[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 98 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8449-S8458]
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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in 1934, when the last major piece of 
communication regulation was passed, we had radios and telephones, and 
often telephones had many parties on the same line.
  Now we have telephones, radios, computers, modems, fax machines, 
cable television, direct broadcasting satellite, cellular phones, and 
an array of budding new technological improvements to communication.
  As a matter of fact, I believe this period in modern history will be 
marked singly by the advances that humankind is going to make with 
reference to communications. I think it will add appreciably to the 
wealth of nations. It will add significantly to the time people have to 
do other things because it will dramatically produce efficiencies in 
communication that were unheard of. It will bring people together who 
are miles apart.
  We can dream and envision the kind of things that will happen by just 
looking at what has happened to cellular phones, to portable phones, 
and think of how communications is going to advance.
  Mr. President, fellow Senators, it is obvious that we have a law on 
the books and court decisions governing this industry that shackle it 
and deny the American people, and, yes, the people of the world, the 
real advantages that will come from telecommunications advances that 
are part of a marketplace that is competitive, where the great ideas of 
people can quickly find themselves converted from ideas to research, 
from research to technologies, and then rapidly into the marketplace to 
serve various needs of business, of individuals, of schools and on and 
on.
  Some New Mexicans have told me, ``We are happy with the phone service 
we have now. What are we changing in this legislation, and why must we 
change it?'' Obviously, we are not going to be changing the phone 
service other than making the options that our people have, giving them 
more options, making the communication, be it a telephone, a more 
modern thing, and people will be able to do much more by way of 
communicating than before.
  People should not fear, but rather look at this as a new dawn of 
opportunity and a way to communicate and enhance freedom beyond 
anything we could have comprehended 20 or 30 years ago.
  It stands to reason that with all of that happening--and part of it 
has grown up under regulation and part of it not--it is time to change 
that old law and do something better, take some chances, if you will, 
with the marketplace. It will not come out perfect.
  I just heard my good friend from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, indicate 
he was concerned. Obviously, I am less concerned than he. I believe 
this bill will cause much, much more good than the possibility for harm 
that might come because we may not totally understand the end product.
  It may be difficult to totally understand the end product of this 
deregulation. Anybody that is that intelligent, knows that much about 
it, it seems to me, is well beyond what we have around here. Maybe 
there is not anybody in the country that could figure out where all of 
this will lead.
  It is obvious to this Senator that if we are looking for 
productivity, if we are looking to enhancing communication, new 
technology, investment, new jobs, new gross domestic product growth, we 
must deregulate this industry.
  There is great capacity--both human and natural--and there are large 
amounts of assets tied up in this industry. We have to let them loose 
to grow, compete and prosper.
  I hope on the many issues that we voted on, that we came down on the 
right side. I do not think one should vote against this bill because 
one or two of their amendments did not pass.
  Fundamentally, this is a giant step in the right direction.
  We have outgrown the Communications Act of 1934. It is time to pass 
the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995. This 
legislation will foster the explosion of technology, bring more choices 
and lower prices to consumers, promote international competitiveness, 
productivity, and job growth.
  This legislation will open up local phone service to competition and 
when this market is open, allow local phone companies to enter the long 
distance markets. This will create more competition resulting in lower 
prices and better services for the consumer.
  Some New Mexicans have told me ``we are happy with the phone service 
we have now. Why do we need legislation to change it?'' What I want to 
tell my fellow New Mexicans is that this legislation will not disrupt 
the phone service that they depend upon now.
  What the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 
will do is provide consumers with more choices and lower prices in long 
distance phone service and television programming. The legislation also 
preserves the universal service fund which subsidizes telephone service 
to rural areas.
  Right now, consumers have a choice of what company they want to 
provide long distance phone service. After this legislation takes 
affect, consumers will be able to choose among companies that will 
provide them with local and long distance service.
  This legislation will also give consumers more choices in how to 
receive television programming. Currently, if a consumer's area is 
served by cable, a consumer may choose between the cable company and 
somewhat expensive satellite or DBS service. This legislation will 
allow the phone company to offer television over phone lines, so there 
is a choice between the cable company, the phone company, and DBS.
  The Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 will 
remove the regulations that have hindered the development and expansion 
of technology. Regulations, such as the regulated monopolies in local 
telephone service, required by the Communications Act of 1934, have 
forced U.S. companies wanting to invest in local phone markets to 
invest overseas.
  In 1934, it made sense to only have one company laying phone lines 
and providing phone service. But now that many homes have both cable 
and phone lines, and may have a cellular phone, it makes sense to open 
up phone service to competition. When this legislation opens local 
markets to competition, companies like MCI, which have plans to invest 
in the United States, but have been forced to make investments 
overseas, will be able to invest, create jobs, and provide better phone 
service to U.S. consumers.
  The President's Council of Economic Advisors estimates that as a 
result of deregulation, by 2003, 1.4 million service sector jobs will 
be created.
  Over the next 10 years, a total of 3.4 million jobs will be created, 
economic growth will increase by approximately .5 percent, and, 
according to George Gilder, the gross domestic product will increase by 
as much as $2 trillion.
  This legislation will increase exports of U.S. designed and 
manufactured telecommunications products.
  Increased investment in telecommunications products and services will 
bring a better quality of life to rural New Mexico. With fiber optic 
cable connections, doctors in Shiprock, NM, can consult with 
specialists at the University of New Mexico Medical Center or any 
medical center across the country.
  The technology to let students in Hidalgo County, NM, in towns like 
Lordsburg and Animas, share a teacher through a video and fiber optic 
link. What this legislation would do is remove the regulations that 
currently prevent investment to get technologies to the local phone 
market. [[Page S8450]] 
  Mr. President, I support this legislation because of the benefits to 
rural education and rural health care, better local and long distance 
phone services, and new technology and new jobs for Americans. I 
believe this legislation is a good start to accomplish these 
objectives.
  I wish to commend the managers of this bill and their staffs for 
their tireless work to craft this legislation. I appreciate Chairman 
Pressler's willingness to listen to the concerns of each member of this 
body.
  Mr. President, we need this legislation to move our citizens and our 
economy into the next century. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I want to take a minute. I remember when I first had 
the luxury and privilege of being the chairman of the committee and had 
to come to the floor to manage a bill. That was a few years ago when we 
had the luxury, for 6 years, of being in the majority.
  I want to say that the majority, the Republicans, should be very 
proud of the new chairman, Senator Larry Pressler, who has managed this 
bill. This is his first chairmanship of a major committee. That is 
rather exciting to him and I am sure to his family.
  I want to say for the record that for this Senator, who has watched 
those who come to the floor for the first time managing a bill, that 
this Senator deserves our congratulations for the good job he has done.
  This was a tough bill. It will stand in his accomplishment list high 
on the ladder, to have managed this great bill which will bring great, 
positive change for our country and for millions of people. My 
congratulations to him here today. I imagine that with this good 
effort, we can look for many more under his chairmanship.
  Obviously, it goes without saying that the distinguished ranking 
member, who I have been on the floor with on the other side when he was 
chair, when I was chairman, that he always does a great job managing 
the bill, from whichever side, majority or minority. I want to 
congratulate him for getting this bill through. It is great to have 
something totally bipartisan. It will be very bipartisan.
  When we have major problems to be solved for the country, we cannot 
always do it that way, but it sure is nice, and the public ought to be 
proud the Democrats and Republicans are working together on this bill.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I want to sincerely thank the Senator 
from New Mexico who chairs our Budget Committee so well. I have watched 
him so often, and words from him mean a great deal. We thank the 
Senator very much for his statement.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I heard the remarks of my distinguished 
colleague from New Mexico, and I can simply echo them from the 
perspective of membership on the Commerce Committee.
  Senator Pressler has met this test with flying colors and deserves a 
tremendous amount of credit. But not the least of the items for which 
he deserves praise is his ability and willingness to work with the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings.
