[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 98 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8424-S8448]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


         TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETI- TION AND DEREGULATION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Montana.


                    Amendment No. 1283, as Modified

  Mr. BURNS. I rise in opposition to the Simon amendment.
  The Senator is right; we do not thank people enough. I wish to thank 
the Senator from Illinois for bringing up this issue.
  I think it important that the American people take a look and see 
exactly what is happening in the broadcast business. Radio ownership 
decisions should be made by owners and operators and investors and not 
by the Federal Government. That is why we need to eliminate all 
remaining caps on national and local radio ownership.
  Let us take into consideration some things happening in the broadcast 
industry. Even if I own two radio stations in the same market, would I 
program them the same? Would I want the diversity to capitalize on an 
advertising market so that I can expand that advertising base? Because 
that is what pulls the wagon in the broadcast business--advertising 
dollars. Would I program it the same? I seriously doubt it. And there 
are some right now, even though they own an FM station and an AM 
station and operate it out of the same building, use the same engineer, 
sometimes the same on-the-air personalities, their programming is 
different. That is what is happening in the broadcast business today. 
Now, that is the real world.
  Nationally, there are more than 11,000 radio stations providing 
service to every city, town, and rural community in the United States. 
Presently, no one can control more than 40 stations. That is 20 AM 
stations and 20 FM stations. Clearly, the radio market is so incredibly 
vast and diverse that there is no possibility that any one entity could 
gain control of enough stations to be able to exert any market power 
over either advertisers or programmers.
  At the local level, while the FCC several years ago modified its 
duopoly rules to permit a limited combination of stations in the same 
service in the same market, there are still stringent limits on the 
ability of radio operators to grow in their markets. Further, the FCC 
rules permit only very restricted or no combinations in smaller 
markets. These restrictions handcuff broadcasters and prevent them from 
providing the best possible service to listeners in all of our States. 
And, unfortunately, the Simon amendment, whether intended or not, only 
addresses the national limitations and does nothing to alleviate 
excessive local market controls.
  Increased multiple ownership opportunities will allow radio operators 
to obtain efficiencies from being able to purchase programming and 
equipment on a group basis and from combining operations such as sales 
and engineering which is going on today.
  We do not hear any cry in just the local market of anything being 
really wrong in the broadcast business.
  Radio stations have to face increasing competition from other radio 
stations and from other advertising and programming sources, such as 
cable television operators. Nowadays many cable operators have begun to 
provide music and related services that compete locally with radio 
stations, and soon satellite services will have the capabilities of 
providing 60 channels of digital audio service that will be available 
in communities across the Nation, of which there is no wall to receive 
their signal.
  Also in the near future, radio stations will begin facing the need 
for new capital investment when the FCC authorizes terrestrial digital 
audio broadcasting. Without an opportunity to grow and to attract 
capital, our Nation's radio industry will face an increasingly 
difficult task in responding to these multiplying competitive 
pressures.
  And they are competition. But we also wonder why should we in some 
way or other hamper a local broadcast station from supporting the local 
community. News, weather, sports, all the community services that we 
enjoy in our smaller communities, we have to be able to attract 
advertising dollars, yet we will be subject to the competition of 
direct broadcast and also the cable operators. But competition is what 
makes it good. I am not worried about that. We can compete. Just do not 
limit our ownership decisions to buy or sell based on a Government-
imposed cap on what we can own.
  I received a letter from Benny Bee, President of Bee Broadcasting up 
at Whitefish, MT. Benny writes, and I quote:

       I can't express how important it is that the markets be 
     opened up and the ownership caps be taken off. Broadcasters 
     like myself need to be able to compete. . . .  I urge you to 
     defeat the Simon amendment and help move broadcasters forward 
     as we go into the Twenty First century.

  Larry Roberts, who operates stations in my home State of Montana, has 
written me stating:

       [Radio deregulation] would provide us with the freedom to 
     excel and succeed. It will not only allow us to compete more 
     effectively, it will also increase the value of our radio 
     stations.

  And in the 1980's we had an explosion, Mr. President, of licenses 
granted to stations when really there was no market analysis done that 
the market could even handle another radio station.
  There are many more examples that I could leave you with. One final 
one from Ray Lockhart of KOGA, an AM and FM station in Ogallala, NE, 
not my constituents but I know Ray very well. My wife comes from that 
part of the country. And he writes:

       Soon, one DBS operator will be able to deliver 50 to 60 
     radio channels into every market in the country with none of 
     the rules that I labor under. The Baby Bells will be able to 
     do the same thing at even less cost. Help broadcasters by not 
     protecting us. Cut us loose from ownership . . . regulation 
     so we can take advantage of our abilities to compete.

  And I think that is the argument here, the ability to compete. Do not 
shut the doors of opportunity.
  So we need to look at the true picture of the challenge that the 
industry faces. For the longest time we have viewed radio as competing 
only with itself, as if it exists in a vacuum. And basically I know 
something about that because my main competition basically in the 
advertising business was from the print media. You have to deal with 
that--and there is competition there--in order to stay economically 
viable.
  Radio goes head-on with other forms of mass media for the audience 
and for those advertising dollars that fuel its well-being. We need to 
start acknowledging this important distinction and give radio the tools 
it needs to compete with all other information providers. That is why I 
urge you to vote against the Simon amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached letters from 
the broadcasters that I mentioned be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Bee Broadcasting, Inc.,

                                     Whitefish, MT, June 14, 1995.
     Senator Conrad Burns,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Burns: It was great visiting with you the 
     other day when you were home in Montana and I hope the 
     conference went well.
       The reason I am writing is I know that you will be 
     introducing legislation that is going [[Page S8425]] to have 
     a tremendous impact on small market broadcasters like myself. 
     I can't express how important it is that the markets be 
     opened up and the ownership caps be taken off. Broadcasters 
     like myself need to be able to compete with the large cable 
     companies, which offer several channels as well as bulk 
     discounts. Also, the ``Information Super Highway'' is just 
     around the corner, which will allow large market radio 
     stations to come in via satellites, competing with the 
     smaller market operators for audience and advertising 
     dollars. For us to compete at the local level, we need to be 
     able to own and market several different formats. By owning 
     four or five stations and formats, operating costs would drop 
     dramatically, allowing us to pass tremendous savings on to 
     the advertiser. Also, the audience benefits by having 
     multiple choices of formats to listen to. And of course, we 
     the broadcasters benefit by being able to compete with the 
     ``big boys'' in our much smaller markets.
       Senator, I urge you to defeat the Simon Amendment and help 
     move broadcasters forward as we go into the Twenty First 
     century. If I can be of ANY assistance on this matter, please 
     don't hesitate to call.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                   Benny Bee, Sr.,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                      Sunbrook Communications,

                                       Spokane, WA, April 3, 1995.
       Dear Fellow Broadcasters: We have very little time to act 
     on a matter which will significantly impact our future. As 
     you know, Congress is rewriting the Communications Act to 
     reflect the new realities in which media operate. This bill 
     is expected to be brought to the floor of the Senate so soon, 
     that we have little time to make our feelings known to our 
     Senators. However, it's imperative that we do so.
       I urge you to support the Lott/Bryan Amendment on Radio 
     Ownership. Here's why.
       All of us are likely to soon be competing against an 
     additional 30-60 new over-the-air radio stations in each of 
     our markets. They will broadcast in digital stereo direct 
     from a satellite, provided by 1 or 2 owners. If you add these 
     stations to the recent addition of audio channels from your 
     local cable company, plus still more channels from your 
     telephone company which is likely to get into the cable biz, 
     plus the additional channels offered by DirecTV satellite, 
     it's obvious that local radio broadcasters are facing a 
     serious threat.
       If this weren't bad enough, the terrible news is that we 
     local radio broadcasters . . . we who have worked so hard to 
     provide service to our communities . . . are currently being 
     left out of the deregulation of audio services. The rewrite 
     of the telecommunications bill, as it stands today, would 
     take the handcuffs off of the cable companies, the phone 
     companies, and the national satellite broadcasters, giving 
     each of them the ability to flood our markets with dozens of 
     new channels. But as it stands, the bill leaves the handcuffs 
     on local radio broadcasters!
       Without the economies of scale provided by multiple-station 
     ownership, we will be left unable to compete. To have just a 
     single channel (or even 4 in the largest markets) would make 
     our survival highly unlikely, in a world where other audio 
     providers are operating without ownership restrictions, and 
     without public service obligations.
       Therefore, it's imperative that we support the Lott/Bryan 
     Amendment. It would remove all radio ownership rules. It 
     would put us on a level playing field with all of these new 
     competitors. It would provide us with the freedom to excel 
     and succeed. It will not only allow us to compete more 
     effectively, it will also increase the value of our radio 
     stations.
       No matter how comfortable the past has been, with its 
     artificial barriers to ownership, the times have changed. The 
     issue before us is not whether radio's ownership environment 
     will be changed from the past. It is being changed. The only 
     question is whether it will be changed for the better, by the 
     adoption of the Lott/Bryan Amendment, or whether it will be 
     changed for the worse, by not allowing radio broadcasters the 
     same freedoms of ownership that are being provided to non-
     traditional radio broadcasters.
       Please call your Senators now and ask them to support the 
     Lott/Bryan Amendment!
           Sincerely,
                                                    Larry Roberts,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                     The Cromwell Group, Inc.,

                                    Nashville, TN, March 25, 1995.
     Re lifting ownership restrictions--Locally, Nationally.
     To: Small/Medium Market Licensees.
       Dear Associates: As you know, the NAB Radio Board has 
     supported the idea of eliminating restrictions on the number 
     of radio station licenses that an individual operator/company 
     can hold. If approved, the net effect will be to permit you 
     or others to own/operate all the stations in your market 
     area. Before you say ``no'', read on and consider what is 
     happening:
       (1) Cable systems operate 30, 40, 100 channels in your town 
     under one owner locally . . . selling local advertising
       (2) The telephone company may be offering 30, 40, 100 
     channels to your home as one owner . . . selling local 
     advertising
       (3) Direct TV (Satellite) now offers 30 channels plus to 
     your home with two owners nationally . . . selling regional 
     advertising.
       (4) DARS Satellite Radio in a few years will offer 30 plus 
     channels heard in your town with one/two owners nationally . 
     . . selling regional advertising.
       (5) Internet is fast growing and offers multiple 
     information sources to the home in your community . . . 
     selling who knows what with lots of options.
       All of the above have/will have a subscription source of 
     revenue plus compete with you and other broadcasters for 
     local advertising.
       As a small market broadcaster of the old school and with 
     ``localism'' in my blood, I do not like the idea that my 
     station could be owned by the newspaper, my competitor, a 
     national company, Walmart, or others. It goes against my 
     grain.
       However, the Congress and the FCC are on track to permit 
     telephone and cable companies, Satellite providers, and 
     others to be single owners with multiple channels serving 
     your and our communities. In the future the competition will 
     be fierce. For a small market broadcaster with only one 
     product (ie: one format) competing against other broadcasters 
     AND the new technologies, survival will be a real difficult 
     challenge.
       Current rules hinder only the local broadcaster. All the 
     others are free to operate. We may think we are protected by 
     having ownership rules, but in the future we will be 
     hamstrung. We won't be able to compete and we won't be able 
     to sell because our value will have declined. Historically 
     regulation has held broadcasters back in the face of new 
     technology. Unless we act now, that could again be the case.
       Eliminating ownership rules (as distasteful as it sounds to 
     me today) makes it possible to have ``localism'' in the 
     future. You or your buyer will be able to provide 
     ``multiple'' signals in your community and be able to compete 
     with the new technologies. As you think ``NO'' today, please 
     consider that you might wish tomorrow you'd said ``YES'' and 
     supported a chance to get in a position to compete. We can't 
     use old regulation to protect against a horse that's already 
     out of the barn.
       Large and small market broadcasters (corporate vs small 
     operators) do have different business objectives. But 
     remember, one Baby Bell Operating Company is larger than the 
     entire Radio/TV industry. There are seven Bell Operating 
     Companies, plus all the cable, satellite, and others, so you 
     can see that's coming and what we're up against.
       I know it may go against your grain to support eliminating 
     ownership limits today, but please do it to insure you have 
     positive options in the future.
           Sincerely,
     Bud.
                                                                    ____

                                        Sorenson Broadcasting,

                                  Sioux Falls, SD, March 27, 1995.
     John David,
     NAB Radio
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Fellow Broadcasters: Broadcast Ownership Rules, 
     particularly Radio Ownership Rules are ``up for grabs'' in 
     Washington, D.C. As a broadcaster who has built a career on 
     Local-Service-Radio, I feel it's imperative you and I protect 
     our Stations, Communities, and the concept of Local-Service-
     Radio. . . . Now.
       What am I asking? (1) You and I must consider strong 
     support of the position voted by our NAB (National 
     Association of Broadcasters) Board of Directors, and (2) You 
     and I need to contact our Congressmen . . . especially 
     Senators on the Commerce Committee.
       I grew up in a different world than we're now experiencing. 
     It's excitingly scary what is being proposed for the future. 
     However, I am certain. . . . I want to be able . . . as a 
     local radio broadcaster to play in the new technologies . . . 
     whatever they happen to end up being.
       Experience shows it's hard to ``Out localize'' the local 
     radio station. However, if the Ownership Rules are changed to 
     give the ``trump card'' to other media in the changing and 
     future world of technologies . . . we could find ourselves 
     embarrassed into a ``position of weakness.'' This could also 
     affect the present and future value of the radio stations you 
     and I own and operate.
       In the communities where we operate . . . Cable systems are 
     now offering 45-75 channels, complete with 10 channels of 
     music (radio)! Telephone companies are throwing serious money 
     at new business opportunities, and if satellite radio comes 
     to my town, as Direct TV already has. . . . I'm not certain 
     yet what those changes mean. But . . . I do realize the 
     importance of my company . . . as the local radio folks . . . 
     being able to compete on a level field.
       And if ownership of the local newspaper makes sense. . . . 
     I would like not to be forbidden from the chance to own it.
       I have talked personally with our friends who serve on the 
     NAB's Radio Board of Directors. They have thoughtfully 
     presented a position which deserves our support. I ask simply 
     that you familiarize yourself with that position . . . then 
     begin explaining your position to your Congressman.
           Enthusiastically,
                                                    Dean Sorenson,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                              Ogallala Broadcasting Co., Inc.,

                                                     Ogallala, NE.
       Dear Fellow Broadcasters: I was stunned to hear that some 
     Senators and the NAB were receiving calls from some 
     broadcasters opposing the idea of deregulation for the radio 
     industry. Are you kidding me? In my tiny market my local TCI 
     cable system [[Page S8426]] with 3500 paid subscribers 
     delivers 30 Music Express channels, sells local commercials 
     for $1.25 per 30 second spot and they have plans to deliver 
     more TV signals with more local access all over the country. 
     No ownership limits, no FCC intervention in anything but 
     technical standards. Why shouldn't I as a broadcaster be 
     afforded the same?
       Soon (by year 2000) one DBS operator will be able to 
     deliver 50 to 60 radio channels into every market in the 
     country with none of the rules I labor under (localism, main 
     studio, public file, lowest unit rate, FCC rules, etc.). The 
     Baby Bell's will be able to do the same thing at even less 
     cost. Our Public Interest Standard is a one way street that 
     keeps us 2nd class and Government controlled. (1st Amendment 
     freedoms do not apply to us, right?) We do have a shot at 
     these freedoms if we're not afraid to take it.
       Some local operators say, the FCC must protect us from 
     someone buying everything up. Why? They protected us in the 
     80's with 80/90. Wasn't that fun? If I can't compete with the 
     big boys that can and will buy multiple markets (yes, maybe 
     even WalMart) at least a market has been created for my 
     stations that will bring a better price than if we don't have 
     a level playing field with the new technologies and players.
       I am fortunate enough to have been able to take advantage 
     of the small market duopoly rule and buy the other station in 
     this town of 5,000. It is a very worthwhile venture that 
     everyone should be able to do if they so desire.
       Tell your Senators to help broadcasters by not protecting 
     us. Cut us loose from ownership and everything but technical 
     regulation so we can take advantage of our abilities to 
     compete. It is the future of our ``over the air'' broadcast 
     industry we're dealing with. Get involved if you're not!
       Remember, a Government that is big enough to give you the 
     protections you want today is big enough to take them away 
     tomorrow.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I urge that this amendment be defeated. For 
the first time, only 40 percent of the radio stations operating in the 
United States today are really making a profit. So some kind of 
consolidation is needed to keep them viable. It is like I said. If I 
own two newspapers in the same market, would I format those newspapers 
just exactly alike? Even with first amendment rights, would I slant 
them the right way? Or whatever. I think what I would do is be diverse 
with them, to broaden the base of the advertising market in that 
particular locale. That is also true whenever you start trying to 
attract national dollars on national advertising campaigns. And it is 
how good your reps are when they start representing your station.
  So I appreciate the amendment because I think the American people 
have a right to know just what is happening in the broadcast industry. 
I understand where the Senator is coming from, but he also has to look 
at what is happening in the real world as far as radio broadcasting is 
concerned.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. 
Dorgan].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I stand in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Illinois.
  As I listen to some of the debate on this amendment, as well as the 
debate on the amendment I offered previously which tried to restore the 
restrictions on television station ownership, it occurred to me that we 
ought to really remove some desks in the Senate and provide a 
stretching area. When you go to a baseball game, you see these folks 
stretch out before the game, getting all limber. I do not know of 
anyone who can stretch quite so well as those who stand in this Chamber 
and preach the virtues of competition
 and then decide to advocate concentration of economic ownership by 
lifting the restrictions on ownership of television stations and radio 
stations.

  That is some stretch. But it does not quite reach. It does not 
prevent people from trying, however. You cannot, in my judgment, preach 
the virtues of competition and take action that will eventually end up 
resulting in a half a dozen or a dozen companies owning most of 
America's television stations. With respect to this amendment, we will 
end up with conglomerates owning the majority of America's radio 
stations.
  It is as inevitable as we have seen in other industries that 
concentration means less competition. Concentration is the opposite of 
competition. How people can preach competition and come to the floor of 
the Senate and advance the economic issues that lead to more economic 
concentration is just beyond me.
  Even if that were to escape the folks who preach this unusual 
doctrine, one would think that at least the issue of localism would 
matter.
  Let me read a quote, if I might, to my colleagues. Bill Ryan, of Post 
Newsweek, recently stated:

       The whole world is trying to emulate the local system of 
     broadcasting that we have in this country, and here we are 
     creating a structure that will abolish it or put it in the 
     hands of a very, very few.

