[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 96 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8225-S8245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         RECESS UNTIL 2:15 P.M.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
stand in recess until 2:15 p.m.
  Thereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the Senate recessed until 2:15 p.m.; 
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding 
Officer (Mr. Kyl).
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1275

  (Purpose: To provide means of limiting the exposure of children to 
       violent programming on television, and for other purposes)

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. [[Page S8226]] 
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1275.

  Mr. CONRAD. 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 146, below line 14, add the following:

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Parental Choice in 
     Television Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 502. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On average, a child in the United States is exposed to 
     27 hours of television each week and some children are 
     exposed to as much as 11 hours of television each day.
       (2) The average American child watches 8,000 murders and 
     100,000 acts of other violence on television by the time the 
     child completes elementary school.
       (3) By the age of 18 years, the average American teenager 
     has watched 200,000 acts of violence on television, including 
     40,000 murders.
       (4) On several occasions since 1975, The Journal of the 
     American Medical Association has alerted the medical 
     community to the adverse effects of televised violence on 
     child development, including an increase in the level of 
     aggressive behavior and violent behavior among children who 
     view it.
       (5) The National Commission on Children recommended in 1991 
     that producers of television programs exercise greater 
     restraint in the content of programming for children.
       (6) A report of the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, 
     dated May 1993, indicates that there is an irrefutable 
     connection between the amount of violence depicted in the 
     television programs watched by children and increased 
     aggressive behavior among children.
       (7) It is a compelling National interest that parents be 
     empowered with the technology to block the viewing by their 
     children of television programs whose content is overly 
     violent or objectionable for other reasons.
       (8) Technology currently exists to permit the manufacture 
     of television receivers that are capable of permitting 
     parents to block television programs having violent or 
     otherwise objectionable content.

     SEC. 503. ESTABLISHMENT OF TELEVISION VIOLENCE RATING CODE.

       (a) In General.--Section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) Prescribe, in consultation with television 
     broadcasters, cable operators, appropriate public interest 
     groups, and interested individuals from the private sector, 
     rules for rating the level of violence or other objectionable 
     content in television programming, including rules for the 
     transmission by television broadcast stations and cable 
     systems of--
       ``(1) signals containing ratings of the level of violence 
     or objectionable content in such programming; and
       ``(2) signals containing specifications for blocking such 
     programming.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, but only if the Commission determines, in 
     consultation with appropriate public interest groups and 
     interested individuals from the private sector, on that date 
     that television broadcast stations and cable systems have 
     not--
       (1) established voluntarily rules for rating the level of 
     violence or other objectionable content in television 
     programming which rules are acceptable to the Commission; and
       (2) agreed voluntarily to broadcast signals that contain 
     ratings of the level of violence or objectionable content in 
     such programming.

     SEC. 504. REQUIREMENT FOR MANUFACTURE OF TELEVISIONS THAT 
                   BLOCK PROGRAMS.

       (a) Requirement.--Section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303), as amended 
     by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(w) Require, in the case of apparatus designed to receive 
     television signals that are manufactured in the United States 
     or imported for use in the United States and that have a 
     picture screen 13 inches or greater in size (measured 
     diagonally), that such apparatus--
       ``(1) be equipped with circuitry designed to enable viewers 
     to block the display of channels during particular time 
     slots; and
       ``(2) enable viewers to block display of all programs with 
     a common rating.''.
       (b) Implementation.--In adopting the requirement set forth 
     in section 303(w) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added 
     by subsection (a), the Federal Communications Commission, in 
     consultation with the television receiver manufacturing 
     industry, shall determine a date for the applicability of the 
     requirement to the apparatus covered by that section.

     SEC. 505. SHIPPING OR IMPORTING OF TELEVISIONS THAT BLOCK 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Regulations.--Section 330 (47 U.S.C. 330) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by adding after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection (c):
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person 
     shall ship in interstate commerce, manufacture, assemble, or 
     import from any foreign country into the United States any 
     apparatus described in section 303(w) of this Act except in 
     accordance with rules prescribed by the Commission pursuant 
     to the authority granted by that section.
       ``(2) This subsection shall not apply to carriers 
     transporting apparatus referred to in paragraph (1) without 
     trading it.
       ``(3) The rules prescribed by the Commission under this 
     subsection shall provide performance standards for blocking 
     technology. Such rules shall require that all such apparatus 
     be able to receive transmitted rating signals which conform 
     to the signal and blocking specifications established by the 
     Commission.
       ``(4) As new video technology is developed, the Commission 
     shall take such action as the Commission determines 
     appropriate to ensure that blocking service continues to be 
     available to consumers.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 330(d), as redesignated 
     by subsection (a)(1), is amended by striking ``section 
     303(s), and section 303(u)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``and sections 303(s), 303(u), and 303(w)''.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
telecommunications bill, which is a bill that is designed to do two 
things. One, it is designed to empower parents to help make the choices 
of what their children see on television coming into their homes.
  Mr. President, several years ago, I became very involved in the issue 
of violence in the media, because I became convinced that violence in 
the media is contributing to violence in society; it is contributing to 
violence on the streets of America. So I worked to form a national 
organization, which is now some 37 national organizations, all involved 
in an attempt to reduce violence in the media. This is a national 
coalition that involves organizations like the American Medical 
Association, the PTA, the National Council of Churches, the sheriffs, 
police chiefs, the school psychologists, the school principals, the 
National Education Association--37 national organizations who are 
committed to reducing violence in the media.
  It is for that reason that I offer what I call the Parental Choice 
and Television Act of 1995.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                Amendment No. 1347 to Amendment No. 1275

 (Purpose: To revise the provisions relating to the establishment of a 
     system for rating violence and other objectionable content on 
                              television)

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1347 to amendment No. 1275.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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 3, strike out line 12 and all that follows through 
     page 4, line 16, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 503. RATING CODE FOR VIOLENCE AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE 
                   CONTENT ON TELEVISION.

       (a) Sense of Congress on Voluntary Establishment of Rating 
     Code.--It is the sense of Congress--
       (1) to encourage appropriate representatives of the 
     broadcast television industry and the cable television 
     industry to establish in a voluntary manner rules for rating 
     the level of violence or other objectionable content in 
     television programming, including rules for the transmission 
     by television broadcast stations and cable systems of--
       (A) signals containing ratings of the level of violence or 
     objectionable content in such programming; and
       (B) signals containing specifications for blocking such 
     programming;
       (2) to encourage such representatives to establish such 
     rules in consultation with appropriate public interest groups 
     and interested individuals from the private sector; and
       (3) to encourage television broadcasters and cable 
     operators to comply voluntarily with such rules upon the 
     establishment of such rules.
       (b) Requirement for Establishment of Rating Code.--
       (1) In general.--If the representatives of the broadcast 
     television industry and the cable television industry do not 
     establish the rules referred to in subsection (a)(1) by the 
     end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, there shall be established on the day 
     following the end [[Page S8227]] of that period a commission 
     to be known as the Television Rating Commission (hereafter in 
     this section referred to as the ``Television Commission''). 
     The Television Commission shall be an independent 
     establishment in the executive branch as defined under 
     section 104 of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Members.--
       (A) In general.--The Television Commission shall be 
     composed of 5 members, of whom--
       (i) three shall be appointed by the President, as 
     representatives of the public by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate; and
       (ii) two shall be appointed by the President, as 
     representatives of the broadcast television industry and the 
     cable television industry, by and with the advice and consent 
     of the Senate;
       (B) Nomination.--Individuals shall be nominated for 
     appointment under subparagraph (A)(i) not later than 60 days 
     after the date of the establishment of the Television 
     Commission.
       (D) Terms.--Each member of the Television Commission shall 
     serve until the termination of the commission.
       (E) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Television Commission 
     shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment.
       (2) Duties of television commission.--The Television 
     Commission shall establish rules for rating the level of 
     violence or other objectionable content in television 
     programming, including rules for the transmission by 
     television broadcast stations and cable systems of--
       (A) signals containing ratings of the level of violence or 
     objectionable content in such programming; and
       (B) signals containing specifications for blocking such 
     programming.
       (3) Compensation of members.--
       (A) Chairman.--The Chairman of the Television Commission 
     shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the 
     minimum annual rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including traveltime) during which 
     the Chairman is engaged in the performance of duties vested 
     in the commission.
       (B) Other members.--Except for the Chairman who shall be 
     paid as provided under subparagraph (A), each member of the 
     Television Commission shall be paid at a rate equal to the 
     daily equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic pay 
     payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day (including 
     traveltime) during which the member is engaged in the 
     performance of duties vested in the commission.
       (4) Staff.--
       (A) In general.--The Chairman of the Television Commission 
     may, without regard to the civil service laws and 
     regulations, appoint and terminate an executive director and 
     such other additional personnel as may be necessary to enable 
     the commission to perform its duties. The employment of an 
     executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the 
     commission.
       (B) Compensation.--The Chairman of the Television 
     Commission may fix the compensation of the executive director 
     and other personnel without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 
     United States Code, relating to classification of positions 
     and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay 
     for the executive director and other personnel may not exceed 
     the rate payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.
       (5) Consultants.--The Television Commission may procure by 
     contract, to the extent funds are available, the temporary or 
     intermittent services of experts or consultants under section 
     3109 of title 5, United States Code. The commission shall 
     give public notice of any such contract before entering into 
     such contract.
       (6) Funding.--Funds for the activities of the Television 
     Commission shall be derived from fees imposed upon and 
     collected from television broadcast stations and cable 
     systems by the Federal Communications Commission. The Federal 
     Communications Commission shall determine the amount of such 
     fees in order to ensure that sufficient funds are available 
     to the Television Commission to support the activities of the 
     Television Commission under this subsection.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, at this point, I will yield the floor 
and look forward to hearing the remainder of the statement of my friend 
and colleague from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank my friend. He has an amendment he is offering in 
the second degree to refine my amendment. We have worked closely 
together on the underlying amendment. I appreciate very much the 
second-degree amendment he is offering to make a further refinement 
that I think will improve the underlying amendment. I greatly 
appreciate the hard work the Senator from Connecticut has put forward 
on this issue.
  As I was saying, several years ago, I became deeply involved in this 
subject. Frankly, I became involved because of an incident involving my 
wife when she was attacked outside of our home here in Washington, DC.
  At that time, I concluded that I ought to do everything I can do to 
help reduce violence in society. There are many things that contribute 
to violence in this country--drugs, gangs, and a whole series of issues 
that relate to people that do not have an economic chance. Also, we 
have to get tough on crime in this country. We have to insist that 
those who commit crimes do their time. They have to be punished. They 
have to know they are going to be punished and that punishment ought to 
be swift and severe.
  In addition to all of those things, I also am persuaded that violence 
in the media is contributing to violence in our society. That is not 
just my conclusion, that is the conclusion of the vast majority of 
people in this country. That is the conclusion of the American Medical 
Association, who, as I indicated earlier, is one of the charter members 
of the national coalition I have put together on this question of 
violence in the media.
  Mr. President, what this amendment does is really two things. It 
provides that television manufacturers will include in new television 
sets, at a time that they, in consultation with the FCC, determine is 
the workable time, to require a choice chip in the televisions. Just as 
we have chips in the television now that provide for closed captioning, 
we would provide choice chips in new televisions, which would be able 
to empower parents to exclude programming that comes into their homes, 
programming that they find objectionable--not any Member of Congress, 
not the FCC, not anybody else, but what parents find objectionable or 
something they do not want to come into their homes. These choice chips 
that are now under development--in some cases, already well-developed--
would enable parents to be involved in their children's viewing habits.
  As we know, children are watching, in some cases, 27 hours of 
television a week--27 hours of television a week. And all too often 
they are seeing things that their parents find objectionable. They are 
watching things that their parents would like to prevent them from 
watching.
  Mr. President, many of us believe that parents ought to have that 
right. They ought to be able to determine what comes into their homes. 
They ought to be able to determine what their kids are watching. They 
ought to be able to determine what they find objectionable, not any 
Government censor--what the parents find objectionable.
  So this legislation would create that opportunity. I just point to 
this USA Weekend Poll that was done from June 2 through June 4. These 
survey results are very interesting. Ninety-six percent are very or 
somewhat concerned about sex on TV; 97 percent are very or somewhat 
concerned about violence on television. When it comes to the two issues 
included in this amendment, overwhelmingly, they say: Let us do it. Let 
us have a choice chip in the television set at a cost of less than $5 
per television set. In fact, we have just been told that when it is in 
mass production, it may cost as little as 18 cents per television set.
  Should V-chips or choice chips be installed in TV sets so parents 
could easily block violent programming? That was a question in the USA 
Today poll. The American people responded ``yes'' 90 percent. Mr. 
President, 90 percent want to have the opportunity to choose what comes 
into their homes.
  On the second matter that is in this amendment, that is the creation 
of a rating system so that parents can have some idea before the 
programming airs what the programming includes, the question was asked: 
Do you favor a rating system similar to that used for movies? Yes, 83 
percent; no, 17 percent.
  Overwhelmingly, the American people want choice chips in television, 
and they want a rating system.
  Mr. President, we heard objections from some that the rating system 
ought not to be something determined in the first instance by 
Government. The Government should not make this decision. We have heard 
that complaint. We have heard that criticism. We heard that suggestion.
  In the amendment that I am offering, we give the industry, working 
with all interested parties, parent-teacher groups, school administers, 
other interested parties, churches, and others, a 1- 
[[Page S8228]] year window of opportunity to make a decision on what 
that rating system ought to be. We give the industry, working with all 
interested parties, a chance, a 1-year chance. Let them decide what the 
rating system should look like.
  I might just say, Mr. President, we gave another industry a chance to 
do that. We gave the recreational software industry a chance to create 
a rating system. They went out and did it.
  Here is the rating system they came up with. On violence, their 
advisory has a thermometer with a 1, 2, 3, 4 scale. We can tell what is 
the level of violence in that program. We can tell on nudity/sex in the 
same way. That is the rating. And the same way with respect to language 
that is used.
  In Canada, the industry, on a voluntary basis, established a rating 
system. They did it. It is in place. It is working. We should give our 
industry, working in cooperation and in conjunction with all other 
interested parties--with the parents, with the church leaders, with all 
others in the community who are interested--a chance to establish a 
rating system so that parents and other viewers have a chance to know 
just what is this program going to be like with respect to violence? 
What is it going to be like with respect to sexual activity? What is it 
going to be like with respect to language?
  Then let the viewers decide what it is they want to watch. Let the 
parents decide what the children are going to be exposed to.
  Mr. President, I believe this is an important question and an 
important issue. When I started on this in North Dakota, I called the 
first meeting, and I was expecting 10 or 15 people to show up. The 
place was packed. We had every kind of organization represented there 
in my hometown of Bismarck, ND.
  One of the things they decided to do was have a national petition 
drive, to send to the leaders of the media a request that they tone 
down the violence that is in the media, that is in television, that is 
on the movies. Overwhelmingly at that meeting, individual after 
individual, stood up and said, ``You know, I am absolutely persuaded 
that violence in the media is contributing to violence on our 
streets.''
  I remember very well a school principal standing up in that meeting. 
He had been a school principal for 20 years in North Dakota. He said, 
``Senator Conrad, I have seen a dramatic change in what our children 
write about when we ask them to do an essay.'' He said, ``It is so 
different now than when I started in schools 20 years ago. Twenty years 
ago people would write about their experiences on the farm; they would 
write about their experiences in a summer job; they would talk about 
going to camp in the summer. Today when you ask them to write an essay, 
they write about what they have seen on television. All too often, the 
images are images of violence and brutality.'' He said, ``Senator, this 
is affecting our children. It is affecting the way they see life.''
  We, as adults, ought to do something about it. So the question comes 
before the Senate, what do we do? Do we have censors? Do we set up a 
censorship system? Not in America. That violates the first amendment. 
That is not in tune with American values.
  What we can do, what we should do, what we must do, is empower 
parents, give them a chance to intercept this process, give them a 
chance to decide what their kids are going to be exposed to. We already 
know the children in this country, by the time they are 12 years old, 
have witnessed 8,000 murders, have witnessed 100,000 assaults. Everyone 
knows that has an effect on those children.
  Mr. President, we have gone to great lengths to make sure that what 
we are offering here today is a voluntary system, voluntary in the 
sense that we give the industry a chance to establish that rating 
system, voluntary in the sense that the parents are the ones to decide 
what comes into their homes for viewing by their children.
  Again, I ask unanimous consent to have printed for the Record a 
series of letters from organizations supporting this legislation: the 
National Foundation to Improve Television; the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, the American Medical Association Alliance, the National 
Alliance for Nonviolent Programming, the National Coalition on 
Television Violence, the National Association of Secondary School 
Principals, Parent Action, the National Association for the Education 
of Young Children, the National Association of Elementary School 
Principals, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 
All of these organizations are supporting this amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               National Foundation