  I have said this privately to the Senator from South Carolina, it is 
obviously difficult to be in charge, to be a chairman of the committee, 
to have strong ideas on a subject as he has had, and then find himself, 
without any action on his part, in a different position. His 
willingness to share his wisdom and his ideas--not just with Senator 
Pressler, but with all members on the Commerce Committee--and his 
willingness to make this such a constructive bipartisan endeavor is a 
tribute to him and, I think, to the Senate.
  This bill, as I said in my opening remarks, is as important a piece 
of legislation as the Senate has dealt with, which has created no 
interest in the general public at all outside, of course, of the 
various entities that are in the business itself. To reach as good a 
conclusion as we seem to have reached and to have done it in such a 
bipartisan fashion brings great credit, in my view, on the chairman of 
the committee, but very, very much credit on my good friend from South 
Carolina, whose wisdom and guidance and views on this subject are very 
much impressed in the bill itself and are vitally important to our 
success.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank our distinguished colleague 
from Washington for his overgenerous remarks, although undeserved they 
are greatly appreciated. I join the Senator from New Mexico and join in 
the sentiments of both the Senators from New Mexico and Washington, 
that our distinguished chairman has done an outstanding job here in 
handling this bill. It has been totally in a cooperative fashion and in 
a very, very considerate fashion of everyone's amendments.
  When you begin to appreciate that, I think, a 1-cent increase in a 1-
minute telephone rate nationwide equals $2 billion, then you begin to 
see why that other room stays filled up. They are not going to leave 
until we get through the conference. So we just started that journey of 
1,000 miles with the first step. I hope we can continue with the 
success we have had thus far.
  I will even elaborate further when we get more time, because other 
Senators want to speak, but Senator Pressler has done an amazingly 
outstanding job.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. He 
has been key in moving this bill forward. I see he has moved to another 
part of the room. But his wise counsel has been very much--I know he 
has managed that enormous product liability bill in our committee. But 
on this committee he has just done--this bill would not be here if it 
were not for the Senator from Washington and I thank him very, very 
much.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to add my voice of 
commendation to the chairman of the committee and the ranking member 
for the manner in which they have presented this bill and given us an 
opportunity to understand its contents and debate its principal 
provisions.
  It had been my full expectation that I would support this 
legislation. I was well aware of the legislation that had been 
introduced last year by the then chairman, the Senator from South 
Carolina. I was publicly, positively supportive of that legislation. I, 
frankly, therefore, state with regret that I will not be able to 
support the legislation that is before us in the form this afternoon. 
The debate we are having now on an amendment relative to a provision of 
the legislation having to do with the relationship between the 
providers of cable television product and the purchasers of that 
product is, to me, illustrative of a concern, a process that seems to 
have been too much operative in the development of this legislation and 
in its consideration. That is a process which essentially says that the 
Congress, as the elected representatives of the people, serve the role 
of ratifiers of private agreements developed among the parties who will 
be affected by this legislation.
  Reference was made earlier to the model of President Truman and a 
railroad strike that occurred after World War II. He initially had 
proposed a congressionally mandated solution. Then the parties decided 
that maybe they could go back to the bargaining table and arrive at a 
resolution. I think that is an appropriate manner for the resolution of 
a labor-management dispute. But we are not here talking about a labor-
management or other commercial controversy. We are talking about one of 
the most fundamental aspects of a democratic society, and that is 
control of ideas and their dissemination. That is a role in which any 
democratic government has a key responsibility. It has been a 
fundamental part of this Nation since the adoption of the first 
amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of press and 
freedom of speech.
  So we here are not talking as ratifiers of some private agreement as 
to how ideas would be made available to the American people. We are 
here as the representatives of the American people, to try to structure 
a process of communications law that will best serve the interests and 
the values of the American people today and, in a highly dynamic era, 
into the future.
  I started my consideration of this legislation from a basic economic 
premise of support of the marketplace as the best allocator of 
resources. While Governor of Florida, I actively supported the 
deregulation of a number [[Page S8451]] of our industries. I supported 
the delicensure of professions where I felt licensure was not serving 
an adequate public purpose. Thus, I started with a presumption of 
support of appropriate opening up to the marketplace as the regulator 
for access, quality and cost of the communications industry.
  I, regretfully, find two principal defects in the way in which we 
have implemented that movement towards the marketplace. First, I do not 
believe that this legislation adequately creates the free, robust, 
competitive marketplace to which we can, with confidence turn in lieu 
of our tradition of regulation as a means of assuring open, quality, 
affordable communications in this Nation. I would just cite two 
examples of provisions which I think undercut that confidence that we 
will have a free market that will be the means by which we will achieve 
desirable public ends.
  First, as it relates to cable television, we saw from 1984 until 1992 
a period in which the Congress had denied to States and local 
governments their traditional role of providing some regulation for 
cable television. What we saw was not only an escalation of cost of 
cable TV, but in many communities an escalation of arrogance, as the 
cable TV companies did not provide what consumers considered to be an 
adequate level of service. In some areas, parts of the city which had 
the affluent neighborhoods were wired for cable TV, while those areas 
of the city that did not have adequate income base to meet the economic 
needs of the cable TV system were denied any service at all.
  Beginning in 1992 there was a process of partial reregulation. We 
have seen significant benefits by that. We have seen a reduction in the 
cost of cable TV for most American families. At the same time we have 
seen a cable TV industry which is at an all-time high in terms of its 
economic prosperity. Yet, part of this legislation is going to be to 
roll back the progress that was made just 3 years ago in terms of 
providing some control, even though that control would fall away when 
it was established that there was in fact a competitive marketplace 
where people had options and choices and could use the marketplace as 
the means of assuring access, quality, and cost control. That provision 
is now out of this legislation. I think with it also has flown a 
significant amount of the rationale of allowing the marketplace to 
provide the alternative to regulation.
 In this case we have neither an open marketplace nor do we have any 
meaningful regulation.

  I might say that I have had a number of contacts in our office from 
representatives of the cable TV industry, and they are very candid in 
their statements. Their statements are that they want to have this 
period of no regulation while they still are in a monopolistic 
position--that is, without effective competition within their market 
area--so that they can build up their cash position to be in a better 
position to compete with the regional phone companies at such time that 
the regional phone companies get into the cable TV business. That is a 
statement that they are not being clandestine or secret about. They are 
telling us that they are going to use this remaining period of monopoly 
as a means of raising rates in order to be in a strengthened position 
when they are in a competitive market. I think we will find it very 
difficult to explain to our citizens why we tolerated what I think is a 
basic abuse of the free enterprise system.
  Second, as an example of where this legislation fails to assure that 
there will be, in fact, an open, competitive marketplace before we 
trade in regulation as a means of assuring the public access quality 
and cost control is the issue of the role of the Department of Justice 
as it relates to the entry of regional telephone companies into long 
distance.
  In the legislation that was before us last year, the Department of 
Justice continued to have a role in terms of evaluating specific 
proposals to determine if they met basic standards of antitrust before 
they could go forward. That provision has now been eliminated. So we 
are going to have companies going into the long-distance business by 
meeting a checklist supervised by an agency that has not had the kind 
of background and tradition of ferreting out anticompetitive schemes as 
has the Department of Justice.
  I believe that we are going to see the potential--when a person moves 
into a new neighborhood and calls the telephone company and asks to 
have their local service connected, then they are asked what long 
distance they want, there will be the potential of the local concern to 
tout, or otherwise steer, the local service customers to that same 
firm's long-distance service. That would be very much in the economic 
interest of the local service to do.
  To provide sanctions and protections against exactly that type of 
situation, we ought to have the Department of Justice playing a role in 
making that judgment as to whether there is in fact a free and open 
market before we trade in our regulation that has provided consumers 
some protection.
