[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 96 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8245-S8254]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION ACT

  The Senate resumed with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1278

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Nebraska, Senator Kerrey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, thank you.
  As I indicated earlier, this amendment simply conforms with the 
underlying theme of S. 652 which is that if we have competition the 
consumers will benefit. The current language of the bill moves us in 
the direction of less competition. You cannot go from 25 percent 
ownership of stations in a service area to 35 percent without 
decreasing the competition. Inescapably the consequence is decreasing 
the number of broadcast owners in a particular area.
  So, in addition to the localism argument, which was very eloquently 
made by both the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from North 
Carolina, the important issue when you are dealing with news--I point 
out a very important issue--when you are dealing with the question of 
how does the electorate, how does the public, how do the citizens 
themselves acquire information, is the issue of concentration of 
ownership. That is a very important issue.
  So in addition to the idea that this shifts us away from local 
control of stations, there is also the very important idea of 
concentration in the industry, and lack of competition. It is highly 
likely that companies that we currently see as networks, or companies 
that we currently see as broadcasters, will be coming in at the local 
level saying we would like to provide what we previously regarded as 
dial tone and vice versa. This whole thing is going to get jumbled up 
in a hurry. As the Senator from South Dakota said several times, we 
allow people to get into each other's business. That is basically what 
the bill does.
  So I hope Members who want competition, who want the consumers to 
benefit from that competition, will support the Dorgan amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will not use all of the remaining time. 
I am going to send a modification to the desk.
  If I might have the attention of the Senator from South Dakota, who I 
think is now looking at the modification, the modification is purely 
technical in order to conform the amendment to the manner in which the 
underlying bill is drafted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. I have a right to modify the amendment without consent.
  Mr. PRESSLER. We have a problem with one portion, which is to modify 
or remove such national or local ownership of radio and television 
broadcasting.
  Mr. DORGAN. Radio has never been a part of the amendment that we 
offered today. It was not intended to be a part. I described the 
amendment earlier today as only affecting television stations. That is 
the intent of the amendment.
  Mr. PRESSLER. In the amendment we have national or local ownership of 
radio and television broadcasting.
  Mr. DORGAN. It is not the intent of the amendment to include radio. 
It is the intent to only include television, and that is the way I 
described it earlier today just after the noon hour.
  Mr. PRESSLER. As I understand it, every Senator can modify his 
amendment at any time. That changes the amendment based on my 
understanding. The amendment I have in my hand reads radio and 
television broadcasting.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. PRESSLER. A Senator has a right to modify his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota needs to ask 
unanimous consent in order to modify his amendment.
  Mr. PRESSLER. In view of the fact that the amendment I have in my 
hand is to modify or remove such national or local ownership of radio 
and television broadcasting, and just on the very moment of the vote to 
take out radio, and I want to consult with some of my colleagues, 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding of the parliamentary 
situation is that once all time is yielded back, under the unanimous-
consent request, I would then be allowed to modify my amendment, which 
I sought to do. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It still would require unanimous consent to 
proceed under that scenario.


                    Amendment No. 1278, as Modified

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to modify my amendment, and I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  I have 2 minutes remaining. In order to accommodate my friend from 
North Dakota, I would yield back the remainder of my time so that will 
put his request to modify in correct parliamentary procedure. Is that a 
correct assumption?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will not be necessary for the Senator to 
yield back time in order for the unanimous-consent modification of the 
amendment.
  Mr. BURNS. Then I reserve the remainder of my time.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request to modify 
the amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1278), as modified, is as follows:

       Strike paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of Section (207) and 
     insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(1) Review and modification of broadcast rules.--The 
     Commission shall:
       ``(A) modify or remove such national and local ownership 
     rules only applying to television broadcasters as are 
     necessary to ensure that broadcasters are able to compete 
     fairly with other media providers while ensuring that the 
     public receives information from a diversity of media sources 
     and localism and service in the public interest is protected 
     taking into consideration the economic dominance of providers 
     in a market and [[Page S8246]] 
       ``(B) review the ownership restriction in section 
     613(a)(1).''

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have 2 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I shall not use the entire 2 minutes. Let 
me just say that when I proposed this amendment earlier today, I 
indicated the amendment was about removing the provision in the bill 
that eliminates the restrictions on broadcast ownership on television 
stations. The bill is drafted that way. The first two sentences strike 
those provisions dealing with television stations and there was some 
ancillary language that relates to the rules that will have to be 
redrawn at the FCC. That referred to the set of rules in which they 
were dealing with both television and radio stations, so the word 
``radio'' was there but it had nothing to do with the strike. So we 
have since corrected that so that no one can misunderstand what the 
discussion is.
  The discussion is that we believe the elimination of the ownership 
rules, the ownership restrictions, 12 stations and 25 percent of the 
market, the elimination is not in the public interest, and we believe 
very much that the provision that strikes those prohibitions ought to 
be taken out of this bill, and the provisions of the 12 television 
stations and 25 percent of the market ought to remain. That is the 
purpose of it. I already described what I think is the importance of 
it, and in the interest of my friend from South Dakota, who has been 
very cooperative on this, in the interest of his moving this along, I 
would yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. When you start talking about, I guess, broadcast 
companies, I find it unlikely, coming out of that business, that any 
one company would come to buy all the broadcast stations, especially in 
television, in a specific market.
  Now, we have limited it nationally to 25 percent by law under the 
cable rereg bill, 25 percent of the market to a specific company, but 
we did not say that you were limited to a certain amount of cable 
systems. In other words, you just do not own so many cable systems if 
that adds up to 25 percent.
  What we are saying here is that you are limited not only as to the 
number of stations you can own but also a limit on the number of 
listeners or people who might be in that specific market nationally.
  So I just think it is bad policy right now. We do not limit any other 
media on the amount of ownership nationally across this country.
  The local station, if it is owned locally, does a much better job in 
competing against an absentee owner. And that question came up in the 
hearings. I said even though I might do business in Georgia--and there 
was a Georgia businessman who owned a station in my State of Montana--
it is still tough to do business against a local owner of a local 
station whenever the investment is there and the money is spent there.
  So again I would say that even the marketplace itself limits 
ownership in television and, of course, I am objecting to any kind of 
an ownership restriction on radio stations altogether.
  I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER. 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. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. BURNS. I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North Carolina yield 
back his time?
  Mr. HELMS. I certainly do. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1278, as modified. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. MACK (when his name was called). Present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 253 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Thomas
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--48

