[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 127 (Wednesday, August 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8281-H8295]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 207 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1555.

                              {time}  0038


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
1555) to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure 
lower prices and higher quality services for American 
telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new 
telecommunications technologies, with Mr. Kolbe in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be 
recognized for 22\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell] will be recognized for 22\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] will be recognized for 22\1/2\ minutes, and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be recognized for 22\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, does the chair expect to take 
any more recorded votes tonight? Will we roll votes until tomorrow 
morning? There are many Members who wish to know the answer to that 
question.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot anticipate whether or not votes will 
be required this evening.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Can the Chair roll votes until tomorrow 
morning if it is not a privileged motion?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Chair has the authority to postpone 
requests for recorded votes on the amendments, which is the intention 
of the Chair, but not on other motions.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Will the Chair exercise the prerogative to 
roll votes?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the intention of the Chair to postpone votes on 
amendments until tomorrow.

[[Page H8282]]

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself four minutes.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, today and tomorrow we will consider and 
pass the Communications Act of 1995, the most important reform of 
communications law since the original 1934 Communications Act, more 
than 60 years ago. This bill is sweeping in its scope and effect. For 
the first time, communications policy will be based on competition 
rather than arbitrary regulation. As a result of this fundamental shift 
in philosophy, American consumers stand to benefit from a greater 
choice of telecommunications services at lower prices and higher 
quality than previously available.
  As most Members of this House know, Congress has talked about 
telecommunications reform for the past several years. In fact, we have 
come close several times, most recently last Congress, when the House 
overwhelmingly passed a telecommunications reform bill only to see it 
die in the Senate. This year, with the help of Mr. Dingell, Mr. Hyde 
and Mr. Fields, we are determined to succeed where past Congresses have 
failed in seeing to it that telecommunications reform finally becomes 
law.
  The Communications Act of 1995 requires the incumbent provider of 
local telephone service to open the local exchange network to 
competitors seeking to offer local telephone services. The legislation 
also will create competition in the video market by permitting 
telephone companies to compete directly with cable companies. Once the 
Bell operating companies open the local exchange networks to 
competition, the Bell companies are free to compete in the long 
distance and manufacturing markets. This bill also includes language 
relating to the Bell operating company provision of electronic 
publishing and alarm services.
  More importantly, the key to this bill is the creation of an 
incentive for the current monopolies to open their markets to 
competition. This whole bill is based on the theory that once 
competition is introduced, the dynamic possibilities established by 
this bill can become reality. Ultimately, this whole process will be 
for the common good of the American consumer.
  The difficulty of passing communications reform legislation is well 
known. In the midst of the important and difficult policy decisions 
which must be made by Members, large telecommunications companies have 
expended enormous pressure to keep competitors out of their businesses. 
In the name of competition, these companies have lobbied our Members 
intensively for their fair advantage in the new competitive landscape. 
Any one of these factions is capable of preventing what we all 
recognize is much needed reform. I urge my colleagues, particularly the 
new Members, to resist these pressures and to pass this long overdue 
bill. I realize these are not easy votes.
  As I have stated, the need for telecommunications legislation is long 
overdue. We all recognize that the telecommunications industry is at a 
critical stage of development. This was highlighted by some of the 
merger activity we have seen this week. ``Convergence'' is the 
technical term used to describe the rapid blurring of the traditional 
lines separating discrete elements of the industry. From a policy 
perspective, convergence means that Congress must set the statutory 
guidelines to create certainty in the marketplace and to ensure 
fairness to all industry participants, incumbent and new entrant, 
alike. Such a policy will ensure a robust, competitive environment that 
will provide the American consumer with new telecommunications products 
and services at reasonable prices.
  Mr. Chairman, Subcommittee Chairman Fields, Mr. Dingell, and the 
members of the Commerce Committee strongly believe that the best policy 
decision this Congress can adopt is to open all telecommunications 
markets and to encourage competition in these markets. We believe it is 
competition, and not Government micro-management of markets, that will 
bring new and innovative information and entertainment services to 
Market as quickly as possible.
  In shaping our legislation on a procompetitive model, we have been 
careful, However, not to legislate in a vacuum. We have taken into 
account past, Government-created advantages. We have resisted, in the 
name of deregulation, to simply break up one monopoly only to replace 
it with another. Rather, we have created a model that reflects the 
development of competition in the local telephone market.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to spend a few moments on the issue of opening 
the local telephone market to competition.
  The bill directs the Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules 
relating to opening the local telephone market. At any time after the 
FCC adopts its rules, a Bell operating company may seek entry into the 
long-distance market by filing with the Commission a certification from 
a State commission that it has met the bill's checklist requirements 
for opening up the local telephone market.
  Additionally, a Bell operating company must file a statement that 
either: First, there is an agreement in effect--the terms and 
conditions of which are immediately available to competitors 
statewide--under which a facilities-based competitor is presently 
offering local telephone service to residential and business 
subscribers; or second, no such facilities-based provider has requested 
access and interconnection, but the Bell Company has been certified by 
the State that is has opened the local exchange in accordance with the 
act's requirements.
  The FCC will review the Bell Company's verification statement, and 
during this review period, the FCC will consult with the Attorney 
General and the Attorney General's comments will be entered into the 
FCC's record.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe that the approach we have adopted is a fair 
and balanced one. We understand the lobbyists and media tend to 
characterize this bill as either pro-Bell or pro-long distance 
depending on any word change. Our aim has always been to produce a fair 
test for providing not only Bell entry into long distance but long 
distance and other competitors entry into local telephony.
  Each side has lobbied hard for its own fair advantage. What is 
important is that we believe we have achieved our goal of opening these 
markets in a balanced and equitable manner in order to bring new 
services and products to the American people as quickly as possible.
  The legislation we are considering today will provide competition not 
only in the local telephone market but the long distance, cable, and 
broadcast markets. The bill also removes unnecessary and arbitrary 
regulation and adopts temporary rules that provide the transition to 
competitive markets.
  Mr. Chairman, today we have a historic opportunity to reclaim our 
role in setting telecommunications policy. I urge my colleagues to vote 
for H.R. 1555.
                              {time}  0045

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1555.
  H.R. 1555 is a big bill, but not a flawless bill. While I continue to 
have serious reservations about several of its provisions, it 
accomplishes many important goals. It will inject a healthy dose of 
competition into the communications industries--competition for cable 
service, competition for local telephone service, and more competition 
for long distance service. These are good provisions, and will benefit 
our constituents and our economy.
  The bill will also get the Federal judiciary out of the business of 
micromanaging telecommunications--and that is good too. In fact, this 
has been a goal of mine since the breakup of the Bell System back in 
1984.
  The bill outlaws the practice known as slamming--when subscribers are 
switched from one carrier to another without permission. And it 
includes penalties that should serve as an effective deterrent to this 
noxious practice.
  In moving to a competitive environment, the legislation protects 
several industries from unfair competition. H.R. 1555 includes 
safeguards to ensure that burglar alarm companies, electronic and 
newspaper publishers, and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment 
are not victimized by unfair competition.

[[Page H8283]]

  H.R. 1555 requires that if the Federal Communications Commission 
adopts standards for digital television, that the rules permit 
broadcasters to use their spectrum for additional services that will 
benefit our constituents.
  Having said all these good things about the bill, however, it is 
important to note that it is not perfect. It contains many compromises 
that were necessary to move the bill along. I'd like to compliment my 
colleagues, Tom Bliley and Jack Fields, for the manner in which they 
have treated me and all the minority members as the bill moved through 
the process. We reached many compromises on the technically complex and 
detailed provisions of this bill, and they have worked with me with 
fairness, grace, and wit.
  There are other areas, however, that need more work. These include 
the premature deregulation of the cable industry, the provisions 
eliminating limits on the ownership of mass media properties, and the 
absence of provisions that require the installation of the V-chip in 
television receivers. Mr. Markey intends to offer amendments to correct 
these deficiencies, and we will debate them later on.
  Last year, the House suspended the rules and passed comparable 
legislation, H.R. 3626, by a vote of 423 to 5. Our bill did not pass 
the Senate--for a variety of reasons--and so we have been forced to go 
through this process all over again. I suspect that many of our 
colleagues dearly wish that the Senate had acted, so that we could have 
avoided much of the controversy of the last couple of weeks.
  Mr. Chairman, on balance, H.R. 1555 is an improvement in current law. 
With its problems corrected by the adoption of the Markey amendments, 
it will be a downright good bill. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. 
Markey on his amendments, and vote for the adoption of H.R. 1555.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan].
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1555. 
This is a very important bill. It will provide competitiveness to an 
industry that has long lacked it. It will provide competitiveness in 
the long distance market.
  Most support this bill, industry, labor alike. There is one small 
group that opposes this bill violently. That is the group of 
interesting and very strongly opposing folks, the Competitive Long 
Distance Coalition, made up of seven of the most colossally large 
corporations in the world, with net assets that are measured in the 
hundreds of billions of dollars.
  Over the course of the last 10 days or so, every Member of this 
Chamber has been greeted as they came through the door with a sack of 
mail. I got one such sack here. This sack is not the mail I have 
received over the past 10 days. It is not even the sack of mail I 
received today. This is my 2 o'clock mailing. Every Member of Congress 
gets four mailings a day. This arrived at 2 o'clock today.
  I was so livid by this, because I have never sent a telegram in my 
life, but AT&T would have me believe that thousands of people in my 
district feel so strongly about their corporate profits that they are 
going to send me thousands of telegrams.
  So I put my busy beavers to work today in my office and asked them to 
make a few phone calls. They called 200 of these telegrams. We actually 
got hold of 75 of them. And in the course of that time we found out 
that 3, exactly 3 people out of those 75 even heard of these much less 
supported it.
  Let me give you a few examples. This group of people right here, they 
do not speak English. We put some multilinguists on the phone with them 
for a good long time and talked to them at great length, but they 
really did not care much about telecommunications and even less about 
long distance corporate profits.
  This group here, Anthony in Chicago, very fine fellow, we could not 
talk to him. He has been bed-ridden for several months, and his wife 
told us on the phone that he has bigger problems to worry about then 
profits in the long distance companies.
  This guy here, Harold, he is also a very fine fellow. We could not 
talk to him either because his wife told us that he had been in 
intensive care for several weeks and probably had better things to do 
than call me about telecom.
  This is a great one, Mr. Chairman. This is Dennis, who is supposed to 
live in River Grove. We called Dennis out there. Dennis has not lived 
in Illinois in 10 years. Dennis not only lives in southern Wisconsin, 
but just for grins we asked for his phone number to get hold of him. We 
called Dennis and Dennis said, Not only do I not care about telecom and 
long distance profits, but if I did, why the hell would I call you?
  This is the great one, this is little Andrea. We called her, and her 
mom answered the phone and said, Well, little Andrea is 8 and she is 
out playing now, but when she comes in, I will have her call and tell 
you about the bill.
  This is the worst one of all. This is the most loathsome example, 
Casimir in my district. I will not say anything more about him out of 
respect for the family. But Casimir passed on in March.
  It has been said in Chicago that those who have gone beyond have a 
tendency to vote, but to send me a telegram is indeed truly long 
distance at its best.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not make this speech to mock the dead. I make this 
speech to show the appalling tactics of a tiny minority that absolutely 
are opposed to this bill, not because it is anticompetitive but because 
they are not preferentially advantaged as they have been through the 
years.
  I urge every Member to vote for H.R. 1555, to ignore these sacks of 
mail and to, if they have objection to this bill, please let it be 
principled. Please let it be a reason not to vote for it and let this 
have nothing to do with your decision.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Good morning, Members of the Congress, insomniacs in the public, 
particularly those that are watching us on cable. I hope they are 
enjoying it now, because it is about to get a whole lot more expensive.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is advised to 
address the Chair and not others.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I will correct myself.
  Good morning, Members of the Congress and insomniacs in the Congress, 
particularly those of you who are present on the floor. I hope that you 
are enjoying this now because it is going to get a lot more expensive 
for those of us who are cable subscribers in this country.
  If this bill passes, cable rates are guaranteed to rise and rise 
substantially. That will be a blessing to some people who do watch us 
and listen to us with some regularity. Not only will it be more 
expensive to watch us, it will be more expensive to watch sports, 
movies, and even infomercials.
  You know all those telephone commercials arguing that their rates are 
lower? Well, forget it. As a result of this bill, long distance 
telephone rates will also rise along with cable rates. It is going to 
be a lot more expensive to call anybody from one end of this country to 
the other, and it is going to be expensive for your constituents, more 
expensive for your constituents to call you and me here in Washington. 
It is going to be more expensive to reach out and touch.
  When the Republican majority tells you this is good for you, I tell 
you that you had better read the fine print because this is a special 
interest bill. There are special interest politics that are at play 
here, not too much of a surprise at this point in time.
  Special interest politics always smiles in your face while it picks 
your pocket. For American consumers, this is one big sucker punch.
  The fact is that the Republican leadership knows all this, and that 
that is one big gift for the special interests. It is going to cost our 
constituents, the consumers, a bundle.
  That is why the bill is brought up in the middle of the night, after 
so many people are not watching and that many Members of Congress have 
also apparently gone to sleep. And worse, they are not only doing it in 
the middle of the night, but with a so-called manager's amendment that 
was arrived at without the processes of either of the committee 
chairmen, not to mention ranking chairmen, of the two committees that 
produced two bills. No one 

