[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 94 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8055-S8058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION ACT
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
now resume consideration of S. 652, the telecommunications bill, which
the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 652) to provide for a pro-competitive,
deregulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate
rapidly private sector deployment of advanced
telecommunications and information technologies and services
to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to
competition, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Dole amendment No. 1255, to provide additional deregulation
of telecommunications services, including rural and small
cable TV systems.
Dorgan modified amendment No. 1264, to require Department
of Justice approval for regional Bell operating company entry
into long distance services, based on the VIII(c) standard.
Thurmond modified amendment No. 1265 (to amendment No.
1264), to provide for the review by the Attorney General of
the United States of the entry of the Bell operating
companies into interexchange telecommunications and
manufacturing markets.
Hollings/Daschle amendment No. 1266, to clarify the
requirements a Bell operating company must satisfy before
being permitted to offer long distance services.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 1265, as Modified, to Amendment No. 1264, as Modified
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, we now resume the discussion of S. 652, in
particular the amendment before us, which is, as I understand it, the
second-degree amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina to
the amendment from the Senator from North Dakota; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KERREY. I have not yet read, or we have not yet seen the
amendment from the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. But I am
going to make some presumptions here that I understand in general terms
what it is about. I think in that amendment, there is a possibility of
a compromise here, something that could satisfy both sides and get us
to a point where we have a bill where we are going to get large numbers
of people rather than a relatively smaller number of people supporting
the legislation.
I believe that S. 652 in its current form, unamended, is not good for
the American consumer. I will make it [[Page S8056]] clear on that. I
do not believe the American consumer will enjoy the full benefits of
competition with S. 652 in its current form. The reason I believe that
is that competition will not bring the kinds of benefits to the
American consumer unless that competition comes from the bottom up,
from entrepreneurs who have a chance to come to our households--100
million households total in the United States of America--and offer us
packaged information services through two alternative lines coming into
our home--a telephone line and a cable line.
If they have an opportunity to come into that environment and say,
well, Mr. Kerrey, we would like to sell you a packaged service of
voice, video, or text; you are purchasing services today of $120 to
$150 a month, and we can sell that to you for $75, $80, or $90 a month,
in that kind of a competitive environment, the prices will come down
and the quality is going to go up in the four big areas where
households tend to see services.
No. 1, the price is going to go down for the switching services; that
is, the movement of the bundled data from household to household or
from household to business or vice versa.
We will see reductions in the cost of the manufactured hardware that
is used in the home, regardless of what that hardware is, as the market
tries to give better and better service.
We will see prices come down in the content--that package I described
earlier--and we will see prices come down and quality come up in a
range of services that household services buy.
My fear is that in a good faith effort to produce a means to replace
the VIII(c) test--I apologize for getting a little technical--what the
committee did in a good faith effort to replace the VIII(c), test which
I believe 18 members of the committee last year voted for in S. 1822
that was tied up late last fall, to replace that test, the committee
came up with 134 individual things that the ARBOC, the local telephone
company, has to have before they are allowed into long distance
service.
That is kind of a summary, I believe, the distinguished Senator from
South Carolina last evening gave as to how those 14 items did, in fact,
replace this old test that was S. 1822, a bill that was supported by 18
members of the Commerce Committee last year.
The reason I say with respect that I do not feel that is adequate is,
again, the Justice Department has the expertise of managing
unprecedented movements from a monopoly situation to a competitive
situation. We need that. That is a service that the people of the
United States of America need. That is what this whole bill is about.
If we look at the title, title I is ``Transition to Competition'';
title II, ``Removal of Restrictions to Competition''; title III, ``An
End to Regulation.''
Mr. President, the only people in the U.S. Capital, the people's
Capital, with experience in all these three of those areas is the
Antitrust Division of the Department, approximately 800 people. We will
not fall into the illusion that this is an enormous bureaucracy over
there just busting at the seams with all sorts of people. It is
approximately 800 people that run the Antitrust Division at Justice,
and they managed the movement from a monopoly, AT&T, to our current
competitive environment we have in long distance.