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dole
     Ford
     Frist
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Mack
       
  So the amendment (No. 1278), as modified, was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. 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. D'AMATO. 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. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to reconsider.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I move to table the motion, 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.


            Vote on Motion to Table the Motion to Reconsider

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the motion to reconsider. On this question, the yeas 
and nays were ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 254 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Helms
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So, the motion to lay on the table was rejected.

[[Page S8247]]

  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays be vitiated on the motion to reconsider.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. So then the vote will be, again, on the issue. We can adopt 
the motion to reconsider by voice vote.


                      Vote on Motion to Reconsider

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the motion 
to reconsider the vote by which the Dorgan amendment was agreed to.
  So the motion was agreed to.


     Vote on Amendment No. 1278, As Modified, Upon Reconsideration

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Dorgan 
amendment No. 1278, as modified, upon reconsideration.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. MACK (when his name was called). Present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 255 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Helms
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Ford
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Mack
       
  So the amendment (No. 1278), as modified, was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I thank my colleagues. I think we are 
holding the committee bill together and moving forward.
  There is now, under the unanimous consent as I understand it, to be a 
speech from Senator Simon, which he has been waiting to give. He is 
prepared to go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we have order in the Chamber, please?
  The Senator from Illinois.


                Amendment No. 1347 to Amendment No. 1275

  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague from North Dakota and the Senator 
from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. I do this reluctantly, in part 
because I agree with them in terms that we have a real problem and we 
have to confront that problem. The question is how we confront it.
  Let me commend him, Senator Conrad, Senator Dorgan, also from North 
Dakota, and Senator Lieberman, in terms of video games and what he has 
been able to do there. Senator Hollings has been a leader in this. 
Senator Hutchison has shown leadership. The problem is real and there 
are those in the industry, just like there are those in the cigarette 
industry, who deny there is a real problem. But the research is just 
overwhelming. There is no question that a cause--not the cause, because 
there are many causes--but a cause of violence in our society is the 
violence people see on entertainment television.
  I stress entertainment television because on news television --
sometimes it is more violent than I would like--but on news television 
when you see that scene from Bosnia, you see relatives crying, you see 
violence in its grimness. In entertainment television, there is a 
tendency to glorify violence.
  When even the President of the United States uses a phrase like 
``make my day,'' using it against Saddam Hussein, what he is saying is 
violence is a way of solving problems and violence is fun. Those are 
precisely the wrong messages.
  We have been working on this for some time. This body, I am pleased 
to say, unanimously passed a bill saying the industry can get together 
without violating the antitrust laws to deal with the problem of 
violence. Since that has happened, there have been steps--major steps, 
frankly, by the broadcast industry; very small steps by the cable 
industry--in moving in a more positive direction. That ultimately is 
going to have an effect on our society.
  If you look back at the old television series and movies, you will 
see our heroes and heroines smoking a great deal, drinking very 
heavily. That just quietly changed. The same thing is happening on 
broadcast television, but it is not happening, frankly, in the cable 
field as much as we would like. I applaud the steps that have been 
taken, but we need to do more.
  I am also very reluctant to see Government get excessively into this 
problem. I spoke in Los Angeles in August 1993 to a unique gathering of 
800 television and movie producers and talked about this issue of 
violence in our films. It was received about as favorably out there as 
Senator Bob Dole's recent comments. Let me just add that I agree with 
the general thrust of Senator Dole's comments.
  But one of the things I said in August 1993 was, if the industry was 
willing to set up monitoring where we could find out what is happening, 
independent monitoring that is recognized as solid, I would oppose any 
legislative answers. At first we got a very negative response from the 
industry. Finally, both the broadcast and cable industries have 
established--or have contracted with respected entities, UCLA and 
Mediascope, to do this. The first report on broadcast will come in 
September. The report on cable will come in January. And tentatively we 
will have that for 3 years.
  I think it is important that we let the industry try to correct its 
problems on its own, that we applaud the steps that have been taken, 
that we say more steps are needed. I have a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution which will be voted upon immediately after we vote on the 
Conrad-Lieberman amendment--it is cosponsored by Senator Dole and 
Senator Pressler--which urges the industry to do more in this area but 
does not get the Federal Government involved directly. When you start 
moving in the direction of getting the Federal Government involved--for 
example this deals with ``the level of violence or objectionable 
content.'' When you talk about ``objectionable content,'' you are 
talking about something that is not very precise. When you talk about 
content, I think the Federal Government has to be very, very careful.
  If the industry on its own gets into this V-chip field, I applaud 
that. I welcome that. I am reluctant to have the Federal Government 
start moving into this field of content.
  Let me add, it is not a substitute for the industry policing itself 
and having good programming, positive programming. Even if this is 
agreed to, we will still face the reality, for example, that in the 
high crime areas of our country young people watch a great deal more 
television than they do in the suburbs and rural areas of our country. 
And they are going to continue to see much too much violence and 
programs that I think are objectionable.
  So my hope is that, frankly, we will defeat the Conrad-Lieberman 
amendment because we do not want the Federal Government getting its 
fist in there too heavily. I think we have to be careful. But let us 
pass the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which will send a signal, a 
very clear signal, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that I assume will 
pass unanimously, that sends a signal to the industry: Let us do 
better. We have serious concerns.
  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