[[Page H8284]]
saw this, including the press, the public, Members of the Congress, 
until the final copy was issued yesterday.
  So I ask those who support this bill and the manager's amendment, 
what are you so afraid of and why must we do it under these processes?
  Fact: Long distance prices have gone down 70 percent since the 
breakup of AT&T in 1984. That is because the antitrust principles 
enforced by the Department of Justice drove that breakup. This bill is 
to get rid of those antitrust principles and send the Department of 
Justice to the showers. The problem is that your phone prices are very 
likely to increase as a result.
  Maybe it is because a number of Members here do not want the public 
to know that its cable prices are going to rise as a result of this 
bill.
  Maybe it is because many here do not want the public to know that all 
the media outlets in particular markets, television, radio, newspapers, 
will increasingly be owned by a very few, thereby drowning out the 
diversity of voices in our media outlets.
  Maybe it is because the leadership does not want everyone to know 
that the antitrust rules which have so successfully governed the 
telephone industry are now in the process of being chucked out of the 
window.
  So if you want it to cost more when your constituents flip on 
television or pick up the phone, you will vote for this measure 
tonight. If you want lower cable and telephone rates, then you are 
going to have to do something different. But I will say to my 
colleagues, this is one of the biggest consumer ripoffs that I have 
witnessed in my career in the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0100

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Fields], chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and Finance.
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
1555, the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1995, and I hasten to say 
that I believe that this legislation is balanced, it is sweeping, and 
it is monumental.
  Mr. Chairman, there are few times in a legislator's career when one 
can come to this floor and talk about an historic moment, a watershed 
when a government breaks the chains of the past and enters a new policy 
era. Well, this is such a moment.
  Mr. Chairman, since Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, 
this is only the second time the Government has focused and dealt with 
telecommunication policy. The first time was 61 years ago in the 1934 
Communication Act when our country utilized radio, telegraph, and 
telephone technology. The Congressmen and Senators in 1934 could not 
have envisioned the technology that we enjoy today. They could not have 
envisioned the advantages of digital overt analog transmission. They 
could not have envisioned that clear voice transmission, along with 
data and video, could be accomplished without a wire. They could not 
believe that you could digitally compress and transmit as much as six 
times the current broadcast signal with the same or enhanced video 
capabilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I am here tonight to tell our colleagues that we cannot 
on August 3, 1995, predict what the technologies and applications of 
those technologies would be next month, let alone next year. I do 
firmly believe, however, that this legislation will unleash such 
competitive forces that our country will see more technological 
development and deployment in the next 5 years than we have seen this 
entire century. I firmly believe that this legislation will result in 
tens of thousands of jobs being created and tens of billions of dollars 
being invested in infrastructure and technology in an almost 
contemporaneous manner when signed by the President.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot stand here and say that this legislation is 
perfect, but I can stand up and say to this House that our focus as a 
Committee on Commerce was correct. This legislation is predicated upon 
two things: Competition and the consumer. A belief that competition 
produces new technologies, new applications for those technologies, new 
services, all at a lower per capita cost to the consumer.
  Mr. Chairman, central to competition to the
   consumer in this legislation is opening the local telephone network 
to competition. We do this with a short rulemaking by the FCC, the 
telephone companies having to enter a good faith negotiation with a 
facilities-based competitor, like a cable company, on how the network 
is open. A review by the State Public Utility Commission and FCC that 
the loop is open to competition, and once the FCC finally certifies 
that that local telephone network is open to that facilities-based 
competitor, then the same agreement with the same terms and conditions 
is open to any competitor within that State.

  Mr. Chairman, this puts the consumer in control. Cable companies, 
telephone companies, long-distance companies, will all be vying for the 
consumer's business, offering new technologies, better services, more 
choice, at lower cost.
  Among other things we do in the bill, we also have broadcasters as 
they move into the new era of digital transmission to utilize the 
technology of signal compression, to produce as many as six signals 
over the air broadcast signals; where today, only one signal is 
produced, we do six. It is hard for us to know what this one piece of 
the legislation means tonight. We hope it means more local news, 
weather, sports, cultural programming, and particularly, educational 
quality programming aimed at our Nation's children, but we do not 
dictate. We do not micromanage.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to begin by 
complimenting my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields]. I 
have worked with the gentleman for three years on this legislation, and 
he and I have spent hundreds of hours talking about these issues and 
trying our best to come to common ground, and on many issues, we have, 
and many of those issues are in this bill. I think it is there that, in 
my opinion, the monumental parts of this bill are contained. I cannot 
thank the gentleman enough, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley] on that side and all of the Members, and on this side, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and all of the members of our 
committee for all of the hard work which they have put into this bill 
over the last 3 years.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, since last year when we were considering 
this bill, there have been additions made to the legislation that were 
never under consideration in 1994. It is there primarily that the 
serious flaws in this legislation appear.
  For example, one, I repeat myself, but it is very important. It is 
wrong to allow a single company to own the only newspaper, two 
television stations, every radio station in the entire cable system for 
a single community. It is just wrong. Second, I have no problem with 
deregulating the cable industry, if there is another competitor in that 
community. For 100 years in this country we have regulated monopolies.
  Mr. Chairman, my career on the Committee on Commerce has been 
dedicated to deregulating toward competition so that we do not need to 
regulate monopolies any more, in electricity, in telephone, and in 
cable. But the honest truth of the matter is that there will be no 
competing cable system in most communities in America 2 years from 
today and 5 years from today. We should not subject those captive 
ratepayers to monopoly rents. It is wrong. Whenever a competitor shows 
up, total deregulation. That should be the heart and soul of this bill: 
Competition.
  Third, the V-chip. We are creating a universe that is going to go 
from 30 to 50 to 60 to 100 to 200 to 500 channels. Mothers and fathers 
who will want this technology in their home for the wide variety of 
programming that will be available will also be terrified at what their 
child may gain access to when they are not home, or when they are in 
the kitchen. A
 violence chip upgrades the on-off switch. That is all it does. It 
allows the parent to upgrade a 1950s on-off switch to something that 
they can 
 
[[Page H8285]]