We are talking about doing the same thing with local telephone
service. It seems to me, Mr. President, for those who want to survive
this vote, who want to not just get a pat on the back as we walk out of
here on final passage from those folks in industry that are out there
hoping we vote the right way, whichever way that is, if we hope to get
a pat on the back by our consumers, by our citizens, by our voters--and
I would argue that is, in the end, the ultimate test--then we need to
go to that agency that has experience in managing an unprecedented
event, a movement from a monopoly situation at the local telephone
service to a competitive environment.
This is going to be an extremely difficult thing to do. As I
understand it, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has
proposed an amendment. I have not seen that amendment yet. He has
proposed an amendment that might, in fact, solve problems that people
have about having dual authority here. As I understand it, it may
reduce the role of the FCC while giving the Department of Justice some
additional authority. It seems to me that that is the right direction
to go.
I want to walk through a little bit here this morning, and I will
stop and yield afterward to anyone else that wants to talk on this
issue.
There is, I think, legitimate concerns about what this will mean in
terms of the time that is taken. In a time we are trying to get rid of
regulation, which we are trying to do, we ought not have any
unnecessary regulation.
I am prepared to support any person that has an amendment that says,
here is something we will regulate that does not add any value at all;
all it does is slow things down. I am prepared to vote for the
elimination of any regulation that still is in the bill that might be
unnecessary and that might add unnecessary costs.
The procedures for a Bell operating company entering into long
distance--under the amendments proposed, the underlying Dorgan
amendment, the Bell operating company would file an application to get
into long distance. The Department of Justice and the Federal
Communications Commission would review and proceed simultaneously.
Their reviews go forward at the same time. We do not go to one and then
to the other. We go to both simultaneously and each reviews something
different. The Bell operating company has an answer within 90 days
after application in accordance with a date certain established by
Congress.
For Members that are wondering about how this will all work out and
whether or not this is going to delay things, the language of the
Dorgan amendment provides a date certain for an answer to be given by
the Department of Justice to the Bell operating corporation applying
for permission to get into long distance. The procedure is fast--90
days. It is fast.
We can set into the Record, with people who are experienced with how
the courts work, if we need stronger colloquies filed so the courts
understand that 90 days means 90 days, then we will do that and make
certain that the time will be 90 days and that extensions are not
granted for this particular procedure.
The standard for DOJ is clear, Mr. President. There is not ambiguity
here. It is based on a well-established law applying both the Clayton
Act and, by the way, the VIII(c) test under MFJ. The procedure will
reduce litigation. Make no mistake about it. In my estimation, the
existing law as written will encourage litigation and prolong the
process. If Members believe it will do the opposite, come and say that
it will do the opposite.
I am saying that my concern, as one Member that has one vote here, is
that we come here and try to satisfy citizens--in this case, citizens
as consumers--and I say that the existing law, in my judgment, will
produce consumer confusion, it will produce consumer dissatisfaction,
and it will produce problems that are going to cause Members who vote
for it in its current form to say, well, I did not realize it would do
that. Maybe we can come back in afterward and fix it with an amendment.
Unfortunately, it is likely to be the very amendment we are considering
today.
I said at the beginning that somewhere in the mix, somewhere in the
mix, and I appreciate what we are basically doing is trying to figure
out some way to continue the work that the senior Senator from Nebraska
came up with this compromise language in committee. He is the one that
has taken the lead on this. I understand the committee had a difficult
time balancing and getting this stuff done.
Somewhere in the mix is a way for Members to give DOJ a role, perhaps
limit and reduce some of the regulation that is at the FCC, and give
those Members who are concerned about how we will manage this
transition from monopoly to competition, give those Members that have
that kind of concern some satisfaction.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wanted to inquire, if the regular order is
called for, it is my understanding that the amendment I offered would
be pending; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is correct.
Mr. DOLE. That would be subject to a second-degree amendment?