[[Page S8248]]

  Mr. PRESSLER. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senate 
majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I will just take a few minutes, I say to 
Senator Simon.
  First, I ask unanimous consent the vote on the motion to table the 
Conrad amendment occur at 8:10 p.m. to be followed immediately by a 
vote on the Simon amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I support the goals of the amendments 
offered by my distinguished colleagues, Senator Conard and Senator 
Lieberman.
  Both Senators are absolutely right to criticize the television 
industry for programming that too often glorifies mindless violence and 
casual sex. One recent study commissioned by USA Weekend magazine 
recorded 370 instances of ``crude language or sexual situations'' 
during a 5-night period of prime-time programming, or 1 every 8.9 
minutes; 208 of these incidents occurred between 8 and 9 p.m., the so-
called family hour.
  According to one study, children will have been exposed to nearly 
18,000 televised murders and 800 televised suicides by the time they 
reach the ripe old age of 18.
  Clearly, on the issue of violent and sexually oriented programming, 
the television industry has much, much to explain to concerned parents 
throughout the country.
  So, Mr. President, Senator Conard, Senator Lieberman, and I are in 
total agreement when it comes to identifying the problem that his 
amendment seeks to address. We part ways, however, when it comes to how 
best to resolve this
 problem in a way that is both effective and consistent with our free-
speech traditions.

  Senator Conrad's amendment, as modified by the Lieberman second-
degree, may not amount to censorship, but by establishing a 5-member 
Presidential Commission to create a ``violence rating system,'' it 
takes us one step closer to government control over what we see and 
hear on television. As I have said on numerous occasions, we have more 
to lose than to gain from putting Washington in charge of our culture.
  I am also concerned about the provisions in Senator Conrad's 
amendment that would direct TV stations to transmit the ratings 
developed by the Presidentially appointed Commission as well as require 
that all TV sets be equipped with chip technology in order to block out 
programming found objectionable under the government-rating system.
  These provisions are inconsistent with the general deregulatory 
approach of this bill--that less government control, less government 
regulations are what is needed most for a strong, competitive, 
consumer-oriented telecommunications industry.
  The real solution to the problem of television's
   corrosive impact on our culture lies with concerned parents, 
informed consumers who have the good sense to turn off the trash, and 
corporate executives within the entertainment industry who are willing 
to put common decency above corporate profits.

  That is why I have cosponsored the sense of the Senate amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Simon. 
This amendment is right-on-target: It states that ``self-regulation by 
the private sector is * * * preferable to direct regulation by the 
Federal Government.'' And it urges the entertainment industry ``to do 
everything possible'' to limit the amount of violent and aggressive 
programming, particularly during the hours when children are most 
likely to be watching.
  In other words: No regulation. No government involvement. No 
censorship. Just focusing the moral spotlight where it is needed most.
  Mr. President, the television industry has tremendous power. In fact, 
television is perhaps the most dominant cultural force in America 
today. But with this power comes responsibility. It is my hope, and it 
is the hope of millions of Americans across this great country, that 
the television industry will finally get the message and preform a 
much-needed and urgent house-cleaning.
  Let me also add that when I made a statement about the entertainment 
industry a couple of weeks ago it did get the attention of a lot of 
people. But I notice in all the surveys that followed that speech there 
were about as many people concerned about Government censorship as 
there were about the violence, the mindless violence, and casual sex in 
movies and TV.
  I have been criticized, maybe with some justification, by some who 
say, ``Bob Dole, Senator Dole, wants censorship.'' I never suggested 
censorship. I did not suggest the Government do anything. I suggested 
that shame is a powerful weapon, and that it ought to be used.
  I also suggested that, while the entertainment industry has its first 
amendment rights, we have our first amendment rights to express 
outrage, as the Senator from Illinois has done, the Senator from New 
Jersey, Senator Bradley, and many others, in this Senate.
  So I would hope that we would not let the Government take one inch, 
make one effort that would indicate that we are headed towards 
Government regulation, Government involvement, censorship, if you will, 
and give the industry a chance to clean up its act. The last thing we 
want is more Government, particularly in a bill. As I have suggested, 
we are trying to deregulate and be more competitive.
  I hope that the Conrad amendment and the underlying amendment will be 
tabled, and that the amendment of the Senator from Illinois would then 
be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Illinois wish to use his 
final minutes?
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I would like to reserve the 2 minutes for 
later, if I could.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask that Senator Lieberman, Senator Exon, Senator Byrd, 
Senator Nunn, and Senator Feinstein be shown as cosponsors of my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, the amendment that I am offering is not governmental 
choice in television. It is parental choice in television. There is a 
world of difference, and it is an important difference.
  The amendment that I am offering provides for choice chips in new 
television sets so that parents can decide what comes into their 
homes--not the Government; parents. That is what the American people 
want, and that is what this amendment provides. It says when we start 
building new television sets let us include the new technology that 
will permit parents to decide what their children see--no Government 
bureaucrat, no Government agency; parents. That is precisely where the 
choice ought to lie.
  Madam President, we do not dictate when the industry should provide 
the choice chip. We provide that there should be consultation between 
the industry and the FCC to determine the appropriate time for the 
choice chip to be included in new television sets. But we did say those 
chips ought to be available, and ought to be included in new sets, 
whether they are manufactured abroad or in this country for use in 
America. The American people want to be able to make these decisions.
  I would direct my colleagues' attention to a USA Today poll that was 
taken on June 2 through the 4th. They asked the question:

       Should ``V-chips'' be installed in TV sets so parents could 
     easily block violent programming?

  Yes, 90 percent; 90 percent said yes. They want to have the ability 
to choose. They want to have the ability to make the determination 
about what their kids see--not Government, parents.
  This amendment empowers parents. Let parents decide. It leaves the 
decision where it belongs, with American families--not some Government 
agency, not some Government authority, but the American parents.
  Second it provides for a rating system.
  Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would prefer not to. I would like to conclude my 
statement because I have very limited time. [[Page S8249]] 
  Consumers would like to know the content of programming. So we 
provide for a rating system. In my amendment, it is not determined by 
any Government board. It is determined by industry getting together 
with all interested parties. They are given 1 year on a voluntary basis 
to determine a rating system--not some Government fiat, not some 
Government dictate, but the industry working together with all 
interested parties on a voluntary basis for 1 year to establish a 
rating system.
  Do you know? I believe they could do it without any Government 
interference, without any Government involvement. But if they fail 
after 1 year, then, yes. We provide that the FCC step in and oversee 
the creation of the rating system.
  Do you know what? We have seen this done in other industries. We 
asked the industry that is involved with recreational software to 
develop on a voluntary basis a rating system. They did it. They did an 
excellent job. This is what they came up with--a thermometer that shows 
levels of violence, shows sexual activity, shows language so that 
people can make a judgment for themselves. That is what we are calling 
for here--parental choice, not governmental choice.
  Madam President, I ask my colleague, Senator Lieberman, for his 
comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, how much time remains, and who is it 
allocated to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota has 9 minutes, 
and the Senator from North Dakota has 4 minutes and 40 seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. I give 3 minutes to my colleague from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


         Amendment No. 1347, As Modified, to Amendment No. 1275

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I first want to exercise my ability to send a 
modification of my second-degree amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. This is a technical amendment which in part----
  Mr. PRESSLER. Reserving the right to object----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I exercised, I say to the chairman of 
the committee, my right to modify my second-degree amendment. It is a 
technical modification which in part responds to the suggestion of the 
ranking member of the committee to remove the section of the original 
amendment that would have established a system of fees to finance the 
grading board.
  Mr. PRESSLER. What is the parliamentary situation? Does this take 
unanimous consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It does require unanimous consent.
  Does the Senator object?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I must reserve the right to object.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am happy to proceed with my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1347), as modified, 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 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 appointed by the President, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate, of whom--
       (i) three shall be individuals who are members of 
     appropriate public interest groups or are interested 
     individuals from the private sector; and
       (ii) two shall be representatives of the broadcast 
     television industry and the cable television industry.
       (B) Nomination.--Individuals shall be nominated for 
     appointment under subparagraph (A) 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 
     te 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.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Commission such sums as are necessary to enable the 
     Commission to carry out its duties under this Act.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the chairman of the committee.
  Madam President, again, I am privileged to join with my colleague 
from North Dakota in this amendment. The fact is that every study we 
have seen shows the extraordinary unacceptable amount of violence on 
television. It affects our children. It makes them more violent. The 
fact is that it is hard to believe that amount of inappropriate, 
objectionable material that the majority leader has referred to as 
casual sex on television which affects the violence of our kids. 
[[Page S8250]] 
  One survey I quoted in an earlier statement here said the kids 
themselves admitted that what they saw on television encouraged them to 
be involved in sexual activity earlier than they should have.
  It is time finally in our society that we focus on some of the major 
forces that affect our values and our children's values. We are 
confronting the difficult question of the impact of the entertainment 
media which is so powerful on our values and on our lives in our 
society.
  This amendment gives the Members of this Chamber the opportunity to 
do more than talk about this problem. This is an opportunity to do 
something about it--not to create censorship, far from it--but under 
the terms of this amendment to basically get the attention of the 
television industry.
  Senator Simon, our colleague, has been a leader in this. But the fact 
is, as I understand it, that it is because of his understanding of the 
television industry that he has offered his sense of the Senate. The 
fact is that the industry has not gotten the message.
  The programs that our kids are seeing are giving them the wrong 
message, and it is affecting their behavior and challenging the ability 
of parents in this country to raise their kids the way they want to 
raise them. This amendment, modified by my second-degree amendment, 
simply gives the industry a year to create its own standards; if they 
do not, then sets up a rating board, two members from the industry, 
three from the public, to do the job.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. This Senate ought to act on this 
problem.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, it is the intention of the Commerce 
Committee to hold hearings on this subject in the near future. Indeed, 
Senator Hollings and many others have bills that they have filed, and 
they have been patiently waiting to have hearings so that we can start 
a legislative process.
  For example, this amendment, before it was amended, said we would 
have had to look at the impact of assessing fees on broadcasters for 
funding a national commission on TV.
  Now, that has been modified, but there still are many questions that 
I have about this. And I would inform Members that a Simon-Dole-
Pressler amendment will be coming calling for renewed efforts by the 
broadcast industry to regulate violent programming. It is my strongest 
feeling that we should vote down the first amendment and adopt the 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment so that we can clearly state our views on 
this matter and proceed with legislation in a proper way with hearings 
and a markup.
  I thought the Senator from Louisiana wished to speak. I would like to 
yield as much time as the Senator from Louisiana would consume.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the chairman. I would just like to ask a question 
of the Senator who is the sponsor of the amendment. He spoke of the--
what was it, the choice chip? It would seem to me that the TV sets 
already have choice chips. It is called the off and on switch, and when 
the parent thinks that the program is not proper for a small child in 
their home, they just go turn it off. And that is a choice chip by a 
different name. But they have the right to control what their children 
see right now.
  I am not sure why we have to order companies to build some other kind 
of switch to regulate what children see. It is a parental 
responsibility, I think, to say this is a program that is suitable for 
my child or it is not. And if it is not, you take the little off-on 
switch and you go ``flick'' or you can take the remote control and go 
``push'' and the program is gone--poof, it is gone, like we already 
have a choice chip on the TV right now.
  I would like to ask, what is the problem with the existing chip?
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator asks a very good question, and the problem is 
very often the parents are not home to help participate in that choice. 
Millions of American families have both parents working. Millions of 
American families are so busy that they do not have a chance to monitor 
every minute of what their children are watching. And so what we are 
providing is when the parent is absent, they are able to program that 
television to exclude programming they find objectionable. Why not? Why 
should not parents have an ability to say that not just anyone can come 
into their home, uninvited, and give any message to their kid that they 
want to give without the parents being able to stop it?
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think the American people want the chance to say no.
  Mr. BREAUX. I think it is a valid response.
  I thank the Senator for yielding. I thank the Chair. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 1349