  So I think, first, this legislation fails to meet the basic premise 
upon which it is based; that is, that we will have meaningful 
competition as a substitute for regulation in the communications area.
  Second, I believe that we cannot use the analogy that I have heard on 
the floor over the past few days of commercial products as a direct 
parallel to the service of communications.
  The reality is that ideas are not like shirts or shoes or hamburgers 
or other products where there clearly have been benefits by having an 
unfettered, free market.
  Thomas Jefferson once observed that, having to make choice between 
free government and free speech or freedom of the press, he would take 
free speech and freedom of the press because, if you did not have those 
fundamentals, you would not have a free government for long. And if you 
lost the free government but you still had people who could have the 
freedom to speak and the freedom to communicate ideas, you would build 
eventually a base for a restoration of free government.
  This issue is as fundamental as our basic precepts of democracy and 
what is required for a functioning democracy.
  I am very concerned about the effect of the concentration of power 
within this legislation, a concentration of power which I do not 
believe is necessary in order to accomplish the objectives of a greater 
role of the marketplace in the allocation of communications technology.
  Why do we have to lift totally the number of television stations that 
an individual entity can own in order to get the benefits of 
technological innovation in telephones or in television or video or 
other services? I believe that this legislation is being used as a 
means by which to accomplish other ends, which are to concentrate power 
in an area that is critical to a democratic society. I have little 
doubt that, if this legislation is passed in its current form, within a 
few years from this afternoon we will see a handful of firms control 
the large majority of television stations in the United States. It 
frankly frightens me to see that kind of power turned over to a few 
hands. I do not see what benefit the consumers are going to receive by 
that. I believe that will be the inevitable result of this legislation. 
I do not see what purpose in the general thrust of this legislation is 
advanced by that kind of an open invitation to concentration of power 
and control over the access to ideas in our democratic society.
  So I believe that this legislation had a worthy goal to bring 
modernity, a recognition of the changes in technology, to give us a 
chance for a greater access to the benefits of a rapidly changing 
telecommunications industry but that we have fallen short of those 
goals by failure to assure that there will be a functioning free market 
before we drop the protections of even minimal regulations such as 
those that are available today for cable TV customers, and we have 
allowed the general goal to be held out under which was buried efforts 
to concentrate economic power which has the potential to damage our 
democratic society.
  So it is, Mr. President, with a sense of disappointment that I 
announce my inability to support this legislation in its current form. 
I hope that by stating the basis of my opposition, that might 
contribute to further reforms before this legislation is finally 
adopted, finally resubmitted to us out of a conference committee, so 
that we will have legislation that can draw the kind of broader support 
for change, I believe, as fundamental--I would say as 
[[Page S8452]] radical--as this should have before it is adopted.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise merely to congratulate my good 
friend, the Senator from South Dakota, and also my friend from South 
Carolina for their management of this bill. It is a bill that means a 
great deal to rural America in particular. We have watched developments 
in the last part of this century with awe. I think the developments 
that are coming now will startle our imagination. I am talking about 
the developments in telecommunications and technology.
  When I came to the Senate, the Army ran our only communications 
system. It was a telephone system. We had also the wireless and 
telegraph capability. We are moving now into the next century. Because, 
I think, of the work the Senate has done in this area, we are moving 
into the 21st century with everyone in the country, and we are probably 
ahead of everyone else in the world. The real necessity now is to 
devise a system that will carry us on beyond this developing technology 
into an era of really free competition without regulation in which the 
ingenuity and really resourcefulness of the American entrepreneur will 
bring us better and better and better communications.
  Communications now have reached the point where at least in my State 
they dominate our educational pattern. They dominate the health care 
delivery system. They dominate our total communications system in terms 
of business.
  In a State that is one-fifth the size of the United States, the one 
single factor that makes us equal is the equal access to the most 
recent developments for telecommunications. I think this bill will 
assure that in this interim period now as we shift from the 1934 
Communications Act into a period where we will have very, very little 
regulation of communications, which I think should start sometime 
between 2005 and 2010 is where I see it in terms of the developments of 
technology that have been reported to us thus far. Developments are 
still on the drawing board in some instances, developments that are 
really being applied from our space research in other instances.
  I do believe the work the Senator from South Dakota and the Senator 
from South Carolina have done along with their staffs in perfecting 
this bill so we can take it now to the House and, hopefully, early to 
conference will mean that we are going to have a change, an immediate 
change in this country. It will be a change for the best as far as 
Alaska is concerned.
  I close by just remarking that the other day I heard about a young 
family that has moved to Alaska from somewhere around the San Francisco 
area. They bought an island, and they have moved themselves and their 
small business up to that island. They are going to continue to conduct 
their business in the San Francisco area by telecommunications from my 
State. They will have available all of the modern convenience where 
they are going to be.
  That is something which could not even be dreamed of when I first 
went to Alaska, and now we are in a situation where we see people 
moving into our State from all over the country, if not the world, to 
utilize our wilderness, our beautiful surroundings, and at the same 
time maintain contact with the rest of the world through 
telecommunications. This bill, as I said, means more to us than I think 
it does anyone in the Senate.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall use such time as I may require under 
the time allotted to any Senator under the cloture rule. I shall not be 
long.
  The purpose of this bill is to establish a framework to introduce 
more competition into the telecommunications sector and break down the 
current system of large monopolistic fiefdoms which characterize this 
market.
  In addition, there is an attempt to deregulate cable and broadcasting 
sectors in an attempt to strike a compromise between the current 
regulatory environment and the desire for additional competition in 
those marketplaces. The question is, Does the bill go far enough in 
doing this? Can we predict how successful it will be? What are the 
dangers that additional influence by big corporations, big entities, 
will result despite the intentions of the hard-working managers of the 
bill, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, the chairman, Mr. 
Pressler--and I compliment him on his management of this bill and the 
work that he has done on the bill during the committee process, 
throughout the hearings and the markup--and the ranking member, whom I 
compliment, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings] the former chairman of the committee, straight as an arrow in 
his physique, straight as an arrow in his integrity and honesty and 
straightforward manner.
  Certainly it is intuitive that prices will drop with additional 
competition in the telephone marketplaces that might eventually occur, 
but the impact of bigness on the pending bill, which is attempting to 
reduce bigness, gives me great pause.
  There is a substantial possibility that three-quarters of West 
Virginia's cable TV viewers will pay higher prices for this service as 
a result of the bill. This is because the definition of ``small'' cable 
company included in the leadership amendment on this floor would 
include about 74 percent of our West Virginia cable viewers. Even if 
they take the most basic cable service, it is subject to deregulation 
and the price can go through the roof before the ink is dry on the 
conference report.
  The distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] this 
afternoon offered an amendment to correct those cable rate rises. 
Unfortunately, his amendment was not agreed to. I supported that 
amendment, which was an important consumer amendment.
  In addition, Mr. President, on the amendment by the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] to keep the concentration of TV 
ownership at the current cap of 25 percent, the amendment failed after 
some heavy lobbying by interests that are interested in further 
concentration of broadcasting station ownership.
  There are some good things in the bill, including in particular the 
initiative authored by my colleague from West Virginia, Mr. 
Rockefeller, that extends the traditional concept of universal service 
which is essential for our State and broadens it to include affordable 
rates for such institutions as hospitals, secondary schools, and 
libraries, bringing the future information highway and the services it 
can give to every person--down to the basic infrastructure for learning 
and health care--to West Virginia. I congratulate my colleague, Mr. 
Rockefeller, on this item, and I enthusiastically endorse it.
  In addition, the Senators from North Dakota and Nebraska, Senators 
Conrad and Exon, have authored valuable amendments to take steps to 
reduce violence and obscenity on TV in this bill, and we sorely need to 
take that kind of action.