  I do not know how you express it more succinctly than that. I 
understand why these things emerge in this legislation: It is big 
money, big companies, big interests. I understand the stakes here. But 
the stakes, it seems to me, that are most important are the stakes with 
respect to what is in the public interest in our country. Is it in the 
public interest to see more and more concentration of ownership in the 
hands of a few in television and radio, or is it not? In my judgment, 
the answer is clear; it is no.
  So I just wish we could find a circumstance where those who preach 
competition would be willing to practice it. Practicing competition in 
this area would be to support this modest amendment. The Senator from 
Illinois comes to us with an amendment that provides for a limit of 50 
AM and 50 FM stations that one person may own. I, in fact, think it 
ought to be lower than that. But the Senator from Illinois has proposed 
a modest approach, and then finds himself struggling because the very 
preachers of competition are suggesting that somehow the Senator from 
Illinois is proposing something that is wrong.
  I tell you, there is a total disconnection of logic on the floor of 
the Senate on this issue. My friend from Montana grins about that. But 
I would bet all the cattle in North Dakota against all the cattle in 
Montana that 10 years from now if the broadcasting ownership 
deregulation provisions in this bill passes, that we will see the 
consequences that I have suggested. We will see massive concentration 
in television ownership and massive concentration in radio ownership.
  The Senator from Montana will say, ``Well, that would be OK, because, 
they wouldn't compete against themselves, they would have different 
formats.'' They would have a couple different stations. One would be 
producing country western music and the other classical music. They 
will both be extracting, if they control the marketplace, the maximum 
amount of money from the advertisers in that marketplace.
  The issue here is competition. If you bring this bill to the floor 
with a dozen flowery opening statements and talk about the virtues of 
competition, then there seems to me there is some obligation to 
practice competition with respect to the amendments and the language in 
this bill. This is exactly the opposite of the tenets of competition. 
These provisions which eliminate the ownership restrictions, will 
inevitably, lead to greater concentration of ownership.
  That is the point I make, and that is why I support the amendment of 
the Senator from Illinois. We had a close vote on the ownership of 
television stations yesterday. I won that vote for about an hour. But 
that was before dinner. Then after dinner, we had a bunch of folks 
limping into the Chamber all bandaged up and changing their votes. What 
happened was apparently before dinner, they believed concentration of 
ownership in the television industry was not good. Then they had 
something to eat, or ate with someone who convinced them that 
concentration of ownership was good.
  It would be interesting for me to hear how they explain that 
conversion over dinner, but I understand that you do not weigh votes, 
you count them.
  I hope when we get to the issue of concentration of radio ownership 
that maybe we can win this one and maybe win for more than an hour. I 
think it would be in the public interest if we adopt the amendment 
offered today by the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair. [[Page S8427]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SIMON. Does the Senator want to speak on this amendment?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
proceed for not to exceed 10 minutes on the Lieberman-Leahy amendment, 
amendment No. 1298.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1298

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think the Lieberman-Leahy amendment is 
necessary because we have to make sure that if we deregulate cable 
rates, we do not do it on the backs of the consumers. And, right now we 
are. In most areas in this country, consumers are captive to monopoly 
cable service providers. In fact, the only thing that stands between 
the consumers' wallets and the monopoly cable company is regulation.
  Under the telecommunications bill, the sure-fire way for a cable 
company to avoid regulation is to raise their rates across the country. 
It is very, very interesting what we are doing. If we sent this up for 
a national referendum, the Lieberman-Leahy amendment would be agreed to 
overwhelmingly. If we had a referendum by only some of the well-heeled 
PAC's and lobbyists around here, well then, of course, it goes down. So 
the question is: Who do we stand with?
  We all get paid enough money so that $10 or $20 added onto our cable 
rates each month probably does not seem like a lot. But to most people 
living in Vermont or any other State in this country, that is a big 
difference. Ask people who get cable television in this country whether 
they think their cable rates would go up or down if monopoly cable 
companies are left to themselves to decide what the rates would be.
  The American people are pretty smart. They know darn well if we let 
the cable companies have a monopoly and have no regulation, those rates 
are going to go up. They are never going to come down. The only times 
they have come down is when Congress stepped in. In fact, when we 
passed the 1992 Cable Act, President Bush vetoed it, and we overrode 
the veto, because consumers were being gouged by cable company 
monopolies. Cable rates were rising three times faster than the 
inflation rate. Every American knew it, and finally Congress got the 
message and they overrode the Presidential veto.
  Consumers demanded action to stop the rising cable rates. The law 
worked. In fact, since passage of that law, consumers have saved an 
estimated $3 billion, and they have seen an average 17 percent drop in 
their monthly rates. As rates have gone down, more people have signed 
up. Last year alone, over 1.5 million new customers signed up for cable 
service. One would think the word would get across: If you keep the 
rates reasonable, more people are going to join.
  The telecommunications bill would lift the lid on cable rates.
  Under current law, cable rate regulation is dispensed with only when 
the FCC finds there is ``effective competition'' in a local market.
  The telecommunications bill, as reported, would change this law by 
deeming ``effective competition'' to be present wherever a local phone 
company offers video programming, regardless of the number of 
subscribers to, or households reached by, the service.
  The bill would also lift rate regulation for upper tiers of cable 
service, unless the cable operator is a ``bad actor'' and charges 
substantially more than the national average. Of course, the national 
average could be set by the two largest cable companies. They almost 
have an incentive to raise the national average and the rates.
  In fact, the day after Senator Lieberman and I held a press 
conference to voice our concerns over the cable deregulation parts of 
the bill, the managers' amendment to this bill was adopted in an effort 
to provide more protection to consumers from the spiraling cable rates 
after deregulation. But I do not believe it goes far enough.
  The managers' amendment ties rate regulation to whatever the national 
average was on June 1 of this year, to be adjusted every 2 years. But 
that still means if the two or three largest cable companies raise 
their rates, the national average will go up, and rates for all 
consumers would spiral upward.
  Now, Mr. President, if any one of us went to a town meeting in our 
State and we said: Here is the way we are going to set cable rates. We 
are going to allow two or three huge cable companies to determine what 
the national average will be for your rates, and we will leave it to 
their good judgment. Should they raise rates, well, then everybody's 
rates would go up. If they lower rates, everybody's rates will go down. 
And now, ladies and gentlemen in this town meeting, what do you think 
those big cable companies are going to do? Will they raise your rates, 
or will they say their subscribers are paying enough--``Let us lower 
the rates, let us give the average household a break?''
  Well, just asking the question, we would get laughed out of the hall. 
Every American who gets cable knows the cable companies are not going 
to just lower the rates on their own. I hear this back home. I do not 
care if a person is Republican, Democrat, independent, whatever, they 
are saying the same thing: Cable rates are too high. They also say that 
unless you have real competition to bring rates down, do not leave the 
cable companies to set the rates, because they are never going to bring 
them down. They are always going to raise them. Under this bill, the 
more cable operators raise rates, the more they can avoid regulation of 
their rate increases. If cable rate regulation is lifted before you 
have effective competition, then you can expect the rates to go up at 
least $5 to $10 a month. We are trusting in the generosity and good 
will of the cable companies. Good Lord, Mr. President, we are all 
adults; we ought to be smart enough to know better than that.
  The Lieberman-Leahy amendment would fix the cable rate regulation 
problems in the bill. Our amendment would use competitive market rates 
as a benchmark for whether rate regulation is needed to protect 
consumers. Instead of letting a few cable companies control the cable 
rates for all consumers in the Nation, our amendment would ensure that 
rates are fair. Regulators can step in to protect consumers when rates 
are out of line with competitive markets.
  Small cable companies, particularly in rural areas, of course, have 
different economic pressures on them than operators in high-density 
areas. Our amendment would exempt small cable companies from rate 
regulation. If you are in rural Pennsylvania or rural Vermont, and your 
house is maybe a mile or two a part, it obviously would cost you more 
to set up your cable system than if you are wiring high-rise apartments 
in a high-density area.
  I do not think we have to give cable companies any incentive to raise 
rates. Mr. President, I have a feeling the cable companies will figure 
out how they can raise rates, without us encouraging them to do it. I 
do not think any one of us wants to go back home and tell our 
constituents that we passed legislation that actually encourages cable 
companies to raise rates, rather than doing something to hold them 
down.
  We stepped in once before, over a Presidential veto, to curb 
spiraling cable rates. The Lieberman-Leahy amendment ensures that 
consumers have the protection they need. Do you not think we ought to 
do this?
  Now, if we have a situation where we have two or three cable 
companies in one community or one area, I would rely on competition to 
bring the prices down, and it will. But when you only have one cable 
company, or if you have a telephone company that has come in and bought 
out the cable company, so that you have a monopoly on top of a 
monopoly, Mr. President, altruism is not going to bring those rates 
down. People are not going to see their rates come down just out of 
good will on the part of the cable company. We are either going to have 
effective competition or regulation. If we have effective competition, 
let cable companies set their own rates. But if you have a monopoly, 
you should have regulation that is going to bring the rates down.
  Again, I will tell you this. Any member of the public that is getting 
cable television would agree that if this was a referendum among the 
taxpayers of this country who have cable television, they would vote 
overwhelmingly for the Lieberman-Leahy amendment. If you are somebody 
representing one of the cable monopolies, of course, you 
[[Page S8428]] are not going to want it because it is going to say that 
you do not have a license to print money. That is basically what they 
are going to have--a license to print money--if we do not have some 
regulation on them.
  Let us at least wait until there is real competition. Some have said 
that these new satellite dishes will do it. Well, there is only, I 
believe, 600,000 or so of those in the country. Less than 1 percent of 
the people get their service that way. It is about $600, $700 to set it 
up. Let us wait until there is real competition.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. PACKWOOD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I come to speak in 
strong opposition to this Lieberman-Leahy amendment. Seldom has 
something been so misguided, misconceived, and antimarket as what we 
have attempted to do to cable over the last decade.
  I can speak with some degree of knowledge and history on this, 
because I was chairman of the Commerce Committee when we deregulated 
cable in 1984. When we deregulated them, we asked two things of them. 
One, give us lots more channels. Two, give us more diverse programming.
  Mr. President, we got that in spades. There is hardly a person so 
young in this Chamber that they cannot remember precable days, when 
what you got was ABC, NBC, and CBS, through your local affiliates, 
maybe a public broadcasting station, and maybe an independent, unless 
you were in Los Angeles or New York. That was basically it on 
television. You got it with your rabbit ears.
  Cable came in initially to fill a void where people could not get 
signals. Instead of growing from urban to rural, they grew from rural 
to urban. They began to realize if they were going to compete, they had 
to do more than just carry the signal of the major networks. And so 
when they were deregulated in 1984, they gave us what we asked for. 
Today, we have, unfortunately, limited them with that foolish 1992 act. 
But you could ``channel surf,'' as we have learned to call it, and be 
fascinated. I find Spanish language stations here in Washington. You 
can find three or four in Los Angeles, and a number of them in Corpus 
Christi. They program to the market on things that the over-the-air 
networks could not do because, by the very nature of the fact that you 
were over the air, you had to have a wide audience. You could not 
program to a narrow audience. Cable can.
  Cable can make money on programming to a narrow audience. So 
consumers got services and programs that they wanted, that they could 
never get before. You cannot probably justify a history channel on NBC 
or ABC or CBS, broadcasting over the air to a broadband audience;
 probably could not on MTV, if you had to cover the entire audience in 
an area. But you can on this narrow broadcast.

  Now this argument about competition, holy mackerel, Mr. President. 
The argument about a referendum, put this to a referendum, people would 
vote down what they are paying for cable. My hunch is if you put to a 
referendum what they pay for phone bills, they would put that down. And 
electric bills.
  I hesitate to say what they would do if you gave them a referendum on 
congressional salaries. My hunch is they would vote that down. Is that 
the standard this representative body will be --whatever a referendum 
might be, that will be it?
  If you were to pose the question in a different way to people, do you 
want to cut your cable prices in half and have your programs cut in 
half and have the channels taken off, you might get a different answer. 
But if the question is, do you want some costs lowered, what answer do 
you expect to get? I would like to have the price of gasoline lowered. 
I might put that up for a referendum and see what we get.
  Now look at the competition argument. I heard the Senator from 
Vermont talk about 600,000. This is not 600,000 direct broadcast 
satellite over the year, but 600,000 what we call wireless cable.
  This is growing. You normally have to have flat terrain, but this 
does not come from the satellite. Wireless cable, as we call it, is 
line-of-sight from a transmitter. Because the terrain is relatively 
flat, the line-of-sight is good.
  Corpus Christi is a good example where the line-of-sight has taken a 
fair portion of the market and the prices are cheaper than normal 
cable, and you can transmit a good program over the air because you 
have a straight line-of-sight.
  Obviously, that kind of programming is limited, but it is growing. 
That is the 600,000 subscriber figure that the Senator from Vermont 
talks about. They expect to have 600,000 within 2 years grow to 1.5 
million, and 3.4 million by the year 2000.
  In addition, you already have Bell Atlantic, NYNEX, Pactel, phone 
companies, all of them experimenting in small areas with carrying the 
equivalent of cable on their phone wire system.
  That is going to expand. But then beyond that, direct broadcast 
satellite. Here is a business, 2,000 new subscribers a day. The company 
that makes the dishes cannot make them fast enough. Mr. President, 
2,000 additional subscribers a day. We will have over 5 million 
subscribers to this by the year 2000, and I bet that is an 
underestimate.
  Except for the local news, you can get every program from the direct 
broadcast satellite you can get from cable. If you want the local news, 
you know that 94 percent of the people in this country can get local 
news with rabbit ears. Local is local, you do not broadcast very far.
  All you have to do is turn the switch on your television set from 
cable to over the air and you can get the local news. So the fact that 
the direct broadcast satellite cannot physically carry it at the moment 
is not an impediment.
  Mr. President, the market works. While we are talking about 
communications, the best example to probably use is the cellular 
telephones. Again, I speak with some degree of history on this.
  In 1981, when I was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, we 
passed a bill restructuring AT&T. They had to have separate boards for 
Bell labs, and we worked out an agreement that was satisfactory to a 
lot of parties.
  The bill went to the House. Before the House acted, the antitrust 
settlement between AT&T and the Government was arrived at. The so-
called modified final judgment. Therefore, the bill became moot.
  AT&T and everybody else agreed to a different method of restructuring 
than we passed in the Senate Commerce Committee, and that agreement was 
that they would spin off all the local Bell companies. They would get 
out of the local business and keep the long distance business.
  That was not the only agreement in the modified final judgment. There 
were lots of things that the local Bells could not go into--local 
information services, manufacturing. This was a structured settlement. 
Still regulatory, but very structured.
  The one thing that the settlement left out was cellular telephones, 
because there was no future in cellular telephones of any great 
consequence, and nobody cared about it.
  An analogy I used the other day was the dividing up of the Middle 
East by Britain and France after World War I. All of the Middle East 
had been part of the Turkish sovereign area. Turkey was allied with 
Germany in World War I, and Britain and France in the middle of the war 
said, ``When this is over we will take a lot of Turkey's territory in 
the Middle East and divide it among ourselves.''
  At the end of the war, Britain took what has become now Israel and 
Jordan and Iraq. France took what has become Lebanon and Syria. Nobody 
wanted Arabia. It was not worth anything. Nothing but sand. So it got 
left out, on its own devices.
  Today, it occupies a position of more extraordinary influence because 
of its oil reserves than all of the other countries, save Israel, put 
together.
  Cellular telephones are the same analogy. They were left out of the 
modified final judgment. There were 100,000 of them in existence in 
1982. AT&T predicted by the year 2000 there might be a million cellular 
telephones. Today, there are 25 million subscribers. Predictions are in 
10 years that will be 125 million subscribers. I bet that 
underestimates the number. [[Page S8429]] 
  This has happened because we did not regulate it. We left it to the 
marketplace. Does anybody think there is no competition in cellular 
telephone today? All you do is turn on your radio, turn on your 
television, open your newspaper, and you have company upon company 
stumbling over each year to compete for your business. ``Sign up, we 
will give a free phone.'' And you have to understand that you have to 
make so many phone calls or pay so much.
  People are pretty darn smart and managed to figure this out. They 
have done well figuring out long distance, watching MCI ads, AT&T ads, 
the Sprint ads. They have also discovered that there are lots of small 
long distance companies.
  I have over 40 long distance phone companies in Oregon that are what 
you would call niche carriers. They rent their time from AT&T. They are 
a bulk buyer, they will buy it. Then they say we have 24 hours of time 
over the week, or 10 hours of time over the day on such and such, and 
they go out and sell it. They are specialists in certain niches. Some 
sell to the medical profession. Some to the insurance profession. They 
figured out a way--the companies are not big, some 8 or 10 employees, 
and they are renting everyone else's facilities--to do something very 
narrowly and good that is better than the big company can do it.
  We have seen this in telecommunications. The innovators in this field 
are not always IBM and AT&T. They are more often new companies that are 
spinoffs--not spinoffs, been formed by some 35-year-old engineer who 
left the company, mortgaged his house, sold his hunting dog, and both 
he and his spouse put up everything that they had to take a chance. And 
they succeeded.
  Come back again to cable. There is no need for any regulation of 
cable at any level. They have more competition now than they can 
handle, and they will have more competition than they can handle. The 
consumer is going to be the beneficiary.
  I hope, Mr. President, that the Lieberman-Leahy amendment would be 
defeated overwhelmingly. If there is any example of where the market is 
working, and will get even more and more competitive, it is in 
communications generally. It is in cable specifically.
  I think to adopt this amendment to further regulate cable beyond 
which we have already regulated in 1992--and we should not--would be a 
terrible mistake.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if I may respond very briefly to my 
friend from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut should be advised 
he has used all the time on his amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for no more than 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, my friend from Oregon has spoken 
against my amendment which would maintain some kind of consumer 
protection in the pricing of cable, based on the wonderful service and 
the extraordinary range of programming that cable provides.
 Since I got into this fight when I was attorney general in Connecticut 
in 1984 when cable prices were deregulated and most consumers in 
America were left facing a monopoly with no competition, I have said I 
was very supportive of cable. I think cable is an extraordinary service 
to the American people. It has been delivered well, and I like the 
expansion of the program.