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to take my remaining time. I 
have an amendment at the desk I would offer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself, Mr. 
     Dole, and Mr. Pressler, proposes an amendment numbered 1349.

  Mr. SIMON. 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:

       At the appropriate place add the following.

     SEC.   : FINDINGS.

       The Senate finds that--
       Violence is a pervasive and persistent feature of the 
     entertainment industry. According to the Carnegie Council on 
     Adolescent Development, by the age of 18, children will have 
     been exposed to nearly 18,000 televised murders and 800 
     suicides.
       Violence on television is likely to have a serious and 
     harmful effect on the emotional development of young 
     children. The American Psychological Association has reported 
     that children who watch ``a large number of aggressive 
     programs tend to hold attitudes and values that favor the use 
     of aggression to solve conflicts.'' The National Institute of 
     Mental Health has stated similarly that ``violence on 
     television does lead to aggressive behavior by children and 
     teenagers.''
       The Senate recognizes that television violence is not the 
     sole cause of violence in society.
       There is a broad recognition in the U.S. Congress that the 
     television industry has an obligation to police the content 
     of its own broadcasts to children. That understanding was 
     reflected in the Television Violence Act of 1990, which was 
     specifically designed to permit industry participants to work 
     together to create a self-monitoring system.
       After years of denying that television violence has any 
     detrimental effect, the entertainment industry has begun to 
     address the problem of television violence. In the Spring of 
     1994, for example, the network and cable industries announced 
     the appointment of an independent monitoring group to assess 
     the amount of violence on television. These reports are due 
     out in the Fall of 1995 and Winter of 1996, respectively.
       The Senate recognizes that self-regulation by the private 
     sector is generally preferable to direct regulation by the 
     federal government.