                                        To Improve Television,

                                                       Boston, MA.
  Statement of William S. Abbott, President of National Foundation To 
 Improve Television, in Support of Senator Conrad's Parental ``Choice 
                    Chip'' Amendment, June 12, 1995

       I am the president of the National Foundation to Improve 
     Television--a nonprofit educational foundation with an 
     exclusive focus on remedies to the problem of television 
     violence. We have worked for 25 years to alleviate the impact 
     that television violence has on young people. On behalf of 
     the millions of children and parents who are desperately 
     calling for help to rid their homes of brutalizing images of 
     murder and mayhem, we applaud Senator Conrad's introduction 
     of this amendment.
       The introduction of this amendment is an important step in 
     empowering parents with the help they need to protect their 
     children from the scientifically proven harmful effects of 
     television violence. This amendment does not signal that the 
     government is becoming involved in dictating program content. 
     This amendment does not tell the entertainment industry what 
     kinds of stories they can and cannot tell nor does it trample 
     on anyone's First Amendment rights or creative freedoms.
       Senator Conrad's amendment requires the installation of a 
     ``choice chip'' in all television sets. While its critics in 
     the TV industry have labelled it a ``blocking chip'', it is 
     important to remember that this chip merely identifies a 
     program as containing harmful violence. It is the individual 
     parent who must actually elect to block violent programs from 
     coming into their home. The introduction of this ``choice 
     chip''--and the development of an accompanying ``violent 
     program ratings system'' devised by the television industry--
     will be a big step forward for two reasons. First, it will 
     give all parents--including those who must work long hours 
     outside the home and, therefore, cannot constantly supervise 
     their children's viewing--the assistance they need to shield 
     their children from harmful programming, in effect a long-
     overdue right of self-defense. A concerned parent need only 
     activate the ``choice chip'' and he or she can be certain 
     that the television will no longer assault their children 
     with images of ``Dirty Harry'', ``The Terminator'' and the 
     like. Second, it will unquestionably result in many 
     advertisers pulling their advertising budget from programs 
     with glamorized or excessive violence. Few
      advertisers will spend their precious dollars running 
     commercials on programs which millions of Americans will 
     have elected to tune out of their homes.
       The introduction of this new parental choice technology is 
     not revolutionary. It is simply an extension of the current 
     opportunities many parents and viewers have to use their 
     television's cable converter to block out particular cable 
     channels either completely or during a particular time of the 
     day. With this new capability, parents would simply be 
     further empowered to block out all programming which the 
     industry has determined contain harmful depictions of 
     violence. This violence-specific blocking capability, rather 
     than channel-specific capability, is essential when we 
     recognize that in a very short time parents will be 
     confronted with 500 or more channels entering their homes.
       The industry's response, in order to stave off this new 
     form of parental empowerment which will cost it advertising 
     dollars if they continue to program glamorized violence, will 
     be that such a system is too rigid, that it will impact 
     programs ranging from ``Texas Chainsaw Massacre'' to 
     ``Roots''. This is, of course, not the case. This plan leaves 
     it to the industry to determine which programs would be 
     tagged with the violence signal. We would trust that the 
     industry would exercise its good judgment in attaching such 
     signal. ``I Spit on Your Grave'' will warrant the signal, 
     which the ``Civil War'' documentary, for example, will not. 
     The television industry is currently placing violence 
     warnings on particular programs which it judges to contain 
     excessive or otherwise harmful violence, so it is clear that 
     it can exercise this kind of judgment if it so chooses.
       It has been reported that this new technology would add as 
     little as $5 to the price of a new television set. Thus, it 
     is empowerment affordable by all. Properly publicized through 
     an ongoing nationwide public service announcement and 
     parental notification campaign, the technology will become 
     increasingly popular over time. Since television has long 
     contended that the ``public interest'' is simply what 
     interests the public, and that the ultimate responsibility 
     for children's viewing lies with the parents, it should have 
     no quarrel with a mechanism which gives parents the 
     unprecedented opportunity to supervise effectively their 
     children's viewing. [[Page S8229]] 
       For the last 30 years, the American public has told the 
     television industry to lead, follow or get out of the way 
     with regard to reducing the level of glamorized and excessive 
     violence on television. To date, they have certainly not led 
     the way toward resolving the problem. They clearly haven't 
     followed either--as they continue to program high levels of 
     violence despite growing public anger with the amount of 
     violence on television. Through their overwhelming support 
     for Senator Conrad's parental empowerment proposal, the 
     American people are effectively telling the television 
     industry ``Get out of the way''--we're ready to address their 
     problem ourselves. Give us the tools and, with the industry's 
     cooperation, we'll do the job.
                                                                    ____

                                   American Academy of Pediatrics,


                                   601 Thirteenth Street, NW.,

                                    Washington, DC, June 13, 1995.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: On behalf of the American Academy of 
     Pediatrics, whose 49,000 members are dedicated to promoting 
     the health, safety, and well-being of infants, children, 
     adolescents and young adults, I want to commend you for your 
     strong leadership in the area of children's television. 
     Pediatricians have long been concerned about the effects of 
     television on children--from the lack of educational 
     programs, to the high level of violence which we clearly 
     believe has a role in aggression in children, as well as the 
     continual bombardment of advertisements aimed at them. 
     Children are fortunate to have you working so diligently on 
     their behalf.
       While we don't believe that television is solely 
     responsible for all the violence in our society, we do 
     believe that violent programs contribute to the violence in 
     our society. In our practices, pediatricians observe first-
     hand that such programming tends to make children more 
     aggressive and more apt to imitate the actions they view.
       Parents should be responsible for monitoring what their 
     children are viewing. However, over the past years a dramatic 
     alteration of the American family portrait has taken place. 
     To assist families in determining appropriate television 
     programming, we strongly support installation of a micro-chip 
     in all new televisions to allow parents to block violent 
     programs. This provision will allow parents some degree of 
     control of the programs their children watch--an important 
     option for today's programming environment.
       Thank you again for your staunch advocacy in creating a 
     better television environment for America's children. We look 
     forward to working with you on this important legislation.
           Sincerely yours,
                                          George D. Comerci, M.D.,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                      American Medical Association


                                               Alliance, Inc.,

                                       Chicago, IL, June 12, 1995.
       The American Medical Association Alliance, Inc., is pleased 
     to join the AMA and other members of the Citizens' Task Force 
     Against TV Violence in wholeheartedly supporting the parental 
     choice amendment to the Telecommunications Competition and 
     De-regulation Act of 1995 (S. 652).
       As a national organization of more than 60,000 physicians' 
     spouses, the AMA Alliance fully supports v-chip technology 
     allowing parents and other adults to block programs they deem 
     objectionable, and arming them with a standard violence 
     rating system by which they can make those choices.
       As a member of the Citizens' Task Force Against TV 
     Violence, the AMA Alliance is committed to curbing the 
     effects of violence in the media as one dimension of its 
     nationwide SAVE Program to Stop America's Violence 
     Everywhere.
                                                                    ____


National Alliance for Non-Violent Programming Supports Conrad Amendment

       The National Alliance for Non-Violent Programming, a 
     network of national women's organizations comprising more 
     than 2700 chapters and 400,000 women, works at the grassroots 
     to counter the impact of media violence without invasion of 
     First Amendment rights. The Alliance's approach, media 
     literacy education as violence prevention, is collaborative 
     and non-partisan. The Alliance lends strong support to the 
     Parental ``Choice Chip'' Amendment to the Telecommunications 
     Act S 652 to be introduced by Senator Kent Conrad of North 
     Dakota.
       Rapidly developing technologies are ensuring greater and 
     greater access to all forms of electronic media. A non-
     censorial solution to the widely-acknowledged problem of the 
     influence of television violence, Senator Conrad's amendment 
     would provide parents and caregivers with the information to 
     make responsible decisions about children's television 
     viewing and the technology to block programming they consider 
     objectionable.
       The Conrad amendment calls on the FCC to act in conjunction 
     with the networks, cable operators, consumer groups and 
     parents to establish a system to rate the level of violence 
     on television. The process itself is therefore inclusive and 
     educational. As consumers informed about what is coming into 
     their homes then utilize circuitry to block out the programs 
     they consider objectionable, parents and caregivers will be 
     able to exercise responsibility rather than feeling 
     uninformed or powerless to bring about positive change.
                                                                    ____

                     NCTV Supports Conrad Amendment

       Washington, DC.--The National Coalition on Television 
     Violence [NCTV] strongly supports the Parental ``Choice 
     Chip'' Amendment to the Telecommunications Act to be 
     introduced by Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota.
       Dr. Robert Gould, psychiatrist and president of NCTV, 
     commented about the amendment: ``The technological explosion 
     has made it impossible for parents to keep abreast of the 
     media: music, movies and television.''
       With this in mind, Senator Conrad has taken the leadership 
     in the question of Children's Television, especially the 
     effect of violence on our young people. He has worked long 
     and hard to seek reasonable solutions to this pressing 
     problem. He has pulled together an impressive task force of 
     national organizations from which he has sought information 
     and input to a problem which lends itself to wild rhetoric 
     but no action. The amendment that he proposes is both 
     effective and in no way impinges on anyone's freedom of 
     speech as protected by the First Amendment.
       Senator Conrad's amendment effectively addresses two of the 
     most pressing problems a parent faces, i.e. how to turn off 
     objectional programming, and how to know what to turn off. A 
     rating system established by the FCC in conjunction with the 
     TV networks, cable operators, consumer groups and parents 
     will give parents necessary information to make informed 
     judgments as to what is appropriate for their children. The 
     technological equipment will allow parents, in their homes, 
     to choose what they wish their children to watch. Technology 
     will finally allow parents to ``If you don't like it, turn it 
     off,'' as has been smugly suggested by the industry for 
     years. The Parental ``Choice Chip'' will make this a real 
     possibility.
       In supporting this amendment, NCTV draws on years of 
     experience monitoring television violence. While there has 
     been, of late, recognition of the influences of television 
     violence, there is still a serious attempt by the broadcast 
     industry to exempt cartoon violence from the discussion. As a 
     last line of defense, the happy violence of cartoons is still 
     deemed by the broadcast industry as not affecting our 
     children. Now, with the passage of this amendment, we do not 
     have to wait for the broadcast industry to clean up their act 
     in regard to cartoons. Parents who understand and see the 
     effects of cartoon violence will be able to simply block out 
     the offending programs.
       Dr. Gould further states, ``The rating system is a means of 
     informing parents about what is coming into their homes and 
     the Parental ``Choice Chip'' empowers them to fulfill their 
     proper role as parents.''
                                                                    ____

                                       The National Association of


                                  Secondary School Principals,

                                        Reston, VA, June 12, 1995.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: The National Association of Secondary 
     School Principals [NASSP] and its 42,000 members strongly 
     supports your parental ``choice chip'' amendment to S. 652, 
     the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 
     1995. Your amendment would greatly enhance the national 
     movement to monitor and ultimately decrease violence in 
     television by:
       Enabling parents to program their television sets to block 
     out objectional or violent television shows; and
       Calling on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to 
     work with television networks, cable operators, consumer 
     groups, parents, and others to establish a system to rate the 
     level of violence.
       Our nation is experiencing an unrivaled period of juvenile 
     violent crime perpetrated by youths from all races, social 
     classes, and lifestyles. Without question, the entertainment 
     industry plays a role in fostering this anti-social behavior 
     by promoting instant gratification, glorifying casual sex, 
     and encouraging the use of profanity, nudity, violence, 
     killing, and racial and sexual stereotyping.
       NASSP urges Congress to support the parental ``choice 
     chip'' amendment, and commends you, Senator Conrad, for your 
     efforts to protect our children and youth from unnecessary 
     exposure to violence in television and the media.
           Sincerely,
                                              Dr. Timothy J. Dyer,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____