  What I do not like is allowing that expansion to occur without giving 
consumers some protection, because they have only one choice to make, 
and what is significant to me is that the programming has continued to 
expand even since the regulation, the consumer protection that went on 
in 1992. So there is no reason to believe that, if we sustain some 
protection for consumers until they face competition, that will stop.
  The second point is this. There just is not adequate competition at 
this time to existing cable. If there were, then the FCC would have 
pulled off regulation for cable in more than 50 markets where they say 
there is now effective competition out of more than 10,000 in the 
country. The fact is, the direct broadcast satellites which were 
thought to be the next wave of great competition for cable are only 
used by less than 1 percent of the cable consumers in America.
  Telephone companies may get into this. They probably will. But the 
question is, When? Until that time, most cable consumers in America 
will have no alternative except the local cable company, and if this 
bill passes without the amendment Senator Leahy and I have offered, the 
consumer will not only not have a choice of another system to offer 
multichannel services, cable as we know it, but will have no benefit of 
consumer protection. History tells us where there is no competitive 
market, where there is a monopoly supplier and no regulation, the 
consumer is in real danger of being taken advantage of.
  So in my humble opinion, respectfully, I think this amendment is all 
that stands between millions of cable consumers and what I would take 
to be a definite increase in their rates over the coming years until 
there really is effective competition to hold the rates down.
  Again, I love cable. My family watches; selectively, of course. But I 
do not, any more than any other consumer, including a lot of the 
elderly out there, people on fixed incomes, I do not want only one 
choice and no consumer protection.
  This system has worked. It saved consumers money. The industry has 
continued to thrive. They continue to be able to raise capital. There 
is simply no reason to remove these consumer protections. I will say 
respectfully again, to me what has happened here is that, in the Trojan 
horse of this great telecommunications bill, there has been inserted 
inside a repealer of cable consumer protection without cause and at 
great cost to American consumers.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment so none of us will 
have to explain to our consumers back home why rates have risen, as 
they surely will in the years ahead if this amendment is not agreed to.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I really like this debate. But I would like 
to draw your attention to one thing. He says there is no competition. 
What is 2,000 subscribers a day being added to the DBS that provides 
the same channels, the same service--CNN, ESPN, all of those we enjoy 
now, and the USA, Lifetime, the History Channel, all of those--off 
direct broadcast satellite? What is that other than competition? If the 
rates get competitive, whether you are on a fixed income or not a fixed 
income, it makes no difference. And it is going to make both services 
better when they compete equally. There are no restrictions on DBS. 
Nobody is setting their rates.
  If one remembers, since way back in 1990 when we were talking about 
this, there was a great groundswell that went across the country, what 
about cable rates? Did you take into consideration--when you used to 
buy maybe three Salt Lake stations and two Billings stations and a PBS 
station for $5 or $6 a month and then all at once we pay $21 now for 
45, I think, something like that--our cost per channel? One does not 
have to take it. Nobody is standing there with a gun to your head 
saying, You have to sign up for cable. They go by more houses than they 
service. It is another part of the market. We are trying to sell a 
service.
  At the same time we said, Do not reregulate the cables; allow 
effective competition. DBS was part of that; C-band; satellite dishes, 
they were a part of that. I think also in the same time--and the 
chairman and ranking member remember this--I offered the amendment on a 
telco bill to allow them in the cable business to provide effective 
competition, to add an entity that already has a wire into the house. 
They would have to change their technology a little bit, and that is 
what we are really doing is providing the new technologies that will 
travel on this great thing called fiber optics, or fiber and coaxial 
interphased for broadband, two-way, interact telecommunications. That 
is where we are going. That is why we need Mickey Mouse to pave the way 
for other things that we have in store, and that is distance learning 
and telemedicine and these types of things. [[Page S8430]] 
  So what, is C-band competition? Sure it is. Is telco competition? 
Yes, they are. Is DBA competition? Yes, they are. Even the store down 
the street that sells videos to rent is competition to the same service 
the cable operators are trying to provide over that wire into the 
house.
  I said this before: The glass highway, the information highway, may 
be already in place and it has been done by this marvelous growth 
industry called cable television. The competition is there, and I urge 
the colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. President, the solution to the cable problem is competition, not 
continued regulation. In fact, after the 1984 Cable Act, deregulation 
of the cable industry resulted in substantial benefits.
  The cable industry has made substantial investments in programming, 
plant and equipment, investments that have directly benefited 
consumers, in particular my constituents in Montana.
  If all we heed and hear are the problems of cable, then I am afraid 
that we will have lost an opportunity, a chance to look into the future 
and to shape it; for we do shape the future of this Nation when we 
shape its telecommunications infrastructure. It is an infrastructure 
that is critical to the whole Nation--from the Lincoln Center in New 
York City, to Lincoln, NE, to Lincoln County, MT.
  So in the continuing debate over what to do about the so-called cable 
problem, there are two alternatives. Solution one is competition. And 
solution two is regulation. It has been my experience that regulation 
can actually harm consumers by slowing innovation and stifling new 
services. On the other hand, nothing is more pro-consumer than 
competition, most especially competition where there is a level playing 
field. And on no playing field can the benefits of competition be seen 
more clearly than on the field of communications. History teaches us 
that you cannot regulate technological advancements.
  Regulation does a very poor job of guaranteeing a market choice for 
consumers. Most ironically, under a price regulatory regime, prices are 
unlikely to fall when they are effectively propped up by regulation.
  On the other hand, we have all seen many instances where competitive 
market forces spur competitors to innovate in order to reduce costs and 
improve efficiency. And as costs come down, new technologies and new 
services can be extended to unserved areas. Those are the types of 
truly competitive market forces that I want to introduce, and the 
people of Montana need, to ensure that our State is fully served.
  Again, I am not merely talking about video entertainment, I am 
talking about the communications revolution, and I want my constituents 
to benefit from that revolution and not be left behind by it.
  Moreover, I want our Nation to lead that revolution much as we have 
led the revolutions for democracy around the world. Thus, I do not want 
the guarantee of participation in the electronic information age for 
the people of Montana to rest solely on heavy-handed regulation. I want 
Montanans to be able to rely on good old American know-how as 
stimulated by good old American competition.
  I believe this competition is already arising through such 
technologies as DBS, wireless cable, the home satellite dish market, 
and even those technologies yet to be discovered. And I believe that 
with this legislation we have provided perhaps the best opportunity for 
competition in the video market by permitting the telephone companies 
to compete for cable services. And we have done so by promoting telco 
entry with safeguards and restrictions.
  This legislation, drafted by this Congress, promotes the greatest 
public good by unleashing competition and technology to meet the 
Nation's needs. It will be this competition that will help ensure that 
a modern telecommunications infrastructure and innovative services are 
available to all Americans--and, most importantly, all Montanans--at 
reasonable prices. When telephone companies are able to compete with 
cable companies, as this legislation allows, a competitive cable market 
would:
  First, put downward pressure on cable service rates;
  Second, lead to greater diversity of television programming and 
program choices;
  Third, accelerate the introduction of new services; and
  Fourth, increase consumer access to high quality service.
  I have been involved in this debate since I first arrived in the 
Senate. I believe that we are finally on the verge of passing a 
historic piece of legislation. I think that the Lieberman amendment is 
a significant step backward in our efforts. Competition is the answer, 
not re-regulation. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, very briefly. My friend from Montana 
says 2,000 additional subscribers to direct broadcast satellites go on 
every day. That is compared to over 60 million cable customers. We are 
getting there, but we do not really have effective competition in most 
places in America. When we do, the FCC will pull this consumer 
protection off and then the consumers will be protected by competition.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                    Amendment No. 1283, as Modified

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment by my good friend, Senator Simon. The financial health and 
competitive viability of the Nation's radio industry is in our hands. 
We all agree that the telecommunications legislation we are considering 
is about competition and deregulation and not picking winners and 
losers. And we also agree that this legislation goes a long way toward 
giving cable, satellite, and the phone companies the freedoms they need 
to compete. We now need to agree to extend these same freedoms to the 
over 11,000 radio broadcasters in this country.
  No other audio service provider, be they cable, satellite or telcos, 
has the multiple ownership restrictions that radio has. The language we 
are offering today eliminates those outdated radio-only rules.
  It is imperative we in Congress end this discrimination against radio 
sooner by adopting this language, rather than wait for the bureaucracy 
to come around to it later, as this legislation as currently drafted 
would have it. Immediate action is critical because the FCC is on the 
verge of authorizing digital satellite radio service, whereby 60 new 
radio signals will broadcast in every market in the United States. This 
satellite service will be mobile and available in automobiles, homes, 
and businesses. Also, cable already provides 30 channels of digital 
radio broadcasting in markets across the United States under a single 
operator. Obviously, an incredible diversity of voices has been 
achieved with even more competition to radio quickly making its way 
down the information highway. Yet, let us not lose sight of the fact 
that all of these welcome new voices are also aggressive competitors 
for radio's listeners and advertisers, and, unlike radio, these 
competitors are not burdened with radio's multiple ownership 
restrictions nor do they have the same public service obligations as 
radio broadcasters.
  Our Nation's radio broadcasters have a strong tradition of providing 
the American people with universal and free information services. In a 
telecommunications environment increasingly dominated by subscription 
services and pay-per-view, it is essential that we not foreclose the 
future of free over-the-air radio by restricting ownership options, for 
radio serving the public interest and competing are not mutually 
exclusive. They are complementary.
  So it is left up to us to empower radio so it can grow strong well 
into the next century and continue to serve our communities as it has 
done so well for the past 70 years.
  The last point I would like to make is perhaps the most important. 
Relief from ownership rules works. In the early- and mid-1980's the FCC 
issued hundreds of new radio licenses, and the market became 
oversaturated with [[Page S8431]] radio stations without sufficient 
advertising revenues to support the increase. However, in 1992 the FCC 
granted limited relief in radio ownership restrictions. After many 
years of financial losses, suddenly radio became an attractive area for 
investment and an alarming multiyear increase in stations going off the 
air was arrested. The economies of scale kicked in. Stations gained 
financial strength through consolidation, and its overall ability to 
serve its markets and compete for advertising improved.
  Allow me to quickly cite some statistics. In 1993, a year after the 
new limits took effect, the dollar volume of FM-only transactions 
almost tripled-- $743.5 million--while radio station groups sales grew 
44 percent.
  In 1994, sales prices of single-FM stations rose 12.7 percent from 
1993's $743.5 million to $838 million, and from 1993 to 1994, the total 
volume of AM radio station sales shot up 84 percent, totaling $132 
million.
  There is every reason to believe that all of these positive trends 
will continue to flourish if we remove radio's outmoded multiple 
ownership restrictions.
  Clearly, maintaining local and national radio ownership limits in the 
face of tomorrow's competitive environment is not only unfair but it is 
a major step back.
  Mr. President, let me emphasize that I understand some statements 
have been made. I understand that CBS does not support the Simon 
amendment. Bill Ryan is the NAB Joint Board Chairman. He supports the 
NAB position which is adamantly opposed to the Simon amendment. Mr. 
Ryan's comments, which Senator Simon cited, related to TV ownership and 
not radio ownership.
  Mr. President, I urge Senators to come to the floor to make their 
statements on the various pending amendments.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1298

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to speak against the 
Lieberman-Leahy amendment. The Lieberman-Leahy amendment will finish 
this bill once and for all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be advised that all time has 
expired on the Lieberman-Leahy amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak 
for up to 5 minutes on the bill and on the Lieberman-Leahy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the Lieberman-Leahy amendment will reregulate cable.
  What we are trying to do with this bill is deregulate so that we have 
a level playing field, so that more people can come into the 
competitive market, and so that the consumers will benefit from the 
lower costs and lower prices. The Lieberman amendment will take away 
the balance that has been established in this bill. It will put the FCC 
back into the regulatory business. It will cause these cable companies 
to have to come to the FCC to spend their money paying lawyers' fees 
instead of dropping their prices and going to the bottom line.
  I am sure that the intent of the amendment is very good. They want to 
make sure that we have low cost if there is not competition. But what 
we are trying to do here is promote competition so there will be 
choices, so that the consumers will have the ability to pick and 
choose.
  The Lieberman amendment will put one more hassle to the cable 
companies even when it is not necessary.
  I have watched day after day after day the chairman of the committee, 
on which I serve, and the ranking member talking about the need for 
this bill. It will put $3 billion into our economy in new jobs, and it 
will be a benefit to consumers. They have done a wonderful job. But 
what is very important to remember here is that we must keep a level 
playing field. And we have tried to balance.
  Sometimes we have done something that the long distance companies do 
not like. Sometimes we have done something that the local Bell 
companies do not like. Sometimes we have done things that the cable 
companies think is onerous. This would be an onerous regulation that 
would put the FCC back in the mix when we do not need the FCC. We are 
trying to take the FCC out of every arena that we possibly can. The FCC 
is very much in the bill, I must say, of course. For instance, in 
broadcast ownership, we want the FCC to look at broadcast ownership to 
make sure there is not the concentration that would take away the 
diversity of voices in a market. But it is very important that we keep 
the balance. We must be able to say at the end of this bill that 
probably everybody does not like it as a perfect bill but we have 
allowed people to come into the process to compete, and we have tried 
to make the cost the least possible, and we have tried to make the cost 
fair.
 But the underlying element of this bill is that we take the 
regulations out to the greatest extent possible.

  Mr. President, if we are going to even look at the Lieberman-Leahy 
amendment, it is going to gut the bill from the standpoint of keeping 
the level playing field, continuing to encourage competition, and 
giving the consumers the benefit of all the choices that will be 
available. If we can pass this bill and keep it fair, the 
telecommunications industry in this country is going to explode. It is 
going to be a wonderful boon to our economy. New jobs will come into 
the market. Consumers will get more choices. We will have choices that 
we have not even dreamed of today. We will have choices of technology 
that will give us the ability to research and grow because we are 
taking the regulations out of this bill to the greatest extent 
possible.
  So, Mr. President, I think the chairman of the committee and the 
ranking member have done a terrific job. They have cooperated. There 
has been disagreement on every major part of this bill, but we have not 
worked on this bill for days. We have not work on this bill for weeks. 
We have not worked on this bill for months. In fact, we have worked on 
this bill for years. We have talked about telecommunications 
deregulation for years in this country. I am a person who is not even a 
regulator. I do not like any regulations. I would like for Congress not 
to even be in the process. But because technology has exploded and 
because we have had a regulatory environment that has caused an unfair 
and unlevel playing field, we have had to correct the wrongs, and we 
are doing that by trying to reach a balance. That is what this bill 
does. The Lieberman amendment will take that balance away, and we must 
not allow that to happen.
  So I thank the Chair. I thank the chairman of the committee and the 
distinguished ranking member for their leadership. We must stick with 
the committee on this amendment. It is very important for the future of 
our jobs, of our economy, and for the consumers of our Nation.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for her 
great work and leadership on this telecommunications bill. She has been 
a stalwart in drafting this bill and in making it happen. Her 
leadership was crucial and I thank her very, very much.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Shelby). The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for a question and comment?
  I just wish to say that I did not mention this because I was talking 
about the level playing field of all of the competitors, but the other 
element here that the chairman and the ranking member have worked so 
hard on is the protection of our cities and our State regulatory 
boards.
  Our cities have rights-of-way that they must control, and that is 
something that we worked very hard to make sure was not encroached on. 
We would have chaos if someone came in and said, Well, I now have the 
right to dig a hole in the middle of your street, without the city 
maintaining that control.
  So I wish to say that that is another element of this bill that is 
protected, [[Page S8432]] and the cities of America owe a great debt of 
gratitude to the chairman and the ranking member.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I thank the Senator.


                Amendment No. 1325, as further modified

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, at this time, we are prepared to call up 
an amendment that has been agreed to that we will not have to have a 
vote on, and that is the Warner amendment. I would like to call up 
amendment 1325.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 1325, as 
modified. Is there further debate?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Is there a modification?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I have the perfecting amendment. I send an amendment to 
the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration. It is a perfecting 
amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It should be a substitute, I think. It should be 
drafted as a substitute for the amendment.
  The amendment (1325), as further modified, is as follows:

       1. On page 102, after line 25, insert a new subsection as 
     follows:
       ``(e) Information on Protocols and Technical 
     Requirements.--The Commission shall prescribe regulations to 
     require that each Bell operating company shall maintain and 
     file with the Commission full and complete information with 
     respect to the protocols and technical requirements for 
     connection with and use of its telephone exchange service 
     facilities. Such regulations shall require each such Bell 
     company to report promptly to the Commission any material 
     changes or planned changes to such protocols and 
     requirements, and the schedule for implementation of such 
     changes or planned changes.''.
       2. Redesignate subsequent subsections accordingly.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection----
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would just like to say a word or two.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I would like to praise Senator Warner. In his usual 
gracious way, we worked on this amendment for a few days, and we had 
various meetings with Senator Warner and some of his constituents who 
are concerned about this manufacturing clause.
  His original amendment he has agreed to set aside in favor of this 
modification. My colleague from South Carolina, the ranking member of 
the committee, has long been an expert in this area, having authored 
the bill on manufacturing that passed the Senate. He has graciously 
agreed to this modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this deals, of course, with the 
technical requirements for connection to the telephone exchange service 
facilities, which is quite appropriate. It does not allude to the 
research and design with respect to manufacturing. That has been 
cleared.
  I join in the distinguished chairman's praise of Senator Warner and 
his efforts here to clarify this to make certain that everyone could be 
prepared and on notice as to facilitating the interconnection services. 
So I join in the amendment as amended, I take it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment as so 
modified is agreed to.
  So the amendment (No. 1325), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, is time controlled at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is controlled on each amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise and will only speak for a very few 
minutes, but I would like to indicate my support for the cable 
provisions of S. 652 as it has been brought to the floor by the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member and the committee, of which I 
am a member.


                           Amendment No. 1298

  Mr. KERRY. I want to voice, therefore, my opposition to the 
Lieberman-Leahy amendment. All of us are concerned about cable rates. 
We made a major effort a number of years ago to try to regulate that 
and guarantee that the consumer is going to have the lowest possible 
price. In my judgment, the fundamental thrust of this bill which has 
been very carefully tailored to work a balance between many varied very 
powerful interests, the fundamental effort of this bill is to create 
competition which will reduce rates across the board.
  I think all of us have learned that when you have regulation, you 
inevitably have a skewing of the market which impacts the capacity of 
people to take risks, people to raise capital, people to invest and 
diversify. It is my belief that the upper tier versus the lower tier of 
regulation is sufficiently well tailored in the legislation that we 
sent out of committee that the interests of consumers are protected.
  In point of fact, it is my belief that the availability of direct 
broadcast satellite today and the availability of video dial that is 
going to come on so rapidly people are going to be dizzy when they 
begin to see it, that to maintain a regimen of strict upper tier 
regulation on cable would be to disadvantage cable's capacity to be 
able to make the kind of investment necessary that this bill envisions,
 precisely to be able to compete with the regional Bell operating 
companies and to begin to create the dynamic synergy that we are 
looking for in the marketplace.

  So I believe the greatest protection for consumers is, in fact, going 
to come from competition for video services, and I believe that 
competition is well structured and maintained in the format that has 
been brought to the floor.
  When consumers have a choice and the marketplace is not artificially 
constrained, then that marketplace is going to provide for rates that 
are reasonable. I think that anybody who looks at the current 
intentions of the regional Bell operating companies and long distance 
operators and those who are going to be moving into the provision of 
video services will understand that if cable all of a sudden went out 
and started raising its rates at any tier, it is going to be 
significantly noncompetitive, it will build resentment among consumers, 
and they will quickly move to the new provision of services.
  I can speak to this on a very personal level because I have recently 
been making choices about where to put what kind of service in my own 
residence. I was amazed at the number of direct broadcast capacities 
versus cable that I could make a choice on right now.
  Second, Mr. President, consumers do not only care about rates, they 
also care about the quality of the service and they care about the 
breadth of programming that is available to them. They want both of 
those as well, and they want that from cable. If cable all of a sudden 
ceases to do that, they are going to have the opportunity to make 
another set of choices because of the very things that we are proposing 
in this legislation.
  Finally, this bill incorporates a so-called bad actor provision, so 
that the FCC can step in immediately if a cable company begins to move 
in a direction which is clearly anticonsumer or out of order with what 
the rest of the companies in the Nation are doing.
  So, in my judgment, our objective should not be to strengthen the 
regulation of rates that cable now is allowed to collect for its upper-
tier service. On the contrary, our objective ought to be to maximize 
competition and to get the Government out of the way of allowing these 
companies to begin to compete and the price mechanism to be able to 
provide the maximum amount of consumer benefit.
  I think anybody who looks at what has happened in the last 5 or 10 
years in this field cannot help be amazed at the way in which 
competition and private-sector initiative has changed the landscape of 
the provision of these services, and it will do so at such an 
extraordinary rate over the course of the next few years that Americans 
will, I think, understand the attributes of what the committee has 
brought to the floor.
  So I urge my colleagues to stay with the committee mark and the 
chairman's and ranking member's efforts to try to maximize competition 
and to oppose the Lieberman-Leahy amendment.
  At this time, I also express my admiration for the long efforts of 
the distinguished chairman and ranking member, and for the efforts of 
the ranking [[Page S8433]] member when he was chairman, to really 
structure this. This has been a long road. I think that the balance, 
which is so difficult to maintain in this, has been maintained 
throughout, and I think we are going to be able to get a solid piece of 
legislation to the conference committee where further improvements can 
be made.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts. It has been a long road for all of us on our Committee 
on Commerce. We have been working veritably about 4 years to revise and 
bring to modern technology the provisions of the 1934 act. The 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has been a leader in 
participating as his staff has worked around the clock. I appreciate 
his comments.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I inquire of the floor manager, I would 
like about 3 minutes to speak in opposition to the Simon amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Go right ahead.