have on or off when they are not in the room. That is all we are 
talking about. It only matches this 500 channel universe.
  Mr. Chairman, these are the issues that we have to include in this 
bill if we are to move into the 21st century: Competition and 
protection of the consumer. I would hope that those amendments would be 
adopted.
  Let me make another point. Here is the complaint form that is going 
to have to be filled out. For example, if you have 200,000 cable 
subscribers that are owned by the company in your area, 6,000 people 
have to fill out this form in order to complain about rates sky-
rocketing when there is no other cable company in town that they can 
turn to, because rates are too high or quality is too low. Six thousand 
people out of 200,000 subscribers filling out a form that would 
basically make the 1040 form look attractive to most of them.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a complaint form. This is not a way in 
which ordinary consumers are going to be able to appeal when their 
rates go back up three times the rate of inflation before we put that 
cable rate protection on the books in 1992.
  I am not looking for the kinds of radical changes that people might 
think. I am looking for common sense changes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Ney].
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to actually make a comment, Mr. Chairman, 
about something that was not in the bill and we were disappointed 
because we did have an amendment, and that was to include stressing of 
availability and affordability for access for rural libraries, rural 
schools, and also rural hospitals. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley], the chairman of the committee, has stated here that although 
the amendment did not make it to the Committee on Rules, which was a 
disappointment, but that he is going to do all he can to work with the 
Senate version which does contain, I think, some good language.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to restress that there are a lot of 
Members of the House, had that amendment been in order and had that 
amendment come forth on the floor, they would have supported the 
amendment. I want to tell people here on the floor, Mr. Chairman, that 
in fact one of the most disenfranchised areas in the United States is 
in fact rural America. They pay the toll calls. There has not been the 
availability in a lot of areas on the information highway for rural 
America.
  We know that we do not have enough money to solve all the problems, 
so therefore using high technology is going to bring a lot of 
information for our hospitals we could not normally get, it is going to 
bring a lot of information to our students who really do not have the 
advantage a lot of times of the high-technology systems, it is going to 
bring a lot of advantage to our libraries. I just want to restress that 
it has to be available and affordable.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley], because if we do not do something in this bill 
that is not in the House version, if we do not do something in the 
conference report, as this information superhighway goes across the 
United States, there is not going to be any exit ramps for rural 
America.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to identify with the 
very generous remarks made by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Markey] a moment ago about the hard work done on this bill over the 
last few years. In fact, we passed an enormous bill in the last session 
of Congress and it ended up dying in the Senate.
  Unfortunately, however, the work that was done by the committee over 
a period of several days, and frankly over a period of months preceding 
that, has been obviated by the fact that we now have before us at the 
very last minute what is called a manager's amendment which changes the 
bill entirely. The work of the committee, therefore, and the work of 
all of the people that came forth in the private sector, all of the 
people that came forth in the various public sectors, all of the 
Members of Congress, has now basically been sidelined while a manager's 
amendment that has been hammered out by the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Bliley], and I assume the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] 
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] and others, not in an open 
committee rule, not with hearings, not with any organized input from 
anybody, is going to be brought up and we are going to be asked to vote 
for that.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is unprecedented. Maybe there is a precedent 
for it, although I cannot remember what it is. But I think that even if 
there were some precedent along the way for this, it should be 
condemned as a process. It is wrong. It is not the right way to 
legislate. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that we are up here 
right now at 1:15 in the morning debating a bill that relates to, I 
think I heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] say, one-sixth of 
the entire economy, that changes the ability of people who are very 
important, powerful people and entities that own television stations to 
own more and more television stations in the same market, have greater 
and greater market penetration in the entire country that is controlled 
by just a very few people, always at a time when we read in the papers, 
even today about the confrontations going on in the telecommunications 
industry.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an enormous bill. It is 1:15 in the morning. It 
is not right to be doing this, it is not necessary to be doing this. 
Not one single person will stand on the floor and say it is right or it 
is necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, it is an outrage. I think the fact that we are doing it 
says a great deal about the manager's amendment. It says a great deal 
about the bill, unless we are able to amend it. We ought to amend it. 
We ought to adopt the Conyers amendment when the bill comes up unless 
the Justice Department has something to say about whether or not, when 
the Bell companies are able to enter into long-distance, they are in a 
position to drive everybody else out of business before they are 
allowed to enter into that business.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment will be adopted. The Markey 
amendment ought to be adopted to try to ameliorate the monopolistic 
effects of this bill with regard to communications. Surely, if there is 
any industry that we do not want to see move in the direction of 
greater consolidation and monopolization, it would be the industry that 
controls the ideas of our children and the ideas of adults. Surely that 
is the one area we should protect assiduously, and yet this bill goes 
in the opposite direction. I hope you will adopt the Markey amendment.
  Also, with regard to the V-chip, for goodness sakes, you know, we 
ought to be able to give parents the ability to control what their kids 
watch on television.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas has worked 
assiduously on both committees. This is one of the few Members in the 
Congress who serve on both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, is there any way 
that we can promote investment and competition at the same time that we 
promote concentrations of power and mergers? I mean are these concepts 
that can be reconciled at all?

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Not only can they not be reconciled, it is a 
great irony to me that our friends on the far right side of the 
political spectrum frequently stand up and say the problem with this 
country is the liberal media, and yet it is their bill that is going to 
allow the so-called liberal media owners to have greater and greater 
power. Now either my colleagues do not really believe the liberal media 
is a problem or somehow or another my colleagues do not mind going 
ahead and giving them more power. I am not sure which it is. It is 
preposterous.

[[Page H8286]]

  The gentleman's question is right on target. We cannot reconcile the 
two goals, and I hope the Members will vote for the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], and, if we do not 
get them adopted, for goodness' sakes vote against the bill.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of the 
Communications Act of 1995, I wish to express my support for the 
manager's amendment and the bill, and let me give credit to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], and many others who have worked long and 
hard on this. We are not reinventing the Wheel here.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] and I have introduced a 
bill involving cable/telco cross-ownership along with then Senator Gore 
and Conrad Burns from Montana, and before that there was a bill 
introduced by Al Swift from Washington, and Tom Tauke from New York. 
This has been an issue that has been with us a long time.
  The real question we ask ourselves is do we think it is necessary 10 
years later to have an unelected, unresponsive Federal judge as a czar 
of telecommunications, or is it time we take that issue back for the 
people through their duly elected representatives?
  Make no mistake about it. This is the most deregulatory bill in 
American history. Some $30 billion to $50 billion in annual consumer 
business costs are benefited, 3\1/2\ million new jobs created. This is 
the largest jobs bill that will pass this Congress or any other 
Congress for a long time to come. It opens up all telecommunications 
markets to full competition including local telephone and cable.
  Now the cabel/telco provisions based on the bill I introduced with 
the gentleman from Virginia is part and parcel of this bill. It 
basically allows telephone companies into cable, cable into telephone, 
and provides the necessary competition that is going to benefit our 
consumers.
  I want to talk briefly about a provision that I was intimately 
involved in, and that is section 310(b) of the Communications Act. We 
felt it necessary to modernize that provision so that American 
companies would have better access to capital and at the same time 
would be more competitive in a global economy. I think, through the 
efforts of compromise with the Members on both sides of the aisle, we 
have reached that compromise, and I think that section 310(b), as we 
have amended it working with the administration as well as with the 
members of the committee, is clearly a much better section than it 
currently is in that it would encourage foreign governments, if left as 
it is now, to restrict market access for U.S. firms.
  Make no mistake about it. Countries all over the globe are 
liberalizing their policies in telecommunications and American 
companies are taking advantage of that more and more and more. It makes 
sense for us to be on that same path, and I think we will with the 
language we provided in section 310(b).
  We are at the point of passing historic legislation in this House. It 
has been a long time coming. I give credit to all those who have been 
involved. This is a worthy undertaking, and I ask support for the 
manager's amendment and the bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of HR 1555.
  The indelible mark of the latter part of this century is that we have 
moved from an industrial era to the information age. Our Nation's 
telecommunications policies need revisions to match not only this 
moment but also prepare us for a new century.
  California's Silicon Valley, which I'm privileged to represent, are 
reinventing cyberspace each day, pioneering technologies so dramatic, 
that they revolutionize how we live, how we work, and how we learn.
  I'm committed to maintaining and enhancing the ingenuity and 
innovation of our high technology and communications industries.
  That's why I offered an amendment during full Commerce Committee 
consideration of this bill, adopted unanimously, that ensures that the 
FCC does not mandate standards which limit technology or consumer 
choices.
  The language is supported by American business alliances including 
the Telecommunications Industry Association, the Alliance to Promote 
Software Innovation, the Coalition to Preserve Competition and Open 
Markets, and the National Cable Television Association.
  On the other hand, foreign TV manufacturers are pushing the Federal 
Government to impose standards that will establish television sets as 
the gatekeeper to home automation systems.
  These interests have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
advertising calling for the elimination of this language. They've done 
this because the amendment is the only obstacle in their path to 
monopolizing consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, my provision is not simply about TV wiring and cable 
signals. It's about shedding the past. It's about embracing the future. 
It's about allowing American technology to unleash their genius and 
create a new world of possibilities--new ways to communicate with each 
other, new ways to improve our lives, new ways to make technology work 
better for all of us.
  I urge Members to support deregulation of our telecommunications 
markets. Our nation's leadership in the information age depends on it.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde] for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of 
this legislation which will help to move the telecommunications 
policies of this country into the second half of the 20th century just 
in time to see this exploding technology move into the 21st century.
  Make no mistake about it. It was Government policy that has 
restrained what is clearly the greatest opportunity for the creation of 
jobs and new technology that exists in this country, and it is about 
time that we enact this new policy to afford the opportunity to create 
the competition in all sectors of telecommunication that is going to 
bring about an explosion of opportunity for all Americans to have 
greater access to information, to have greater access to employment, 
and to have greater opportunities for new investment in all kinds of 
creative ideas.
  So I strongly support this legislation. I do have concerns about some 
aspects of it. I will support the Burton-Markey v-chip amendment, and I 
would urge others to do so as well. This is not Government censorship, 
this is not getting Government involved in reviewing and screening 
these programs, the thousands of programs that are going to come across 
hundreds of cable channels. This is the empowerment of the parents of 
this country to be able to exercise the same responsibility in their 
own living rooms that they are now able to do with every movie that is 
offered in every movie theater in this country. It is simply an 
advanced technology for allowing parents to do the same thing with 
thousands of programs that are offered every week in their home that 
they do with the dozens of movies that are offered to their children in 
movie theaters. They will do it with technology, with the v-chip. That 
is the only feasible way that I know of, and anyone else that I have 
talked to knows of to accomplish this goal when we are talking about 
this massive amount of information.
  I am also disappointed that the amendment which I offered, the 
Goodlatte-Moran amendment, was not made in order by the committee to 
guarantee protection for local governments that they will continue to 
be able to provide the kind of decisions on the placement of 
telecommunications equipment in their local communities, but we have 
received assurance from my good friend, the chairman of the Committee 
on Commerce and fellow Virginian, that this matter will be 

[[Page H8287]]
fully
 addressed in conference, and I have every confidence that that will 
take place, that we will make it clear that on local zoning decisions 
local governments will make those decisions, and we will also make it 
clear that in advancing this telecommunication policy we will not have 
restraints on the ability to make sure this is a national policy by 
insuring that every community will allow this telecommunications into 
the community, however we will not have a problem with the fact that 
local governments need to have that opportunity.

  I urge support for this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the able gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers amendment 
to H.R. 1555. This amendment would require prior approval by the 
Attorney General before a Bell operating company may enter into long 
distance or manufacturing. Both the Justice Department and the FCC 
would review the State certification of ``checklist'' compliance.
  Under the manager's amendment to H.R. 1555, the FCC must consult with 
the Department of Justice [``DOJ''] before it makes a decision on a 
BOC's request to offer long distance services--but DOJ has no 
independent role in evaluating the request.
  Mr. Chairman, by depriving DOJ of an independent voice in the review 
process, this bill creates unnecessary risks for consumers and 
threatens the development of a competitive local and long distance 
telecommunications marketplace. The aim of deregulation was to spur 
phone and cable companies to enter into each other's markets and create 
competition. That in turn would lower prices and improve service.
  Just the opposite would happen under H.R. 1555 in its current form. 
H.R. 1555 encourages local cable--phone monopolies. Cable and phone 
firms could merge in communities of less than 50,000. Therefore, nearly 
40 percent of the nation's homes could end up with monopolies providing 
them both services and the public would not be protected from 
unreasonable rate increases.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice is the best protector of 
competition by utilizing the antitrust laws of this country. The 
Conyers amendment will ensure that the Department of Justice has a 
meaningful role in the telecommunications reform, and, if it passes, 
consumers of America will benefit.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to announce for the benefit of the Members on the floor 
or in their offices that it is my intention to move that the Committee 
rise after general debate. There will be no debate or votes tonight on 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman and members, I rise in support of 
the bill. I think this is a very far-reaching telecommunications bill, 
the most far-reaching in the last 50 years. It will provide more 
competition for more industries for more consumers around this country. 
It will allow local telephone companies to get in long distance 
service. It will allow long distance telephone companies to get into 
local service. It will allow cable television providers to get into 
long distance and local service and vice versa. We will not have 
telephone companies, cable companies. We will have communications 
providers. The consumers will be the ultimate driver. They will have 
more choice.
                              {time}  0130