                                                Parent Action,

                                     Baltimore, MD, June 12, 1995.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: Parent Action of Maryland, a statewide 
     grassroots organization dedicated to helping parents raise 
     families, endorses your Parental Choice and Television 
     amendment to the Telecommunications Act (S. 652).
       Our children are bombarded with negative and violent images 
     giving them a disturbing view of the world in which we live. 
     By the time a child leaves school, he or she will have 
     witnessed more than 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of 
     violence on television. This unceasing and relentless barrage 
     of violence serves only to inure our children to the results 
     of violence, hinder their ability to [[Page S8230]] learn and 
     teach them that conflicts can be solved by violence.
       Parents, concerned about the effects of television violence 
     on their children, are looking for ways in which they can 
     make good programming choices for their children. Your 
     amendment makes important strides in that direction.
       A rating system would provide parents with the information 
     they need to make informed choices of whether a program is 
     appropriate for their children. Installation of a ``Choice 
     Chip'' in television sets then would allow parents block out 
     the programming they find objectionable. The beauty of your 
     amendment is that it protects the First Amendment and gives 
     parents real power at the same time.
       If we truly believe that our children are America's most 
     valuable resource, then we must begin valuing them. We must 
     treasure and respect their minds and development--not assault 
     them with gratuitous violent images.
           Sincerely,
                                                      K.C. Burton,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                           National Association of


                                 Elementary School Principals,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 12, 1995.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Conrad: The National Association of Elementary 
     School Principals, representing 26,000 elementary and middle 
     school principals nationwide and overseas, is pleased to 
     endorse your Parental Choice Amendment to the Senate 
     telecommunications bill, S. 652.
       NAESP supports the effort to create a procedure for 
     establishing a ratings system that involves input from 
     interested parties in the public and private sectors. The 
     violence rating code will help parents to gauge the content 
     of individual television programs and thus make informed 
     decisions about which shows they allow their children to see.
       The requirement that a ``choice chip'' be installed in most 
     new televisions is also an excellent idea. This device will 
     enable parents to have more control over their impressionable 
     children's viewing habits when the parents are unable to 
     monitor television watching directly.
       Thank you for your ongoing efforts on this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                               Sally N. McConnell,
     Director of Government Relations.
                                                                    ____

     NAEYC Supports Conrad Amendment To Promote Parental Choice in 
                     Children's Television Viewing

       The National Association of Young Children [NAEYC] strongly 
     supports Senator Kent Conrad's amendment to the 
     telecommunications bill to reduce children's exposure to 
     media violence. The amendment would require television sets 
     to be equipped with technology (V-chip) that allows parents 
     to block objectionable programming and establish a violence 
     rating code. These steps are valuable tools that provide 
     parents greater power in controlling the nature of television 
     programs to which their children are exposed.
       The negative impact of media violence on children's 
     development and aggressive behavior is clear. Research 
     consistently identifies three problems associated with 
     repeated viewing of television violence:
       1. Children are more likely to behave in aggressive or 
     harmful ways towards others.
       2. Children may become less sensitive to the pain and 
     suffering of others.
       3. Children may become more fearful of the world around 
     them.
       In addition, more subtle effects of overexposure to 
     television violence can be seen. Repeated viewing of media 
     violence reinforces antisocial behavior and limits children's 
     imaginations. Violent programming typically presents limited 
     models of language development that narrow the range and 
     originality of children's verbal expression at a time when 
     the development of language is critically important.
       Of all of the sources and manifestations of violence in 
     children's lives, media violence is perhaps the most easily 
     corrected. NAEYC believes that the Conrad amendment is an 
     important step--long overdue--to reduce children's exposure 
     to media violence, and it does so by empowering parents. We 
     strongly urge passage of this amendment.
                                                                    ____

                                         American Academy of Child


                                    and Adolescent Psychiatry,

                                    Washington, DC, June 12, 1995.
     Senator Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: The American Academy of Child and 
     Adolescent Psychiatry is pleased to endorse your 
     telecommunications bill amendment providing for new 
     television sets being required to contain a v-chip that would 
     permit parents to block television programming that includes 
     programming not suitable to their family. The harmful effects 
     of media violence on children and adolescents have been 
     established, and this amendment will empower parents, whether 
     they are at home or not, to monitor and control access to 
     programs. This is one amendment among many, but it is an 
     important commitment by legislators to parents and to child 
     advocates.
                                           William H. Ayres, M.D.,
                                                        President.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to add Senator Mikulski as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. We will be happy to debate this issue and answer 
questions.
  I want to summarize and say this amendment does two things: It 
provides for the parental choice chips to be in all new televisions, 
after the FCC and the industry consult on when is the appropriate time 
for that requirement to go into effect.
  Second, we provide for the establishment of a rating system so that 
parents and other consumers have a chance to know what the programming 
contains before they watch it. Again, we do that on the basis of 
allowing the industry, in consultation with all other interested 
parties, to establish that rating system within 1 year. If they fail to 
do it within 1 year, we would ask the FCC to become involved in that 
process. We see no reason that the industry in 1 year could not arrive, 
on a voluntary basis, at an appropriate rating system.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Mikulski and Senator 
Lieberman, who have worked with me on this issue.
  Senator Lieberman now would like to discuss his second-degree 
amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Again, I want to thank my friend and colleague from North Dakota, 
Senator Conrad, for his leadership on this matter and to tell him how 
pleased I am to join with him in this effort.
  This is a complicated problem, to which there is not a clear, perfect 
solution. What we know is that the values of our society, of our 
children, are being threatened, and that the entertainment media too 
often have sent messages to our kids that are different than what we as 
parents are trying to send.
  I think Senator Conrad has taken a real leadership role here and 
stepped out, stepped forward, with a response that will force this 
Senate, I hope the television industry, and indeed the country, to face 
the reality of what we and our kids are watching over television and 
what we can do about it.
  Mr. President, the growing public debate over the entertainment 
industry's contribution to the degradation of our culture could not 
have come at a more fortuitous time for the Senate Calendar. We are in 
the process here of considering the most comprehensive rewrite of the 
Nation's telecommunications law in 60 years. We are making some pivotal 
decisions about the future of a most powerful force in American 
culture. That is television.
  Up to this point in the floor debate, we have heard mostly about the 
wonders of the new technology that will be at our disposal, who will 
control it, and how much it will cost. What has not been heard that 
much in all the talk about the wiring, however, is discussion of what 
exactly those wires are going to carry into our homes. Few questions 
have been asked about the substance of the programs that will be shown 
over the proverbial 500 channels we expect once the road map of 
American telecommunications has been digitized. Even fewer questions 
have been asked about the quality of programs, of products, to which we 
will be exposing our children.
  Now, in many ways, that is understandable. We, as elected officials, 
are traditionally and understandably reluctant to set limits of any 
kind on broadcasters, out of deference to their first amendment 
freedoms we all are committed to.
  That is as it should be. Legislators should make laws, not 
programming decisions. But we also must remember that we are leaders as 
well as lawmakers, and we must lead in dealing with America's problems. 
That is why, again, I commend my colleague, Senator Conrad, for forcing 
this body to consider and weigh carefully the ramifications of this 
legislation for America's families and for our moral health.
  Why is this so important now? Because at the very
   moment that new technologies are exploding through the roof, the 
standards of television programmers are heading for the floor dropping 
with the velocity of a safe dropped off a cliff in a vintage Road 
Runner cartoon. Except, instead of [[Page S8231]] Wile E. Coyote, it is 
the values and sensibilities of our children that are put in peril.

  More and more these days, the television aimed at our sons and 
daughters either numbs their minds or thumbs its nose at the values 
most parents are trying to instill in them. Turn on the TV at night, 
and it's hard to avoid the gratuitous sex and violence that has become 
the bread and butter of prime time television. The Wall Street Journal 
recently carried a report detailing how even the 8 p.m. timeslot, once 
the last bastion of family-oriented shows, has become a hotbed of sex 
and other spicy fare. That is all the more disturbing when you realize 
that 35 percent of all American children ages 2 to 11 are watching 
during that hour.
  If you tune in after school, you have your pick of the parade of talk 
shows edging ever closer toward pornography, often dwelling on 
abnormality, perversion. On Saturday morning, you will be treated to a 
litany of glossy toy commercials masquerading as real programming. The 
industry's regard for children and families has grown so low that one 
network, it happened to be ABC, recently announced that it was adding a 
cartoon version of the movie ``Dumb and Dumber'' to its Saturday 
morning lineup. Television has now officially, with this act, crossed 
the threshold from covertly encouraging thoughtless behavior to openly 
celebrating it.
  Given the direction television is heading, and given the overwhelming 
evidence showing that TV's affinity for violence is a real threat to 
the development of our children, I think we, as Members of the U.S. 
Senate, should be seriously concerned with where these new technologies 
will take us. Do we, as a nation, really want to invest billions into 
building an information superhighway only to turn it into a cybernetic 
garbage disposal? Are we making progress if we offer consumers 500 
different talk shows rather than just a few dozen? Do we not owe our 
children and our country more than that?
  These are questions we, as a society, must address as we try to make 
sense of the ongoing information revolution, and as we try to deal with 
the decline in values in our country and our culture. Technology is not 
a good in itself, but a tool. The information superhighway could 
potentially help speed the recovery of America's public education 
system. It could help elevate our culture and our values. But it also 
could help accelerate the moral breakdown of our society, and that is 
something I believe we need to talk about openly as we go about 
reforming of our telecommunications laws.
  I recognize that the issue of content, especially as it relates to 
television, is a difficult one. In this case, we are faced with 
contradictory goals--protecting the right of the media to speak freely 
and independently, and allowing the community to influence them when 
they go too far. In the past, we have erred on the side of free speech, 
which is a testament to our commitment to the first amendment.
  But in a great constitutional irony, our determination to avoid any 
hint of censorship has been so great that we have effectively chilled 
the discussion about how we might properly, hopefully working with the 
television industry, improve the quality of television programming. 
That neglect has come at a heavy cost to society, for we have opened 
the door to an anything-goes mentality that is contributing 
significantly to the crisis of values this country is experiencing.
  There is no better--or worse, shall I say--example of this mentality 
than the proliferating legion of sensationalistic talk shows. They are 
on the air constantly--by my staff's count there were 23 separate hour-
long offering on Washington-area stations in one 9-hour period.
  You can see this for yourself, Mr. President, on this chart, with the 
boxes colored in with the yellow or orange, however it looks from your 
vantage point, being hour-long talk shows. For the most part, if you 
turn your TV on to these shows you are not going to find wholesome 
family fare that you would like your kids to watch.
  I should point out, in an expression of appreciation of my staff, 
that ``Regis & Kathie'' Lee are not colored in on this chart. Many of 
these programs air in the afternoon, when many children are home alone 
because their parents at work, or home with their parents but they 
parents may be doing something else.
  But it is the quality--or lack thereof--that is more disturbing than 
the quantity. Many of these programs are simply debasing. Their growth 
has turned daytime television into a waste site of abnormality and 
amorality, as Ellen Goodman so aptly put it, which is on the its way 
toward stamping out any last semblance of standards, and shame when 
those standards are broken, in this country.
  The greatest indictment of these shows, as well as the gamut of 
programming aimed directly or indirectly at children, comes from kids 
themselves. A recent poll conducted by the California-based advocacy 
group Children Now showed that a majority of youths between 10 and 16 
said that television encourages them to lie, to be disrespectful to 
their parents, to engage in aggressive and violent behavior, and, 
perhaps most disturbing of all, to become sexually active too soon.
  I am the father of a 7-year-old daughter. When I hear about these 
programs or see them, I can only wonder if those responsible for this 
junk appearing on television are parents themselves. Would they allow 
their children to watch the garbage that they are putting on display?
  Mr. President, I have watched my daughter come home and watch one of 
the cable networks which has a lot of children's material in it. And 
suddenly you turn in the afternoon to adolescent fare, which may be OK 
for adolescents, but certainly is not for a 7-year-old. The same is 
true of some of the evening programming, whose content, even in early 
evening hours, is inappropriate for children.
  I wonder the same thing about those responsible for deciding to 
target a version of ``Dumb and Dumber'' to young children. Especially 
the studio spokesperson who described the upcoming series by saying, 
``It's going to so dumb it's smart. Or so smart it's dumb. I don't know 
which''
  The case of ``Dumb and Dumber'' is particularly distressing, because 
on the same day that ABC announced that it was adding ``Dumb and 
Dumber'' to its lineup, the network said it was canceling one of its 
few quality educational programs for kids. That move would be alarming 
in its own right. By all accounts the program ABC was abandoning--a 
science-oriented show called ``Cro'' that is produced by the same 
highly regarded group that gave us ``Sesame Street''--was an inventive 
and thought-provoking series.
  Like too many of the choices made in our entertainment industry these
   days, this one mocks the efforts of mothers and fathers who are 
struggling to create a healthy environment for their children to learn 
and grow. There is a place for fun, for laughter, for cartoons. But at 
the same time, there has to be a place about respecting values, 
intelligence, and good family fare.