                    Amendment No. 1283, As Modified

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Simon amendment 
which would strike language currently in the bill which removes radio 
ownership caps. I must say, I do so with reluctance because I have a 
great deal of affection and find myself generally in support of my good 
friend from Illinois when he takes the floor. In this instance, I 
believe his concerns are misplaced.
  Currently, there are approximately 11,000 radio stations in this 
country. Unfortunately, far too many are losing money. The last figures 
that have been called to my attention would indicate that about half of 
those stations are actually losing money. If we do not take some action 
to help these stations, an increasing number will continue to fail.
  One way to help radio stations get out of the red is to permit them 
to use economies of scale that they can achieve from consolidating 
their operations. Lifting the ownership cap will permit radio stations 
to achieve these efficiencies.
  When the FCC raised the cap several years ago, we found that, in 
fact, this is what happened. Without ownership caps, economic forces 
will determine the appropriate size of stations. This, in my judgment, 
is a decision better left to the marketplace instead of some 
Government-mandated number.
  I believe an ownership cap was put on radio stations many years ago 
because of the concern for undue concentration. In this day and age, 
such a concern, in my opinion, is unwarranted. With the avalanche of 
entertainment sources available to the public today, there is no need 
to worry that a concentration will cause public harm.
  Cable systems already provide up to 30 channels of digital audio in a 
single market under a single owner. Satellite digital audio will soon 
be able to deliver 60 channels of digital music in every market across 
the country. Satellite television, like direct TV, now offer 30-plus 
radio channels to homes. This deluge of new entrants into the radio 
business will ensure that competition exists.
  Extending the artificial restrictions on radio ownership will give 
the industry the wherewithal to compete against other mass media 
providers. It is my view that by ending these artificial restrictions, 
we encourage more competition and give the public greater choice. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the Simon amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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 urge that Senators come to use time on 
these amendments. We are down to about an hour before the majority 
leader will start us voting, and we are trying to get agreements on 
amendments and we are negotiating. If anybody who wants to make a 
speech, we will make arrangements to speak in general on the bill or on 
an amendment. I urge Senators to come to the floor to finish this bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BRYAN. 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. BRYAN. I ask unanimous consent that I might speak for a period of 
time not to exceed 7 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bryan pertaining to the introduction of S. 926 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
                           Amendment No. 1298

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, S. 652, as modified by the Dole-Daschle 
leadership amendment, balances reduced regulations with increased 
competition. That is exactly what the goal of the chairman has been all 
along.
  I think the legislation recognizes that investment in new technology 
is an essential part of developing an advanced telecommunications 
infrastructure here in the United States.
  Therefore, S. 652 provides a more stable and reliable business 
environment for both cable and television companies by reducing 
regulations and encouraging competition.
  Mr. President, S. 652, as reported by the Commerce Committee, 
includes the following:
  First, maintained the regulation of basic cable rates until there is 
effective competition.
  Second, redefined the effective competition standard to include a 
telephone company offering video services.
  Third, allowed competition from phone companies.
  Fourth, deregulated upper tier programming, but kept it subject to a 
bad-actor provision. The bad-actor provision allows the FCC to make 
expanded tier services subject to regulation if rates are unreasonable 
and substantially exceed the national average of rates for comparable 
cable programming services.
  These provisions were certainly a step in the right direction: away 
from regulations and toward more competition.
  During consideration of S. 652, the Senate adopted the Dole-Daschle 
leadership amendment by a vote of 77 to 8, which included language 
addressing the concerns of those who believe that, despite the 
safeguards already contained in S. 652, it might lead to unreasonable 
rate increases by large cable operators.
  It established a fixed rate, June 1, 1995, for measuring the national 
average price for cable services and only allows for adjustments to 
occur every 2 years. This provision eliminates the possibility that 
large cable operators could collude to artificially inflate rates 
immediately following enactment of S. 652.
  The bill, as amended, establishes a national average based on cable 
rates in effect prior to the passage of S. 652 when rate regulation was 
in full force.
  It excluded rates charged by small cable operators in determining the 
national average rate for cable services.
  This provision addresses the concerns that deregulation of small 
system rates, which was included as part of the Dole-Daschle amendment 
in S. 652, would inflate the national average against which rates of 
large cable companies would be measured.
  It specified that national average rates are to be calculated on a 
per channel basis.
  This provision ensures that national average is standardized and 
takes into account variations in the number of channels offered by 
different companies as part of their expanded program packages.
  It specified that a market is effectively competitive only when an 
alternative multichannel video provider offers services comparable to 
cable television.
  This provision ensures cable operators will not be prematurely 
deregulated under the effective competition provision if, for example, 
only a single [[Page S8434]] channel of video programming is being 
delivered by a telco video dial tone provider in an operator's market.
  In addition, the leadership amendment also included critical 
provisions deregulating small cable operators.
  In short, Mr. President, the reason I have given this explanation is 
the Dole-Daschle amendment tightened the bad-actor provision on 
expanded tier services and further limited the definition of effective 
competition.
  This compromise closed any possible loophole that would allow large 
cable operators to unreasonably raise rates. It gave relief to our 
small cable companies and maintained the delicate balance struck in S. 
652 of reduced regulations with increased competition.
  The reason, again, I think it is important that we understand this, 
Mr. President, is that the Lieberman amendment puts us back at square 
one in this effort to move toward more competition in the cable 
industry. While it does include language similar to the leadership 
amendment that would deregulate small cable operators, the Lieberman 
amendment would undermine the competitive objectives of S. 652.
  The amendment further restricts the national average standard by 
limiting it to the ``national average rate for comparable programming 
services in cable systems subject to effective competition.''
  Mr. President, this is a backdoor route that leads back to the 
restrictive rate regulation standard similar to what now exists: 
regulating rates that substantially exceed those of companies subject 
to effective competition. It is precisely this standard that has 
created the highly bureaucratic regulatory morass that has stymied 
cable television investment, and therefore service to the consumer.
  As I stated in my opening remarks on this bill last week, I opposed 
the Cable Act of 1992, and I voted against passage of that bill.
  Since the enactment of S. 12--that was the Cable Act--I have received 
numerous complaints from fellow Idahoans who felt that the changes 
resulting from S. 12 worsened, rather than improved, their cable 
service and cost.
  In addition, a number of very small independent cable systems in 
Idaho have been in jeopardy as a result of that near closure and have 
been forced to pay astronomical costs associated with implementing the 
act.
  A rural community hardly benefits if it loses access to cable service 
because the local small business that provides service cannot handle 
the burden of Federal regulations. Quite the opposite is true.
  Competition, not regulation, will encourage growth and innovation in 
the cable industry, as well as other areas of telecommunications, while 
giving the consumer the benefit of competitive prices.
  Mr. President, I would again suggest to my colleagues the importance 
of not losing sight of the ultimate goal of reforming the 1934 
Communications Act, which should be to establish a national policy 
framework that will accelerate private sector deployment of advanced 
telecommunications and information technologies and services to all 
Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition.
  In addition, working toward the goal will spur economic growth, 
create jobs, increase productivity, and provide better services at a 
lower cost to consumers.
  The balance of reduced regulations with increased competition 
contained in the provisions relating to cable in S. 652 will lead to 
the very important goals I just stated.
  In addition, Mr. President, I am concerned if we continue to restrict 
the ability of cable companies to obtain capital necessary to invest in 
new programming and services, we will also be limiting the ability of 
cable companies as competitors to local phone monopolies.
  Cable companies will require billions of dollars of investment to 
develop their infrastructures in order to be competitive providers.
  The Federal regulation of cable television has restricted the cable 
industry's access to capital, made investors concerned about future 
investments in the cable industry, and reduced the ability of cable 
companies to invest in technology and programming.
  Mr. President, rate regulation will not maintain low rates and 
quality services in the cable industry. Quite the opposite will occur. 
We have already seen it. Only competition will provide the kind of 
services that our consumers want.
  New entrants in the marketplace such as direct broadcast satellites 
and telco-delivered video programming will provide competitive 
pressures to keep cable rates low and fit within the framework of the 
market. Cable companies are likely to provide the needed competition to 
keep the telephone local exchange market operating.
  In short, Mr. President, deregulation of the cable industry is 
essential for a competitive telecommunications market, and it is 
necessary as the element of S. 652 and the competitive model envisioned 
in this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Lieberman amendment. It is 
not a step forward. It is a step backward to the industry. It is 
clearly a step backward to the consuming public.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, could I briefly state that I have 
received a series of letters--the first of which I became aware of last 
night, from Time Warner. The first letter stated something that was not 
true, and it was sent to various people.

       As discussed with you and your staff, this agreement is 
     entirely contingent on the removal of the program access 
     provisions . . .

  And so forth. That was not true. So last night, I faxed to Timothy 
Boggs a letter stating in part:

       At no time during our conversation did I indicate that any 
     specific action by Time Warner would result in deletion of 
     the program access provisions. I have had no further 
     conversation with HBO/Time Warner about this matter since 
     that meeting. My staff has not portrayed my position as being 
     anything other than the industry negotiations suggested on 
     May 4. Nothing I said during our short meeting could be 
     construed as suggesting some sort of quid pro quo, which 
     would be wrong, if not illegal. I resent the inference in 
     your letter that I suggested something other than an 
     industry-negotiated solution.

  I have this morning obtained a letter from Time Warner saying ``* * * 
the facts are exactly as outlined in your letter.'' It goes on to say 
that ``* * * at no point did we seek or reach understanding with you or 
your staff regarding any change in the legislation.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these three letters 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  Time Warner,

                                                    June 13, 1995.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Pressler: As you requested, the attached 
     signature page confirms that Home Box Office has reached an 
     agreement with the National Cable Television Cooperative, 
     Inc. for HBO programming. As discussed with you and your 
     staff, this agreement is entirely contingent on the removal 
     of the program access provisions at Section 204(b) of S. 652, 
     prior to Senate action on the legislation.
       On behalf of Time Warner and HBO, I am pleased to report 
     that we have reached this agreement and respectfully request 
     that this provision be removed from the bill at the earliest 
     possible opportunity. Without removal of this provision from 
     the bill, the HBO distribution agreement with the NCTC will 
     be void.
       Thank you for your leadership on this matter. Please feel 
     free to contact me if I can be of any assistance to you or 
     your staff. I can be reached at my office at 202/457-9225 or 
     at home at xxxxxxxxxxxx.
           Warm regards,
     Timothy A. Boggs.
                                                                    ____

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
           Transportation,
                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1995.
     Mr. Timothy A. Boggs,
     Senior Vice President for Public Policy, Time Warner, Inc., 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Boggs: Your faxed letter of June 13 contains 
     misleading statements which do not accurately reflect my 
     position.
       On May 4, 1995, I met briefly with you, Ron Schmidt and 
     HBO/Time Warner executives, in the presence of my staff, 
     regarding the program access provision of S. 652. During that 
     meeting, HBO/Time Warner urged me to support deletion of the 
     program access provisions of the bill.
       I stated that the program access provision was of enormous 
     importance to small cable operators, including those in South 
     Dakota. I suggested that if the program providers disliked 
     the provision, they ought to negotiate with the small cable 
     operators to reach an agreement which might address the 
     problems this portion of S. 652 is attempting to solve. 
     Specifically, since Ron Schmidt is from my home state, I 
     suggested that he talk to a [[Page S8435]] small cable 
     operator from South Dakota, Rich Cutler, to see if an 
     industry compromise were possible.
       At no time during our conversation did I indicate that any 
     specific action by Time Warner would result in deletion of 
     the program access provisions. I have had no further 
     conversations with HBO/Time Warner about this matter since 
     that meeting. My staff has not portrayed my position as being 
     anything other than the industry negotiations suggested on 
     May 4. Nothing I said during our short meeting could be 
     construed as suggesting some sort of quid pro quo, which 
     would be wrong, if not illegal. I resent the inference in 
     your letter that I suggested something other than an 
     industry-negotiated solution.
       Your letter indicates that failure to delete the program 
     access provisions from the bill would vitiate any negotiated 
     agreement HBO/Time Warner had reached with the small cable 
     operators. While HBO/Time Warner is free to negotiate 
     contracts as they see fit, such tactics, in my opinion, 
     cannot be considered as good faith negotiations. Your letter 
     implies that I tacitly approved such a condition, which is 
     not the case.
       I expect you to send this letter to the same individuals 
     who received your letter to me. Your letter is misleading, 
     and does not accurately characterize my position as presented 
     in my May 4 meeting with HBO/Time Warner.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry Pressler,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                                  Time Warner,

                                                    June 15, 1995.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of today. I 
     write to respond and to join you in setting the record 
     straight.
       First, I am as distressed as you that any statement I have 
     made could be misconstrued or infer anything other than the 
     facts.
       Second, the facts are exactly as outlined in your letter.
       Third, at no point did we seek or reach understanding with 
     you or your staff regarding any change in the legislation. 
     Any understanding Time Warner and HBO have reached on this 
     matter has been entirely with our private business 
     associates.
       Finally, as stated in my letter of June 13, Time Warner has 
     urged that the Senate remove Section 204(b) from S. 652 
     because we are confident that industry negotiations, by 
     ourselves and others could result in a change of business 
     practices that would make Section 204(b) no longer necessary. 
     Our good faith negotiations have borne out this confidence. I 
     remain pleased to report that HBO and NCTC have reached a 
     distribution agreement.
       In closing, let me personally apologize for any 
     misunderstanding my letter has caused. I deeply regret this 
     confusion and remain available to discuss this matter with 
     any interested party. As you request, I will distribute your 
     letter of today to the very few people who received a copy of 
     my letter to you of June 13.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Timothy A. Boggs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the remarks my friend 
and colleague from South Dakota just made. He has had printed in the 
Record an outrageous letter, an outrageous letter from Time Warner on 
June 13, addressed to Senator Pressler, chairman of the Commerce 
Committee. Any lobbyist who would write a letter like this, especially 
when it is not true, should make a public apology. And his powerful 
employer, Time Warner, should do likewise. I am referring to the letter 
of June 13 that the Senator from South Dakota has just entered into the 
Record.
  He has also entered in the Record a letter of June 15, which is 
supposedly an apology from Timothy Boggs for the letter he earlier 
wrote. However, in the letter of June 15, while admitting that his 
previous letter was in error, and in a way apologizing for it, I do not 
see anything in the letter that indicates to me that Time Warner may 
not have had or thought they had a quid pro quo with some other Members 
of the U.S. Senate.
  What we are talking about here is money, and that is one of the 
problems with this whole telecommunications bill, in which I have had 
an integral part to play. I want to say Senator Pressler is an 
honorable man. He is a good and hard-working Member of the Senate and 
has a very decent staff. He is a friend and a colleague I respect, and 
I congratulate the Senator on his letter to Time Warner and their 
response. I object to the action taken by Time Warner and Viacom--two 
of the big giants today--for putting the U.S. Senate in a difficult if 
not compromising position.
  Probably nothing else better demonstrates the power of the lobbyists 
around this place, who overreach and overreach and overreach, and get 
not only themselves but the reputation of this body in some degree of 
disrepute. There are good and substantive arguments for and against the 
cable volume discount provision in the committee-passed bill. Time 
Warner and Viacom have told the Senate they will give discounts to the 
small cable operators, as we had provided for in the bill, if and only 
if, Mr. President--they have not gotten themselves off the hook as far 
as this Senator is concerned--they will agree to these discounts that 
they never would have thought of had we not incorporated this in the 
bill, and they simply say that if and only if the Senate removes the 
volume discount language for the small cable operators will they carry 
out their commitment.
  They still have a quid pro quo and it is wrong. That is why this 
Senator last night objected to any unanimous consent requests that by 
voice vote we change the committee's position. I will insist on a 
rollcall vote. There may well be good reasons for the Senate to change 
that provision that came out of the Commerce Committee. Time Warner has 
obviously put all kinds of pressure on the small cable operators around 
the United States, which they can do. So now we have a situation, as I 
understand it, where the small cable operators, whom we wanted to 
protect to some degree with regard to insisting on some discounts, now 
have been pressured by Time Warner to appeal to us to eliminate the 
proviso of the bill.
  I do not want to see the Senate agree to something like that, because 
I think whether we do it knowingly or unwittingly, we place ourselves 
in a position of being influenced when maybe that is not the case.
  There comes a time when the U.S. Senate, despite money, despite 
power, despite pressure from competing interest groups, has to stand up 
and do what we think is right. Just because of the action of the 
Commerce Committee to provide some measure of relief for the smaller 
cable operators, who by and large are at the complete indirect control 
by the biggies like Time Warner, the little guys are now appealing that 
the big guys have said they will go along with what we want to do if we 
will knock it out of the piece of legislation.
  This has gone way too far. Time Warner and Viacom have taken the 
small cable operators hostage, just like hostages are being taken in 
Bosnia today. They have taken these little guys hostage and they say, 
``If you will knock this out of the bill, then somehow we will get 
along.'' I think this is the time to teach Time Warner and every other 
lobbyist--and there are a lot of good lobbyists around this place--that 
they overstep their bounds. They clearly overstepped their bounds when 
they wrote the referenced letter I had just cited and which was placed 
in the Record by my friend and colleague, an honorable man, the Senator 
from South Dakota, Senator Pressler.
  I hope we will recognize that Time Warner is attempting to take 
hostages. I think we should say to Time Warner, grab them right by the 
throat if we have to, and say: Mister, you may be very big and you may 
have control like no one else has ever had of our entertainment 
industry, but you cannot control the U.S. Senate.
  Therefore, I will insist upon a vote and I will be against any kind 
of a voice vote because I think this is the time to teach some of these 
larger companies that enough is enough. These large companies are 
saying to the Senate, ``If you do not remove this provision, we will 
not give fair prices to the small cable operators.'' They are trying to 
take the U.S. Senate hostage, also. If we, the U.S. Senate, do what 
Time Warner and Viacom want us to do, this type of contingency is 
dangerously close to a quid pro quo. It is not right and is probably 
illegal. The U.S. Senate should not negotiate with hostage takers.
  Mr. President, because of this tactic, I insist on a rollcall vote on 
trying to knock out the volume discount provisions. The Senate can work 
its will but I will stick by the committee's provisions.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. EXON. I will be glad to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President I thank the Senator for his clear and 
forceful statement.
 And I share his views. May I say [[Page S8436]] that I am glad he will 
insist on a vote. If he does not, I will.