  I think it is a good bill. I think we should move it out of this body 
this week, move it to conference with the Senate so that we can have a 
modified version early this fall to pass and put on the President's 
desk.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak specifically on the Stupak-Barton 
amendment that deals with local access for cities and counties to 
guarantee that they control the access in their streets and in their 
communities. The bill, as written, did not provide that guarantee. The 
Chairman's amendment does provide, I think, probably 75 percent, maybe 
80 percent of that guarantee.
  We are in negotiations this evening and will continue in the morning 
with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] and the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] and myself, so that we should have an agreement 
that solves the issue to all parties' satisfaction, but we simply must 
give the cities and the counties the right to control the access, to 
control right-of-way, to receive fair compensation for that right-of-
way, while not allowing them to prohibit the telecommunications 
revolution on their doorstep.
  Mr. Chairman, the Stupak-Barton amendment will do that, and I am 
confident that we can reach an agreement with the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], and the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] tomorrow so that we can present 
a unanimous-consent agreement to the Members of the body later tomorrow 
afternoon.
  I would support the amendment and support the bill and ask that the 
Members do likewise.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  (Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] for 
their many courtesies shown to me with respect to the provisions I am 
going to discuss, and also the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] and 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], who have been exceptionally 
patient.
  I take this floor first to talk as the father of two young computer 
literate children who use the Internet. As a parent, I and other 
parents want to make sure that our youngsters do not get access to the 
kind of smut and pornography and offensive material that we now see so 
often on the Internet.
  Tomorrow, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I, who have 
worked together in a bipartisan way, will offer an amendment based on a 
very simple premise. Our view is that the private sector is in the best 
position to guard the portals of cyberspace and to protect our 
children. In the U.S, Senate, they have somehow come up with the idea 
that our country should have a Federal Internet censorship army 
designed to try to police what comes over the Internet.
  I would say to our colleagues, and, again, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox] and I have worked very closely together, that this 
idea of a Federal Internet censorship army would make the keystone cops 
look like Cracker Jack crime fighters. I look forward, along with Mr. 
Cox, to discussing this more in detail with our colleagues tomorrow.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, and very briefly, I would like to discuss an 
issue of enormous importance to westerners, and that is the problem 
with service in the U S West service territory. We learned today, for 
example, that there has been a 47 percent increase in delayed new 
service orders in the west. These are problems with waits for phone 
repairs, busy signals at the business offices, inaccurate information 
provided by company customer representatives.
  An amendment I was able to offer, with again the help of the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Fields], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], stipulates that 
local telephone companies have to meet certain service conditions as a 
factor prior to entering the long-distance market. This is a measure 
that will be of enormous benefit in the fastest growing part of our 
country, the U S West service territory.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our colleagues and the leadership on 
both sides for their patience.
  Mr. Chairman, as telecommunications companies enter new fields, we 
must ensure current customers are not discarded and left without basic 
phone needs. The drive to streamline and downsize has subjected local 
telephone customers in my region of the country to poor customer 
service.
  During Commerce Committee consideration of this legislation, I added 
a provision dealing with customer service standards. My amendment is in 
section 244 of the bill which outlines the conditions that local 
telephone companies must meet prior to entering the long distance 

[[Page H8288]]
market. My amendment will give state utility commissions additional 
leverage to pressure the local phone companies to meet established 
customer service standards and requirements.
  Local telephone customers complain vociferously about long waits for 
telephone repairs, busy signals at business offices, and inaccurate 
information provided by company customer representatives.
  Just today, the Associated Press ran a story detailing customer 
service woes in the Pacific Northwest. According to the story, delayed 
new-service orders have increased 47 percent just this year. Across the 
West, more than 3,500 orders for new telephone service have been 
delayed in excess of 30 days. I ask that several articles addressing 
this situation be printed in the Record. Additionally, I submit a 
letter from Oregon Public Utilities Commissioner Joan Smith be included 
for the Record.
               [From the Associated Press, Aug. 2, 1995]

      Utility Regulators Question Held Orders--Consolidation Link

                            (By Sandy Shore)

       Denver.-- U S West Communications Inc.'s delayed new-
     service orders have increased 47 percent this year, and 
     utility regulators blame it partially on the company's 
     consolidated engineering operations.
       Joan H. Smith, chairwoman of the utility Regional Oversight 
     Committee, said her panel identified two common problems 
     contributing to the delays.
       ``The committee speculates that it is the removal of 
     engineers from each state and the current centralization of 
     engineering services in Denver that are causing the 
     problems,'' she said in a June 9 letter to Scott McClellan of 
     U S West.
       U S West spokesman Dave Banks said the consolidation did 
     not cause the problems.
       ``The intent of going through the re-engineering effort is 
     to do just the opposite of what regulators might be saying,'' 
     he said. ``I think the problem is more of a result of the 
     fact that we haven't been able to complete our re-engineering 
     process in total yet.''
       For more than a year, U S West has battled customer-service 
     problems, ranging from persistent busy signals at business 
     offices to delays of months and, in some cases years, in 
     filing new-service orders.
       The company has said the problems were caused by 
     unprecedented growth in the Rockies, which occurred as it 
     launched a re-engineering program to consolidate work 
     centers, cut jobs and upgrade equipment.
       As part of that re-engineering, U S West last month opened 
     the Network Reliability Center in Littleton, which houses 
     employees and equipment needed to monitor the 14-state 
     telephone network.
       In a June 30 letter to Smith, Mary E. Olson, a U S West 
     vice president in network infrastructure, said the major 
     cause of engineering delays has been the company's inability 
     to readily access updated records on the network plant.
       The company hopes to complete mechanization of that 
     information by year-end, she said.
       When the consolidation occurred, Olson said many engineers 
     declined to transfer, which caused some delays, but the 
     center is 95 percent staffed.
       At the end of June, U S West had 3,588 held orders new-
     service requests delayed more than 30 days. That compared 
     with 4,406 at the end of June 1994; 1,797 in January and 
     2,443 in March.
       The largest increase occurred in Utah, where held orders 
     reached
      422 at the end of June, up from 197 in June 1994. Increases 
     also were reported in Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, Utah and 
     Washington.
       Held orders decreased in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Montana, 
     New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Wyoming.
       U S West exceeded its company goal of answering within 20 
     seconds at least 80 percent of the calls to residential 
     telephone service office. It answered within 20 seconds 75.5 
     percent of the calls for residential repairs; 79.9 percent of 
     for business repairs; and 72 percent to business service 
     offices.
       The regulators also have seen an increase in delayed repair 
     orders and an increase in consumer complaints across U S 
     West's 14-state region.
       ``Held orders are the biggest problems,'' said Montana 
     regulator Bob Rowe. ``Some of the problems concerning access 
     to the customer-service centers have seen some real 
     improvements.''
       Banks of U S West said, ``We're not exactly where we want 
     to be, but again, June is a much busier season for us.'' The 
     numbers ``are basically going to be higher in the summer 
     months because we have much more demand for service,'' he 
     said.
       U S West spokesman Duane Cooke the company has scheduled 
     250 major construction projects in Utah this year and 
     increased its capital improvement project to nearly $100 
     million to offset the problems.
       It is kind of ironic because the re-engineering process 
     designed to improve customer service in the short-term has 
     aggravated the situation,'' he said. ``But, now we're 
     starting to see the benefits of re-engineering.''
       For example, the consolidated engineering group can 
     complete work on a major construction project in three months 
     to four months, compared with a year to 18 months previously.
                                                                    ____

                             Oregon Public Utility Commission,

                                         Salem, OR, July 19, 1995.
     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Re H.R. 1555 [Quality of Service].
       I write to you about H.R. 1555, the telecommunications 
     deregulation bill, as a member of the Regional Oversight 
     Committee (ROC) for U S WEST. Representing a state served by 
     U S WEST, you should be aware of the effect H.R. 1555 may 
     have on the quality of Oregon's phone service. I urge your 
     support for stronger service quality protections, as 
     suggested below.
       The ROC was formed as a result of state regulatory concerns 
     about affiliated interest transactions and cross-subsidy 
     issues arising out of the Modification of Final Judgment 
     (MFJ) that divided the nationwide telecommunications monopoly 
     into separate regional companies. The ROC assists state 
     commissions to perform their duties through positive, open 
     relationships in a cooperative process. Since its creation, 
     the ROC has identified other regulatory issues of mutual 
     interest to state regulators, including privacy, competition, 
     and service quality.
       The prolonged deterioration in U S WEST's service quality 
     and the opportunity to strengthen the language in H.R. 1555 
     related to service quality prompted me to write to you. 
     Declines in service quality have occurred because U S WEST 
     (and other RBOCs) have reduced and reassigned staff. 
     Technical staff needed to maintain service quality were 
     centralized. Total staffing was reduced. The result has been 
     a marked increase in consumer complaints and unacceptable 
     delays for consumers trying to obtain service.
       Currently, H.R. 1555 specifically allows states to consider 
     compliance with state service quality standards or 
     requirements when reviewing statements from local exchange 
     carriers (LEC) that they are in compliance with requirements 
     set forth in Section 242 of the bill. State Commissions 
     appreciate the inclusion of service quality considerations in 
     the bill. However, the particular section in which service 
     quality considerations currently reside lacks enforcement 
     mechanisms. Disapproval of a statement submitted by a LEC, 
     whether the disapproval is issued by a state or by the FCC, 
     carries with it no penalty.
       In contrast, enforcement authority with respect to many of 
     the same conditions under Section 245 (Bell operating company 
     entry into interLATA services), allows for three enforcement 
     mechanisms that can be used by the FCC: an order to correct 
     the deficiency, a penalty that may be imposed, or possible 
     revocation of the company's authority to offer interLATA 
     services.
       From our work, we know that service quality is especially 
     important to customers. States need clear authority, with a 
     means of enforcement, over service quality issues in order to 
     be effective.
       The Senate bill (S. 652) allows states to require 
     improvements in service quality of Tier 1 carriers (which 
     would include RBOCs) as part of a plan for an alternative 
     form of regulation, when rate of return regulation is 
     eliminated. The Senate bill lists many possible features of a 
     state ``alternative form of regulation'' plan that would 
     provide ongoing consumer protection from potential adverse 
     effects of the change in the way companies are regulated. The 
     language of the Senate bill could easily be included in H.R. 
     1555 by changing the existing Section 3 to Section 4, and 
     including the Senate language as a new Section 3. (See 
     attachment.) I support this modification.
       I urge your support for such an amendment.
       We sent this to the House delegation.
                                                    Joan H. Smith,
                                                         Chairman.
                    Proposed Amendment to H.R. 1555

       Including the attached language in H.R. 1555 would make it 
     clear that states have the authority to respond to local 
     conditions and take action to protect consumers when 
     necessary. The plan for an alternative form of regulation 
     could include penalties for failure to meet service quality 
     standards. While the transition to a full competitive 
     marketplace for telecommunications services is a goal that we 
     all share, consumer protection in the present is an important 
     consideration that should not be ignored in our enthusiasm 
     for the future.
       (3) THE NEW REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
       (A) In instituting the price flexibility required in this 
     section the Commission and the States shall establish 
     alternative forms of regulation that do not include 
     regulation of the rate of return earned by such carrier as 
     part of a plan that provides for any or all of the 
     following--
       (i) the advancement of competition in the provision of 
     telecommunications services;
       (ii) improvement in productivity;
       (iii) improvements in service quality;
       (iv) measures to ensure customers of non-competitive 
     services do not bear the risks associated with the provision 
     of competitive services;
       (v) enhanced telecommunications services for educational 
     institutions; or
       (vi) any other measures Commission or a State, as 
     appropriate, determines to be in the public interest.
       (B) The Commission or a State, as appropriate, may apply 
     such alternative forms of regulation to any 
     telecommunications carrier that is subject to rate of return 
     regulation under this Act.