  Sadly, ABC's decision is typical of the priorities set by America's 
big four broadcast networks, and those carried out by their local 
affiliates. According to a congressional hearing held last June, ABC, 
NBC, CBS, and Fox combined to show a total of 8 hours of educational 
programming a week in 1993, whereas in 1980, 11 hours was the average 
for just one network. If that is not distressing enough, a study 
conducted by the Center for Media Education showed that the clear 
majority of children's educational shows are broadcast when kids were 
usually asleep. That raises real doubts about the commitment of the 
networks and the affiliates to these programs.
  The ritual defense and industry uses to justify their growing 
irresponsibility is that they are providing what the market demands. In 
some ways it is a persuasive argument in this country, and in most 
cases I am willing to abide by the market and let it be. But when it is 
used to shield behavior that potentially puts America's children at 
risk, I think we have to figure out a reasonable way to set up some 
warning signs so parents can protect their own children. As Washington 
Post TV critic Tom Shales said, ``Just because people are willing to 
come is no defense. There's an audience for bloody traffic accidents 
too.''
  Our colleague Senator Bradley spoke forcefully about this issue in an 
excellent speech he delivered earlier this year at the National Press 
Club. [[Page S8232]] Yes, we must remain committed to upholding 
freedom, Senator Bradley said, but we must also guard against the 
corrosive effect of the liberties we afford the markets, especially the 
entertainment industry. ``The answer is not censorship,'' he said, 
``but more citizenship.''
  The Senate majority leader spoke out just within the last week or 10 
days on this subject forcefully, and I think appropriately. The Senator 
from Illinois [Mr. Simon] has been a long-time critic of television 
programming, and has appealed to those involved to give better fare to 
our kids. What Senator Bradley and Senator Dole said about this not 
being about censorship but citizenship is absolutely right. That is 
what H.L. Mencken was talking about when he said long ago that the cure 
to whatever ails democracy is more democracy. Parents must exercise 
their primary responsibility and hold television programmers 
accountable and remind them that profits accrued at the expense of our 
children are really fool's gold. That means speaking out--loudly--and 
acting as informed consumers. The networks and their local affiliates, 
the programmers and the syndicators need our help in hearing the call 
that we expect more in the way of citizenship. And advertisers should 
recognize their responsibility to the larger civil society that allows 
us all to exist and grow in this great democracy of ours.
  But the question remains, though, what should the proper response of 
Congress and the law be? I have come to the conclusion myself that talk 
or jawboning is not enough. Talk is not only cheap, as the 
proliferation of talk shows has demonstrated. It also is apparently not 
sufficiently effective in changing the programming climate. Without 
adequate relief in sight, I believe we have an obligation to provide 
parents with the help they need to reduce their children's exposure to 
programs that the parents find offensive and harmful. And that is what 
Senator Conrad's amendment puts at issue, confronts, and that is why I 
am pleased to be supporting his efforts to make the expanding 
communications technology family friendly and to empower parents to 
control the programs that enter their own homes. Rather than placing 
any restraints on content and encroaching on any first amendment 
freedoms, the Conrad amendment would simply give parents the ability to 
block programming they do not want their children to see.
  This technology is readily available, and its addition as a standard 
feature in televisions sold today would come at a very small cost, by 
one estimate less than 5 additional dollars per television set. That is 
a small price to pay for gaining control over influences that a lot of 
American families do not want to commit to their home.
  For this technology to work, network programming must come with some 
form of ratings. With his amendment, Senator Conrad is calling on the 
television industry to do nothing more than the movie makers and the 
video game manufacturers have done, and that is to establish a 
voluntary rating system to evaluate programming for objectionable 
content.
  This amendment, which I am pleased to support, will give the industry 
a year to develop such a system on their own. If the broadcasters and 
cable networks for some reason do not respond to this call, then under 
the proposal of the Senator from North Dakota the FCC would be required 
to promulgate ratings that would trigger the use of the blocking 
technology called for in the proposal.
  While I share Senator Conrad's commitment to ratings, I also 
recognize that some people have first amendment concerns regarding the 
FCC's direct involvement in developing ratings, and that those concerns 
may prevent them from supporting this amendment even though they may 
strongly support its goals.
  So with that in mind, I have proposed the second-degree amendment 
that would limit the Government's role, the FCC's role, should the 
industry refuse to comply to the invitation to self-restraint that is 
at the heart of this amendment. Instead of the FCC stepping in, if the 
television industry fails to develop a voluntary set of standards after 
1 year, this amendment would bring about the creation of an independent 
board, a joint independent ratings board, comprised of representatives 
of the public and representatives of the television industry to create 
the ratings necessary under the amendment.
  The panel would be a mechanism of last resort, if you will, because I 
think Senator Conrad and I both want to work cooperatively with the 
television industry to see that a truly voluntary system is put in 
place. That is the best way for this to happen. But if it does not 
happen, then this second-degree amendment will ensure that the ratings 
system that emerges will be born from a true public-private 
partnership, and will be the product of a broad-minded consensus. Based 
on my recent experience with the video game industry, I am optimistic 
that we can reach a constructive solution that would avoid any 
Government intervention.
  As some of my colleagues may recall--and Senator Conrad made 
reference to it--a little more than a year and a half ago, Senator Kohl 
and I held a series of hearings to call attention to the increasingly 
graphic violent, sometimes sexually abusive, nature of video games 
played by our kids. From the outset we appealed to the producers' sense 
of responsibility to give parents information necessary to make the 
right choice for their children. As an incentive, we gave them a choice 
between rating the games themselves or having an independent board do 
it.
  To the credit of the video game makers, and the producers of 
recreational software that will enable games to be played on personal 
computers, the industry itself developed a voluntary system that 
actually was in place less than a year after Senator Kohl and I held 
our first hearing. Now I am pleased to say that almost 600 video game 
titles have been rated. By this year's Christmas shopping season, we 
hope and believe, based on conversations with the industry itself, that 
almost all of the video games in the stores will be rated, and, 
therefore, parents will know the content of the games that they are 
buying for their children.
  Mr. President, finally, it is my hope that the television industry 
will respond similarly to this initiative by the Senator from North 
Dakota, by Senator Mikulski from Maryland, and by myself, and accept 
that it has not only obligations but opportunities as a very important 
member of the greater American community. I can assure the folks in the 
television and broadcast industry that we stand ready to work with them 
in a cooperative fashion to do what is best for America's families. 
Yes, but also ultimately what is best for the American television 
industry without infringing on any of the freedoms all of us rightly 
cherish and protect. This is not about censorship. It is about choices. 
We do not want to take away a network's choice to air offensive 
material if that is their choice. We just want to make sure that 
parents and citizens have the choice to prevent their kids or their 
families or, indeed, themselves from watching that material.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to just put into the Record a 
number of statements from prominent Americans involved in important 
national organizations who have been a part of supporting this 
legislation.
  First, I would like to quote from Dr. Robert McAfee, the national 
president of the American Medical Association, who said with respect to 
the larger legislation from which this amendment is drawn, and I quote. 
This is Dr. McAfee speaking:

       It is estimated that by the time children leave elementary 
     school, they have viewed 8,000 killings and more than 100,000 
     other violent acts. Children learn behavior by example. They 
     have an instinctive desire to imitate actions they observe, 
     without always possessing the intellect or maturity to 
     determine if the actions are appropriate. This principle 
     certainly applies to TV violence. Children's exposure to 
     violence in the mass media can have lifelong consequences.
       We must take strong action now to curb TV violence if we 
     are to have any chance of halting the violent behavior our 
     children learn through watching television. If we fail to do 
     so, it is a virtual certainly the situation will continue to 
     worsen * * *.

  That from the head of the American Medical 
Association. [[Page S8233]] 
  Samuel Sava, executive director of the National Association of 
Elementary School Principals, said, and I quote:

       The effect of television on children is of great concern to 
     school principals. The family room television is more a 
     persuasive and pervasive educator than all the teachers in 
     America's classrooms. There's no question that the overdose 
     of media violence American children receive is linked to 
     their increasingly violent behavior. But more troubling for 
     parents and educators is the fact that the violence children 
     see, hear, and are entertained by makes them insensitive to 
     real violence.
  From Timothy Dyer, executive director of the National Association of 
Secondary School Principals, said, and I quote:

       Our nation is experiencing an unrivaled period of juvenile 
     violent crime perpetrated by youths from all races, social 
     classes, and lifestyles. Without question, the entertainment 
     industry plays a role in fostering this anti-social behavior 
     by promoting instant gratification, glorifying casual sex, 
     and encouraging the use of profanity, nudity, violence, 
     killing, and racial and sexual sterotyping.

  Mr. President, that is really at the heart of the amendment we are 
offering today. This amendment says parents--parents--ought to be able 
to choose what comes into their homes. Parents ought to be empowered to 
help decide what their children view. Parents ought to have a role in 
making these choices.
  We can help parents have that choice by putting choice chips in the 
new television sets. The technology is available. It is very low cost. 
Let us give the parents of America what they say they want.
  Again, I go back to this USA Today poll that was just published: 
Should these kinds of choice chips be installed in TV sets so parents 
could block violent programming? Yes, 90 percent. Ninety percent of the 
American people say we ought to do this.
  We have done it in the least intrusive way imaginable. We have done 
it by saying, look, industry, get together with FCC. We are not going 
to tell you when to do it. We leave it up to your judgment. You work 
together, FCC and the industry. You get together on when you are 
technologically ready to have these available in the television sets.
  And on a rating system, in the same way we have said, industry, you 
have a year to work with all interested parties to come up with a 
rating system that makes sense for the American people. And only if you 
fail to act does anything else happen. We give you a year to go forward 
in good faith and get this job done.
  We think they will do it. Look at the answer to the question: Do you 
favor a rating system similar to that used for movies? Eighty three 
percent in the USA Today poll say, yes, we want a rating system--83 
percent. And 90 percent said they wanted the new choice chip in their 
new television sets.
  That is what this amendment offers. It does it in a way that is fully 
constitutional. It does it in a way that is the least intrusive as 
possible, and yet it responds to the real wants of the American public, 
to have parents be able to choose what comes into their homes, to have 
parents be able to decide what their children want.
  Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues would respond favorably to 
this amendment. I would be happy to answer questions or engage in 
further debate.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, we are studying this amendment. We have 
just seen the Conrad amendment in the second degree to the Lieberman 
amendment for the first time. In the Commerce Committee, there have 
been many bills introduced on this subject, including one by the 
distinguished former chairman, Senator Hollings.
  It was the intention and is the hope that we could hold full 
committee hearings, in fairness to all those Senators. There are so 
many Senators who have introduced bills on this subject. And when we 
finish this telecommunications bill, we are in hopes of turning to 
hearings for a number of reasons to give those Senators who have 
introduced a bill and been waiting a chance to have their bills 
considered but also to allow industry and consumer groups to give an 
analysis of this.
  We have just seen this amendment in the second degree to the 
Lieberman amendment, and I know there is great passion at the moment 
about this subject throughout our land. I feel very strongly about this 
subject matter, and we are struggling with trying to find a fair way to 
deal with this amendment, which Senators have just seen, and dealing 
with Senator Hollings' bill which was introduced earlier. He had 
already asked for hearings, and also several other Senators. Also, in 
fairness to industry groups and parents and children, it would seem 
that testimony at full committee hearings would be a good first step.
  Mr. President, I would like to yield to anyone else who has comments 
at this time.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  We have had hearings for years around here on this subject. Everybody 
wants to have more hearings. Frankly, the American people want us to 
act. They want us to work together to achieve something. We have had 
all the hearings we need on this question.
  I introduced a bill that contained these provisions on February 2 of 
this year. So it is not the first time anybody has seen this. This has 
been in this body since February 2.
  I just say that these are the national organizations that say vote 
for this now, no more delay, no more talk. Let us do something. Let us 
do something that makes sense. Let us do something that is 
constitutional. Let us do something that empowers parents. Let us do 
something that gives a rating system that the industry, on a voluntary 
basis, is able to create along with all interested parties. We give 
them a year to get this job done on their own.
  Let me just read into the Record the national organizations that 
support this amendment: the National Association for the Education of 
Young Children, Future Wave, the American Medical Association, the 
American Medical Association Alliance, the National Association of 
Elementary School Principals, the American Psychiatric Association, the 
National PTA, Parent Action, the National Foundation To Approve 
Television, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National 
Coalition on Television Violence, the American Academy of Pediatrics, 
the National Association for Family and Community Education, the 
Alliance Against Violence in Entertainment for Children, the American 
Nurses Association, the National Council for Children's TV and Media, 
the National Alliance for Nonviolent Programming, the National 
Association of School Psychologists, the Orthodox Union, the National 
Education Association, and the United Church of Christ.
  Now, in the broader coalition we also have the sheriffs, police 
chiefs, and many others.
  These organizations have all studied this issue and studied it and 
studied it and participated in hearing after hearing after hearing. 
They say now is the time to act. They are not alone. Ninety percent of 
the American people say, let us have these choice chips in our 
television sets; 83 percent of them say that they favor a rating 
system. We have tried to do this in the least intrusive way possible. 
We have done it by saying, with respect to choice chips, we will not 
say by when it should be done. We leave it up to the industry in 
conjunction with the FCC to determine the time at which it is practical 
to have this requirement go into effect. We leave it up to the experts: 
When is the time to have it go into effect?
  With respect to the question of a rating system, we give the industry 
a year to work in conjunction with all interested parties on a 
voluntary basis to determine a rating system. They have done it in 
Canada. As I indicated earlier, the software industry, we gave them the 
same chance and they responded. They did a good job. So we are saying 
we believe this industry can do the same thing.
  I wish to applaud the television manufacturers. They have gone a long 
way toward developing this technology. But clearly, if it is going to 
be widely disseminated in this country, it is going to require us to do 
a little something, just do a little something. The American people 
want us to act.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  [[Page S8234]]
  