  It seems to me--I will have more to say later--that the good work, 
the efforts, and the many hours and days and weeks and months that the 
committee has devoted to this legislation run the risk now of coming to 
naught, as far as this Senator is concerned.
  It appears to me that in our efforts to control bigness, bigness is 
weighing in, and I am not going to be impressed by bigness or by money 
or by heavy lobbying.
  I think this also goes to show we should not have voted for cloture 
yesterday. I voted against cloture. This is a massive bill. It is an 
important bill. I am sure it has a lot of good elements in it. But here 
at the last minute, we are under pressure now. Cloture has been 
invoked. And some kind of an agreement has been entered into to stack 
amendments with 2-minute explanations.
  I thank the distinguished majority leader for including the ``2-
minute explanation'' in the agreement. I went to him personally 
yesterday and asked him to do that. If there are going to be stacked 
votes, at least we should have some explanation.
  But I think this situation should cure us of stacking votes, great 
numbers of votes with only a minute or 2 minutes of explanation. This 
is the United States Senate where debate is unlimited, unless we invoke 
cloture or enter into time agreements.
  From now on, I am not going to be very congenial with respect to 
stacking a large number of votes. But to have a string of stacked votes 
on a very complicated bill that I do not understand, and I am not sure 
any other Senators will understand what is in this bill by the time 
this amendment process is completed, to call up amendments, and debate 
them for only 30 minutes; very complicated amendments; the kind of 
amendments that should be offered in committee, or, if they are going 
to be offered on the floor, there ought to be adequate debate so that 
we all know what we are doing--is going too far, especially if the vote 
on final passage is to occur immediately following the disposition of 
the enumerated amendments.
  So I thank the Senator for stating that he will insist on a vote, and 
I want to put leadership on notice that in the future this one Senator 
is going to be a little more reluctant to enter into time agreements on 
complex matters like this and stack votes, to be followed by the 
immediate passage of a bill. There seems to be a mindset here that we 
have to finish any complex bill in 3 days or 4 days. I am not sure that 
Senators ought to be in such a hurry.
  I am disturbed by the Time Warner letter. It is disturbing. It may be 
that this will be one of the straws that breaks the camel's back as far 
as this Senator is concerned in respect of the vote on this bill.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I have just one second to thank my 
friend from West Virginia for his usually thoughtful remarks? I 
appreciate them very, very much. As one who has presided over and has 
put the U.S. Senate on course, I think his words are well taken.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I take 3 minutes of my time on my 
amendment.
  I first want to comment on what Senator Byrd just had to say. I think 
in general we can say there are rare occasions when we take too much 
time on a bill. There are too many occasions when we take too little 
time on a bill, as far as legislative process.


                    Amendment No. 1283, as Modified

  Mr. SIMON. I would like to just speak very briefly on an amendment 
that I have in. The present practice of the FCC is to limit radio 
station ownership by any one entity to 20 AM and 20 FM stations. The 
most any one entity now has is 27 total. The bill, without my 
amendment, takes the cap off completely. My amendment says let us put a 
cap of 50 AM, 50 FM, far more than we have now by any one entity. It is 
a 150-percent increase. But let us not move to the day when we have too 
much concentration of the media. I think that is not a healthy thing.
  One of my colleagues speaking against my amendment says this is what 
is happening in the newspaper business. It is. It is not healthy in the 
newspaper business. But we do not have any control over that. We do 
have control through Federal licensing of radio stations and 
television. My amendment goes further than some people would want. I 
say let us increase that 40 limit now to 100. But let us not let anyone 
who wants control of the radio stations of this Nation to have 
unlimited ability to get those radio stations.
  I hope my amendment will be approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if no one wishes the floor, I question the 
presence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 (Mr. Kyl). Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour 
of 12:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the 
McCain amendment No. 1285, to be followed by a vote on or in relation 
to the Simon modified amendment No. 1283, to be followed by a vote on 
or in relation to the Lieberman amendment No. 1298, with the remaining 
provisions of last night's consent agreement remaining in place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1285
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 12:15 p.m. having arrived, there 
are 2 minutes--1 minute per side--for discussion of the amendment and 
then voting will occur on the amendment offered by the Senator from 
South Dakota, [Mr. Pressler] for the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain].
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
McCain amendment and to vote the other amendments down. The arguments 
have been made. So I yield back the remainder of my time. I yield back 
all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1285 offered by the Senator from South Dakota for the Senator from 
Arizona. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
[Mr. Hatch] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     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
     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
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--1

       
     Simon
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hatch
       
  So the amendment (No. 1285) was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table. [[Page S8437]] 
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1283, as Modified

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to table the Simon amendment 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.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. My understanding is 
that before these next two amendments are voted on, the supporters get 
1 minute, and the opposition gets 1 minute to explain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Two minutes are 
equally divided.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of my 
colleagues, the present FCC rule says one entity can own 20 AM stations 
and 20 FM stations, or a total of 40. Right now, the maximum owned by 
any one entity is 27.
  This bill takes the cap off completely. My amendment says we will put 
a cap of 50 AM, 50 FM, a 150-percent increase, but do not take the cap 
off completely.
  We should not concentrate media ownership in this country. It is not 
a healthy thing for the future of our country. I hope Members will 
resist the motion to table my amendment.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will table this 
amendment. We voted on this last week in the leadership package, the 
Dole - Daschle - Pressler - Hollings package. We voted something like 
78 to 8. This matter has been settled in this bill. It takes apart the 
leadership package. I urge everyone to table it. It is more regulation 
and I ask we proceed.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to table 
amendment No. 1283 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.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM (when her name was called). Present.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
[Mr. Hatch] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 265 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--34

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Helms
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Kassebaum
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hatch
       
  So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1283), as 
modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1298

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 1298, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, there are 2 minutes equally 
divided between the proponents and the opponents of the amendment.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  I rise to speak against the motion to table. I ask my colleagues to 
listen for these 60 seconds.
  I usually do not make predictions on the floor of the Senate. But 
based on my experience in cable consumer protection for more than a 
decade, I will predict to my colleagues that, if this bill passes 
unamended, most American cable consumers will see significant rate 
increases in the next couple of years. These rate increases are not 
necessary. In 1984, Congress removed regulation from cable consumers. 
It was a disaster. Rates skyrocketed.
  In 1992, on a bipartisan basis, we came back and put in reasonable 
consumer protections, and they have worked brilliantly. Rates are down 
11 percent, and the cable companies are thriving, with the highest 
profit margins in the telecommunications industry, and with a great 
ability to continue to raise capital. There is no reason to remove the 
protections that cable consumers have in this bill.
  My amendment simply restores a standard of the marketplace saying 
that no cable company will be regulated unless it charges more than the 
average in markets where there is effective competition.
  This amendment is not perfect, but it is all that stands between our 
constituents and significant cable rate increases every month for the 
next several years.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to table this 
amendment. This amendment is undoing the leadership package, the Dole-
Daschle package, which we voted on already. The Dole-Daschle package 
and the committee bill will increase competition and will cause 
consumer rates on cable to go down as more entrants enter the market.
  I urge that we table this amendment.
  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 Connecticut. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. MACK (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
[Mr. Hatch] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--31

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Helms
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Wellstone

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Mack
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hatch
        [[Page S8438]] 
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1298) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 1303

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the next item to be taken up is my 
amendment No. 1303, which I have offered along with my good friends, 
the Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, and the Senator from New York, 
Senator D'Amato.
  This amendment would clarify the resale provisions of section 255 by 
requiring the Bell companies to make resale service available at prices 
reflecting the actual cost of providing those services or functions to 
another carrier.
  The amendment seeks to carry out and really clarify the delicate 
balance of the bill. It really is just that, an amendment to clarify 
the relationship of sections 251 and 255. I do believe, however, that 
we have developed a situation where there is a misunderstanding about 
the actual terms of my amendment.
  I might state that when I offered it, I thought it was an amendment 
that had support. I offered it along with a series of other amendments. 
As the Senate realizes, all of those amendments have been accepted by 
agreement. There has been no dissension concerning them.
  I feel it essential this amendment have further study in order that 
it will maintain the delicate balance that this bill requires. I will 
be a conferee on this bill, and it is my intention to make certain that 
this subject is called up in the conference.
  Any amendment clarifying these two provisions would be within the 
scope of the conference, in my opinion, and it is my intention to ask 
that this amendment be withdrawn at this time.
  I want my friend from Hawaii to have a chance to make a comment about 
this before I do, however, because I want to make sure everyone 
understands that we are not abandoning this subject, we are going to 
postpone it to the conference in the hope that we will be able to work 
out an amendment there which will have the same success as the other 
amendments we have worked on so long, which have been adopted by 
unanimous consent.
  I yield to my friend from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from Alaska in 
assuring all those who support the measure that it is not our intention 
to let it die at this stage. We will most certainly, as conferees, 
insist that this matter be discussed and, hopefully, we will be able to 
convince our colleagues in the House and the Senate to adopt it.
  So, reluctantly but I believe necessarily, I will concur with the 
action that is about to take place.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to the two 
Senators from Alaska and Hawaii. They are two giants of the Senate and 
giants in our committee. They will both be conferees. They have 
provided enormous leadership.
  We just feel, at this time, that we have carefully crafted an 
agreement, and the checklist, and so forth, might come apart.
 So we have decided to delay this discussion until conference. I want 
to pay tribute to both of them being willing to help move this bill 
forward. I thank them very much.

  Mr. DOLE. Let me concur in the statement made by the manager. This is 
a controversial area. I think the managers have indicated they are both 
going to be conferees. It will be considered at that time, and it is 
within the scope of the conference. There is a disagreement, but this 
may help solve it. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we may 
withdraw amendment 1303.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 1303) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 1292
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment No. 1292, 
offered by the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller].
  Mr. HOLLINGS. On behalf of the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 1292) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 1341

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question now is amendment No. 
1341, offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, for 
the majority leader.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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 hope we can turn now to the Heflin 
amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
Dole amendment be set aside so we can bring up the Heflin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1367

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I believe this has been cleared by both 
sides. This deals with amendment 1367, which I previously sent to the 
desk.
  This deals primarily with a rule, in urban areas, where there is a 
small town that has a limited number within the incorporated area or 
the urbanized area, and has a high percentage of customers in rural 
areas.
  It is a unique situation in regard to cable systems that have gone 
out beyond the incorporated limits, and they have sold to customers 
there. That is a pretty expensive type of thing.
  When they go out, there is not the density on the lines that you have 
in the city. In rural areas, you might have one customer per mile, and 
in the cities you may have 1,200 customers to a mile, or 1,000 
customers to a mile.
  This sort of takes care of a situation for rural areas. It affects 
those where I believe there are no more than 20,000 subscribers, and a 
high percentage is in urban areas. I move the adoption of this 
amendment.
  Cable systems with less than 20,000 subscribers are extremely 
concerned that they will be unable to compete with the telephone 
companies once they enter the cable business, a very legitimate 
concern. Because of the very real possibility that they will be run 
over by their local telephone company if the only option is to compete 
head-to-head, small cable systems would like to have the option to form 
a joint venture with their local telephone company or to be acquired by 
their local telephone company.
  The bill as it is currently written would disallow small cable 
systems in urbanized areas to form joint ventures or to be acquired by 
their local telephone company. Due to the broad definition of an 
urbanized area, many small cable systems serving very rural areas will 
be ineligible to form a joint venture or to be acquired by their local 
telephone company because they technically fall within the definition 
of an urbanized area.
  My amendment would allow cable systems in an urbanized area that 
serve a significant number of subscribers in nonurbanized areas to be 
eligible to participate in joint ventures or to be acquired.
  These small cable operators serving a significant number of rural 
subscribers but who are swept into the urbanized area definition should 
be given the option of forming joint ventures or of selling to their 
local telephone company. Without these options, S. 652 could well force 
many of them out of business.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from 
Alabama. I know he is leaving the Senate next year. We will miss him.
  This is a good amendment. We agree to it. I think it will help 
smaller cities in rural areas. We are prepared to pass 
[[Page S8439]] the amendment. I move we adopt the amendment. I 
congratulate my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1367) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. PRESSLER. 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. DOLE. 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I think one of the remaining two amendments 
is the amendment of the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. That is the pending question.


                           Amendment No. 1341

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me state very simply the purpose of this 
amendment. I do not know anything about all the Time Warner material. 
It has nothing to do with this amendment. I heard the Senator from 
Nebraska. I thought we would be able to accept this amendment, but I 
understand he has a problem with it.
  As I understand it, not being a member of the committee, the current 
bill is tantamount to Government price-setting in the programming 
market. The language in the bill would remove programmers from taking 
advantage of universally accepted marketing practices such as volume 
discounts.
  It seems to me all I am doing is to strike out this section. It 
strikes a provision of the bill that would have the effect of 
regulating the prices paid by small cable TV companies for programming. 
And the intent of the provision was to crack down on those programmers 
who were gouging small operators. But, unfortunately, it also impacts 
on good programmers who did not engage in the price-gouging effort.
  Finally, small cable TV companies have now negotiated good contracts. 
I have a letter from the National Cable Television Cooperative, Inc., 
and also a letter from Turner Broadcasting, which suggests that 
Discovery Communications, Black Entertainment Television, and Turner 
Broadcasting support my motion to strike section 204(b). They set forth 
the reasons:

       Although described as a ``small cable operator'' amendment, 
     section 204(b) would effectively entitle every cable operator 
     to the price charged to the largest cable operator. . . .

  Which was never the intent. So we were just going to take it out. 
They have now negotiated good contracts.
  I also include the letter from Turner Broadcasting and the letter 
from the National Cable Television Cooperative. Let me quote a part of 
that.

       We are pleased to report that the National Cable Television 
     Cooperative has reached agreements with Time Warner's Home 
     Box Office Unit, Showtime Network, Inc.'s Showtime and the 
     Movie Channel Services, and Viacom's MTV Network Services. . 
     . . As a result of this important change in circumstances, we 
     no longer believe that the changes to the program access 
     provisions of the Cable Act proposed in Sec. 204(b) of S. 652 
     are necessary, and we can accept the removal of those 
     provisions from the bill.

  I know the Senator from Nebraska brought in a lot of material on Time 
Warner. I do not have anything to do with that. I do not know anything 
about Time Warner. I mentioned their name myself a couple of weeks ago 
in Hollywood. So I do not have a dog in that fight. I do not understand 
what it is all about.
  All I am doing is striking out a section that is no longer necessary, 
and it is supported, as I said, by Discovery Channel, Black 
Entertainment Television, Turner Broadcasting, National Cable 
Television Cooperative.
  I will yield the remainder of my time. There may be time in 
opposition.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the two letters be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         National Cable Television


                                            Cooperative, Inc.,

                                        Lenexa, KS, June 15, 1995.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     U.S. Senate, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and 
         Transportation, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Pressler: We are pleased to report that the 
     National Cable Television Cooperative has reached agreements 
     with Time Warner's Home Box Office Unit, Showtime Network, 
     Inc.'s Showtime and the Movie Channel Services, and Viacom's 
     MTV Network Services (MTV, VH1, and Nickelodeon). As a result 
     of this important change in circumstances, we no longer 
     believe that the changes to the program access provisions of 
     the Cable Act proposed in Sec. 204(b) of S. 652 are 
     necessary, and we can accept the removal of those provisions 
     from the bill.
       As you know, other conflicts remain. Despite repeated 
     attempts by the Cooperative, we have failed to conclude 
     master affiliate agreements with many non-vertically-
     integrated networks which are exempt from existing law.
       For example, we were recently notified by Group W of their 
     intent not to renew our long-standing contract for Country 
     Music Television. (Originally negotiated by NCTC with CMT's 
     former owners in 1989, prior to CMT's purchase by Group W/
     Gaylord). Group W has also steadfastly refused to conclude a 
     contract with us for The Nashville Network. The most 
     difficult of many other examples we could cite would be that 
     of ESPN.
       Please accept our deepest appreciation for lending your 
     support and good offices to bringing about a resolution of 
     this matter which we believe is mutually beneficial to all 
     parties.
           Sincerely,
                                               Michael L. Pandzik,
     President.
                                                                    ____

         Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., Washington Corporate 
           Office,
                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: I am writing on behalf of Discovery 
     Communications, Black Entertainment Television and Turner 
     Broadcasting System, Inc., to support your motion to strike 
     section 204(b) of S. 652, the ``Telecommunications 
     Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995.''
       Section 204(b) would remove the words ``legitimate economic 
     benefits'' from current law, thereby outlawing the volume 
     discounts charged by certain programmers (those with 5% co-
     ownership with cable systems) even where the volume discounts 
     are economically justified.
       Although described as a ``small cable operator'' amendment, 
     section 204(b) would effectively entitle every cable operator 
     to the prices charged to the largest cable operator, working 
     substantial economic harm to the affected networks. Moreover, 
     since section 204(b) applies only to some and not all 
     programmers, it would have a very unfair competitive impact.
       We deeply appreciate your efforts to correct this problem 
     with the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Bertram W. Carp,
                               Vice President, Government Affairs.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 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 Senator from South Carolina.
  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. HOLLINGS. 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. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thought the time was limited. I 
understand the time is not limited on this amendment.
  I would simply say, with respect to the merits, that programmers give 
big cable operators the volume discounts and not to the small cable 
operators. So, in trying to provide for that universal service and to 
make sure that it is extended, particularly to the high-cost and rural 
areas, the provision in the bill is that the small cable operators get 
the similar discounts.
  With the Dole amendment, that would be removed. There would be high-
volume discounts to the big cities, let us say, and higher costs 
thereby and a diminution of universal service to the rural areas of 
America.
  So, this side would oppose the amendment on the merit itself. There 
is some question in this Senator's mind, without seeing anything 
further, on how this amendment came to the floor. With that in mind, 
let me yield to my colleagues who have come.
  I understand the distinguished Senator from Iowa wants to talk as in 
morning business while we are waiting.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, could I just make a statement on the 
program access issue? [[Page S8440]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Dole 
amendment. Coming from a rural, small-city State, I have long been 
concerned with program access. In fact, in the 1992 cable bill, my main 
reason for supporting it was not the pricing side so much as the 
program access side. It is a controversial thing, but I think the 
pricing side of it was a mistake but the program access side was a 
necessary thing.
  To understand this amendment, or this issue, remember that program 
access is not something that everybody has. I remember one of our 
REA's, which transmit TV signals by microwave, wanted to get ESPN on 
their channel and they could not even get ESPN to return a phone call 
because they were too small. So there was a need for program access. 
And this amendment is continuing in that tradition. So this is a 
subject that all of us have worked on for years.
  The program access portions, I think, of that act have worked at 
least to help the smaller cities and to help the rural areas where they 
transmitted by microwave from one farm to the next where it is too 
expensive for cable lines to run. Nobody will sell those people 
programming because it is not worth it financially. There are myriad 
interests concerned with this issue. I know the Black Entertainment 
Network has endorsed this amendment for the same reason, that they are 
very much in need of program access.
  There has been much discussion over the program access provisions 
contained in S. 652. From the beginning of this process, I wanted to 
deal with the problem which many small operators have faced in being 
charged higher rates for programming. S. 652's program access provision 
is important to small cable operators, especially those in South 
Dakota. Program providers strongly object to this provision. I 
suggested to the program providers that they work with the small cable 
operators to seek an industry agreement which could make a legislated 
solution unnecessary. The president of the National Cable Television 
Cooperative, Michael Pandzik, the organization that purchases 
programming on behalf of the small cable operators, wrote to me that 
the cooperative has reached agreement on the small cable rates on 
programs from the major vertically integrated entertainment companies. 
As a result, I support the amendment by Senator Dole to strike the 
program access language change in S. 652.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Chair advise the Senator from Nebraska what is the 
pending matter before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending matter before the Senate is 
amendment No. 1341, offered by the Senator from South Dakota for the 
majority leader.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. This is the amendment I had discussed 
earlier in the day. As I understand it, the Senator from South Dakota 
is recommending and has introduced this amendment for the majority 
leader, notwithstanding the discussions that we had earlier in the day 
on this specific matter?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I am sorry, would my friend----
  Mr. EXON. I simply say I want to understand what is being proposed. 
Do I understand the Senator from South Dakota is offering the amendment 
for the majority leader?
  Mr. PRESSLER. The majority leader offered it for himself and spoke 
for it.
  Mr. EXON. Now you are calling it up for a vote, is that correct?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Yes, if the Senator from Nebraska wishes.
  Mr. EXON. No, it is fine to have the vote. I am not going to object 
to that. There is no way I can object to a vote.
  I would simply say to my friend from South Dakota, is he, as the 
leader of the bill, recommending that the Senate vote for the Dole 
amendment?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Yes, I am. I have a long tradition of support for 
program access. I voted for the 1992 cable bill mainly because of 
program access issues. Yes, I am recommending that.
  Mr. EXON. I would simply say, I think the Senator from South Dakota 
knows this Senator came to the defense of my friend and colleague from 
South Dakota earlier because of what I thought was terrible precedent 
setting with regard to the letters that had been distributed, apologies 
given on this whole matter.
  Notwithstanding the serious objection that the Senator from South 
Dakota, I thought, had with regard to the lobbying activities that took 
part on this, notwithstanding that, am I to understand the Senator from 
South Dakota is still going to support the measure?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Yes. I have stated my views in my letter. But the 
underlying substance of this amendment I support.
  Mr. EXON. Is the Senator saying that while he objects to the way this 
matter has been handled, the end result, in his opinion, is that it is 
good for rural areas with regard to receiving television material?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Yes. I gave an example when the Senator was not here of 
some of my rural telephone co-ops having difficulty getting ESPN. We 
had to get the Vice President out there. My reason for supporting the 
1992 Cable Act was program access. The substance of the amendment is 
good for the country, I believe. It is very much in keeping with that.
  I wrote a letter back to Time Warner regarding that matter and have 
placed it in the Congressional Record. They wrote me a letter back. The 
National Cable Television Cooperative group supports it very strongly. 
I have a letter from them. I cited this earlier.