[[Page H8289]]

       (C) Any such alternative form of regulation--
       (i) shall be consistent with the objectives of preserving 
     and advancing universal service, guaranteeing high quality 
     service, ensuring just, reasonable, and affordable rates, and 
     encouraging economic efficiency; and
       (ii) shall meet such other criteria as the Commission or a 
     State, as appropriate, finds to be consistent with the public 
     interest, convenience, and necessity.
       (D) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Commission, 
     for interstate services, and the States, for intrastate 
     services, from considering the profitability of 
     telecommunications carriers when using alternative forms of 
     regulation other than rate of return regulation (including 
     price regulation and incentive regulation) to ensure that 
     regulated rates are just and reasonable.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, everybody has been thanking everybody around 
here, and I have kind of missed out, so I want to take this time to 
thank the staff: Alan Coffey, Joseph Gibson, Diana Schocht, Patrick 
Murray, and Dan Freeman on our side, and if I knew the names of the 
staff on the other side, maybe next round I will include them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Houghton].
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Ladies and gentlemen, in general, I think that this is a magnificent 
step forward, but I would like to concentrate on the Achilles heel of 
this bill, and that is the manager's amendment. The whole point, to me, 
of this telecommunications bill is that it will encourage investment. 
If it does not encourage investment, I do not think it opens up the 
opportunities for this country, and, frankly, has this tremendous job 
creating potential which is there.
  Originally, Mr. Chairman, the wording was that the RBOCs were forced 
to have actual competition in their local areas before they reached out 
for the long-distance. Now that no longer is there, and that worries 
me. I think that is a mistake. I think it is counterproductive.
  To prove my point, here is the report from Merrill Lynch, which talks 
about the wonderful opportunities for investing in some of the RBOCs, 
because the cash will be up, the earnings per share will be up, the 
dividend potential is up, and, therefore, it is a good opportunity. And 
why? Because investors should know that, quite positively, capital 
expenditures could decrease by as much as around 25 percent. That is 
not the point of this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to just speak very directly to the problem of seven 
Bells going into long-distance, because there is a serious problem with 
the Bell entry into long-distance. The core rationale for the massive 
antitrust lawsuit by the Justice Department that began in the 1970's 
and settled in 1984 was that the Bell system was using its local 
exchange monopoly to impede competition in the long-distance business.
  Basically, the Bell system was cross-subsidizing and discriminating 
in favor of their long-distance business. This is the biggest antitrust 
suit tat has ever been brought. We are now dismissing the courts from 
it and deregulating at the same time; and, now, we suggest further that 
we defang the one regulator, the antitrust division of Justice, which, 
I think, is moving us in exactly the wrong direction to create 
business, to encourage diversity and to stimulate competition.
  Because of the concern that the seven baby Balls would continue the 
same anti-competitive behavior, Mr. Chairman, the consent decree barred 
them from entering the long-distance business unless they could prove 
that there was ``No substantial possibility'' they could use their 
monopoly position to impede competition.
  The truth is, Mr. Chairman, very little has changed since 1984. The 
Bells still have a firm monopoly over the local exchange market, and if 
they were allowed in long-distance without any antitrust review, they 
could use their monopoly control to impede competition and harm 
consumers. If we are to prevent this from occurring, we need to make 
sure that there is a Department of Justice antitrust review role, more 
of which will come on our amendment.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, the administration has already sent an advisory 
that this bill will sustain a veto in its present form because of, 
principally, the manager's amendment, some 20 to 30 changes strewn 
throughout the commerce product that came to the floor in the form that 
it is in now.
  What are we going to do, Mr. Chairman? Is there any way that we can 
get together? Does this have to be a train wreck? The President is 
going to veto the bill. Unless we make some sensible adjustments, I 
think that this is going to end up for naught, and we are going to be 
sent back to the drawing board. We did this once in the last Congress 
and now here we are doing it again.
  I urge, Mr. Chairman, that some consideration to these important 
amendments by given by the Members of the other side.
  I would like to thank, Mr. Chairman, my staff. They have played a 
very important role in this matter. My staff director, Julian Epstein, 
Perry Apelbaum, Melanie Sloan, and I do know the names of the other 
staff Members on the other side, and I salute them for their good work 
as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Before recognizing the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley], let me, just for the edification of the Members, announce the 
time remaining.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] has 10 minutes remaining, 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers] have 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hastert], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I urge my colleagues to support the Communications Act of 1995.
  It is time to move forward with the most deregulatory and progressive 
communications legislation Congress has considered in over a decade. 
The Communications Act of 1934 is a dinosaur that just can't keep pace 
with the exploding information and communication revolution.
  Communications industries represent nearly a seventh of the economy 
and will foster the creation of 3.4 million jobs over the nest 10 
years. Thus, every day we delay passage of H.R. 1555, we stifle 
competition and prevent the creation of these new jobs. If we do not 
act, the cost to our Nation's economy will be $30 to $50 million this 
year alone.
  As a member of the Commerce Committee, I have been closely involved 
with drafting this legislation.
  This bill provides the formula for removing the monopoly powers of 
local telephone exchange providers to allow real competition in the 
local loop. The long distance companies came to us early on with a list 
of areas (such as number portability, dialing parity, interconnection, 
equal access, resale, and unbundling) that give monopolies their 
bottleneck in the local loop. We agreed to remove the monopoly power in 
each and every one of those areas in our bill.
  What's more, we included a facilities based competitor requirement. 
This means there must be a competing company actually providing service 
over his or her own telephone exchange facilities. Just meeting the 
checklist isn't enough--there must be some proof that it works. We've 
got that in this bill.
  Bringing competition to the local loop is the best thing we can do 
for consumers. They will receive the twin benefits of lower prices and 
exposure to new and advanced services. Every day we delay consideration 
of this bill is a day telephone customer are denied choice of service 
providers and the benefits that go along with it.
  The bill is much larger than the Bell operating company/long distance 
company fight. The bill is supported by the cable, broadcast, 
newspaper, and cellular industries. Taxpayer and consumer interest 
groups such as Citizens for a Sound Economy also support the bill. This 
is broad based support that we should not ignore. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to vote for H.R. 1555.

[[Page H8290]]


                              {time}  0145

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Louisiana, for yielding this time to me. I also want to echo the 
comments of some of the other speakers made in thanking Chairman Bliley 
and Chairman Fields. They have been two very accommodating chairmen in 
trying to reach some commonality on many of the issues that this 
massive bill deals with. Unfortunately, I have been unable at any level 
to support this bill, and continue my opposition of the bill.
  Let me just say I have a little different perspective I think. As 
many of the Members who were talking on the rule and who also have been 
speaking during general debate have talked about, we have already seen 
the massive amounts of merging that has been going on in anticipation 
of this bill. We have seen the Disney buyout of Cap Cities-ABC for $19 
billion. We have seen Westinghouse Broadcasting $5 billion buyout of 
CBS.
  I worked for Westinghouse Broadcasting for 14 years before coming 
here, so I know a little bit about the company. I do not have any 
belief that Westinghouse is an evil corporation or that they have any 
bad plans. In fact, I have fed my children and paid my rent for many 
years from the fruits of my labor with that company.
  But what really concerns me is the fact that we are beginning to see 
the formation of what I would call information cartels. Only the 
largest corporations are going to be able to own these media outlets. 
In fact, when you start to talk about the fact that you can own the 
newspapers, as so many speakers have talked about, and the radio and TV 
stations and the cable, my question is this: Who in this House among 
us, if we live in a market where that takes place, will be free to cast 
a vote of conscience on a matter in which the person who controls that 
information cartel in our district has a fiduciary interest? How will 
we be free to do that?
  How can we look each other in the eye and say, ``Well, I will cast my 
vote the way I want to''? What is your recourse? How do you get the 
information out back there? That person controls all the media. You are 
certainly not going to use frank mailing, because we have cut all that 
out.
  I just simply think there are so many things wrong with this, and 
hope, as the debate goes on, we can bring more of the problems out, 
because we have many problems. I urge Members not to support the bill.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman for New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the manager's amendment which will 
be offered by the gentleman from Virginia sometime later. And I do so 
regrettably, because I rise in strong opposition to it. But first, I 
want to commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] on the enormous effort they have put 
forward in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent nearly 20,000 people who are employed in 
the telecommunications industry. This bill will directly impact their 
lives, professions, and the local economies which they support.
  And I thought the bill that was reported by the Committee by a vote 
of 38 to 5 was a balanced bill. But the changes in the 66-page 
manager's amendment would dilute the competitive provisions in the 
original bill and would tilt the playing field in favor of the local 
exchange companies. So I will be opposing the manager's amendment.
  However, this bill impacts more than just the people who work in the 
telecommunications industry. As many have said here tonight, our 
actions will impact every American citizen and we must remember them--
our constitutents--in this debate.
  Yes, this is an historic bill which will guide this multibillion 
dollar industry into the next century. But we need to understand that 
the results of this profound debate will enter into every facet of our 
personal and professional lives financial and otherwise.
  And that is precisely why I oppose the manager's amendment. We should 
debate these substantial changes for longer than a half hour because 
they do represent a clear departure from the original bill. I would 
urge a no vote on the manager's amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], a very able Member of the House.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in opposition to H.R. 1555. Here we are in the middle of the night 
considering the most sweeping rewrite of communications legislation in 
the last half century. I have to say to all the gentleman that have 
been complimented this evening for their marvelous footwork in 
conducting this debate at 2 a.m., I, as one Member, not serving on the 
committees of jurisdiction, am appalled that those people who would 
raise questions, like myself, would have 30 minutes, 30 minutes, to try 
to deal with legislation of this magnitude.
  Mr. Chairman, there are times in my career when I have been very 
proud of this House. One of those times was when we debated the Persian 
Gulf War. I think our estimation went up in the minds of the American 
people.
  There have been times when I have been very ashamed of this House, 
certainly during the S&L debate, brought up on Christmas Eve at 
midnight when it was snowing outside, or the Mexican peso bailout, 
where we did not fulfill our constitutional obligation.
  I feel the same way this evening on this particular bill. I feel 
muzzled as a Member of this body, and I am ashamed of this institution. 
There has been enough lobbying money spread around on this bill, over 
$20 million, to sink a battleship, and it has been spread on both sides 
of the aisle.
  This bill is not going to result in full competition. Are we kidding 
ourselves? It is going to result in full concentration, and the only 
question I have in my mind is how fast a pace that will occur at.
  In my district, what will happen is the single newspaper, that is 
owned by a very wealthy and well-meaning family, will soon buy out the 
television stations, because they already own the cable stations 
anyway. They will probably go after all the radio stations. I really do 
believe in free press in this country and I really do believe in 
competition. This bill will not result in that.
  I would say with all due respect to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] 
I guess Mr. Conyers. I guess I have to kind of leave
 him out of this equation, because his committee was absolutely 
resolved of all responsibilities in this, and that is the reason I am 
here at 2 a.m. in the morning.