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I feel like Frank Clement at the 1956 
convention. How long, 0, America, how long will we continue to debate 
and not act? I share the same frustration that the distinguished 
Senators from Connecticut and North Dakota share on this particular 
score.
  Over 2 years ago, getting right to one of the main points about the 
least intrusive manner--and the Senator from North Dakota is right on 
target there relative to constitutionality because he has read the 
cases, and we have all studied them, and that is what you have to do in 
order to qualify constitutionally in this particular measure--the least 
intrusive measure is with respect to children.
  Yes, the courts have held you could not regulate violence with 
respect to the distinguished Presiding Officer and this particular 
Senator as adults. It is unconstitutional to try to even attempt it. So 
we found that you could do it with children. So having found that it 
could be done with children, then the least intrusive measure is not as 
suggested in this particular amendment, plus its perfection by the 
Senator from Connecticut; the least intrusive is limited to that period 
of time during the day when children are a substantial or majority 
portion of the viewing audience. That does not get them all. I feel, as 
the Senator sponsoring this measure, that I would like to get it all. I 
would like to get it all the time, but constitutionally I cannot. I 
think there is too much violence for all of us.
  But constitutionally, not being able to, that would be one particular 
defect, as I see it, in the approach that has been brought out in 
hearings heretofore, and hearings heretofore incidentally back in 1993 
that we had the present Attorney General study S. 470, which is now 
before our committee, a bill by Senator Inouye, myself, and others. And 
Attorney General Reno attested to the fact that she thought it would 
definitely pass constitutional muster.
  There is another feature with respect to this--and I am not just nit-
picking because, if they call the amendment and we vote it, I would 
still vote for the amendment, I say to the Senator. Do not worry about 
that.
  But what happens is you have a fee in here, also. When we had a fee 2 
years ago, Senator Bentsen--no, this was 4 years ago, because 2 years 
ago he was the Secretary of Treasury--but 4 years ago when we had a 
similar hearing, he said, ``Wait a minute, the fee belongs in the 
Finance Committee,'' and someone later on would raise that point. I 
would still vote for it.
  There are these kinds of misgivings. I remember the distinguished 
chairman of the Communications Subcommittee on the House side--the 
distinguished Presiding Officer would know and be familiar with the 
honorable Congressman Ed Markey, of Massachusetts. He had what he 
called then the V-chip. They are calling this the choice chip. He ran 
into these similar problems. But it is not my argument.
  So we have had problems. Like I said, how long, America, are we going 
to consider and do nothing because there is a problem for every 
solution?
  I would prefer--it would be up to the sponsors of the bill; I am 
confident our distinguished chairman would prefer--to take these 
perfecting amendments, with a matter of a fee there, and otherwise, to 
have a hearing on this and guarantee we will bring out a bill of some 
kind that we think is constitutional.
  I do not want them to think it is a putoff. I do know there is an 
inherent danger here that I immediately feel, having been in this 
particular discipline now for a long time. I started off last week in 
the opening statement I made that evening--I think it was last 
Wednesday evening--that any particular entity or discipline in 
communications has the power to block the bill.
  I can see the broadcasters, when they see fees, running around trying 
to block this bill. That, again, is not necessarily a valid argument 
against the amendments of the Senators from North Dakota and 
Connecticut. But there are these inherent dangers that immediately 
arise. I can think of several others.
  I have the opportunity to distinguish what we have pending before the 
committee. I implore the authors to go along with it, but if they want 
to vote, I am convinced the majority leader is ready to vote for them. 
Is it the desire of these Senators, irregardless, as my Congressman 
Rivers used to say down home, irregardless, you are going to want to 
vote one way or the other, period, because I do not know whether it is 
our duty to argue further, I say to the chairman.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished managers of the 
bill, Senator Hollings and Senator Pressler, that we do intend to get a 
vote on this matter. We have many national organizations that have 
waited years to have Congress speak on this question. We have gone 
through draft after draft after draft to address the legitimate 
concerns of people to make this as reasonable and unintrusive as 
possible.
  I just say to the Senator from South Carolina, there is no fee in the 
underlying Conrad amendment. None. There is no fee here. The second-
degree amendment has a fee. But the Conrad amendment has no fee; none, 
zero.
  As I say, we have done this in the least intrusive way possible. We 
are trying to respond to what is the legitimate concern voiced by the 
Senator from South Carolina. I might say, the Senator from South 
Carolina [Senator Hollings] has been a great leader on this issue. He 
has been someone who is concerned and has repeatedly raised the issue 
of violence in the media. He has said we ought to do something about 
it, and he has been willing to do that.
  The American people want something done, and the least intrusive way 
to do it is to have choice chips on the televisions. American people 
overwhelmingly want it. It costs less than $5 a television set, and 
industry representatives just told us this morning that when it is in 
mass production, they believe some of these chips will cost as little 
as 18 cents--18 cents--a television set, to provide parents the right 
to choose what their kids see.
  In addition, we create a rating system so that parents have some idea 
of what the programming will contain before they see it. Eighty-three 
percent of the American people say they want such a rating system. 
Again, we have done it in the least intrusive way possible. We do not 
let the Government decide it. We say, ``Industry, you meet with all 
industry parties, meet with the parents and teachers, meet with the 
school principals, meet with all the people who are concerned about 
this issue, meet with the church leaders and, on a voluntary basis, 
come up with a rating system and you have a year to do that without any 
Government interference or action.''
  Again, I say to the chairman, who has the difficult challenge of 
managing this bill, we would like a vote. I, at this point, ask for the 
yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I would like to reserve the right to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient second.
  Is there a sufficient second? The Chair did not hear the Senator from 
South Dakota. The Chair is asking if there is a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Let me make a request here. I see the Senator from 
Vermont here. If we can lay this aside--the problem we have is the 
memorial service for Les Aspin. Some Members want to speak, 
particularly the Senator from Illinois has requested a chance to speak 
on this amendment before we made any decision about it. So we already 
made one decision about it. I am wondering if the Senator from Vermont 
could offer his amendment, if he will allow us to do that. We have been 
working under the tortuous process of having all these conflicts.
  Mr. LEAHY. I had discussed with the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina the possibility of going with one of my major amendments. I 
understand we have some votes at 4 o'clock, or something to that 
effect. Mr. President, I advise my colleagues and friends that I would 
be perfectly willing to go forward with the so-called interLATA 
amendment, if that would be helpful, right after the vote. I have to 
speak with some of the other cosponsors, but I would be happy to enter 
[[Page S8235]] into a relatively short time agreement and an agreed-
upon time to vote on it.
  As my colleagues know, I rarely bring up anything that is going to 
take very long. I do not want to hold up people, and I have another 
amendment. So I would be very happy, once I bring it up, to enter into 
a relatively short time agreement with a time certain for a vote.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I am trying to help Senator Simon.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will do it right after the 4 o'clock vote.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I do not think Senator Simon is going to be able to 
speak until 4:15, when the bus gets back from the Les Aspin service. If 
my friends agree, I ask unanimous-consent that this amendment be laid 
aside until Senator Simon can speak and we go to the Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I say to the chairman and the ranking member, I will not 
object, but I just want to say that I ask for the opportunity to answer 
Senator Simon if he makes a statement in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I am just trying to accommodate that side of the aisle. 
I do not know if he is for the amendment or against the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I do not either. I do not need a unanimous-consent 
agreement or anything of the kind. I just ask the chairman for his 
acknowledgment that we will have a chance to debate it.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Yes, yes; absolutely. You shall always have a chance to 
speak on anything you want as far as I am concerned.
  Mr. CONRAD. We will be happy to lay it aside.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is reserving the right to object.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, 
I just want to take this moment to respond to the remarks of the 
Senator from South Dakota, to thank him for his support of the concept, 
to acknowledge that he has been on the frontier of this one and has 
been a pioneer for quite a while, and also to say, in the interim, 
while this amendment is being laid aside, I am going to pursue the 
suggestion that he made to modify the amendment to remove the fee 
provision from my second-degree amendment. It was put in there to make 
this ratings board self-financing. If the distinguished ranking member 
thinks that may complicate the future of the proposal, I will be happy 
to modify it. So I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the unanimous consent 
request of the Senator from South Dakota is agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1348

 (Purpose: To protect consumers of electric utility holding companies 
engaged in the provision of telecommunications services, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself and 
     Mr. Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 1348.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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 76, after line 10, insert the following new 
     subsection: ``Authority to disallow recovery of certain 
     costs.--Section 318 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 825q) 
     is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 318.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end of thereof the following:
       ``(b)(1) The Commission shall have the authority to 
     disallow recovery in jurisdictional rates of any costs 
     incurred by a public utility pursuant to a transaction that 
     has been authorized under section 13(b) of the Public Utility 
     Holding Company Act of 1935, including costs allocated to 
     such public utility in accordance with paragraph (d), if the 
     Commission determines that the recovery of such costs is 
     unjust, unreasonable, or unduly preferential or 
     discriminatory under sections 205 or 206 of this Act.
       ``(2) Nothing in the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 
     1935, or any actions taken thereunder, shall prevent a State 
     Commission from exercising its jurisdiction to the extent 
     otherwise authorized under applicable law with respect to the 
     recovery by a public utility in its retail rates of costs 
     incurred by such public utility pursuant to a transaction 
     authorized by the Securities and Exchange Commission under 
     section 13(b) between an associate company and such public 
     utility, including costs allocated to such public utility in 
     accordance with paragraph (d).
       ``(c) In any proceeding of the Commission to consider the 
     recovery of costs described in subsection (b)(1), there shall 
     be a rebuttable presumption that such costs are just, 
     reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential 
     within the meaning of this Act.
       ``(d)(1) In any proceeding of the Commission to consider 
     the recovery of costs, the Commission shall give substantial 
     deference to an allocation of charges for services, 
     construction work, or goods among associate companies under 
     section 13 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, 
     whether made by rule, regulation, or order of the Securities 
     and Exchange Commission prior to or following the enactment 
     of the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 
     1995.
       ``(2) If the Commission pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     establishes an allocation of charges that differs from an 
     allocation established by the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission with respect to the same charges, the allocation 
     established by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall 
     be effective 12 months from the date of the order of the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory
      Commission establishing such allocation, and binding on the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission as of that date.
       ``(e) An allocation of charges for services, construction 
     work, or goods among associate companies under section 13 of 
     the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, whether made 
     by rule, regulation, or order of the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission prior to or following enactment of the 
     Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995, 
     shall prevent a State Commission from using a different 
     allocation with respect to the assignment of costs to any 
     associate company.
       ``(f) Subsection (b) shall not apply--
       ``(1) to any cost incurred and recovered prior to July 15, 
     1994, whether or not subject to refund or adjustment;
       ``(2) to any uncontested settlement approved by the 
     Commission or State Commission prior to the enactment of the 
     Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 
     1995''; or
       ``(3) to any cost incurred and recovered prior to September 
     1, 1994 pursuant to a contract or other arrangement for the 
     sale of fuel from Windsor Coal Company or Central Ohio Coal 
     Company which has been the subject of a determination by the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission prior to September 1, 
     1994, or any cost prudently incurred after that date pursuant 
     to such a contract or other such arrangement before January 
     1, 2001.''.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment is being offered by 
Senators Daschle and Kerrey and myself. I hope that we might get the 
managers of this bill to accept this amendment. It is precisely the 
language that was in last year's telecommunications bill. I do not know 
what happened on the way to the forum this year.
  Somehow or another it did not make it. Since it is the same language 
that was in last year's bill, perhaps by the time we get around to 
finishing the debate the floor managers might see fit to accept it.
  Now, Mr. President, here is what this amendment is about: any company 
that owns 10 percent of a utility company is considered a utility 
holding company. In 1935, because some public utility holding companies 
were very big and very powerful, we passed the Public Utility Holding 
Company Act [PUHCA].
  Holding companies that operate essentially on a multistate basis, 11 
electric utility holding companies and three natural gas utility 
holding companies--are what we call registered public utility holding 
companies. They must act and conduct themselves in accordance with 
PUHCA.
  In my State, Arkansas Power & Light is owned by Entergy, a registered 
utility holding company. Entergy also owns utility subsidiaries in 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
  The other public utility companies have a similar number of utility 
subsidiaries. These 14 registered public utility holding companies 
serve approximately 50 million households in the United States.
  The chart I have here contains a map of the affected States. All the 
States in dark blue, are served by registered utility holding 
companies. The States in light blue, including North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, will be served by registered holding 
companies following the completion of proposed mergers. [[Page S8236]] 
  Under the telecommunications bill, PUHCA will be amended to permit 
these public utility holding companies to get into telecommunications 
activities. Unlike the baby Bells, they can enter into these businesses 
immediately after the President puts his signature on this bill. No 
questions asked.
  Here is what I am trying to address with this amendment. In 1971, a 
utility subsidiary of a registered public utility holding company, 
American Electric Power, the Ohio Power Co., which is an electric 
utility company, entered into a contract with a sister affiliate, 
called Southern Ohio Coal Co.
  In 1971, 24 years ago, Southern Ohio Coal Company agreed to sell coal 
to Ohio Power under a contract. They said, ``We will sell you coal at 
our cost.'' Think about that. One sister company is saying to another 
sister company ``We will sell you coal at our cost.'' The only agency 
with authority to scrutinize that contract as to whether it is a good 
contract or a bad contract for consumers is the Securities and Exchange 
Commission [SEC], as is required by PUHCA.
  The SEC looked at the contract in 1971 and said ``this is just hunky-
dory. Fine contract. Off you go.'' The coal company sold its coal to 
its sister company--both of them owned by the same parent--Ohio Power, 
which generated electricity and obviously passed the cost of the coal 
as a part of its costs to the ratepayers in Ohio.
  If you are sitting around at night in your house worrying about your 
electric bill and that air-conditioner is going full-time because it 
has been a hot day, you worry about the price of the power, but you 
assume that somebody, somewhere, is making sure what you are paying for 
that air-conditioning that day is a fair price.
  Electric rate regulation in this country is conducted at both the 
Federal and State levels. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
[FERC] is the only body that regulates the rates charged for power sold 
at the wholesale level. Everybody here knows what FERC is. FERC 
regulates wholesale sales of power.
  What is a wholesale sale of power? That is the sale of power to a 
utility which in turn will sell it to the people who buy its power. 
Only FERC can set those rates.
  Back to the guy sitting in his living room with the air-conditioning 
going. He does not realize that Southern Ohio Coal Company is selling 
coal to Ohio Power, who is generating electricity for his air-
conditioner. He did not realize that the coal company was charging Ohio 
Power as much as twice as much as that coal could be bought for on the 
open market. That is right--100 percent more than their cost.
  So, the municipalities that bought power from Ohio Power Company got 
to thinking, ``We are getting ripped off.'' So they go to FERC and they 
say, ``Listen, FERC, we are paying a utility rate for electricity that 
has been generated with coal from Southern Ohio Coal Co. and Ohio Power 
is giving them as much as 100 percent profit.'' That is right. Ohio 
Power is paying the coal company 100 percent more than they can buy 
from anybody else in southern Ohio.
  They go to FERC and say, ``how about giving us a break on our rates? 
Check this out and see if it is right.'' So FERC sends a bunch of 
investigators out to find out if this is a true story. What do we get? 
It is. It is true.
  Ohio Power has been paying up to 100 percent more for coal than they 
could have bought it from anybody. And they have been putting it in 
their rates, and the poor guy sitting in his living room wondering how 
he will pay for his electricity bill that month suddenly realizes he 
has been taken.
  So FERC says, ``This is not right. This is not fair by any standard. 
Stop it. We are going to give you people a new rate. We will not sit by 
and tolerate something like this.''
  What do you think Ohio Power did? Why, they did what any big fat-cat 
corporation would do that has all the money in the world--they appealed 
the FERC decision. Who did they appeal it to? The U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit.
  The court of appeals decided that FERC had no jurisdiction. They did 
not have a right to delve into this issue. The court said the only 
agency with authority to look at this issue is the Securities and 
Exchange Commission. They approved the original contract. They said, it 
was just fine. And 21 years have gone by and they never looked at it 
again.
  Incidentally, the poor little municipalities were continuing to get 
ripped off. They filed a petition with the SEC in 1989. Guess what the 
SEC has done in the last 6 years with their petition? You guessed it, 
Mr. President, nothing. Nothing.
  When they saw that SEC was not going to do anything, that is the 
reason they took it to FERC and said, ``FERC, why don't you help us? 
You have the jurisdiction to do it.''
  FERC said, ``We do, and we will.''
  The court of appeals said, ``No dice.''
  Now, Mr. President, my amendment is simple, straightforward, and 
fair. There are a lot of people in this body who are apprehensive about 
this bill. Know why they are apprehensive? Because they are afraid that 
it will wind up being anticompetitive, instead of procompetitive.
  There is one thing in this bill that everyone should understand. The 
bill addresses public utility holding companies. It talks about public 
utility holding companies. It talks about FERC.
  And Senator D'Amato, to his credit, put a little proconsumer language 
in this bill. But his language will not ensure that poor old Joe 
Lunchbucket sitting in his living room worrying about his air-
conditioning bill will be protected. Tom Daschle, Bob Kerrey and Dale 
Bumpers, we care about what his electric bill will be this month.
  We are offering this amendment to prohibit cross-subsidization 
between affiliates of a public utility holding company. We are saying, 
``We are not going to allow these people to charge 100 percent more 
than their cost and charge it to this poor guy sitting in his living 
room watching television.''
  This amendment is directly related to the telecommunications bill. 
These public utility holding companies, serving more than 50 million 
households, want to get involved in the telecommunications business. I 
am for them. I want them in the cable television business. I want 
competition in the cable television business.
  As I said in my opening statement, if the President signs this bill 
the public utility holding companies can immediately go into the 
telecommunications business--telephone, cable television, you name it.
  So what I am saying is I do not want one utility company that 
generates electricity ripping off their sister affiliates and charging 
it to poor old Joe Lunchbucket. I do not want sister affiliates 
inflating their costs from one company to another and passing it on to 
any ratepayers.
  Let me give an illustration. This chart explains precisely what I am 
talking about. Here is the registered holding company--let us assume 
this is American Electric Power. Here is a subsidiary which sells both 
fuel and telecommunications services. This subsidiary, we will say, is 
Southern Ohio Coal Co. They are mining coal and selling it to these 
utilities. But let us assume they are also in the telecommunications 
business, all of a sudden. They start shifting their costs from 
telecommunications to their coal operations, so they can compete better 
in the telecommunications market. They shift their costs over to the 
coal company, knowing that nobody is guarding the store, and that they 
can charge it to these utility companies and put it right back on old 
Joe Lunchbucket again. Not only are they going to charge them this 
exorbitant rate for coal and make him pay for it through his electric 
bill, now they are going to go to the telecommunications business and 
shift the cost from the telecommunications to coal, so their 
telecommunications cost will be so much less nobody can compete with 
them here in Washington, DC, or in Little Rock, AR.
  Here is another example. Here is the same registered utility holding 
company. They form a telecommunications subsidiary. In addition, the 
holding company already has a service company which performs certain 
functions for the utility subsidiaries.
  Let us assume that the telecommunications company is going to provide 
telecommunications services to the service company. They are going to 
charge them just like the coal company did, a 100 percent profit. And 
then what is going to happen? They are [[Page S8237]] going to pass it 
right down to the utility companies through the service company 
contracts and the utilities are going to pass it down to old Joe 
Lunchbucket again.
  Mr. President, this gets a little complicated for people who have not 
dealt with it for the past 3 years, as I have. As I say, I am still a 
little nonplused about why my amendment was in the bill last year and 
is not in the bill this year. I guess somebody just felt they had a 
little more clout this year. They might not have liked it last year. I 
am not rocking the boat, but a lot of people, as I say, are worried 
about how the consumer comes out in all of this. If my amendment is not 
adopted, I can tell you exactly how the consumer is going to come out 
if he buys any services from a registered public utility holding 
company.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have an amendment that is already at the 
desk that I have discussed with the managers of this bill. It is 
similar to an earlier amendment that was offered by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania and adopted, I believe 90-something to something, dealing 
with incidental interLATA relief.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Bumpers amendment be 
laid aside temporarily so that we may consider this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, on this chart I am going to show the 
problem. We also have an illustration of why this amendment is needed 
or why we need to change the current method of regulation.
  We have in the United States of America, since the divestiture in 
AT&T, created these local access transport areas (LATA's) throughout 
the country defining what local telephone service is. In northeast 
Nebraska, we have two--644 and 630. The red line down the center 
separates one from the other.
  We have established a method to get our K through 12 schools hooked 
up to the Internet that requires us to go through a central hub. There 
are a number of them called educational service units.
  Unfortunately for schools up in the northeastern part of the State, 
they have to cross one of these artificial boundaries, these LATA 
boundaries, in order to get to this little red dot here which 
represents the Wakefield, NE, educational service unit. All of these 
school districts here--Jackson, South Sioux City, Dakota City, Homer, 
Hubbard, Winnebago, Walthill, Macy, Rosalie--all have to cross that 
LATA in order to be able to connect to the educational service unit in 
Wakefield. It is about 17 miles total, somewhere in that range, from 
one of these towns to this central hub.
  This problem was identified to me originally by a principal, Chuck 
Squire, of Macy School, as he was trying to get his school hooked up to 
the Internet. The requirement was again, as I said, to go through 
Wakefield. Because it crosses that interLATA boundary, it is no longer 
a local call. You have to pay an access charge when you are going from 
here to any one of these schools over here. The cost for dedicated 
Internet service if the local Bell company could provide the service 
would be approximately $180 a month, with an $800 installation charge. 
But for a long distance company, it ends up being almost $1,100 a month 
with a $1,000 installation charge, because the traffic needs to be 
routed across the State boundary.
  What happens is the schools end up with about $10,000 to $12,000 more 
per year in the monthly charge. These are very small school districts, 
most of them, and $12,000 ends up being a lot of money. They get 
nothing more for it.
  And this amendment, as I said, that I have discussed both with the 
chairman of the committee and with the ranking member, would grant 
incidental LATA relief to the Bell Operating Companies to provide 
dedicated two-way video or Internet service for this dedicated purpose, 
in this case the K through 12 environment.
  The hope is, of course, that the legislation itself will eventually 
obliterate the need to ask for this kind of incidental relief. The hope 
is that these kinds of restrictions that make it difficult for prices 
to come down--you can see in a competitive environment, if you had 
competition at play here, these prices would go down. This price was 
not high as a consequence of some cost. It is a consequence entirely of 
the current regulatory structure.
  So again, I am finished describing what the amendment does. I hope 
that the amendment can be simply agreed to at this time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska is waiting for a response from this side, there is an 
amendment on interLATA rates which I discussed with the distinguished 
Senator at the time. We wanted to make absolutely clear that we did not 
open up a big loophole. The distinguished Senator now has it limited. 
It is dedicated, and I think in good order. We are prepared to accept 
the amendment on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from South Carolina wait for 
a second?
  We do not have the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska at the 
desk.
  Mr. KERREY. I will send a copy that I have here to the desk.