  Given these worthy provisions, I also take note of the observations 
made earlier by the distinguished Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] 
regarding the quality of the message and pictures going over the 
airwaves and the land lines. The issue is the manipulation and control 
of information made available to our citizens. Wide choice and quality 
programming must be available. Essential information must be available 
to our people so that independent judgments can be made. Bigness, big 
programming, cavalier concern for consumer choice and diversity of 
viewpoint seem to go hand in hand. We need to take care that we do not 
allow our media to hollow out the essence of information and diversity 
of viewpoint which are essential to creating an informed citizenry. 
Certainly, we ought to focus a great deal of attention on the effect 
that such legislation as we have before us today enhances and informs 
citizenry and erects barriers to the power of great financial and 
technological interests that care only about manipulation, control, and 
the bottom financial line.
  This is a very big and complex bill dealing with a range of 
businesses and interests that are vast, wealthy, and powerful. We have 
not had enough time to adequately debate the very important amendments 
in this bill. We should not be invoking cloture. I voted against 
cloture on yesterday. I was one of the few who voted against it. We 
[[Page S8453]] should not be invoking cloture to truncate the doing of 
the legitimate business with adequate debate on this kind of measure.
  Cloture is for filibusters. Cloture is not intended to shut off 
legitimate debate on important business such as this. Senators and 
their constituents are shortchanged by this technique, and it is not in 
the highest traditions of this deliberative body.
  Mr. President, finally, the episode over the last 2 days regarding 
the transparent threats by one big conglomerate, Time Warner, to 
threaten the future of a business arrangement unless the Senate agrees 
to remove a particular provision from the bill is an outrageous 
illustration of the kind of influence peddling and pushing that 
surrounds this legislation.
  The senior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] has drawn the attention 
of the Senate to the kind of intrusion into the legislative process 
that is illustrated by the threat that Time Warner has engaged in. One 
cannot help but wonder what leads a big organization like Time Warner 
to think that it can actually affect the legislative process in this 
way.
  What does this episode say about the perception of the integrity of 
the Senate that prevails among the big concerns that mold public 
opinion? What leads such concerns to think that they can get away with 
this kind of blackmail?
  There is too much money pushing around this legislative product and 
process. It is totally inappropriate, and I congratulate the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina on his statement, and I shall 
support him in his urging that the amendment not be agreed to.
  For the reasons stated, I shall also vote against the bill on final 
passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article by Tom Shales that appeared in the June 13, 1995 edition of 
the Washington Post, along with a letter from Time Warner, dated June 
13, 1995, to Senator Pressler; and a letter from Senator Pressler to 
Mr. Timothy Boggs of Time Warner, dated June 15, 1995.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 13, 1995]

                       Fat Cat Broadcast Bonanza

                            (By Tom Shales)

       It's happening again. Congress is going ever so slightly 
     insane. The telecommunications deregulation bill now being 
     debated in the Senate, with a vote expected today or 
     tomorrow, is a monstrosity. In the guise of encouraging 
     competition, it will help huge new concentration of media 
     power.
       There's something for everybody in the package, with the 
     notable exception of you and me. Broadcasters, cablecasters, 
     telephone companies and gigantic media conglomerates all get 
     fabulous prizes. Congress is parceling out the future among 
     the communications superpowers, which stand to get more super 
     and more powerful, and certainly more profitable, as a 
     result.
       Limits on multiple ownership would be eased by the bill, so 
     that any individual owner could control stations serving up 
     to 35 percent of the country (50 percent in the even crazier 
     House version), versus 25 percent now. There would be no 
     limit on the number of radio stations owned. Cable and phone 
     companies could merge in municipalities with populations up 
     to 50,000.
       Broadcast licenses of local TV stations would be extended 
     from a five-year to a 10-year term and would be even more 
     easily renewed than they are now. It would become nearly 
     impossible for angry civic groups or individuals to challenge 
     the licenses of even the most irresponsible broadcasters.
       In addition, the rate controls that were imposed on the 
     cable industry in 1992, and have saved consumers $3 billion 
     in the years since, would be abolished, so that your local 
     cable company could hike those rates right back up again.
       Sen Bob Dole (R-Kan.), majority leader and presidential 
     candidate, is trying to ram the legislation through as 
     quickly as possible. Tomorrow he wants to take up the issue 
     of welfare reform, which is rather ironic considering that 
     his deregulation efforts amount to a bounteous welfare 
     program for the very, very, very rich.
       Dole made news recently when he took Time Warner Co. to 
     task for releasing violent movies and rap records with 
     incendiary lyrics. His little tirade was a sham and a smoke 
     screen. Measures Dole supports would enable corporate giants 
     such as Time Warner to grow exponentially.
       ``Here's the hypocrisy,'' says media activist Andrew Jay 
     Schwartzman. ``Bob Dole sits there on `Meet the Press' and 
     says, yes, he got $23,000 from Time Warner in campaign 
     contributions, and that just proves he can't be bought. He 
     criticizes Time Warner's corporate responsibility and acts 
     like he's being tough on them, but it's in a way that won't 
     affect their bottom line at all.
       ``Meanwhile he is rushing to the floor with a bill that 
     will deregulate cable rates and expedite the entry of cable 
     into local telephone service, and no company is pressing 
     harder for this bill than--guess who--Time Warner.''
       Schwartzman, executive director of the Media Access 
     Project, says that the legislation does a lot of ``awful 
     things'' but that the worst may be opening the doors to ``a 
     huge consolidation of broadcast ownership, so that four, 
     five, six or seven companies could own virtually all the 
     television stations in the United States.''
       Gene Kimmelman, co-director of Consumers Union, calls the 
     legislation ``deregulatory gobbedygook'' and says it would 
     remove virtually every obstacle to concentration of ownership 
     in mass media. The deregulation of cable rates with no 
     competition to cable firmly in place is ``just a travesty,'' 
     Kimmelman says, and allowing more joint ventures and mergers 
     among media giants is ``the most illogical policy decision 
     you could make if you want a competitive marketplace.
       The legislation would also hand over a new chunk of the 
     broadcast spectrum to commercial broadcasters to do with, and 
     profit from, as they please. Digital compression of broadcast 
     signals will soon make more signal space available, space 
     that Schwartzman refers to as ``beachfront property.'' Before 
     it even exists, Congress wants to give it away.
       Broadcasters could use the additional channels for pay TV 
     or home shopping channels or anything else that might fatten 
     their bank accounts.
       There's more. Those politicians who are always saying they 
     want to get the government off our backs don't mind letting 
     it into our homes. Senators have been rushing forth with 
     amendments designed to censor content, whether on cable TV or 
     in the cyberspace of the Internet. The provisions would 
     probably be struck down by courts as antithetical to the 
     First Amendment anyway, but legislators know how well it 
     plays back home when they attack ``indecency'' on the House 
     or Senate floor.
       Late yesterday Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Trent 
     Lott (R-Miss.) called for an amendment requiring cablecasters 
     to ``scramble'' the signals of adults-only channels offering 
     sexually explicit programming. The signals already are 
     scrambled, and you have to request them and pay for them to 
     get them. Not enough. Feinstein and Lott said: they must be 
     scrambled more.
       The amendment passed 91-0.
       It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
       An amendment expected to be introduced today would require 
     that the infamous V-chip be installed in all new television 
     sets, and that networks and stations be forced to encode 
     their broadcasts in compliance. The V-chip would allow 
     parents to prevent violent programs from being seen on their 
     TV sets. Of course, they could turn them off, or switch to 
     another channel, but that's so much trouble. Why not have a 
     Big Brother do it for you?
       The telecommunications legislation is being sponsored in 
     the Senate by Commerce Committee Chairman Larry Pressler (R-
     S.D.), whose initial proposal was that all limits on multiple 
     ownership be dropped. Even his supporters laughed at that 
     one.