[[Page S8057]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOLE. I am not certain when we can agree on a vote. I know for
the Senator from North Dakota, this is a central issue, the one we are
debating now. I am not trying to crowd anyone. I want to try to make
some headway this morning. If Members believe that Friday is Friday and
we do not vote on Friday, nobody will ever be here on Friday.
We are going to have votes this morning, and I would like to
accommodate everybody's request. I wonder if there is any objection--
and I do not want to offend anyone--to calling for the regular order.
As I understand, the Senator from Pennsylvania has a second-degree
amendment to my amendment. We are still trying to work out my amendment
and the Daschle amendment, so we do not have one leader getting his
adopted, the other not. We are trying to work that out.
Is there any objection if we proceed on that basis?
Mr. HOLLINGS. No objection.
Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment
for Senator Santorum to offer an amendment.
Mr. KERREY. Reserving the right to object, I do not believe I intend
to object. As I understand, the Senator is asking to proceed to the
Santorum amendment with no agreement as to how long we will debate the
Santorum amendment.
Mr. DOLE. Yes, we will lay aside the big amendment that the Senator
is concerned about, Senator Dorgan's, and my amendment--just go ahead
and offer it, period. That is all right.
Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object. I would like to speak for
a moment on the Department of Justice amendment, after which I have no
objection to setting it aside and going to the Santorum amendment.
Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment
for the Senator from Pennsylvania to offer an amendment with the
understanding the Senator from North Dakota is going to be first
recognized for a moment to make a statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized for a moment.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska, appropriately
framed the issue of the role of the Department of Justice in the
telecommunications legislation--or more appropriately put, the role the
Department of Justice does not yet have in the telecommunications
legislation and the reason many of us believe the legislation should be
amended. For those who have not been involved in studying this
legislation, I want to describe, again, why I think a role for the
Justice Department is central to telecommunications legislation.
In 1934, when the Telecommunications Act was written originally, the
issue was regulating a monopoly. Why must you regulate a monopoly? If
you do not regulate a monopoly, a monopoly will do whatever it chooses
to do to the American citizens and to the consumers. Regulating a
monopoly was important in 1934.
Mr. President, we are rewriting that telecommunications law today in
the Senate. The issue is no longer reregulating or regulating a
monopoly; the issue is deregulation and competition. That requires a
different legislative approach.
The breakup of AT&T into the regional Bell operating companies and
the long distance companies, has created a substantially different kind
of telecommunications network in our country.
In the long distance area we have robust, healthy, vibrant
competition. Literally, hundreds of companies are involved in
competitive efforts to market long distance services. These competitive
efforts bring choice to consumers, generally at lower prices. We have
seen a very substantial drop in charges for long distance services.
We have not seen similar circumstances in local service. This
telecommunications bill must provide conditions under which local
services will also have competition. The Bell operating companies are
not now free to go out and compete with the long distance companies
because they have a monopoly in most places in local service. It is not
fair for the Bell operating companies to have a monopoly in local
service, retain that monopoly and get involved in competitive
circumstances in long distance service.
Most of the Bell companies want to get involved in the long distance
business and this piece of legislation establishes the conditions under
which that will occur.
The question before us is, When is competition in local service
sufficient so that the Bell companies will be freed to provide long
distance service? The piece of legislation before us establishes a role
for the Federal Communications Commission to evaluate or to judge when
that competition exists. Traditionally, that judgment role would be
made at the Department of Justice. That is what the Justice Department
does. That is their background and expertise. The Justice Department
evaluates competition. It is the agency that deals with antitrust,
monopoly, and competition issues.
The role of the Justice Department was, I assume, deliberately left
out of this legislation for a number of reasons. I assume some people
wanted there to be less aggressiveness in determining whether there is,
in fact, real competition at the local level before the Bell operating
companies are allowed to compete in the long distance area. One
interesting point, last year, when the Senate Commerce Committee passed
this legislation, and last year when the House of Representatives
passed this legislation with 420 votes, a role for the Justice
Department was in the telecommunications bill.