                           Amendment No. 1335

(Purpose: To provide that the incidental services which Bell operating 
companies may provide shall include two-way interactive video services 
    or Internet services to or for elementary and secondary schools)

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. KERREY] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1335.

  Mr. KERREY. 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 94, strike out line 16 and all that follows page 
     94, line 23, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(B) providing--
       ``(i) a telecommunications service, using the transmission 
     facilities of a cable system that is an affiliate of such 
     company, between LATAs within a cable system franchise area 
     in which such company is not, on the date of enactment of the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1995, a provider of wireline 
     telephone exchange service, or
       ``(ii) two-way interactive video services or Internet 
     services over dedicated facilities to or for elementary and 
     secondary schools as defined in section 264(d),''.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, we just saw this amendment about 30 
minutes ago for the first time. We have been juggling six amendments. 
We would ask that the Senator withhold asking for a vote on it until we 
have a chance to study this amendment. I commend the Senator from 
Nebraska. It looks like something that I am taking a favorable look at. 
But we have not run it through all the hoops over here.
  Mr. KERREY. I do not quite follow. I thought earlier we had discussed 
it.
  Mr. PRESSLER. We discussed it last night, and had not agreed to 
accept it. But we just saw it for the first time 30 minutes ago. At 
that time, the Senator said he was going to supply us with a different 
copy. Do we have the final copy of the amendment?
  Mr. KERREY. We just sent a copy to the desk.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Do we have a final copy of the amendment?
  Mr. KERREY. The Senator should have the final copy now.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Will the Senator agree to set it aside and give us a 
chance to look at it? It will take us 15 minutes. We want to take a 
look at it.
  Mr. KERREY. Sure. I would be pleased to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is set aside.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. [[Page S8238]] 
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Will my colleague yield? I have a unanimous-consent 
request. May I make this unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. SIMON. I have no objection to that at all.
  Mr. PRESSLER. By the way, we are looking forward very much to hearing 
the Senator's views on this. We have been holding the option open.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to 
vote on the McCain amendment 1276, to be followed immediately by a vote 
on the motion to table the Feinstein amendment number 1270, and that 
the time between now and 4 p.m, which is 1 minute, be equally divided 
in the usual form for debate on either amendment. So there would be no 
further debate. I think we have debated both amendments.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, do I 
understand the Senator moved to table the McCain amendment?
  Mr. PRESSLER. No; we are proceeding to vote on the McCain amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to table the McCain amendment, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, the Chair has not ruled 
on that request, have you?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, I have not.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield me 1 minute?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Sure.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Sure.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 917 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous-consent request is pending.
  Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the request 
is that we vote at 4 o'clock; is that correct?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Yes; I am trying to get two votes out of the way so we 
can get moving along, so to speak. We still have some Senators coming 
back from the Les Aspin function. Then we will have a full force, and 
we will then do some business.
  Mr. SIMON. Will the manager agree that after that, I be recognized? I 
have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the unanimous-
consent request is agreed to.
  There is 1 minute of time divided equally between the manager of the 
bill and the ranking member.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  Mr. PRESSLER. There must be no time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The manager has control of the time.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I suggest that the hour of 4 p.m. has arrived and there 
would be no time to divide.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Chair notes that the Senator from Alaska is seeking recognition. 
Does the manager wish to yield him his time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may. I simply want to speak very briefly, about 3 
minutes, in opposition to the Ohio Power amendment.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Then I ask unanimous consent that at the end of 3 
minutes the Senate will vote on the two votes that have been requested.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend, the floor manager.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment to 
overturn the Ohio Power court case. I am opposed to it simply because 
it is bad policy, and I will explain briefly why.
  In the Ohio Power case, the U.S. court of appeals held that the 
Congress gave a single Federal agency--the Securities and Exchange 
Commission--jurisdiction over the interaffiliate transactions of 
registered electric utility holding companies. Those utilities sell 
power to an estimated 50 million households in 30 States.
  The court said that a second Federal agency, the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, cannot also regulate the same matter. No dual 
regulation, the court said.
  So, Mr. President, good public policy is that if something must be 
regulated, then one and only one agency should do it, not two, which is 
the provision in the amendment before us. Utilities should not be 
whipsawed between the conflicting decisions of two different regulatory 
agencies. Unfortunately, that is precisely what this amendment does.
  Mr. President, the proponent of the amendment argues that the FERC is 
a better regulator than the SEC; that we ought to overturn Ohio Power 
so that the FERC can regulate these transactions. But rather than take 
jurisdiction away from the SEC and give it to the FERC, the pending 
amendment allows both agencies to regulate the same matter.
  I question the claim that FERC has been a better regulator than the 
SEC. I am less concerned about which agency regulates than having only 
one agency regulate. If both agencies use the same statutory standard 
for making their decisions and if both made their decisions at the same 
time, then the problems created by dual regulation might be manageable. 
But that is not how it will work if the pending amendment is adopted.
  First, the SEC will regulate pursuant to the Public Utility Holding 
Company Act, and the FERC will regulate pursuant to the Federal Power 
Act. These two laws have different statutory standards, and the result 
will be conflicting regulatory decisions.
  Second, because of differences in the two statutes, the decisions 
made by the SEC and the FERC cannot take place at the same time. The 
Public Utility Holding Company Act requires preapproval by the SEC, 
whereas the Federal Power Act provides for post-transaction review by 
the FERC. In the Ohio Power case, for example, the FERC acted 11 years 
after the SEC made its regulatory decision.
  In short, the two regulatory systems are incompatible. Neither is 
inherently better than the other, they are simply different. The Ohio 
Power court recognized that fact; the pending amendment ignores it.
  Mr. President, I am also concerned that the pending amendment does 
not respect the sanctity of contracts. It is intended to allow the FERC 
to retroactively overturn longstanding, SEC-approved contracts. Some of 
these contracts have been in place for more than a decade, and the 
parties have invested many hundreds of millions of dollars. Those 
investments will be placed in jeopardy if the pending amendment is 
adopted.
  Mr. President, the proponent of the amendment also claims that it is 
needed to restore State public utility commission jurisdiction to where 
it was prior to Ohio Power. However, in some respects, the amendment 
actually has the opposite effect. It specifically prohibits State 
public utility commissions from using a cost allocation method 
different from one the SEC uses. In short, the pending amendment will 
require State public utility commissions to do what the SEC tells them 
to do.
  Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the amendment is its 
resurrection of the very cost trapping the Ohio Power court found 
unacceptable. This will happen when a utility incurs costs pursuant to 
an SEC-approved contract but the FERC subsequently denies the 
passthrough of those approved costs.
  In summary, Mr. President, the amendment would create a complex, 
overlapping, and confusing regulatory maze. It would allow electric 
agencies to be squeezed between the conflicting agency decisions. That 
is bad public policy.
  Mr. President, the amendment should be rejected, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  I thank the floor managers for the opportunity to speak in opposition 
to the Bumpers amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator's time has expired.
  [[Page S8239]]
  
                       Vote on Amendment No. 1276

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1276. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 18, nays 82, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 251 Leg.]

                                YEAS--18

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Brown
     Coats
     DeWine
     Dole
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Mack
     McCain
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Santorum
     Specter
     Thompson

                                NAYS--82

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 1276) was rejected.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I ask unanimous consent that the next vote be set aside 
temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Bumpers 
amendment be voted on in 10 minutes and the Senator from Mississippi 
have 10 minutes to speak on it--5 minutes each. At that point we will 
move to table the Bumpers amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not 
intend to object, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the 
committee if he would add that, after the vote on the Bumpers 
amendment, Senator Simon then be recognized for an amendment that he 
has been seeking recognition on.
  Mr. PRESSLER. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement I 
believe we have 10 minutes, now.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could we have order, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Chamber.