       Dole is the one who's ramrodding the legislation through, 
     and it's apparently part of an overall Republican plan for 
     American media, and most parts of the plan are bad. They 
     include defunding and essentially destroying public 
     television, one of the few wee alternatives to commercial 
     broadcasting and its junkiness, and even, in the Newt 
     Gingrich wing of the party, abolishing the Federal 
     Communications Commission, put in place decades ago to 
     safeguard the public's ``interest, convenience and 
     necessity.''
       It's the interest, convenience and necessity of media 
     magnates that appears to be the sole priority now. ``The big 
     loser in all this, of course, is the public,'' wrote media 
     expert Ken Auletta in a recent New Yorker piece about the 
     lavishness of media contributions to politicians. The 
     communications industry is the sixth-largest PAC giver, 
     Auletta noted.
       Viacom, a huge media conglomerate, had plans to sponsor a 
     big fund-raising breakfast for Pressler this month, Auletta 
     reported, but the plans were dropped once Auletta started 
     making inquiries: ``Asked through a spokeswoman about the 
     propriety of a committee chairman's shopping for money from 
     industries he regulated, Pressler declined to respond.''
       The perfect future envisioned by the Republicans and some 
     conservative Democrats seems to consist of media ownership in 
     very few hands, but hands that hold tight rein over the 
     political content of reporting and entertainment programming. 
     Gingrich recently appeared before an assemblage of mass media 
     CEOs at a dinner sponsored by the right-wing Heritage 
     Foundation and reportedly got loud approval when he griped 
     about the oh-so-rough treatment he and fellow conservatives 
     allegedly get from the press.
       Reuven Frank, former president of NBC News, wrote about 
     that meeting, and other troubling developments, in his column 
     for the New Leader. ``It is daily becoming more obvious that 
     the biggest threat to a free press and the circulation of 
     ideas,'' Frank wrote, ``is the steady absorption of 
     newspapers, television networks and other vehicles of 
     information into enormous corporations that know how to turn 
     knowledge into [[Page S8454]] profit--but are not equally 
     committed to inquiry or debate or to the First Amendment.''
       The further to the right media magnates are, the more 
     kindly Congress is likely to regard them. Most dramatic and, 
     indeed, obnoxious case in point: Rupert Murdoch, the Fox 
     mogul whom Frank calls ``today's most powerful international 
     media baron.'' The Australian-born Murdoch has consistently 
     received gentle, kid-glove, look-the-other-way treatment from 
     Congress and even the regulatory agencies. When the FCC got 
     brave not long ago and tried to sanction Murdoch for 
     allegedly deceiving the commission about where he got the 
     money to buy six TV stations in 1986, loud voices in Congress 
     cried foul.
       These included Reps. Jack Fields (R-Tex.) and Mike Oxley 
     (R-Ohio), Daily Variety's headline for the story, ``GOP 
     Lawmakers Stand by Murdoch.'' They always ??? Indeed. Oxley 
     was behind a movement to lift entirely the ban on foreign 
     ownership of U.S. television and radio stations. He wanted 
     that to be part of the House bill, but by some miracle, this 
     is one cockamamie scheme that got quashed.
       Murdoch, of course, is the man who wanted to give Gingrich 
     a $4.5 million advance to write a book called ``To Renew 
     America,'' until a public outcry forced the House speaker to 
     turn it down. He is still writing the book for Murdoch's 
     HarperCollins publishing company. The huge advance was 
     announced last winter, not long after Murdoch had paid a very 
     friendly visit to Gingrich on the Hill to whine about his 
     foreign ownership problems with the FCC.
       Everyone knows that America is on the edge of vast 
     uncharted territory where telecommunications is concerned. 
     We've all read about the 500-channel universe and the entry 
     of telephone companies into the cable business and some sort 
     of linking up between home computers and home entertainment 
     centers. In the Senate debate on the deregulation bill last 
     week, senators invoked images of the Gold Rush and the 
     Oklahoma land rush in their visions of this future.
       But this gold rush is apparently open only to those already 
     rolling in gold, and the land is available only to those who 
     are already big landowners--to a small private club whose 
     members are all enormously wealthy and well connected and, by 
     and large, politically conservative. It isn't very 
     encouraging. In fact, it's enough to make you think that the 
     future is already over. Ah, well. It was nice while it 
     lasted.
                                                                    ____

                                                  Time Warner,

                                    Washington, DC, 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 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.

  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I presume that within the hour, we will get 
to final passage of this very important legislation. I think it is 
appropriate that we take note of a little bit of the effort that went 
into it.
  First, I want to refer again to the title of this bill: 
Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995. I think 
that is really what it is, but it has been a monumental undertaking. 
You have had the behemoths of the industries on both sides struggling 
mightily to protect their interests--their turf. Everybody has wanted, 
as the saying has been repeated on the floor earlier, ``a fair 
advantage.'' The goal of the committee has been to try to make sure 
that it was just fair to everybody.
  It has been very difficult. A lot of effort has gone into it, but I 
believe we have accomplished the goal we have set out to accomplish. 
And I believe that we will have an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote when 
we get to final passage.
  So I wanted to take this early opportunity, in advance of the vote to 
thank and commend the managers of this bill, Chairman Pressler and the 
ranking member, Senator Hollings of South Carolina, the former 
chairman, who have really done outstanding work.
  I also want to commend the majority and minority leaders, Senator 
Dole and Senator Daschle. I have commented to both of them that I 
believe this is the best example I have seen this year of our leaders 
working together and our managers working together for what is in the 
best interest of the country, not the best interest of one party or the 
other, or one segment of the telecommunications industry or the other, 
but what is the right thing to do.
  It has been a long struggle, and it would not have been possible 
without the type of bipartisan cooperation and strong leadership that 
we have seen here. The legislation is truly a remarkable achievement. 
For 20 years, Congress has been trying, struggling to get comprehensive 
communications reform--without success. But we are on the verge of 
seeing that happen.
  So this is a historic act that will bring, I think, a tremendous 
boost to our economy and our standing communications policy that will 
take us into the 21st century.
  I believe that we will see a tremendous growth and expansion in this 
area--new innovation, new ideas, with the utilities being involved, 
along with the Bells, the long distance companies and cable companies. 
There are going to be jobs created and the economy will grow and expand 
in this area. As a member of the Commerce Committee, I am proud to have 
been a part of this effort.
  I commend the chairman, in particular, because I do not know of 
anybody else that could have done it at this particular time. He has 
been persuasive and doggedly persistent. I wish I had a nickel for 
every time that he said to the distinguished leader, ``We are ready to 
go. When can we get on the schedule? Is it alright if we go ahead and 
move it?''
  How did the Chairman do it? He opened the process to the full 
committee. He involved everybody. He went to all of the committee 
members. I remember the first meeting we had in his office. Yes, he 
worked with the Republicans, but he did not stop there. He went to the 
Democrats and he did not talk through people to the former 
[[Page S8455]] chairman; he went directly to him. When we got our first 
draft, he hand-delivered it to the Members. The leadership was involved 
every step of the way. Months of negotiations were held before we had 
the eventual agreement, and when we finally agreed upon the core, the 
entry test, he stuck with it in the markup and on the floor. Also, the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina stuck with it.
  So I just have to say Senator Pressler is one who gets the job done. 
He certainly did it here. The country will be better off because of his 
leadership on this bill and on the committee. I look forward to working 
with him in many other instances in the future.
  Senator Hollings' leadership and cooperation deserves great praise. I 
have had him on the other side of issues, and I did not appreciate it a 
bit. He was tough. But, boy, is it fun when he is with you. It has 
really been a pleasure to work with him. He is a man of his word. When 
he tells you he is going to stay put, he does--even when he has 
pressure on his side of the aisle not to. This would not have been 
possible without his cooperation, experience, and his perseverance.