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, if you are 
leaving the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] out, could you leave 
me out too?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde], I was hoping the gentleman would have a little more 
influence, because I think he is a man of very good intentions. But I 
wanted an opportunity on this floor to have time to debate on the 
foreign ownership provisions. I will not be given that opportunity. 
There will not be an opportunity to offer amendments. I think the 
neutering of the Justice Department is an absolute abomination, when we 
see the possibilities for concentration in this bill.
  So as I leave this evening to drive home in my car, I find it a 
complete abomination, and I am ashamed of this House this evening. With 
a $1 trillion industry, with the rights of free press at stake, and 
competition in every one of our communities hanging in the balance, to 
be forced into this girdle, where we are only allowed 30 minutes during 
general debate, and then we will be put off on three little amendments 
tomorrow, maybe we will devote an hour or less to each of those, this 
is not the best that is in us.
  I feel tonight as I did during the savings and loan debate, during 
the Mexican peso bailout, and probably during GATT as well, that we are 
truly being 

[[Page H8291]]
muzzled, and that is not what representative democracy is all about. I 
feel sorry for America tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, here we are in the middle of the night, considering the 
most sweeping rewrite of communications laws in 60 years. The 
telecommunications industry represents 1/7 of our economy and is a 
trillion dollar industry. At stake is control of the airwaves and the 
information pathway into every American home. Not even the many 
appropriations bills that we have been debating for the past month 
before this Congress, will have a larger effect on consumer's 
pocketbooks. Consumers are promised choice and lower prices. Choice at 
what cost? Instead of creating competition by lowering prices and 
improving service, this bill allows the three monopolies to become one 
giant concentrated monopoly. It allows the 3 major players (cable, long 
distance, & local telephone) to partner or swallow potential 
competitors in each others business. The concentration could result in 
one company controlling the program's content, your local television 
stations, your cable company, your local telephone company, your long 
distance company, your local radio station, and your newspaper. Thus, 
controlling every aspect of access to information a consumer has and 
obliterate the likelihood of true competition.
  This bill also promises job creation. I doubt it. Last time I 
checked, we do not even produce a single television or telephone in our 
country. In addition, I have very serious concerns about the foreign 
ownership provisions. Currently, foreign ownership in common carriers 
(such as telephone, cellular, broadcast television and radio) cannot 
exceed 25%, except in cable where there is no restriction. At a time 
when our trade deficits are at record levels, we are throwing open 
media markets to foreign ownership.
  This bill would directly repeal foreign ownership restrictions on 
everything except broadcast television, which remains at 25%, thus 
allowing foreigners to control what America sees and should think and 
what America does not see. The bill leaves up to USTR crucial 
determinations regarding the rights of foreign interests to gain even 
more control. Why trust the USTR? That area of our government that has 
brought us record trade deficits for over a decade and can't even get 
our rice into Japan.
  I also find it very disturbing that the telecommunications industry 
has spent $20 million to lobby for this bill. To find out the real 
winners in this bill one only has to follow the money. This bill is 
just another reason we need real campaign finance reform in our 
political process.
  Moreover, this bill neuters the ability of our Justice Department to 
enforce the anti-trust laws against these giants who want to control 
every aspect of what you see, hear, and know. The bill basically turns 
our Justice Department Anti-Trust Division into paper pushers with no 
real enforcement power.
  I welcome some deregulation to create competition and diversity in 
these monopolistic industries. However, deregulation is fine. No 
regulation is anti-competitive and anti-democratic.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Sterns], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. STERNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1555, the 
Communications Act of 1995.
  By the early 21st century, analysts predict the global information 
industry will be a $3 trillion market. That's an amazing figure when 
you consider the entire U.S. economy today is about $6 trillion. Make 
no mistake: If we fail to pass this bill, we will have forfeited a 
golden opportunity for the U.S. economy to catch the wave of this 
revolution.
  It makes no sense to keep U.S. communications companies penned up in 
the starting gate as the global telecommunications race is set to 
begin. My colleagues, the Communications Act of 1995 is, quite simply, 
the most sweeping reform of communications law in history. And it 
should be. I direct your attention to the timeline. When the first 
Communications Act passed in 1934, we had the telegraph, the telephone 
and the radio. That's it. We didn't even have the black and white 
television set yet. Do you really want the communications industry to 
be governed by communications law that was enacted when we had this 
radio?
  The communications world as it existed in 1934 is barely recognizable 
today. Again, I direct your attention to the timeline. We have 
experienced an explosion of technology. In the last 50 years, 
television, AM and FM radios, computers, faxes, satellites, pagers, 
cable TV, cellular phones, VCRs and other wireless communications have 
all joined the communications mix. And that's just the beginning. Video 
dial-tone and high definition television are poised at the entrance of 
the telecommunications arena, while countless other new technologies 
are waiting just over the horizon.
  At this moment in history, when the communications revolution is 
racing forward, we still have not revamped communications laws written 
60 years ago. To say our communications laws are out of sync with the 
technological revolution underway in America is an understatement.
  The question we face today is not whether we can afford to deregulate 
the telecommunications industry, it is whether we can afford not to. I 
know of no sector of our economy so shackled by needless regulations as 
the communications industry. But if we pass this bill, the economic 
boom it will spark will amaze even its supporters.
  My colleagues, it is not the business of Government to preordain 
winners and losers in the communications industry. Rather, at the 
starting line of the communications race, Government should step aside 
and allow the most dynamic sector of our economy to enjoy what most 
other segments of our economy take for granted, the freedom to compete. 
I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I too would like to add my thanks to Chairman Bliley and Chairman 
Fields, as well as to the ranking members, Mr. Dingell and Mr. Markey, 
for their diligence and persistence in moving ahead on this issue. This 
is a very critical issue to rural America. As we move ahead in this age 
of information and technology, moving into a worldwide economy, it is 
absolutely critical for rural America to be able to have the 
capabilities to compete. Supporting this bill is important to preserve 
the quality of life in rural America, while bringing improved health 
care, educational opportunities and jobs.
  Early in the debate of this issue, I went to Chairman Fields and 
asked him very honestly to let me be a part of the discussion in terms 
of rural issues. He was very willing and interested in obliging to 
that. We worked hard to make sure that rural America saw a fair shake 
in this.
  In terms of educational opportunities, I am delighted to hear from 
Chairman Bliley that he is willing to work with the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Lofgren, in terms of educational opportunities for 
schools.
  I recently spoke with a teacher from my district who is a part of an 
important program sponsored by National Geographic to bring geography 
into the lives of children in areas where they are not capable or do 
not have the opportunities otherwise to be a part of that. They were 
shocked to find that in rural America very few of the schools and some 
of the other learning institutions, as well as many of the teachers, 
did not have the technology or equipment to be able to bring the 
importance of geography into the classroom through the Internet.
  This bill will help us bring that reality to rural America. It 
encourages new technologies like fiber optics, which will allow two-way 
voice and video communication. The information highway is critical to 
all of us, but for those of us in rural America, the entrance ramp is 
absolutely mandatory. Doctors at the Mayo Clinic can read x rays from 
Evening Shade, AR. Children in Evening Shade can dial the Library of 
Congress for information for a term paper. Parents can work from their 
home in Cloverbend with folks in New York.
  I urge my colleagues to support this. Opponents may want to stay in 
the past and may be afraid of competition, but we must move ahead.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say Aloha Oahu. It is 9 o'clock in the 
beautiful Hawaiian Islands where America's day almost begins, and I 
just wanted those lucky folks in that beautiful climate to know that we 
are here thinking of 

[[Page H8292]]
them. To my good friend from Michigan who did know the names of his 
staff, for which I should not be surprised because he would know those 
details, I just thought he missed George Slover, who has returned to 
the staff, having been away for a little while, and we welcome him, 
even though he serves the minority.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1555, the Communications Act 
of 1995. This legislation represents the most sweeping communications 
reform legislation to be considered in this House in 60 years. It will 
establish the ground rules for telecommunications policy in our Nation 
as we proceed into the 21st century. If enacted, this measure will have 
much to say about the future health of the American economy, America's 
international competitiveness, and expanded job opportunities for 
American workers.
  However, it should be pointed out that H.R. 1555 does not take the 
approach I would have preferred, and I would like to take a few moments 
to discuss the role of the Judiciary Committee in the development of 
this legislation. The Judiciary Committee took a fundamentally 
different approach from that of the Commerce Committee. I believe that 
the entry of the regional Bell operating companies into the long 
distance and manufacturing businesses is an antitrust question. After 
all, it is an antitrust consent decree, commonly known as the 
modification of final judgment or MFJ, that now prevents them from 
entering those businesses, and it is that decree that we are now 
superseding. Based on this fundamental belief, I introduced H.R. 1528, 
the Antitrust Consent Decree Reform Act of 1995 on May 2, 1995. H.R. 
1528 proposed to supersede the MFJ and replace it with a quick and 
deregulatory antitrust review of Bell entry by the Department of 
Justice.
  On the other hand, the Commerce Committee understandably took a 
Communications Act approach. H.R. 1555 requires the Bell operating 
companies to meet various federal and state regulatory requirements to 
open their local exchanges to competition before they are allowed into 
the long distance and manufacturing businesses. For example, the Bell 
companies are required to provide interconnection to their local loops 
on a nondiscriminatory basis. They must unbundle the services and 
features of the network and offer them for resale. They must also 
provide number portability, dialing parity, access to rights of way, 
and network functionality and accessibility. Both the FCC and the state 
commissions will review the Bell companies' verifications to
 determine that they have met these regulatory requirements. In 
particular, there must be an actual facilities-based competitor in 
place before the Bell companies can get into long distance and 
manufacturing.