Last year the Justice Department was to have a full role in
evaluating whether competition exists. This year, it does not. The
question is, Why? What has changed? Nothing has changed. Consumers
still need protection. Our responsibilities to make certain consumers
are served the way they should be served has not changed. If we are
moving from a period where we talked about regulated monopolies to a
period where we are talking about deregulated competition, why should
those who talked the loudest about deregulation not also be those who
are most aggressive in making sure that competition really exists?
Because competition, it seems to me, is the linchpin of a free market
system.
If you have less competition, then your free market system does not
work very well; it is not very free. If you have broader competition,
robust, healthy competition, that is when the free market system works.
In this legislation, the role of the Justice Department is to make sure
that there is real competition before we release the Bell operating
companies to get involved in long distance services.
I think a Department of Justice role is the most important issue we
will deal with on the floor of the Senate in this legislation. It deals
with literally hundreds of billions of dollars. The consumers are at
substantial risk if we make the wrong decisions. I believe if we think
our way through this issue as we construct this legislation on the
floor of the Senate, we will reach the right result. And the right
result clearly is for the Department of Justice to have a role.
The Senator from South Carolina believes it should happen. That is
why he has offered an amendment. I believe it should happen that is why
I offered an amendment. It is true we come at it in different ways, but
they are, in many ways, not so far apart. And I am hoping in not too
many hours we can reach some sort of common understanding between our
amendments and resolve the differences we have. The technical
difference is I am proposing what is called an VIII(c) standard, and he
is dealing with a Clayton 7 standard. These standards are not so
different. The best approach will be if we can, the Senator from South
Carolina and others on both sides of this issue, find a way to merge
these two approaches so the Justice Department retains a strong role in
this legislation to protect the public interest. After all, protecting
the public interest is what this legislation must do in the final
analysis.
I appreciate very much the work and the words of my colleague from
Nebraska, Senator Kerrey.
I think the coalition of us, Senator Kerrey, myself, Senator
Thurmond, Senator Leahy, Senator Simon, and so many others, can amend
this legislation before this debate is over. [[Page S8058]]
If we do that, I think the winner will be the American people and the
free market system in our country that works only when there is healthy
and robust competition.
So I know we are going to set this legislation aside and go to a
Santorum amendment, after which we will come back to it. There are a
number of Members who wish to come to the floor and speak on this
issue--Senator Simon, Senator Leahy, and others. I hope at the end of
the debate we will have succeeded in amending the telecommunications
bill to include a Justice Department role. I think it is important for
the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERREY. Reserving the right to object. As in morning business? I
thought the Senator was going to offer an amendment.
Mr. SANTORUM. I am still waiting to hear if there is an agreement on
my offering the amendment. We are waiting to hear from Members on your
side of the aisle.
Mr. KERREY. Did the majority leader not earlier ask? Is that what we
are proceeding under? I thought we were going to----
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Nebraska,
what we are trying to do is get an agreement on when we are going to
vote, if we can get a 10:30 agreement to vote. Does anybody object to
voting at 10:30? Otherwise, we will have a Sergeant at Arms vote. There
is going to be a vote. Either vote on the amendment or have a live
quorum and we will have a vote. It is up to the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. I just got this amendment. I am not going to agree to a
time of 10:30 or any other time at the moment until I review this
amendment.
Mr. DOLE. We had an agreement last night, I understand, with the
Senator for 10 o'clock. He had the amendment in his hand last night.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, 10 o'clock--my understanding last night
was we were going to take it up at 10 o'clock. I did not understand.
Mr. DOLE. Take it up at 9:15, vote at 10. Now we are going to take it
up at 9:45, vote in 45 minutes. I understand it is a very technical
amendment.
Mr. KERREY. Let me just continue what I am doing, which is reviewing
the amendment which I am looking at now for the first time.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may
proceed as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.
____________________