  I also thank some tremendous staff people: Paddy Link, staff director 
for Senator Pressler, and his counselors, Donald McClellan and Katie 
King. For Senator Hollings, I thank Kevin Curtain, John Winhausen, who 
has been around on this issue for some time, and Kevin Joseph. For 
Senator Dole, I appreciate the efforts by David Wilson, and for Senator 
Daschle, Jim Webber. I have never seen many staff people work so well 
together. They worked days and nights and weekends when we were back in 
our States, and they struggled along with it. So I think they deserve a 
lot of credit. I thank my own staff assistant, Chip Pickering for his 
work on this issue. I have called him the ``peacemaker.'' Blessed are 
the peacemakers, for most of them are dead. Many times I thought he was 
going to get himself killed and me, too, because he had me in the 
middle of my friends on both sides. So I appreciate the effort he put 
forward.
  I want to thank some other people, like Larry Johnson, Kelly Algood, 
Bernie Ebbers, Bernard Jacobs, and Eddie Fritz. All of these are 
Mississippians who have a direct interest and knowledge in this area. 
They are on the long distance side, they are on the Bell side, they are 
on the cable side, they are utility folks and broadcasters.
  Although it is difficult in legislation of this magnitude to agree on 
all issues, I appreciate their insight, assistance and understanding of 
what I was trying to do. They made it possible for me to try to be 
helpful as we moved the legislation along toward what will be right for 
the country and fair to the competitors and the consumers.
  Again, I congratulate the managers. I am proud of them and proud to 
have been associated with them. This is truly historic. In many ways, 
this bill is every bit as big and as important as the balanced budget 
resolution we passed. It will have a tremendous impact on the economy, 
and I believe it will greatly help our country's future.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, if I may for a minute, I want to thank 
the Senator from Mississippi, and Chip, his able assistant. I will be 
saying more later about thanking people. But the bill would not have 
happened without him. Every time I went to him as my deputy leader, he 
was there. I do not know how you get enough hours in the day to do all 
the things we ask you, but you were there, and I thank you very much 
for your kind comments.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me also join in my thanks to the 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi. When we really got into 
trouble, I went to the Senator from Mississippi. He paved the way all 
the time in the 2 years previous here working on this bill and, of 
course, all this year. I cannot thank him enough. We could not have had 
this bill without his leadership.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I cannot help but observe the thankfulness 
that is going on here. I was standing here listening, and I thought to 
myself, in this Chamber the highest praise is usually reserved for 
those who are about to vote against you.
  I stand to give credit to the Senator from South Dakota. I think the 
Senator from South Dakota has demonstrated real skill in moving this 
legislation. I am, of course, indebted to the leadership of not only 
the Senator from South Dakota, but the Senator from South Carolina, 
with whom I have worked carefully for a long, long while.
  These have been difficult issues, no question about that. We are 
dealing with literally hundreds of billions of dollars in the American 
economy with interest groups that have very substantial stakes in the 
outcome of this legislation. I understand the passion with which some 
people stand here and debate to push their positions.
  I started out very hopeful about this legislation and voted for it 
coming out of the committee. I think there are elements of this 
legislation that will be good for this country. I remain concerned, 
however, about the issue of concentration of ownership in the 
television and radio broadcasting. I remain concerned about the lack of 
the role of the Justice Department in being able to adequately enforce 
what I consider to be vital antitrust issues. For those reasons, I do 
not feel I am going to be able to vote for this bill on final passage. 
I say that with some disappointment because I had hoped as we started 
this process that we would be able to successfully amend it on the 
floor of the Senate.
  The Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from South Carolina 
will recall when we had the markup in the Commerce Committee, the issue 
was to try to move this bill along as quickly as possible. I understood 
that morning the need in a couple of hours to move this bill out of 
committee. But we discussed at some length there about the opportunity 
to offer amendments on the floor of the Senate and to try to correct 
some of the areas that represented concerns.
  I voted for it coming out of committee, but I did, in the committee, 
express the very concerns that I brought to the floor about 
concentration of ownership of television and radio stations and my 
concerns about an adequate role for the Justice Department on the issue 
of RBOC entry into long distance.
  When I came to the floor, we had an opportunity to fully debate them. 
I compliment the two leaders on the floor. They were very cooperative. 
For that I am appreciative.
  I suffered one of these unusual experiences of having won briefly and 
then lost on an amendment I cared a great deal about: that is my 
amendment on television ownership.
  We now restrict ownership to 12 television stations and we limit the 
audience reach to 25 percent. These limits prevent a concentration of 
media ownership in this country. This bill says that there is no 
limitation on how many stations one can own, as long as you do not 
cover more than 35 percent of the country.
  I do not support that, and I brought an amendment to the floor that 
would have retained the existing limits. We debated it and voted.
  At the end of the vote, my amendment won by a vote of 51-48. It 
taught me a lesson--this whole set of circumstances--because although I 
won by a vote of 51-48, an hour and a half later, it turns out some 
folks had new opinions about this issue after having debated it for 
hours and days, and we had another vote.
  Then I learned that not all Members are equal in this Chamber. Some 
have a better grip in wrenching arms than others, and I will be darned 
if I did not lose. You win for an hour, and I guess you lose forever, 
in these circumstances.
  For that reason, I do not feel I can vote for the bill on final 
passage. I did want to explain briefly that I view the issue of 
telecommunications reform as critically important to the United States. 
Its development, its opportunity for this country is a very significant 
issue.
  I admire the work of the two Members who brought this to the floor 
and have spent days on the floor. I wish very much that the couple of 
major amendments I had offered would have been adopted, in which case I 
would have been one to cast a yes vote on final passage. I hope the 
managers will understand the reason for my no vote.
  I expect when the votes are counted, this legislation will advance. I 
still [[Page S8456]] have some hope that when this bill comes out of 
conference committee the issues I have mentioned will be addressed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
to address the Senate for not to exceed 12 minutes as in morning 
business.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 928 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are currently on amendment No. 1341 of the 
telecommunications bill.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to 
speak for 5 minutes on the bill but not on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to say that I have 
concluded, after considerable debate with myself, not to vote for this 
bill on final passage. It was not a decision easily reached. This is an 
immensely complex bill. Frankly, there are very few Senators in the 
U.S. Senate who really understand the full complexity and ramifications 
of this bill.
  My decision is not based on whether or not the baby Bells can get 
into the long distance telephone market. That is a problem for me. But 
it is not nearly the problem of the unlimited power of people owning an 
unlimited number of radio stations and television stations, which I 
consider to be highly dangerous.
  I heard the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, this morning say 
that Thomas Jefferson once asked which would he choose between a free 
government and a free press? He said he would always take a free press 
because you cannot have a free government without a free press.
  These airwaves of radio and television stations can only be allocated 
by the Government. You cannot allow people willy-nilly to take a 
particular channel in the airwaves for a radio or television station. 
That is what the Federal Communications Commission was set up to do, 
allocate those things. And for years the Government gave away billions 
and billions of dollars' worth of television station channels and radio 
station channels. It has only been in recent years that the Government 
has decided it was being taken and it ought to start making people bid 
at public auction for those airwaves. Incidentally, it has helped a 
great deal in our efforts to balance the budget. We have been getting 
billions of dollars for radio and television station channels on the 
airwaves.
  There was a time not too long ago in this country when you were 
prohibited from owning a television station and a newspaper in the same 
community. Now, under this bill, you can own 500 radio stations, 1,000 
radio stations. You can own as many television stations as you want, as 
long as you do not control more than 35 percent of the market as 
determined by the Federal Communications Commission. Can you imagine 
some people--I will leave it to your imagination, and I will leave it 
to your imagination as to who it may be--can you imagine some of the 
people in this country who are very big in telecommunications owning 
1,000 radio stations; 100 television stations? Let us face it, the 
newspapers are not nearly as powerful as the television stations. It is 
a concentration of communications power that I think is dangerous to 
the country.