  In keeping with the long tradition of these committees sharing 
jurisdiction over the area of telecommunications, H.R. 1528 was 
referred primarily to the Judiciary Committee, and secondarily to the 
Commerce Committee. Likewise, H.R. 1555 was referred primarily to the 
Commerce Committee, and secondarily to the Judiciary Committee.
  I want to stress that both the antitrust approach taken in H.R. 1528 
and the regulatory approach taken in H.R. 1555 are valid approaches to 
the problem of how to end judicial supervision of the 
telecommunications industry under the MFJ. My preference was the 
antitrust approach. Again, that is because I believe entry into new 
markets to be an antitrust issue, not a regulatory issue. However, 
despite extraordinary cooperation between the Commerce and Judiciary 
Committees, the two different approaches are not easily reconciled 
without creating precisely the kind of regulatory overkill that we are 
trying to eliminate in this bill. Thus, it was necessary to choose one 
or the other of these approaches.
  Let me now describe the antitrust approach of H.R. 1528 and its 
consideration in the Judiciary Committee. Under H.R. 1528, the Bell 
companies would be able to apply to the Department of Justice for entry 
into the long distance and manufacturing markets immediately upon the 
date of enactment. The Department of Justice would then have 180 days 
to review the application under a substantive antitrust standard--if 
DOJ did not act within this tight time frame, the application would be 
deemed approved. Unlike the MFJ, the burden or proof would be on DOJ. 
Specifically, Justice would be required to approve the application 
unless it found by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a 
dangerous probability that the Bell company would use its market power 
to substantially impede competition in the market it was seeking to 
enter. DOJ's decision would then be subject to an expedited appeal to 
the Federal Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. At the most, 
the procedure would take 11 to 13 months. H.R. 1528 also included the 
electronic publishing provisions that were included in last year's 
telecommunications bill and which passed the House by an overwhelming 
vote.
  H.R. 1528 received broad, bipartisan support within the Judiciary 
Committee. The full Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 1528 by a 29 to 1 
recorded vote. However, subsequently we found that there was not broad 
support for a substantive Department of Justice role either within the 
rest of the House or from interested outside groups. Thus, while I 
still prefer the approach taken in H.R. 1528, I have decided that it 
would be futile to press that approach as an alternative to H.R. 1555--
there simply is not sufficient support to make such an effort 
worthwhile. As I have already noted, the regulatory approach taken in 
H.R. 1555 is also a valid approach, and it is very difficult to 
reconcile the two approaches. If we do not pick one or the other, then 
we get right back into the interminable delays that we have faced under 
the MFJ.
  I would emphasize that in deciding not to offer such an amendment and 
allowing H.R. 1555 to proceed to the floor without further Judiciary 
Committee proceedings, I am not in any way waiving the Judiciary 
Committee's traditional jurisdiction in the area of antitrust law or 
telecommunications policy. The Judiciary Committee expects to have 
conferees on this bill, to participate fully in the conference, and to 
retain all of its existing jurisdiction over this area in future 
legislation.
  In this connection, I note that later in the debate, the 
distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, 
will offer an amendment that will include some aspects of the bill as 
reported by our committee. Specifically, my friend from Michigan will 
offer the language of the antitrust test contained in H.R. 1528. 
However, the Conyers amendment also differs in important respects from 
our committee's bill. I will speak to those differences in greater 
detail when the Conyers amendment is debated. For now, I will simply 
point out that although the Conyers amendment would utilize the 
antitrust standard that was in H.R. 1528, it does not include the many 
procedural and substantive features that were central to my bill.
  Despite my preference for the antitrust approach taken in my bill, I 
believe that H.R. 1555 is good legislation that will move America's 
telecommunications industry forward into the 21st century. In the 
development of the manager's amendment to be offered by Chairman 
Bliley, the Judiciary Committee has worked closely with the Commerce 
Committee to improve H.R. 1555 in areas that are of particular concern 
to, and under the jurisdiction of, the Judiciary Committee.
 Let me now briefly explain those changes which are included within the 
manager's amendment.

  First, the manager's amendment does include a consultative role for 
the Department of Justice. Under this part of the amendment, DOJ will 
apply the antitrust standard contained in H.R. 1528 to verifications 
that the Bells have met the competitive checklist contained in H.R. 
1555. After applying the antitrust standard. DOJ will provide its views 
to the FCC and they will be made a part of the public record relating 
to the verification. Under this approach, the FCC will at least have 
the benefit of a DOJ antitrust analysis before the Bell companies are 
allowed to enter the currently restricted lines of business.
  Second, we have made improvements to the electronic publishing 
provisions of the bill. Under the manager's amendment, the Bell 
companies will be required to provide services to small electronic 
publishers at the same per-unit prices that they give to larger 
publishers. This will allow small newspapers and other electronic 
publishers to bring the information superhighway 

[[Page H8293]]
to rural areas that might otherwise be passed by. Also, we have 
broadened to definition of basic telephone service to ensure that the 
Bell operating companies are not able to use the more advanced parts of 
their networks to skirt the intent of the electronic publishing 
provisions.
  Third, we have made various changes to title IV of the bill. Title IV 
addresses the effect of the bill on other laws. Those changes that we 
have made to the MFJ supersession language, the GTE consent decree 
supersession language, and the wireless successors language are 
technical improvements to clarify the language and they are not 
intended to change the substantive meaning of these provisions.
  Other changes to title IV are substantive. State tax officials have 
complained that section 401(c)(2) of H.R. 1555 would unintentionally 
preempt State tax laws. Because of their concerns, this language us 
being stricken in the manager's amendment. We are also adding language 
that expressly provides that no State tax laws are unintentionally 
preempted by implication or interpretation. Rather, such preemptions 
are limited to provisions specifically enumerated in this clause. In 
addition, we have also amended the local tax exemption for providers of 
direct broadcast satellite services to make it clear that States may 
tax such services and
 rebate that money to the localities. This change balances the need to 
protect State sovereignty against the need to protect the direct 
broadcast services from the administrative nightmare that would result 
from subjecting them to local taxation in numerous local jurisdictions.

  Fourth, we have changed the restrictions on alarm monitoring to make 
it clear that those Bell companies that have already entered the alarm 
monitoring business will be allowed to continue in that business, and 
to manage and conduct their business as would any other participant in 
that industry. That is basic fairness to any Bell company that chose to 
enter the business when it was perfectly legal to do so. Their 
investment decision should not be undercut by a retroactive change in 
the law.
  Fifth, law enforcement and national security agencies have expressed 
concern about the provisions of the bill that relate to foreign 
ownership of telephone companies. In particular, these agencies are 
rightfully concerned that there should be a national security review 
before a foreign national or foreign government can have access to the 
core infrastructure of America's telecommunications system. Cooperation 
among the agencies and the judiciary and Commerce Committees has led to 
language in the manager's amendment that addresses these concerns.
  Finally, I have included language within the manager's amendment to 
address a burgeoning problem in the fast advancing telecommunications 
markets. Much to the dismay of concerned parents both softcore and 
hardcore pornography is freely available on the Internet. Virtually 
anyone with a home computer hooked up to that remarkable technology can 
get pictures, movies--some with sound--and explicit descriptions of the 
most vile and base aspects of human sexuality.
  Although the law currently outlaws the interstate transportation of 
obscenity for purposes of sale or distribution, as well as its 
importation, this has not stopped the corruption of one of the greatest 
technological advances in our modern society. Computerized depravity 
continues unabated, largely because of the confusion over whether the 
obscenity statutes include the transportation and importation of the 
obscene matter through the use of a computer. Furthermore, the law 
currently does not address the issue of sending indecent material--by 
contrast to obscene matter--by computer, to a child.
  It is time to end this dissemination of smut that only serve to 
debase those depicted and to defile our children.
  Consequently, my language makes it a crime to intentionally 
communicate, by computer, with anyone believed to be under 18 years of 
age, any material that is indecent. Indecency is defined in the 
provision as any material that, in context, depicts or describes, in 
terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community 
standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.
  This provision is entirely consistent with Supreme Court holdings in 
this area of law, because it is narrowly tailored to effectuate its 
particular purpose of protecting minors from directed communications 
that involve sexually or excretorily explicit functions or organs. The 
first amendment, as construed by the Supreme Court, requires this much. 
The Court instructs that Congress must be careful not to reduce the 
adult population, which is guaranteed a right of access to simply 
indecent material, to the status of children. But, the first amendment 
recognizes that the Government has a compelling interest in protecting 
minors from both obscenity and indecent materials. The Court has carved 
out a slim area in which we can legislate on these matters. And, we 
have managed to stay within those confines through this provision. The 
clarification of the current obscenity statutes, simply adds to the 
myriad of ways in which the obscenity can travel in, or be transported, 
or be imported. This section includes the word computer in those 
provisions to make it a certainty that Congress intends to regulate and 
prohibit one's access to obscenity by means of computer technology.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley and 
Communications Subcommittee Chairman Fields and their staffs for their 
cooperation in addressing the Judiciary Committee concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, as America advances into the 21st century, this 
telecommunications legislation is tremendously important. It is my firm 
belief that this bill means more jobs for Americans and will greatly 
enhance American competitiveness worldwide. It is high time that we 
replace this overly restrictive consent decree with a statute that 
recognizes the telecommunications realities of the 1990's. I intend to 
support H.R. 1555 and the manager's amendment because it will 
accomplish these goals.
                              {time}  0200

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized 
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary for his comments about our work product in 
the committee, and his candor is always refreshing, as usual.
  I too believe it is a superior work product. But I would urge him not 
to be worried about the fact that the lobbyists may not like it and 
there is not a lot of reported support for it. Press on. If he is doing 
the right thing, more and more people will begin to recognize the 
inevitability of the logic and the truth and the fundamental 
correctness of his position. And I know my friend does not give up 
easily, and I cannot imagine the forces that may have overwhelmed him 
into the uncomfortable position that I imagine him to be in this 
morning.
  But even if we have used our bill as the base text with the manager's 
amendment, I still would not be able to come to the floor tonight to 
tell my colleagues that they ought to support this bill because the 
people who use telephones are going to end up paying $18 billion in 
rate increases during the first 4 years of this law's existence. That 
is projected by the International Communications Association. The 
people who subscribe to cable TV are going to find $5 to $7 per month 
average increases in their cable bill. That is according to the 
Consumer Federation of America. The people on fixed incomes, older 
Americans, will be put at particular risk by rising basic rates for 
phone and cable.
  So I cannot support the bill, the base bill, H.R. 1555. With 30 or 40 
phantom changes in the manager's amendment, I think we should be rather 
embarrassed by what we are doing here, no matter what time it is in 
Hawaii.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] has 5 minutes 
remaining and is entitled to close the debate.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. White], a new member of the committee.

