battlefield operations in 
Iraq.'' The article went on to say ``Some company officials say the 
deal is a big reason Eutelsat's financial results have been stronger 
than those of its competitors, accounting for nearly 10 percent of 
total revenues.''
  For those not familiar with Eutelsat, it is a conglomeration of 
multiple government-owned phone companies, with its headquarters in 
Paris. Some of Eutelsat's government owners have been some of our 
closest allies for decades, yet when it came to Iraq, we parted ways. 
It seems to me that it is not prudent policy to allow our lines of 
communications to be controlled by even our closest friends, because 
even the closest friends may, at times, have differing opinions and 
interests. Furthermore, the satellite market is in tough shape right 
now. I find it difficult to understand why we support a corporation 
that is controlled by a foreign government to the detriment of U.S. 
providers.
  For several years, I have expressed serious reservations about the 
Federal Communications Commission's enforcement of foreign government 
ownership restrictions under Section 310 of the Communications Act. I 
repeatedly pointed out that companies controlled by foreign governments 
are too often controlled by considerations other than those of the 
competitive marketplace. Notwithstanding my concerns, the Commission 
has repeatedly approved foreign government acquisitions of U.S. 
licenses.
  In view of the clear differences between the Congress and members of 
the Commission about the meaning and application of Section 310, I 
requested that the Commission conduct a ``vigorous review'' of the 
proposed acquisition of GE Americom by SES-Astra. In the end, the 
acquisition was treated as such a routine matter that it was approved 
at the staff level. We have laws on our books which restrict such 
acquisitions, yet a merger involving a foreign government is more 
easily approved, and with fewer conditions, than most U.S. mergers. 
After approving the application, the Commission staff subsequently 
``found'' SES-Astra had not divulged the full extent of foreign control 
in the company. Even then, the Commission still allowed the staff 
approval to stand.
  Accordingly, I am introducing this legislation to make clear, in no 
uncertain terms, that foreign governments, directly or indirectly, are 
specifically prohibited from owning or controlling U.S. communications 
networks. This legislation does not break new ground. It simply 
preserves and clarifies current law, stating that we will never place 
our lines of communications in a position where they can be compromised 
by foreign governments.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

                          ____________________