  So I believe that some ideological bent or belief, not an empirical 
belief but an ideological belief, a philosophical belief that the free 
market will solve this problem--turn them all loose to buy and sell 
these stations however they will--it has not even worked in a lot of 
the rest of our society. That is the reason we have an antitrust 
division down at the Justice Department. It was the very reason Teddy 
Roosevelt saw that the people were suffering from the gigantic trusts 
of his day. So from that evolved the Sherman Act, the Robinson-Patman 
Act and all the other acts that protect people from what can become a 
tyranny.
  I think it was Madison who said--and I sometimes wonder what James 
Madison would think today--but it was James Madison who said the 
Congress, the Congress is what stands between the people and what would 
otherwise surely become a tyrannical leader, tyrannical government.
  Mr. President, for all of those reasons history tells me we are about 
to make a colossal mistake that will be very difficult to undo when we 
discover it someplace down the road.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thought, with the permission of the 
Senator from South Carolina, I might speak for 6 minutes or so before 
the final vote.
  Mr. President, this debate we have had on this bill has opened all 
eyes to the dazzling possibilities provided by our new, emerging 
information technologies. I will quote from some of the speech that I 
gave several days ago during this debate.

       I can imagine workers in rural Minnesota telecommuting to 
     and from work as far away as New York or Washington without 
     ever having to leave their homes or families.
      Or schoolchildren in a distressed Minneapolis school 
     district reading the latest publications at the Library of 
     Congress via thin glowing fiber cables--
  Mr. President, this really excites me as a teacher.

       or rural health care providers on the iron range consulting 
     with the top medical researchers at the Mayo Clinic in 
     Rochester to better treat their patients.

  Mr. President, all of this is before us. I felt like this bill 
presented to each Senator a daunting--an exciting but also daunting--
responsibility. The concern that I have has to do with whether or not 
we can make sure that there will be true competition, and that this 
technology and information will truly be available to everyone in the 
Nation, not just the most privileged or the most wealthy.
  What has disappointed me the most--and the Senator from South 
Carolina has to be one of the colleagues I most respect here in the 
Senate even when we disagree--is that over and over again where there 
have been amendments to I think assure competition and to also protect 
consumers--I am not just concerned about the alphabet soup 
corporations. I am also concerned about the people that live in 
Ferguson Falls or live in Virginia, Minnesota, or live in Minneapolis 
or St. Paul or Northfield. I was hoping that at least we could build in 
more protection for consumers and more guarantees that there would in 
fact be the competition that we all talk about.
  While I fully appreciate the potential of this legislation, I am 
really worried about where we are heading because I think there is 
going to be entirely too much concentration of power.
  I would just simply build on the remarks of my colleague from 
Arkansas. The media is the only private enterprise in the United States 
of America that has first amendment protection. The reason for that, 
though we did not have the same kind of communication technologies we 
have today back in the days of Thomas Jefferson, was that the Founders 
of our Nation understood the importance of the media and the importance 
of information. And the importance of it was to contribute to an 
informed electorate. We are talking about something very precious here.
  I see a piece of legislation that will lead to way too much 
concentration of power, way too much concentration of power in a very, 
very important and decisive area of public life in the United States of 
America. That has to do with radio and television, and information, and 
who controls the flow of information.
  So, Mr. President, I was hoping that some of the amendments that were 
introduced on the floor of the Senate that I think really would have 
provided the consumer protection, that would have provided regular 
people--I do not mean in a pejorative sense, but I mean in a positive 
way--with some protection and which would have assured some competition 
as opposed to more and more concentration of power, more and more very, 
very vital and important areas being taken over by just a few 
conglomerates. It did not happen.
  I think we are making a mistake if we pass this piece of legislation. 
I will therefore, vote against it. [[Page S8457]] 
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will be very, very brief. I want to take 2 
or 3 minutes if I could to congratulate the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Pressler, and the ranking member, Senator Hollings, who have 
struggled long and through many difficult situations--and that I have 
been with them on--on many occasions. This is a bill that is 
criticized, that as a bill is easy to vote against because voting 
against the bill, if there is ever any problem, you can always say, 
``Well, I voted against the legislation.''
  I happen to feel that this bill is very important, and I rise in 
support of the legislation that has been deliberated on, been written 
and rewritten so many, many times. I would have to say that at least 
everyone has had their chance at an input on this piece of legislation, 
through what we worked on last year, reported out but never got passed, 
and then taken up by Senator Pressler when he became chairman of the 
committee; worked very hard and very closely with Senator Hollings.
  Certainly the bill before us, the telecommunications reform bill, is 
a good bill, although not a perfect one. A bill as complicated and as 
detailed as this one could be, I simply point out that it has many good 
features. It includes strong education provisions, including the Snowe-
Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey educational library, and rural health care 
discount provision.
  It includes important market protections, including the farm team 
provisions of last year, all of which were incorporated here in the 
bill this year. It includes the Grassley-Exon infrastructure sharing 
provision. It includes the Communications Decency Act that we debated 
and passed yesterday. It includes a revolutionary, and I think very 
positive, TV ratings system. It includes a strongly needed and fair 
universal service language. And it abandons the one-fits-all regulation 
that has been a problem for a long time.
  The cable provisions in this bill are still a disappointment to this 
Senator but were improved somewhat from the committee bill.
  Final passage will take America's telecommunications industry off 
hold.
  Mr. President, it is time to move on and pass this legislation.
  I thank the Chair. I yield floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I thank our friend from Nebraska for his 
numerous efforts on this bill as time has gone forward. He and his 
staff have been a key part of working on it. I thank him very much for 
his spirit of cooperation.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from South Dakota.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have been listening to the speeches 
on the floor from the different committee members of the Commerce 
Committee, and it sounds like a funeral from time to time on the floor 
of the Senate. There are so many accolades and potential eulogies. But, 
in fact, I have to say that the accolades are really warranted, and it 
is because this bill has been so tough and so hard fought. And it has 
lasted for so long.
  What we have seen on the floor is the tip of the iceberg. The work 
has been going on in committee nonstop for so many months that it is 
correct for the committee members who are so aware of all that has been 
done to be able to say job well done.
  It is a job well done not because anyone feels victorious. It is a 
job well done because nobody feels victorious. It is a job well done 
because it has been a tough battle. It is because people that we 
respect so much, the entrepreneurs in the cable industry, the 
entrepreneurs in the long-distance industry, the local providers, the 
Bell companies that have been in business a long time but have made 
huge capital investments based on a regulatory scheme that now is going 
to be taken away--everyone in this business I respect because they are 
providing jobs. They are doing what we must do to continue to provide 
jobs in our country.
  But what we are trying to do here is open the door even more. We are 
trying to provide more job opportunities. We are trying to provide more 
opportunities for the entrepreneurs in this country to go out and 
improve the technology and become a competitor throughout the 
telecommunications field.
  So it has been a tough thing to balance the needs of all of these 
people who are out there on the front line spending their money for 
capital to go out and try to build a business that will make a 
difference for the consumers of America, that will add to the quality 
programming, add to the quality of telecommunications and telephone 
systems and video programming, and to also provide lower prices for 
those consumers.
  So the fact that there are no victories here is a victory in itself. 
I think that if we look at the overall, we are only one step, but there 
is a finish line that we have not yet crossed. After we vote this bill 
out of the Senate--and I believe we will in a very short time--we are 
going to go to the House. The House is going to pass a bill, and there 
will be differences, and those are going to have to be worked out in 
conference. And once again, all of the entrepreneurs and all of the 
people who have built businesses on a regulatory scheme are going to 
come in and say, ``We have been treated in an unfair way.'' And we are 
going to have to once again do a balance between the House and Senate 
versions of this bill. But we must do it because technology has leapt 
over the regulatory environment that we have in our telecommunications 
industry, and we have a lawsuit that has caused deregulation by a 
judge, and in fact it is just not the right way to have deregulation. 