                           Amendment No. 1348

  Mr. LOTT. I believe that we do have 10 minutes now of debate on the 
Bumpers amendment, and then we would go to a vote at that point. So I 
would like to be heard briefly in opposition to the Bumpers amendment.
  First, before I do that, I thank the Senator from Arkansas. Although 
I cannot support his amendment, I appreciate his willingness to work 
with me and Senator D'Amato in developing appropriate safeguards as 
registered utilities enter this telecommunications area. I also thank 
him for working last year to resolve these issues in the Energy 
Committee. Of course it involves the Banking Committee as well as the 
Energy Committee. He was very cooperative in that effort.
  The amendment he raises today should be considered, but not on this 
legislation. The Energy Committee has rightfully asked that such 
amendment first go through the Energy Committee where it was considered 
last year in preparation for the telecommunications bill being voted on 
by the Commerce Committee. So I must honor Senator Murkowski's request 
as chairman of the committee on that matter and oppose the amendment on 
that basis, if no other. Having said that, I want to point to the 
substantial safeguards that were included in the managers' amendment to 
address the concerns of Senators D'Amato and Bumpers.
  I would also like to take just a moment to point out the critical 
importance of this provision to the legislation and in particular to 
our region of the country, because it is going to provide an 
opportunity for tremendous services through the utility companies in 
our area and really will go a long way to providing the smart homes we 
have been talking about in addition to the new smart information 
highways.
  What this all involves is the now famous Ohio Power case, and it 
deals with a Supreme Court ruling that restricts a State's right to 
disallow certain costs between companies in a registered holding 
company system for the purposes of ratemaking. With respect to such 
transactions related to telecommunications activities, this matter has 
already been addressed with language that prevents cross-subsidization 
between the companies. To the extent there remain unresolved issues 
regarding the broader application of the Ohio Power case, they should 
be dealt with by the Congress as part of its overall review of the 
Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA.
  Senator D'Amato has indicated he will hold hearings on it and 
consider comprehensive PUHCA legislation later this session. I feel 
very strongly that is needed.
  For these reasons the Bumpers amendment is not necessary at this time 
and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  The purpose of the telecommunications bill is to allow competition in 
the broadest sense possible in the provision of telecommunications 
services. Most utility companies are already able to participate in the 
market. However, current law prevents the 14 registered utility holding 
companies from fully participating in telecommunications markets. With 
appropriate consumer protections, this amendment allows registered 
utility holding companies to enter this important market on the same 
footing as other utilities and new market entrants. The amendment would 
allow a registered holding company to create a separate subsidiary 
company that would provide telecommunications and information services.
  The amendment contains numerous consumer protection provisions--the 
bill itself--which would be substantially altered by what the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas is trying to do here.
  So the public utility company subsidiary of a registered holding 
company may not issue securities and assume obligations or pledge or 
mortgage utility assets on behalf of a telecommunications affiliate 
without approval by State regulators. Also, protections in the bill say 
a telecommunications subsidiary of a registered holding company must 
maintain separate books, records and accounts and must provide access 
to its books to the States. State regulators may order an independent 
audit and the public utility is required to pay for that audit. If 
ordered by State regulators, a public utility may file a quarterly 
report, if that is ordered by the State regulators. Also, the public 
utility company must notify State regulators within 10 days after the 
acquisition by its parent company of an interest in telecommunications.
  So there are very strong protections here. I think what we are 
talking about is making sure these registered utility holding companies 
can provide these services. It greatly enhances the opportunity for 
information and for competition, and I do not believe we need this 
amendment for there to be adequate protections for the consumer. They 
are in the bill. [[Page S8240]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. LOTT. We took great precautions to make sure those protections 
were included in the bill. So for these reasons outlined, I urge defeat 
of the Bumpers amendment and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues who were 
not here for the earlier part of this debate, let me just say that my 
amendment is what I would call the do-right amendment. It was 
precipitated by an incorrect decision issued by the D.C. Circuit Court 
of Appeals in the Ohio Power case. In 1992, a bunch of cities who 
bought power from a utility subsidiary of a registered utility holding 
company, named Ohio Power. They were buying power from Ohio Power and 
Ohio Power was buying coal to generate that power from a sister company 
called Southern Ohio Coal.
  The municipalities went to FERC, because FERC sets wholesale rates; 
that is power sold from a utility company to a city, for example. And 
they say, ``We think Ohio Power's rates are too high and the reason 
they are too high is because this coal company is charging its sister 
company an exorbitant rate for coal.'' FERC sends their investigators 
out and what do they find? They found Ohio Power is charging 100 
percent more for coal than that coal can be bought from anybody else in 
southern Ohio. What is happening is Ohio Power is paying twice as much 
for coal and what are they doing? They are passing it right on down to 
the municipalities who, in turn, have to pass it right on down to Joe 
Lunchbucket, who is worried about how he is going to pay his air-
conditioning bill this month. It is just that simple. That is all there 
is to this.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Is this the identical amendment which was passed out of 
the Energy Committee after a great deal of hearings and work last year, 
I believe it was 14 to 5?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment is the precise language 
reported out of the Energy Committee, 14 to 5 last year. And it was 
incorporated in this bill precisely that way. There is nothing new 
about it.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The problem with the Court of Appeals' decision in Ohio 
Power is that the court said that the SEC is the only regulatory body 
with authority to protect consumers. And the problem is, the SEC will 
not, and possibly can not, do it.
  They approved the original contract and for 24 years have refused to 
look at it. So what happens? The consumers are paying twice as much for 
coal as the coal can be bought from anyplace else.
  I am just simply saying cross-subsidization of these affiliate 
companies held by public utility holding companies is wrong. There is 
not a person within earshot of my voice today who believes it is right. 
Why would you not vote to stop that? Why would you not give poor old 
Joe Lunchbucket a little bit of a break out of this? If you do not, 
these same holding companies are going to go into telecommunications, 
and unlike Pacific Bell, Bell South, Southwestern Bell, they go in the 
day the President puts his signature on this bill. They can be in the 
cable business. They can go into anything they want to. They do not 
have to go to the FCC and the Justice Department.
  They can also orchestrate transactions between sister companies. Who 
is going to sell what to whom? One sister sells telecommunications 
products to another. And maybe that company also sells coal to a 
utility company. They pass it on. Even the telecommunications cost goes 
right down to the utility, right down to poor old Joe Lunchbucket. 
Nobody here believes that is right.
  Do you know who favors my amendment? Every State public service 
commission. The Consumer Federation of America, the industrial energy 
consumers, including General Motors and Dow Chemical are even for it. 
The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, the Ohio 
Wholesale Customers Group, and on and on. They all support the Bumpers 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I do not know of anything further that I can say. This 
is an opportunity to protect consumers. If you want competition, you 
cannot have it unless you support this amendment because, if you do 
not, these anticompetitive practices will continue. It is just that 
simple.
  I yield the floor.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to table, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from South Dakota to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Arkansas. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 252 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1348) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now return to the Dorgan amendment No. 1278 and that there be 20 
minutes for debate to be equally divided in the usual form, with no 
amendments in order to the Dorgan amendment; that at the conclusion or 
yielding back of time I will be recognized to move to table the Dorgan 
amendment 1278, which deals with the 35 percent for national markets 
being lowered to 25 percent of the national media market, and this 
would move us forward. The Dorgan amendment is ready for voting. I 
would plead with everybody to let us vote on this and then proceed.
  My motion would ask that we go to the Dorgan amendment 1278.
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Lieberman amendment to the Conrad 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Lieberman amendment or the Dorgan amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Lieberman amendment to the Conrad 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the pending business.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President and chairman of the committee, I would be 
reluctant to agree to this request if we cannot get some agreement on 
when our amendment would be handled. We are the pending business, the 
Lieberman second-degree amendment to the Conrad amendment. We would 
like to get this matter resolved. We have had a lengthy discussion, and 
I [[Page S8241]] would hope that we could move to a vote on that. And 
so I would be constrained to object unless there was some meeting of 
the minds with respect to when we would get to our amendment.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Let me say that the Dorgan amendment came up first, and 
we are struggling to move forward here. Several Senators are seeking 
agreements that I am not in a position to give. This is something we 
could get done and behind us in the next 30 to 35 minutes. It is a 
major amendment involving the percentage of national media that one 
company or group can control. It is now set at 35 percent in the bill. 
The Dorgan amendment, as I understand it, would strike that and bring 
it back to 25 percent.
  There has been debate on it. I think there is only one more speaker. 
I ask that we lay aside the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, 
Senator Conrad, if he will be kind enough to let us do that, and go to 
the Dorgan amendment, get a vote on it, and keep on going from there.
  Mr. CONRAD. I just say to the chairman, if I could, I have to 
register objection if there is not some agreement reached----
  Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. DOLE. We can bring the Dorgan amendment back by regular order. We 
can do it that way. Senator Simon has an amendment relating to 
violence. We would like to have debate on all three amendments--the 
Conrad amendment, the second-degree amendment, and then an amendment I 
am offering with Senator Simon, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, that 
all relates to TV violence. I wonder if we might have the debate on all 
of those before we start voting. That is the only problem we have.
  Mr. CONRAD. As I understand, the pending business before the Senate 
is----
  Mr. DOLE. Regular order brings back the Dorgan amendment, so I call 
for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is amendment No. 1278.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 20 
minutes for debate equally divided on amendment No. 1278, and at the 
conclusion or yielding back of time, I be recognized to table the 
Dorgan amendment No. 1278.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object. Again, can we not find 
some way of having a meeting of the minds on what the order will be? I 
will be happy to accommodate other Senators if there is some 
understanding of what the order is going to be.
  Mr. DOLE. I think the order is, after this, we go back to the Senator 
from North Dakota. If you do not have any objection, the Senator from 
Illinois would like to at least be heard on his amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Actually, the previous agreement was the Senator from 
Illinois would be recognized, and we certainly want to accommodate 
that. But could we have an understanding with respect to what the order 
is then after that? If we can have a unanimous consent agreement, we 
certainly would be open to entering into a time agreement, whatever 
else, so there is some understanding, given the fact there are many 
Senators who are interested in this matter.
  Mr. DOLE. I will just say, what we are trying to do is finish the 
bill. All these amendments would fall if cloture is invoked. We could 
go out and have the cloture vote at 9:30 in the morning. I am not 
certain cloture would be invoked.
  I think there has been some agreement. We heard the Conrad amendment, 
the Lieberman second-degree amendment, some agreement on the Simon 
amendment. As far as I am concerned, it is up to the managers. I think 
they are prepared to vote on all three. I do not know what order.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I make a plea again to my friend from North Dakota, let 
us go to the Dorgan amendment for 20 minutes and vote on it, and 
meanwhile have intense discussions so we can cover everyone's needs. 
That would allow us to accomplish one more amendment. I think we are in 
a very friendly position trying to work this out.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, could we have the unanimous consent request 
agreed to by the chairman of the committee, the manager of the bill, 
that we go to Conrad-Lieberman and then go to Simon without putting a 
time limit on it?
  I ask unanimous consent that following the motion by the 
distinguished chairman, that the Conrad-Lieberman amendment be next in 
order and the Simon amendment follow that with any second-degree 
amendment in regard to it.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Reserving the right to object. I appreciate what the 
Senator is doing. We also have to work in an agreement for debate on 
the Simon-Dole amendment, if that is to occur.
  Mr. FORD. There is no agreement as far as time is concerned. I 
recognize the majority leader would have the right to second-degree the 
sense of the Senate, if that is what he wants to do. You are getting a 
pecking order here. A time agreement has not been worked out. The 
majority leader would not need much time.
  Mr. DOLE. If the Senator will yield, we can have the vote on the 
Dorgan amendment and work this out during the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I was trying to work it out so my colleagues on this side 
will be accommodated. I know the majority leader is trying to do that. 
We want to get the bill finished as much as he does. If my friends from 
North Dakota and Illinois are satisfied, I will be glad to yield the 
floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, may I inquire, is there then before us a 
suggestion by the Senator from Kentucky that we hear from Senator Simon 
after the Dorgan amendment has been offered, and then we would vote on 
the Lieberman amendment, then we would vote on the Conrad amendment, 
then we would vote on whatever amendments will be offered by Senator 
Simon and Senator Dole?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I do not know. We all need to have a little meeting 
about that and work that through. Is it possible to go to the Dorgan 
amendment for the 20 minutes, get that voted on, and during that time, 
when people are speaking on it, we will try to work all this out in 
good faith? And I will act in very good faith.
  Mr. CONRAD. All right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object. I have not yet spoken on 
my amendment because I had to leave for another meeting. I am to speak 
for 10 minutes. I would like to reserve 5 minutes for Senator Helms as 
a cosponsor. He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but I think he 
would like some time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PRESSLER. He is in the Cloakroom and ready to go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is we have a unanimous-consent agreement 
for 20 minutes. My understanding is I will take 10 minutes and 5 
minutes is reserved for the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms.