[[Page H8294]]

  Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, when I think about this bill, I always think about the 
year 1989. If we remember reading in the newspapers in 1989, we will 
remember a lot of hand wringing going on about high definition 
television. That was the time when the Japanese were ahead of our 
country in developing high definition television. There are a lot of 
people who said that we should follow their example, that our 
government should decide the course that we should take, should get our 
industry organized, and we should all follow that course, and maybe 
somehow, some way we would catch up with the Japanese.
  Mr. Chairman, if we had followed that advice in 1989, we would not be 
here today. It was in 1990 that Americans, without the help of the 
government, invented digital television which leapfrogged the 
technology that the Japanese were using and put us in the position we 
are in today. It is digital television and digitization of the entire 
telecommunications industry that led to what we are doing in this bill. 
It has taught us a very important lesson.
  The lesson is that it is the people, not the government, who are 
going to make the best decisions about technology. As we like to say in 
my district, which is the home of Microsoft, no matter how many Rhodes 
scholars you have in the White House, they are never going to be smart 
enough to tell Bill Gates to drop out of Harvard and invent software 
industries.
  No matter how many Rhodes scholars you have in the White House, they 
will never tell the next Bill Gates to drop out of whatever school he 
or she is in now and invent the next revolution in the 
telecommunication industry. What is the lesson? Under this bill, the 
market, not the government, is going to tell us what the next wave of 
technology is. We have heard some people say this bill is not perfect. 
I guess that may be true. But I can tell you, we have made it about as 
fair as we can make it.
  It is close enough for government work. Although it is late at night 
and although I am about the last person to speak on this bill, I am 
proud to be here. I am happy to be here. I am proud of this bill. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I think it is important tonight, as we celebrate the work of 
Committee on Commerce and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] in particular, we also give due 
credit to the incredible preliminary work done over the years by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the former chairman of the 
Committee on Commerce. Much of the work that is in this bill reflects 
efforts that were made over the years by Mr. Dingell, and he deserves 
much credit for this bill tonight.
  I rise in support of H.R. 1555. Recently the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Fields], and I had the opportunity to discuss telecommunications 
policy with government officials from several South American countries. 
During one of those discussions with the FCC counterpart in Chile, we 
asked that gentleman where in his country's communication 
infrastructure did they need the most investment, hoping to get some 
signal about where America and American companies could interact with 
that country in doing those investments.
  The gentleman who represents the FCC in Chile
   responded astonishingly. He said, That is not my business; it is up 
to the consumers and our companies to make those decisions.

  He reminded us of a lesson we forgot in telecommunications policy for 
many years, that consumers and companies making choices in a free 
marketplace where competition governs instead of court orders and 
regulations set on high here in Washington generally benefits the 
consumer much more than the best laid plans of mice and men here in 
Washington, DC.
  He reminded us about our own free enterprise system, and H.R. 1555 
reminds us about the values of competition. It remarkably keeps the 
program access provisions we adopted in 1992 that has produced the 
satellites that are now sending direct broadcast television signals to 
homes all over America in rural parts of this country where cable never 
reached.
  It has produced for us competition in areas where people only had one 
provider of television, one provider of telephones and all of a sudden 
now there are choices coming to them. This bill will produce more of 
those choices. It has the possibility of several million new jobs for 
Americans, as we develop these new technologies and the new choices for 
our citizens. It will reach rural areas that we have been trying to 
force companies to reach. It will reach them by the sheer force of the 
free market, because now with multiple services, it will be profitable 
to serve communities as small as 12 people, when we could not serve 
them with a mere telephone, even under universal service.
  This bill will do more to bring us together as a country by linking 
us together with communication, education, information, recreational 
programming, data services, including medicine at home and education at 
home for people who never saw education.
  This bill is a good bill. It deserves our endorsement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues were listening to the remarks of 
the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana about what this bill is 
going to do.
  I want to commend my good friend from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] my friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and our good friend, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] who is one of the finest Members in 
this body.
  We have had a good debate. It has been an enlightening debate, an 
intelligent discussion of the legislation before us. I think that is 
important. I was rather troubled earlier about the ill will which we 
saw sprinkled around in the discussion. I think that was a bad thing. 
This legislation is extremely important not only to all of us 
individually and to our people but indeed to the future of the country.
  It has been a long time since the modified final judgment was 
adopted. These have been bad times for telecommunications and for 
communications and for that industry. It also has had bad consequences 
for the country.
  I want to repeat to my colleagues that this offers a chance now to 
utilize a good, new regulatory system which will enable us to begin to 
bring on new technology and to bring into play the forces of 
competition, which will serve all of our people both in terms of 
product and in terms of quality and in terms of cost. That is 
important. It also will open up the process.
  I had been bitterly critical of the curious process which has gone on 
under the modified final judgment. It has been inadequate. It has been 
unfair, and it has been a closed process. The business of regulation of 
the telecommunications industry has gone on in a closed courtroom where 
no one could find out what was going on, no one could participate in 
the pleadings. No one could appear without the leave of the court and 
the people who were the principal beneficiaries of that particular 
modified final judgment. It is important that we get rid of that. And 
even if this were a bad bill, I would say that almost any price is 
worth paying to get rid of a system which is so basically unfair.

                              {time}  0215

  It is so basically unseemly and so inconsistent with the system that 
this country has, so closed to innovation, and so closed to the 
participation by the people whose interests are affected by it, and so 
controlled by the beneficiaries of it. This is one of the curious 
examples where government has been controlled for the benefit of the 
people who did in fact do the governing, AT&T, the Justice Department, 
working with the judge. He was a good judge, but a bad process.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I 
want to commend the staff which has worked, Mr. Regan, Ms. Reid, Mr. 
Ulman, and Mr. Michael O'Rielly, as well as my dear friend and 
colleague, Mr. David Leach, who have all worked 

[[Page H8295]]
so effectively to put together the packages before us.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] is recognized 
to close debate.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, it is late. I want to commend our 
colleagues, particularly the ranking member, for his fine statement 
that he has just concluded. I also commend the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, though we disagree on the policy. I want to 
commend the chairman of our subcommittee who has put in numerous hours 
to make this bill as balanced as we possibly can make it.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the White House who have not been involved 
with us that we welcome you to join us now as we prepare to go to 
conference. Bring us your concerns, sit down with us, and we will 
certainly consider any changes that you would suggest. Whether we will 
adopt them all, that is another matter. But we will certainly consider 
them, and I invite them to come forward.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been an interesting debate, as the gentleman 
said, and I look forward to tomorrow when we will consider amendments 
to further perfect this bill, and then we will pass it and we will go 
to conference some time later this year. This is the way this process 
works. It is not a sprint, it is a marathon. We have had subcommittee, 
we have had full committee. We now are on the floor, and ultimately we 
will go to conference and we will come back with a conference report. 
That is the way it should be, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to 
support his legislation and to help us craft it, make it even better as 
we go on with the process.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I rise in strong support of the landmark legislation 
which we are considering today, and I want to commend my colleagues on 
the committees of jurisdiction for their hard work on this bill. H.R. 
1555 is the culmination of years of work to overhaul Federal 
telecommunications policy and position America as a world leader in the 
dawning information age.
  While this bill contains many important provisions, I want to address 
one area in particular--the issue of telemedicine. As Chairman of the 
Commerce Health Subcommittee, I have a special interest in this 
subject.
  Although it is subject to different interpretations, the term 
``telemedicine'' generally refers to live, interactive audiovisual 
communication between physician and patient or between two physicians. 
Telemedicine can facilitate consultation between physicians and serve 
as a method of health care delivery in which physicians examine 
patients through the use of advanced telecommunications technology.
  One of the most important uses of telemedicine is to allow rural 
communities and other medically under-served areas to obtain access to 
highly trained medical specialists. It also provides a access to 
medical care in circumstances when possibilities for travel are limited 
or unavailable.
  Despite widespread support for telemedicine in concept, many critical 
policy questions remain unresolved. At the same time, the Federal 
Government is currently spending millions of dollars on telemedicine 
demonstration projects with little or no congressional oversight. In 
particular, the Departments of Commerce and Health and Human Services 
have provided sizable grants for projects in a number of States.
  Therefore, I drafted a provision which is included in the manager's 
amendment to require the Department of Commerce, in consultation with 
other appropriate agencies, to report annually to congress on the 
findings of any studies and Demonstrations on telemedicine which are 
funded by the Federal Government.
  My amendment is designed to provide greater information for federal 
policymakers in the areas of patient safety, quality of services, and 
other legal, medical and economic issues related to telemedicine. 
Through adoption of this provision, I am hopeful that we can shed light 
on the potential benefits of telemedicine, as well as existing 
roadblocks to its use.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1555, the 
Communications Act of 1995. Although I believe that our 
telecommunications laws are in need of reform, I have serious concerns 
about certain sections of this bill, and about the manner in which it 
has been brought to the floor.
  This is an important bill, because it will affect every time he or 
she picks up a phone or turns on the TV. It is incumbent upon us to 
consider it carefully and thoughtfully. I am concerned that this bill 
has been brought to the floor in a rush, following a process which was 
none-too-open.
  My primary concern revolves around provisions in the manager's 
amendment regarding entry of local telephone service providers into the 
long distance market and vice versa. I never expected that the long 
distance companies and the local telephone companies would ever 
completely agree on any bill. But to formulate a manager's amendment 
that is vehemently opposed by one of the parties forces Members to 
choose between the two. It is the responsibility of the leadership to 
do everything possible to reconcile the differences between those 
affected by this bill, and I do not believe this has been done.
  I have other concerns, including the potential of the bill to 
concentrate media ownership in a few hands and the bill's effects on 
radio and television broadcasting audience reach limits.
  I am also concerned about the effect of the bill on State authority 
to regulate the costs of certain long distance calls within States. 
Many States have already taken steps to liberate such rates, and the 
bill would negatively affect these efforts. I share the concerns of the 
Governor of Florida and several other governors about this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to reform our telecommunications laws so that 
we can enter the 21st century governed by laws appropriate to the 
technology and services available to us. But this bill is not the 
vehicle that will best accomplish those goals. I say let's go back to 
the drawing board and try again.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, the House shortly will consider 
H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995. Among other things, this 
bill and its Senate-passed companion, S. 652, aims to ensure 
competition in the cable television industry as it expands into 
interactive voice, data and video services.
  I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues in both bodies a 
serious and potentially dangerous situation that merits further study 
by Congress in the future, as it was not addressed by the legislation 
we are about to take up.
  Curently, telephone systems provide a different sort of lightning or 
surge protection than is provided by the cable industry. Telephone 
companies have provided such protection through devices that 
instantaneously detect dangerous surges and direct them to ground. 
Cable companies do not have these devices and now only are required to 
ground their systems. As telephone companies branch out into broadband 
transmission services, they will continue to be required to protect the 
public from power surge and lightning hazards.
  The National Electric Code does not require the cable industry to 
provide the same kind of surge protection to current and future cable 
users, even if cable companies will be providing the same kind of 
telephone service in the future that telephone companies now provide. I 
am told that the cable industry has made a commitment to do so if it 
does offer such telephone service, but it is an issue Congress should 
review.
  I would urge my colleagues, particularly those in the Commerce 
Committee, to closely examine this potential problem and to hold 
hearings to make sure public safety will be adequately protected as our 
telecommunications industry goes through a period of unprecedented 
change.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastart) having assumed the chair, Mr. Kolbe, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1555), to 
promote competition and reduce regulation in order to lower prices and 
higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and 
encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies, 
had come to no resolution thereon.


                          ____________________