       We are pleased to report that the National Cable Television 
     Cooperative has reached agreements with Time Warner's Home 
     Box Office Unit, Showtime Network, Inc.'s Showtime and the 
     Movie Channel Services, and Viacom's MTV Network Services 
     (MTV, VH1, and Nickelodeon). As a result of this important 
     change in circumstances, we no longer believe that the 
     changes to the program access provisions of the Cable Act 
     proposed in Sec. 204(b) of S. 652 are necessary, and we can 
     accept the removal of those provisions from the bill.
       As you know, other conflicts remain. Despite repeated 
     attempts by the Cooperative, we have failed to conclude 
     master affiliate agreements with many non-vertically-
     integrated networks which are exempt from existing law.
       For example, we were recently notified by Group W of their 
     intent not to renew our long-standing contract for Country 
     Music Television. (Originally negotiated by NCTC with CMT's 
     former owners in 1989, prior to CMT's purchase by Group W/
     Gaylord). Group W has also steadfastly refused to conclude a 
     contract with us for The Nashville Network. The most 
     difficult of many other examples we could cite would be that 
     of ESPN.

  So, in any event, I think we are all aware of these problems. I 
support the substance of the amendment. I disagree with the way Time 
Warner dealt with that particular letter. I wrote them a strong letter 
back, and they wrote me a letter stating my letter was absolutely 
accurate, and they apologized.
  Mr. EXON. Just so that I understand this, I would like to have my 
colleague from South Dakota explain a little bit more. As I understand 
it, Time Warner and all these other good folks that control massive 
sections of our entertainment industry were not treating the small 
cable owners in South Dakota and elsewhere fairly, in the opinion of 
the Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from Nebraska and the 
Senator from South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the Commerce 
Committee.
  Therefore, we wrote into the telecommunications bill that was 
reported out of committee language that would have required Time Warner 
and all these other good folks, who were very much concerned about the 
public interest and public access, and not interested in making money--
we wrote that in there to try to force them to treat the subscribers to 
cable in South Dakota and elsewhere fairly.
  Is that accurate? Is that an accurate reflection of what I thought we 
did in committee?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I believe that the legislative process here, as it 
moves forward, is trying to be fair, and different Senators have 
different points of view. Senator Dole has brought his amendment forth 
and has spoken on it, having made the arguments for it. I think the 
Senator's comments are most welcome.
  I have a long record of fighting hard for program access. The Black 
Entertainment Network has endorsed this effort by Senator Dole. I think 
it is a very good effort.
[[Page S8441]]

  Mr. EXON. Is it fair to assume that, in the opinion of the Senator 
from South Dakota, Time Warner and all these good folks would not have 
made this arrangement at this very late hour had it not been for the 
actions that we in the Commerce Committee took to address some things 
that were going on with regard to the way Time Warner and others 
treated rural areas? Is it safe to assume, in the opinion of the 
Senator from South Dakota, that this grand compromise at the last 
minute would not have been reached had we not taken the action that we 
did in the Commerce Committee on the telecommunications bill?
  Mr. PRESSLER. It is hard to say. But let me say that I have for years 
fought hard for program access for smaller cable people, for our rural 
people, and there is an understanding with the president of South 
Dakota East River Electric. We could not get ESPN even to return our 
calls. Finally, we called the head personnel up in New York and they 
sent a person out, and ultimately Time Warner may be responding to 
that.
  The point is that there is a constant battle, trying to balance 
between price and program access. The same thing happened when Hubbard 
put up his satellite, DBS. He had a hard time getting program access.
  All of us on the Commerce Committee, including the Senator from 
Nebraska, I am sure, and others, worked on this. That is a key part. 
Program access is a key part of this whole business. That is what we 
are working on.
  Mr. EXON. So the Senator from South Dakota cannot confirm my 
suspicion that the grand compromise being offered by the Dole amendment 
would not likely have taken place had we not acted in the committee.
  Mr. PRESSLER. The Senator from Nebraska will have to reach his 
conclusions. Obviously, he has reached some. If an intraindustry 
solution can be reached, a legislative mandate is not necessary. The 
NCTC has negotiated for small cable, and those intraindustry 
negotiations will undoubtedly continue.
  We can reserve the opportunity to restore this language if the 
programmers of small cable cannot reach an accommodation in conference. 
My friend from Nebraska will no doubt be in that conference. So we 
welcome him.
  Mr. EXON. I simply say that I will not take any more time on this. 
There will be others who may want to speak on it.
  I happen to think this whole proposition is a pretty sorry mess. It 
seems to me that if we approve the Dole amendment, which Time Warner 
and others would like to have, we would simply be saying, regardless of 
your improper activities, regardless of the letters that you wrote 
within the last few days, which I thought was unfair to the Senator 
from South Dakota and others, and certainly unfair to the processes and 
workings, legitimate processes and workings, of the U.S. Senate, then I 
think it would be entirely proper to vote for the Dole amendment.
  On the other hand, if you feel as I do that this is kind of a blot on 
the U.S. Senate, and that if we vote for the Dole amendment we are just 
going to be saying to Time Warner and others to come in with your 
strong-arm lobbying, come in with your accusations in the form of 
letters about Senator Pressler and others, but we are all going to have 
one happy ending here now, because we have gotten together in a grand 
compromise and, therefore, this is a good for everyone.
  The fact that Time Warner, in my opinion, has taken hostages through 
the small cable operators that you in South Dakota and myself in 
Nebraska, and my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, have tried to 
protect, it seems to me that we in the Senate, if we adopt this 
amendment, are winking and saying: You should not have done that, but 
you are going to get what you want in the end anyway.
  I urge rejection of the Dole amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me join in the sentiment of the 
Senator from Nebraska. And to elaborate on my previous remark, I just 
quietly said it disturbed me--the process by which this particular 
amendment has reached consideration in the U.S. Senate. I figured, as 
the expression was used earlier, that I did not have a dog in the fight 
because I had been shown a letter to the Honorable Larry Pressler, the 
chairman, dated June 13, which has already been included in the Record.
  I will let my previous remarks be sufficient except that now I am 
shown another letter that is signed by Timothy Boggs, talking of the 
agreement. That letter, being dated June 13, says:

       As you requested, the attached signature page confirms that 
     Home Box Office has reached an agreement with the National 
     Cable Television Cooperative, Inc. for HBO programming. As 
     discussed with you and your staff, this agreement is entirely 
     contingent on the removal of the program access provisions at 
     Section 204(b) of S. 652, prior to Senate action on the 
     legislation.
       Without the removal of this provision from the bill, the 
     HBO distribution agreement with NCTC would be void.

  I had nothing to do with it, and nothing was addressed to me. I have 
now sent the staff to look, because these things surface.
  I have been given another letter, dated June 13, 1995, signed by Mr. 
Mark M. Weinstein, with a copy to Senator Bob Dole and Senator Ernest 
F. Hollings. I ask unanimous consent that the letter in its entirety be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 Viacom, Inc.,

                                      New York, NY, June 13, 1995.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, at your request, Showtime 
     Networks Inc., a cable programming division of Viacom, has 
     been negotiating in good faith with the National Cable 
     Television Cooperative (NCTC) to reach an agreement regarding 
     carriage of its cable programming services.
       We are pleased to report that we have reached an agreement 
     between NCTC and Showtime for carriage of our premium cable 
     services. NCTC also requested, just recently, that MTV 
     Networks (MTVN) begin discussions over the basic cable 
     services. Accordingly, MTVN has been negotiating in good 
     faith with NCTC over carriage of the basic cable services. We 
     are committed to continuing to negotiate and hope to reach an 
     MTVN agreement in the near future.
       We ask for your support in ensuring the adoption of an 
     amendment deleting the volume discount language in S. 652, as 
     previously agreed. Thank you for your assistance in this 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Mark M. Weinstein,
                                            Senior Vice President.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will read that to make certain that my comments are 
right to the point. This is to Chairman Pressler.

       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, at your request, Showtime 
     Networks, a cable programming division of Viacom, has been 
     negotiating in good faith with the National Cable Television 
     Cooperative to reach an agreement regarding carriage of its 
     cable programming services.
       We are pleased to report that we have reached an agreement 
     between NCTC and Showtime for carriage of our premium cable 
     services. NCTC also requested just recently MTV Networks, 
     MTVN, begin discussions over the basic cable services. 
     Accordingly, MTVN has been negotiating in good faith with 
     NCTC over carriage of the basic cable services. We are 
     committed to continuing to negotiate and hope to reach an 
     MTVN agreement in the near future.
       We ask for your support in ensuring the adoption of an 
     amendment deleting the volume discount language in S. 652 as 
     previously agreed. Thank you for your assistance in this 
     matter.

  Now, it is incumbent on me, Mr. President, and my dear colleagues of 
the Senate, I can tell you here and now ``as previously agreed,'' by 
Mark M. Weinstein--he signs the letter--I can tell you I do not know 
the gentleman. I have never seen and have never spoken with him. And I 
have checked with my staff, and we have not had this letter or anything 
else, have we?
  It could be that this has been faxed. We are searching the records 
now because we have been in the Chamber for a week.
  Mr. PRESSLER. If my good friend will yield for a minute.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. PRESSLER. As my friend knows, when I discovered that same 
language in the Time Warner letter, I requested immediately a 
correction. I wrote a two-page letter, and they sent me not only a 
correction but an apology. I think I can obtain the same thing from 
these folks very quickly, because that is not true.
[[Page S8442]]

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I understand so. The distinguished chairman is 
absolutely correct. And I think his letters have been made a part of 
the Record showing that he had nothing to do with it. The inference is 
not by the Senator from South Carolina that the Senator from South 
Dakota was in any way engaged in this kind of shenanigan. I can tell 
you here and now the Senate is going to operate not only with the 
correction but with the appearance of correct conduct here.
  I just did not want this to pass. I would have hoped that this 
amendment would have not been pursued on the basis of its merits, and I 
hope it will be defeated on the basis of the process so that everyone 
knows you cannot deal this way and get your amendments passed. I just 
think this reflects on the Senate. I agree with the Senator from 
Nebraska. And since my name is on the Weinstein letter and the first I 
have seen it is here this morning, I wanted to make that record 
absolutely clear. I hope we kill the amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will be glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. EXON. I would like to ask the managers of the bill, both my 
friend from South Carolina and my friend from South Dakota, about 
exactly what we are doing here.
  As I understood the Senator from South Dakota, the chairman of the 
committee, he said that if we accept the Dole amendment, it will fix or 
cure the problem that we have with regard to availability for small 
cable operators to get certain types of program from the likes of those 
good folks, Time Warner and Viacom. Is that right?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No. If you are asking this Senator a question, I can 
tell you my judgment. If this change on the amendment is adopted, then 
the rates are bound to go up. The bill provides very properly that 
small and rural cable television operators get the volume discount.
  Now, what they want to say is, no, that is going to be stricken, and 
they are not going to get these volume discounts. Obviously, the price 
is going up on these small entities, and that is going to destroy the 
universal service theme of our particular S. 652.
  Mr. EXON. I would like to ask a reply to my question from the Senator 
from South Dakota.
  Did I understand the Senator from South Dakota to correctly say that 
if we pass the Dole amendment, it is the understanding of the Senator 
from South Dakota that we would fix or repair the essential problem 
that the Senator from South Dakota has recognized is an important 
player in including some protection for small cable operators in the 
measure that has passed out of his committee? Is the Senator saying he 
thinks that is repaired or fixed with the Dole amendment?
  Mr. PRESSLER. Let me say that I think we should recognize that 
private agreements and private negotiations are underway, have been 
underway, and that is something that goes on in our country.
  Let me say that I shall seek corrections on these other letters, just 
as I have received a strong correction from the first one.
  Let me say that if these private negotiations break down or do not 
work--we are now in a situation where Black Entertainment Network, the 
small companies, and so forth, are endorsing these private 
negotiations. And certainly I prefer private negotiations to Government 
activity, and that has been something that has been a cornerstone. But 
I have long been a champion of program access for smaller cable owners, 
for REA's, and I will continue to be so.
  Also, it is my general observation--by the way, I did not make any 
requests here of anybody, and we are sort of arguing on two levels here 
because I agree with the Senator from Nebraska that the letter sent me 
was incorrect. I requested that it be corrected, and it was instantly.
  Mr. EXON. What I am trying to get at, though, Mr. President, it 
obviously is the Senator's feeling----
  Mr. PRESSLER. If I may conclude, if my friend will yield.
  Mr. EXON. I am sorry.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Basically, I would prefer that these problems be 
settled in private negotiations as opposed to being legislated by this 
Senate all the time. But if they cannot be solved, we have the 
conference coming up. There are additional opportunities. I think at 
the moment the materials read by Senator Dole and myself here indicate 
very clearly that there are various small companies ranging from the 
National Cable Television Cooperative onward that are supporting 
Senator Dole's efforts.
  That is where we stand presently.
  Mr. EXON. Could I rephrase my question? I took it from the statements 
that the Senator from South Dakota just made that he is recommending we 
accept the Dole amendment because he believes, with the private 
negotiations that are going on, the Dole amendment would satisfy or 
solve the situation as of now, and that is why he has supported the 
Dole amendment.
 Is that a fair interpretation of what the Senator from South Dakota is 
saying?