                           Amendment No. 1278

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. The 
legislation that comes to the floor of the Senate changes the ownership 
rules with respect to television stations. We now have a prohibition in 
this country for anyone to own more than 12 television stations 
comprising more than 25 percent of the national viewing audience.
  My amendment restores the 12-television-station limit and the 25-
percent-of-the-national-audience limit. Why do I do that? Because I 
think the proper place to make that decision is at the Federal 
Communications Commission. They are, in fact, studying those limits, 
and I have no objection to those studies. I think that they are useful 
to do because we ought to determine when is there effective competition 
or when would there be control or concentration such that it affects 
competition in a negative way.
  But I do not believe that coming out here and talking about 
competition, [[Page S8242]] competition being something that benefits 
the American people in this legislation on telecommunications, and then 
saying, ``By the way, we will essentially restrict competition by 
allowing for great concentration in ownership of television stations,'' 
represents the public interest.
  I can understand why some want to do it. I can understand that we 
will end this process with five, six, or eight behemoth corporations 
owning most of the television stations in our country. But, frankly, 
that will not serve the public interest.
  Mr. President, I respectfully tell you the Senate is not now in 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senate please come to order? We will 
not continue until the Senate has come to order. The Senator from North 
Dakota will proceed.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senate is not yet in order. I do not 
intend to proceed until the Senate is in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Those wishing to continue their conversations, 
please take them off the floor. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, raising the national ownership limits on television 
stations resulting in concentration of corporate ownership of 
television stations in this country will represent, in my judgment, a 
dramatic shift in power from the local affiliates in our television 
industry to the national networks. The provision in this bill 
threatens, in my judgment, local media control, both in terms of 
programming and in terms of news content, in favor of national control.
  One of the amendments that will follow me will be an amendment on 
television violence. I will tell you how to make television more 
violent, especially in terms of the local markets, and that is have 
your local television station sold to the networks, and there will not 
be any local control or discussion about what they are going to show on 
that local television station, because it will not be a local station 
anymore. You will remove local control, you will remove local 
decisionmaking, you will concentrate ownership in the hands of a few 
and, in my judgment, that is simply not in the public interest.
  These changes will result in a nationalization of television 
programming and the demise of localism and program decisions made at 
home in local areas.
  The bill changes of broadcast ownership rules that now exist at the 
Federal Communications Commission will lead to greater concentration 
and less diversity. I, for the life of me, cannot understand being on 
the floor of the Senate for 5 or 6 days talking about competition and 
deregulation being the engine of competition in our country and then 
seeing a provision in a bill like this that says, ``Oh, by the way, you 
know that limit that limits somebody to no more than 12 television 
stations, you can own no more than 12 television stations in the 
country; by the way, that limit is gone. You can own 25 television 
stations; in fact, buy 50 of them if you wish; just fine.''
  Well, it is not fine with me.
  Concentration does not serve the public interest. Go read a little 
about Thomas Jefferson. Read a little about what he thought served the 
public interest in this country--broad economic ownership serves the 
public interest in America. Broad economic ownership serves the free 
market and serves the interests of competition. Not concentration. Not 
behemoth corporations buying up and accumulating power and centralizing 
power, especially not in this area.
  I know outside of our doors are plenty of people who want this 
provision. It is big money and it is big business. I am telling 
Senators the country is moving in the wrong direction when it does 
this.
  There are not many voices that cry out on issues of antitrust or 
issues of concentration. There are not many voices raised in the public 
interest on these issues. I just cannot for the life of me understand 
people who chant about competition and chant about free markets, who so 
blithely ignore the threats to the free market system that come from 
concentration of ownership. I feel very strongly that the provision in 
this bill that eliminates the restriction on ownership is a provision 
that is bad for this country.
  Senator Simon from Illinois, I know, has probably spoken on this, and 
is a cosponsor of this amendment; and Senator Helms from North 
Carolina. Maybe we are appealing to the schizophrenics today. Somebody 
on that side of the aisle who has a vastly different political outlook 
on things than I do, but, frankly, my interest in this is not the 
economic interests of this conglomerate or that conglomerate or that 
group, it is the interest of the public.
  The public interest is served in America when there is competition 
and broad-based ownership. The public interest, in my judgment, is 
threatened in this country, especially in this area, when we decide it 
does not matter how much you own or who owns it.
  We have always served the interests of our country in this area by 
limiting ownership. I think we serve the interests again if we pass my 
amendment and restore those sensible provisions in communication law 
that restrict the ownership of television stations to no more than 12, 
reaching no more than 25 percent of the American populace.
  Mr. President, I have agreed to a time limit. This is a piece of 
legislation that on its own should command a day's debate. It is that 
important to our country. Yet it is reduced to 20 minutes because we 
are in a hurry and we are busy.
  My hope is that people who look at this will understand the 
consequences of what we are doing. I am delighted that the Senator from 
North Carolina and some others feel as I do, that there is a way to 
restore a public interest dimension to this bill by passing this 
amendment this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina controls 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as a former executive at a television 
station, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Dorgan amendment which 
is now pending. This amendment would ensure that local television news 
and programming decisions remain in the hands of local broadcasters.
  It is a worthy amendment. The Senate ought not to hasten to vote to 
table it. I will tell Senators why.
  There is now a delicate balance of power between the network and 
their affiliates. I am concerned that if we allow the networks to 
acquire even more stations, the balance will be unwisely tilted. Media 
power should not be concentrated in the hands of network broadcasters. 
I say this as a former broadcaster who has been there.
  The networks will kick the dickens out of an affiliate if the 
affiliates do not toe the line. On one occasion, my television station 
switched networks because of the dominance of an overbearing network. 
It was one of the smartest decisions we ever made. This bill increases 
what is known as the national audience cap from the current 25 percent 
to 35 percent. I oppose this increase, because it will allow the 
networks to acquire more stations. This, in turn, could very well 
increase domination by the networks and enhance their ability to 
exercise undue control of television coverage on local events and news 
reports.
  Mr. President, I am also concerned about the negative impact of 
allowing cable companies to buy television stations. Consider, if you 
will, the possibility that Time Warner might buy up local cable station 
companies and local television stations.
  The Dorgan amendment, which I cosponsor, restores, one, the 25 
percent audience cap; and two, the restriction on cable broadcast 
cross-ownership.
  If Congress increases the audience cap and thus the number of 
stations a network can acquire, it will be more difficult for a local 
affiliate to preempt a network program.
  Mr. President, affiliates serve as a very good check against the 
indecent programs being proliferated these days by the networks. The 
``NYPD Blue'' program is an example. Many affiliates consider this show 
to be too violent and otherwise unacceptable because of its content of 
offensive material. When the affiliates objected to the program, the 
network lowered the boom. There are too many indecent, sexually 
explicit programs on television already.
  Some time back, Mr. President, I sponsored an amendment to restrict 
[[Page S8243]] the level of indecent material on television. Guess who 
fought that amendment down to the ground and fought it in the courts? 
Of course, the networks. The networks resent being limited in the 
amount of indecent material they can pump out over the airwaves. Do we 
really want to give the networks more power? I say no, and the Dorgan 
amendment says no.
  The children of America, have spoken out about indecent material. In 
a recent survey, 77 percent of the children polled said TV too often 
portrays extramarital sex, and 62 percent said sex on television 
influences children in that direction.
  Mr. President, affiliate stations often preempt programming and carry 
instead regional college sports and such things as Billy Graham's 
Crusade. These are important programs, and they should not be inhibited 
by network power.
  We should not concentrate too much power in the hands of four 
national networks. The current provision in S. 652 would make possible 
just that kind of concentration. If this ownership rule had not been in 
place 10 years ago, the Fox Network could never have been created.
  Local stations must have the freedom in the future to create and 
select and control programming, other than programming provided by the 
networks.
  I urge Senators to support this amendment to restore local control of 
broadcasting decisions. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I believe we have reached a point where, through competition, we can 
achieve more than by Government regulation to keep certain competitors 
down.
  I rather doubt that any one competitor is going to get a huge 
dominance in the American television market, because we have so many 
competitors. We have an increasing number.
  When we have dial video, cable, PBS, the networks, I have here listed 
before me, the percentage of national coverage now by the top TV 
groups, they will face increasing competition.
  Frequently, business comes to Washington seeking regulation to avoid 
competition. To those people who want to put arbitrary limits on how 
much success one company can have, I would say that they should be 
prepared to compete.
  Now, a 25-percent limitation may well force some groups or 
individuals or companies to operate regionally, or to seek a niche 
market.
  I believe we have enough competition to give a variety of voices. 
That is particularly true if we pass this bill. There will be an 
explosion of new services and alternatives.
  In fact, I would even raise the limit to 50 percent or higher if I 
were doing it myself. The Commerce Committee worked out a 35-percent 
compromise--the Democrats and Republicans--on the committee, as well as 
in consultation with many other Senators.
  I think 35 percent is a good compromise for the Senate. I expect that 
the House will probably come with 50 percent. I look upon going back to 
25 percent as a move away from competition.
  Why not 20 percent? Why not 10 percent? Why not 15 percent? All these 
percentages are anticompetitive, because it is businessmen coming to 
Washington who are seeking regulation to keep their competitors out. 
What they need to do is to compete, and they will find that they will 
do well.
  Mr. President, the broadcasters in cable are not the only means by 
which video programming, for example, is distributed to consumers. More 
than 2 million households receive programming utilizing backyard 
dishes, availing them of numerous free services.
  SMATV services are utilized by another million subscribers, wireless 
cable has attracted over half a million subscribers.
  Recently direct broadcast satellite systems began offering very high-
quality services. It is estimated that these services will attract more 
than 1 million subscribers in 1995.
  Looming large on the fringes of the market are the telephone 
companies. The telephone companies pose a very highly credible 
competitive threat because of their specific identities, the technology 
they are capable of deploying, the technological evolution their 
networks are undergoing for reasons apart from video distribution, and, 
last but by no means least, their financial strength and perceived 
staying power. In 1993, the seven regional Bell operating companies 
[RBOC's] and GTE had combined revenues in excess of $100 billion. All 
of the major telephone companies in the United States have plans to 
enter the video distribution business, and several are
 currently striving mightily to do so in the face of heavy cable 
industry opposition, opposition which speaks for itself in terms of the 
perceived strength of the competition telephone companies are expected 
to bring to bear.

  Recently three of the RBOC's--Bell Atlantic, Nynex, and Pacific 
Telesis--announced the formation of a joint venture, capitalized 
initially to the tune of $300 million, for the express purpose of 
developing entertainment, information and interactive programming for 
new telco video distribution systems. This group has hired Howard 
Stringer, formerly of CBS, to head the venture and Michael Ovitz of 
Creative Artists Agency of Los Angeles to advise on programming and 
technology. A key aspect of this effort is development of navigator 
software that eventually could replace VCR's and remote control units 
to help customers find programs and services. Three other RBOC's--
BellSouth, Ameritech, and SBC Communications are forming a joint 
venture with Disney, with a combined investment of more than $500 
million during the next 5 years. The goal of this venture is 
specifically to develop, market and deliver video programming.
  On top of all this activity involving the creation of new 
distribution paths and delivery of new entertainment and information 
services to the home, there has been a simultaneous revolution in the 
sophistication of the communications equipment employed in the home. 
Today more than 84 million U.S. households have VCR's. In 1994, U.S. 
households spent as much money purchasing and renting videos, $14 
billion, as the combined revenues of all basic cable, $4.6, and the 
three established broadcast networks, $9.4, in 1993. In 1994, 37 
percent of U.S. households owned personal computers. In 1993, estimated 
retail sales of North American computer software sales were $6.8 
billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time remains to the sponsors.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, all time has not been yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is correct.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. I wish to speak for 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the aspect of the 
unanimous consent requiring a tabling motion be vitiated and that we 
have an up-or-down vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina does not 
control sufficient time to do that. All time must be yielded back at 
this point for a quorum call to be in order.
  Mr. HELMS. Please repeat that.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina does not 
control sufficient time to call for a quorum. All time would have to be 
yielded back in order for a quorum call.
  Mr. HELMS. I did not use all of my time, that 60 seconds. I reserve 
that so I can suggest the absence of a quorum at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 2 minutes 55 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Illinois, Senator Simon.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I support the Dorgan amendment for the 
reason Senator Dorgan and Senator Helms [[Page S8244]] have outlined, 
but one other important reason. Economic diversity is important, but 
diversity in terms of news sources for the American people is extremely 
important.
  I used to be in the newspaper business. Fewer and fewer people own 
the newspapers of this country. We are headed in the same direction in 
television. It is not a healthy thing for our country. I strongly 
support the Dorgan amendment and agree completely--it is not often I 
can stand up on the Senate floor and say I agree completely with 
Senator Jesse Helms, but I certainly do here today.
  Mr. HELMS. Right on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Has all time been yielded back except for my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HELMS. Is there any other time outstanding?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me use just a minute of that. If the Senator from 
North Carolina needs another minute, I will be happy to yield to him. 
There is not much remaining to be said.
  As I indicated earlier, this could be a discussion that should take a 
day and we are going to compress it into 20 minutes. If you look at the 
landscape of ownership of our television stations 10 years or 20 years 
from now, you will, in my judgment, if you vote against this amendment, 
regret the vote. Because I think what you will see is that at a time 
when we brought a bill to the floor talking about deregulation and 
competition, we included a provision in this bill that will lead to 
concentration of ownership in an enormously significant way in the 
television industry in this country, and I do not think it is in the 
public interest.
  That is the position the Senator from Illinois took, the position the 
Senator from Nebraska discussed, and the Senator from North Carolina, 
too. I feel so strongly this is a mistake I just hope my colleagues 
will take a close, hard look at this and ask themselves, if they are 
talking about competition, if they are talking about local control, if 
they are talking about diversity, do they not believe it is in the 
public interest to have broad-based economic ownership of television 
stations spread around this country? Of course they do.
  Do they want to see a future in which a half dozen companies in 
America own all the television stations and local control is gone, 
diversity is gone? I do not think so. And that is exactly what will 
happen if my amendment is not enacted.
  So I very much hope my colleagues will understand the importance of 
this amendment despite the brevity of the debate.
  Does the Senator from North Carolina need additional time?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the request to 
table this amendment be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. No, no. What was the unanimous consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To vitiate the motion to table.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--the Senator 
from Montana has just arrived. He wishes to speak on this. All of my 
time is used, but I ask unanimous consent Senator Burns be given 5 
minutes to speak on this.
  I have made the request to vitiate the yeas and nays.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. PRESSLER. The Senate will vote in 5 minutes, but I also ask 
unanimous consent Senator Simon be recognized--following this upcoming 
vote, Senator Simon be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I have more to it. I will go on. I was hoping to get 
that approved. Relax. It is coming.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Simon, 
the Senate resume consideration of the Conrad amendment No. 1275 and 
there be 20 minutes for debate to be equally divided in the usual form; 
and that following the conclusion or yielding time, I be recognized to 
make a motion to table the Conrad amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I 
inquire, is there additional time left on my original time allocation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota still controls 
15 seconds. The Senator from North Carolina has 14 seconds left.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Montana is going to be 
given by unanimous consent 5 minutes to address this subject in 
opposition to this amendment, then I ask we be added an additional 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I point out as manager of the bill I cut my time down 
to about 4 minutes to speak against it, to try to keep things moving. 
But I think the Senator from Montana is so eloquent that his argument--
--
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator from Montana wishes to speak in favor of 
my amendment, I would have no objection.
  Mr. SIMON. Parliamentary inquiry. Have we disposed of the unanimous 
consent request of Senator Pressler?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I further ask that Senator Simon be recognized 
following the disposition of the Conrad amendment No. 1275. Does that 
take care of the Senator? Then we have all the problems taken care of.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, I note for Senators it is 
customary if at the time--it has been a long custom here--if all time 
has expired and somebody asks for additional time to speak on something 
that is about to be voted on, it is customary to ask for an equal 
amount of time for somebody on the other side. They may or may not use 
it, but that is the customary practice.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Fine. I will point out I gave the opposition 15 
minutes. I just took 5 to try to move this thing along. But, fine, we 
will give each side 5 more minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that occur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Is that 
to be added to the 14 seconds remaining of the Senator from North 
Carolina and the 15 seconds remaining to the Senator----
  Mr. PRESSLER. To the 14 seconds and 15 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Did we also grant the unanimous consent request for the 
rest of the sequencing that the Senator indicated? That was done also?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it was.
  Mr. BURNS. I ask the Senator from New Mexico, did he want to speak in 
opposition to this?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No; I am afraid if I were to speak, I might not speak 
in opposition, so I do not choose to speak.
  Mr. BURNS. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I shall not take 5 minutes. I would say the 
way the trend has been in radio and television station ownership in the 
last 5 or 10 years, this actually, I think, would stymie any 
development of further stations in the market.
  I rather doubt that any one owner wants to own both radio stations or 
three television stations in the market of Billings, MT. I do not think 
they want to own all of them. We are not talking about just network 
stations; we are talking about independent stations. We are talking 
about stations that are not affiliated with any kind of a network on 
the limits of ownership that you can have in a specific market but 
across the Nation.
  So, I am going to yield my time back. I am opposed to this amendment 
just for the simple reason of its effect on the sale of a station. When 
one retires or wants to sell a station, then you are going to have to 
go over and maybe you have a willing buyer that will give so much money 
for it and then that is closed out because he already owns too many 
stations? Maybe nobody else wants to get into the broadcast business. 
This also limits your ability to market a station, if you are lucky 
enough to own one.
  This does not pertain just to television stations. This also pertains 
to radio stations, radio stations as well as television stations. 
[[Page S8245]] 
  So I would oppose this amendment and I ask my colleagues to oppose it 
also.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  

                          ____________________