     SEC.   : SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the Sense of the Senate that the entertainment 
     industry should do everything possible to limit the amount of 
     violent and aggressive programming, particularly during the 
     hours when children are most likely to be watching.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in closing the argument, let me say if the 
industry on its own moves in this direction, I will applaud the 
industry for doing it. But let us not make any mistake, we are moving 
beyond anything Government has ever done before. We are saying, if the 
industry in 1 year does not get this resolved, then a Government 
commission is going to determine violence and objectionable content. 
That is an intrusion that I hope we can avoid. And my reason for hoping 
we can avoid it is that, frankly, we are making some progress in the 
television industry. On the broadcast side, we are clearly making 
progress. No one denies that. On the cable side, frankly, very little 
progress has been made. And there I hope the industry can move ahead. 
But we are going to have monitoring. We are going to have our first 
report come in September of this year on broadcast, January of next 
year on cable. Let us let the industry try to resolve this matter on 
their own. It is a genuine problem. I agree with Senator Conrad and 
Senator Lieberman on that. But I think we have to be careful how far 
the Federal Government goes.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair. [[Page S8251]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 29 seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I just have to correct the record with 
respect to the statement Senator Simon made. My amendment does not have 
any Government agency determining what is objectionable content. It is 
not a governmental decision. It is parental choice. Parents have a 
right to decide. The only involvement of Government is if the industry 
does not move forward with putting in chips, the choice chips that will 
allow parents to make these decisions, it will be required on new 
television sets.
  Second, with respect to a rating system so that parents can determine 
what is coming into their homes, if the industry, together with all 
interested parties, does not reach a determination within 1 year, then 
a commission will determine a rating system. They will not determine 
that something is objectionable and should be blocked from people's 
homes. Not at all. People can produce anything they want, but parents 
will have a right to choose what comes into their homes.
  Under the Dole-Simon amendment, they are saying that the networks can 
come into your home, talk to your children, say anything they want, and 
you cannot stop them. We say that is wrong. We say that parents ought 
to be able to choose what their children see.
  I hope my colleagues will support this commonsense amendment that 
gives parents the right to decide what comes into their homes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota has 3 minutes 50 
seconds.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I will use my time to urge Members to vote to table the 
Conrad amendment. And I urge Members to express their concern on this 
subject by voting for the Dole-Simon-Pressler amendment, which will be 
a sense-of-the-Senate, so Members will have an opportunity for a 
followup vote.
  I urge all Members of the Senate to vote to table the Conrad 
amendment No. 1275.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. PRESSLER. The Senator from New Jersey wants 1 minute. Even though 
he is not on my side, I will give him 1 minute but then I want the 
floor to make my motion.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. President, this is the opening round of a very important debate. 
Nobody disputes that too much violence is coming into the home. It is 
coming into the home because it sells, because the market works, 
because people buy it.
  So the question is, how do you stop it from coming into the home? My 
first preference would be to shame those who are making money out of 
selling trash. But if that fails, Mr. President, then clearly there has 
to be another way to try to prevent the trash from coming into the 
home. The amendment offered by the distinguished Senators from South 
Dakota and Connecticut is the beginning of saying, well, what if the 
market will not be subject to shame? What if it will continue to put 
forth trash?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Therefore, Mr. President, I think this is a very 
important Senate decision.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I must now move to table the Conrad 
amendment. The hour of 8:10 has arrived. I know the Senator from 
Florida wanted 1 minute. I do not know that that can be worked out, but 
I do now move to table the Conrad amendment No. 1275, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to ask if the Senator from 
South Dakota will yield 1 minute of his time to me.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I do yield 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Florida is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as a 
cosponsor of the Conrad-Lieberman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is not an issue of censorship or 
excessive Government intrusion. This is essentially an issue of 
empowerment. We are empowering the parents of children to make an 
intelligent choice, which the children by their immaturity often are 
unable to make. Who better to ask in our society to be responsible for 
what comes into the minds of young people than those who love them the 
most and have the responsibility for their nurturing and upbringing?
  I believe that we ought to be encouraging responsibility beyond just 
the pure dictates of the marketplace from many aspects of our society. 
I am very pleased that three Federal agencies --the Department of 
Defense, Amtrak, and the Postal Service--have joined together to 
establish some standards that will not place Federal advertising into 
programs that are excessively violent.
  I hope that would be a standard of social responsibility that other 
sponsors would look to and that we would allow parents to exercise that 
responsibility by empowering them to control what their children see.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I yield back all my time. This will be a vote on a 
motion to table.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1275

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 1275 offered by the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. Conrad]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. MACK (when his name was called). Present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 73, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 256 Leg.]

                                YEAS--26

     Ashcroft
     Burns
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Glenn
     Grassley
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Robb
     Santorum
     Simon
     Specter
     Thomas

                                NAYS--73

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Mack
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1275) was 
rejected.
     Vote on Amendment No. 1347, as Modified, to Amendment No. 1275

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas 
and nays be vitiated on amendment No. 1347.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the second-degree 
amendment No. 1347 offered by the Senator from Connecticut.
  If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1347), as modified, was agreed to.
  [[Page S8252]]
  
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1349.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 1275, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 1275 as 
amended.
  The amendment (No. 1275), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER adressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1349

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment 
No. 1349.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 1349, 
offered by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced, yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 257 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So, the amendment (No. 1349) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I have 2 or 3 unanimous consent 
requests.


                           Amendment No. 1335

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume 
consideration of amendment 1335--it is the Kerrey of Nebraska 
amendment--the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, all without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 1335) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1350

   (Purpose: To assure that the national security is protected when 
 considering grants of common carrier license to foreign entities and 
                             other persons)

  Mr. PRESSLER. I ask that the pending amendments be laid aside, and I 
send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Exon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler], for Mr. Exon, 
     for himself, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Byrd, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1350.

  Mr. PRESSLER. 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 49, line 15 after ``Government (or its 
     representative)'' add the following: ``provided that the 
     President does not object within 15 days of such 
     determination''
       On page 50 between line 14 and 15 insert the following:
       ``(c) The Application of the Exon-Florio Law.--Nothing in 
     this section (47 U.S.C. 310) shall limit in any way the 
     application of 50 U.S.C. App. 2170 (the Exon-Florio law) to 
     any transaction.''

