[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 93 (Monday, July 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now 
be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak 
therein for up to 3 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     national communication policy

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, sometime over the next few weeks 
the issue of national communications policy is likely to come before 
us. It is a huge issue much impacts on our economy, our quality of 
life, and our global competitiveness. It is an issue much in need of 
congressional attention because--despite technological advancement and 
the judicial dismantling of AT&T--national communications policy has 
gone virtually unchanged for 60 years.
  My constituents are increasingly interested in this issue and seem to 
realize that what we do will affect the price and availability of 
communications services and whether they have a choice in 
communications providers for local telephone, cable television, and 
long distance services.
  The Senate Commerce Committee will soon be completing markup of S. 
1822, the legislation sponsored by Senator Hollings. I applaud the 
chairman of the Commerce Committee for focusing attention on 
communications issues and for completing the yeoman's work of the 
Communications Act of 1994. Although the road to reaching a consensus 
on how we can fairly attain open competition in local and long distance 
telephone services is rife with potholes, I believe middle ground is 
attainable. I am encouraged by recent statements by Chairman Hollings 
that he wants to work out remaining issues in the bill including RBOC 
entry into long distance services.
  As I grapple with this issue, it is hard to ignore the recent success 
of the other body. Before the July 4 recess, the House of 
Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation addressing 
communications competition and infrastructure investment. This does not 
mean the proposal adopted by the House was without controversy in its 
formative or final stages, but it does demonstrate the unanimity of 
purpose of the legislators to seek compromise and go forward on 
national communications policy. I believe this same sense of purpose is 
shared in our body.
  Madam President, I am not saying that we cannot improve on the work 
done in the House of Representatives. My impression is that the House 
package displeased everyone equally--and that may not be a bad thing. 
The major Senate proposals--S. 1822 and S. 2111--also have their 
staunch supporters and vocal critics, and deserve close review.
  It is my hope that those industries and individuals engaged in the 
debate are prepared to accept the good with the bad in whatever form 
the final Senate legislation takes--so long as the proposal fulfills 
our objectives without unfairly advantaging or disadvantaging one 
company or industry segment at the expense of another. Most 
importantly, we must advance a bill which best serves the intended 
beneficiaries of a multifaceted information infrastructure: the general 
public. The House sought to strike this balance. We can find it, too.

                          ____________________