  Mr. PRESSLER. No, the Senator from South Dakota has his own reasons 
for supporting the Dole amendment. I am supporting the Dole amendment 
because we have private agreements that are working these problems out, 
because the small cable companies and many other entities such as Black 
Entertainment Network, have supported that concept, that is, as of this 
time.
  If problems arise, if the private parties cannot work it out, then 
the Government should get involved. This is my opinion.
  I ask my friend from Nebraska, is he opposed to these things being 
worked out privately?
  Mr. EXON. No, I am not opposed to something being worked out 
privately at all, except that I am opposed to the concept that nothing 
privately is worked out until the last minute when changes are made, 
which leads me to my next question.
  It seems to me that what we are seeing is that Viacom and Time 
Warner, and all those other public-minded folks, are now at the last 
minute offering to have private negotiations with some of the smaller 
cable operators that they were not willing to do previously.
  Let me phrase the question this way: Why would it not be wise to 
leave the amendment as it came out of committee in place and not adopt 
the Dole amendment? Am I to understand that unless we adopt the Dole 
amendment under the pressure and under the unsavory acts that I think 
have taken place in the last few days, that unless we can accept the 
Dole amendment that negotiations will break down?
  Mr. PRESSLER. I think the Senator from Nebraska is tying things 
together here more than I would, in the sense that if one group of 
lobbyists behaves in a certain way, that does not mean that the 
underlying substance is changed.
  It is my strong feeling, and I have been on this same subject for 
years, that program access is a very important thing. Sometimes it is 
negotiated privately. For example, we have ESPN involved privately, 
without a law. I always prefer to do something in the free enterprise 
system privately than with a Government law, with a Government 
regulation. That is what we are talking about.
  I do not know what more to say to the Senator from Nebraska, except 
that I feel that the Dole amendment is a very positive thing.
  Mr. EXON. Just let me add, I could not disagree more with my friend 
and colleague from South Dakota. I happen to feel that we have a gun to 
our heads and probably a gun to the heads of the small cable operators, 
where all those good folks I mentioned before, Viacom and those other 
public-minded nonprofit operations, have a gun to the heads of the 
small cable operators and, as part of that, they are taking the United 
States hostage.
  It seems to me----
  Mr. PRESSLER. If the----
  Mr. EXON. I have the floor. It seems to me it would be much better to 
leave the measure as it is in hand and let them continue their 
negotiations. I point out again that I think anyone who understands the 
process knows we would not have had the Dole amendment had we not had 
action taken by the Senator from South Dakota, myself and others that 
forced their hand. It seems to me that we have forced their hand to try 
and give the small cable operators a decent chance. Now they are coming 
to us saying, ``We will give them the decent chance, maybe, if you 
don't pass the law.'' I think that is [[Page S8443]] putting the cart 
before the horse, but I have nothing further to say on the matter at 
this time.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I have the highest regard for my friend 
from Nebraska, and I have said so on this floor many times. He is a 
giant in this Senate and on our committee.
  I was watching Harry Truman's life story on TV the other night on 
``Biography.'' He was trying to settle the rail strike, I believe. He 
was speaking to Congress with proposed legislation when one of his 
Secretaries handed him a note, and he said that the parties have 
privately begun to negotiate and are going to arrive at a private 
settlement and he withdrew his legislation, or he lessened his 
legislation.
  Many criticized him. They said, ``Well, Harry Truman is a little too 
flexible, he is not standing as he said he would.''
  I like to read about Harry Truman. I found this a very interesting 
episode. And I am certainly not comparing myself to Harry Truman. I 
think he was a man of enormous stature.
  Analogously in the same case, private agreements are coming into 
place, and if we get letters from the various groups, small cable and 
Black Entertainment Television, and so forth, why would we have 
Government regulation at that point, just for the sake of having it? A 
lot of times parties negotiate, realizing that down the road if they do 
not, there is going to be a problem. Certainly, there is that 
interaction.
  So, in conclusion, I say I have great regard for my friend from 
Nebraska, but I think we are talking about two separate things here. I 
strongly support the Dole amendment.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
speak and vote against the Telecommunications Competition and 
Deregulation Act of 1995. I am deeply disappointed that I am not able 
to speak and vote in favor of it. For the past 10 years, I have been 
arguing for a radical overhaul of our telecommunications laws. They 
have not been changed significantly in the past 60 years, a time of 
unprecedented, breathtaking and, for many of us, I must confess, nearly 
incomprehensible change in the technologies of communication.
  The short description of what has happened in the past six decades 
since the 1934 Communications Act was passed is this: The need to 
continue monopoly franchises and the line of business restrictions has 
evaporated. The heat which turned the water of our law into steam is 
technology. Our laws have been overrun by changes in technology. 
Failure to acknowledge this and to liberate the businesses to compete 
has been detrimental to the consumer. Thus, the time for rewriting the 
people's law is long overdue.
  However, Mr. President, technology does not have a vote, people do, 
and the American people have a love-hate relationship with technology. 
They love it when it entertains or amuses, but they hate it when 
amusement turns violent, pornographic or threatening.
  They love it when they have the skills needed to survive the 
downsizing chain saw but hate it when a lifetime of dedication to doing 
a job well ends with a pink slip.
  Not only do the American people have mixed feelings about technology, 
but the attitude of the people and the attitude of corporations toward 
technology is decidedly different.
  Successful communication corporations must follow technology wherever 
it takes them. Successful communication corporations treat technology 
as if its status were somewhere between King and God. As people, we 
have learned the hard way that to worship technology is to select a 
graven image with a double-edge potential of doing grave harm and great 
good.
  All of this is said, Mr. President, to put a brake on the wild and 
woolly expressions of enthusiasm for the glory of these new 
technologies. No doubt they can serve us well, no doubt they can expand 
our reach and improve our capacity to produce, to learn and to govern 
ourselves. However, there is also no doubt they can lead us astray if 
we do not think carefully about where we want to go.
  We, the people, in our minds and our hearts, must drive these new 
technological wonders, or, most assuredly, they will drive us.
  Regrettably, the rewriting of our law we have witnessed has created 
the perception that this was not paramount in our deliberation. Indeed, 
the amendment before us now reinforces that perception. The perception 
is that the law was not done for or by the people of the United States 
of America. The perception has been created that it was done by and for 
the telecommunications corporations of America. Rather than being a 
Contract With America, this legislation looks like a contract with 
corporations.
  This is one reason Americans feel they have no power over their 
Government. Indeed, despite the scope of its impact on their lives, 
Americans neither asked for this bill, nor do many of them even know we 
engaged in this debate.
  To be clear, I have nothing against corporations, or the people who 
temporarily run them. Indeed, most Americans work for a corporation. 
However, corporations--particularly public corporations--are not 
people. Incorporation is a charter granted by the people's laws to an 
organization, usually for the purpose of ensuring perpetual life and 
providing many of the beneficial powers of an individual, like entering 
into contracts, buying and selling property, while shielding the 
organizations from many of the detrimental liabilities of being an 
individual, such as conscience and public responsibility.
  Public corporations provide first for shareowners and investors. If 
the analysts say that a CEO did the right thing by laying off 10,000 
employees with no severance pay, health care, or retirement, then a CEO 
would be judged incompetent not to make this move. If plant closings 
and downsizing are judged to be sound business decisions, the market 
will bid up the value of the stock and the salary of the responsible 
CEO. If selling products that turn America into a society of efficient 
players of electronic games and selectors of video programs is good for 
business, then a corporate board would fire any CEO whose conscience 
interfered with the need to produce revenue.
  This is not to say the managers of the leading telecommunications 
companies--who must be given credit for crafting and enacting this 
legislation--are heartless. They are not. This is not to say they are 
not concerned about the future of America or the quality of life in our 
country. They are. Nor does it mean that America does not benefit when 
tough-minded business executives make tough-minded business decisions. 
We do.
  However, it is to say that we should take care when corporations 
appeal for changes in the law on eleemosynary grounds. When they tell 
us the new law is going to be good for America and American consumers, 
we should take care to remember who it is that butters their bread: 
their share owners. And we should take care and remember who butters 
ours: American consumers, citizens, and voters.
  Over and over in this debate, we heard the phrase, ``We have struck a 
delicate balance between the various corporate interests,'' used in 
defense of a specific provision. Over and over when changes were 
proposed which would have given consumers and citizens some protection, 
this ``balancing of corporate concern'' was raised as a barrier.
  Regrettably, this has resulted in a law which will not guarantee that 
American households will have robust, competitive choices which would 
have ensured lower prices and higher quality. Regrettably, this law 
gives the power to those monopolies who already have the power to 
control the market and who will give consumers two choices: Take it or 
leave it.
  The regret I feel is a child of lost opportunity. We have lost an 
opportunity to seize a three-part promise. The promise I see with the 
technologies of communication is to create jobs, improve the 
performance of America's students, and strengthen democracy by helping 
our citizens become better informed. And while this legislation will 
undoubtedly produce some gains in all three areas, narrow corporate 
concerns prevented us from doing all that was possible. [[Page S8444]] 
  The regret I feel, as well, is also a consequence of believing that 
telecommunications is much more than just another business. 
Telecommunications defined is to communicate across a geographical 
space, across distances. Communication defined is one human being 
telling a story or delivering information to another. To communicate is 
to define what it means to be a human being.
  We are not just deregulating another business with this law. We are 
deregulating businesses which have been granted the right to control 
what we read, hear, and see. They decide what is news and what stories 
are worth telling. When it comes to defining who we are as people, it 
is not an exaggeration to suggest that these businesses are as powerful 
an influence as parents or religious leaders or teachers.
  What are the flaws of this bill which cause me to withhold an 
affirmative vote? The most important occurred before we started writing 
the legislation. The most important flaw was our attitude. We worried 
too much about liberating businesses and not enough about liberating 
people.
  As a consequence, we made a crucial error when we wrote the law. The 
most important flaw is that we did not give the Antitrust Division of 
the U.S. Department of Justice a determinative role in ensuring that 
robust competition occurs at the local level before allowing the 
monopoly to enter other lines of businesses. Competitive choice means 
that households have the power to tell a company they do not like the 
price or quality of the service. Consumers must be able to buy from 
someone else before they have real power over the seller.
  Substituting a checklist for the Antitrust Division of the Department 
of Justice is not an equal trade. A corporation could easily satisfy 
the checklist without giving the consumer competitive choice. And 
without competitive choice, this law will concentrate power away from 
the consumer.
  Last year, under the leadership of Senator Hollings of South 
Carolina, the Senate Commerce Committee reported a bill I could have 
supported. All but two members of the committee voted for a bill which 
gave the Department of Justice this determinative role. Unfortunately, 
in the distance and time traveled from November 8, 1994, to June 15, 
1995, the law was changed, and I can no longer support it.
  Why is it so important, Mr. President, to American consumers to have 
the Department of Justice with a determinative role? The answer can be 
found by following one of the most frequently used arguments in support 
of this bill: Consumers benefited when AT&T was forced to compete in 
1982. Well, guess who was responsible for forcing them to compete? Was 
it the Congress? Was it the Federal Communications Commission?
  Listening to the arguments against the Department of Justice role, or 
looking at the law itself, you might assume that the answer would be 
that Congress or the FCC made them compete. If you did, Mr. President, 
you would be wrong. It was the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
Justice that sued AT&T. It was the Antitrust Division of the Department 
of Justice that forced AT&T to compete. It was the Antitrust Division 
of the Department of Justice that should be given credit by consumers 
for the lower prices and higher quality service in long distance.
  Neither Congress nor the Federal Communications Commission had the 
guts or the power to take on AT&T. So I guess it should not be 
surprising that under the banner of competition and deregulation, we 
pass a law that perpetuates the power of the monopolies.
  Mr. President, this legislation is not without merit. It will help 
America's schools and America's school children take advantage of the 
technologies information age by ensuring affordable infrastructure, 
connectivity, and rates. It does preserve the goal of universal service 
for all of America's communities. It does encourage some competition by 
smaller carriers at the local level through joint marketing, a strong 
section favoring network interoperability and good interconnection and 
unbundling requirements in section 251.
  It contains strengthened provisions for rural customers: Comparable 
services at comparable rates; geographic toll rate averaging; evolving 
national definition of universal service; support for essential 
telecommunications providers; waivers and modifications of 
interconnection requirements for rural telephone companies, and 
infrastructure sharing.
  We fought for and succeeded in including in the law some protections 
for consumers including the prohibition of cable/telco joint ventures 
and buyouts except in rural markets of 50,000 or less,
 allowing State regulators to consider profits of telephone companies 
when using rate regulation methods other than rate of return, ensuring 
that price flexibility should not be used to allow revenues from 
noncompetitive services to subsidize competitive services, and 
protecting ratepayers from paying civil penalties, damages, or interest 
for violations by local exchange carriers.

  With all of these good things, Mr. President, I regret the absence of 
a Department of Justice determinative role all the more. With the 
Department of Justice ensuring competition, consumers would not have to 
doubt that they would have a courageous, procompetitive Federal force 
on their side. Without it, we must trust that the corporations will do 
the right thing.
  Mr. President, this legislation burdens trust too much. Ultimately 
this bill is about power. The bottom line is that in this case, 
corporations have it and consumers do not. Accordingly, I must vote 
``no''.
  Some things have been said in the heat of debate about the Department 
of Justice and the Antitrust Division that just are not true, and I 
would like to take this opportunity to correct the record.
  For example, it has been said that the Antitrust Division has 800 or 
900 attorneys. It has been said that it has several hundred lawyers 
acting as regulators. The fact is that the Antitrust Division had 323 
attorneys total--to carry out all of its responsibilities--at the end 
of fiscal year 1994. This number is about 30 percent lower than the 
number of attorneys the Antitrust Division had in 1980 and is about 
equal to the number that it had more than 20 years ago during the Nixon 
administration, when the economy was much smaller, less global and less 
complex and when antitrust enforcement was less challenging.
  When we talk about growth of bureaucracy, we certainly cannot 
reasonably mean the Antitrust Division. The Antitrust Division has for 
years been doing what we now ask of all Government agencies--carrying 
out vital missions more effectively, more efficiently and with fewer 
resources. With its relatively limited number of attorneys, the 
Antitrust Division has pursued vigorously criminal enforcement of the 
antitrust laws, a strong merger review program, civil antitrust 
enforcement and all of its other responsibilities.
  It has been said that DOJ has failed to comply with a court order to 
review MFJ waiver requests within 30 days. The fact is that Judge 
Greene in 1984 issued instructions regarding how DOJ should handle 
specified waivers then pending and established a schedule under which 
DOJ had 30 days to handle those specific waivers. Those waivers, 
incidentally, were far less complex and sensitive than the waivers 
pending today. DOJ complied with that order and has fully complied with 
all schedules set by Judge Greene.
  It has been said that DOJ has refused to conduct triennial reviews. 
In 1989, while the appeal of the first triennial review was still 
pending--it would not be finally resolved until 1992--Judge Greene gave 
DOJ complete discretion whether and when to file any subsequent 
triennial reviews.
  He noted that the need for triennial reviews was not as great as had 
been anticipated when originally conceived. As it turned out, Judge 
Greene observed, there had been ``a process of almost continuous review 
generated by an incessant stream of regional company motions and 
requests dealing with all aspects of the line of business 
restrictions.''
 United States versus Western Electric Co., slip op. at 1, July 17, 
1989, [emphasis added]. Judge Greene pointed out that he had 
``repeatedly considered broad issues regarding information services, 
manufacturing, and even long distance.'' Id. He explained that ``as 
soon as there is a change, real or imaginary, in the in- 
[[Page S8445]] dustry or the markets, motions are filed and all aspects 
of the issue are reviewed in dozens of briefs.'' Id. at n.2. Further 
triennial reviews thus would have been duplicative of work that was 
already being done.
  Judge Greene's observations are still valid. Over the life of the 
MFJ, incredible as it sounds, the Bell companies have filed an average 
of one waiver request every 2 weeks. They have buried the Department of 
Justice in an avalanche of paper--something never expected when the MFJ 
was entered. Now, some say they are ``shocked, shocked'' that the Bells 
do not expeditiously receive the approval they claim their requests 
merit.
  And in fact, what amounts to a triennial review is underway right 
now, as DOJ investigates a motion pursued by three Bell companies to 
vacate the entire decree without any of the safeguards in S. 652, even 
in States where local competition is still illegal. This investigation 
will be completed in the next few months, with a report that will 
provide a comprehensive review of the need for continuing the line of 
business restrictions.
  It has been said that the Bell companies' so-called generic request--
that is, a consolidated request joined by all the Bell companies--for a 
wireless waiver is still awaiting action. In fact, Judge Greene has 
approved that request.
  A colleague referred to that wireless waiver as simple. It was not. 
The initial request was very broad. It attracted a tremendous amount of 
comment and concern at the outset and each time it changed 
substantially. And change it did--it went from a very broad waiver to 
one carefully tailored and conditioned to protect competition. The long 
distance companies and the Bell companies disagreed with DOJ's ultimate 
recommendation to Judge Greene. That is not unusual. But Judge Greene 
adopted most of the provisions that DOJ recommended. DOJ exercises its 
responsibility by doing what is best for competition, not what one 
industry or another prefers.
  It has been said that DOJ has not acted on a request for a waiver 
that would allow the Bell companies to offer long distance service in
 connection with information services. In fact, DOJ has recommended to 
Judge Greene that he approve the request, as modified after extensive 
negotiations between DOJ and the Bell companies.

  The case of the information services waiver illustrates how any 
purported delay in resolving waiver requests relates to the overbreadth 
of the original Bell companies' requests. Much of the time between the 
filing of the initial waiver and DOJ's recommendation in favor of a 
heavily modified waiver occurred after DOJ rendered a decision based on 
the original waiver and informed the Bell companies that it would not 
support the waiver.
  The details of the information services case are worth recounting at 
some length, because they belie some of the charges that have been 
leveled over the past several days.
  In 1987, DOJ asked Judge Greene to eliminate the restriction on the 
Bell companies' provision of information services. DOJ did so over 
intense opposition from the information services industry, because of 
DOJ's conclusion that eliminating the restriction would promote 
competition in the information services market. But DOJ's focus was on 
competition and consumers. DOJ was not trying to protect vested 
industry interests or some role as a regulator. DOJ's position was 
initially rejected by Judge Greene, but after a reversal and remand by 
the Court of Appeals, the information services restriction was removed 
in 1992.
  While seeking to lift the information services restriction, DOJ did 
not support authorizing the Bell companies to bundle interexchange 
service with their information services. The reason for this is that 
there is no clear distinction between information services and 
conventional telephone services. The FCC has been struggling for nearly 
two decades to define and enforce such a distinction in its Computer I, 
Computer II, and Computer III proceedings, which have tried to 
distinguish between basic services--including interexchange voice 
services--which are regulated, and enhanced services--or information 
services--which are unregulated. This has been one of the most 
prolonged and difficult proceedings in the history of the FCC.
  Because there is no clear distinction between information services 
and basic services, a decision to allow the Bell companies to bundle 
interexchange services would substantially eliminate the core MFJ 
prohibition against their provision of interexchange service. The Bell
 companies tried to argue in court that the court's decision to lift 
the information services restriction meant that they could engage in 
such bundling, without any restrictions or safeguards. This 
interpretation by the Bell companies would have given them much more 
freedom than S. 652 proposes to do today. But that argument was firmly 
rejected by DOJ, Judge Greene and a unanimous panel of the Court of 
Appeals.

  Judge Silberman of the Court of Appeals concluded that the Bell 
companies ``urge a rather strained interpretation of the language of 
the decree--The Bell companies' interpretation--it seems rather 
obvious, would create an enormous loophole in the core restriction of 
the decree.'' 907 F.2d 160, at 163
  Against this background, the Bell companies filed a waiver request in 
June 1993 that would have allowed them to bundle their information 
services with interexchange service. In doing so, they again sought to 
create what Judge Silberman had described as an enormous loophole in 
the interexchange restriction. In effect, they would have been able to 
offer interexchange service without the safeguards that are required by 
S. 652.
  The Bell companies' waiver request naturally provoked strong 
opposition from the interexchange carriers and information services 
providers. DOJ gave the Bell companies an opportunity to respond to the 
arguments against their waiver, and the Bell company responses were 
filed in February 1994. After reviewing the Bell companies' arguments 
and the many arguments that had been submitted in opposition to the 
request, the DOJ told the Bell companies that it would not support the 
waiver request. The Bell companies were free at that time to challenge 
the DOJ decision in court. But presumably because they recognized that 
they had little chance of winning in the face of a clear decision by 
the Court of Appeals, the Bell companies chose to narrow their original 
waiver request to seek a more reasonable waiver.
  The Bell companies submitted a somewhat narrower proposal to DOJ soon 
thereafter. DOJ again rejected the proposal, because it still did not 
deal with the loophole that the Court of Appeals had identified.
  The Bell companies finally submitted a third proposal that was 
substantially narrower. This time, DOJ indicated that it would support 
the proposal. This last proposal has now been briefed and is awaiting 
decision by Judge Greene.
  The reason for the delay in processing this waiver was that the Bell
   companies submitted--not once but twice--a waiver request that was 
very broad. Their proposal would have resulted in an enormous loophole 
in the core restriction of the MFJ. As a practical matter, this 
loophole would have given them much of the relief that S. 652 would 
give them, but without any of the safeguards that accompany such relief 
in S. 652. It does not make sense to criticize the Department of 
Justice for refusing to give the Bell companies what the authors of S. 
652 certainly do not intend to give them in S. 652.

  DOJ acted to protect competition and consumers. When DOJ supported 
the removal of the information services restriction in 1987, it did so 
over strong opposition from the information services industry. DOJ's 
support for the recent information services waiver has been strongly 
opposed by the interexchange carriers and by information services 
providers. DOJ isn't protecting industry turf; it's doing what's right 
for competition.
  As the information services case demonstrates, the Department always 
has been willing to take the time to work with the Bell companies to 
fix waiver requests so that the Bell companies can get as much MFJ 
relief as is consistent with the consent decree's protection of 
competition in markets that the Bell companies seek to enter. Of the 
waivers approved by the Court in 1993-94 that were not mere duplicates 
of waivers filed by another Bell company, fully 60 percent were the 
product of negotiations between DOJ and the Bell companies that 
resulted in 
[[Page S8446]] a modification of the original waiver request.
  To be sure, these complex, negotiated requests generate a lot of 
public comment and concern. The number of comments per waiver for 
waivers filed in 1993-1994 is nearly six times the comments per waiver 
in 1984-1992. This is not surprising, as the more recent waivers go to 
the MFJ's core restrictions. This modification and comment process 
works to obtain workable waiver proposals while still protecting 
competition, as the information services case illustrates.
  The fundamental point is that DOJ acted to protect competition and 
consumers. DOJ's support for the revised information services waiver 
has been strongly opposed by long distance and information services 
providers. But again, DOJ doesn't protect industry turf--it does what 
is right for competition.
  Of course, no discussion of purported delay in the waiver process 
would be complete without noting the Bell companies' filing of
 overlapping and duplicative waiver requests. For example, several Bell 
companies filed a request to vacate the MFJ, seeking to completely 
eliminate its restrictions without replacing those restrictions with 
any safeguards or requirements, such as those contained in S. 652. Once 
again, the Bell companies sought relief that the Congress likely would 
not approve. The Bell companies argued that this motion was critically 
important to them, and urged prompt action on it. DOJ agreed that it 
would make this request its first priority.

  But less than a week after submitting the request to vacate the MFJ 
entirely, one of the companies filed a separate waiver request for so-
called out-of-region relief. But that request is completely subsumed in 
the motion to vacate. And the other Bell companies that had filed the 
sweeping motion to vacate the MFJ apparently delayed and stalled in 
producing documents that DOJ required in order to evaluate the merits 
of the motion.
  The AirTouch story that has been repeated during this debate is also 
not nearly as simple as has been suggested. Loosely casting aspersions 
on the independence and integrity of the Department of Justice in 
relation to its position on the AirTouch matter is deeply wrong. DOJ 
has enforced the terms of the MFJ through Republican and Democratic 
administrations of vastly different ideologies.
  The Department has explained its position on the AirTouch matter in a 
letter to House Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley. Regardless of what 
one thinks of the merits, the bottom line is that the Department has a 
responsibility under existing law to uphold the terms of the MFJ that 
differs from that of Congress, which can write new laws. I will include 
that letter in the Record.
  It has been said on the Senate floor that DOJ has repudiated the 
VIII(C) test of the MFJ through the Ameritech plan, which I have 
supported since Ameritech introduced its Customers First program. The 
Ameritech Plan is completely consistent with the standard established 
by Section VIII(C) of the MFJ, because it builds on the idea that one 
possible basis for satisfying VIII(C) is if the development of local 
competition removes the ability of the Bell company to use the local 
monopoly to hurt competition in long distance. I encourage colleagues 
to read the Department's Ameritech brief, which the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina put in the Record a few weeks ago.
  The plan does not preclude Ameritech or any other Bell company
   from seeking VIII(C) relief in spite of the continued existence of 
the local monopoly. In fact, DOJ has supported numerous waiver requests 
where--in spite of the existence of the local monopoly--safeguards or 
other constraints ensured that there was no substantial possibility 
that the Bell company could use the local monopoly to impede 
competition in the market it sought to enter. Most recently--and after 
it outlined the approach of the Ameritech plan--DOJ supported the Bell 
companies' request for a waiver to provide long distance service in 
connection with information services.