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment related to the 
foreign ownership provisions of the telecommunications bill.
  S. 652, the pending bill, adds new procedures to permit foreign 
ownership of common carrier licenses if the Federal Communications 
Commission [FCC] determines that the home country of the proposed 
foreign owner offers reciprocal and equivalent market opportunities to 
Americans.
  The Exon-Dorgan-Byrd amendment clarifies that nothing in the new 
section limits or affects the application of the Exon-Florio law (50 
App. 2170) which gives the President the power to investigate and if 
necessary prohibit or suspend a merger, takeover or acquisition of an 
American company by a foreign entity when the national security may be 
affected by such transaction.
  Where the proposed FCC procedure would permit the foreign acquisition 
of a U.S. telecommunications company and its common carrier licenses, 
it is important to make clear that the new FCC procedure does not pre-
empt existing law affecting foreign mergers, acquisitions and 
takeovers.
  Most importantly, our proposed amendment would give the President 15 
days to review actions of the FCC. Under this provision, the license 
could be granted only if the President does not object within 15 days. 
As Commander in Chief, and the conductor of foreign policy, there may 
be information available to a President which would not or should not 
be available to the FCC in making its findings under the proposed 
procedure in S. 652. The Exon-Dorgan-Byrd amendment assures that the 
President gets the final say if a common carrier license is granted to 
a foreign entity.
  This amendment should be non-controversial and in no way undermines 
the foreign investment and ownership reforms of S. 652. It preserves 
important national security, foreign policy and law enforcement powers 
of the President.
  I urge my colleagues to support this short but critically important 
amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by 
the distinguished senior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], and am a co-
sponsor of it along with the distinguished Senator from North Dakota 
[Mr. Dorgan]. The international marketplace in telecommunications 
equipment and service is a very robust, lucrative one, and the 
opportunities for U.S. companies abroad are vast. However, this 
marketplace is subject to many of the same kind of barriers to entry as 
has been the case for other American business sectors. Currently, the 
US Trade representative, Ambassador Kantor, has initiated a 301 case 
against the Japanese in the area of automobile parts, after years of 
frustration in trying to gain fair entry into the Japanese market. The 
Senate has strongly endorsed this action by a vote of 88-8 on a 
resolution offered by myself, the two leaders, and other Senators on 
both sides of the aisle.
  Similar problems of access to foreign markets exist in the 
telecommunications sector, and the bill as reported from the Commerce 
Committee includes a provision to protect our country and our companies 
from unfair competition. The bill as reported by the Committee supports 
an incentives-based strategy for foreign countries to open their 
telecommunications markets to U.S. companies. It does this by 
conditioning new access to the American market upon a showing of 
reciprocity in the markets of the petitioning foreign companies. 
Current law, that is section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
provides that a foreign entity may not obtain a common carrier license 
itself, and may not own more than 25 percent of any corporation which 
owns or controls a common carrier license. This foreign ownership 
limitation has not been very effective and has not prevented foreign 
carriers from entering the U.S. market. The FCC has had the discretion 
of waiving this limitation, if it finds that such action does not 
adversely affect the public interest. [[Page S8253]] 
  Nevertheless, maintaining restrictions on foreign ownership is 
generally considered by U.S. industry to be useful as one way to raise 
the issue of unfair foreign competition and to maintain leverage 
abroad. Therefore, the bill established a reciprocal market access 
standard as a condition for the waiver of Section 310(b). It states 
that the FCC may grant to an alien, foreign corporation or foreign 
government a common carrier license that would otherwise violate the 
restriction in Section 310(b) if the FCC finds that there are 
equivalent market opportunities for U.S. companies and citizens in the 
foreign country of origin of the corporation or government.
  Even though Section 310 has not prevented access into our market, the 
existence of the section has been used by foreign countries
 as an excuse to deny U.S. companies access to their markets. The 
provision in S. 652, applying a reciprocity rule, makes it clear that 
our market will be open to others to the same extent that theirs are 
open to our investment. This is as it should be.

  The amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Nebraska 
ensures that important factors of national security and the overall 
best interest of the U.S. from the perspective of law enforcement, 
foreign policy, the interpretation of international agreements, and 
national economic security are protected. The FBI has indicated to me 
its grave concerns over foreign penetration of our telecommunications 
market. Foreign governments whose interests are adverse to the U.S., 
foreign drug cartels, international criminal syndicates, terrorist 
organizations, and others who would like to own, operate, or penetrate 
our telecommunications market should be prohibited from doing so. 
Therefore, the Exon-Dorgan-Byrd amendment gives the president the 
authority to overturn an FCC decision to grant a waiver of the 
restrictions of Section 310. This is based, of course, on the superior 
information available to the President by virtue of the resources 
available to him across the board in the Executive branch. The 
president must have a veto in this field, and he should not hesitate to 
exercise this authority.
  Mr. President, my second degree amendment provides that, in the event 
that the President should reject a recommendation by the FCC to grant a 
license to a foreign entity to operate in our market, the President 
shall provide a report to the Congress on the findings he has made in 
the particular case and the factors that he took into account in 
arriving at his determination. The Congress needs to be kept in the 
loop on the evolution of our telecommunications market. The reports can 
be provided in classified and/or unclassified form, as appropriate, 
since many of the national security factors that might pertain in a 
particular case are sensitive and should be protected.
  In addition, Mr. President, my amendment has a second section which 
deals with the issue of the actual nature of the foreign 
telecommunications market place. Given the highly lucrative nature of 
the telecommunications marketplace, the stakes of gaining access to 
foreign markets are high. It should be no surprise that securing 
effective market access to many foreign markets, including those of our 
allies, such as France, Germany and Japan, has been very difficult. 
Those markets remain essentially closed to our companies, dominated as 
they are by large monopolies favored by those governments. In fact, 
most European markets highly restrict competition in basic voice 
services and infrastructure. A study by the Economic Strategy 
Institute, in December 1994, found that ``While the U.S. has encouraged 
competition in all telecommunication sectors except the local exchange, 
the overwhelming majority of nations have discouraged competition and 
maintained a public monopoly that has
 no incentive to become more efficient. U.S. firms, as a result of 
intense competition here in the U.S., provide the most advanced and 
efficient telecommunications services in the world, and could certainly 
compete effectively in other markets if given the chance of an open 
playing field.'' The same study found that ``U.S. firms are blocked 
from the majority of lucrative international opportunities by foreign 
government regulations prohibiting or restricting U.S. participation 
and international regulations which intrinsically discriminate and 
overcharge U.S. firms and consumers.'' This study found that the total 
loss in revenues to U.S. firms, as a result of foreign barriers, is 
estimated to be close to $100 billion per year between 1992 and the end 
of the century.

