[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 7]
[House]
[Page 9076]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY

  (Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, a recent broadband technology decision by 
the Federal Communications Commission presents serious issues for rural 
America and the agricultural industry as a whole.
  Perhaps no small- to mid-sized business sector has been more affected 
by technology than agriculture, where computer systems monitor crop 
production, satellites relay soil moisture information and cell phones 
coordinate efforts.
  However, last year, when the House passed the Tauzin-Dingell bill, 
which would remove outmoded restrictions on local phone companies in 
exchange for aggressive system modernization and network build-out 
requirements, by adopting the business-as-usual stance, the FCC refused 
an opportunity to move in the direction that American agriculture and 
rural America has by adopting new technology, and instead attempted to 
require some companies to give deep discounts to their competition. 
Capital investment by these companies will suffer greatly in central 
Florida and throughout rural America.
  Mr. Speaker, if local phone companies have little interest and no 
real incentive to invest heavily in urban and wealthy suburban areas, 
rural and small-town Americans will once again get the short end of the 
stick.
  I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell) in strongly urging the FCC to reconsider their position. 
Rural America needs the technological progress regulatory reform could 
bring.

                          ____________________