  It has been said that DOJ forced the Ameritech plan on Ameritech. In 
fact, the Ameritech plan originated with Ameritech itself. The plan now 
enjoys an unprecedented breadth of support among interested parties. It 
is supported by a Bell company, AT&T, Sprint, other long distance 
competitors, local competitors like MFS, consumer groups, the FCC, 
state regulators from all the States in Ameritech's territory, the 
Republican governor of Illinois and numerous other industry 
participants. In joint comments filed with the court in support of the 
plan, which I will include in the Record, the regulatory commissions 
from Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin praised the proposal as a 
decisive step toward the goal of a competitive telecommunications 
market. This remarkable consensus is a lot more than S. 652 has 
attracted, and I commend Ameritech for taking this historic step.
  DOJ has been criticized in this debate because the draft Ameritech 
order is 40 pages long. Forty pages doesn't seem like too much, when 
one considers that the order seeks to do something that has never been 
done before by anticipating the opening of a complex, monopolized 
market to competition and allowing a Bell company to enter a long 
distance market measured in the billions of dollars. But this criticism 
is especially ironic because it comes in a debate over a bill that 
seeks to do much the same thing as the Ameritech proposal--but that is 
some 150 pages long and getting longer as we speak. And while this 150-
page bill has been the subject of much debate--to say the least--the 
40-page Ameritech order enjoys unprecedented support from a broad array 
of interested parties.
  It has been said that the Ameritech plan will shift power from State 
and Federal regulators to the Department of Justice. In fact, the 
implementation of the market opening provisions agreed to by Ameritech 
will be handled by State regulators and industry participants. The 
DOJ's
 role is to assess the end result: the marketplace effects of those 
market opening provisions.

  The plan fully preserves the traditional functions of State and 
Federal regulators, as evidenced by the fact that the plan enjoys the 
support of all the State regulatory commissions in Ameritech's region 
and of the FCC. Moreover, the plan has the sort of safeguards and 
standby authority for DOJ that are well suited to an untried and 
groundbreaking initiative.
  I have here, Mr. President, a letter to Assistant Attorney General 
Bingaman from Craig Glazer, the chairman of the Ohio Public Utilities 
Commission. Writing on behalf of all the State regulatory commissions 
in the Ameritech region, he praises the Department of Justice for its 
efforts in negotiating the Ameritech plan. Mr. Glazer writes, in part, 
that ``the willingness of the Department of Justice to work with and 
specifically accommodate a number of State concerns represented an 
exemplary level of cooperation and teamwork between the Department and 
the State commissions.'' I will include the entire letter in the 
Record.
  The point that comes through loud and clear from this letter and from 
the briefs that State officials have filed with Judge Greene in support 
of the Ameritech plan is that DOJ is not trying to displace regulators 
or become a regulator itself. Governor Edgar of Illinois, for example, 
lauded ``the Proposed Order's reliance on State regulators to 
complement the Department's supervisory role of the proposed trial.'' I 
will conclude Governor Edgar's comments in the Record. DOJ has proposed 
a well-crafted plan that maintains the traditional roles of all 
involved agencies. The State regulators and the FCC regulate; the 
Department of Justice assesses competition.
  Mr. President, this bill deals with complicated issues, and there is 
a lot of room for reasonable people to disagree. But a lot of the 
things said about the Department of Justice were just plain wrong. I 
appreciate this opportunity to correct the record.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letters and other 
material printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             [[Page S8447]] Department of Justice,


                                           Antitrust Division,

                                 Washington, DC, January 31, 1995.
     Re AirTouch Communications, Inc.

     Hon. Thomas J. Bliley,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bliley: Thank you for your letter of January 
     27, 1995 concerning the status of AirTouch Communications, 
     Inc. (``AirTouch'') under the Modification of Final Judgment 
     (``MFJ'') in United States v. Western Electric, Co., Inc. I 
     appreciate your interest in this matter, and I understand 
     that this issue has significant implications for AirTouch and 
     perhaps other cellular telephone companies.
       As I will explain, the Department's recent action 
     concerning AirTouch's status under the MFJ does not reflect a 
     decision about the important competition policy issues to 
     which your letter refers. We fully agree with you on the 
     importance of those policy questions, and look forward to 
     working with you to resolve them. As you know, I testified 
     before a subcommiteee of the Committee on Commerce last year 
     in favor of comprehensive telecommunications legislation 
     based on competitive principles.
       The only competition policy issue with respect to this 
     AirTouch matter is whether we are willing to work with 
     AirTouch on an appropriate waiver of the applicable MFJ 
     provision--and you should know that we offered to do so 
     before announcing our decision on the complaint that prompted 
     our review of this matter. AirTouch did not accept that 
     invitation.
       I provide additional background below in response to your 
     letter, including the respective roles of the Department and 
     court under the MFJ on questions such as the AirTouch issue; 
     the benefits to competition and consumers from the MFJ: the 
     Department's reasoning and position on the AirTouch matter; 
     and the Department's cooperation with AirTouch to facilitate 
     court action now.


                  the department's role under the mfj

       First, let me put our role under the MFJ in context. As you 
     know, the MFJ is a court decree which resolved a hard-fought 
     litigation. Relief from the MFJ can only be given by a court, 
     not by the Department of Justice. While we make our position 
     known to the court, it is the court and not the Department 
     which determines disputes about the coverage of the MFJ.
       The court also has the power to give relief from provisions 
     of the MFJ which become unnecessary. As you are aware, the 
     Department is supporting an MFJ waiver which would allow 
     cellular service providers affiliated with RBOCs to provide 
     long-distance services, subject to certain safeguards, and 
     this waiver is pending before the Court. The cellular market 
     will be moving from the duopoly model toward more vigorous 
     competition, a trend that will accelerate with completion of 
     the spectrum auction and deployment of PCS. We also hope that 
     landline local exchange competition will become lawful and 
     real. If such developments occur, more relief will certainly 
     be appropriate.


                        the benefits of the MFJ

       In discussing how the MFJ is applied, it is useful to bear 
     in mind what I know you understand--the pivotal role of the 
     MFJ in unleashing the competition that has put our country at 
     the forefront of the telecommunications revolution. I am also 
     particularly pleased that the case against the telephone 
     monopoly and supervision of the MFJ has been a priority at 
     Democratic and
      Republican Departments of Justice alike, and that my 
     antitrust professor, Bill Baxter, who served as Assistant 
     Attorney General for Antitrust during the Reagan 
     Administration, successfully negotiated the historic MFJ.
       Since the MFJ, multiple fiber optic networks have been 
     constructed by long distance competitors, consumers have 
     reaped steeply lower long distance prices while dramatically 
     increasing their minutes of usage, and according to a January 
     21, 1995 front page story in the New York Times headlined 
     ``No-Holds Barred Battle For Long-Distance Calls,'' at least 
     25 million residential telephone customers exercised a choice 
     in 1994 by switching long distance carriers. The 
     telecommunication equipment and services market have simply 
     exploded.
       Moreover, it is this growing competition, which can be 
     accelerated through legislation which opens local markets to 
     real competition while continuing to protect consumers and 
     competition from monopolists, that will provide opportunities 
     for deregulation.


                   the department's airtouch position

       Our position in the AirTouch matter does not reflect an 
     antitrust or policy judgment about the cellular industry. 
     Instead, it reflects our interpretation of a narrow, but 
     extremely important, question concerning the continuing 
     applicability of antitrust decrees after the sale or 
     reorganization of corporate antitrust defendants. Section III 
     of the MFJ includes a provision, contained in virtually all 
     of the government's antitrust decrees, making its limitations 
     applicable to ``successors'' to the corporate entities 
     originally bound by the decree. Such provisions are included 
     to ensure that a decree's requirements cannot be avoided 
     simply through a reorganization or transfer of ownership of 
     the businesses that are subject to the decree. Without such 
     limitations, of course, it would be relatively easy for an 
     antitrust defendant to avoid its legal obligation to comply 
     with a decree through a transfer of significant assets, 
     restructuring or reorganization, thereby rendering the decree 
     ineffective.
       The position the Department has taken in response to the 
     complaint submitted to it concerning AirTouch was made in the 
     context of this history. AirTouch was spun off from one of 
     the seven regional holding companies. It continues to 
     operate, among other things, the cellular telephone business 
     previously owned by that regional holding company and is 
     subject to a common consent decree provision applying the 
     decree to ``successors.''
       In your letter, you refer to the purpose of the ``spin 
     off'' from Pacific Telesis as to avoid MFJ objections. In 
     this regard I want to advise you that neither AirTouch nor 
     Pacific Telesis chose to submit any request for written 
     guidance on this question to the Court or to the Department 
     at the time of the transaction. Moreover, AirTouch's 
     disclosure documents reflect that they understood and told 
     the public that there was a risk that a determination such as 
     we just made might ensue. (See Attachment)
       After careful consideration of the history of the MFJ and 
     the decisions interpreting its provisions, and after detailed 
     consideration of AirTouch's arguments about the meaning of 
     the relevant MFJ provisions, the Department concluded that 
     AirTouch is a ``successor'' within the meaning of Section III 
     of the MFJ.


                     our cooperation with airtouch

       We have worked with AirTouch to assure that it will be able 
     to continue its current business activities while seeking a 
     ruling by the District Court on the question of whether it 
     should be considered a ``successor'' under the MFJ. This is a 
     legal question AirTouch can bring to the court. In the 
     meanwhile, in light of the assurances AirTouch has given us 
     that they will not undertake any new activities that could be 
     viewed as violating the MFJ, we informed AirTouch that we 
     have no intention of seeking enforcement action against them 
     pending a decision by court as to their status under the MFJ.
       Also, as you know, the MFJ contains provisions that allow 
     parties to seek waivers or modifications if their activities, 
     although technically covered by the decree, do not pose 
     competitive problems. We have stated clearly to AirTouch that 
     our position on the complaint before us rests solely on the 
     meaning of the ``successor'' provision of the MFJ, and that 
     they should not construe our position as reflecting a 
     decision to oppose a waiver of MFJ restrictions which might 
     be sought pursuant to section VIII (C) of the MFJ. Rather, we 
     informed AirTouch that we would work with them to seek an 
     appropriate waiver. Although AirTouch has not sought a waiver 
     at this time, the opportunity to do so will continue to be 
     available to them.
       I know that you and the Committee understand and appreciate 
     the importance and flexible nature of section VIII (C) where 
     market conditions are changing. That is no doubt one of the 
     reasons that the telecommunications legislation reported last 
     Congress by the Committee on Commerce, which passed the House 
     of Representatives with more than 420 votes, provided that 
     the Department of Justice should apply this test to determine 
     when, among other things, the RBOCs should be permitted to 
     enter the long distance market.
       I hope that this information is helpful to you in analyzing 
     the Department's position in the AirTouch matter. With 
     respect to the ATT matter that you briefly touch upon, this 
     was addressed primarily under the Clayton Act and not under 
     the MFJ, and requires separate discussion.
       I would be very happy to discuss these or other 
     telecommunications matters with you at our scheduled meeting 
     or at your convenience.
           Sincerely,
     Anne K. Bingaman.
                                                                    ____

                     [From the Wall Street Journal]

                Pacific Telesis Ignored U.S. on AirTouch

                           (By Leslie Cauley)

       New York.--Pacific Telesis Group ignored statements by the 
     Justice Department in 1993 suggesting that its cellular 
     spinoff could run afoul of the court decree governing the 
     Baby Bells, a senior department official said.
       Now the spinoff, AirTouch Communications, is scrambling to 
     win a federal judge's approval lest it be forced to scale 
     back drastically its ambitious plans for future expansion.
       Rules governing the Bell System breakup prohibit the seven 
     Baby Bells and their service spinoffs from offering long-
     distance communication services or making phone gear.
       But Pacific Telesis, based in San Francisco, brushed aside 
     these restrictions when it spun off the unit almost two years 
     ago, said Robert Litan, deputy assistant attorney general for 
     the Justice Department's antitrust division.
       ``We indicated to them at that time that it was an open 
     question,'' Mr. Litan said, particularly since the unit had 
     retained network facilities it had used as a Bell entity.
       Air-Touch recently began transmitting long-distance calls 
     on its cellular network, and it is developing phone 
     equipment. On Jan. 11, the Justice Department formally 
     notified AirTouch that it must abide by the terms of the 
     decree just like its former parent.
       Officials at Pacific Telesis and Air-Touch expressed 
     surprise at the department's [[Page S8448]] stance, noting 
     that Justice Department officials had known for at least two 
     years of AirTouch's intention to enter markets banned to the 
     Bells.
       ``We could not have been more clear about what we were 
     talking about,'' said Richard Odgers, Pacific Telesis' 
     general counsel. Moreover, he added, three law firms hired by 
     the company came to the same conclusion that the decree 
     didn't apply to AirTouch.
       Justice Department officials counter that its antitrust 
     division, as a prosecuting arm of the government, doesn't 
     offer casual assessments. Pacific Telesis ``could have made a 
     request for a formal (legal) opinion'' when the spinoff was 
     being contemplated in 1993, Mr. Litan said. ``But they never 
     did that. They went ahead and took their chances.''
       AirTouch's public documents issued at the time it went 
     public indicate that it knew it might be jumping the gun if 
     it pursued business barred by the decree. The company's 
     November 1993 prospectus, released in anticipation of its 
     initial public offering last spring, noted that there was no 
     assurance ``that DOJ or a third party might not object at 
     some time in the future or that the courts might not agree'' 
     with AirTouch's opinion that it wasn't subject to the decree 
     restrictions.
       The prospectus added that AirTouch had advised the Justice 
     Department of ``its belief that the [decree] would not apply 
     to the company after the spinoff. . . . [and] DOJ has not 
     stated any intention to object [Pacific] Telesis' position.''
       Margaret Gill, an AirTouch senior vice president, 
     maintained last week that ``that statement was made because 
     we had carefully noted conversations with appropriate senior 
     officials at the department.''
       Department opinions aren't binding with the courts, and 
     even when it finds nothing objectionable, the agency can take 
     action later. But it is virtually unheard of for the Justice 
     Department to prosecute a company for engaging in activities 
     that have been subject to a formal review, a process that can 
     take several months or more to complete.
       AirTouch has big plans. Besides operating one of the 
     nation's largest cellular phone networks, the company already 
     has begun offering highly profitable long-distance services 
     in its territories. AirTouch is also building systems in 
     international markets that will be tied through a 
     sophisticated satellite network.
       The company has proposed merging with the cellular unit of 
     former sibling US West Inc. Together, AirTouch and US West 
     are bidding with two other Baby Bells--Bell Atlantic Corp. 
     and Nynex Corp.--for new wireless ``personal communications 
     services'' licenses, with plans to build a nationwide PCS 
     network offering anywhere-anytime wireless calling.
       Efforts by AirTouch to boost growth and profits by also 
     providing the long-distance links to its subscribers could be 
     cut off if the company doesn't win a favorable ruling from 
     the courts. A $7.5 million investment by the company in a 
     satellite venture also seems in jeopardy.
       AirTouch didn't reveal the department's concerns until last 
     week, when it asked federal Judge Harold Greene for an 
     immediate ruling saying AirTouch isn't subject to the decree. 
     In the meantime, AirTouch has agreed to stop further 
     expansion into prohibited businesses and the department has 
     agreed not to take action against the company until a 
     decision is rendered.
       AirTouch's predicament underscores the gravity with which 
     the U.S. government still views the restrictions on the 
     regional Bell monopolies. the crackdown on the fledgling Bell 
     spinoff could presage similar moves against the other Bell 
     affiliates that were cut loose but are still considered local 
     service bottlenecks.
       Many telecommunications attorneys believe AirTouch won't 
     get a favorable ruling from Judge Greene, who has 
     historically taken a hard line in interpreting the decree. 
     But they think it will prevail in the courts.
       But that could take years, according to some attorneys. 
     However, AirTouch could ask for a waiver from the courts that 
     could ask for a waiver from the courts that would allow it to 
     continue its operations unchanged.
       Even with its current predicament, AirTouch still has a 
     healthy core business providing cellular services in its 
     territory. The company's fledgling long-distance business is 
     a miniscule part of total operations, and it has a stock 
     market value of about $14 billion. The company, which has had 
     growth rates of greater than 30%, is expected to release 
     fourth-quarter earnings on Wednesday.
                                                                    ____

                                              The Public Utilities


                                           Commission of Ohio,

                                                   April 25, 1995.
     Ms. Anne Bingaman,
     Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 
         Antitrust Division, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Bingaman: I am writing to you in my capacity as 
     Chairman of the Ameritech Regional Regulatory Committee 
     (ARRC). ARRC is an ad hoc group of the five state regulatory 
     commissions in the Ameritech region: Illinois, Indiana, 
     Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The ARRC mission is to 
     facilitate the exchange of information among the public 
     utility commissions of the five states regarding 
     telecommunications issues in general and telephone companies 
     operating within the five respective jurisdictions in 
     particular. The ARRC is made up of representatives of the 
     commissions and/or staffs of the Illinois Commerce 
     Commission, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, the 
     Michigan Public Service Commission, the Ohio Public Utilities 
     Commission and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
       On behalf of the ARRC, I want to thank you and members of 
     the Department Staff for devoting many hours to meeting with 
     the ARRC to seek input from and accommodate concerns raised 
     by the respective state regulatory commissions and/or their 
     staffs concerning the proposed request to Judge Greene to 
     authorize an interLATA experiment in parts of Michigan and 
     Illinois. Specifically, Mr. Willard Tom and Robert Litan of 
     your Staff traveled to the region and met with the ARRC staff 
     on a number of occasions concerning the proposed experiment. 
     Moreover, the ARRC staff representatives received and were 
     allowed to have input on the various drafts leading up to the 
     proposed modification of the Decree filed with the Court on 
     April 3, 1995. Although there may still be issues which 
     individual state commissions and the ARRC may be raising in 
     comments before Judge Greene, I can say on behalf of all of 
     the ARRC states that the willingness of the Department of 
     Justice to work with and specifically accommodate a number of 
     state concerns represented an exemplary level of cooperation 
     and team work between the Department and the state 
     commissions.
       Should the modification to the Decree be adopted by Judge 
     Greene, by its own terms it calls for various regulatory and 
     enforcement activities to be undertaken both by the States 
     and the Department of Justice. I am heartened by the 
     cooperative process that has occurred to date and feel that 
     it bodes well for implementing the proposed trial in a manner 
     which is in the public interest.
       Again, on behalf of the ARRC, I express my sincere thanks 
     for the Department's extra efforts to hear and attempt to 
     accommodate state regulatory issues and concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Craig A. Glazer,
                                                    ARRC Chairman.

  Mr. KERREY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand I have 3 minutes. I yield 
myself such time as I may need. I ask for 1 minute as in morning 
business out of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________