  As my colleagues are aware, the negotiations which led to the 
historic revision of the GATT agreement, and which created the World 
Trade Organization, were unable to conclude an agreement on 
telecommunications services. Thus, separate negotiations are underway 
in Geneva today to secure such an agreement, in the context of the 
Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications. In the absence of such 
an agreement, we must rely on our own laws to protect our companies and 
to provide leverage over foreign nations to open their markets. To 
forego our own national leverage would do a great disservice to 
American business and would be shortsighted--the result of which would 
be not only a setback to our strategy to open those markets, but to 
pull the rug out from under our negotiators in Geneva seeking to secure 
a favorable international agreement for open telecommunications 
markets. Indeed, tough U.S. reciprocity laws are clearly needed by our 
negotiators to gain an acceptable, effective, market-opening agreement 
in Geneva in these so-called GATT (General Agreement on Trade in 
Services) negotiations.
  The standard for access into the American market in the reported bill 
requires that the FCC find that market opportunities in the home market 
of the applicant be equivalent to those desired in the U.S. in the 
specific telecommunications market segment involved. Thus, if an 
applicant wants to get into the American mobile telephone market, the 
mobile telephone market of the applicant must be open. I expect that 
the FCC will be very tough, and the President will be very tough, as 
provided for in the underlying amendment pending here, in making a 
determination that the home market of the applicant is really open for 
our investment and/or operations. My second degree amendment would also 
require the FCC and the President to look beyond that specific 
telecommunications market segment, and make an evaluation of the 
accessibility of the whole range of telecommunications market segments 
for American investment and/or operations. This is because the 
telecommunications market between the U.S. and our trading partners is 
often very asymmetrical. For instance, if a German company wants to get 
into the U.S. mobile phone market, we might find, and indeed we would 
find, that the German mobile phone market is open to U.S. business 
access. But the rest of the German market is mainly closed up tighter 
than a dry drum to U.S. investment or entry. So we at least need to 
inform ourselves of the real nature of the international marketplace, 
and I would expect that these evaluations would be made available to 
the public, in detail and in a timely way. Over the long run, if we 
determine a persistent pattern of imbalance and unfairness, as a whole, 
exists in telecommunications markets, further action to force foreign 
markets open will have to be considered.
  Mr. President, this is an effort to advance our understanding of the 
nature of the evolving international marketplace for the range of 
exploding technologies in the telecommunications field, and to ensure 
that America is treated fairly and in a reciprocal manner. I 
congratulate the committee for the reciprocity provision and I hope 
that the modest contribution that Senators Exon, Dorgan, and I make 
with this amendment will add something of value to that provision.
                Amendment No. 1351 to Amendment No. 1350

 (Purpose: To require a report on objections to determinations of the 
   Federal Communications Commission for purposes of termination of 
  foreign ownership restrictions and to revise the determinations of 
                market opportunities for such purposes)

  Mr. PRESSLER. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler], for Mr. Byrd, 
     for himself and Mr. Exon, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1351.


[[Page S8254]]

  Mr. PRESSLER. 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 1 of the amendment, line 4, strike out 
     ``determination.'' and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
     ``determination. If the President objects to a determination, 
     the President shall, immediately upon such objection, submit 
     to Congress a written report (in unclassified form, but with 
     a classified annex if necessary) that sets forth a detailed 
     explanation of the findings made and factors considered in 
     objecting to the determination.''
       On page 49, line 17, insert after the period the following: 
     ``While determining whether such opportunities are equivalent 
     on that basis, the Commission shall also conduct an 
     evaluation of opportunities for access to all segments of the 
     telecommunications market of the applicant.''

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am pleased to support and cosponsor 
Senator Byrd's amendment to the Exon-Dorgan-Byrd foreign investment 
amendment. This friendly amendment would require the President to 
report to the Congress in a classified and unclassified form.
  This report mirrors the reporting provisions of the 1993 Exon-Byrd 
amendment to the Exon-Florio law. I am pleased to lend my full support 
to my friend and colleague from West Virginia.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to 
and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 1351) was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Exon 
amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 1350), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I believe that that brings our 
activities on the telecommunications bill to a close today. I think we 
have made good progress, and I think the committee bill has held 
together. I know there are Senators present with speeches, but I wish 
to thank all Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

                          ____________________