It does not cover enough of the area to be fair to all people 
concerned. The only way that we can be fair is to have everyone at the 
same table and everyone give and everyone take a little bit.
  So while I do not agree with everything in this bill and while 
probably no one who is voting on it agrees with everything in it, I 
wish to commend the chairman, the ranking member and the members of the 
committee who have put their small differences aside to do something 
that would move forward this very important step that I think will be 
able to bring as much as $3 billion, maybe more, into our economy with 
new jobs and new opportunities and new technologies that we can then 
export all over the world. It is an exciting bill. It is an exciting 
time. It is an exciting opportunity for this Senate to take that one 
step forward. Let us do what we can now and be ready to continue this 
fight until it is finished.
  Mr. President, I commend those who have worked on it, and I thank you 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I again want to praise Senator Hutchison 
and her staffer, Amy Henderson, for the many hours of work they have 
done. I am going to recognize the staff. I do not know if I mentioned 
this before, but our staffs met night after night and on weekends, in 
addition to Senators participating. But the bill would not have 
happened without the Senator from Texas, and I thank her very, very 
much.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me also join in my gratitude for 
Senator Hutchison's leadership. We all on the committee worked very 
closely.
  A moment ago my distinguished colleague from Arkansas gave me the 
theme that comes to mind. He concluded his observation that he was 
prepared to vote against the bill; that it would be a colossal mistake 
to pass this bill.
  Let me say in a word it would be a colossal mistake not to pass this 
bill. I came to the Senate almost 29 years ago, and they were talking 
then. And I immediately got on the Communications Subcommittee, and I 
can see Senator John Pastore, the chairman, talking about revising the 
1934 Communications Act. I worked very closely with Senator Goldwater 
when he was the chairman, and I have been the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the full committee, and we worked time and time again 
and we were prepared, as everyone now knows--the distinguished Senator 
from South Dakota, now our chairman, was working with us--in the last 
closing moments to pass the bill last year.
  It would be a colossal mistake not to pass this bill. This bill is an 
excellent bill. It did not do all things, but the [[Page S8458]] truth 
of the matter is the experience has been, with the breakup of AT&T, 
that what we have now is 500 competitors in the long distance market. 
And with this bill by breaking up the regional Bell operating 
companies--this is how you legislatively, not by court order, but 
legislatively break up the monopolies of the local exchange--we are 
going to bring in hundreds and thousands of competitors. We are doing 
this in the most deliberate, measured fashion possible in that we 
appreciate that we in America have the best communications system in 
the entire world.
  We are not repairing the communications system in that light. What we 
are trying to do is remove the obstruction in the middle of the 
information superhighway, namely, the Government. With all the plethora 
of rules, hearings, injunctions and precedents, we are finding now that 
the judicial branch is totally overwhelmed; it could not possibly deal 
with the explosion of this technology. No one individual could.
  On the other hand, we are going to get communications policy back 
into the policymaking body of our Government, namely, the Congress and 
its administrator, the Federal Communications Commission.
  We have an outstanding bill. Senator Pressler has done an outstanding 
job. I am ready, as I understand, to prepare to vote on the Dole 
amendment, the Breaux amendment, which will be agreed to, and then 
final passage.
  As I stand here, I have been moved, as all Senators do, from the 
subject of the week--almost like Sealtest Ice Cream; we have the flavor 
of the week--we move to the other particular issue at hand. But staff 
on the other side of the aisle has been duly recognized, and I would 
again recognize Kevin Curtin and John Windhausen and Kevin Joseph, as 
well as Jim Drewry, Sylvia Cikins and Pierre Golpira, on our staff. 
They have worked not just during the 5 days of the week but weekends 
and evenings, around the clock, on and on again to keep us on a 
deliberate, measured, fair course of entering into competition and 
maintaining at the same time the wonderful universal service that we 
have.
  There is a tremendous balancing act that is involved here, and no one 
should run a touchdown in the wrong direction with the idea that, yes, 
we could have gotten in more competition or more protection for the 
consumers. We have gotten in the basic competition and the basic 
protections that were necessary and even more.
  So with that said, I hope we can move to the vote on the Dole 
amendment, Mr. President.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, when we receive notification from the 
leadership on both sides--I am certainly eager--we will vote. We are 
awaiting word.
  I welcome all Senators who have statements.
  I, too, wish to thank my friend, Senator Hollings, for his great 
leadership. He has been working on this bill for years and years, and 
he got a similar earlier version through the Commerce Committee last 
year, where he has done a terrific job. He has been great to work with. 
Without his efforts, we would not have gotten this bill out of the 
committee or to this point. He has helped bring broad bipartisan 
support and has shown great courage and independence. He has done a 
terrific job.
  Extraordinary effort has been expended on the measure's birth and 
ultimate passage. I have already talked about the process the staff 
went through in drafting this bill. This was not drafted outside of the 
Capitol as some have said. It was drafted in long nights and weekends 
by bipartisan staff working together at the direction of the Senators.
  I wish to thank my committee chief of staff, Paddy Link, who has 
worked tirelessly on this bill. She is a first class professional 
without whom this telecommunications bill would not have passed. 
Communications counsels Katie King, who has done a terrific job in 
working diplomatically with the staffs of many Senators with an 
interest in the legislation, and Donald McClellan, who has worked days, 
nights, and weekends for months on this bill. Together, their efforts 
have helped shape this historic legislation. Special thanks must also 
go to staff assistants Sam Patmore, James Linen, and Antilla Trotter.
  Senator Hollings' staff has been enormously helpful in this effort. 
Commerce Committee Democratic chief counsel and staff director Kevin 
Curtin has been of invaluable assistance in this bipartisan effort, 
with his legislative drafting skills and knowledge of procedure.
 Counsels John Windhausen and Kevin Joseph brought their great 
expertise to the task; and staff assistant, Yvonne Portee. The good 
working relationship our committee staff has developed is the major 
reason we have been successful in developing a bill.

  Lloyd Ator of the Commerce Committee bipartisan staff deserves thanks 
from both sides of the aisle for his legislative drafting skills.
  Additionally, my heartfelt thanks are extended to the following staff 
members who have devoted substantial hours working with the committee 
in the process of getting this measure to the floor and passed. This is 
more or less the team that worked on the legislation. I used to go up 
and occasionally bring them some pizza. I do not know if people in the 
outside world realize how hard this staff on Capitol Hill works, 
especially when there is a major bill coming up.
  I want to thank: David Wilson from Majority Leader Dole's office for 
his assistance in getting the bill to the floor and for working with my 
staff; Elizabeth Greene, for her invaluable assistance while the bill 
was on the floor; Jim Weber, from the Democratic Leader Daschle's 
office for his assistance; Chip Pickering with Senator Lott; and, Earl 
Comstock with Senator Stevens. I must add that night after night, Chip 
Pickering helped lead a bipartisan team. Chip will someday be one of 
our Nation's finest leaders. Earl Comstock is one of the brightest, 
hard- working people I have ever encountered.
  I also thank: Hance Haney with Senator Packwood; Mark Buse with 
Senator McCain; Mark Baker with Senator Burns; Gene Bumpus with Senator 
Gorton; Amy Henderson with Senator Hutchison; Angela Campbell with 
Senator Snowe; Mike King with Senator Ashcroft; Margaret Cummisky with 
Senator Inouye; Martha Moloney with Senator Ford; Chris McLean with 
Senator Exon; Cheryl Bruner with Senator Rockefeller; Scott Bunton and 
Carole Grunberg with Senator Kerry of Massachusetts; Mark Ashby with 
Senator Breaux; Andy Vermilye with Senator Bryan; Greg Rohde with 
Senator Dorgan; and Carol Ann Bischoff with Senator Kerrey of Nebraska.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________